Some Thoughts On Size

First off, I am new to the board.

Second, a statement: a full grown FEMALE robust (not gracile) chimpanzee (140lbs) is stronger than ANY human on earth. This is widely accepted as fact by anyone who has worked in proximity to these little savages. Now the males are another 20-40 lbs. heavier. And despite the fact that these animals have no 'technique' in their training, I would bet the house that Fedor Emelianenko couldn't get one in an arm bar.

My point? Well, maybe there is more to the size=win formula? It would seem that at a certain point, strength per pound of body weight becomes more of a factor than pure mass. I mean, these little 4 foot tall chimps are incredibly agile gymnasts AND incredibly strong, like if Jackie Chan trained for a strongman competition.

And speaking of Jackie, I think he is a good example of a person that would have an advantage over someone of bigger size depending on the situation. Put him in a ring with a UFC champ, and he would probably lose. But put him in a room full of furniture, improvised weapons, obstacles, rafters, stairs, bannisters, shelves, etc, and he may win over the giant jacked up wrestler. How? He's fast. He can maneuver over obstacles, grab a pan or a kitchen knife or a chair, circle from behind, and counter attack from his attackers back. Basically, in a UFC octagon, I'd rather be big and strong. In a room with a bunch of clutter, I'd rather be fast and agile, able to dodge, duck under, roll, jump, etc. It's similar in a battle situation with weapons. Imagine being a huge heavyweight trying to fight off pygmies in a dense forest. The pygmy would have the advantage of being able to move in a crowded environment.

Any thoughts?

Quote :

And despite the fact that these animals have no 'technique' in their training,

...kung fu is strong in this one
hmm another possible argument here
I've also heard size does actually matter, any other statement is told to "little" guys, like pygmies.

Hi Chaos

can you post an introduction please mate?

interesting post- what was your point again?

Quote :

My point? Well, maybe there is more to the size=win formula? It would seem that at a certain point, strength per pound of body weight becomes more of a factor than pure mass.

that looks like two different points, are you saying "size" (mass) or strength is more of a factor?


pure mass counts, pure strength counts, but in the cluttered room scenario you depict I suppose speed and agility would be the most important attributes as you suggest

not sure what your point was, or were you just spitballing thoughts?

Being big and having brute strengh must be an added bonus but it aint the be all and end all. Having a combination of speed,strenth,size and agility(rather like meself ) is obviously the best combo. We aint all 6"4 between the eyes and built like a brick s..t house but it dosnt mean that david cant beat goliath!!!!Half the battle is in your own head,having belief in yourself and the will to win. Like the ol saying says- the bigger they are,the harder they fall.Anyway,i aint no exspert,it was just a thought.

If size is the only variable, then size wins all the time. Size is an advantage almost all the time from what I can tell. Luckily there are shitloads of variables to play with in the endeavor to stack the deck in your favor. The all time favorites are weapons and surprise of course.

Pure mass, even if it's mostly fat, can be a big problem to handle. If it is muscle, then it is a significantly worse problem. Add good fighting skills to a guy who could pick you up with one hand and throw you over a car and the magnitude of the problem begins to emerge.

The UFC champ in that cluttered room, could probably make much more effective use of all that clutter than the little guy could. It would be nice if things balanced out like in a game. Big and small, strong and weak ending up equal, with their respective strengths located in different areas, against which the other guy was weak and so on. But it doesn't work that way.

But as said, the playing field is bigger than size and strength. If you have good fighting skills, good physical condition, and always stack the deck in your favor to the degree that it is humanly possible then your chances should improve considerably.

There's a piece of fightin' wisdom that says the small guy is the one to watch out for. Because if a small guy is dangerous, it is because he has put considerable time and effort into becoming so. Whereas big guys have somewhat of a tendency to cruise on their natural advantage, not really focusing on improving. If the guy can't fight, then size is only so much of an advantage. But... if a big guy begins putting the time and effort into it like the dangerous little guy, that's a whole other ballgame. That's when we can begin talking about a need for weapons.

Or "equalizers" as some like to say, because that's what it is about. The guy can be as big as he likes, a five year old with a gun can kill him, although a five year old is extremely likely to fuck that up, it's just an example of potential. We could be talking about a a midget with a gun instead... An otherwise capable fighter who is able to get the hell out of the way while simultaneously shooting holes in the guy has much better odds.

