# dealing with someone much bigger



## cfr (Nov 23, 2003)

Howdy all. I figure this is a pretty universal question so I posted it in this section instead of one related to my specific art. Ive been training for a couple of years but Ive bounced around between schools so my progress has been rather slow. Ive never sparred and, without trying to start any debate here, it makes me feel like I dont really know how to handle myself against people bigger than me. Im 5' 9" and about 205 lbs. I run into a guy on a fairly regular basis that is probably about 6' 5" and lots of extra mass. He very often threatens and initimidates people. We are by know means on bad terms but truthfully if he fell off the face of the earth I dont think he would be missed by anyone. Anyways, I got to thinking if I was to ever need to fight this guy I might be kind of hosed. I think I would do fairly well against someone around my size, but not so much against this guy. Of course if I hit him before he knew we were fighting(sucker punch) I would prrobably be victorious but I dont see me ever doing that. In about 4 - 6 months I'll begin sparring drills and then work my way into real sparring. Im aware that sparring isnt the end all be all to fighting but I think I ( I, me, this guy, CFR, not you) will be far better prepared to deal with this after Ive been sparring a while than I am today.  So in the meantime, how to deal? Im not talking about if he does a wrist grab or something that requires my most awesome self defense move, but when a real fight breaks out. Im can hit, kick, elbow, and knee pretty hard and pretty fast. But Ive never done it in the face of combat. (high school excluded) Ive never put it all together. Ive never incorporated all my skills at once. I guess what Im the most worried about is how I would deal with a flurry of punches from this guy. Sure Ive learned how to parry and some footwork, but Ive never had a barrage of punches comintg hard and fast at my face. I really dont know if I could parry fast enough and not get hit long enough to throw some of my own. What to do???


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 23, 2003)

> I really dont know if I could parry fast enough and not get hit long enough to throw some of my own


 You can't ...so get used to the idea of taking a hit or two.  If you go into a conflict believeing that you won't get hit then the first punch that connects is gonna throw you out of your depth and you're likely done for.  Having said that, the rest of your post leads me to believe that the problem is more one of self confidence or confidence in your ability to execute your techniques well enough to compensate for your opponents larger size.  Continued practice, IMO, is the best fix for your problem.  I'm not sure why you bounced from school to school before, but, do your best to manipulate circumstances in a way that allows you to get some continuity in your training.  I won't get into the sparring as a "reality" drill thing.  That's a somewhat hot topic here.


----------



## Disco (Nov 23, 2003)

Two points to add. (1). Learn angle movements and (2) how do you chop down a tree?


----------



## cfr (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *(2) how do you chop down a tree? *



With an axe?


----------



## Disco (Nov 23, 2003)

You chop a tree down by starting at the bottom. Same with a bigger attacker. Chop the legs out from under him and he falls just like the tree falls.:asian:


----------



## Zepp (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *You chop a tree down by starting at the bottom. Same with a bigger attacker. Chop the legs out from under him and he falls just like the tree falls.:asian: *



That's how I like to think.  The bigger they are, the more exposed their knees.  

Another option is get in close (inside the other guy's "range") and rely on attacking sensitive areas.

Just don't let him goad you into a fight.  If he tries to, it could be because he has some advantage he's keeping hidden.


----------



## Reprobate (Nov 23, 2003)

1) Fight dirty - bring a knife or a knuckle duster.
2) A steel-toed boot to the knee brings down the tallest fighter.
3) Poison his coffee with laxatives - ambush him while he's taking a dump.
4) Spray some toilet freshener into his eyes to blind him or hold a lighter in front of the spray to set him on fire.

Did I forget anything?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Reprobate _
> *1) Fight dirty - bring a knife or a knuckle duster.
> 2) A steel-toed boot to the knee brings down the tallest fighter.
> 3) Poison his coffee with laxatives - ambush him while he's taking a dump.
> ...


5) go to prison.


----------



## Quick Sand (Nov 23, 2003)

How about trying to avoid a fight instead?


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 23, 2003)

That is a question many, if not most, female martial artists have to face....

It may be a confidence issue.  Nevertheless, the key is to practice, practice, and keep on learning.

Will we be able to hold our own against those who are bigger?  Maybe, but we would like to minimize our risks and do enough to get out asap.

- Ceicei


----------



## Reprobate (Nov 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *5) go to prison. *


Where you learn this intimately!


----------



## Baoquan (Nov 24, 2003)

Spar...do lots of it. Put on the gear and go at it full pace. IMHO, you wont get the full effect of your hard work in training without getting in and trying it out...

...randori rocks.


----------



## LadyDragon (Nov 24, 2003)

Hey, if you ask me, size shouldn't matter. 

1st of all I'm a woman which gices me a disadvantage in strength, and 2nd I'm only 5'4" so there goes height.  If your confident enough in the skill that you do have, the rest is just numbers.  Yeah chances are you're going to have a take a couple of hits, but thats true in any fight.

Besides, sparring is great practice.  But if you really think about it, sparring in the dojo isn't even close to a real fight.  At least it isn't in my oppinion.  Its more like a game of tag.  You land a few shots and then you back off.  In a real fight if you land a couple of punches you don't pull out, you keep going till you know that your opponent isn't going to get up and continue coming at you.


----------



## MJS (Nov 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cfr _
> *Howdy all. I figure this is a pretty universal question so I posted it in this section instead of one related to my specific art. Ive been training for a couple of years but Ive bounced around between schools so my progress has been rather slow. Ive never sparred and, without trying to start any debate here, it makes me feel like I dont really know how to handle myself against people bigger than me. Im 5' 9" and about 205 lbs. I run into a guy on a fairly regular basis that is probably about 6' 5" and lots of extra mass. He very often threatens and initimidates people. We are by know means on bad terms but truthfully if he fell off the face of the earth I dont think he would be missed by anyone. Anyways, I got to thinking if I was to ever need to fight this guy I might be kind of hosed. I think I would do fairly well against someone around my size, but not so much against this guy. Of course if I hit him before he knew we were fighting(sucker punch) I would prrobably be victorious but I dont see me ever doing that. In about 4 - 6 months I'll begin sparring drills and then work my way into real sparring. Im aware that sparring isnt the end all be all to fighting but I think I ( I, me, this guy, CFR, not you) will be far better prepared to deal with this after Ive been sparring a while than I am today.  So in the meantime, how to deal? Im not talking about if he does a wrist grab or something that requires my most awesome self defense move, but when a real fight breaks out. Im can hit, kick, elbow, and knee pretty hard and pretty fast. But Ive never done it in the face of combat. (high school excluded) Ive never put it all together. Ive never incorporated all my skills at once. I guess what Im the most worried about is how I would deal with a flurry of punches from this guy. Sure Ive learned how to parry and some footwork, but Ive never had a barrage of punches comintg hard and fast at my face. I really dont know if I could parry fast enough and not get hit long enough to throw some of my own. What to do???  *



Get into the ring with someone and train!!  The only way you get better at something is to do it.  Period.  Of course, you need to make sure that the person you're working with has your best interest in mind and is going to helping you, not tyring to kill you!  I was training my stand up and clinch in my BJJ class recently.  We did a drill where one person would be in the corner, and the other person is in front of you, throwing punches.  The person in the corner is working on their blocking skills, while also limiting their movement.  This forces you to have to block.  Of course, this drill can be done in a ring with more movement, but the idea was to work blocking.  

As for the flurry of punches....Using Tony Blauers Spear principle comes to mind.  I've trained something similar and have had some good results.

Mike


----------



## jkn75 (Nov 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *
> As for the flurry of punches....Using Tony Blauers Spear principle comes to mind.  I've trained something similar and have had some good results.
> 
> Mike *



What is Tony Blauer's Spear principle? :asian:


----------



## bushi jon (Nov 24, 2003)

Lower your center of gravity and steal the big fellas balance. That what the little people do to me. Also 7 pounds of pressure to a knee then run like helll


----------



## Tgace (Nov 24, 2003)

Big guys are why littler guys developed weapons....first off dont start/participate in a mutual fight, but if forced to defend yourself or another dont go empty hand unless you have to. Stories of OC not working on everybody (90% is still a heck of a good #) aside. Ive seen some smaller guys handle some monsters pretty handily with it.


----------



## cfr (Nov 24, 2003)

Whats OC???


----------



## MJS (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jkn75 _
> *What is Tony Blauer's Spear principle? :asian: *



I'm not an expert of Blauer, but I"ll try to give an example of what I use.  Put your hands together, almost as if you were clapping your hands.  Keep you elbows slightly bent.  This is your frame.  Think of your arms being in the shape of the letter "A"  Your head is protected by your arms.  When the person punches, or is getting ready to, you are moving forward also, slamming your arms into him.  The target can be the face, shoulder/collar bone area.  You're in an excellent position to follow up with a knee or an elbow.  

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cfr _
> *Whats OC??? *



Pepper Spray


----------



## psi_radar (Nov 25, 2003)

I'm smaller than you--5'7 and 165, so I know where you're coming from. 

A lot of good stuff has been said here already--try to get some continuous training, perhaps at a boxing gym to get good with basics and build stamina fast. 

You have the advantage of training against a particular opponent. The simplest thing to do is to just avoid this guy if he's trouble. If you absolutely must fight, observe his weaknesses. Is he slow? Does he look like he'd try to grapple or strike you? Knees in particular are vulnerable areas for big guys. 

If he doesn't have any training, he'll probably try to use his mass in a straight line against you. Get off that line and strike low, then high. Repeat.

If you can't get off the line, then he will probably go for the most common attack I've seen, the multiple right-left, right-left, aimed to the head.  Use your arms to defend against these as MJS said. We call this the cage. Move in close so you don't bear the brunt of the attack. Absorb the hits in this manner, then right after he lands one and there's a pause before the other one, put him off balance with your arms, pushing up and back (rocking him back on his heels) and repeatedly knee him in the groin and lower abdomen. As he bends from the waist, elbow in the face, perhaps an uppercut or two, then escape to safety.

Just one approach.


----------



## the_kicking_fiend (Nov 26, 2003)

There's no set plan of action for any situation despite what some may think.  When it comes to it, its just instinct and adrenaline that you rely on and the training will do its job itself.

Everyone goes down the same way if you hit them hard enough.  It doesn't matter how big they are, you get in there and throw your strongest technique, by which I mean power.  I think personally I would favour a punch that's a cross between an uppercut and a hook smashing into the jaw because it's hidden and rips your head off.

What I'm saying is don't matter how big they are, everyone will go down if you kick them in the balls or punch them in the jaw or if you like kick them in the head.

d


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 23, 2003)

Really good stuff so far ! 
A couple things...
1. Drop your center (get lower)
2. Throat and knees

A soft jab to the throat even using fingers is enough to create a good diversion, try it full force, just dont kill anyone!

7sm


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 23, 2003)

Groin shots are good for a diversion on someone larger.  Just don't count on them to take the opponent out.  You'd be really surprised at how quickly someone can come back from a groin shot (been there done that).  It is a natural reaction to cover, though and that can give you a split second or two of additional time.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 6, 2004)

> Hey, if you ask me, size shouldn't matter.




Ever mindful of the risk of facing the obvious vulgarities this topic can bring up...I have to say, as I've said elsewhere...size matters.  It has always mattered.  It will always matter.

The bigger (and I assume stronger) fighter has greater reach, greater power, greater ability to take a shot, often greater mobility (as measured in step length when doing footwork).

