Posted On:2/08/2003 11:38am
Style: Kyokushinkai / Kajukenbo
It's not the size of the dog, it's the size of the fight in the dog? I did have a litle roomate who had a bit of a Napolean comlpex- I remember how he swelled up and clenched his fists when just talking about how he had never lost a fight because he never gave up. While all things being equal....I have worked out with quite a few small guys and some of them have learned "small man techniques" quite well, which I ignored until a 6'7' rugby (and greco roman) guy joined our school. I know how small men have beaten me, if that's a topic, I'd be glad to respond.
A lot of the small Japanese guys in Hawaii seen to take great joy in taking down big haoles.
&gt;&gt;&gt;Always walk on a bright, wide road. If you choose to live with your right posture, you don't have to go on a dark road or a malodorous place. Oyama
"Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez
Posted On:2/08/2003 12:20pm
It's not so simple as a few stats. Someone who is 6 feet tall tends to have a reach and, potentially, speed advantage, but in order to have that corresponding increase in speed, there must be an increase in strength. Somebody who is smaller but has a greater percentage of muscle mass might be faster than someone who is larger, but has a lower percentage. The same applies with power. Someone might be able to put more mass behind the effort, but what kind of tissue is being reflected? What percentage of bodyweight is muscle and what type? Strength reflects muscle mass, but body mass does not necessarily indicate strength. Even then, having the muscle does not automatically mean that someone knows how to use it.
Cardiovascular endurance is also considered to be a factor, but only as the duration of a fight increases. For instance, a 30 second fight requires very little endurance, but a longer fight or one in which strenuous physical exertion has preceded it will require much more. Aggression is also a factor. Someone who is more aggressive will create more opportunities and be more likely to take advantage of existing ones.
Skill in fighting is what brings it all together. Skill is a multiplier, not just a value. The problem is that you can't easily quantify somethings as nebulous as skill. It isn't representable with a belt, trophies, or such. It's experience combined with practice and education.
Additionally, even in sporting matching, environment can make a difference. Aside from 'home' advantage, someone who is used to the rules in a certain venue is going to have an advantage of someone who lacks that familiarity.
Then there's the variables. As witnessed in many sporting events, any team (within the same league) can beat any other team on any other day. The same applies to individual competition. Barring a significant difference in ability, there's always chance....
You do realize that somebody who is larger, will usually have a longer sword/reach, right? So, somebody who is shorter will have to have to have other advantages in order to win. There's no inherent advantage to being shorter than having a lower center of gravity.
Posted On:2/08/2003 12:39pm
Yes, I realize the reach disadvantage. I also realize how easy it is for the bulky, 5'2" black lady to get under my reach and in through me. Blocking attacks with reach is a little easier with a sword than bare fisted so one overhead attack well blocked can leave you pretty open underneath. I litterally have to backpeddle around the training hall to avoid it all from her.
Again, another realistic consideration when you take out the overhead rules of Kendo. Taps on the head with the tip of the blade don't count for much, considering you'd have a helmet in a real battle. You need to be a little closer to cut and that leads to advantages in being shorter, being able to get underneath the opponent, controlling the opponent's center of gravity, etc.
Posted On:2/08/2003 1:03pm
imagine my excitement when reading the title of this thread......only to find out it's about fighting......how disappointing...
Posted On:2/08/2003 1:13pm
You are referring to an artificial advantage given by rules. Regardless if there is a helmet, it remains that a thrust to the face or cut to the neck ignores such protection.
Posted On:2/08/2003 2:29pm
Style: Chinese Boxing
A. when you get picked up and dropped it hurts more when you're bigger.
B. Easier to kick longer legs
C. Easier to take down taller opponnent
D. Bigger people tend to hit harder ouch
E. Smaller guys are harder to hit
F. Bigger guys tend to gas faster
G. Smaller guys are easier to manhandle
H. Longer legs can kick farther
I. Longer legs easier to catch
J. shorter people easier to hit in head
K. Stockier fighter easier to hit
L. Stockier fighters harder to throw
M. Smaller fighter are usually more flexible
That's all I can think of.
Bruce Lee would probably win.
Go away I'm talking to myself
Posted On:2/08/2003 9:22pm
I think its the efficiency of the total package that counts in the very end. Even non biblical believers have heard of David and Goliath. Noguiera beating Sapp is a good example in my opinion. Size most definitely does matter but is not the end all.
KNOW YOUR LIMITS
Posted On:2/08/2003 9:42pm
The strongest men usually win, so history says it means a lot; the fact that the UFC has begun using weight-classes says everything.
Also, muscle not only makes you stronger, but it protects against strikes etc.
As for height, this has proven pretty much a detriment when over the 5'10-6foot range if the opponent knows how to get inside the taller person's striking perimeter where his chief advantage lies, and to get past grappling defenses.
Posted On:2/08/2003 9:49pm
"How much does size matter? " A lot.
But Skill can be the decider: In the earlier UFCs for example, more skilled oppnents would often beat larger, less skillk oppnenets.
I would say it was 80% conditioning and weight, 20% skill: the skill i soften the decider.
Tank Abbot however, because he is a "street"/sloppy boxer and wrestler would beat Bruce Lee with no or little problem.
These fighters weren't unskilled, but simply out of their element; let's remember that in the beginning, the Gracies made the rules to suit their own style, so it only stands to reason that they'd have the advantage since most people weren't used to choke-holds; even Dan Severn didn't know how to break from Hoyce Gracie's triangle-choke in one of the earlier UFC's. However, once the stronger fighters caught on, the Gracies were history as Severn etc. came back to crush them.
However I always told everyone that it's not relevant, since size and skill are separate things; it's not like you can go to Wal-Mart with $100 and buy $X worth of skill and $X worth of strength etc-- you simply have to develop all of these to the hightest level you can.
The only purpose for knowing the effect of size, is so you can choose your battles wisely since discretion is the better part of valor.
Posted On:2/08/2003 9:51pm
Well the strongest men not always win! It depends on how good someone has trained! Take Royce against Dan Sever for example. When 2 guys are almost equally skiled then probably the heavyer guy will win. But if the lighter person is more tehnical then things can be very deferent. Nog vs Bob Sapp around 140pounds weight deference and still Sapp lost the fight.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info