# big fighters winning?



## oddball (Jan 23, 2007)

This is kind of odd in my head, probably becuase I don't exactly know what I'm asking... but, do most people assume that in a contest between a larger and smaller fighter, the larger one will win? I sometimes work on this assumption.

Are larger people stronger, do they take hits better, etc. etc.? What IS the advantage of being bigger than opponent?


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 23, 2007)

oddball said:


> This is kind of odd in my head, probably becuase I don't exactly know what I'm asking... but, do most people assume that in a contest between a larger and smaller fighter, the larger one will win? I sometimes work on this assumption.
> 
> Are larger people stronger, do they take hits better, etc. etc.? What IS the advantage of being bigger than opponent?


 
In general, from my experience, the average person will think that way. I can't count how many times I've heard "Look at him! He's Jacked! Boy, I wouldn't want to mess with him!" obviously connecting the largeness of muscles, and bodybuilding, to fighting ability. Nothing wrong with that assumption from you, with regards to training. If you can achieve the ability to "hang" with the big, bad meanies, that means you're developing good technique, and you'll do fine against the average ones. (Most likely, for real, they will be bigger than you anyway) As to being stronger, larger people are not always. I'd put miss fitness against any 300 lb McDonalds eater any day, in overall, pound for pound strength. Taking hits better, again, depends. Some people, irregardless of size, have "glass jaws". The advantages/disadvantages also depend on the "big" person too. A strong, fast, inshape, Big wrestler? A large boxer? A nautral "big" with no training at all? Depends. In general, all things being equal, interms of technique, personality, mind set, etc.. The bigger one will win, falling back to their brute strength and power, which the smaller one doesn't have.


----------



## Carol (Jan 23, 2007)

Larger people can be stronger and more muscular.  They can also be taller.  There is more inertia and the center of gravity is different.    The physics are different. Force=Mass x Acceleration.  If thrown at you, a golf ball would hurt more than a tennis ball.  They are similar in size but one ways noticeably more than the other.

Smaller people can be more of a challenge to teach. A guy that is 6 feet tall and 200 pounds isn't unusually large, but he generally doesn't have to worry about defending himeself against anyone 20 percent taller and nearly double his height.   Not all martial arts teachers are experienced at teaching effective countering to such a disparity in size.

Whether in a ring or on the street IMO the person that will win is likely going to be the one that is the best trained and best prepared.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 23, 2007)

oddball said:


> This is kind of odd in my head, probably becuase I don't exactly know what I'm asking... but, do most people assume that in a contest between a larger and smaller fighter, the larger one will win? I sometimes work on this assumption.
> 
> Are larger people stronger, do they take hits better, etc. etc.? What IS the advantage of being bigger than opponent?



I think Carol covered alot of it very well. There is also an issue of reach. Also, the taller you are, you are likely to have a few inches advantage in reach.

If all things are equal (non-physical things such as training, skill, etc), then the bigger/stronger/faster will win. however, things are almost never equal  There have occassionally been exhibitions between massive wrestlers and smaller professional boxers. More often than not, the smaller boxers win. Why? More often than not, skill and training.

I do think Hand Sword had some good points. Often, the psychological effect of things can change things. Intimidation can be significant.


----------



## King (Jan 23, 2007)

Hmm, good question. I've always struggled with this myself. When I started training I was around 210lbs, I learned how to hit using my body weight. In 6 months I dropped down to 150lbs training like a mad man wearing 20-30lbs weight vest still hitting just as hard. So I had no trouble going toe to toe with taller 200lbs+ guys until one of them picked me up and smashed me into a chainlink fence. That's when I realized weight matters. The shock of being effortlessly picked up got to me. So I gained 20lbs back just to be able to hold my ground against bigger opponents.  

Ability wise I'd have to go with Carol's statement, "whether in a ring or on the street IMO the person that will win is likely going to be the one that is the best trained and best prepared". I'll say it's always the better trained person that has an advantage. But two people with the same skill but different weight and height... Well you can't blame me for rooting for the stronger guy.


----------



## The Kidd (Jan 23, 2007)

I think as a society we are conditioned to think bigger is better in regards to fighting. Like as already been said that is not always so, and I think the more you are aroung MA you can see the differences between how good someone is and ignore the initial siza factor.


----------



## bydand (Jan 23, 2007)

To start off with a bit of background.  I'm 6'2" tall and 225#, long reach and average strength for my size, legs are way above average because I climb ladders all day.  My brother is 5'9", maybe 145# soaking wet, average reach, uncommonly strong. 

