The Soldier-Athlete

Connection
Why soldiers are not athletes but must train like them.

Nathanael Morrison
RIKR DEFENCE, LTD Colorado Springs, CO
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

Soldier/Military/Tactical Athlete?
There has been much talk in recent years of “soldier/military/tactical athletes”. All
of this talk comes from a mass of confusion beginning with the failure to
understand basic terminology. But before we get into definitions, let’s explore how
we got here in the first place.

Several years ago a study was commissioned by the U.S. Military to examine the
physical requirements of special operations troops. The study concluded that
special operations soldiers have similar performance requirements as collegiate
athletes. Overnight the term “tactical athlete” was born. This was followed by
“military athlete” and “soldier athlete”. The problem is that military personnel, with
one exception, are not athletes. Thus, the use of the term “athlete” is incorrect.

It is here that definitions

become very important. A
Soldier, Sailor, Airman or
Marine is only an athlete
under one circumstance.
That is if he or she is a
member of their service
branch’s World Class
Athlete Program or
equivalent. These men and
women are members of
the armed forces but they are assigned to the WCAP unit and they are in fact
world class athletes attempting to compete at the Olympic level. Their primary
duty is to be an athlete and that definition is critical.

Athlete: “a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or

games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina and
competes for a prize”

All other military members are soldiers (or Sailors, Airmen or Marines). Their
primary duties are to be a soldier first and their military occupational

NATHANAEL MORRISON 2
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

specialty second. At no point are they an athlete unless they are pursuing
athletic competition outside of military service.

Soldier: one engaged in military service and especially in the

army

Military service must then also be defined because it is a part of the

definition of a soldier.

Military: of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war

As you can see, the definition of military and soldier have nothing to do
with athletics, athletic competition or competing for prizes. As such, there
is only one way one can be a military-athlete or soldier-athlete; by having
your primary assigned duty as a member of the military be athletic training
and competition. Otherwise, there is literally no such thing.

When we talk about the term “tactical” it gets only slightly more interesting.
The first definition of “tactical” is:

Tactical: “of or relating to combat tactics”

If we look at that definition and that of “athlete”, it turns out that there
actually are “tactical athletes”. They are those who compete in Airsoft,
Paintball and fight sport competitions. In these sports, competitors
compete for a prize and they use a specific level of physical strength,
agility, and stamina combined with combat skill and tactics to win a prize.

NATHANAEL MORRISON 3
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

Shooting firearms simulators in mock combat employing combat tactics.

Fighting to win but not to kill.

There is also another way that you can spin the term because the second
definition of “tactical” and the second definition of “tactics are:

Tactical: of or relating to tactics

Tactics: the art or skill of employing available means to

accomplish an end

Tactics are a critical component in sport. Every play that a football team employs
is a tactic. As such, an athlete who has a high degree of tactical skill, i.e. the ability
to run a play perfectly, can be described as a “tactical athlete” in reference to
his level of sport specific tactical-skill development.

Given the preceding, it is false and dishonest to reference anyone as any of the
preceding terms unless they meet the conditions specified above. However, that
doesn’t mean that soldiers and athletes have nothing in common. They do and it
is absolutely critical that you understand the similarities as well as the distinct
differences.

NATHANAEL MORRISON 4
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

The Soldier vs. The Athlete

Soldiers and athletes have several similarities but they have more differences as
outlined below in figure-1. The similarities between the two are enough to require
that soldiers train like athletes because they both must possess greater physical
abilities, stamina and skill than the opponent. However, the differences between
the two are what makes this issue a true emergency.

When you examine the differences, what you see is this:

The soldier is expected to enter into life or death battles when

ordered. He is prepared to a standard equal to low end middle
school athletics and forced to wear equipment weighing 30-60%
of his body weight on the approach and during combat. This
ensures, given his low level of physical readiness, that he will be
excessively fatigued before a shot is fired and that the
physiological impact to all 12 body systems will be extreme. He is,
in a fatigued and unprepared state, forced to fight to the death
in adverse terrain against an enemy who leverages every
advantage that he does not have or is denied by his own
commanders. The result of training and fighting in such a low
state of readiness is catastrophic to the human mind, body and
spirit even when victorious.