Now, chimps... not really relevant to size Vs strength and winning. There was a discussion on chimp strength earlier here. Apparently their nerves and muscles are wired differently. they also have more massive muscles in general. They access their full strength in more of an on or off fashion. We are able to access a limited range of muscle fibres and perform tool-using acts of precision a chimp can only dream of, but we don't have their raw power. So chimp-weight and human-weight in terms of muscle can't be compared directly.

I would like to think that size does not matter ... but I think being large, even if it is fat, is definitely an advantage. You can take more punishment, hit harder, and probably pick up and throw larger things ... maybe .... as RichardB said, it's about the variables in the end.
Weapons are indeed great equalizers, but even then Musashi fashioned himself a weapon just a wee bit longer than an adversary who was very good, and reportedly fought with a longer than average sword just so he could have the advantage ....
OTOH the Moros of the Southern Phillipines did a great deal of damage to the Americans when they came to colonise them, and I'm pretty sure they were generally smaller in stature, so I'm sure mind set and skill play a large part also.

i agree with every--because i'm running for public office.

however, like an example Richie's made before...psycho with real violent intent takes the cake...whether he's fat, muscle bound, skinny, fast, slow, whatever. someone with the mind for actually plucking an eye or glassing a neck--that'll be from the bloke [or girl] with nasty intent. if thoughts such as these don't often pulse through one's head as possibilities, then it's back to the speed and agility thingy for my vote. freeze up and be afraid and all the talent in the world sits still for a whipping.

not that i represent anything outstanding, but i'm thinking now of a flashy asian fighter who should have been able to spank me and make me eat mud--but i kept angrily rushing at him until i had my way. i chose not to take him home with me and make him girl-boy though . okay now i'm joking,
it's clearly time for me to go and wash up some dishes--naughty russ, bad russ. what a terrible example you're setting

if its a "match fight" size of course matters.

in an SP framework we are supposed to avoid "match fights" at all costs- sometimes tho ur hand is forced of course


"yes you ARE bigger than me, fitter, younger and stronger too me but I AM now holding this can of de-icer spray and a steel wheel lock and approaching you from the back whilst your engrossed in refuelling your car "

in the early days royce took out kimo etc with his small arms and small body weight.

and the most people on the street are not as good as ken shamrock, etc

so if your technickes are good you allways have an advatage

Well, my point I guess is that, inside an octagon, I would want to be Fedor. But inside a room full of odd objects, obstacles, rafters, furniture, weapons, etc., I would want to be Jackie Chan.

The ability to jump, flip, climb, etc. would be more of an advantage than size when the room is full of objects that impede straight line movements such as that seen in the octagon or ring (double/single leg take downs, etc.).

do you think you'd be doing much actual "jumping flipping or climbing" if you were being attacked?

Richard Grannon wrote:

do you think you'd be doing much actual "jumping flipping or climbing" if you were being attacked?

I think that in an environment with an abundance of obstacles, like a warehouse or a office building, the ability to jump over things, roll over things, under things, etc. is imperative. A heavyweight will be much slower to react.

This is made even more so with multiple opponents. When attacked by multiples, the difference in how hard one can hit is less important than how fast one can hit. A heavyweight takes a little longer to recover their center of balance after throwing a punch or kick. Smaller people can throw off more combos, faster.

I would wager on a young Jackie Chan over Fedor Emelianenko in a room full of odd objects and obstacles because Chan could escape Fedor and control the match by tiring Fedor out, or evading then circling around with a chair or other improvised weapon. Of course, all Fedor would need to land is one punch and Chan would be out cold.

Most battlefield warriors in history were not heavyweights. They were all pretty light, because winning a war is about endurance, agility, etc, not brute force. Winning a one on one in an enclosed environment is about brute force.

That's why the Chinese military trains it's cadets in WuShu, a flashy, acrobatic martial art. Because a soldier needs to be agile and quick, not lumbering and cumbersome. A room with odd objects and obstacles and perhaps multiple opponents is more like a battlefield than a ring. In such a situation I am thinking that speed might start to supersede sheer brute force as the deciding factor in such a combative situation.

I don't believe you have to be small or light, to be fast and agile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJUzl0aFHZw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfGO3pr6rq4

maija wrote:

I don't believe you have to be small or light, to be fast and agile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJUzl0aFHZw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfGO3pr6rq4

Ali and Tyson are indeed fast for their size, but they are not as fast or agile as someone smaller.

