Over the last couple of months, the meager fight experience I have had and am seeing, leads me to believe that in general, the larger you are, the better chance you have in a fight. More often then not, noticeably more often, the larger guy dominates, or the stronger guy anyway.
Let’s get a few things out of the way, I don’t believe that smaller is necessarily faster, I have met some pretty fast, larger guys. However, I have noticed that the slower stronger type, tend to lay out their opponents more. These fast guys tend to land a lot of glancing blows, things that seem fairly ineffective in the short term.
I am also aware that bigger and stronger doesn’t mean you can’t have a glass jaw, some big guys no matter how strong they are just can’t hang in the ring.
Are we just talking about big/strong or big/strong with training? A big/strong guy always has an advantage. a big/strong w/out against average-to-small with training is more equal, but the big/strong guy is still dangerous. If you have a big/strong guy with training and a smaller guy with training, then, all other things equal, the advantage has to the big man.
I didn’t really specify on purpose. So far what I am seeing is that it doesn’t matter a whole lot. Sometimes the training makes a difference, and sometimes not. If I had to break down what I seem to be seeing, I would say it’s about 80-90% in favor of the strong when both are trained, and about 65% when the strong guy is not trained.
Everthing counts, and all else being equal, the guy with more ______ is the one to put your money on.
______ could certainly be strength.
CSN, of course, but what I seem to percieve goes ****her then that. I am seeing that possibly strength can be much more of an equalizer or an unequalizer.
Strength and size count for more than people will admit, sometimes. Think about the fastest chick in your school. Can she beat you in a real fight? Probably not because most women don’t have the strength or size to really take a guy on.
If you take two men, with the same weight/size differential as a man vs woman fight, the outcome would be the same. The bigger guy wins 9 times out of 10.
You mean that at a certain point disparity in strength cannot be overcome by an equal disparity in skill/speed/whatever? Mmmm - I dunno. Possibly.
Originally posted by red5angel
what I seem to be seeing, I would say it’s about 80-90% in favor of the strong when both are trained, and about 65% when the strong guy is not trained.
I would definately agree with that.
When I was in college, I was an RA on a floor full of freshmen football players. These guys were huge – significantly outweighing me-- and I knew that if one had the intent and got their hands on me there was little that I could do to prevent from getting hurt despite my training. The trick is to prevent from being in that situation.
I’ve only used my kung-fu once outside of class and that guy was stronger than me, but I kept my wits and took him down before his strength became a factor. Some of it was skill but a big part of it was luck.
You mean that at a certain point disparity in strength cannot be overcome by an equal disparity in skill/speed/whatever?
I don’t know about that, I think skill is definitely a player and that can be a huge factor as well, but I wonder if strength is atleast as much a facotr if not more?
A freind and I experiment some times. He is smaller, around 110lbs or so, I am 200lbs and weight train. When we are staying within the “technical” bounds of our art, he does well, and is better then I am, however, if I decide to use strength to overcome his skill, there doesn’t appear to be anything he can do. He isn’t a master by any means so that may be an issue, but he is quite a bit better at the technical stuff then I am.
Yeah, and it’s easy to measure strength but difficult and maybe impossible to measure skill.
Thats because skill can change all the time based on situation, mood, health, enviroment, what have ya.
Everybody has those days in class when they are just not up to par, when just last week they were flowing, getting it down, making it work, but this day you are out of sorts.
good point CSN. Strength may also be more reliable then skill. Even on a bad day I can lift about as much as I normally can. I don’t perform so well during my training othrwise.
I have another good example. Some of you may be familiar with Brock Lesner from the WWE? A good freind of mine got to wrestle him a few times back in the day. His opinion of Lesners skill is low, he said he wasn’t very technical. however he was a big guy even for his weight class and so more often then not he won because of sheer strength. However he also said that Brock had a hard time periodically with smaller more technical opponents but the majority of the time he could just wear his opponents down.
Originally posted by red5angel
I have another good example. Some of you may be familiar with Brock Lesner from the WWE? A good freind of mine got to wrestle him a few times back in the day. His opinion of Lesners skill is low, he said he wasn’t very technical. however he was a big guy even for his weight class and so more often then not he won because of sheer strength. However he also said that Brock had a hard time periodically with smaller more technical opponents but the majority of the time he could just wear his opponents down.
Aren’t the matches in the WWE predetermined?
I have heard that kurt angle tooled him, repeatedly. Of course, that’s the difference between an olympic champ and an NCAA wrestler.
w/regards to strength, you can outslick a strong guy, but it’s not always easy and sometimes, you do get taken for a ride…
On brock not being that skilled. I think that’s a misnomer. He’s skilled plenty and learned/leaned on a style that’s good for him. It’s not as pretty as John Smith’s single, but so what? It’s ugly, yeah, but it works good for him.
Judge Pen, I am talking about his early wrestling career. College.
MP, I couldn’t begin to debate you on his actual ability. My buddy, I have mentioned him before, wa captain of his college and high school team and got to wrestle brock a few times. For whatever reason he is not impressed with Lesners skill. He says he didn’t deserve the championship, but that is always a matter of opinion, sort of who cares if you are doing it right if it works. He did say there was another guy in the WWE a black guy who is also from the Uof M who was a much better technical wreslter then Brock.
Right. I guess my point is that this other guy might be a better technician, but it looks like Brock was the better wrestler.
Does that make sense?
FWIW, Brock won, so he deserves it! 
Look at it this way. Your strength is the caliber of bullet you’re firing. Your skill is the accuracy with which you can make it hit.
If you hit someone in the eye with a .22, he’ll probably be dead. If you hit someone in the eye with a .44, he’ll probably be dead.
If you hit someone CBM with a 22, he’ll be hurt, but it’s very unlikely he’ll be dead. If you hit someone CBM with a .44, the odds that he’ll be dead, or at least incapacitated, go up considerably.
If you’re good enough to hit the eye every time, then you don’t need more than a .22. But most of us are gonna be in the “hit the CBM” range of skill.
Nice analogy.
good analogy.
MP - for the record, I agree, if he won most of his matches does it really matter how well he does it? Of course getting better should always be the goal.
starting to sound like some familiar arguments on the WC forum!