How is it possible that this situation is OK with anyone?

How can anyone justify this reality?

NATHANAEL MORRISON 5
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

SIMILARITIES
Factor Athletes Soldiers
Required Training Strength; Stamina; Speed; Skill; Strength; Stamina; Speed; Skill;
Components Suppleness; Structure; Spirit Suppleness; Structure; Spirit
Required biomotor
Higher than opponent Higher than opponent
development
Skill Required Higher than opponent Higher than opponent
Contest format Individual or teams Individual or teams
DIFFERENCES
Factor Athletes Soldiers
Health Excellent Satisfactory
Readiness Excellent Poor
20% due to pushing the limits and 250% due to dysfunctional training and
Injury Rates
competition. incomplete low standards.
Often low sleep, sometimes none at all,
Sleep Highly regulated, strictly enforced.
dysfunctional schedules.
Horrible to good, often MRE field
Nutrition Specifically tailored to the athlete.
rations.
Coaching &
The best available, full spectrum. Poor to None
coaching staff
Specifically tailored to the athlete,
Programming Poor to None, never to job specificity.
sport and level of performance.
Nature of Contest Sport Combat
Objective of contest Perform better than opponent. Kill opponent
Consequences of Death, dismemberment, psychological
Disappointment, hurt ego.
loss damage, altered world view.
Appropriately &
specifically fit for the Yes. Required to compete. No
contest?
Classification
Yes, highly detailed and evaluated in
matching of None
advance.
opponents
Opponent
All factors equal except training. Severe mismatch of all factors.
comparison
Sponsored by major corporations, Not sponsored, moderate pay,
Pay & Benefits
High pay, excellent benefits. moderate benefits.
Medical & Very poor, full spectrum specifically
The best available, full spectrum .
Rehabilitation Care prohibited or restricted.
Training Facilities The best available, always available. None to moderate, limited availability.
Specifically focused on supporting the Focused on supporting the
Infrastructure
athlete. bureaucracy and defence industry.
Mission Specificity Specific to one sport. Wide variety of missions.
Daily, focuses on improving all aspects
Specific Training Occasional
of performance on a schedule.
Improving the soldier’s ability to perform
Improving the athletes ability to
Training Priority better is a low priority after a plethora
perform better is the only priority.
of administrative demands.
Progress to and beyond the next level Maintain a middle school level of
Training objective
of competition & performance. performance and general health.
On specific dates set years in Any time, any place, fight when
Contest Participation
advance. Compete only if prepared. ordered to.
Contest Rules Yes. Equal application for all. Yes. Usually favors the enemy.
External loading None beyond sport specific. Highest in the world, most unnecessary.
Figure 1. Similarities & differenced between soldiers and athletes.

NATHANAEL MORRISON 6
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

The Status Quo

The current approach used by the Armed Forces has a plethora of conceptual
problems. These problems begin with the fact that they have approached the
issue with typical bureaucratic incompetence. While many well-meaning men
and women have worked tirelessly on the issue, their efforts have not produced
favorable results. In fact, every effort put forth is ever more dysfunctional than the
last. In the face of nothing better being developed, the powers that be decide
to maintain the status quo. In the few instances where commands have
committed to spending money on the problem, the standards have not
increased, the injury rates have not declined and performance remains stagnant.

The status quo across the armed forces is a physical readiness test that is
completely dysfunctional and woefully incomplete. The physical training
programs in use cause unacceptable levels of injury while barely maintaining a
standard that is the equivalent of middle school athletics.