While training in the arts can make up for disparity in size, the little person  has to do a LOT of training to compensate for his/her lack of mass and reach.  

I'm not saying it isn't possible...but it is an undeniable variable of combat, and one that shouldn't be taken lightly.



> What I'm saying is don't matter how big they are, everyone will go down if you kick them in the balls or punch them in the jaw or if you like kick them in the head.



No.  They won't.  

Some of the members of this forum are quite small and don't weigh much.  Their opponents might be quite large, on drugs or alcohol, and/or psychotic.

Making a blanket statement like this propogates the myth that certain techniques will work ALL the time for EVERYONE.  

People can get shot or stabbed in the heart and still have the ability to kill.  Pat Rogers, an excellent pistol craft teacher with a wealth of experience, has seen (i.e. personally witnessed) a number of stopping failures of handguns, shotguns and rifles.  If a point blank shot with a shotgun or a rifle isn't guaranteed to stop an aggressor, how can we rely on a kick or a punch?

A punch to the jaw?  That has never failed you?  A kick to the head?  How does a woman who is 5'4" do that to an assailant 6' 3"?

Rely on absolutes if you must.  

Maybe I'm too cynical to do so, age having wearied me and the years condemned.  I simply won't rely on any one technique nor will I place faith in "old tried and true" techniques that have been tried and found to have truth only...ONLY...when delivered in the proper context.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 6, 2004)

> What I'm saying is don't matter how big they are, everyone will go down if you kick them in the balls



Sure...A good ball massage always gets me to go down...


----------



## RCastillo (Jan 6, 2004)

No matter who, what they are, they must be able to breath, and be able to see. Tempoarily take one of those away, and you're in like Flint!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by RCastillo _
> *No matter who, what they are, they must be able to breath, and be able to see. Tempoarily take one of those away, and you're in like Flint! *



Ricardo,

Are you picking on my home town of Flint Mi, again? 


Everyone,

I think that absolute statements are tough. I agree that people do need to be able to breath, and most people react when they cannot see. Even though I agree with Ricardo here about these techniques, I do not think they are complete 100%. I have practiced before still doing some techniques while in a choke. Yes, the person was not really trying to kill me, yet, I did need a few minutes to recover, yet I did get out. Also, I was hit so hard one of my eyes crossed, and I just closed it and continued to fight. Why? Because if not I would have been on the ground getting kicked by the bad guys and their wanna be combat boots.

Good strategy and mind set are what I think are important.


And if the guy is bigger than me, I will either buy him a round of drinks or a doughnut and coffee of his choice.


----------



## RCastillo (Jan 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *Ricardo,
> 
> Are you picking on my home town of Flint Mi, again?
> ...



You continued? Stay off the roids!

Gimme the doughnut!


----------



## KennethKu (Jan 9, 2004)

Do u wanna spar him or fight him?  If u just wanna fight a bigger opponents, then go for pressure points. Eyes, nose, throat, neck, groin, knees, shins, feet.  BTW, the groin is over rated as target. Most males instinctively know to protect the family jewel and in case after criminal case, attacking the groin is most likely be ineffective and results in enraging the attacker further.  BE REALLY CAREFUL.

Practice lunge attack at those vulnerable targets. Get the precision and the force right.  Your life may depend on your training.  Fighting for your life is NOT the same as sparring in the ring.


----------



## The Hammer (Jan 19, 2004)

check out www.attackproof.com


----------



## Gotkenpo? (Jan 25, 2004)

what the hell was that?


----------



## 2fisted (Jan 25, 2004)

I'm 5'3, so naturally I love this thread! 

One thing I've always done is ALWAYS train techniques with big people.  I mean BIG people.  If I can't do it against someone huge, I generally don't worry with it.  You'd be suprised at what a little person can do and what advantages they can find.  To respond to a previous post in this thread, yes we REALLY have to train harder.   The big dudes can just absorb impact better and hit harder.  The focus of our training has to be how to react to that.  

Did that make any sense?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 26, 2004)

> One thing I've always done is ALWAYS train techniques with big people. I mean BIG people. If I can't do it against someone huge, I generally don't worry with it.



Hear, hear.




> To respond to a previous post in this thread, yes we REALLY have to train harder. The big dudes can just absorb impact better and hit harder. The focus of our training has to be how to react to that.



I couldn't agree more.

The smaller person _can prevail_ against a bigger person provided there is a sufficient disparity of skill between the two,  AND provided she/he has realistically analyzed what works and what doesn't work.  The defender also has to have the sense to apply the appropriate technique at the appropriate time.  There also needs to be a proper mental and emotional mindset on the part of the defender, as has been mentioned elsewhere if not here.

We can't allow ourselves to fall into the trap of thinking a particular technique is foolproof.  This is naive at best and at its worst it is dangerous.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tony (Feb 21, 2004)

Well I'm only 5'7 and I would like to think that my training could work on someone twice my size! when I was much younger I would get into fights with much bigger kids than me and I wouldn't worry about getting hurt but rather about defeating them! I have sparred with guys in my class bigger than me and usually accidentally kicked them in the groin! Acceptable in the street but not while training! Its bad enough having to deal with an opponent who is big with no knowledge of Martial Arts but it would make things very tricky if they were very knowledgeable and 6'6" built like the proverbial!
My instructor is only about 5'3" and very good at what he does and I don't doubt he could handle himself against a much bigger opponent!
But whenever we have to go through any two man drills for anything including  self defence he tells us to partner up with someone roughly the same size! But who am I to question his wisdom! certainly I think we should spar with different sized people to see what works and what doesn't!
God  just hope I'm not attacked by a 7ft 300 pound wrestler!!


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 21, 2004)

I bought Attack Proof's original book when on of their reps posted to a MA expert board I was on maybe about 3 years ago. The material's fairly good but as someone pointed out to me a newbie who picked it up and tried to run with it wouldn't really get far.


----------



## moving target (Feb 22, 2004)

In my opinion people drop to the ground from groin shots because they can. In sparring and in ring sports groin shots are usualy off limits, so you can take a breather if you take a serious hit because the fighting stops. But rarely is it so painfull that you _can't_ fight.

If you expect to fight someone I would suggest you don't treat it as a contest. Don't just box someone or wrestle with them or spar them or what ever. It seems like common sence, but a few people I know have gotten into fights where they were hurt or could very well have been hurt because they didn't treat the fight like a fight, they thought of it like competition and didn't do unsportsmen like.


----------



## tkdguy1982 (Feb 22, 2004)

More than likely you will get hit, a big guy like that, take out those legs.  That would be my first & foremost area I would strike.


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 22, 2004)

tkdguy is correct. Also, close-quarter fighting to take away the reach advantage. The optimal range of a big guy is longer than the optimal range for a little guy. If you're inside and moving in on him, that is your best opportunity.


----------



## tkdguy1982 (Feb 22, 2004)

I am going to have to agree w/ black bear on that.... naturally if you move inside its going to make it harder on someone much bigger & larger.  Do that & take out the legs, you will be ok, if the problem ever presents itself.  No legs= No fight


----------



## Kris (Feb 24, 2004)

This a topic of interest to me, even though i'm not to small, I'm about 6'2" but i only about 75 kilos, i'm 16 by the way so yes i'm a lanky bugger  , yet i had an interesting situation recently when i was at a party.
A rather jealous ex boyfriend decided to get his mates to have a go at me, they got me in a headlock from behind and it took me an age to struggle out, i just had to talk them down abit then remove myself from the scene for a while and comeback later. I only had one mate with me, and we were both affected by alcoholic water (i swear someone spiked the tap water :uhyeah: ) and given that there was three of the guys, plus plenty in reserve, the three main guys though were about 90kgs i guess and an inch taller than me or more i would only have succeeded in getting my blood all over her carpet. 
The thing is i knew i was drunk so really despite what i could attempt i doubt it would have worked. I do Muay Thai by the way. But my question is what would you have done? Except for avoiding the drink in the first place..........


----------



## Tony (Feb 24, 2004)

Kris said:
			
		

> This a topic of interest to me, even though i'm not to small, I'm about 6'2" but i only about 75 kilos, i'm 16 by the way so yes i'm a lanky bugger  , yet i had an interesting situation recently when i was at a party.
> A rather jealous ex boyfriend decided to get his mates to have a go at me, they got me in a headlock from behind and it took me an age to struggle out, i just had to talk them down abit then remove myself from the scene for a while and comeback later. I only had one mate with me, and we were both affected by alcoholic water (i swear someone spiked the tap water :uhyeah: ) and given that there was three of the guys, plus plenty in reserve, the three main guys though were about 90kgs i guess and an inch taller than me or more i would only have succeeded in getting my blood all over her carpet.
> The thing is i knew i was drunk so really despite what i could attempt i doubt it would have worked. I do Muay Thai by the way. But my question is what would you have done? Except for avoiding the drink in the first place..........



Theres a number of things you could have done! I've had friends pull a headlock on me before and the most simplest defence I have used is yanking their groin which they don't like, but tough because I'm going to use any means at my disposal to defend myself! Another one would poke your finger in their ribs, pinch the one of their hamstrings ( it might be a wussy thing to do but believe me it works!) and you can also reach up with one of your free hands and push his chin up thus taking him off balance! But if I was you I would keep it simple!
You say you practice Muay Thai so maybe you should know a little bit of grappelling as I know it involves clinching and some throws! But me personally I would probably grab really hard on their b@ll@$ks and let me tell you this has worked because my friend was fooling around and I did that on him and now he doesn't do that to me anymore! I also remember while having a friendly kick around in the park my friends would bundle on top of me! and I managed to figure out ways of escaping. I have used biting to great effect but my instructor tells us never do it on bare skin but through the clothing because of the risk of HIV and other nasty diseases!


----------



## moving target (Feb 24, 2004)

In a situation where I don't know all the people or think some of the people may be dangerous I don't get drunk even if I drink.

In that situation if you can get to his eyes an eye gouge could work, if you could get to his groin than that ball grab Tony suggested could work, if you can get an ear an ear tear might work and if you can get a finger a submission might work. But it sounds like talking them down was a safer choice. If you were sober and wanted to fight it might be different.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

See the only issue with all of this is the fact that you need to practice. Otherwise, learning something new in the heat of battle isn't the smartest idea. Ask your instructor straight out. My instructor is only 4 years older than me and he's the best instructor in the school aside from his instructor, who beats him down to size. Heck, it doesn't matter what size, strength, mass, or anything a person has, you CAN take them down. Adrenaline and such help, but the best way to prepare for something like that is to of course spar, but also learn the higher up level self defenses and go over them and over them. Just learning the self defenses and mainly making it second nature the the true key to self defense. And yes, I know the honorable code is don't grab a weapon unless the other dude grabs one first, but first off let's say this: We all can't have the same strength.

The most valuable tip of all is this: Speed X Weight = power/strength. I'm not the strongest person out there, and frankly I'm pretty weak in my arms, for a guy at 17. But that's not how I win matches in sparring. It's learning to telegraph and just mentally understanding the concept: YOU WILL GET HIT! Don't expect to be like Jet Li, Bruce Lee, or Chow Yun Fat. You might get lucky and catch the person off guard with a certain technique, but you are more than likely going to get hit. But the best thing about getting hit is the adrenaline. You get hit and then adrenaline helps you to speed up. Don't slow down, keep your speed up and increase and never blind rage attack. 

