size matters

Martial arts are beyond the scope of science. Science deals with empiricism and falsifiable models. MA has an entirely seperate side than merely the physical. Science, by nature, only deals with the physical universe. MA is more a study in philosophy (as well as the physical aspects being a study of kinesiology, admittedly), if you want to give it an academic label.

The entire underlying point that I've been stressing throught this topic is that physical size isn't comparable to internal power. Hence all the references to old masters, who do things that should be physically impossible.

 

Martial arts are most certainly not beyond the scope of science. Aren't philosophy and psychology often considered branches of science anyway?

How the hell are size and internal power not comparable? The two work together very closely.

The "old masters" never did anything that was physically impossible. Well, maybe in their dreams.

 

This isn't rocket science, AZ. This is the typical assumptions that "we have two people, both of whom are always equal". That's not the case. It's the same thing when we get into stupid "style versus style" thread, God forbid some of us think outside the box and point out that in real life nothing is even going to be equal...

The big guys have advantages, the little guys have advantages, and some days the big guy will win, some days the little guy will win. Why is this so damn difficult to comprehend?

 

Oh god no, please.....look, 24 years in MA, and i've never seen anything APPLICABLE that couldnt be explained.

You seem to be talking about the philosophy, and to a certain extent the mysticism, behind Martial arts. Show me the impossible. The actually impossible, with independant witnesses and Subjects. Ie no stooges or own students used.

Yip, a smaller guy has a chance against a larger opponent...heard the phrase 'punchers chance?' but as has been said all things being equal ( doesnt happen but lets imagine ) a larger opponent will 90% of the time beat a smaller guy.

It's why we have weight divisions in MA. It's why we'll always have weight divisions in MA.

 

Ugh..

I don't consider philosophy a science, nor did I mention psychology, for one thing. The former is open to interpretation, I suppose, but the definition of science I was given by a biologist and professor I know is "an open system of skeptical inquiry producing falsifiable knowledge subject to modification based on emperical and objective testing". Also, psycholgy deals with chemical imbalance in the brain and why we act the way we do, and what not, among other things. Still physical things.

In retrospect, I will concede that saying "martial arts are beyond the scope of science" sounded pretty new-age mystic wannabeish, but the point I was trying to make is that the upper levels are not physical, and therefore aren't included in the realm of science. Keyword, 'emperical'.

By internal power I do not refer to raw strength, I refer to mental and spiritual strength. Which is not shaped or limited by size.

Physically impossible. A broad description. I'm referring to such things as most people would deem virtually impossible, such as a 92 year old man defeating a 30 year old boxer (who had just retired as a champion in his division) with a single blow... after easily dodging him for twenty minutes. The martial artist in question is Seikichi Uehara, for the record.

I'm finished with this thread, unless someone just desperately wants to tie some things up. It dwells too much in the mundane. My entire point is that yes, size obviosuly matters.. but as you move beyond simply physical skill and go into the advanced concepts of MA, then size is no longer a deciding factor.

 

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this person but I'm gonna throw this name out. Bob Sapp! If there is any single person that is evidence of size mattering it is him. The man has no heart, no stamina and not much training but he managed to walk in and knock out people a lot more skilled but smaller than himself.

Size is an advantage. The biggest lion in the pride, the biggest crocodile in the river, the biggest whatever. People have talked about the streets being different to the ring, but it's not. If I hit a 6'6" guy as hard as I could I would hurt him, if he hit me back he would send me flying.

Size doesn't have to be a deciding factor but it is a factor. If you're fighting someone bigger you have to adjust how you fight like you would if you're fighting a better boxer or better grappler.

 

Doesn't mean your average 15 year old is stronger though!

We're assuming size equals strength to a large degree. Which in general is true but if you have a good weight program you can be 2 or 3 times stronger than the average 150lb person.

 

WARNING WARNING.

Dodging him for 20 mins then 1 punch ko - RUBBISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

30 year old boxer loses to 92 year old man after 20 mins fighting - this is the biggest crock of crap I have come across in AGES!!!!

Help me please.....stuggling to get up.......laughing so SO SO hard!

Rippleys Believe it or not - Well I dont.

 

Size Matters Not

I've always thought of there being a balance. Size, strength, height...the worlds strongest man WOULD NOT LAST IN UFC. The worlds tallest man would definitely NOT LAST. I'm sick of saying this a tall bodybuilder is not a good MAist. Chuck Liddel is 6 feet tall and just shy of 200lbs. I catergorize him as a man of average size, I WAS NOT astounded by the mans size...its his skill. He was not a bodybuilder, in fact he's got a pot belly and he's built nothing like a bodybuilder. However he's the world champion, because of his skill...thats what MA is about.

Anyone who disagrees with me watch the Keith Hackney vs Emmanuel Yarborough fight, it was one of the most one sided match ups I've ever seen. The 5'10" 170lbs man ripped apart the 6'8" 600lbs man, it was literally like watching Hackney punch a 600lbs punching bag. When I met Mike Tyson was no taller than 5'9" and he was literally unbeatable for two years. he weighed 215lbs(at his peak in the 80's). I do not care how big or tall they were, 6'6" 250lbs guys that did not stand a chance. Bob Sapp could not grapple because of excessive muscle and a lack of coordination and flexibility, he was forced to kickbox. The K-1 rules protected him, in a "real" fight a well placed thrust kick to the knee that would simply stun a trained an MAist could break his slow moving leg. Newtonian physics do not lie, speed is power, acceleration is as big a factor as mass. Hasty Generalizations on these boards do know one any good. To all you 6'5" 260lbs big boys, go jump in the cage with the average sized Liddell, if you last a round I'll tip my hat to you. Brute strength is not comparable to feirce skills. According to his students, Royce Gracie is not a very big or tall man. Please guys stop with the size discrimination posts. Heart and skill beat size everyday.

