Treebranch Posted September 22, 2003 Author Posted September 22, 2003 Sometimes if the guy is too big, make him fight himself. If you know the meaning of that than you are definitely a tactics person. "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"
mouko_yamamoto Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 Lemme see... Make him punch, fight, basically attack on his own. Wair him out, then take advantage? (of course take advantage when you see the opening) Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do....Oh yeah, and unofficially...KENJUTSU"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die." ~ Sima Yi
Treebranch Posted September 23, 2003 Author Posted September 23, 2003 Very good Yamamotosan! You are a thinker. "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"
mouko_yamamoto Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 Thank you Treebranch. I'm not as strong as most people my age, so I have to rely on tactics. I'm working on strength training though... Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do....Oh yeah, and unofficially...KENJUTSU"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die." ~ Sima Yi
Treebranch Posted September 23, 2003 Author Posted September 23, 2003 If you keep being tactful and develop some good strength, but not rely on strength you will be awesome. Good luck with you're training. "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"
mouko_yamamoto Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do....Oh yeah, and unofficially...KENJUTSU"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die." ~ Sima Yi
JerryLove Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 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. I understand your position, but cannot agree. While the necessity for weight divisions in sports like boxing illustrated the importance of size with similarly matched opponenty, there are several UFC bouts that come to mind where a signifigantly smaller opponent has won (and, to refer to the sport everyone equates with size, the Sumo champ is not the biggest compeditor). In regards specifically to strength; a man's strength/weight ratio starts decreasing somewhere in the 200-250lbs range... so the progression, while there, becomes less liniar. Further, I don't think your examples are well-founded. Dogs and Tigers have rather fixed skills, not just sizes... to play with your analogy, a man with a rock could never defeat a man with a gun; but we know that's not true. https://www.clearsilat.com
Warp Spider Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 Further, I don't think your examples are well-founded. Dogs and Tigers have rather fixed skills, not just sizes... to play with your analogy, a man with a rock could never defeat a man with a gun; but we know that's not true. I agree that it is always possible, more or less for a smaller opponent to take down a larger opponent, but example was to illustrate that twice the tactical capability is not a match for twice the size. A man with a rock could definately defeat a person with a gun, but they would require fantastic tactics to do so. Likewise, the amount of training (skill) that a dog would require to take down a tiger would be phenomenal. The tiger's about 6 times as large, but you would have to train the dog for hundreds of times as long as you trained the tiger for it to have a ghost of a chance. Similarly, a person with a gun and two weeks training would likely have an extreme advantage over a person who had spent even 25 years training with a rock. That's why I say that tactics isn't a linear progression like that. Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!
Treebranch Posted September 24, 2003 Author Posted September 24, 2003 Warp Spider the analogies you are using with the tiger and dog are just completely extreme. A tiger a wild animal that kills to eat is going to be deadlier regardless of the size and strength, even if the tiger the same size as the dog. People are closer in size and strength than a tiger and a dog. Now if you're talking about fighting hand to hand for the most part a big guy who is well trained against a small guy who is well trained, the person with greater size and strength has a better chance. That's way tactics are so important. If you are small and very skilled you have to learn how to stack things in your favor. If that means concealing a weapon or having a really dirty trick up your sleeve to gain advantage, do it. A smaller person most of the time can probably out run the bigger one, there is no shame in surviving. Now a small person who picks a fight with a bigger one is just looking to prove themselves and vice versa. Plus the man with the rock 50lb rock hiding on higher ground waits until the unknowing man with gun gets right under him and lets the rock crash down on his unsuspecting skull will win. Thinking outside of the box is the key to survival, there are no rules and be a viscious as possible. "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"
Warp Spider Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 I realize that the tiger/dog example is an extreme one, but I still think it's good because it's very difficult to quantitively measure tactical ability. Similarly, the difference in physical ability may not be immediately obvious. I chose those because it's clear that a tiger is a much larger and stronger animal, while an attack dog is likely to have some formal training. Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!
Recommended Posts