big fighters winning?

[PictonMA]

It's cliche, I'm sure it's been said before but:

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

 

[oddball]

Hmm, been awhile, so I finally have a bit of an answer to my own question as well now
I'm a lanky guy (6'1, legs are same length as friends who are 6'4), and hummingbird metabolism (132 lbs is heaviest I ever weighed. I'm 3 lbs below that now). So it was fun learning to use learn the reach advantage w/o the weight advantage that usually comes to most people. My sparring partners outweigh me 30-120 lbs, so I get shoved around no matter by who.

Technique really has been the deciding factor. When I spar with people with more experience, I get handled quite easily. When I sparred people that were heavier, same height or shorter that have lest technique, it was amazingly easier to get hits in and block.

 

[Sukerkin]

Sad to say that I wish it were otherwise but there is always the old, well proven, adage that a 'good big 'un will beat a good little 'un any day of the week' to consider.

Training and will/spirit can make up for a certain amount of physical disparity and in some arts it may be an advantage to be shorter but it is somewhat a truism that, in the martial (check to be sure I didn't type 'marital' there ) arts, size does matter.

If skill and will are equal but size is not, like Bushido said above, my money's on the big guy.

 

[kidswarrior]

If skill and will are equal....

I think this is a huge presupposition we've glossed over here (as in all similar threads on 'does size matter'?). Don't think I've ever been in or around a streetfest or a sparring match where skill and will were equal. These are gigantic variables.

I will add a minor bit to the either/or discussion, though: Jimmy H. Woo, who was of average size but reputedly a scary fighter, is said by those who trained with him to preach: Don't use strength, use leverage.

 

[Sukerkin]

Don't think I've ever been in or around a streetfest or a sparring match where skill and will were equal. These are gigantic variables.

I will add a minor bit to the either/or discussion, though: Jimmy H. Woo, who was of average size but reputedly a scary fighter, is said by those who trained with him to preach: Don't use strength, use leverage.

Valid points there, Kidswarrior.

It is certainly the case that fighters are seldom matched in either their technical skill or their mental toughness.

In this hypothetical discussion, I think what we're actually talking our way around to is not "does size matter" (because I honestly think that that is a 'given') but which is more important between skill, will and physique.

In its way, that's a much trickier question as, taken in isolation, I think there are few people that wouldn't say that more of all three attributes is a good thing.

As a side issue, it's quite intriguing that altho' noone would say that having less good technique or inferior will is better, there are some that will state that being less well physiqued (sp?) is an advantage.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps it has its roots in the ingrained attitude that we all like the underdog to 'do good' and whilst you can't directly see, at first glance, skill or will, it is fairly obvious if a chap is built like Arnold .

By the way, for an inversion of this 'root for the little guy' rection, watch the sword fight at the end of Rob Roy. The 'underdog' reponse becomes 'root for the big but less skilled guy'.

 

[Adept]

It's cliche, I'm sure it's been said before but:

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

An equally repeated and just as true cliche:

When all other things are equal, the biggest guy wins.

 

[kidswarrior]

Valid points there, Kidswarrior.

It is certainly the case that fighters are seldom matched in either their technical skill or their mental toughness.

In this hypothetical discussion, I think what we're actually talking our way around to is not "does size matter" (because I honestly think that that is a 'given') but which is more important between skill, will and physique.

In its way, that's a much trickier question as, taken in isolation, I think there are few people that wouldn't say that more of all three attributes is a good thing.

As a side issue, it's quite intriguing that altho' noone would say that having less good technique or inferior will is better, there are some that will state that being less well physiqued (sp?) is an advantage.

I wonder why that is? Perhaps it has its roots in the ingrained attitude that we all like the underdog to 'do good' and whilst you can't directly see, at first glance, skill or will, it is fairly obvious if a chap is built like Arnold .

By the way, for an inversion of this 'root for the little guy' rection, watch the sword fight at the end of Rob Roy. The 'underdog' reponse becomes 'root for the big but less skilled guy'.

Sukerkin, if you weren't more skilled in logic than me (smarter), I'd use my size advantage on the keyboard to overpower you on this (6', 230--I can really pound those keys!). And since you ended with the best scene from the best movie of all time, I'll let you go this time. :lfao: Just watch yourself around us bigger guys from now on. :ultracool

Oh, and I tried to rep you but gotta 'spread the love' first.

 

[Sukerkin]

:lol:

Cheers, Kidswarrior. I'll certainly tread carefully from now on; thanks for the gracious warning .

Oh, and I'm by no means convinced on the 'smarter' issue ... I seem to spend an awful lot of my time agreeing with you, so no ninja-like putting yourself down ROFL.

OT - I really must get around to buying 'Rob Roy' on DVD; my video copy is showing the strain .

