Size does not matter

[adrenline]

does size matter?

 

ask yourself why they have weight classes in kickboxing, muay thai, nhb, boxing, and wrestling.

 

there is your answer.

[Drunken Monkey]

why does everyone always have to pick a statement to death.

 

size DOES matter (weight, height, reach...)

 

but a big man does not automatically mean a hard fighter.

 

as for weight divisions, roy jones jr beating a man a class up kinda argues against what you're saying and what we've been trying to tell you.

[Shorinryu Sensei]

Wow..I managed to wade through all 12 pages!!!

 

OK people, I know if you're a martial artist, regardless of system, that you know this, but I suspect all of you have forgotten it.

 

Take a look at the roots of your particular system. Whether you are karate, TKD, Kungfu, BJJ, judo..whatever! Think back not that many years to those people that started the system, or those that were Masters of it BEFORE it was brought to the United States, Europe or whereever you are.

 

Physically, how big were these people? Ahhhh..do I see light bulbs popping up on peoples heads?

 

As far as I know, the AVERAGE Japanese, Okinawan, Korean and Chinese male is around 5'4" tall, yet these Masters, when they started teaching us "Western heathens", easily (and still do pretty much) bounced us big Americans (and Europeans) around the dojo floors like so many empty cardboard boxes?

 

There are countless examples of smaller, (key words here) skilled and trained martial artists that can take an opponent many times bigger than themselves, and fairly easily defeat them.

 

Now, we're talking about a real fight here, not UFC or point tournaments..OK? So I'd say that in a real street fight, size matters much less than skill level...period.

 

Several people have said "ask yourself why they have weight classes in kickboxing, muay thai, nhb, boxing, and wrestling". This isn't street fighting or self-defense, this is SPORT fighting, where the RULES are made in an attempt to give each COMPETITOR a level and fair playing field. Totally different situation than a street fight. In this situation, yes, size might matter, however that will vary with what type of competition you're talking about.

 

There are some general rules about size (always exceptions of course):

 

1. Taller/larger people have larger/heavier bones and muscles and can physically withstand more physical punishment without damage than a smaller person can. Personally, I'm 6'6" (198cm I think) tall and weigh 240lbs. I have been hit for real a few times in real fights and never really rattled much, especially to the body. A smaller man, say 5'6" tall and 150lbs would have been down for the count I suspect with the same blow. Generally, bigger people can also throw a more powerful punch/kick because of muscle size and pure mass.

 

2. Smaller framed bodies (small men or women generally) can GENERALLY move faster than a larger guy and are more agile. I personally move pretty dang fast for my size, but I practice speed drills a lot. Smaller people also have a lower center of gravity, which is good for such arts s judo that involve taking the opponent to the ground.

 

Basically what I'm saying here is this. If both a large and a small guy have no skills, I'd bet on the large guy usually..but then again, there's always dumb luck to figure in to it. If either of the men is extensively skilled in some sort of martial art, whether it be boxing, karate, etc..then I'd give the edge to that individual.

 

If both are equally skilled in the arts, I'd say it is a coin toss and can go either way.

 

My 2 cents worth.

[JerryLove]

Now, we're talking about a real fight here, not UFC or point tournaments..OK? So I'd say that in a real street fight, size matters much less than skill level...

I love apples and oranges (or in this case pounds and hours).

 

So if you have 6-months more practice, but I have 100lbs more muscle, you win? How does on quantify "skill" and how much skill compares to how much mass in what ratio?

 

For the record, many styles were founded by big ******* guys; many of the proponents of "size counts" (such as the BJJ group) first heard it from the scrawny founder.

If both are equally skilled in the arts, I'd say it is a coin toss and can go either way.

 

All things being equal, it's the different thing that decides the outcome. Large (muscular) is superior to small.

 

Don't think so? How much challenge is a skilled 9-year-old against you?

[Shorinryu Sensei]

So if you have 6-months more practice, but I have 100lbs more muscle, you win? How does on quantify "skill" and how much skill compares to how much mass in what ratio?

 

Like I tell my students in my class. You can "what if" a subject to death. There are so many variables involved in this general of a subject that we'd have to spend a lifetime catagorizing it. I have better things to do than spend all day doing that for the rest of my life, but here's my response to your comments.

 

6 months extra training isn't anything to speak of, unless your comparing a new person walking in the door to a guy that has 6 months of training. Also, the system makes a big differance whether it is based on practical techniques, or flashy, ineffective techniques. Another factor would be the learning speed of the student in question.

 

For one thing, the amount of muscle you have depends on what art you're practicing and talking about here in the qyuestion of "does size matter". For example, in judo or most grappling arts, weight training and muscle mass is important, but in most/many striking arts, much less so. Speed and technique is much more important and "power" is generated by that speed and the mass of the object (hand/arm or leg). One of my instructors, Jimmy Lee of Minneapolis, was about 5'5" and small build, yet he generated more than enough power through speed and technique to easily, and at will, to drive me across the floor with any number of techniques.

For the record, many styles were founded by big ******* guys; many of the proponents of "size counts" (such as the BJJ group) first heard it from the scrawny founder.