So, just remember, learn to be agile, and speedy and that's the key to winning...also it doesn't help to condition your body and keep working out. LOL...don't expect to be a couch potato and then just get attacked by a room full of ninjas and then rip the cord off your table lamp and use it as a rope dart/ section whip...lol...it ain't gonna happen. Just don't think like you see in the movies or you will get whupped. Think your body size and think vital attacks.


----------



## 8253 (Feb 25, 2004)

when sparring in training and you have been underestimated by a larger person, this is the time to strike with your own flurry of strikes.  Suprise will be in your favor and quite possibly make your larger opponent think twice about getting that close to you.


----------



## Tony (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> See the only issue with all of this is the fact that you need to practice. Otherwise, learning something new in the heat of battle isn't the smartest idea. Ask your instructor straight out. My instructor is only 4 years older than me and he's the best instructor in the school aside from his instructor, who beats him down to size. Heck, it doesn't matter what size, strength, mass, or anything a person has, you CAN take them down. Adrenaline and such help, but the best way to prepare for something like that is to of course spar, but also learn the higher up level self defenses and go over them and over them. Just learning the self defenses and mainly making it second nature the the true key to self defense. And yes, I know the honorable code is don't grab a weapon unless the other dude grabs one first, but first off let's say this: We all can't have the same strength.
> 
> The most valuable tip of all is this: Speed X Weight = power/strength. I'm not the strongest person out there, and frankly I'm pretty weak in my arms, for a guy at 17. But that's not how I win matches in sparring. It's learning to telegraph and just mentally understanding the concept: YOU WILL GET HIT! Don't expect to be like Jet Li, Bruce Lee, or Chow Yun Fat. You might get lucky and catch the person off guard with a certain technique, but you are more than likely going to get hit. But the best thing about getting hit is the adrenaline. You get hit and then adrenaline helps you to speed up. Don't slow down, keep your speed up and increase and never blind rage attack.
> 
> So, just remember, learn to be agile, and speedy and that's the key to winning...also it doesn't help to condition your body and keep working out. LOL...don't expect to be a couch potato and then just get attacked by a room full of ninjas and then rip the cord off your table lamp and use it as a rope dart/ section whip...lol...it ain't gonna happen. Just don't think like you see in the movies or you will get whupped. Think your body size and think vital attacks.



Hi Shaolinwolf

Its interesting you mentioned Adrenaline, because I have found adrenaline to be really handy! It really heightens your senses and it really does improve your performance. Only last night I was doing some semi contact and each time my opponent charged at me trying to strike me i would instinctively duck! I did get hit but that only made me more determined! This was actually the first time in ages I had done any sparring as I don;t usually stay for the sparring but I thought it would help desensitise me to the fear of getting hit!
After the guy I sparred with I had to spar with this girl who has been in tournaments and I have never been in any! Though she is experienced I was holding back on my strikes as I was afraid of hurting her. My instructor made me spar with her and she is good but I guess I have an old fashioned view that a guy should never hit a girl! But I wouldn't want to be seen as discriminating so I just tried to make some contact and evade her kicks which I managed quiet well! So i think I will make this a regular thing now. My instructor was surprised to see me stay behind! But I guess I'm treating this like therapy so I don't know if I would enter any tournaments!
With sparring and tournaments there are rules so there are things I can't do because of the fact I am wearing gloves but with empty hands i could use eye gouges, strikes to the throat, pinching, and grabbing on the groin, anything I could use to get myself out of a sticky situation!


----------



## Kris (Feb 25, 2004)

This question doesn't really fall under this topic, but it isn't worth making another over, so;

Whats the best approach to take with multiple opponents?

I don't really mean techniques, so much as do you focus on taking just one opponenet at a time and totally putting them on the ground, just try to avoid and/or take the hits from other people, or are you better off trying to take them all at once and avoid becoming over committed.

Cheers


----------



## moving target (Feb 25, 2004)

Mobility is the biggest factor in multiple opponants. You have to keep moving and you have to try to line them up so they can't all get to you at once. If they don't know what their doing than it isn't as big of a deal, but if they have even the slightest sence of team work than they will either attack you like a wolf pack, have someone distract you head on while a guy circles and tackles you. Or just bum rush you and tie you up (these of course presume you have no weapons. So you have to know where everyone is and you have to be able to move. I really think it would be a poor choice to attempt a ground and pound on a group of people.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

yes, Adrenaline sure helps speedwise and strengthwise and mentally. I like the fact that when facing overwhelming odds, you can be so juiced up and be very, very fast. I love speed, I can't say how much I love it;gives me a rush. No, I don't speed on the road, much, I just accelerate fast.(no I'm not a NASCAR fan...lol) But yeah, adrenaline...yes it's does wonders...wish we could channel it all the time, or learn how to...that'd be cool...


----------



## Black Bear (Feb 26, 2004)

moving target's correctness quotient is at the 100th percentile.


----------



## moving target (Feb 26, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> yes, Adrenaline sure helps speedwise and strengthwise and mentally. I like the fact that when facing overwhelming odds, you can be so juiced up and be very, very fast. I love speed, I can't say how much I love it;gives me a rush. No, I don't speed on the road, much, I just accelerate fast.(no I'm not a NASCAR fan...lol) But yeah, adrenaline...yes it's does wonders...wish we could channel it all the time, or learn how to...that'd be cool...



In the context of competition adrenaline helps you, but when you have a massive adrenaline dump, like ina  life and death situation (whatever that may be) it can be a detriment because you loose fine motor control.

And you can "channel it". That's a big part of what an athlete might call "getting pumped up".


----------



## rompida (Mar 11, 2004)

All MA aside, I like to think of this situation in a psychological way.  The bigger guy has the advantage on you.  In his mind he is superior, and probably in your mind too, or you wouldn't be posting the question.  So, how do you put someone on the defensive quickly?  ATTACK!  I'm not saying find him and challenge him.  But rather, if he is approaching you, and through either his actions or words is showing intent - act first.  A good punch will stun him, and disrupt his plan and vision of pummelling you as you stand there and take it.  
I once had to do this about 11 yrs ago, as a teenager.  Someone stole my CD wallet from my car.  I drove after him.  He finally stopped.  I jumped out of my car, thinking I was Mr. Billy Bad-@ss.  He came out with a tire iron.  When I stupidly held my ground, demanding my CD's, he raised the tire iron.  I jawed him, tackled him (tire iron was dropped by this point I think) and had him in a side headlock.  He gave up, I got my CD's and left.  I now realize how stupid I was, but also see how that punch to the jaw might have kept me from having a nice cleave in my skull.

I've seen smaller guys whip up on some big dudes, and almost every time, it was because they were just plain meaner and more willing to attack first.  Act rather than react.  Just my meager $.02


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 11, 2004)

Hit first, hit hard, hit fast, and keep hitting until either you or the other guy are out cold and in pieces.

Also, the best practice for fighting, is fighting.  Get in a couple, get your butt kicked, and let the experience liberate you from fear.  Yes, you may get hurt, but (generally) the body heals. Only after you have learnt how your body and mind behave in the crucible of personal combat can you actually train for specific response potentials.  Until you've been there, it's just academic.

DrDaveDC

Rock on.


----------



## cfr (Mar 11, 2004)

I forgot I even posted this. Oddly enough, the person I was originally writing about is back in prison. He was still on parole and I guess a couple of people told his PO that he was threatening them. Off he went.  artyon:


----------



## moving target (Mar 12, 2004)

The psychological thing is good advise but you have to change their mind which is not the same as changing your mind. If you don't cause dammage that will make them think twice than you havn't changed their mind. Depending on their resilliance that may be tough. Maybe not though.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 13, 2004)

I don't know, I kind of think that changing their minds would take way too long. To do that you would have to hurt them, let them feel it, think about it, and then make a decision to stop attacking. Thats way too much time and puts you in a bad situation. My game plan would be to incapacitate them as quickly as possible, then their size wouldn't matter much. It doesn't matter how big someone is, they still need their knees to stand up. If I'm attacked by anyone, especially someone much bigger than me, I'm going to take them out as quickly and effectivly as possible. Go for a knee, maybe a throat, or an eye, or all of the above. My opinion is to attack quickly and effectivly and do not stop attacking until they are down for good.

No need playing around with an attacker, they may be after your life.

7sm


----------



## rompida (Mar 14, 2004)

I think I may have been misunderstood.  I'm not trying to change their mind, just surprise it with an unexpected stimulus.  What I mean is, acting quickly - whether it be taking out knees, punch to the throat... whatever.  It stops the person's train of thought long enough for you to be able to finish the job... or get away.


----------



## moving target (Mar 14, 2004)

They still have to register your attack as seriously dammaging.

Some obviously work like an eye jauge. Some aren't as absolute, like a knee kick.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 15, 2004)

I think I need to clarify my point. In my opinion, to create a change of mind in the attacker, or even surprise it with an unexpected stimuli, is the wrong approach. If you hit them with a technique that is serious enough to surprise or change their mind, what would hitting them with 4 or 5 of them before they register the first one do to them? I'm talking of taking control of the situation so that before they even realize or have a chance to change their mind you have applied a series of serious attacks which leaves them unable to continue regardless of what they decide to do in their mind. Before their mind is changed you have taken away their ability to attack you, then it doesn't matter what they chose. 

Now, when we are speaking of specific techniques I think its wrong to assume any of them are absolute, even an eye gouge. There are some that are almost completely absolute, say if I put a nice kick into the back of your knee, your going down, you can't physically resist that type of tehcnique, if you try you will probably hurt your knee worse than letting it bend with the kick. Now, is that absolute? What if they yield and turn their knee into your kick thus not going down and making you lose your balance because you were planning on them being under your foot when it hit the pavement. See, to assume absolute changes your action and takes your mind away from moving directly and instinctivly to the next technique in a series of attacks. 

JMHO
7sm


----------



## moving target (Mar 15, 2004)

Well if you are capable of such a  devistating assault what threat did the person offer in the first place? I mean I think we would all want to neutralise threat in a fight as quickly as posable.


----------



## Tony (Mar 16, 2004)

I was down my gym last night working out and I'm not as strong as a lof of the guys who work out there. Some of them have arms as big as my waist, 2 or 3 times my size. They are a quite an intimidating sight. I wouldn't want to upset any of them, but I certainly would like to think that if ever some one physically bigger and stronger than me were throwing their weight around, my training would help me. Lets face it big musclebound guys are hardly ever seen as victims and all they have to do is stare at those individuals with the smaller frames and they cower away.
Remember David had a weapon when he beat Goliath, but our weapons are our Martial Arts skills, our intelligence over brawn. The disadvantages with muscle is can slow people down, especially kicks and punches, however there those big guys who can punch fast and even kick quite fast too.
My instructor who is a lot smaller than me is quite skilled at what he does and has said on many occasions to use those persons own strength against them.
This is also something familiar in Morehei Ueshiba's Aikido, the founder who was a petite man but could effortlessly throw multiple opponents, providing they attacked first.
I have heard of Bruce Lee being able to knock down guys twice his size and he was only about 130lbs 5'7" . Quite a feat but not impossible with the right training. In my view what is the point of knowing so many Martial Arts techniques if they cannot be applied to different sized individuals and already having that knowledge, why should we still be afraid of these bigger guys? Those of you who have degrees in Physics could probably give an explanation on the mechanics involved. We all have probably seen the damage of a car collidiing at a certain speed and the damage that is cause when a car collides with a truck.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 16, 2004)

"The disadvantages with muscle is can slow people down, especially kicks and punches, however there those big guys who can punch fast and even kick quite fast too"

This idea is really more an assumption than fact.  Ken Shamrock and just about any football  (American not Euro), or rugby player of size blows that theory out of the water.  The idea that muscle mass equates to slower movement is imbedded in the fitness industry, full of people who are exercising for vanity/health as opposed to performance.  Body builder types learned their lesson because they were very large but 'bulky' with restricted motion because they were not using flexibility training along with their mass building/proportion perfecting program.

