Now qi blasts are another story.
Originally posted by EvolutionFist
[B]But if you shoot the bawling ball out of the shotgun, the killing power of it has increased now because of its change in velocity … it has the same mass.
You can take a bullet and hammer it into the side of my car, it will smush flat like a pizza. Shoot that same buller, and it will go through the door.
Of course, this is a different argumenet. I think we both agree size matters. That’s why you never see the featherweight box the super heavy weight. [/B]
sure, it has the same mass - and will produce a much bigger hole in your body than the bullet will. sticking with the human produced speed example, if you throw a bowling ball at someone, how much damage will it do? If you throw a bullet at someone, how much damage will it do?
yeah, we both agree on the fact that size matters.
Originally posted by blooming lotus
no but learning how and where to take the hit , then having something to follow through with, makes a difference
you are still assuming slowness on the big guy’s part. you may not be able to hit him in those areas. even if he is slow, his defense may be that good.
LOL I never understand why people question this …
Have they ever noticed that in every combat sport … there are weight classes? There is a reason for that: size and strenght matter.
Of course, a far more skilled smaller guy can and will perhaps beat an out of shape unskilled big guy … but assuming similar levels of skill and fitness then the size and strenght difference is a clear advantage … thus weight classes 
Even istinctively we know size matters: would you rather fight a 5’5" 60kg professional fighter or a 6’5" 120kg professional fighter? Or for that matter, a 5’5" 60kg average Joe or a 6’5" 120kg average Joe?
PS: about 15 years ago my 5’4" teacher fought off 2 x 6’ attackers trying to rob him, so it can work, but he was extremely skilled and trained whilst they were some random bag snatchers.
Yep
What he said. Size and strength are definitely factors. I know this is nerdy, but it’s a lot like a mathmatical equation. There are lots of things that go into a fight. Size, strength, experience, natural skill/ability, training, luck, etc. Even though a smaller man can beat a bigger man, the size is still a factor. Odds are when the smaller guy does win, it’s because he is a more skilled fighter.
I’m a small guy (5’10", 160lbs), and I know I used to hate getting into it with bigger guys because you had to be that much better or you could get really hurt.
This is silly…
Of course size matters… so does speed… so does skill… so does adaptability… so does knowledge… so does intelligence… etc etc etc
There is no such thing as ‘all else being equal’, the physics precludes that. Pound for pound, you’ll find lighter guys w/the same body composition to be able to attain greater acceleration. The muscle mass, acceleration, force output curve draws a uUuish shape where there are points of lower and greater mass that have the highest output of force.
Anyways, throw into that genetics, food, rest, training focus, training time, etc and there’s no way you’ll ever come up with an ‘all else being equal’ scenario.
Personally, I’m a smaller guy… Given the same skill level, I tend to have the most difficult fighting someone just a little bit larger than I.
Also I stay away from little guys w/no necks and muscled thighs as thick as their waists… they fight dirty… I can run from bigger guys…
I liken a fight to a scale. One of those old style ones where you put weights on each side.
You have a weight for strength, a weight for size, a weight for skill, a weight for agility, a weight for endurance, a weight for luck, etc, etc, etc.
Just because the “strength” or “size” weights on the other guy’s side are heavier than yours doesn’t mean he’ll win… but if they are, the other weights on your side had better be heavier than his.
Anyone who says the “strength” and “size” weights don’t matter has never done any significant amounts of sparring or fighting.
Originally posted by Mat
[B]The implication here being that big guys (to quote Kungfu Cowboy) go to the Lumbering Oafs’ University. I know some very very fast big guys (in the public realm anyone seen Semmy Schilt fight? Cro-cop?.. Silva’s no midget either… and these guys are very very fast). I also know some slow small guys.
Neither does accuracy have any relationship to size.
On a purely practical level, small guys simply have further to go in relation to their size, to cut the angles, to get out the way, even to get inside, when the bigger guy always has less far to go, to turn, to stretch. So any speed advantage they may have would be negated by distance needed to travel, duck etc.
