Goju Ryu newbie, help please!

[TigerDude]

Elbowsandknees, don't take this the wrong way but we little guys assume we are faster because we ARE faster. Of course there are exceptions but according to the laws of physics, we are made for speed.

I'm not exactly clear which law of physics that would be. I don't think you can make a generalization about size & speed at all. If small meant fast, wouldn't all the top fighters be short? The top sprinters? The top something?

I fear that small folks who assume they are faster will get a rude awakening from a quick big guy.

[AikiGuy]

To answer your question TigerDude, the laws of physics I am referring to are (as I stated in my first reply way back when)

1. being lighter which causes less momentum which leads to increased maneuverability

2. being proportionately lighter (in relation to height) so jumps are often higher and acceleration from standstill is faster (think about the most powerful pickup you know in a sprint race with the most powerful sports car).

3. being smaller gives a smaller target plus makes us more aerodynamic

4. having a lower center of gravity makes us slightly more balanced and stable

I'm not trying to insult bigger people here. I'm just pointing out facts. It's like saying tall guys are better suited for basketball than me. That's not an insult to me, it's just true since they are about a foot closer to the basket than me and can take longer steps when stepping around other people. And to answer your question about small people being the top "something" in a sport, there are examples of that. Horse jockeys, soccer players, gymnasts, dancers are good examples. All top experts in these fields will tell you that smaller (shorter as well as lighter) people have an easier time becoming very good at these activities. Bigger or taller people have done it too, but it is rare plus they have to work harder at it to get to the same level.

Again, please don't take this as an insult. I also acknowlege the fact that bigger people have advantages that I have to really work for. Some of them, I have never reached. For instance, I would not want to wrestle a big guy, because his weight and reach will give him advantages I just don't have. Plus most o them are probably stronger than me.

[bushido_man96]

I understand where your arguements are coming from, AikiGuy, but I think that they are a bit general, overall.

Speed has more to do, I believe, with muscle structure, as it pertains to slow twitch and fast twitch muscle fibers. This will have more to do with speed than with height/weight.

Take Lance Armstrong, for instance. Phenomenal athlete, however, I don't think I would consider him a "fast" athlete. He was built for endurance. Now, take some NFL running backs. Larry Johnson is 6' 1", 230 lbs. Not a small boy, in my opinion. However, he runs a sub 4.4 40 yard dash. I don't think Lance Armstrong could hang with him in the 40. However, I would take Lance in a marathon.

It has more to do with size when it comes to speed and power.

[AikiGuy]

Bushido, I agree with you about the twitch factor being very relevant as well. I'm not sure if it is more or less relevant than size/weight stats but I'm sure for some it can be the biggest influence in performance. I also agree with the reality of pretty much all the exceptions everyone mentioned. However I was, as you pointed out, being very general on purpose. I was also assuming that all other factors not mentioned between various athletes were equal or negligibly close. In other words, if an big tall athlete with a high ratio of fast twitch fibers competes against a short slim athlete with a high ratio of fast twitch fibers, the twitch factors cancel out. So the outcomes are determined by everything else. Very high on this list of remaining factors would be the physical build of each person. This would make each person good at different things.

Again, this is a huge generalization. But unless we are comparing specific persons or statistics, I'm not sure if I can give a more specific response. I agree there are exceptions to the whole "little guys are faster" idea. But I hope we are all accepting the fact that there are just as many exceptions to the whole "big guys are stronger" idea too, just to be fair to all. There are many exceptions to any rule. But I am not attempting to site all exceptions, only the (general) rule.

It's like saying men are taller than women. Anyone can come up with an exception (I can think of many: Lucy Lawless is taller than me), but the rule is generally true: The average man is taller than the average woman. The tallest man ever recorded is taller than the tallest woman, etc. And similarly, (all other things being equal) bigger guys are stronger (on average), and smaller guys are quicker (on average). That's really all I was saying.

