I have skill and endurance, not size...

[AdamKralic]

It should be speed vs size.

If you can only have one?

Take speed. Power and size only count when there is a connection. If the person cannot hit the other...size is nothing.

Speed though...speed is ALWAYS valuable.

[bushido_man96]

Okay, I know Skill V. Muscle has been done before on this form a lot. My issue is this: I'm a long legged tall runner that weighs under 140 lbs, and I'm an adult

I know my main art Hapkido focuses on the smaller guy bringing down the bigger guy (one reason why I chose it). I feel know enough at the moment to bring down a larger untrained or partly-trained guy at the moment, but I would doubt I could defend against a larger trained aggressor. I mean I have great endurance from running and some skills from 6 years of hapkido training, but am unsure if I could make it work.

Would it ever be possible for someone like me to defend against a much larger and trained aggressor?

As I've gone through my MA career, I've become wary of the claim "this style focuses on bringing down a bigger person." I think this is a catch-line many use to reel in students. If your style teaches self-defense, it teaches self-defense; not "self-defense against bigger opponents."

With that out of the way, I do think that size and strength are factors that need to be taken into account when it comes time to defend oneself. The nice thing is that size/strength are at least a factor you can see coming. You can't necessarily see someone's experience until you get into it with them. Either way, just because someone is big doesn't mean your plan changes. If leg kicks are a core technique in my self-defense, then I'll kick a guy in the leg if he is big or little. What does change is if I decide I want to stay in a fight with someone that much bigger than me. Do I really want to have to fight with a 6'8", 300 lb football player? Getting tangled there would not be fun. But, at least I can see the guy is big. I can't "see" if he is a Wrestler or Boxer.

Now, when it comes down to size and strength, AND skill, that person probably has an advantage. All the components together...nasty. So, you have to decide if your experience and training can help outweigh a few of those advantages, and bring you to the fore.

So, from there, some choices are to continue to train, which I think most of us would do anyway, and add something to your schedule that would help add some size and strength to yourself, like lifting weights or what not. Is it necessary? No. But, it can be advantageous.

[CredoTe]

Okay, I know Skill V. Muscle has been done before on this form a lot. My issue is this: I'm a long legged tall runner that weighs under 140 lbs, and I'm an adult

I know my main art Hapkido focuses on the smaller guy bringing down the bigger guy (one reason why I chose it). I feel know enough at the moment to bring down a larger untrained or partly-trained guy at the moment, but I would doubt I could defend against a larger trained aggressor. I mean I have great endurance from running and some skills from 6 years of hapkido training, but am unsure if I could make it work.

Would it ever be possible for someone like me to defend against a much larger and trained aggressor?

As I've gone through my MA career, I've become wary of the claim "this style focuses on bringing down a bigger person." I think this is a catch-line many use to reel in students. If your style teaches self-defense, it teaches self-defense; not "self-defense against bigger opponents."

With that out of the way, I do think that size and strength are factors that need to be taken into account when it comes time to defend oneself. The nice thing is that size/strength are at least a factor you can see coming. You can't necessarily see someone's experience until you get into it with them. Either way, just because someone is big doesn't mean your plan changes. If leg kicks are a core technique in my self-defense, then I'll kick a guy in the leg if he is big or little. What does change is if I decide I want to stay in a fight with someone that much bigger than me. Do I really want to have to fight with a 6'8", 300 lb football player? Getting tangled there would not be fun. But, at least I can see the guy is big. I can't "see" if he is a Wrestler or Boxer.

Now, when it comes down to size and strength, AND skill, that person probably has an advantage. All the components together...nasty. So, you have to decide if your experience and training can help outweigh a few of those advantages, and bring you to the fore.

So, from there, some choices are to continue to train, which I think most of us would do anyway, and add something to your schedule that would help add some size and strength to yourself, like lifting weights or what not. Is it necessary? No. But, it can be advantageous.

Size and strength definitely are factors in any situation, and you make a good point as to why we train the way we do to not allow an opponent's size defeat us, particularly:

...just because someone is big doesn't mean your plan changes. If leg kicks are a core technique in my self-defense, then I'll kick a guy in the leg if he is big or little. What does change is if I decide I want to stay in a fight with someone that much bigger than me...

We train as hard and skillful as we practically can to prepare for these real-world situations. Most MAs incorporate training in some way to anticipate an opponent's size, use it against them, or whatnot. (Whether or not these are properly practiced is another matter... ) The larger / stronger an opponent is, the more our tactics change to deal with the opponent. While the techniques we use to defend against a larger / stronger opponent might be the same, as you make a good point for, our tactics must change. Which, if I'm reading you right, is what you're alluding to when you mention "do I want to stay in a fight with someone that much bigger than me." For sure, if your 6'8", 300 lb opponent were to get a hold of us we'd be in trouble...

As to your last point about strength training, absolutely I agree with that...

[bushido_man96]

It should be speed vs size.

If you can only have one?

Take speed. Power and size only count when there is a connection. If the person cannot hit the other...size is nothing.

Speed though...speed is ALWAYS valuable.

I see the point you are getting at here, but I don't think speed is any more a guarantee to hit than size is. Speed isn't good for anything if you can't hit the target, or don't have sound technique. Speed is just another physicl attribute, like strength. Having it is one thing. Putting it to good use is another.

[AdamKralic]

It should be speed vs size.

If you can only have one?

Take speed. Power and size only count when there is a connection. If the person cannot hit the other...size is nothing.

Speed though...speed is ALWAYS valuable.

I see the point you are getting at here, but I don't think speed is any more a guarantee to hit than size is. Speed isn't good for anything if you can't hit the target, or don't have sound technique. Speed is just another physicl attribute, like strength. Having it is one thing. Putting it to good use is another.

I had imagined skill to be a given in his hypothetical exercise. I agree...all encounters are unique...all skill a major factor. If the larger foe is also more skilled...speedy will have trouble as strong with skill can hit where speed is going.

If skill is equal though...I stand on the speed being best belief. There is also the larger = more target area factor. If it was a battle of truly gifted practioners...going for vital strikes...speed will REALLY come in handy.

Now all that being said...I've seen people with the trifecta of speed, size and skill. It seems unfair!

[bushido_man96]

And then we have to add in things like endurance, tenacity, the ability to take punishment, toughness, etc....

This could go on forever...