Size wise, I can usually go anywhere and not get bothered at all, where he sometimes has people who think they can push a bit.  Ability wise, fighting ability wise, I wouldn't jump him with a baseball bat personally.  Now I've never been mistaken for a choir boy and tend to be a bit "unpolished" shall we say, so it isn't like I'm just a big wimp either.   Pure size can be an advantage, but it has far less impact than attitude and training, and that is from a personal knowledge.  Sure me being bigger helps some, but it boils down to the intangibles; spirit, attitude, confidence, and training.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 23, 2007)

My school hosted a kickboxing tournament a while back.  I had just started training and didn't have a lot of experience with the environment, so at the start of each match I picked the winners based on their size and relative condition of musculature.  I was wrong every. single. time.  The funniest one was a match between this really skinny tall guy and a medium size guy with gym-rat muscles.  The tall guy just stayed back and kicked the guy in the face until he fell down.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Jan 23, 2007)

while it is true that a skilled smaller fighter can beat a less skilled larger fighter (and thank the gods for that at my wee little 150 pounds in high school).

between two fighters of equal skill, i'm betting on the big guy.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jan 23, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> while it is true that a skilled smaller fighter can beat a less skilled larger fighter (and thank the gods for that at my wee little 150 pounds in high school).
> 
> between two fighters of equal skill, i'm betting on the big guy.


 

My friends and I have a saying,

"First rule of martial arts, big guy always wins."

Its a bit of a joke really.  Of course, all other things being equal it probably true.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 23, 2007)

There is a reason for weight divisions in combative sports.

Lamont


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 30, 2007)

Assuming equal velocities and acceleration, larger muscles propelling a more massive object are going to have a greater effect than smaller muscles propelling a less massive object.  

Also, bigger, more muscular people, are going to be able to take a punch better than smaller, less muscular people, assuming all other things are equal.  

Those are the rules of physics.  However, those need not be a hard-cast set of rules, since anyone can work on making his punches more accurate, better timed, and practiced in good combinations, in addition to many other things.  

Technique, conditioning, and experience can certainly equalize things, or even tilt things in favor of the smaller person, but by how much?  Unfortuantely, we don't have much of a chance to study things in advance on many occasions and have to find out the hard way.


----------



## charyuop (Jan 30, 2007)

Once I had problems to do a technique coz I am the shortest in my dojo and told Sensei that the problem is my size. He strongly disagreed and getting on his knees threw in the air me and my Senpai.
Later on I grabbed the balance of my Senpai and had him lower down before doing the technique and Sensei asked me...who is bigger now?
The thing Sensei keeps telling us is that if we carry out our techniques correctly we can defeat stronger people, but if we don't do them correctly we end up fighting on a pure Strength Vs Strength match and there if you are not stronger than the opponent you have lost even before starting.

There are many ways to fight, you can block a punch or deflect it, you can step on the side or enter the opponent. None of these are correct or incorrect and all of them can be effective. It is up to the intelligence of the fighter to realize what type of fight to carry on according to the opponent and from there trying to do the techniques well reach the victory, no matter what size.
True in case of equal skills size will matter, but we are not Gods and we do make mistakes, so do opponents...moreover even if bigger and as skilled as I am you never know what are the weak points of the opponent, he might suffer Vs shorter people.


----------



## shrek (Feb 2, 2007)

charyuop said:


> Once I had problems to do a technique coz I am the shortest in my dojo and told Sensei that the problem is my size. He strongly disagreed and getting on his knees threw in the air me and my Senpai.
> Later on I grabbed the balance of my Senpai and had him lower down before doing the technique and Sensei asked me...who is bigger now?
> The thing Sensei keeps telling us is that if we carry out our techniques correctly we can defeat stronger people, but if we don't do them correctly we end up fighting on a pure Strength Vs Strength match and there if you are not stronger than the opponent you have lost even before starting.
> 
> ...


 
I remember my first aikido instructor telling me, "You might get surprised by the ability of smaller people to throw you around like a rag doll, but aikido was developed to where the size of the opponent can be his disadvantage.  That being said, a large man trained extensively in aikido is VERY effective! Just watch a Steven Seagal movie!" 

And a large man can also "muscle-through" a move where a smaller one may not be able to complete it due to the resistance/countermove of the subject...


----------



## NDNgirl4ever (Feb 2, 2007)

Larger doesn't always equal better. Strength can come in to play sometimes, but I think that it also has to do with techique and timing. If the smaller person has a better techique, better speed, and are more accurate, they may have a chance at winning.


----------



## Last Fearner (Feb 3, 2007)

To the original question: *"do most people assume that in a contest between a larger and smaller fighter, the larger one will win?"* I would say that I do not know what "most people assume." I will say that if they assume a larger fighter will win, they would be ignoring some facts as others have pointed out here.

To the second question: *"Are larger people stronger, do they take hits better, etc. etc.?" *Obviously, larger people are not always stronger, as shorter, and smaller body framed individuals can pump their muscles more than the natural strength of a big person. As to taking hits, (not referring to "taller" people, but larger by body fat or muscle) the larger person will usually be able to absorb an impact better if it is directed to a "padded" area. Of course, any person of any size is vulnerable to properly delivered techniques to unprotected vital areas - so, in this regard, larger people can be hurt and defeated just as easily.