Typically, the daily training of service members consists of the worst warm-up series
known to man, followed by a few bodyweight drills performed poorly, followed
by some sort of running event. Sometimes there is a ruck march thrown in and
sometimes some resistance training in the gym is included. Throughout the

NATHANAEL MORRISON 7
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

process, through no particular fault of their own, everyone is incompetent and

dysfunctional. How can the result be any different if personnel have not been
properly trained? Consider that the quality of your effort determines your result.
Garbage in, garbage out.

What of this quality of effort? Regrettably, the Armed Forces have never bothered
to determine the physiological demands of combat operations. This is the same
as the MFL not understanding how strong, fast or agile a running back has to be
to play for more than one or two games in the NFL. That of course sounds ridiculous
when we consider the NFL. But it’s far worse when you understand that this is the
exact situation the Armed Forces are in. As such, they cannot hope to develop
standards that reflect the physiological needs of soldiers in combat because they
don’t know what those needs are.

To compound the issue, we must consider that when it comes to developing

physical standards or conducting physical training, the human body and
performance operates on a bell curve. For example, there is an upper limit to
maximal strength because to exceed this limit then limits other critical attributes
such as stamina. Therefore, it is dysfunctional to simply state that one should be
as much strength, stamina and speed as possible since physical attributes are not
mutually exclusive. The only attribute you cannot max out is skill.

Thus, the entire program is faulty because there is no:

1. Model of optimum combat performance that ensures optimal

performance with minimal physiological impact.
2. The standards are not adequate or relevant to the activity or task.
3. The training system is wholly dysfunctional.
4. There is no adequate system of education for leaders.

NATHANAEL MORRISON 8
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

Leveraging A Superior Model

In the preceding pages we referenced a “model”. In doing so we are referencing
two different things.

1. We are referencing modelling an approach that is already proven to

produce the outcomes we desire.
2. We are referencing a model that establishes the parameters of successful
preparation for a task or activity; in this case, combat.

First, the model we know produces the desired outcome. We want soldiers to be
prepared to conduct combat operations in a manner that assures superior
physical performance over the enemy and environment while minimizing the
physiological impact. Such a strategy enhances combat effectiveness and
extends the functional and healthy longevity of the soldier.

The model we know produces that result is the sports system. However, not all
sports systems are created equal. The specific model that RIKR Defence mimics is
the Soviet Sports System and to a lesser degree, the American Olympic Sports
System. The Soviet system is deemed superior both for the track record of results,
but also because that system is far more inclusive of all aspects of development
and attention to physiological parameters.

Regardless, three basic facts stand out regarding all professional sports systems:

1. Athletic training is always conducted by practicing the sport first.

a. First by major components
b. Second by mock competition such as play drills and scrimmage
2. Accessory skills are trained secondary.
3. Biomotor abilities like strength and speed are tertiary and trained to address
specific performance shortcomings and/or to maintain balance to prevent
injury.

Contrast that to the current approach of the Armed Forces and the general
fitness community they consult:

NATHANAEL MORRISON 9
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

1. A few biomotor abilities and motor patterns are trained, specifically the
ones the participant likes or those on the test.
2. Accessory skills are sometimes trained but not enough to improve on, just
enough to maintain them (often only a familiarization).
3. Combat operations are rarely practiced and when they are, the practice
is not realistic.

As you can see, the present method is the exact opposite of the model that has
always produced favorable results.

Now we will move on to the model that establishes the parameters of successful
preparation for a task or activity. This is another specific example of a product
used by the athletic world. All professional athletics use what is called a “fitness
model”. These models describe the anthropometric and performance standards
required to participate in the sport. For example:

Ø No basketball team is going to allow a person to play who is 5’6” tall

because that person will never be able to contribute to the team when the
average height is 6’7”.
Ø No tennis player with a BMI of 30 could ever make it to Wimbledon.
Ø Fighter pilots must be a specific height and BMI to fit into and operate jet
fighters and they must have specific health characteristics that allow them
to mitigate the high G-forces of aerial combat and emergency
procedures. They must also have specific intellectual, cognitive and special
awareness abilities.

