Size does not matter

[Shorinryu Sensei]

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

 

My opinion is just that...my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like what I wrote, or don't agree with it...fine by me. If you do..also fine by me. I see no point in supporting my opinion other than by what I wrote. If that isn't good enough for you, I guess you're going to have to live with it.

 

I've seen your comments to others on many other threads, and you've always struck me as someone that will pick apart anything anybody says, just for the sake of argument. I won't bite JerryLove.

 

I've stated my viewpoint and stand by it.

 

You can like it...or don't like it..I really don't care. (where's that darn ignor button when you need it?)

[JerryLove]

Apparently your opinion does not include answering questions (what good is an opinion if you aren't going to support it) but does include slinging personal commentary (you've always struck me as someone...)

 

You want an ignore? Just stop responding.. after all, I'm just stating *my* opinion... you don't like it? So?

[Shorinryu Sensei]

OK...we'll try this one more time and see if it will satisfy you.

 

You said "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?"

 

If you want to give me a few millions dollars to put together a 10 year study, possibly I can come up with a ratio for you. As for the 6 months of extra practice, if you are a martial artist, then you should realize that 6 months of study in some styles isn't squat! While in others, it can make a world of differance. 100lbs more of muscle is a factor for some systems that rely on strength over technique...as I believe I stated before. In Shorinryu, for example, there is no emphasis on big muscles because we rely on good solid and proven technique, knowledge of the body and how to use it to best advantage, speed and accuracy.

 

You said "For the record, many styles were founded by big ******* guys."

 

Oh? Support this please. I'll assume you're talking about American martial arts systems? Fine, but where is THAT system founded on? More than likely, a traditional system that was origionated in the Orient..by physically smaller people.

 

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

 

For one thing, there is no way that any two people on the planet are exactly equal. Take identical twins for example. Working out exactly the same, same weight/height and experiences. On any given day, one will win, the other lose. Boxing..take any two heavy weights for example. On any given day, a technically superior fighter maybe usually win, but have an off day and get beaten by a lessor fighter when he shouldn't have..thus you keep bookies and Las Vegas in business.

 

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

 

This is a purely rediculous comment. I assumed you were referring to a typical 9 year old black belt that you see around in various dojo's, thus my comments as such.

 

You said "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."

 

Talk about a sentence that makes no sense to me! Clarify it, or drop it.

 

You said "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?"

 

Refer back to my earlier comment about your funding me a 10 year study.

 

You said "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?"

 

I stated that their size isn't as important as their skills. Take Mike Tyson for example. Not the biggest heavy weight boxer out there. I don';t follow boxing so I can't name names very well, but George Foreman comes to mind. Foreman is much bigger and stronger than Tyson..or was anyway..and I believe that htey fought some 8 years ago or more, and Tyson won. Whther it was luck, or skill..I don't know. Both are skilled in their chosen art, Foreman was bigger and stronger AND more experienced, yet lost. His size wasn't a factor.

 

You said "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."

 

There have been numerous scientific studies about this subject..and no, I can't direct you to a specific website, but you're the one that wants proof, so I'm sure you can find one if you look. Anyway, and I probably have the formula wrong here, but mass x velocity = power..or something like that. Any physics people out there? Think of a bullet...small mass, with tremendous speed..equals a lot of power at point of contact. This is also the premise behind board breaking. The same applies to a fist or foot, add speed..generate power. The amount of muscle has no bearing on it, other than the mass of the muscle, not the strength of the muscle.

 

You said "What can you offer to establish that they (past karate masters)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?"

 

You need to ask this? Were you asleep in martial arts history class when the your sensei (assuming you have/had one) told you of martial arts coming to world, and small Oriental Masters were bouncing around everybody that came into the class? I'm sure the reading public out there can quote storys of their specific founders of their arts taking on much larger people. Didn't Funakoshi beat a much larger/stronger sumo wrestler when he went to Japan?

 

You said "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."

 

We're talking fighting here, not singers, painters, etc. None of the things that YOU use an an example are dealing with the suject at hand of this discussion. As for a 9 year old being "skilled" in a martial art? Yes, at a 9 year old level, he can be skilled as compared to OTHER 9 year olds, but physically comparing him to an adult? No way! That's a very weak comparison, and you're grasping at straws with it. 9 year olds aren't even close to reaching their physical prime and growth, nor mentally able to grasp the cocepts of the mechanics of the martial arts. Yes, they can mimic the movements and spout off what they have learned from sensei about why they do this this way, or that that way, but ask them specific questions, and they do not have the mental ability to grasp that complex of a concept as to the actual mechanics behind what they do.