The scary guys that are big and fast that you mention are either naturally gifted, or trained for athletic performance which produces - if you want it - muscles that 'go' and not just 'show.'  Former wrestlers, football/rugby players... who decide to scrap are deceptively fast for their size.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 16, 2004)

moving target said:
			
		

> Well if you are capable of such a devistating assault what threat did the person offer in the first place? I mean I think we would all want to neutralise threat in a fight as quickly as posable.


I don't understand the logic here. A threat is not contingent upon your ability to attack or defend yourself. Any MAist will tell you that simply because you are trained to defend yourself doesn't make threats less threatening. 

While most do say they want to neutrilize the threat as quickly as possible, some use technique that doesn't perform said goal. Alot of people train "punch step back" techniques. What I'm talking about is more a mental strategy than any specific techniques. Some expect their powerhouse punch will change the attackers mind, when they shouldn't even be worried about changing their mind, just take away their attack.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> This idea is really more an assumption than fact. Ken Shamrock and just about any football (American not Euro), or rugby player of size blows that theory out of the water. The idea that muscle mass equates to slower movement is imbedded in the fitness industry, full of people who are exercising for vanity/health as opposed to performance.


I agree with this statement, however there is some truth in the fact that larger mass even utilizing flexability training does limit range of motion. The only argument I have about mass vs speed is that most who train for large mass ignore speed training, thus giving the speed trainer an edge in speed. With different systems there could be more advantages to lower mass. In mantis we rely on feeling and sensitivity. Constantly training with heavy weights and bodybuilding tends to negativly effect sensitivity. We practice on being "soft" when fighting. When I fight some of my training partners who are body building I can feel when they tense to rely on muscle and can move to another technique quickly enough that they don't realize and are still in the process of putting their force against me. That is being able to use their force against them.

I guess I agree with you mainly, but there are some points to both arguments.

7sm


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 16, 2004)

My kenpo sparring partner is a 4th Dan, with over 20 years training.  He also happens to be a 265-285 pound body-builder.  When we first started training, I was faster and trickier then he, and could hit him at a ratio of about 7 to 1, but when he did get me with that one..."Ouch" (or, more likely, "oomph").  One day, while he was on a cycle (you can guess of what), he had gained about 30 more pounds, and -- surprise, surprise -- also gained speed.  He stepped it up, and in the spirit of competition, I did too.  I was plesantly surprised to find that, when I really cvoncentrated on putting the screws to him then getting back out of the way, I could whack him at will, without retribution.  In doing so, I made him mad.  He changed strategy.  Waited for me to enter, took the hits, and latched onto me in a rage.  Picked my 6'4", 185-pound hiney straight up off the ground, and pinned me to the wall by the chest, saying, "Little man, you are starting to piss me off."

Flash to early '90's, and studying BJJ.  My training partner is a 2-time state powerlifting champ. Manhandles me at will, despite us being neck-to-neck technically.  I make the decision of questionable intelligence to start passing on the grappling to my kenpo sparring partner.  First thing I teach him: Shoot, mount, pound.  He shoots, mounts, and raises into the air a fist about the size of a roast, parked to be shot downward out of a cannon of 22-inch arms and a barrel chest. "Like this?".  Yeah, like that (internal shudder). Next, we work on rear naked choke with hooks in. I put it on him...he does a chin-up type motion, and unfurls my choke like a scarf on a windy day. In a flash, I get it: Size matters.  I may be slow, but after years of getting folded in half during sparring class by guys much bigger, and after years of getting tossed around by my sparring partner like a rag doll, and after mere months of being brutalized by my grappling buddy, I got it.  Time to get my skinny *** in the gym, on a strict size-building diet, with a regimen towards beef.

Well, with the passage of time, I got to 240-245 (depending on lots of things). Everything got better: Technical game, sparring, grappling, kenpo speed...even my ranges of motion (depends on how you train). Ability to weather blows during sparring really stood out; I never had a comparator, so never knew how much it was taking out of me to get hit without any body mass. Even helped me in my work at the time (bouncer...you can imagine the number of people who didn't take me seriously at 185 when I told them it was time to leave).

Moral of the story?  Solution to how to beat a bigger guy is to BE the bigger guy.  Get in the gym, train like a madman, and start eating a 10,000 calorie/day diet that's heavy on protien, light on carbs and fat.  Try creatine.  Try everything. Add 60 lbs to your frame, stretch before and after resistance training, and DON'T LET UP ON YOUR MA TRAINING TIME!

Till we meet again in that place where we are all one,

Dr. Dave


----------



## moving target (Mar 16, 2004)

> I don't understand the logic here. A threat is not contingent upon your ability to attack or defend yourself. Any MAist will tell you that simply because you are trained to defend yourself doesn't make threats less threatening.


I disagree. We are talking about an opponant who is bigger than you and I assumed unarmed. The threat this individual poses depends on their ability to inflict harm to you. If we assume you precieve this threat and that you are going to deffend yourself it seems to me the amount of harm they can inflict is not entirly dependent on them, but also on your ability to deffend yourself and your ability to bring the fight to them. If you are a good enough fighter that you can land a slew of dammaging or even crippling blows before they register the first one than it seems to me that the threat that individual poses is relativly minimal compared to an individual upon which you could not land so many blows.


> While most do say they want to neutrilize the threat as quickly as possible, some use technique that doesn't perform said goal. Alot of people train "punch step back" techniques. What I'm talking about is more a mental strategy than any specific techniques. Some expect their powerhouse punch will change the attackers mind, when they shouldn't even be worried about changing their mind, just take away their attack.


I would agree. If you aren't realisticly going about achieving your goal than you need to take a step back and take an objective look at your strategies and tactics.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 16, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Solution to how to beat a bigger guy is to BE the bigger guy. Get in the gym, train like a madman, and start eating a 10,000 calorie/day diet that's heavy on protien, light on carbs and fat. Try creatine. Try everything. Add 60 lbs to your frame, stretch before and after resistance training, and DON'T LET UP ON YOUR MA TRAINING TIME!


Thats sort of a self defeating solution is it not? You will never be the bigger guy 100% of the time, never. To try to go about being the biggest person you ever see, I think you are loosing sight of the true goal.



			
				moving target said:
			
		

> I disagree. We are talking about an opponant who is bigger than you and I assumed unarmed. The threat this individual poses depends on their ability to inflict harm to you. If we assume you precieve this threat and that you are going to deffend yourself it seems to me the amount of harm they can inflict is not entirly dependent on them, but also on your ability to deffend yourself and your ability to bring the fight to them. If you are a good enough fighter that you can land a slew of dammaging or even crippling blows before they register the first one than it seems to me that the threat that individual poses is relativly minimal compared to an individual upon which you could not land so many blows.




First of all, it is impossible to measure someones skill level by looking at them. This very state of mind is what puts you at the disadvantage. Just because they are bigger than you, you assume they can hurt you worse then someone smaller than you? Also, it matters not how much better you are then them, or how many attacks you can land on them. At any given time anyone can beat anyone! If you believe differently ask around, or just start fighting everyone you see in the street. Just because you have more skill, there are still a million possiblities of things that could happen duringa fight.

7sm


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 17, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Thats sort of a self defeating solution is it not? You will never be the bigger guy 100% of the time, never. To try to go about being the biggest person you ever see, I think you are loosing sight of the true goal.
> 
> Not expecting to be the biggest guy ever.  Am saying size matters. A guy I worked with - stocky, and skilled MA-ist - mocked some yahoo chain belt in one-hung-lo kung fu out of the bar by responding to his technical bravado and challenge with, "you couldn't possibly weigh 140 pounds soaking wet!".
> 
> If the goal of the martial arts is to prepare for combat, strength training is an essential adjunct.  Who do you think can hit harder...skinny little guy with 25 years training, or massive roid beast with same training, same years? We should not avoid the obvious in our attempts to be obtuse.


----------



## Tony (Mar 17, 2004)

I would have to agree with 7* its does defeat the object somewhat if you have to train yourself to be stronger than a potential attacker.
The founders and masters of many Martial Arts systems were certainly not big guys but were highly trained enought to deal with bigger opponents.
Big guys however can be trained to hit fast and their size is surely an obvious advantage if they have trained themselves specifically for that purpose.
What is the point of learning any Martial Art if you can't defend yourself from a bigger stronger opponent.  Because to be totally undefeatable it implies you have to be the strongest and biggest guy in the world and that would take some training.
I don't believe it is impossible to defeat a bigger opponent, but you have to be highy skilled, confident in your abilities and very fast especially fast at evading blows! For a smaller person it is never a good idea to meet force with force but to use an attackers strength against him and use a lot more speed!
Bruce Lee only weighed about 130lbs but he had phenomenal power and speed. He was also very strong and could lift weights that people weight 230 or more couldn't lift! Sure he looked small but he wasn't easily intimidate by the sight of a 6ft 250 + individual!


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 17, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> If the goal of the martial arts is to prepare for combat, strength training is an essential adjunct. Who do you think can hit harder...skinny little guy with 25 years training, or massive roid beast with same training, same years? We should not avoid the obvious in our attempts to be obtuse.


Strength training is very neccessary, however strength training and body building are two completely different things. Your obviously not going to accept any belief but your own, but you are very wrong about who is able to hit harder. Different stirking techniques are used, none of them relying completely on muscle strength. Hitting harder doesn't allways equal winning a fight either. If your relying on pure muscle power to hit as hard as possible your opponent has an advantage of using your force against you.

I'm not sure why you would want to be obtuse in your argument, but the obvious is not allways the truth. One of my training partners is a big body building type guy. We train full contact San Shou and I take his hardest kicks and punches all the time. My sifu is a smaller guy maybe 5'9" 140?lbs. I take palm strikes from him and get to sit on the ground trying to find my breath. Its about technique, not power. In your search for skill don't be fooled by the "obvious" sometimes its not what you really need to seek out.

7sm


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 17, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your obviously not going to accept any belief but your own, but you are very wrong about who is able to hit harder.
> 
> 7sm


Interesting that you would make this observation, just prior to settling in to a defense of your own unwavering belief...a bit-o-the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps?

Have you been missing the parts I write about all other variables being kept equal between comparators?  About not letting up on martial arts training time?

Who has more hours/years of studying/training: instructor, or body-builder?  What would happen to your instructors strike if we kept his stellar technique, and added the greater physical development of your training partner, the muscle-head?

It doesn't have to be either/or; that's why I stress weight training as an adjunct to MA time, and not a replacement for it.


----------



## moving target (Mar 17, 2004)

> First of all, it is impossible to measure someones skill level by looking at them. This very state of mind is what puts you at the disadvantage. Just because they are bigger than you, you assume they can hurt you worse then someone smaller than you? Also, it matters not how much better you are then them, or how many attacks you can land on them. At any given time anyone can beat anyone! If you believe differently ask around, or just start fighting everyone you see in the street. Just because you have more skill, there are still a million possiblities of things that could happen duringa fight.



