size matters

How can I answer that? There is more to take into account than is he taller and heavier, isn't there!?

Just ask yourself, would you rather fight someone 6 inches taller and 80 pounds heavier that likes wearing dresses and plays croquet or 6 inches smaller and 80 pounds lighter that is the local area gypsy bare-knuckle chamion?

p.s my comment about only fighting smaller guys was a joke...

 

1.anyone who think size doesnt matter has not been in a lot of fights

2.it may note be the most important factor but it is a factor.

3. mike tyson ended his career (essentinsially....the myth was busted) by a big skilled man.

4. bob sapps skill are down right poor. BUT he competes at a very high level. why his....... SIZE. a normal sized dude with his skill would get killed...well not killed since the wouldnt let him anywhere near the arena without a ticket.

5. now this is strickly opinion but. i think guys tend to get kinda uncordinated after about 6'6"......but they can overwelm much smaller guys. so to me the ideal size would be 6'3" 230. (pack a mean wollup, still be coordinated and not be overwelmed by the treetop dudes)


6. and all things are not equal

7. and you guys would suck at science experiments. the mere fact that no one gets it proves it. sure not all things are equal, but the variable we are compareing is size. so if we were doing an experiment we would eliminate the other variable.

sure skill and speed matter(maybe even more so).

its like if we were discusing if to liquids had different boiling points. and you want to compare the boiling points. and you put them at different pressures. sure the pressures matter but it invalidate the comparison.


8. and yes the big guys have weakspots. but so do you unfortunatly and he hits them harder. plus its harder to get at. take my 6'6 guy. i cant kick him in the head. its harder to punch him in the head (not impossible). in the clinch im like a walking knee bag to him.

9.now its not impossble..... like i said i beat him routinly. its just challenging.

10 right now i have a black eye from an elbow...it was particullay bad cause he did it gently.

11. guys, guys movies are movies. sure bruce makes kareem look bad. he is the star of the show, he is a ma actor and kareem is a basketball player.just look at bruce when he fought for real in the ring....opps i forgot he never did.

12. snatch...also a movie

 

Are you against midgets in some way? Are you saying that none of them can fight?

Are you also saying all 6ft 5 muscle bound guys are great fighters?

 

I think the whole point was that both people were even fighters. Analyse one variable at a time people.

 

But nothing is ever even is it?

I know...I'll let them fight and see who wins. My answer then is I'll fight who ever loses

 

Maybe you should actually read that thread before posting init.

"Size is important in fighting", thats what the question is. We are assuming that both people know how to fight. Otherwise its like me asking who would win, the cripple midget (and yes I do have issues against midgets) or the 6ft 5 black pro kickboxer.

 

Obviously nothing is ever even, though for the sake of argument, we are assuming that it is.

You cant have a good experiement or debate if all the variables are random etc.

 

1.anyone who think size doesnt matter has not been in a lot of fights

2.it may note be the most important factor but it is a factor.

3. mike tyson ended his career (essentinsially....the myth was busted) by a big skilled man.

4. bob sapps skill are down right poor. BUT he competes at a very high level. why his....... SIZE. a normal sized dude with his skill would get killed...well not killed since the wouldnt let him anywhere near the arena without a ticket.

5. now this is strickly opinion but. i think guys tend to get kinda uncordinated after about 6'6"......but they can overwelm much smaller guys. so to me the ideal size would be 6'3" 230. (pack a mean wollup, still be coordinated and not be overwelmed by the treetop dudes)


6. and all things are not equal

7. and you guys would suck at science experiments. the mere fact that no one gets it proves it. sure not all things are equal, but the variable we are compareing is size. so if we were doing an experiment we would eliminate the other variable.

sure skill and speed matter(maybe even more so).

its like if we were discusing if to liquids had different boiling points. and you want to compare the boiling points. and you put them at different pressures. sure the pressures matter but it invalidate the comparison.


8. and yes the big guys have weakspots. but so do you unfortunatly and he hits them harder. plus its harder to get at. take my 6'6 guy. i cant kick him in the head. its harder to punch him in the head (not impossible). in the clinch im like a walking knee bag to him.

9.now its not impossble..... like i said i beat him routinly. its just challenging.

10 right now i have a black eye from an elbow...it was particullay bad cause he did it gently.

11. guys, guys movies are movies. sure bruce makes kareem look bad. he is the star of the show, he is a ma actor and kareem is a basketball player.just look at bruce when he fought for real in the ring....opps i forgot he never did.

12. snatch...also a movie
__________________
boxing 9 years (12-4 as pro), wrestling 4 years, tkd 4 years, muay tai 2 years and counting (6-1), bbj 2 years and counting (8-4), nhb (3-1).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by mai tai : Today at 01:16 PM. Reason: forgot something

 

btw my post was originally started as just to bellyache about this big guy.

i thought i was stating the obvious about the size thing.

really didnt think all the "little napoleans" would be so up in arms

 

But we are talking about people, and I can think of one that is equal in all respects to another. All variables are random whether that suits your arguement or not.

And if you read what I've said on other posts my point is that its a silly argument.

 

Well if you dont like the argument, there are many many threads that you can go to.

However, I think this is a quailty argument.

And mai tai is 100% right.

 

OK, I'll go off to some other thread and leave you and Mai-Tai to self-gratify each other with thoughts of larger and better things

 

wow thats a first

 

dude im a little guy too.....im only 5 10... 175.

comeon if we all agreed...this site would be boring

 

Heh.. not rubbish. True story. Uehara lived to be 100, he died last year.. and taught all the way until he died. He was a true martial artist.

If you choose not to believe it becasue you're so bogged down in the physical that you can't comprehend the great skill of an old man blowing away the strength and speed of a young one.. then you really need to rethink what MAs are all about. What, do you think they're just for pre-middle aged people to beat on people and get a trophy for it? I'm talking real life, real self defense. Not sport or competition.

And regarding Bruce Lee.. he was good. He would have been better had he lived longer, but he was nevertheless good. Had a few problems, like trying to be a 'perfect physical specimen', but the fact that he is supposedly untested in "the ring" has nothing to do with how good he really was.

 

So you're saying that "combat" is about not using weapons? That's a rather peculiar definition of the word.

 

See, what we need here is something called evidence.

 

You realize how much rubbish there is in the world of martial arts, right?

People aren't just going to beleive stories without some kind of evidence.

EDIT: You are right. Martial arts is all about 92 year old 120 pound men knocking out boxers (seriously). However, we aren't perfect, and out of the 16000 members on this site, 1 of us might be able to do it one day. You have to seperate idealism from realism.

 

I realize how much rubbish there is, yes.. more than most people.

In terms of evidence, if you're actually bothered by it, there are videos of the man you can find.

No need for sarcasm...

To simply be honest, I don't particularly care what anyone cares to believe. I don't use untrue or unrealistic examples, and I have seen Uehara in action at (I believe) 96. If anyone chooses to disbelive, that's their prerogative. I understand that some skepticism is healthy, but sarcastic remarks doubting the authenticity of someone's example isn't exactly conducive to a 'nice debate', do you agree?

 

Archery isn't a combat sport as such because it doesn't involve actively engageing someone else.

And yeh, back to the point that does sound a lot of rubbish. 82 year old verses a much younger boxer opponent and winning... thats utter rubbish. THe guy probably couldn't walk very fast for arthrituS!