My final example is Karim Abdul Jabar in Game of Death. His height caused him to be the worst movie MAist I've ever seen in my life. I've seen Mcdojo 8 year old black belts throw better kicks than that pothead bum. Gawky is an understatement, he simply could not fight. I would much rather fight Karim Abdul Jabbar, Emmanuel Yarborough, or even Bob Sapp than Chuck Liddel, Royce Gracie, or Mike Tyson(at his peak in the 80's). In response to that theoretical BS "if all were equal the bigger guy would win" first of all theres no way to gauge that. Its who wants it more, period end of story. The will determines the victor.

 

Psychology, yes, as it deals with testing falsifiable hypotheses under controlled conditions. Philosophy, not really.

 

Y'know, no-one has talking about extremes of size, just that 'size matters' or 'size matters not'. Or about being the right size for your frame being a big factor. In Boxing, the Heavyweight Division is literally an open division, as long as you weigh 200lbs or over. That allows for quite a big variation in size, body styles, height, reach and so on. If we went back to the traditional 8 weight classes in Boxing there wouldn't be any Cruiserweight Division for example and Heavyweights would be anything from 175lbs+ upwards.

I think it's as much about are you as strong for your frame size as you can be as much as how big you are. Natural strength seems to be a little bit about body mechanics and leverage as well as pure weight. So if you are 5' 10'' and weight train and bulk up a little you can make a noticeable difference to your strength and power.

It's what Gerald MacLellan said before he suffered his tragic injury against Nigel Benn. For those who don't know Gerald MacLellan was a fearsome puncher and very physically strong boxer who was destined for greatness. He said that he only weighed 170lbs fighting weight and the average American male was well over 200lbs. The difference was he said that his body was trained and that he was as strong as he could be for the weight. So whilst if you are naturally small/average you will never be as potentially strong as someone who is 250lb+, you can make a big difference nonetheless through training. Enough of a difference that the size differential no longer becomes a critical factor.

 

Forget about bodybuilders.

Theres a big difference between bodybuilding and weight training. Ones to get big and the others to get strong. Its the later thats important to martial artists.

 

OK you say Bob Sapp, I'll throw back at you Emmanuel Yarborough!!!

Oops AncientMaster has already brought that one up!

Anyway, he also mentions one of the most important factors everyone seems to be missing with their silly generalisations - HEART!!

Its not the size of the dog in the fight...you know the rest...

 

Okay for all the guys who are saying that size isn't and advantage ( and correct me if I'm wrong but I imagine that they are more on the small side ),
go and find a talented 14 or 15 year old MA that has not yet hit their full size, or even a smaller female. These could well be more skilled than you, faster than you, and know as many dirty tricks as you.

Now you are the 'big guy'. Now try some hard/full contact sparring and see what happens. Then come back and tell me size doesn't matter.

I'm not saying size is the be all and end all of fighting but is is a good advantage to have, and one that needs a lot of work to overcome.

 

I say the guy with the gun wins.

Unless the other one has a nuke.

But maybe the other one has an interplanetary matter driver =o

 

I do believe that Chuck Liddel is the LIGHT Heavyweight UFC champion fighting at the top weight of his category, namely 204 pounds.

If anything this shows that size does matter as most fighters, fight at the top weight in their category when it has an upper limit. (I.e. anything but the top division.

 

Keith got a good shot off yes and that to me looked more out of despiration as your options are limited when facing that much of a size difference. Also Keith is not a small guy or weak guy.

Yarborough was a monster bloak and I think he could well have won the competition if he was not caught flush, I even think Royce would suffer as he was a game big lumux. Also he is not used to taking punches which is another reason for sparring which many people still disregard.

Bob Sapp would wipe out 99% of this forum and I think I would just be a statistic as he is slow but agressive and he is also hampered by the K1 rules as are others, bearing in mind he has little skill and is new to martial arts but still beats trained fighters not just trained martial artists.

Dont judge size to lightly - yes there are many factors in a fight stacks of them but size is a key factor as are agression and the two work well togther.

Keith did look out of options in his fight though.

 

But you are also ignoring the fact that all the people Bob Sapp has beaten (in MMA competition anyways) were not actually that skillful (in fact Tamura is the only one that has a record where his wins are more than his loses), therefore its more than just the size factor that came into play...

Keith Hackney may not be small, but the point was that Yarborough still lost to a smaller fighter. In fact, when Yarborough fought in Pride, I would say his size was an extreme disadvantage.

Too many factors in EVERY fight, not just size and too bored of this nonsense now.

I think the only answer from now on is to only fight against guys smaller than yourself. That way, in case they are equal in all other respects, you are always going to win...

Right now I'm off to find a lost pygmy tribe of children with no fighting experience and claim myself as their champion

 

But all other things are not always equal, however size is a factor.

Just ask yourself would you rather fight someone 6 inches taller and 80 pounds heavier than you or 6 inches smaller and 80 pounds lighter.

 

Go out and start a fight with someone that is 6ft 5, weighs 230lbs of pure muscle. Then go out and fight a midget weighing in at 125lbs. See which one is harder.

Of course size is a VERY important factor.