When I said "If we assume you precieve this threat" I did not mean you precieve the absolute value of the threat a person poses but rather that they do intend or threaten to inflict harm.

All things being equal a bigger person can inflict more dammage and absorb more.

I never said that greater skill could negate any threat a person poses, I was asking "what threat did they pose in the first place". Just because anyone can win anywhere doesn't mean they pose a significant threat. If you are significantly better than another fighter to the point that you can dominate in the fight, it is probable that you will win. I'm not trying to say training makes you invulnerable, what I was saying was about fighting someone bigger with the inplication that the smaller person did not have a great deal of skill in fighting. It seemed to be a question of genneral tactics. It doesn't seem to me that the question would have been asked if cfr could land 4 or 5 blows that were "serious enough to surprise or change their mind" before he registered the first. I just think if you can do that than the question isn't all that relevant.


----------



## Tony (Mar 18, 2004)

So all us smaller guys should just give up if we are attacked by some bigger guy and ask for his mercy? I believe one of the purpose of Martial arts is self defence and that includes defence against a various attackers and sizes.
Certainly when going to a club, or bar we may feel intimidated by the door men who are both as wide as they are tall, which is why they are hired for such a job. Who ever heard of a bouncer who was 130 pounds and only 5'7".
What hope is there for the victims of bullying at schools if they can only protect themselves by trying to make themselves bigger and stronger than their tormentors? This is why so many targets of bullying learn Martial Arts so that they protect themselves from the people who are bigger then them, and who prey on them because they are weaker.
Through proper technique I believe larger opponents can be neutralised by having their strength used against them as long as you have enough experience and skill.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 18, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Who has more hours/years of studying/training: instructor, or body-builder? What would happen to your instructors strike if we kept his stellar technique, and added the greater physical development of your training partner, the muscle-head?
> 
> It doesn't have to be either/or; that's why I stress weight training as an adjunct to MA time, and not a replacement for it.


Your just simply missing the point. Refering back to the example I gave about my sifu's power, he's not using pure muscle. In fact he's not using the top of his muscular strength in that strike. Adding muscle wouldn't change his strike at all. Your also making a *huge* assumption that a "muscle head" has "greater physical development". Thats a huge assumption that is not only biased but wrong. 

My only problem with traing as an adjunct is that in order to have great skill in MA you have to put LAOT of time in. In order to be great at body building you have to put LAOT of time in. Where in the world is all this time coming from to be great at both? Now, I know my values for greatness are probably way different than lots of others, but the fact remains, one of them will receive more of your attention, or at least should if you want to have great skill in either. 

I'm not against weight training, I'm just saying your biased and strongly skewed opinions on the superiority of "muscle heads" is incorrect and simply a farse. Being bigger doesn't mean you can beat up more people, that is the whole purpose of MA in general, to defend against those stronger or bigger.



			
				moving target said:
			
		

> All things being equal a bigger person can inflict more dammage and absorb more.




That is simply put, wrong. You are rulling out all system of MA that use the attackers force against them. Wait, thats most MA. That is just a wrong assumption that is simply contrived on falshood. Its simply not true. Take your two identically trained persons, their ability to inflict or absorb "correctly" will be comparativly equal. Sure, by mass alone pure force can be absorbed more with more mass, but most MA don't teach simple absorbing techniques. Who goes out in the street, gets attacked, and just stands there trying to absorb the attack?

7sm


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2004)

The following is a clip from and article on the Train Like A PRO website by Kevin Beihm, a former NHL athlete turned sports trainer:

Training for sports is much different then training like a bodybuilder. Training for sports involves using functional exercises that lead to increased performance on the ice or field. 
Looking big and strong is the byproduct, not the goal. Bodybuilding involves isolating muscles and trying to make them as big as possible. Dont make the mistake of following a typical bodybuilding program as you will see little or no increase in performance. 

Our programs are designed to help the athlete compete better in his or her sport. Many of our athletes have physiques that most people only dream of. Even though our main goal is not appearance improvement, our trainees attain very low levels of body fat and large increases in muscle mass. 

The key is the muscles are built together, as a unit, so they can function together on the ice or field. Our training programs are functional, which means they include exercises that have been proven to increase athletic performance. 

I spent many years working very hard but I was training the wrong way. Isolation exercises and long bouts of aerobic exercise were the meat of my training and this actually hurt my performance. When I finally learned to train properly the difference was amazing. This is why I am so passionate about training these young aspiring athletes."

March, 2004 issue of Train like a pro newsletter.

Weight training isn't a bad supplement to MA training, but if it is suppose to be developing performance enhancement, it should be functionally driven, not body builder/symetrical frame driven in goal.  Believe it or don't 'functional strength' and 'power/speed' training for MArtists equates to practicing techniques for speed/power, sparring, full or near power self defense scenarios...because technical skill, tactical understanding and WILL are just as important to power generation as muscular power development.  Traditional fitness training of 3 sets of 8-12 with 90 minutes of target heart rate cardio a week are designed to promote baseline fitness. Even 'power lifting' is not as effective as good old MA training because it lacks specificity in application.  Fitness exercises and power lifting are good and are the foundation that we build our performance/athletic specific development onto.  A solid MA program with technical, striking, conditioning, sparring components of training is where a MArtist should be devoting the lion's share of training if they want to be effective.

When I was overseas, my squad got bored with regular PT, so we organized a wrestling match.  One of my gunners was a solid body builder type with a VERY high strength to weight ration:  he weighed about 170-185 and could bench 300.  He was getting in his own way and couldn't transfer that gym strength to the wresting match because he had not trained in the technical apsects of the event - even though he had been a high school wrestler - and his muscles and nervous system had not been trained to 'snap' his strength from the 'pushing thrust' of weight lifting to the explosive power of entries and take downs.  Not to mention his endurance was nil.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 18, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your just simply missing the point. Refering back to the example I gave about my sifu's power, he's not using pure muscle. In fact he's not using the top of his muscular strength in that strike. Adding muscle wouldn't change his strike at all. Your also making a *huge* assumption that a "muscle head" has "greater physical development". Thats a huge assumption that is not only biased but wrong.
> 
> My only problem with traing as an adjunct is that in order to have great skill in MA you have to put LAOT of time in. In order to be great at body building you have to put LAOT of time in. Where in the world is all this time coming from to be great at both? Now, I know my values for greatness are probably way different than lots of others, but the fact remains, one of them will receive more of your attention, or at least should if you want to have great skill in either.
> 
> ...


Thought experiment:  What if, for all your insistence, *you're* wrong?  Is there room in your universe for such a possibility?  I doubt it, but what if?...


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 18, 2004)

Careful with your optimism. In my old Aikido class we did a lot of practicing sitting down and working with someone attacking you.
Also in some of my other martial art styles we worked with techniques when we were on the ground too. 
You might take someones legs out but that doesnt mean the fight is neccessarily over too. Some people might be deadlier on the ground wounded then standing up.

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 



			
				tkdguy1982 said:
			
		

> I am going to have to agree w/ black bear on that.... naturally if you move inside its going to make it harder on someone much bigger & larger.  Do that & take out the legs, you will be ok, if the problem ever presents itself.  No legs= No fight


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 18, 2004)

"no legs = no fight" is an overstatement, kind of like "do X and the fight is over". It's not "over" but the outcome is a foregone conclusion.Seriously, whether you're standing, sitting, kneeling, or on the ground, if you have a misplaced patella (I don't know if it's called "dislocated" since a patella really doesn't have a joint as such) or leg numbed from the pain of a peroneal nerve shot, your ability to fight is way way less than half. Every try grappling without use of your legs, or one leg? I mean real grappling, with a resisting opponent? You're a sitting duck. 

Also, use the pain as an "entry". 

Also, last summer my instructor had a bum leg. When we grappled we called him "tripod".


----------



## RCastillo (Mar 18, 2004)

Mental Note; Bring Professor Dennis Conatser with me. Problem solved! :uhyeah:


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 18, 2004)

there is also something that you need to consider have you ever heard the term freak of nature. 
I have met some people who were. These were people who could take incredible pain and it didnt fase them till later. I knew of one guy who spent 6 months here in the states studying and would go to Korea to study for the next 6 months. He did this for over 10 years. One day they were doing a test in his school. He was breaking stones with his hand.
This guy that day couldnt break the stone but instead he kept pounding on it to where he bloodied his knuckles and exposed bone. He didnt show any signs of pain even though when he went to go sit down he had blood dripping all over his uniform from his knuckles and just sat there.

There are people who you will find out there that can take pain you or i would surely say uncle too and be fine with it. So it depends on the person its being done too.


Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 



			
				Black Bear said:
			
		

> "no legs = no fight" is an overstatement, kind of like "do X and the fight is over". It's not "over" but the outcome is a foregone conclusion.Seriously, whether you're standing, sitting, kneeling, or on the ground, if you have a misplaced patella (I don't know if it's called "dislocated" since a patella really doesn't have a joint as such) or leg numbed from the pain of a peroneal nerve shot, your ability to fight is way way less than half. Every try grappling without use of your legs, or one leg? I mean real grappling, with a resisting opponent? You're a sitting duck.
> 
> Also, use the pain as an "entry".
> 
> Also, last summer my instructor had a bum leg. When we grappled we called him "tripod".


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 18, 2004)

It doesn't matter.  I've ordered my Golden Chicken Kung-Fu Master's Certificate and Key-Chain over the internet, and now I'm invincible.  The ad says it; it must be true.  What would anybody else know about anything? (P.S., did I tell you I'm a Golden Chicken Kung-Fu Master?...that  makes me invincible.)


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2004)

There are people who you will find out there that can take pain you or i would surely say uncle too and be fine with it. So it depends on the person its being done too.



 :asian:[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> That is why I am a fan of techniques that at the very least induce pain and at the very best create operational/mechanical disfunction.  Break an arm/leg/finger.... if it induces pain and takes the wind out of there sails, great.  If it simply creates a lack of functional control, it takes away a leverage/power generation tool or a striking/defense tool.  If it gets both, beauty.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 18, 2004)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Thought experiment: What if, for all your insistence, *you're* wrong? Is there room in your universe for such a possibility? I doubt it, but what if?...


Offer me proof and I will concede.

7sm


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 18, 2004)

Post-script:  Black Bear...the patello-femoral articulation does count as a joint. The facets on the patella are lined with hyaline cartilage, is lubricated by synovial fluid, and it articulates with the intercondylar groove at the distal end of the femur.  Don't recall specifically, but can look it up...think it's a diarthroses.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 18, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Offer me proof and I will concede.
> 
> 7sm


"All evidence eventually leads to conclusions for which there are no proofs."
-- Frank Herbert, _Dune_


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 18, 2004)

7*M...don't make me break out my Golden Chicken Kung-Fu association Key-Chain and whack you with it.  The price alone ensures me I would destroy you utterly.  Besides, it came with a t-shirt, so back off, babe. It is "Babe", isn't it?


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 18, 2004)

Hey i must really be invinsible since i ordered my Imperial Golden Chicken Kung-Fu Masters Certificate and lazy noodle for beating people off with....

I guess we will be Kung-Fu fighting and see who makes the best moo shoe pork lol

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 



			
				Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter.  I've ordered my Golden Chicken Kung-Fu Master's Certificate and Key-Chain over the internet, and now I'm invincible.  The ad says it; it must be true.  What would anybody else know about anything? (P.S., did I tell you I'm a Golden Chicken Kung-Fu Master?...that  makes me invincible.)


