Scouts-L Mail Archive for October of 1998: Re: Personal Fitness
Re: Personal Fitness
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 09:44:53 -0400
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Roman J. Smith wrote:
> Note: I am publicly doing my own whining here, something that I have
> scholded others for doing.
> The point is that even with training and practice, we will find that not
> all scouts will be able to pass all of the tests. So now, are we
> discriminating against certain classes such as overweight scouts? Is there
> now a weight requirement for Eagle? Have we added additional requirements
> that were not intended?
Forget overweight, it only drags a red-herring in that need not be followed.
SOME people are simply physically inflexible. *I* am unfit physically,
due to several childhood injuries which lead to a general disinclination
for pain, yet I am flexible enough to place both palms on the floor while
bending from the waist; I have otherwise physically fit friends who must
sit down to tie their shoes. Flexibility has little to do with fitness.
As for the man who said he was whining about not keeping himself
physically strong -- don't be so hard on yourself. Consider please that in
B-P's day, "strong" meant able to sit a horse for 6 to 8 hrs straight
during a steeplechase, then dance until 3 in the morning, and get up and
do it all again. The village blacksmith, who routinely lifted his anvil
out of the way wasn't considered "strong" in the same sense.
Also, since "strong" does have other meanings, who is to say that what
was meant wasn't the ability to stand behind one's opinions, in thought
or deed, i.e., strong enough to not start a fight, but strong enough to
finish one. The physical, brute, strength of today *is* of today and to
apply today's rationales and knowledge to yesterday's events is