 

[K' Evans]

As much as I would like to vote for the underdog, I have to admit size does matter. I don't disagree that skills and proper technique are important and that you could perhaps hit or throw someone bigger and hurt the person, but remember that the bigger person is not your sparring partner. If he is just as focused on hurting you and can tolerate a great deal of pain, he is just as likely to hurt you very badly if he gets a few lucky shots in.

Perhaps the real variable here is not so much the person is simply bigger, but his enhanced ability, compared to a smaller person, to absorb and withstand the hits and damage from a smaller person. I don't like to definitively say that the bigger guy will win, but clearly being bigger will pose some advantage, and hence the smaller person has to compensate by having better techniques, speed, timing, execution and etc. But overall, you can see that the smaller person will have to compensate for a lot just by virtue of some guy being bigger.

 

[Last Fearner]

Some still seem to be leaning toward this notion that bigger is better, and a larger, or stronger person has an advantage in a fight. Therefore, some are still concluding that, if it were possible to have two people of exactly the same skill, and the will to win, the larger one would likely prevail. I believe this is a misguided notion, and I will explain why below. Also, there is a factor that seems be to getting ignored in this discussion thus far - - which I will address in a moment.

First, let me present the options:

1. Both opponents are small, and both are equal in skill and will:
- - Who stands a better chance of winning?

2. Both opponents are small, but one is more skilled:
- - With rare exception, the skilled opponent would likely win.

3. One opponent is bigger and more skilled: The odds are in his favor

4. One opponent is smaller, but is more skilled:
- - With rare exception, the skilled opponent would likely win.

5. One opponent is smaller, but they are equal in skill and will:
- - Who stands a better chance of winning?

6. Both opponents are big, but one is more skilled:
- - With rare exception, the skilled opponent would likely win.

7. Both opponents are big, and both are equal in skill and will:
- - Who stands a better chance of winning?

In #2 and #6 above, both opponents are the same size (both small, or both big), but one of them is more skilled. The logical conclusion is that the skilled fighter would win (barring any unusual circumstances).

In #3 above, one opponent is bigger, and also possesses the greater skill. Thus, like #2 and #6, the skilled fighter would likely prevail.

In #4 above, the size is different, but the higher skill belongs to the smaller opponent. Some people might argue this point, but I believe that the skilled opponent stands a much better chance of winning. That is what Martial Art skill is designed to do - - allow a smaller, weaker person to defeat a larger, stronger attacker through skills that the opponent does not possess.

In #1 and #7 above, both opponents are the same size (both small, or both big). In addition, both fighters have exactly the same skill and the will to win. It would be like fighting a duplicate of yourself (ever play the old video game, Zelda?). There can be an advantage found here which I will describe below.

Scenario #5 is the one that seems to be the focus of contention. Skill and will are identical (as rare as this might be to occur), but one opponent is bigger. Does the bigger person have an advantage because of their size, and/or strength?

Let me ask this. Between a semi-truck, and a volkswagon, which has the advantage if both drivers have the exact same skill and will to live. If you are thinking about crashing them into one another, then you might give the victory to the semi.

However, what if I said that the challenge was driving up a steep hill, or driving down a steep decline with lots of curves, and cliffs on one side. Nature provides disadvantages for the more massive bodies. The skilled fighter knows how to work that to their advantage. Therefore, even if skills are equal, if that skill is a high level of Martial Art training, then anyone who knows how to use their opponent's size and weight against them has an advantage (even if they are the smaller person).

Here is the final point that I mentioned before, which has not been addressed as of yet.

Who is the aggressor?

The Martial Art is intended to teach us to not attack, but defend, and counter-attack only when it is safe to do so. The person who commits to an attack is placing themselves at a disadvantage. If they are a better fighter, it might work out. However, if the skills are equal, and I am the smaller person, I must remain the "defender" which will allow me to prevail in nearly every case (barring any unusual circumstances).

This is also true in fencing (or sword fighting). The leverage and skill of the parry gives the advantage to the defender every single time. Only an attacker with greater skill can overcome that disadvantage. As long as I defend against the extended and weak position of my attacker, and only counter when they are vulnerable, even a larger, stronger person can not defeat me.

It does not matter that your sledge hammer is bigger than my handy-man's hammer. The moment you pick up your huge, heavy sledge hammer and swing it at me, you are at a disadvantage. I will drop my hammer and take you down bare handed, because you are attacking, and I am defending. If our skills are equal, your attack has placed you in a vulnerable position, thus you will likely lose.

Every scenario is different in real life, but physical size and strength are not an advantage unless you are attacking a person who is not sufficiently skilled in the Martial Art.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[Adept]

Let me ask this. Between a semi-truck, and a volkswagon, which has the advantage if both drivers have the exact same skill and will to live. If you are thinking about crashing them into one another, then you might give the victory to the semi.

However, what if I said that the challenge was driving up a steep hill, or driving down a steep decline with lots of curves, and cliffs on one side. Nature provides disadvantages for the more massive bodies.