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 18, 2004)

KKK - Well hey, you learn something new every day. 

CGD - Well as with everything in combat, results may vary. It's always possible to have the last word by saying, "well that might not work. I knew a guy once who..." But as old man Blauer say, "in the absence of nothing you have to do SOMETHING" so we're trying to discuss here what are the options of choice. Taking out the legs is an option of choice. It is an accessible target that is of great functional importance whether standing or grounded.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 18, 2004)

Chicago Green Dragon said:
			
		

> Hey i must really be invinsible since i ordered my Imperial Golden Chicken Kung-Fu Masters Certificate and lazy noodle for beating people off with....
> 
> I guess we will be Kung-Fu fighting and see who makes the best moo shoe pork lol
> 
> ...


Darn it! Where am I going to come up wiht the cash to buy a defense to the noodle?:boing2:


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 18, 2004)

There is a way

but its an ancient chinese secret    :asian: 
noodle can be defeated with a bowl of hot water 


Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 



			
				Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Darn it! Where am I going to come up wiht the cash to buy a defense to the noodle?:boing2:


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 18, 2004)

An offering for the sacrificial altar: If we spent the time we spend on this chat in the gym or studio, instead of debating the academics of what we might do in circumstance X, we'd be developing the badass-ness to do it.

Talk amongst yourselves...I'm feeling verklempt.


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 18, 2004)

Sometimes you are so right its scarey
Good point brought up


Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 




			
				Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> An offering for the sacrificial altar: If we spent the time we spend on this chat in the gym or studio, instead of debating the academics of what we might do in circumstance X, we'd be developing the badass-ness to do it.
> 
> Talk amongst yourselves...I'm feeling verklempt.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 18, 2004)

Lets try and keep on topic shall we?


7sm


----------



## moving target (Mar 18, 2004)

> That is simply put, wrong. You are rulling out all system of MA that use the attackers force against them. Wait, thats most MA. That is just a wrong assumption that is simply contrived on falshood. Its simply not true. Take your two identically trained persons, their ability to inflict or absorb "correctly" will be comparativly equal. Sure, by mass alone pure force can be absorbed more with more mass, but most MA don't teach simple absorbing techniques. Who goes out in the street, gets attacked, and just stands there trying to absorb the attack?



What falsehood? If both people have equal skill the both know everything the other does. Now granted the statement I made is somewhat ambiguous, It&#8217;s kind of hard for all things to be equal when you are talking about two people with separate body structures. What I meant was if the only difference between the two is mass than the more massive person will most probably win. Bottom line is a more massive person can absorb more force from percussive attacks, can generate more force with percussive attacks and has more mass to utilize in any situation allowing for mass to be leveraged (like in a throw or some situations in grappling).

I don&#8217;t see how using someone&#8217;s force against them factors in, they can both do that. I don&#8217;t know what you mean by &#8220;their ability to inflict or absorb "correctly" will be comparativly equal&#8221; I really can&#8217;t respond to that until you describe the correct way to inflict and absorb. I also don&#8217;t know what you mean by &#8220;simple absorbing techniques&#8221; So if you could clarify there also please? As to that last question, everyone gets hit sometime. The bigger person will be in better condition to take hits without sustaining serious damage. You didn&#8217;t really state how my statement was contrived on falsehood. I didn&#8217;t state how it was contrived, but what falsehoods are you referring to? And why do you think I ruled out use of the attackers force against them?

The only way I can see the statement being &#8220;simply not true&#8221; is if both people are trained specifically to use methods of fighting that have little dependence on mass and NOT to use any methods that do. But we already know that the smaller of the two &#8220;can hit, kick, elbow, and knee pretty hard and pretty fast&#8221;. Those are techniques that can benefit from additional mass. We don&#8217;t really know anything more.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2004)

QUOTE=Black Bear]It is an accessible target that is of great functional importance whether standing or grounded.[/QUOTE]

If you are standing aren't you grounded, as opposed to floating/flying?  come on it was funny!


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2004)

moving target said:
			
		

> Bottom line is a more massive person can absorb more force from percussive attacks, can generate more force with percussive attacks and has more mass to utilize in any situation allowing for mass to be leveraged (like in a throw or some situations in grappling).
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> If you are standing aren't you grounded, as opposed to floating/flying?  come on it was funny!


*crickets chirp* 


Your point about size not mattering as much as some athletic attributes is well made. I guess the point is that there ARE some hassles that are specific to dealing with a bigger guy, and they do tend to have a strength advantage on the average. I've rolled with much bigger guys who have less training and are less fit than myself. Sometimes I had my hands full, so to speak.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 19, 2004)

moving target said:
			
		

> What falsehood? If both people have equal skill the both know everything the other does. Now granted the statement I made is somewhat ambiguous, Its kind of hard for all things to be equal when you are talking about two people with separate body structures. What I meant was if the only difference between the two is mass than the more massive person will most probably win. Bottom line is a more massive person can absorb more force from percussive attacks, can generate more force with percussive attacks and has more mass to utilize in any situation allowing for mass to be leveraged (like in a throw or some situations in grappling).




That is the falsehood I was refering to right there. "if the only difference between the two is mass than the more massive person will most probably win". That is a false assumption based on a false belief that more mass equals more power, or more fighting ability, or more aggression, or more anything. That is simply not true. There are system that use techniques that do not rely on pure muscle and those techniques can most deffinatly be used against a much larger attacker without a lowered quota of effectivness because the larger person is the hulk. More mass doesn't make you less human.



			
				moving target said:
			
		

> I dont see how using someones force against them factors in, they can both do that. I dont know what you mean by their ability to inflict or absorb "correctly" will be comparativly equal I really cant respond to that until you describe the correct way to inflict and absorb. I also dont know what you mean by simple absorbing techniques So if you could clarify there also please? As to that last question, everyone gets hit sometime. The bigger person will be in better condition to take hits without sustaining serious damage. You didnt really state how my statement was contrived on falsehood. I didnt state how it was contrived, but what falsehoods are you referring to? And why do you think I ruled out use of the attackers force against them?




Just because you can punch and I can punch, does that mean we cannot punch each other? That ridiculous. Just because they can both use techniques utilizing the others mass doesn't neutralize their effectivness. I think you have placed too much faith on simple mass alone. AS to their ability to absorb or inflict with power, they are equal if they are truly equal in skill level. Do you believe you can learn to yield or "absorb" power from an attacker? If so is that contingent on mass? No. I can learn to yield just like my little niece could, or my grandfather, or you, or Ronnie Coleman. I will sya this, Ronnie's ability to yield would be of a lesser degree simply because of his mass. To generate a powerful punch or kick, do you believe it is completely about moveing your mass into the punch? If so, I feel sorry for you if you get in a real fight with soeone faster than yourself. Sure, someone wiht more muscle will naturally hit harder, but a fight isn't that cut and dry, remember the yielding principles we talked about? Now, I'm not saying the "muscle head" couldn't win, just that he doesn't have this huge supernatural advantage because of his mass, thats ridiculous.

7sm


----------



## moving target (Mar 20, 2004)

To Loki09789, That&#8217;s why I said my statement was ambiguous. It isn&#8217;t possible to have all things equal except mass in real life which leaves the question of what attribute is going to give. However I meant it somewhat literally. If you take all the attributes a fighter has and say they are all equal, but you throw in extra mass after the fact (so they have the same speed, strength to weight ratio, etc..). In that case I don&#8217;t see how mass would not be a factor.

As to the boxing thing, if there is not a large discrepancy in mass I agree, but I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s a flyweight in the world that could take down Lewis. Mass will make a difference just not much of one If the discrepancy is not great.

To 7starmantis, 



> That is a false assumption based on a false belief that more mass equals more power, or more fighting ability, or more aggression, or more anything. That is simply not true.



Ok Force=Mass x Acceleration. Equal strength-weight ratio but more mass = more force. 
I don&#8217;t think I said anything about power.
I didn&#8217;t bring up aggression.
More bottom line fighting ability? Based upon the force thing I think mass can give an edge in some areas of fighting, as such if the fight ever involves any of those areas than it gives an advantage in bottom line fighting ability.
Or anything? Are you suggesting Mass has absolutely zero factor in fighting?


> There are system that use techniques that do not rely on pure muscle and those techniques can most deffinatly be used against a much larger attacker without a lowered quota of effectivness because the larger person is the hulk. More mass doesn't make you less human.


Unless you are postulating that there are systems that use techniques that have no relation to mass than mass does have a factor.


> Just because you can punch and I can punch, does that mean we cannot punch each other? That ridiculous.


I didn&#8217;t say that.


> Just because they can both use techniques utilizing the others mass doesn't neutralize their effectivness.


My point was that both people _can_ use those technique. It is by no means a negation of the existence of the techniques or any kind of mitigation of their effectiveness. It is simply a statement that the bigger guy can use the techniques as well.


> I think you have placed too much faith on simple mass alone.


I obviously don&#8217;t think so, but I think you may be misreading my posts as saying that mass is an all deciding factor, all I&#8217;m saying is mass matters and mass is a factor in a fight.


> AS to their ability to absorb or inflict with power, they are equal if they are truly equal in skill level. Do you believe you can learn to yield or "absorb" power from an attacker? If so is that contingent on mass? No. I can learn to yield just like my little niece could, or my grandfather, or you, or Ronnie Coleman. I will sya this, Ronnie's ability to yield would be of a lesser degree simply because of his mass.


I agree that you can learn to absorb/yield to force.
I agree this learned skill is not contingent on mass.
But that has nothing to do with my statement, I wasn&#8217;t talking about your skill to &#8220;roll with punches&#8221; And what I was talkingabout is not replaced by trained yielding but rather it stacks with it. They enhance each other.
Absorbing/yielding to a blow is relatively equivalent to hitting the brakes in a car to come to a stop as apposed to running it into a wall at the pre-breaking speed to stop. Within this analogy(of automobiles), If you are in a large vehicle, say a hummer. You are not moving  and you are hit by a small vehicle, say an old VW beetle. Your vehicles (the hummer) will sustain relatively less damage than if the rolls were reversed and speed kept the same. Now to tie the first analogy to the second, if you take the second analogy only you allow for the hummer to be moving directly away from the beetle (on the same path the beetle is driving on) say at half the speed, the damage to the hummer will be less than in the second analogy but still, if you reverse the rolls the hummer will come out a head of the beetle if the beetle is the one getting hit.

Unless you are saying both fighters have the capability to reduce the force of any and every strike delivered within the fight to a level of force so low that the effects are negligible to the less massive fighter, than mass makes a difference here as well. You even stated, 





> Sure, by mass alone pure force can be absorbed more with more mass


Whatever force is left after a strike is &#8220;absorbed&#8221; to whatever degree goes on to be dispersed in some fashion. If that force is great enough it will damage your body. That is where mass helps (safely)absorb force.


> To generate a powerful punch or kick, do you believe it is completely about moveing your mass into the punch? If so, I feel sorry for you if you get in a real fight with soeone faster than yourself.


I never said that, and I don&#8217;t think I said anything even close to that.


> Sure, someone wiht more muscle will naturally hit harder, but a fight isn't that cut and dry, remember the yielding principles we talked about?


This is a hypothetical statement where all things but mass are equal. So it can be that cut and dry. Both people can yield, I don&#8217;t see that as a major factor. No where did I say a small guy can&#8217;t take a hit.