The one assumption that it seems many are making here, and I question if this is really true, is that when skill is equal, the larger person has an advantage. It might be difficult to find an example that we can verify where two fighters of different size have "exactly equal" skill. Yet, it is my contention that Martial Art skills are designed to advantage the person using physics, laws of nature, and their opponent's size and strength against them.

Two people who have no particular skills would be fighting with brute force, thus the size and strength and conditioning would be the main three factors. Even "timing," "strategy," and "out-smarting" your opponent would have to be ruled out as they are skills. If the fighters have no skills, then they are fighting on brute force along.

On the other hand, if the fighters are of the exact same size, strength, and condition, plus they are exactly equal in skill, then it might boil down to who makes the first mistake. Even if one fighter is bigger and stronger, but they are of exactly equal skill, I do not believe the larger or stronger fighter has an advantage. Skill is designed to counter that advantage, and the loser would then be the one who makes the first fatal mistake.

Applying my Martial Art training to the logical conclusion, I feel the larger person is always at a disadvantage when skills are equal. Now, this is contingent on the degree of skill. If both fighters' skills are equal but not of the highest quality, then the larger person might find it easier to get past the smaller person's defenses. Not to say the larger person can't win, but they must rely on the smaller person making a mistake, and if the skills are less than a mastery, this is more likely. I believe that a smaller person who has mastered their martial art skill will be equal in all ways to another master of equal skill, and the smaller size might give them an advantage.

This brings me to another interesting point.



Carol Kaur said:


> Smaller people can be more of a challenge to teach.


Hi Carol! I am not contending what you said here. I am just sharing my own personal experiences when teaching. Over the years, I have typically found that the larger and stronger students are more challenging to teach because they are accustomed to using their size, strength, and brute force to get things done in their life. If something doesn't work - - bash it. If it doesn't fit - - force it! The Martial Art skills that I teach them, contradict this logic, and I find them resisting the change. Smaller and weaker students have little choice but to apply the laws of nature, and physics to accomplish the task.

If I ask a larger student to move some bricks outside of the Dojang, he will likely see how many he can carry in each hand. The smaller student will go find a wheel barrow, and move them all at once with little effort!  

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 3, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Hi Carol! I am not contending what you said here. I am just sharing my own personal experiences when teaching. Over the years, I have typically found that the larger and stronger students are more challenging to teach because they are accustomed to using their size, strength, and brute force to get things done in their life. If something doesn't work - - bash it. If it doesn't fit - - force it! The Martial Art skills that I teach them, contradict this logic, and I find them resisting the change. Smaller and weaker students have little choice but to apply the laws of nature, and physics to accomplish the task.
> 
> If I ask a larger student to move some bricks outside of the Dojang, he will likely see how many he can carry in each hand. The smaller student will go find a wheel barrow, and move them all at once with little effort!
> 
> CM D.J. Eisenhart


 
With respects to Carol, a great MT member and Moderator, I agree with what you are saying. I'm short (but stocky) and I _had _to learn "proper" technique in order to make something work because I couldn't "muscle it" - while those "naturals" rarely stayed past red belt and could have used far more wisdom in their instruction than they got. As a result of the effects of my size upon my techniques, I became the person folks in the dojang and dojo came to when they needed to know the specifics of how to correctly apply a technique. Still, the larger, gifted athletes were more of a challenge to a wise instructor - who could see past early successes to the "complete picture".

I wish my primary TKD instructor had had your views on the subject. He concentrated on the "gifted" athletes and left plodders like myself in the corner. If I could go back in time, I would tell him that the measure of a great instructor is not whether they could make the gifted better, but whether they could make the disadvanteged good.

If I were to go back into TKD, I'd pay more for your attitude than I would for a WTF Master who had a dozen Olympic medalists to his or her credit.


----------



## shrek (Feb 3, 2007)

Simply put...would you pick a fight with "The Undertaker" from WWE? Not unless you had a baseball bat and a few friends, right?  Size, speed, and strength are advantages that play a huge part in a fight.  You can increase your odds through training, experience and skill but they will still be difficult to overcome.  A guy that's 6" or more shorter than his opponent is going to have a rough day if that opponent is anywhere near his level of fighting ability.  Basic physics are hard to beat....


----------



## snapmule (Feb 19, 2007)

My size is an advantage in appearance.   Most people dont mess with me.   Im 275 and 5' 11" and built like a linebacker.   I hear everyone around me  saying the same thing:   "I wouldnt wanna mess with him".   People are always trying to befriend me thinking Im someone they want to hang around because of my size.    On the flipside,  I used to get challenged alot by insecure a$$#oles who figured they could get respect by beating me in a fight or making me back down.    

