Size vs Skill

[DarthPenguin]

I agree with all of the above. There are so many factors to take into consideration that it's impossible to answer this question.

Ideally, I would say to train in something, and also work on getting bigger and stronger yourself while you train, to help even out the strength curve. Nothing you can do about getting taller, but everyone can get stronger.

100% agree here. Tbh the size/weight is more important than the height. someone equally skilled, my height but decent amount lighter i usually feel i can 'bully' a little when sparring; someone equally skilled, shorter but same or greater weight usually feels a LOT harder (especially if they can take a hit) - it's why they have weight classes and not height classes

Would you say then that reach advantages are overrated?

Not challenging your opinion, just asking.

I think reach can be advantageous, but again, it can be situational. Someone who is 6'3" with long arms and legs but only weighs 130 lbs....typically, I am not going to worry as much about their reach. I'll take a few tags to get inside that. Now, if that person is 6'3" and 230 lbs, then that'll be a different story, even though I would still have weight on them.

100% agree and said a lot more succinctly than i managed it!

[KarateKen]

Someone on Twitter started a conversation a while back about who would win in a boxing match, Mike Tyson in his prime, or LeBron James if James had two years to train. Again, skill, technique, and experience vs size. LeBron, 6'8" 260 is much taller and heavier than Tyson, 5'11" 218 in his fighting days. I am not informed on boxing, I just find it hard to believe that someone with two years of training could beat a heavyweight world champion who has boxed all of his life, even if the boxer is both smaller and lighter. Two years of training in martial arts is not even long enough to get the fundamentals down, generally, but I am not sure how that relates to boxing.

[DarthPenguin]

Someone on Twitter started a conversation a while back about who would win in a boxing match, Mike Tyson in his prime, or LeBron James if James had two years to train. Again, skill, technique, and experience vs size. LeBron, 6'8" 260 is much taller and heavier than Tyson, 5'11" 218 in his fighting days. I am not informed on boxing, I just find it hard to believe that someone with two years of training could beat a heavyweight world champion who has boxed all of his life, even if the boxer is both smaller and lighter. Two years of training in martial arts is not even long enough to get the fundamentals down, generally, but I am not sure how that relates to boxing.

Training time comes down more to 'sessions attended' than years. eg BJ Penn famously got his bjj bb in 3 years (and won worlds) when std time is 10-12 years but he trained basically full time. Assuming the average ma student trains twice a week every year then they probably manage 100 sessions a year, 1.5hrs per session, so approx 150hrs per year. Compare that to someone training all day 5 days per week. Assuming a 50/50 split between conditioning work and skill work that might be 20hrs skill training a week, so in 8 weeks (2 mths approx) they will have trained more than a hobbyist in a year. Their year would be like 6 years for the hobbyist. Add in being a world class athlete and they could get very very good (in normal person terms) in that 2 years. Where this falls down is prime Mike Tyson was a world class athlete, training full time with years of experience, so he has that skill acquisition times more.

The one that always intrigued me was Amir Khan the boxer. Amazing hand speed, good power but a glass chin. I always wondered how he would have done in mma rather than boxing - the lighter gloves would have sorta compensated for his chin, since everyone would get hit harder, and at his weight classes they don't ko as often. Imagine his physical attributes with a lifetime of mma training - would have been interesting!

[sensei8]

I might be alone on this but, size needs to be recognized as to what it's capable of unleashing, on the other side of the discussion, skill should know how to effectively manage size and not to be overwhelmed at size while not forgetting that size will hurt.

Both need knowledge and experience. For the skill set to effectively manage size, fear must be controlled because the future event appearing real causes the skill to crash.

Size is no joke. Neither is skill!!

Imho.

[bushido_man96]

Someone on Twitter started a conversation a while back about who would win in a boxing match, Mike Tyson in his prime, or LeBron James if James had two years to train. Again, skill, technique, and experience vs size. LeBron, 6'8" 260 is much taller and heavier than Tyson, 5'11" 218 in his fighting days. I am not informed on boxing, I just find it hard to believe that someone with two years of training could beat a heavyweight world champion who has boxed all of his life, even if the boxer is both smaller and lighter. Two years of training in martial arts is not even long enough to get the fundamentals down, generally, but I am not sure how that relates to boxing.

In this case, I'd take the experience of Iron Mike in his prime. That guy was a killer in the ring; I don't think Lebron had that about him. I guess that adds another attribute to the mix though, doesn't it?