I think you've watched too many films kid

Gotta agree with Maija on this one. something that i can draw from in abundance is my sports
combat beginnings. and, in short, i've known way too many skinny slow polks and way too many
massive explosively fast monsters. even in my own humble and average showings--on the fighting
scene, i had confidence in spades in most arenas outside of real competition. i mixed powerlifting--
and by powerlifting i don't mean competitive but i do mean really heavy lifting in low rep range and eating tons to support my one time 235 lb body that stood all of 5'8". i was more than used to a
jab so fast that it wasn't uncommon for me to nail people two or three times before they even started
to react, and if it was a smaller guy my punches tended to make more of an impression to add insult
to injury.

some things in my favor were short arms and fast twitch muscle fibers in no short order. i think this is a key ingredient. a musclebound sprinter sort can and often does out speed and out power a long distance type smaller guy.

generalizations are dodgy at best, but with all due respect, we all know how the myths were adopted as urban myth. in the non sports arenas, the fatties often way slower than the small sprightly types. the rules change when hard training seperates the men from the tubby boys.

in fairness, two of the best sports fighters i knew were light...but all the examples i could draw from were more like 50/50. i knew a big guy that was so fast he could do board breaking by dropping the board in air and punch-breaking it. that guy was built like a brick shithouse and worked as a security guard for DC's capital center...that saw loads of trouble in concerts. he was a black belt in TKD, and
was terribly fast with his feet, in spite of his long and bulbous limbs.

i used to spar with a guy that had a world title--on some largely unknown circuit [fancy enough to fly him to malaysia, etc...] and i was regularly used to lighting him up with speed and power. in three minutes his stamina would start to supercede mine and the equation would gradually reverse...but in a fight, who knows. i was able to hold my own and almost not take a shot for 3 minutes. after three minutes i needed a lift home though i reserve my usual snobery for that bloke [normally i feel i'd fair better with sports types] because i knew him as a good street fighter as well.

anyway...my input

I have watched a lot of movies, yes. I am a big fan of Hong Kong martial arts cinema.
However I do have some experience fighting. Not a lot, but I have been in probably about 7 scraps in my life, starting in middle school and with many in adulthood.

Most of the footage people see of fights begins in a stand off. I agree that in a bare bones stand off, a bouncer type situation, size is king. However when weapons come into play, speed begins to even things out. When obstacles come into play, things are evened out even more.

If Fedor was on my tail I'd be going for the Nike defense, and would hope I had these skills.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPIw3cv8Zls

I have to disagree with you though, neither weapons (unless you are dueling with blades), speed nor obstacles will even the playing field enough to make a difference, unless you are running away (which is a great option of course).
Now mindset, strength of will, and intent - those might.

Yes, well part of my argument is that a smaller more agile person can evade a larger person until the larger heavyweight is worn out then move in for the kill. And blades are just extensions of the hands.

No kid what you mean is that you think you will punch your opponent back flip over the table, run up the flight of stairs, turn around and kick him as he chases you, cartwheel over the railings grab a chain (there is always a chain in a hong kong warehouse) and start spinning it round.

Bollocks.

Your living in a fantasy and I dont think you've been in many fights at all really have you?

If you want to keep posting here, sign in and post an intro

Soahc

you wrote in your intro

Quote :

My name is Gabriel and I live in Seattle Washington, U.S. I have an interest in self defense and have practiced some. I am also an actor and I do stage/screen combat. When I choreograph scenes I try to use different fighting styles, some more flashy and showy, some more realistic.

My favorite fighter is Anderson Silva, because I like his technique and I like that he always puts on a show.

I am also an acrobat and gymnast, and I focus heavily on the physical conditioning aspect of preparedness, as self defense is also about being able to run, sprint, fall, climb, etc.

I have trained some in Wushu and Capoiera, and I have done some work on bags and focus mits training Muay style techninques. I ahve an interest in ancient SE Asian martial arts like Chaiya and Bokor.