Size is good for intimidation and psychology as well as strength and leverage.  But alot of the best fighters are much smaller.   What they lack in strenghth and mass they make up for in speed,  agility and mobility.   But it's all based on fight experience,  strategy and training.   Ive seen some big overweight boxers who move very well and very quickly.   Size shouldnt be an issue.  That's why I started with boxing before getting back into martial arts.


----------



## MetalStorm (Mar 13, 2007)

I usually automatically think the bigger someone is the more tough they are too even though I should know better from some of the brawls I have seen over the years.

Look at the last UFC as well, couture and sylvia, couture was a lot smaller in size, quite a bit shorter, and a hell of a lot older and he just schooled sylvia the entire match. Same results can happen anywhere, ring, street, whatever.

In the ring I guess it doesnt make as much difference since you obviously have some training since you are in the ring but on the street I think being smaller might even be a bit of advantage, Most people seem to underestimate smaller guys/gals and they probably wont have their guard up as much if they are picking a fight with you as opposed to someone with another 50 pounds on them.

Just what I seem to have noticed growing up anyways.


----------



## PictonMA (Mar 14, 2007)

It's cliche, I'm sure it's been said before but:

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.


----------



## oddball (Mar 24, 2007)

Hmm, been awhile, so I finally have a bit of an answer to my own question as well now 
I'm a lanky guy (6'1, legs are same length as friends who are 6'4), and hummingbird metabolism (132 lbs is heaviest I ever weighed. I'm 3 lbs below that now). So it was fun learning to use learn the reach advantage w/o the weight advantage that usually comes to most people. My sparring partners outweigh me 30-120 lbs, so I get shoved around no matter by who.

Technique really has been the deciding factor. When I spar with people with more experience, I get handled quite easily. When I sparred people that were heavier, same height or shorter that have lest technique, it was amazingly easier to get hits in and block.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 24, 2007)

Sad to say that I wish it were otherwise but there is always the old, well proven, adage that a 'good big 'un will beat a good little 'un any day of the week' to consider. 

Training and will/spirit can make up for a certain amount of physical disparity and in some arts it may be an advantage to be shorter but it is somewhat a truism that, in the martial (check to be sure I didn't type 'marital' there ) arts, size does matter.

If skill and will are equal but size is not, like *Bushido* said above, my money's on the big guy.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 24, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> If skill and will are equal....



I think this is a huge presupposition we've glossed over here (as in all similar threads on 'does size matter'?). Don't think I've ever been in or around a streetfest or a sparring match where skill and will were equal. These are gigantic variables.

I will add a minor bit to the either/or discussion, though: Jimmy H. Woo, who was of average size but reputedly a scary fighter, is said by those who trained with him to preach: Don't use strength, use leverage.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 25, 2007)

kidswarrior said:


> Don't think I've ever been in or around a streetfest or a sparring match where skill and will were equal. These are gigantic variables.
> 
> I will add a minor bit to the either/or discussion, though: Jimmy H. Woo, who was of average size but reputedly a scary fighter, is said by those who trained with him to preach: Don't use strength, use leverage.


 
Valid points there, *Kidswarrior*.

It is certainly the case that fighters are seldom matched in either their technical skill or their mental toughness.

In this hypothetical discussion, I think what we're actually talking our way around to is not "does size matter" (because I honestly think that that is a 'given') but which is more important between skill, will and physique.

In its way, that's a much trickier question as, taken in isolation, I think there are few people that wouldn't say that more of all three attributes is a good thing.

As a side issue, it's quite intriguing that altho' noone would say that having less good technique or inferior will is better, there are some that will state that being less well physiqued (sp?) is an advantage.  

I wonder why that is?  Perhaps it has its roots in the ingrained attitude that we all like the underdog to 'do good' and whilst you can't directly see, at first glance, skill or will, it is fairly obvious if a chap is built like Arnold .

By the way, for an inversion of this 'root for the little guy' rection, watch the sword fight at the end of Rob Roy.  The 'underdog' reponse becomes 'root for the big but less skilled guy'.


----------



## Adept (Mar 25, 2007)

PictonMA said:


> It's cliche, I'm sure it's been said before but:
> 
> It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.



An equally repeated and just as true cliche:

When all other things are equal, the biggest guy wins.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 25, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Valid points there, *Kidswarrior*.
> 
> It is certainly the case that fighters are seldom matched in either their technical skill or their mental toughness.
> 
> ...



Sukerkin, if you weren't more skilled in logic than me (smarter), I'd use my size advantage on the keyboard to overpower you on this (6', 230--I can really pound those keys!). And since you ended with the best scene from the best movie of all time, I'll let you go this time. :lfao: Just watch yourself around us bigger guys from now on. :ultracool

Oh, and I tried to rep you but gotta 'spread the love' first.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 25, 2007)

:lol:

Cheers, *Kidswarrior*.  I'll certainly tread carefully from now on; thanks for the gracious warning .