> Now, I'm not saying the "muscle head" couldn't win, just that he doesn't have this huge supernatural advantage bcause of his mass, thats ridiculous.


Show me where I said &#8220;he has this huge supernatural advantage because of his mass&#8221; that _is_ ridiculous. And I never said the smaller fighter couldn&#8217;t win, I simply said it was improbable.

I still come to the same conclusion, unless all aspects of a fight where mass is a factor are negated of mitigated to the point of being inconsequential the more massive fighter has the advantage when all other aspects are equal.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 20, 2004)

moving target said:
			
		

> To Loki09789, Thats why I said my statement was ambiguous. It isnt possible to have all things equal except mass in real life which leaves the question of what attribute is going to give. However I meant it somewhat literally. If you take all the attributes a fighter has and say they are all equal, but you throw in extra mass after the fact (so they have the same speed, strength to weight ratio, etc..). In that case I dont see how mass would not be a factor.



With this view, you are assuming that one of the equal components is also style/art/system of fighting.  I think we have all seen small, light fighters who are far more adept and effective within an art than some of the largest fighters in the same school - both under the same instructor/with the same system of power delivery/speed training....  I am saying that there seems to be an implication, or more to the point I am inferring, in your posts that size will be the decisive factor between fighters.  I disagree with this point because even if the fighters are 'equal' in all ways, except system (heck, even within the same style/art) as well as mass, the person with more experience controlling the tactics and outcomes of fighting will have the advantage, not the larger fighter.

Experience, intelligence, blind luck.... even equal in potential and development will be individual in application so I would say that they are more decisive factors than simply the physical attribute of size.  

Size doesn't matter if I take/have the initiative on the street againsts an experimentally equal fighter, with larger mass, and jab him in the eye or create a disfunction of a part of the body that will not benefit because of extra mass (any 'soft' target) therefore cannot absorb force better (groin, throat, eyes, soft tissue of the gums, ear drum pops), these types of soft targets cannot absorb more force because of mass, but there are some schools that train in Iron Body conditioning that claim to develop these targets based on yielding and chi enhancement as apposed to making them bigger... of course if they could make a certain soft target bigger they would be rich.  

The power or force equation you are using does have a realistic terminus of application because larger massed things have to fight gravity harder, therefore will fatigue faster.  Fatigue will happen faster, especially if the larger/smaller fighters are only equal in endurance conditioning training.  In the category of conditioning, the larger fighter would need to be 'fitter' than the smaller fighter to extend his endurance survival.  

Again, these points are made based on my perception that you are saying that mass will be the deciding factor between two 'equal' fighters. If that isn't the case.... oops


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 20, 2004)

"As to the boxing thing, if there is not a large discrepancy in mass I agree, but I dont think theres a flyweight in the world that could take down Lewis. Mass will make a difference just not much of one If the discrepancy is not great."

This is based on the idea that a knock out is required to win a boxing match.  Boxing is a sport based on points and scoring power shots on certain targets while keeping the other fighter from scoring the same or more points on you.

If the two fighters are equal in training and skill as well as physically measurable attributes, the heavy weight would be at a tactical disadvantage because he will not be able to read and react at the same speed as a light weight fighter.  Light wt fighters may not have the power, but they do have faster punches and faster combination speed.  I know this argument moves us out of the 'all things equal' but disparity in size/mass limits what 'all' means.  Speed is the advantage of the lighter fighter.  

That said, the light fighter will not be able to withstand the power of the hvy wt, BUT the heavy wt, still has to connect.

Again, I would say that the experience and luck of the fighter is more decisive to the outcome than mass


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 20, 2004)

Keeping in mind that I've been drilled by instructors and senior students who were smaller than I...I've been big, and I've been small; big is better.


----------



## moving target (Mar 20, 2004)

> With this view, you are assuming that one of the equal components is also style/art/system of fighting. I think we have all seen small, light fighters who are far more adept and effective within an art than some of the largest fighters in the same school - both under the same instructor/with the same system of power delivery/speed training....


I agree. But I am not simply saying that they both have trained in the same system but they both have equal skill. I agree that in many cases bigger people don&#8217;t end up with the same level of skill as a smaller person just because they can overcome people by strength. But there are some bigger people who have excellent skill.


> I am saying that there seems to be an implication, or more to the point I am inferring, in your posts that size will be the decisive factor between fighters.


This wasn&#8217;t really my intent. I think size is a factor, not necessarily decisive but a factor that must be weighed. It&#8217;s relevance in any given fight depend on the relative differences in size between the two fighters. That&#8217;s why I think if all things are equal (except mass) the more massive fighter will win. Granted this statement doesn&#8217;t hold true in many situations, if the more massive fighter does not take advantage of his mass than he will loose. But I could only see this happening if he didn&#8217;t know how to take advantage of his mass.


> I disagree with this point because even if the fighters are 'equal' in all ways, except system (heck, even within the same style/art) as well as mass, the person with more experience controlling the tactics and outcomes of fighting will have the advantage, not the larger fighter.


I do agree that if you can make someone fight your fight you have an advantage over them. But if both have equal experience than I&#8217;m going with the bigger one.


> Experience, intelligence, blind luck.... even equal in potential and development will be individual in application so I would say that they are more decisive factors than simply the physical attribute of size.


I disagree there. Definitely disagree about blind luck. Luck will always be a factor, but the only time I think it would outweigh any other factor is if that other factor has a relatively low difference between the two fighters.
I don&#8217;t think application of intelligence and experience will outweigh size unless there is a relatively small size difference. I view all these attributes as variables that a fighter may have a higher or lower value attributed to, I don&#8217;t think any one can outweigh the others but a greater value in any one may out weigh a lesser value in any other.


> Size doesn't matter if I take/have the initiative on the street againsts an experimentally equal fighter, with larger mass, and jab him in the eye or create a disfunction of a part of the body that will not benefit because of extra mass (any 'soft' target) therefore cannot absorb force better (groin, throat, eyes, soft tissue of the gums, ear drum pops), these types of soft targets cannot absorb more force because of mass, but there are some schools that train in Iron Body conditioning that claim to develop these targets based on yielding and chi enhancement as apposed to making them bigger... of course if they could make a certain soft target bigger they would be rich


In my opinion initiative/surprise is possibly the largest factor in a fight, most definitely so if there is a weapon involved. I agree that there are a lot of targets on the human body that do not acquire added protection from mass, there are also a lot of targets that gain a small amount of protection but not much from increased mass (like the liver). The disadvantage I am stating is that unless both fighters limit all their attacks to such targets than the bigger fighter has an advantage in as much as he can attack the targets that do benefit from increased mass to greater effect than the smaller fighter.


> The power or force equation you are using does have a realistic terminus of application because larger massed things have to fight gravity harder, therefore will fatigue faster. Fatigue will happen faster, especially if the larger/smaller fighters are only equal in endurance conditioning training. In the category of conditioning, the larger fighter would need to be 'fitter' than the smaller fighter to extend his endurance survival.


This isn&#8217;t necessarily true. This is the case in many situations because of the type of endurance relative to the distribution of muscle mass. If a body builder tries to run a marathon, they are at a huge disadvantage not just because their muscles aren&#8217;t built for aerobic activity as much as anaerobic activity, but also because their distribution of mass on the upper body is greater than a marathon runner. All that extra muscle up top is useless for that particular event. If the size difference is relatively proportional between two people (one person is just all around bigger, nut simply a more built up version of the other) and the strength of there muscles is also proportionally greater, than that isn&#8217;t true. But even if it is, we appear to be talking about a no techniques barred street fight, it isn&#8217;t going to last long at all, If the big guy can last 15 seconds at full speed he probably has enough juice to finish the fight.


> Again, these points are made based on my perception that you are saying that mass will be the deciding factor between two 'equal' fighters. If that isn't the case.... oops


Well I am saying that however I did not mean that it was necessarily a deciding factor in any given situation, the statement is not really intended to be taken in a real life situation because there can be no real life situation where two fighters are identical, never mind a real life situation where two fighters are identical except for mass. The argument I am trying to make is simply that size is a factor in a fight, of greater or lesser importance depending on the discrepancy.


> This is based on the idea that a knock out is required to win a boxing match. Boxing is a sport based on points and scoring power shots on certain targets while keeping the other fighter from scoring the same or more points on you.


No its not. I didn&#8217;t just choose Lewis because he&#8217;s the heavyweight champion. I chose him because he&#8217;s a tall fighter with very long reach who&#8217;s game depends on keeping people outside. He is exceptionally fast for a heavyweight and he has gone the distance in a number of point decision matches. I tend to think of Lewis as a fighter who scores points first and knocks people out second. That is to say his fighting style is not based on a KO.


> If the two fighters are equal in training and skill as well as physically measurable attributes, the heavy weight would be at a tactical disadvantage because he will not be able to read and react at the same speed as a light weight fighter. Light wt fighters may not have the power, but they do have faster punches and faster combination speed. I know this argument moves us out of the 'all things equal' but disparity in size/mass limits what 'all' means. Speed is the advantage of the lighter fighter.


I agree.



> That said, the light fighter will not be able to withstand the power of the hvy wt, BUT the heavy wt, still has to connect.
> 
> Again, I would say that the experience and luck of the fighter is more decisive to the outcome than mass


I do not think there is a light weight fighter in the world that could avoid all the blows of a world class heavyweight. I think if there was a fight like this the little guy probably would land more hits, but would go down fast.

As to experience and luck., in a boxing match, I disagree. If there is a large discrepancy in mass, luck doesn&#8217;t matter as much. The big guy can quite probably walk into a bunch of power blows, especially to the body with no real consequence. If the little guy gets &#8220;unlucky&#8221; once he could be out. Experience is a big factor if there isn&#8217;t as much of a size difference, but in that heavyweight vs flyweight situation, I don&#8217;t think experience will matter as much. Obviously you couldn&#8217;t just throw any heavyweight in and expect them to beat any flyweight, but I do think if you had two world class fighters, the heavyweight would end up winning. And I do think that a less experienced heavyweight could beat a more experienced flyweight.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 20, 2004)

"This wasnt really my intent. I think size is a factor, not necessarily decisive but a factor that must be weighed."

Was that pun intentional, too funny 

"Thats why I think if all things are equal (except mass) the more massive fighter will win."

Then, at 5/4", 179 lbs, why should I bother trying?  I have cut down my fair share of "trees," training only based on the discussion terms.  
Or a woman?  Wouldn't a successful street criminal have equivalent if not equal experience to a well trained martial artist?  Why would a woman bother to train if size were the only disparity between her and her attacker?

"Granted this statement doesnt hold true in many situations, if the more massive fighter does not take advantage of his mass than he will loose. But I could only see this happening if he didnt know how to take advantage of his mass."

If it doesn't hold true, we are back to your original disclaimer that it is impossible to establish.  Also, if they are equal in every way accept mass, the heavier fighter, I would assume would know how to take advantage/maximize his genetic advantage of mass to his favor - the same way that the smaller fighter would know how to take advantage of any speed/endurance advantages he might have...

"I chose him because hes a tall fighter with very long reach whos game depends on keeping people outside. He is exceptionally fast for a heavyweight and he has gone the distance in a number of point decision matches."