 

Oh? Which ones? Take karate for example, since it is the most widespread of the arts. It origionated on Okinawa. The Okinawans are a very short people generally. The average adult male is around 5'5" tall and average build. As a general rule, all karate, including TKD, Shotokan, Goju, Shitoryu, etc, came from, origionally, an Okinawan art, which was passed down from a physically small person, yet works incredibly well against larger, and stronger opponents. They utilize skill/technique and speed over raw, physical power generally.

 

Also, unlike "sprot karate" there are no rules in a real fight where virtually every part of a person is a target to be utilized and exploited if the opportunity is available. Being skilled means that you are aware of where those targets are, and how to exploit them to your best advantage.

Don't think so? How much challenge is a skilled 9-year-old against you?

 

You must be talking about those cute TKD black belts I see now and then at tournaments. Do you seriously think, because they wear that belt around their waist, that they are truly skilled??? In the true sense of the word skilled??? Oh sure, they can do the kata, they can break a board or two, they can do the techniques and fly through the air, do backflips and do the splits..but do you honestly think a 9 year old will have the maturity and the actual physical and mental processes to be considered "skilled" at any art??? Come on now..let's be serious here please.

[JerryLove]

Like I tell my students in my class. You can "what if" a subject to death. There are so many variables involved in this general of a subject that we'd have to spend a lifetime catagorizing it.

OK. I'll grant the premise that there are too many variables to categorize... I now refer you back to your previous catigorization of variables where you said:

So I'd say that in a real street fight, size matters much less than skill level

How can you say that and then refuse to quantify it by calling it unquantifiable? You've just argued that you cannot know what you assert to know.

6 months extra training isn't anything to speak of

 

What would you like to use as a "unit of skill". If guy A is more skilled than guy B, how can I express how much?

For one thing, the amount of muscle you have depends on what art you're practicing and talking about here in the qyuestion of "does size matter". For example, in judo or most grappling arts, weight training and muscle mass is important, but in most/many striking arts, much less so.

So, you assert that two boxers, with 100lbs difference in mass, and fighting each other in a street fight, their size difference would not play an important role? On what do you base this?

Speed and technique is much more important and "power" is generated by that speed and the mass of the object

 

So a mass difference is less important because power is a function of mass and speed? I don't understand how you reach that conclusion from that premise.

Oh? Which ones? Take karate for example, since it is the most widespread of the arts. It origionated on Okinawa. The Okinawans are a very short people generally. The average adult male is around 5'5" tall and average build.

 

What can you offer to establish that they were beating comparatively skilled larger people? Since I've never argued that skill does not matter, what can you offer to show that size is irrellevent?

Also, unlike "sprot karate" there are no rules in a real fight where virtually every part of a person is a target to be utilized and exploited if the opportunity is available. Being skilled means that you are aware of where those targets are, and how to exploit them to your best advantage.

I have never disputed this. I've repeateld asserted that being stronger/more massive is an advantage.

You must be talking about those cute TKD black belts I see now and then at tournaments.

 

I'm not thinking of anyone in particular.

but do you honestly think a 9 year old will have the maturity and the actual physical and mental processes to be considered "skilled" at any art???

There are 9 year old (skilled) singers, painters, musicians, programmers, gymnists, writers, etc. Are you asserting that it is impossable for a 9-year-old to be skilled at a phyical art? I can easily grab an example.

[Shorinryu Sensei]

Is it just me, or is does anybody else readinhg this get the same impression that Jerry Love is arguing, just fo the sake to be arguing, and might have a case of cranialrectuminvertus???

 

Sorry bud, I have better things to do than cyber-jab with you today and worry about you picking every little detail about what I say. At least make some sense before you do please.

 

What's this mean for example? "How can you say that and then refuse to quantify it by calling it unquantifiable? You've just argued that you cannot know what you assert to know."

 

[JerryLove]

What's this mean for example? "How can you say that and then refuse to quantify it by calling it unquantifiable? You've just argued that you cannot know what you assert to know."

 

It means that you have claimed that you cannot know what factor will be most important ["There are so many variables involved in this general of a subject that we'd have to spend a lifetime catagorizing it."] Right after claiming that you do, indeed know which factor is most signifigant ["size matters much less than skill level"].

 

As to weather I enjoy arguing... that's an ad-hominym logical fallacy and therefore irrellevent. My argumetns are valid or they are invalid. Your claim that [ambiguious advantage] in skill is more effective than [ambiguious advantage] in strength is silly in light of the fact that you refuse to qantify the comment.

 

Further, your examples don't bear out and you refuse to support them... they are anticdotal and, even within that context, unsupported. You've propped up straw-men caractures of my comments (saying I was talking about TKD vs your art, rather than 9-year-old against 29-year-old) and hacked away at them (unsuccessfully I might add).

 

In short, your position (that size is functionally irrellevent among skilled practitioners) is patently false; and you have not offered any real argument to support it.

[Shorinryu Sensei]

In short, your position (that size is functionally irrellevent among skilled practitioners) is patently false; and you have not offered any real argument to support it.

 

Ahhh..there we have it! I am not here to argue, as you apparently are. I am here to state my opinion, which I already have. That you differ with it is fine..I have no problem with that. but I have no desire, nor intention of ARGUING differances of opinions.

[JerryLove]

So then what weight does an UNSUPPORTED opinion carry? How is it useful to anyone?