Oh, and I'm by no means convinced on the 'smarter' issue ... I seem to spend an awful lot of my time agreeing with you, so no ninja-like putting yourself down ROFL.

OT - I really must get around to buying 'Rob Roy' on DVD; my video copy is showing the strain .


----------



## K' Evans (Mar 26, 2007)

As much as I would like to vote for the underdog, I have to admit size does matter. I don't disagree that skills and proper technique are important and that you could perhaps hit or throw someone bigger and hurt the person, but remember that the bigger person is not your sparring partner. If he is just as focused on hurting you and can tolerate a great deal of pain, he is just as likely to hurt you very badly if he gets a few lucky shots in. 

Perhaps the real variable here is not so much the person is simply bigger, but his enhanced ability, compared to a smaller person, to absorb and withstand the hits and damage from a smaller person. I don't like to definitively say that the bigger guy will win, but clearly being bigger will pose some advantage, and hence the smaller person has to compensate by having better techniques, speed, timing, execution and etc. But overall, you can see that the smaller person will have to compensate for a lot just by virtue of some guy being bigger.


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 26, 2007)

Some still seem to be leaning toward this notion that bigger is better, and a larger, or stronger person has an advantage in a fight. Therefore, some are still concluding that, if it were possible to have two people of exactly the same skill, and the will to win, the larger one would likely prevail. I believe this is a misguided notion, and I will explain why below. Also, there is a factor that seems be to getting ignored in this discussion thus far - - which I will address in a moment.

First, let me present the options:

*1. Both opponents are small, and both are equal in skill and will:*
- - Who stands a better chance of winning?

*2. Both opponents are small, but one is more skilled:*
- - With rare exception, the skilled opponent would likely win.

3. One opponent is bigger *and* more skilled: The odds are in his favor

*4. One opponent is smaller, but is more skilled:*
- - With rare exception, the skilled opponent would likely win.

*5. One opponent is smaller, but they are equal in skill and will:*
- - Who stands a better chance of winning?

*6. Both opponents are big, but one is more skilled:*
- - With rare exception, the skilled opponent would likely win.

*7. Both opponents are big, and both are equal in skill and will:*
- - Who stands a better chance of winning?

In #2 and #6 above, both opponents are the same size (both small, or both big), but one of them is more skilled. The logical conclusion is that the skilled fighter would win (barring any unusual circumstances).

In #3 above, one opponent is bigger, and also possesses the greater skill. Thus, like #2 and #6, the skilled fighter would likely prevail.

In #4 above, the size is different, but the higher skill belongs to the smaller opponent. Some people might argue this point, but I believe that the skilled opponent stands a much better chance of winning. That is what Martial Art skill is designed to do - - allow a smaller, weaker person to defeat a larger, stronger attacker through skills that the opponent does not possess.

In #1 and #7 above, both opponents are the same size (both small, or both big). In addition, both fighters have exactly the same skill and the will to win. It would be like fighting a duplicate of yourself (ever play the old video game, Zelda?). There can be an advantage found here which I will describe below.

Scenario #5 is the one that seems to be the focus of contention. Skill and will are identical (as rare as this might be to occur), but one opponent is bigger. Does the bigger person have an advantage because of their size, and/or strength?

Let me ask this. Between a semi-truck, and a volkswagon, which has the advantage if both drivers have the exact same skill and will to live. If you are thinking about crashing them into one another, then you might give the victory to the semi.

However, what if I said that the challenge was driving up a steep hill, or driving down a steep decline with lots of curves, and cliffs on one side. Nature provides disadvantages for the more massive bodies. The skilled fighter knows how to work that to their advantage. Therefore, even if skills are equal, if that skill is a high level of Martial Art training, then anyone who knows how to use their opponent's size and weight against them has an advantage (even if they are the smaller person).

Here is the final point that I mentioned before, which has not been addressed as of yet.

Who is the aggressor?

The Martial Art is intended to teach us to not attack, but defend, and counter-attack only when it is safe to do so. The person who commits to an attack is placing themselves at a disadvantage. If they are a better fighter, it might work out. However, if the skills are equal, and I am the smaller person, I must remain the "defender" which will allow me to prevail in nearly every case (barring any unusual circumstances).

This is also true in fencing (or sword fighting). The leverage and skill of the parry gives the advantage to the defender every single time. Only an attacker with greater skill can overcome that disadvantage. As long as I defend against the extended and weak position of my attacker, and only counter when they are vulnerable, even a larger, stronger person can not defeat me.

It does not matter that your sledge hammer is bigger than my handy-man's hammer. The moment you pick up your huge, heavy sledge hammer and swing it at me, you are at a disadvantage. I will drop my hammer and take you down bare handed, because you are attacking, and I am defending. If our skills are equal, your attack has placed you in a vulnerable position, thus you will likely lose. 