Qualifying his speed with 'for a heavy wt.' is too limiting, he is fast period .  But, mass doesn't automatically mean short, thin and long could also be the case.  If so, reach could be equal even if mass isn't.  I would agree that any boxer couldn't avoid all shots, not just a lt. wt.  But, the mental/reaction speed of a lt. wt. would help him avoid the majority or most damaging.  Whereas, Lewis - use to fighting relatively 'slower' fighters, might not have equal experience at facing the speed of the lt. wt. boxers speed.  This could lead to a point win for the lt. wt.

I like your point about initiative as a really decisive advantage.  Action is mechanically/mentally faster than reaction.

I get where you are coming from, don't agree totally, but understand.  The problem is that it is a 'vacuum' discussion because it can not exist in reality so it is hard to support either way.  We keep 'qualifying' our statements and limiting examples and such because when one thing is out of 'equal' it really throws the rest of the factors out of 'equal' as well.... oh well, at least we didn't start calling each other names or telling each other to F&&& off


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 21, 2004)

Man this thread is getting long winded! I think the bottom line to this whole discussion is that a fight is never cut and dry. There is no set recipe to follow that will garauntee success in any true self defense situation. Alot depends on the fighters, the surroundings, the weather, the attackers buddies, weapons, and so on and so forth. Weight or mass is a factor in fighting, it is not a deciding factor by any means. If you say the two have been training the same amount of time, even in the same art, do you think by their difference in mass they are going to be at the same skill level? They will be completely different fighters, utilizing completely different techniques. I don't believe (because I practice an art that doesn't rely on pure strength) that strength or mass has much to do with the final outcome. In fact, I don't think there are many things going into a fight that truly effect the outcome except the performance of techniques during the encounter. Your training is useless if you cannot perform in that split second it is needed. All things considered, I think mass is probably one of the least of the factors in determining the outcome of an encounter.

JMHO,
 7sm


----------



## moving target (Mar 22, 2004)

to Loki,


> Was that pun intentional, too funny


It just came out that way : )


> Then, at 5/4", 179 lbs, why should I bother trying? I have cut down my fair share of "trees," training only based on the discussion terms.
> Or a woman? Wouldn't a successful street criminal have equivalent if not equal experience to a well trained martial artist? Why would a woman bother to train if size were the only disparity between her and her attacker?


A successful street criminal may or may not know how to fight. I really doubt that there are many that put in the amount of time a lot of martial artists do. A lot of people train around 3 hours a day/21 hours a week. I think successful criminals practice what they need (if they practice) which isn&#8217;t necessarily fighting unarmed. Further having the same amount of time in training does not mean that there is an equality in skill(s). A different skill set in fighting changes everything around. And as to the &#8220;why bother&#8221; If you train for a fight, you are aware it is coming, you very well may have the upper hand simply because your opponent doesn&#8217;t know your hand as well as you know his. If someone picks a fight, usually they think they can win. So right off the bat they probably have underestimated you which may give you initiative in some way. And of course I never argued that mass will override skill 100% of the time or in all situations. I don&#8217;t agree with that at all.


> if they are equal in every way accept mass, the heavier fighter, I would assume would know how to take advantage/maximize his genetic advantage of mass to his favor - the same way that the smaller fighter would know how to take advantage of any speed/endurance advantages he might have...


What I meant was if the skill set that is in question (the one they both have) is a skill set of a person who does not know how to leverage their natural attributes, than those attributes will probably get in the way. For example if the skill set is of a person who trained in a style/school that ignored all the aspects of fighting where mass can give an advantage.


> Qualifying his speed with 'for a heavy wt.' is too limiting, he is fast period  . But, mass doesn't automatically mean short, thin and long could also be the case. If so, reach could be equal even if mass isn't. I would agree that any boxer couldn't avoid all shots, not just a lt. wt. But, the mental/reaction speed of a lt. wt. would help him avoid the majority or most damaging. Whereas, Lewis - use to fighting relatively 'slower' fighters, might not have equal experience at facing the speed of the lt. wt. boxers speed. This could lead to a point win for the lt. wt.


Well I didn&#8217;t know if there was a flyweight out there somewhere that was faster.. I don&#8217;t see to much of the flyweights : ). As to mass. Lewis is 6&#8217;5&#8221; with an arm span of 84&#8221; Try finding a flyweight (112-115 pounds) with a 7 foot arm span. Even if you find one I doubt they will have enough muscle to move and throw a punch. Definitely would be hard to find one as fast as Lewis. I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s a flyweight in the world with that reach. Any boxer trains to fight the boxer they are facing in the ring. If someone&#8217;s fighting someone who is small fast and light, they are probably gona find someone like that. Also a heavyweights reaction time isn&#8217;t necessarily any slower than the lighter weight.

To 7*,


> Man this thread is getting long winded! I think the bottom line to this whole discussion is that a fight is never cut and dry. There is no set recipe to follow that will garauntee success in any true self defense situation. Alot depends on the fighters, the surroundings, the weather, the attackers buddies, weapons, and so on and so forth. Weight or mass is a factor in fighting, it is not a deciding factor by any means.


I agree with that.


> If you say the two have been training the same amount of time, even in the same art, do you think by their difference in mass they are going to be at the same skill level? They will be completely different fighters, utilizing completely different techniques.


I agree with this in any real life situation with one exception. When two fighters have similar builds. Mentalities, and aptitudes, neither weight trains, than one starts lifting for strength and size and ends up adding a lot of weight.


> I don't believe (because I practice an art that doesn't rely on pure strength) that strength or mass has much to do with the final outcome.


This is the only point in your post I disagree with. I do agree that any fight with weapons, mass has little if any relevance. But I do think mass can effect the outcome of a fight if there is a great enough proportional difference. I do agree in most cases mass won&#8217;t be much of a factor.


> In fact, I don't think there are many things going into a fight that truly effect the outcome except the performance of techniques during the encounter. Your training is useless if you cannot perform in that split second it is needed. All things considered, I think mass is probably one of the least of the factors in determining the outcome of an encounter.


Well I agree with the latter part, but the former,. Concerning factors in a fight, I have the opposite view. I think everything matters going into a fight. Everything adds up to a set of tools that each fighter can pick from. From there it is all in the mind. What tools the fighter chooses to use in what order and in what way determine the outcome (plus luck) The most experienced, or the most creative or the most well rounded will win.
I do agree that mass is probably one of the least factors determining the outcome of a fight _with a martial artist_ But not necessarily any other fight. Out side of martial arts, Most of what I have seen  in fighting in north America is some combination of boxing and wrestling at a low skill level. Usually when there is a decisive win, it&#8217;s because of a sucker punch. In this situation mass has an advantage in my opinion.

My view on mass/size in a skilled fight is basically, a large(ish) difference will allow for a greater range of tactics within the fight. I think it is fairly easy to point to combat sports where mass gives a decisive advantage, now I know that these are after all sports and at best offer very limited sections of a fight, but I do think that combat sports do offer glimpses at aspects of fighting, and if the more massive fighter looks at the situation in this light, they can leverage the tactics not necessarily of that type of fight, but of moving into that type of fight&#8217;s range. Where as the smaller fighter risks facing a disadvantage due to mass discrepancy if he moves into these same ranges. Now I realize this doesn&#8217;t equate to a decisive advantage by any means, but it does give some advantage in my opinion.

In the context that I originally brought up size (threat evaluation) I do think size/mass is important. I think that for one, it is far less likely to find a person who is picking a fight with you who is trained and a proficient fighter in a style that does not utilize mass yet is on the large side, as opposed to a fighter who prefers to leverage their mass and fights in a style that takes advantage of their size. That being said it says something about what you can expect. Also since most people do consider size to be relevant in a fight most smaller people won&#8217;t pick a fight with a bigger person unless they are a good fighter or have a weapon.


----------



## 7starmantis (Mar 22, 2004)

moving target said:
			
		

> I agree with this in any real life situation with one exception. When two fighters have similar builds. Mentalities, and aptitudes, neither weight trains, than one starts lifting for strength and size and ends up adding a lot of weight.




First lets qualify lifting a bit more. Lifting for strength and lifting for size are two completely seperate training methods, complete with differing techniques and goals. If lifting for size, then your techniques and aptitudes will change from that of not lifting, or change from that of lifting for strength. Here is where I think that lifting for size or even strength if done incorrectly can be a hindrence. If your constently working on strength you are going to revert to using strength in a fight. I will speak from my system (as I don't have alot of expertise in other systems); the minute you start relying on your strength to help you in the fight is the minute I begin to get the upper hand. We work on developing "feel" which mean that if I punch and I feel you really using your strength to push my hand up, or to the side, I "bounce" off of your pressure into another attack. By the time you realize my hand is gone from where your stregnth was holding it, you are allready hit. Thats where relying on strength can be a disadvantage. I will say it is few and far between that you will encounter someone with good feel, but they are out there. The problem with the mentality of my system is that it was created to defend against other systems. To defeat skilled MA practitioners, so some of the things we train in may not come up in a street fight, but then again, they might.



			
				moving target said:
			
		

> This is the only point in your post I disagree with. I do agree that any fight with weapons, mass has little if any relevance. But I do think mass can effect the outcome of a fight if there is a great enough proportional difference. I do agree in most cases mass wont be much of a factor.




This is where you lost me. Why would a fight with weapons be any less reliant on the set of skills you use for an unarmed fight? That I simply do not understand. As to weight having an effect on the outcome, it does in many ways, but if you take the positive with the negative, it really isn't that much of a factor at all. Take cardio for one example. How mnay "good" bodybuilders who work hard at it do you know that do 8 hours of cardio a week? Not many. What I'm trying to show is that each fighter contains a set of skills, body type advantages, and mental advantages compiled with disadvantages of each of those. This makes each fighter completely different from the next, thus making it more about the ability to use the set of trained skills in the situation. Mass or weight has little to do with any of that. What I'm really against is the belief that weight alone yields any type of advantage, my belief is that alone, it does not.



			
				moving target said:
			
		

> Well I agree with the latter part, but the former,. Concerning factors in a fight, I have the opposite view. I think everything matters going into a fight. Everything adds up to a set of tools that each fighter can pick from. From there it is all in the mind. What tools the fighter chooses to use in what order and in what way determine the outcome (plus luck) The most experienced, or the most creative or the most well rounded will win.
> I do agree that mass is probably one of the least factors determining the outcome of a fight _with a martial artist_ But not necessarily any other fight. Out side of martial arts, Most of what I have seen in fighting in north America is some combination of boxing and wrestling at a low skill level. Usually when there is a decisive win, its because of a sucker punch. In this situation mass has an advantage in my opinion.




This is my point though, all of those things that matter going into the fight, don't matter at all during the fight, unless the fighter has the ability, mental capacity, and steadfastness of mind to use them. The only techniques that matter in a fight are the ones that are used. The weather doesn't factor into a fight unless it causes some advantage/disadvantage. See what I mean, to say that something, anything, gives an immediate advatange is illogical, the fighter has to use it as an advantage.



			
				moving target said:
			
		

> In the context that I originally brought up size (threat evaluation) I do think size/mass is important. I think that for one, it is far less likely to find a person who is picking a fight with you who is trained and a proficient fighter in a style that does not utilize mass yet is on the large side, as opposed to a fighter who prefers to leverage their mass and fights in a style that takes advantage of their size.


Are you saying it is unlikely to find a person on the larger side practicing an art that doesn't utilize muscle or mass in fighting? I'm 6' 2" 210, I consider that larger than average and I practice a system that does not rely of strength or mass. I think its blanket statements like this that cause people to be incorrect in thier posts most of the time.

7sm


----------

