Treebranch Posted September 18, 2003 Posted September 18, 2003 In a real situation will tactics prove to be more effective than strength? Why? or Why not? "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
JerryLove Posted September 19, 2003 Posted September 19, 2003 No person exists in complete absence of either (can't fight without both). But it's a balancing act, rather than an A or B. The person with superior tactics can loose to the person with sufficient tactics but superior strength. If I had to pick one, it would be tactics; and for two reasons. The first is that the ability to have a better tactic does not reach the diminishing returns problem, the second is that if I reduced the other to the "minimum reasonable", the good but weak fighter will be able to prevent the horrible but strong fighter from applying his strength. https://www.clearsilat.com
CPU Posted September 19, 2003 Posted September 19, 2003 I agree with JerryLove, like he said it is a balanceing act. You need to have the strength and the speed to be able to use your tacktics, but if you just focus on speed and strength you will be beaten by someone with much better tacktics. that's just my comments on the subject. Sparring - loved by many perfected by few
Treebranch Posted September 19, 2003 Author Posted September 19, 2003 Thanks, those are good points guys. I agree completely. I think tactics are often overlooked in many MA. Using someone rage against them or forcing someone to commit to an attack by drawing them in are tactics that I only recently started learning. It's so logical that I felt stupid when my teacher started pointing stuff out to me. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
G95champ Posted September 20, 2003 Posted September 20, 2003 Yeah you can be as stong as a bear but if you don't know how to use it, its pointless. On the other hand if you know how to use what you got you always have a shot. (General George S. Patton Jr.) "It's the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory."
Sens55 Posted September 21, 2003 Posted September 21, 2003 For the most part I agree with Mr. Love (for once ). But, I will say everything is relative. Someone's tactics may be good, but not good enough to overcome a big thug that lands a good hard punch, even if he didn't know what he was doing. The averages would say that that won't happen in most occasions. But, I, personally, don't care about the other 99% of the time, I care about the one time that I'm in it, and the reality is, in that one time, I can be bigger, better, stronger, faster, smarter and everything else and I MIGHT STILL LOSE! Sure, if we go 100 times, I'll win 99 of them BUT, that's no guarantee that in the 1 time that it matters which way it will go.
Warp Spider Posted September 21, 2003 Posted September 21, 2003 If I had to pick one, it would be tactics; and for two reasons. The first is that the ability to have a better tactic does not reach the diminishing returns problem I think that it is the opposite. Both must be balanced, but I feel that strength is a more or less linear progression (twice as strong, twice the fighter) while tactics reaches a definite diminishing returns issue. If you are 200 pounds and the other guy is 600, having three times the tactical prowess will not save you. If the sizes are close, tactics makes all the difference. If one person is moderately larger, tactics can play a lesser, but still significant role. The greater the difference in sizes, however, the less effective better tactics become. An assault rifle will never penetrate a tank's armor, no matter how good of shot you are or how well your attack is planned. That's an extreme example, but I hope you see my point. No matter how well trained, an attack dog would be food to a full-grown Bengal Tiger. Likewise, no human, regardless of skill level, could defeat a large bear in unarmed combat. (Some people have been said to wrestle bears, but that doesn't mean they killed the bear with their bare hands, they just frustrated the crap out of it by playing defense until it got so annoyed it stopped fighting and walked away.) Again, I do think that tactics are important, because usually the size difference will not be that much, but I do think that it's innacurate to say that tactics do not suffer from diminishing returns. Also, having said all that, there isn't much you can do about your size (though you can work out, you are unlikely to triple your weight anytime soon.) so tactics is probrably a better area to practice, unless you are already an accomplished tactitian. Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!
Drunken Monkey Posted September 21, 2003 Posted September 21, 2003 i kinda think that ability only really comes into play when both parties are evenly matched in strength. as for which is more important, i'll have to give that more thought... post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
Valithor Posted September 22, 2003 Posted September 22, 2003 Difficult to answer a question such as that without a few definitions or context.. Keep Smiling!
shotochem Posted September 22, 2003 Posted September 22, 2003 IMO, both are important though I would take a little more on the side of strength and size. One thing I feel that is just as important is poise. Keeping a cool head and not panicing. As a vertically challenged individual I have found that a little bit of keeping your cool and using your head have worked against a bigger opponent, not to say I didnt take a bit of a pounding, it just helped in the outcome. I wonder if I were a little larger might I have had an easier time. Pain is only temporary, the memory of that pain lasts a lifetime.
Recommended Posts