I think this informs us of your perspective on fighting- your trying to make what you are good at it fit a model of real world violence and Im afraid you cant do that mate I wish you could

you cant forward engineer a training model such that you shoehorn in techniques and make the environment fit a skillset

the environment must define the skillset, otherwise all kinds of fantastical "subjective favouritism" creeps in, we are realists so we must be brutal

put another way, the map doesnt define the territory (well, it often does, but it shouldnt!)

the territory defines the map - no one in the field of combatives/street material teaches any kind of flashy parkour/gymnastic/capoeira whichs is visually impressive and no doubt the training for it will give you great combative attributes like balance, co ordination, proprioception, fitness etc but in terms of APPLICATION these things are irrelevant wants you take away time, space and footing and reinsert PRESSURE and desperation

just a thought

yeah, and to be honest, it was becoming aware to me that we were
messing with a faith-based belief in the rules of size--that serves
perhaps for your foundation and confidence belief system. perhaps
you're a small bloke, etc...but when you mentioned 7 fights or whatever,
i wasn't hearing how they supported your beliefs:
eg//
"i was small, he was big...and this is what i did"

not that all data has to come first hand, but these appeared sort of
straw hat to me and i was gradually deciding i would pull out of the
discussion that really wasn't taking in new information. but Richie
put it better, and in a way that i would have liked to. i didn't remember
your background, but it helped to see where you were coming from.
most of us have had to put a split between the art that we enjoy and serve, and the
martial that must serve us.

think about tweeking that belief system and making it work for you, i'm
sure even Jackie Chan knows how to seperate the two realms.

Maija, Ricthie, Russ and others already summed it up.

It comes down to mindset and intent.

How you react when you're scared or in shock will be what you've done 1,000 times in training but probably not as clean or even close. Imagine trying to perform a back flip or spinning kick with more adrenaline going through your body than you've ever had and your life flashing before your eyes. Your legs are shaking, your hands are shaking... I don't think it's going to work out... and by the time you realize this someone's hands are already around your throat and you'll be too scared to do anything about it.

I'm saying this because I just don't want to read a story in the paper about the gymnast and kung fu student who go curb stomped to death in Seattle, WA, next week.

MOST people who have experienced real, uncontrolled violence, know how dangerous and scary it can be and know that 'martial-arts-ballet-dance' moves are as useful as a cup of water in a forest fire.

Actually I have more of a wrestlers build, not too acrobatic myself. I am at 170 and height 5'8" (sorry for those on the metric system).

And preferentially, I would still rather be Jackie Chan in a room full off multiple opponents, odd objects and obstacles, than Fedor.

Head on in a crowd, bouncer style confrontation, yes I would rather be a heavyweight.

I mentioned Anderson Silva as my favorite fighter, and he illustrates part of my point: being acrobatic can win a match. Anderson jumps around a lot, flying knees, spinning backfists, etc, and he is the greatest pound for pound fighter in the world.

I have been in some fights with smaller, faster guys than me who just surprised me with their speed. One guy I lunged for, double or single leg takedown style, and he dodged me and came at my neck from behind, digging his little fingers into my neck until I begged for mercy.

One guy jabbed me pretty good with his reach and speed, bruised me up pretty good until I took him down into the street.

One big guy, my 'friend', I scrapped with one night when he was drunk and head locked him. He came bacl the next night asking for a rematch and cornered me against a couch in a living room. This guy was a heavyweight. He had me cornered so I had no chance. He just pushed me back and I hit my head on the window sill. In this fight I know if I had more room to maneuver I could have escaped him and circled around to mess him up with an acrobatic elbow.

I have been swatted at by tall, heavyweight guys before and it was easy to duck or evade. Sure, a swat isn't a jab, but these big guys are slow. The trick is to just not let them get to close to you. Then it's all over.

So yes, I have been in a few scraps, mostly on the losing side, with guys both bigger and smaller than me, so I am not speaking from total ignorance here. I still think Jackie Chan would escape Fedor, grab a broom stick, and make the Russian eat it before Fedor would have time to realize what is going on.

Are we talking about sports figthing in a street ie the so called 'street fighting" of consensual ego driven violence, or are we talking about self defence?Since i know nothing of the former but a bit about the later let me say this. A 5ft 4inch woman who cuts somebodies eyeballs with her sharp finger hails causing blood to gush out of the eyesockets, then web strikes him in throat with everything shes got has a good chance of making King Kong back off just enough for her to run.

Or 5 ft 4 inch man is going to try to punch -flail his way out of a confrontation with an experianced street hooligan standing 6ft 2 inches with the calloused soul of crimanal. Does size matter?

I bet the woman with proper self defence training, proper mindset, realistic understandings and training in how violence occurs in reality would have a better chance than the man. So does size matter?