 

To give you some background on how I can state this, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education, and was an elementary teacher at the 5-8th grade level for 11 years. I have 243 credit hours of education classes, but do NOT classify myself as any sort of expert in this. I do however, have a good working knowledge and experience of the subject of kids and their thought processes and physical levels. I also have been an instructor of this system since 1978 and have had literally hundreds of children in my classes from age 6 and up. I also have raised two sons of my own, and now have an 8 year old, soon to be step-son.

 

Now JerryLove, if my responses don't satisfy you, I'm sorry. I feel I have stated my opinion to the best of my knowledge, and will be looking forward to that multi-million dollar grant in my mail box so that I can further study this subject so I can answer your questions more fully sometime within the next 10 years.

 

That, or you can fly out to Kalispell, Montana at your convenience, and I would be glad to discuss this further with you.

 

Otherwise, I am done with this thread.

[Ben]

Theres a certain amount, or lack of, natural ability to everything. this said, two fighters that are equal in skill and size will always have a hard time beating one and other. the same situation, but someone who is heavier and taller will have more power, an equal amount of speed and a longer reach -simply tipping the odds.

 

I havnt read through all 13 pages of this, but i looked at a couple... if you're talking about a skilled small fighter against a big, relatively unskilled fighter, size shouldnt really matter if good training has been done.

 

*stays away from Jerrylove and Shorinryu's .... discussion... *

[JerryLove]

In Shorinryu, for example, there is no emphasis on big muscles because we rely on good solid and proven technique, knowledge of the body and how to use it to best advantage, speed and accuracy.

did you ever tell someone they were too big? Why not? Isn't a bigger, stronger person doing "good solid technique" going to exert more force than a small person doing the same? How do you think one of your 1-year 240lb football types would fare against one fo your 4-year 14-year-old girls?

Oh? Support this please. I'll assume you're talking about American martial arts systems?

In my own liniage, Victor DeThaures comes to mind. I can't point to a single founder of Systema, but all the top practitioners are quite large. Sao Choi (forgive the spelling) has some well known (and large) practitioners. Sumo. I believe Ba Pak Serak was not a small man.

Fine, but where is THAT system founded on? More than likely, a traditional system that was origionated in the Orient..by physically smaller people.

Sure, Norris's art derives heavily from Tang-Soo-Do, which derives from Japanese Karate, which derives from Okinawan Karate, which derives from Chinese arts (probiably Hsing-I or some of the Shaolin arts) which derive from somewhere else... so the *original* founder of the base systems (which is really chasing a red herring) is of bodily demintions which can only be guessed at.

 

You seem to be saying "martial arts are designed by little people becuse I'm only going to count fuonders of a race of people who were shorter than another race of people, and I'll only count their arts). Shall we discuss greek wrestling? Or "behing-the-back" wrestling? Or the various Nubian and European arts?

For one thing, there is no way that any two people on the planet are exactly equal.

This is irrellevent to the statement. If all other things are equal, it's the differnt thing that is the deciding factor.

This is a purely rediculous comment. I assumed you were referring to a typical 9 year old black belt that you see around in various dojo's, thus my comments as such.

I don't care what 9-year-old you pick. I'd suggesst the one you consider most similar to your skilled adult.

Talk about a sentence that makes no sense to me! Clarify it, or drop it.

Because it "makes no sense to you". That's an "appeal to ignorance".

Refer back to my earlier comment about your funding me a 10 year study.

 

Can you, or can you not measure skill? If you cannot meausre skill, then you cannot make any claims as to what difference in skill do relative to differences in other things; because you have no unit of measure.

I stated that their size isn't as important as their skills.

RELATIVE TO WHAT? I guy with a 50-year training advantage fights a guy with a 5 lb weight advantage... the skilled guy wins. A guy with 1% training advantage fights a guy with a 100lb weight advantage, the heavy guy wins... what's so hard to udnerstand about the basic concept?

There have been numerous scientific studies about this subject..and no, I can't direct you to a specific website, but you're the one that wants proof, so I'm sure you can find one if you look. Anyway, and I probably have the formula wrong here, but mass x velocity = power

Which, if accepted, says that more massive people are more powerful. This is the OPPOSITE of your claim that skill is more important than mass.

Any physics people out there? Think of a bullet...small mass, with tremendous speed..equals a lot of power at point of contact.

I'm reasonably a physics person. A bullet (you haven't been specific, but I'll average) carrys about as much force as a baseball bat. F=MV^2 applies to rigid pointal masses striking one another (such as billiard balls), not to fists and faces. A bullet does its damage not through high force, but through relative sharpness (hence why you don't die with the vest takes the bullet)

This is also the premise behind board breaking. The same applies to a fist or foot, add speed..generate power. The amount of muscle has no bearing on it, other than the mass of the muscle, not the strength of the muscle.

