Ditching the standing power throw strengthens the Army fitness test

The recent removal of the standing power throw from the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) has prompted some to cry foul, as argued in an op-ed published last week in Military Times, claiming the move undermines a “holistic” approach to soldier fitness. However, a closer look reveals that far from weakening the test, this decision reflects a more evidence-based, practical and strategically sound direction — one already embraced by elite military units and backed by sports science literature.

While visually dramatic, the medicine ball throw demands a particular motor pattern — hurling a 10-pound object overhead and backward — that rewards practicing the specific skill more than developing fitness. Proponents argue it measures “explosive power,” but they neglect to address a fundamental truth. There are better tools for this purpose, with greater field utility and scientific support.

While defenders of the SPT cite research from 2001 that suggested that the SPT was a valid and reliable assessment of total body explosive power, subsequent analysis in 2005 observed that combining men and women into a single sample had inflated the correlation. This follow-up research came to the opposite conclusion, stating that throw “may have limited potential as a predictor of total body explosive power.”

More recent research among firefighters further challenged the validity of the SPT, concluding “practitioners should exhibit caution” in using it as an assessment. A consistent finding in these studies is a strong learning effect, suggesting the uniqueness of the movement tests skill more than underlying fitness. The other studies cited to defend the throw assessed a supine push press and a kneeling chest pass and are therefore irrelevant.

The standing broad jump has long been used across athletic and military domains as a validated indicator of lower-body power. It captures the same desired quality — explosive force production — with fewer logistical complications. It requires no special equipment, takes less time to administer and carries greater face validity about tasks such as sprinting, vaulting and jumping — critical movements on the battlefield.

This is precisely why the 75th Ranger Regiment, whose RAW assessments helped shape the original ACFT, removed the medicine ball throw years ago in favor of the broad jump. When one of the most elite and operationally focused units in the military chooses to streamline its assessments in this way, the larger force would do well to take notice.

Criticism of the recent change to the ACFT also comes from the leadership that oversaw the development and rollout of the Occupational Physical Assessment Test (OPAT). Despite initial claims that the OPAT significantly reduced injuries and saved the Army millions, a 2021 Army Audit Agency report contradicted these assertions, revealing increased injury rates and insufficient tracking of injury data during OPAT’s implementation. Although public statements by Center for Initial Military Training (CIMT) officials touted substantial benefits, the audit found no reliable data to support those claims. Notably, CIMT later endorsed a recommendation to begin tracking such data. These discrepancies underscore the risks of relying on internal success narratives that lack validated, transparent evidence.

Critics of the standing power throw’s removal frequently cite concerns over losing a “comprehensive” evaluation. Yet, they fail to distinguish between complexity and effectiveness. Just because an event appears multifaceted does not mean it provides actionable or essential data — primarily when other options deliver equal or better insight more efficiently. The broad jump offers a more reliable, scalable alternative in an operational environment where time, equipment, personnel and consistency matter. It assesses key components of combat performance — notably, explosive triple extension — in a safer, more intuitive format.

The ACFT was always intended to evolve. Removing the standing power throw is not a capitulation but an informed refinement grounded in field realities, best practices and a clear-eyed understanding of what combat fitness truly demands. To conflate nostalgia with necessity is to risk clinging to a version of the test that no longer serves the mission. We should embrace this shift not as a loss but as progress — toward a smarter, more combat-relevant assessment of the soldiers who defend our nation.

Nick Barringer is a nutritional physiologist with applied and academic experience. He received his undergraduate degree in dietetics from the University of Georgia and his doctorate in kinesiology from Texas A&M. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of any organizations he is affiliated with. He can be reached at [email protected].

Alex Morrow is an Army Reserve officer with experience working in several military human performance programs. He hosts the MOPs & MOEs podcast, which can also be found on Instagram at @mops_n_moes. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of any organizations he is affiliated with. He can be reached at [email protected].