On a biomechanical level surely big guys have more leverage, allowing for more power exerted through each joint link, musculature notwithstanding.
I’m assuming in the above model that we are talking reasonably fit, lean fighters. But that’s just an assumption. There are so many variables there are always going to be some assumptions, but that doesn’t mean that there is any evidence to suggest that being smaller has any possible advantages. [/B]
when we add the speed can expect in the trade off on size, the equation changes again. Can we stick to the argumement pls??
Ps: on the last post, i’ve done both and stick to my argument.
he is sticking to it.
Originally posted by FatherDog
Anyone who says the “strength” and “size” weights don’t matter has never done any significant amounts of sparring or fighting.
Originally posted by blooming lotus
[B]This argument has been thrashed out so many times here, and general concenus is that it ( size) matters.
I personally don’t agree [/B]
This is actually quite a useful litmus test. In general, if blooming lotus doesn’t agree with something then it’s mostly likely to be absolutely correct. If bl does agree with it, then it’s most likely complete bollocks.
Originally posted by blooming lotus
when we add the speed can expect in the trade off on size, the equation changes again. Can we stick to the argumement pls??
You quote my whole post, and seem to completely miss the main point… which was there is nothing to suggest small guys are going to be faster than big guys given their proportional musculature in relation to their frame size. At least, I assume that’s what you’re objecting to, but from your above post you seem to have missed out a word or two, resulting in a lack of comprehensibility.
And apart from that, would you like to point out specifically where my post deviates from the point of this thread?
Originally posted by blooming lotus
Ps: on the last post, i’ve done both and stick to my argument.
Done what?
And what was your argument?
First you stated your opinion which was different to that of most of the people on the board. Fair enough.
Then you stated:
right, but if the small guy has the speed and accuracy, they shouldn’t get to land enough to matter.
Which is a hypothetical position when
(a) nobody was absolutely denying the assumption, but did question it, by suggesting that most fast people will get hit once or twice anyway.
(b) although there is nothing to refute this position (as it is hypothetical) there is nothing concrete to back it up either. It is not an argument.
The whole point about there being many variables is that your above assumption is just one of those variables… and in general those variables are not affected positively by being of smaller stature.
And then:
no but learning how and where to take the hit , then having something to follow through with, makes a difference
which is also fine but there is nothing to prevent large people from doing this either.
I’m not picking on you but since you are the only person presenting a case for the smaller person having an advantage, in the interest of discussion I’m interested to see why you believe this.
generally speaking, the larger fighter will not be as fast as your av smaller trainee putting in the same speed training hrs because he is resricted in rom, especially when we are not talking directly lateral striking. I’m sure someone will find a bs reason the argue about that, but either way. As long as my skills are keeping me alive, I’m sweet.
cheers
Originally posted by blooming lotus
[B]generally speaking, the larger fighter will not be as fast as your av smaller trainee putting in the same speed training hrs because he is resricted in rom, especially when we are not talking directly lateral striking. I’m sure someone will find a bs reason the argue about that, but either way. As long as my skills are keeping me alive, I’m sweet.
cheers [/B]
You see? Complete bollocks.
Her basic argument for EVERYTHING is something like: “As long as I believe what I believe, I’m going to keep believing what I believe, 'cause that’s what I believe.”
As you can see, she’s the master of logical and deductive thinking (NOT! 
).
Peace on you, Michelle!
Originally posted by Serpent
You see? Complete bollocks.
:rolleyes: another of your fields of expertise I see . You know, the longer I ride these boards, and the more of your posts I read, the more I see how little you yourself actually know.
Peace
Peace on you, michelle.
Originally posted by blooming lotus
[B]generally speaking, the larger fighter will not be as fast as your av smaller trainee putting in the same speed training hrs because he is resricted in rom, especially when we are not talking directly lateral striking. I’m sure someone will find a bs reason the argue about that, but either way. As long as my skills are keeping me alive, I’m sweet.
cheers [/B]
No bs here, just want to know, as I did before why you think that a bigger person’s rate of movement is lower, and now I’ d like to know esp why this applies esp to direct lateral striking…
When you have time, cheers.