Every scenario is different in real life, but physical size and strength are not an advantage unless you are attacking a person who is not sufficiently skilled in the Martial Art.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Adept (Mar 26, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Let me ask this. Between a semi-truck, and a volkswagon, which has the advantage if both drivers have the exact same skill and will to live. If you are thinking about crashing them into one another, then you might give the victory to the semi.
> 
> However, what if I said that the challenge was driving up a steep hill, or driving down a steep decline with lots of curves, and cliffs on one side. Nature provides disadvantages for the more massive bodies.



Certainly. And if by 'win' you mean the combatant best able to squeeze through narrow gaps, run over long distances or climb up a thin fence or or tree, then a larger body is a disadvantage.

However, in terms of a physical confrontation, being larger (obviously in terms of muscle, not fat) is never a disadvantage. You gain reach, speed, strength, and natural armour without losing sensitivity, flexibility, technique or skill. The only disadvantages are the hours spent in the gym, having to 'hold back' during sparring and finding clothes that fit.



> The Martial Art is intended to teach us to not attack, but defend, and counter-attack only when it is safe to do so. The person who commits to an attack is placing themselves at a disadvantage.



Context, context, context!

If I belt someone in the back of the head with a barstool, I am very much taking the advantage.



> However, if the skills are equal, and I am the smaller person, I must remain the "defender" which will allow me to prevail in nearly every case (barring any unusual circumstances).



I don't see how. The defender has no natural advantage over the attacker.



> It does not matter that your sledge hammer is bigger than my handy-man's hammer. The moment you pick up your huge, heavy sledge hammer and swing it at me, you are at a disadvantage.



A poor analogy. Muscle generates excess power, enabling a larger muscle to move a limb faster than a smaller one. Thus the 'sledge hammer' is not only heavier, but faster and more resistent to damage, with no loss in accuracy.



> I will drop my hammer and take you down bare handed, because you are attacking, and I am defending. If our skills are equal, your attack has placed you in a vulnerable position, thus you will likely lose.



Again, the defender does not automatically get some special bonus, nor is he more likely to win. 



> Every scenario is different in real life, but physical size and strength are not an advantage unless you are attacking a person who is not sufficiently skilled in the Martial Art.
> 
> CM D.J. Eisenhart



Physical size and strength are always an advantage. They increase your reach, your leverage, your speed and your ability to absorb damage without reducing any of the attributes of a smaller person. It's why they have weight classes in all forms of combat sport, and it's not because the little guys would beat the big guys...


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 26, 2007)

That was a well structured post, *Last Fearner*.  I don't necessarily think that I agree with you conclusion but I like very much the fact that you *thought* your way to it (rather than just stating an opinion) :tup:

*Adept* makes some good points also.  I feel that his last statement was particularly persuasive.


----------



## Shaderon (Mar 26, 2007)

I agree, Adepts last statement is a good one, I don't like to say it because I am a "little guy" but I tend to agree that in a contest of equal skills, willpower and *ART* in a given situation, then the big guy would probably win because of his better reach, increased ability to take a hit and possibly a bit of psychological pressure too.


----------



## kidswarrior (Mar 26, 2007)

Both *Last Fearner* and *Adept *make good points. And I just think this is too individual a question to generalize. Some smaller people are tremendous fighters, and some larger people not so much. So I'll just go with the old fallback--my own experience. 

As both *Sukerkin *and *Shaderon *have said, my size and _will to win_ (unfortunately that dropped out of the discussion somewhere along the way) have helped in many real world situations, first to discourage any stupidity by others, second to communicate the attitude that if my cause was just (I was doing the right thing) I _would _prevail. But in sport situations (sparring), I've sometimes had trouble with guys (and by that I mean 'guys' of the female persuasion, too ) 60 pounds lighter and 6" shorter. So maybe the context of the question is important here as well.


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 26, 2007)

Hi Adept!  Thank you for taking time to clearly express your difference in conclusions on this topic with a good point and counter-point presentation.  I hope you don't mind that I continue with attempting to explain my position as I feel this it the best way for all to gain from these discussion threads.  As long as we keep our opposing replies respectful, I don't mind that you disagree, and I enjoy reading your perspective.



Adept said:


> Certainly. And if by 'win' you mean the combatant best able to squeeze through narrow gaps, run over long distances or climb up a thin fence or or tree, then a larger body is a disadvantage.


Well, at least here you seem to agree that a larger body is at a disadvantage in some circumstances.  Now, the translation to physical combat that I am making is first that a larger body moves differently according to the laws of nature.  Those differences will typically increase momentum once the body is in motion, but slow the speed and acceleration.