[bushido_man96]

I might be alone on this but, size needs to be recognized as to what it's capable of unleashing, on the other side of the discussion, skill should know how to effectively manage size and not to be overwhelmed at size while not forgetting that size will hurt.

Both need knowledge and experience. For the skill set to effectively manage size, fear must be controlled because the future event appearing real causes the skill to crash.

Size is no joke. Neither is skill!!

Imho.

Very well said; all good points.

I can remember what it was like dealing with your size when we trained together. It's not to be discounted.

I look at my oldest son now, seeing as he has been playing football since 3rd grade, at the most physical position of the game (offensive and defensive line), along with about 7 years of wrestling experience, and his size, weight, and strength. Sometimes we'll do some goofing around together, grappling and what not, and there is no doubt he has some abilities that I would not want to have to contend with. I often tell him I've still got some tricks up my sleeve, but have to deal with a kid like that, is not a thought I relish.

[KarateKen]

Someone on Twitter started a conversation a while back about who would win in a boxing match, Mike Tyson in his prime, or LeBron James if James had two years to train. Again, skill, technique, and experience vs size. LeBron, 6'8" 260 is much taller and heavier than Tyson, 5'11" 218 in his fighting days. I am not informed on boxing, I just find it hard to believe that someone with two years of training could beat a heavyweight world champion who has boxed all of his life, even if the boxer is both smaller and lighter. Two years of training in martial arts is not even long enough to get the fundamentals down, generally, but I am not sure how that relates to boxing.

In this case, I'd take the experience of Iron Mike in his prime. That guy was a killer in the ring; I don't think Lebron had that about him. I guess that adds another attribute to the mix though, doesn't it?

It's definitely another aspect. Size, strength and skill, but also speed, training style, endurance, intelligence, determination, physical and mental toughness all factor in.

[Drew]

I know this has a lot of variables and might be impossible to answer, but how much training would a person need to overcome an attacker who is larger than they are?

Person A is 5'9" tall 165 pounds, a second-degree black belt with 8 years of training and they get attacked by person B who is 6'3" 220 pounds with zero training, who would have the advantage?

Well well. My mortal enemy. Who will witness this victory.

Here's the deal: if you are trained in BJJ, for example, it is well know you will beat someone who isn't, regardless of any other factors, 99.99 percent of the time.

The same is true of every other sport.

As for fighting, Jack Dempsey once said that 'Game-ness' is what determines the outcome of a fight. Gameness is your dedication to victory at any cost to your health. If you are of a singular purpose, to badly hurt, maim, or kill the enemy, you will win regardless of their size.

With these things in mind, you could have zero training and attack, right out of the gate, with utter nonsense and still win by spazzing every moment, causing injuries to even the eyeballs of the people watching. That's what happened in a recent fight between Nickal Vs. Woodburn. War is heck. Remember that.

[bushido_man96]

Here's the deal: if you are trained in BJJ, for example, it is well know you will beat someone who isn't, regardless of any other factors, 99.99 percent of the time.

I don't agree with your percentages there. I don't think BJJ is a panacea like that. I do think it gives you a huge advantage in a fight, but I don't see it as a guarantee of victory.

The same is true of every other sport.

Fighting and sport are not the same thing.

As for fighting, Jack Dempsey once said that 'Game-ness' is what determines the outcome of a fight. Gameness is your dedication to victory at any cost to your health. If you are of a singular purpose, to badly hurt, maim, or kill the enemy, you will win regardless of their size.

With these things in mind, you could have zero training and attack, right out of the gate, with utter nonsense and still win by spazzing every moment, causing injuries to even the eyeballs of the people watching. That's what happened in a recent fight between Nickal Vs. Woodburn. War is heck. Remember that.

This statement seems to be countering your opening statement of the confidence rating of BJJ. If the bigger, stronger person decides to go crazy in the fight in the same way, then the smaller guy loses the advantage it seems.

[KarateKen]

I know this has a lot of variables and might be impossible to answer, but how much training would a person need to overcome an attacker who is larger than they are?

Person A is 5'9" tall 165 pounds, a second-degree black belt with 8 years of training and they get attacked by person B who is 6'3" 220 pounds with zero training, who would have the advantage?

Well well. My mortal enemy. Who will witness this victory.

Here's the deal: if you are trained in BJJ, for example, it is well know you will beat someone who isn't, regardless of any other factors, 99.99 percent of the time.

Huh?