In professional sports, every sport has a profile and for team sports, every position
has a profile that is even more specific. This profile is called a Fitness Model and it
specifies all of the anthropometric and performance standards required of the
athlete. In fact, it can specify a great deal more such as cognitive ability and
more.

Furthermore, each sport itself has a system of qualifying standards for

participation. As stated before, one does not ask a junior Golden Gloves boxer to
face off with Mike Tyson. The less capable beginner would lose, perhaps even die
and likely will not be able to compete again. Qualification and competition levels
ensure that athletes of like performance ability compete against athletes of like

NATHANAEL MORRISON 10
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

performance ability. As such, each level of competition has qualification

standards. Often a specific competitive event will have qualifications standards.
This also has the added benefit of ensuring athletes do not overreach their abilities
and readiness.

The Armed Forces technically have such a model but it says little more than, ‘must
have a pulse and maintain middle school running speeds’. This illustrates the fact
that the model must be calibrated to the actual demands of the activity. That
additional step is something they have not bothered with.

Yet, the Armed Forces did do something a few years ago that is significant and
they still don’t know that yet. Recall that this report began by telling you about a
study performed several years ago. Remember that the conclusion of that study
was that the physical demands of Special Operations was equivalent to
collegiate athletics. I now ask you to examine the chart below, which outlines the
level of collegiate athletics on the world stage.

% of World
Athlete Classification
Record

100% World Record Holder Olympic Medalists

>90% World Class Olympic Qualifiers

>80% National Class College Level Qualifiers & Competition

>70% Regional Class High School Regional Championships

>65% State Class High School State Championships

>60% Local Class High School Varsity Running

<60% Everyone else Grade School, Most Military, Recreational

As you can see, special operations forces need to have physical standards
equivalent with 80% of the world record in athletics. That should hit you like a
nuclear bomb!! Without knowing it, the special operations community solved the
problem of determining the levels of performance required and that conclusion
backs up Soviet and Russian studies, whose military standards reflect this fact.
Determining the standards for all MOS’s is a simple matter of developing a
graduated scale. But on the American side, the response was to hire some
physical therapists and general fitness trainers. They failed completely to

NATHANAEL MORRISON 11
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

understand the implications of their discovery and take appropriate action. Thus,
the results have been underwhelming to say the least.

Introducing RIKR Defence

These facts have not been lost to us here at RIKR Defence. As the world’s leading
authority on military fitness training, we have kept pace with the research and we
have occupied the territory the Armed Forces should have mastered.

Specifically, RIKR Defence is able to quickly and efficiently solve the combative
human performance needs of the Armed Forces. We have worked tirelessly for
years to develop scientifically calibrated and proven materials that:

Ø Define and model optimal military fitness standards.

Ø Provide an adaptive and proven system of physical training specific to
military physical requirements.
Ø Provide training programs to meet the military fitness standards.
Ø Provide a superior course of instruction for physical training leaders and
medical personnel at all levels.

These gates have been met specifically by our development and phased release
of the following products:

1. A Military Fitness Model that specifically outlines full spectrum human

performance standards based on the physiological requirements of
combat by MOS and training stage.
2. A PHYSICAL TRAINING SYSTEM (The Combat Conditioning System 3.0)
specifically designed and adapted to military fitness training based on the
Soviet & Olympic Sports Systems.
3. A series of four Physical Training Programs specifically designed to train the
soldiers to the standards detailed in the Military Fitness Model.
4. A MILITARY PHYSICAL TRAINING INSTRUCTOR (MPTI) CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM to train Officers, NCOs and Medical Staff in the proper planning
and execution of military physical training and proper integration of
medical practices in the preparation and preservation of soldiers.

Click on the links above to learn more

NATHANAEL MORRISON 12
 THE SOLDIER-ATHLETE CONNECTION

URL: Https://www.rikrdefence.com

E-Mail: S1@rikrdefence.com

Purchase our training programs or contract us for training

using the links above.

NATHANAEL MORRISON 13