Secondly, the mere notion of a bigger, stronger person seems to imply greater threat of damage, but this is contrary to Martial Art application of scientific principles of motion.  The greater the size, and strength, the more power applied when attacking, thus the more power available to the defender when using the opponent's own strength, size, and weight against him.  It is a matter of skill.  Not that your skill has to be better than the larger person, just sufficient enough to apply this knowledge.  Lacking the skill by the smaller person, the large person is a great threat, but having the skill will reverse that threat, and actually place the larger attacker at a disadvantage.




Adept said:


> Context, context, context!


Not sure what your point is by this comment.  Perhaps you can clarify.



Adept said:


> If I belt someone in the back of the head with a barstool, I am very much taking the advantage.


Again, not sure of the point relative to this topic, but yes, you would be taking the advantage of surprise.  However, the skill of a Martial Artist should keep them alert, positioned, and prepared to prevent this kind of attack.





Adept said:


> I don't see how. The defender has no natural advantage over the attacker.


By your above comment here, it appears to me that, as you have studied over the years, you have not had this fact taught to you.  Some people study from self-discovery and never find these truths.  Others have teachers who either did not know this, did not convey it clearly, or the student did not remain long enough to learn it.

At least you said "I don't see how."  So, I will attempt to show you how the defender *does* have a natural advantage.  Consider this lesson from fencing with foils (the narrow round swords).  When both opponents are in the "on guard" stance, the tip of their foil is pointed diagonally upward toward their opponent's face.  When they attack, they lower the tip, lunge forward, and extend their sword arm to become straight.  The defender parries by remaining in a position similar to the on guard stance with their sword arm bent (either pointing up or down).  The strong position of the defender will always prevail (if timing is correct) because the attacker must extend to a weaker, straight arm position to strike.

Most every aspect of Martial Art physical combat should teach the student ways to position himself, and use their stronger muscles against an attacker's weaker muscles.  This is done with a distinct advantage when my objective is to defend, and protect my body as opposed to my opponent's objective to extend and attack.  This might not be the easiest lesson to learn in an internet post, but it is true, and most Masters of weaponry (staff, tonfa, nunchakku, sword, fencing, etc) will acknowledge that this is a truth within their art as well.  As my 72 year old fencing instructor (back in the 1980s) would say, "The defender always has the advantage."

{The next quote pertains to my sledgehammer analogy}



Adept said:


> A poor analogy. Muscle generates excess power, enabling a larger muscle to move a limb faster than a smaller one. Thus the 'sledge hammer' is not only heavier, but faster and more resistent to damage, with no loss in accuracy.
> My analogy might have been a poor one if it did not convey the point as well as intended, however your assumption about heavier and faster is not accurate, in my opinion.  I can swing a small hammer much faster than a strong man swings a sledgehammer.  Once a sledge is in motion, it has greater mass and momentum, but if I hurl a small hammer at the same time a strong guy throws a sledge, mine will reach him first. (Think about David and Goliath)
> 
> Secondly, the analogy about the sledge is not to deny what a sledge can do, it is to point out that once committed to an attack with such a large weapon, it is difficult to change course.  I can move a small hammer left, right, up, down, and whip it about with little effort, and never be so committed to a strike that I can not stop it, or change its direction with relative ease.
> ...


----------



## Adept (Mar 26, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> Hi Adept!  Thank you for taking time to clearly express your difference in conclusions on this topic with a good point and counter-point presentation.  I hope you don't mind that I continue with attempting to explain my position as I feel this it the best way for all to gain from these discussion threads.  As long as we keep our opposing replies respectful, I don't mind that you disagree, and I enjoy reading your perspective.



:asian:

It is refreshing to be able to respectfully disagree with someone!



> Now, the translation to physical combat that I am making is first that a larger body moves differently according to the laws of nature.  Those differences will typically increase momentum once the body is in motion, but slow the speed and acceleration.



The body is larger and heavier, and so will experience more resistance. However, it will also generate much more power, increasing the power-to-weight ratio which in turn increases the speed and overcomes the resistance.



> Secondly, the mere notion of a bigger, stronger person seems to imply greater threat of damage, but this is contrary to Martial Art application of scientific principles of motion.  The greater the size, and strength, the more power applied when attacking, thus the more power available to the defender when using the opponent's own strength, size, and weight against him.



Indeed, but when both opponents are equally (or at least, similarly) skilled, then the larger opponent is more difficult to deal with than the smaller opponent. The larger opponent can do everything the smaller opponent can do, but he can do it faster and harder.



> Not sure what your point is by this comment.  Perhaps you can clarify.



An attack is at a disadvantage if you can accurately predict it. A succesful attack will minimise your ability to predict it. Likewise, commitment to a defensive move is a liability, if that move is responding to a false prediction. 

Either way, the larger person is just as likely to be the defender as the aggressor, even if the larger person initiated the conflict.