[bushido_man96]

I see the generalizations that you are making, AikiGuy. However, I just don't feel that it is safe to make those generalizations. If you just take two people, and make these generalizations based on size, there is no real way to know you are right until you see them perform.

Take a guy that is 5'5", and weighs 130 pounds. Now, put him next to a guy who is 6'4", and weighs 230 pounds. Based on your generalizations, the small guy is faster.

Now, let's tweak the scenario. The small guy is doesn't do any physical activity at all. His days are filled with reading and watching the TV. He does not train in anything. Now the big guy, he is a high school athlete. Let's say basketball and football are his sports of choice. Are you willing to assume that the big guy is still going to be slower than the little guy? Will the little guy be able to out-maneuver the big guy?

This is the point that I am making. You won't really know until you see what they can do.

[AikiGuy]

Aaahh, now I see the misunderstanding. Bushido, believe it or not, I think we are actually saying the same thing but in different ways. Let me clarify.

I agree 100 percent with you that if you tweek my generalization, then it may not be true. However, if you tweek it, then it's no longer a generalization. Now it's a specific comparison between 2 people (real or hypothetical) so now their specific attributes come into play. Which is what I think you are pointing out. See, we agree. (Perhaps generalize is not even the best word to use here.) Don't forget, I said before that I offer a generalized answer assuming all other factors are equal, that is unless we compare specific stats, etc. That's what you did. You introduced a new specific variable: the workout habits. So now all other things are not equal. And in that case, I agree with you that the outcome is unknown and all preconceived notions are out the door. See, we agree again. We're just having 2 different conversations at the same time and I think they are getting confused. Sorry if I was not clear on any of that.

A better example of what I'm getting at is if we compare a group of 50 people who are 5'-5", 130 lbs to a group of 50 people who are 6'-4", 230 lbs. Now, without knowing anything else about them (not even how they look), someone asks: "Which group's average speed do you think is faster?" And "Which group's average strength do you think is greater?" Who would you bet on? In this scenario, the odds are in favor of my original statement: Big guys stronger, little guys quicker. But as you said, if you single out individuals in each group and examine them, of course you will find some pairings that defy the expected results. See, nothing but agreement today.

[bushido_man96]

I think that the idea of doing that study is a good one, AikiGuy. I think that it would provide us with some interesting results.

[TigerDude]

To answer your question TigerDude, the laws of physics I am referring to are (as I stated in my first reply way back when)

1. being lighter which causes less momentum which leads to increased maneuverability

2. being proportionately lighter (in relation to height) so jumps are often higher and acceleration from standstill is faster (think about the most powerful pickup you know in a sprint race with the most powerful sports car).

3. being smaller gives a smaller target plus makes us more aerodynamic

4. having a lower center of gravity makes us slightly more balanced and stable

No insult taken, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. I hope I am not coming across as insulting, either.

1. This may be true. Still, the effort to change directions will come from muscles. Larger muscles will be better able to change the direction of the body.

2. I don't follow proportionately lighter. You can be any height and still be the exact same proportion. Cars versus trucks is a different analogy. Trucks have large frames built for durability. Sports cars have larger engines versus their weights for speed. Acceleration and jumping ability are more governed by the size of muscles (also the fast/slow twitch thing) versus overall mass. Some very fast sprinters are small/short, some can be quite buff (Ben Johnson when juiced up).

3. Smaller target, yes. I doubt though that aerodymics has anything to do with speed at the relatively low speeds of human body movements.

4. A lower center of gravity will be more stable against a similar mass at a higher center of gravity. I'm not sure how it would compare against a larger mass. Stability would be a function of height of center of mass, total mass, and width of the base.

My position is that these can possibly be factors in "tall/short, small/big" matchups, but they are not hard laws of physics.

[kikal0t]

woah! we really got something started here!

[Vincent]

Out of curiosity, what style of goju-ryu are you taking? USA, Nisei, or Sansei?