So, how many 90-lb-people hold brick-breaking records?

You need to ask this? Were you asleep in martial arts history class when the your sensei (assuming you have/had one)

 

I love the snide ad-hominym.. it's so.. passive-agressive.

told you of martial arts coming to world, and small Oriental Masters were bouncing around everybody that came into the class? I'm sure the reading public out there can quote storys of their specific founders of their arts taking on much larger people. Didn't Funakoshi beat a much larger/stronger sumo wrestler when he went to Japan?

 

Did he? How good was the Sumo? Is there a tape?

 

I know stories of Beowulf fighting Grendle's mother underwater for 2 days straight... but I'm reserving accepting that until proof arrives.

We're talking fighting here, not singers, painters, etc. None of the things that YOU use an an example are dealing with the suject at hand of this discussion.

 

And what is magically different about fighting?

As for a 9 year old being "skilled" in a martial art? Yes, at a 9 year old level, he can be skilled as compared to OTHER 9 year olds, but physically comparing him to an adult? No way! That's a very weak comparison, and you're grasping at straws with it. 9 year olds aren't even close to reaching their physical prime and growth, nor mentally able to grasp the cocepts of the mechanics of the martial arts. Yes, they can mimic the movements and spout off what they have learned from sensei about why they do this this way, or that that way, but ask them specific questions, and they do not have the mental ability to grasp that complex of a concept as to the actual mechanics behind what they do.

They can learn physics, music, medicine, art.. but fighting is just too cerebrial for them? Do yuo really believe your own words?

To give you some background on how I can state this, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Elementary Education, and was an elementary teacher at the 5-8th grade level for 11 years.

Would you like me to point you at 15-year-olds with superior degrees to your own? I can.

That, or you can fly out to Kalispell, Montana at your convenience, and I would be glad to discuss this further with you.

Oh yea, cause in person you'll suddely sprout actual references?

 

If you want to talk about child-like behavior, we can discuss the use of ad-hominyms, veiled threats, passive-aggressive language, unsupported arguments, and your use of the "nanner-nanner I can't hear you" defense... But I doubt you really want to do that.

[JerryLove]

I havnt read through all 13 pages of this, but i looked at a couple... if you're talking about a skilled small fighter against a big, relatively unskilled fighter, size shouldnt really matter if good training has been done.

I agree that a skill advantage can compensate for a size disadvantge. On what do you base the claim that skill makes size irrellevent?

 

Shouldn't I see this translate over into competitive arts as well? Shouldn't I see old, frail, weak, but very skilled people doing well in UFCs?

[Ben]

I'm talking about generally. theres always an exception. UFC's are a different ball game.

 

Yes age also comes into it, lots of things come into it, but when talking about this, the most common situation is talked about.

 

I believe anyone who is willing to start a fight with an old man is.. well.. i wont go there. and the other way around? .. i doubt that will also happen.

 

I also see no need for forcing my oppinions, or argueing with someone, about their own *individual* oppinion. so dont worry about making another post analysing mine, thank you

[JerryLove]

I also see no need for forcing my oppinions, or argueing with someone, about their own *individual* oppinion. so dont worry about making another post analysing mine, thank you

And yet, that's the exact same "I'm right, now don't respond" attitude that SS is putting out.

 

It's one thing to say "we have different opinions"... it's another to poffer a conflicting one (you are wrong, UFCs are different) and then ask the other guy not to respond.

[Warp Spider]

Any physics people out there? Think of a bullet...small mass, with tremendous speed..equals a lot of power at point of contact. This is also the premise behind board breaking.

 

Well, if you want to get all physical about it.. a bullet doesn't pack that much power. The same amount of energy the bullet has leaving the muzzle is experienced as recoil, so generally the power level can't be particularly great. There are exceptions of course, if you were referring to, say 14.5mm, (which can penetrate both sides of an APC at several miles range) but that requires you to lay prone and brace the gun against something to fire it without injuring yourself.

 

A bullet is effective at causing harm because it focuses it's energy on a small area, the same as a knife. It can then penetrate your skin (which is difficult to damage enough to cause a fatal wound) and damage your organs. Like JerryLove said, ballistic armor operates on the reverse principle by spreading out the force, preventing penetration and making it just as though you had been struck with a solid object like a bat or a 2x4.

 

Plus, board breaking works on a very different principle - it is not sheer strength that breaks the board.

[adrenline]

so a 9 year old black belt with exceptional skill could kick a 6'0 ,200 pound guys *?

 

why do traditionalists believe this garbage?