> When both opponents are in the "on guard" stance, the tip of their foil is pointed diagonally upward toward their opponent's face.  When they attack, they lower the tip, lunge forward, and extend their sword arm to become straight.  The defender parries by remaining in a position similar to the on guard stance with their sword arm bent (either pointing up or down).  The strong position of the defender will always prevail (if timing is correct) because the attacker must extend to a weaker, straight arm position to strike.



But if the attacker has launched a feint, to which you have commited your defense, and then attacks in a manner to take advantage of that, they now have the advantage. The disadvantage lies in commitment to movement, whether it be aggressive or defensive in nature. The advantage lies in being able to predict your opponents movement and react accordingly.



> Most every aspect of Martial Art physical combat should teach the student ways to position himself, and use their stronger muscles against an attacker's weaker muscles.  This is done with a distinct advantage when my objective is to defend, and protect my body as opposed to my opponent's objective to extend and attack.



I'm still not sure I understand. As I said, whenever you can predict your opponents next move, you hold the advantage, but that is an advantage that will be held by the most experienced and skilled fighter, not automatically by the defender.



> My analogy might have been a poor one if it did not convey the point as well as intended, however your assumption about heavier and faster is not accurate, in my opinion.  I can swing a small hammer much faster than a strong man swings a sledgehammer.  Once a sledge is in motion, it has greater mass and momentum, but if I hurl a small hammer at the same time a strong guy throws a sledge, mine will reach him first. (Think about David and Goliath)



Yes, but a stronger man than you will be able to swing that smaller hammer faster, and throw it further!



> You said the advantage of size includes:
> *"Increase your reach."*  Granted, but most Martial Artists possess skills which nullify what would be an advantage against an unskilled opponent.  As stated earlier, stretch your reach out to grab or strike me, and you have extended your arm into a vulnerable position.  If you keep your arms close to you for more power, then your reach is no longer an issue.



I am only in a vulnerable position when attacking if I have allowed you to predict my movement. A longer reach is an undenable advantage. It allows you to strike from outside your opponents range, it forces your opponent to move into your range, making his moves more telegraphic, and it gives you a greater reaction time.

*



			"...your leverage."
		
Click to expand...

*


> Leverage is a physical application of pressure in relationship to a fulcrum.  If I want to move a bolder, I place a fulcrum near it, and get a long pole.  If the bolder is too heavy, I get a longer pole.  Thus, if my opponent has a longer arm (pole), the advantage of leverage is mine when applied properly.  If I am missing your point on this, please explain what you meant.



A stronger person requires a smaller lever to move an equal weight. Being larger, a smaller person requires a larger lever to move them. Remember, _your_ arm is just as likely to be the 'pole' as theirs is!

*



			"...your speed."
		
Click to expand...

*


> Again, I don't know any evidence to support a "larger equals increased speed" capability.  Running fast in a track meet requires a certain amount of toned muscles, but I do not believe we would ever see a Mr. America, or Mr. Universe out run a smaller, weaker sprinter.  Guys like Bruce Lee were fast but with compact with toned muscles, not large guys with huge muscles.



Granted. How many olympic sprinters are little guys? Do you think the smaller, leaner marathon runners could out-sprint them? A Mr Universe contestant might never win a 100m gold medal, but thats not what he trains for, and he can safely ignore his flexibility and speed with no impact on his performance. A muscle is like an engine. A larger engine is heavier, but it generates power far in excess of that required to move itself. And that excess is speed.

A limb isn't like a car or jet which have only one engine, and which at high speeds can be ponderous to maneuver. A limb has other muscles (ideally of equal size) which work in unison to instantly halt and reverse its movement with no loss of speed, regardless of it's size.

The smaller person has less weight to move, but also significantly less power to move it.

*



			"...your ability to absorb damage"
		
Click to expand...

*


> This is only true if the lager person's opponent is an unskilled brawler.  A Martial Artist knows where to strike at weak, vulnerable, and unprotected targets, and how to apply power that size and muscle will still be unable to prevent total destruction.



If a large skilled fighter is fighting a smaller skilled fighter, then the larger fighter has the larger range of effective targets, as many of the more superficial parts of his body are buried under damage-absorbing muscle tissue.



> Aggression is commitment to some kind of movement which places the aggressor at a physically, scientifically, and natural disadvantage momentarily. Skilled Martial Artists are trained to exploit that moment of vulnerability.



I take issue with the use of the word 'aggression' in this context. Commitment to *any* kind of action is a liability, if you have allowed your opponent to predict that movement. It doesn't matter if that movement is aggressive or defensive in nature, or who is the aggressor or defender in the situation.



> The large, heavier attacker projects more weight into this trap.  The stronger person applies more power and force to be used against him in such a trap.



But the larger person is just as likely to _initiate_ the trap, and is more able to inflict damage with it due to his improved speed, power, and reduced need for leverage.


----------