Certainly. And if by 'win' you mean the combatant best able to squeeze through narrow gaps, run over long distances or climb up a thin fence or or tree, then a larger body is a disadvantage.

However, in terms of a physical confrontation, being larger (obviously in terms of muscle, not fat) is never a disadvantage. You gain reach, speed, strength, and natural armour without losing sensitivity, flexibility, technique or skill. The only disadvantages are the hours spent in the gym, having to 'hold back' during sparring and finding clothes that fit.

The Martial Art is intended to teach us to not attack, but defend, and counter-attack only when it is safe to do so. The person who commits to an attack is placing themselves at a disadvantage.

Context, context, context!

If I belt someone in the back of the head with a barstool, I am very much taking the advantage.

However, if the skills are equal, and I am the smaller person, I must remain the "defender" which will allow me to prevail in nearly every case (barring any unusual circumstances).

I don't see how. The defender has no natural advantage over the attacker.

It does not matter that your sledge hammer is bigger than my handy-man's hammer. The moment you pick up your huge, heavy sledge hammer and swing it at me, you are at a disadvantage.

A poor analogy. Muscle generates excess power, enabling a larger muscle to move a limb faster than a smaller one. Thus the 'sledge hammer' is not only heavier, but faster and more resistent to damage, with no loss in accuracy.

I will drop my hammer and take you down bare handed, because you are attacking, and I am defending. If our skills are equal, your attack has placed you in a vulnerable position, thus you will likely lose.

Again, the defender does not automatically get some special bonus, nor is he more likely to win.

Every scenario is different in real life, but physical size and strength are not an advantage unless you are attacking a person who is not sufficiently skilled in the Martial Art.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

Physical size and strength are always an advantage. They increase your reach, your leverage, your speed and your ability to absorb damage without reducing any of the attributes of a smaller person. It's why they have weight classes in all forms of combat sport, and it's not because the little guys would beat the big guys...

 

[Sukerkin]

That was a well structured post, Last Fearner. I don't necessarily think that I agree with you conclusion but I like very much the fact that you thought your way to it (rather than just stating an opinion) :tup:

Adept makes some good points also. I feel that his last statement was particularly persuasive.

 

[Shaderon]

I agree, Adepts last statement is a good one, I don't like to say it because I am a "little guy" but I tend to agree that in a contest of equal skills, willpower and ART in a given situation, then the big guy would probably win because of his better reach, increased ability to take a hit and possibly a bit of psychological pressure too.

 

[kidswarrior]

Both Last Fearner and Adept make good points. And I just think this is too individual a question to generalize. Some smaller people are tremendous fighters, and some larger people not so much. So I'll just go with the old fallback--my own experience.

As both Sukerkin and Shaderon have said, my size and will to win (unfortunately that dropped out of the discussion somewhere along the way) have helped in many real world situations, first to discourage any stupidity by others, second to communicate the attitude that if my cause was just (I was doing the right thing) I would prevail. But in sport situations (sparring), I've sometimes had trouble with guys (and by that I mean 'guys' of the female persuasion, too ) 60 pounds lighter and 6" shorter. So maybe the context of the question is important here as well.

 

[Last Fearner]

Hi Adept! Thank you for taking time to clearly express your difference in conclusions on this topic with a good point and counter-point presentation. I hope you don't mind that I continue with attempting to explain my position as I feel this it the best way for all to gain from these discussion threads. As long as we keep our opposing replies respectful, I don't mind that you disagree, and I enjoy reading your perspective.

Certainly. And if by 'win' you mean the combatant best able to squeeze through narrow gaps, run over long distances or climb up a thin fence or or tree, then a larger body is a disadvantage.

Well, at least here you seem to agree that a larger body is at a disadvantage in some circumstances. Now, the translation to physical combat that I am making is first that a larger body moves differently according to the laws of nature. Those differences will typically increase momentum once the body is in motion, but slow the speed and acceleration.

Secondly, the mere notion of a bigger, stronger person seems to imply greater threat of damage, but this is contrary to Martial Art application of scientific principles of motion. The greater the size, and strength, the more power applied when attacking, thus the more power available to the defender when using the opponent's own strength, size, and weight against him. It is a matter of skill. Not that your skill has to be better than the larger person, just sufficient enough to apply this knowledge. Lacking the skill by the smaller person, the large person is a great threat, but having the skill will reverse that threat, and actually place the larger attacker at a disadvantage.

Context, context, context!

Not sure what your point is by this comment. Perhaps you can clarify.

If I belt someone in the back of the head with a barstool, I am very much taking the advantage.

Again, not sure of the point relative to this topic, but yes, you would be taking the advantage of surprise. However, the skill of a Martial Artist should keep them alert, positioned, and prepared to prevent this kind of attack.

I don't see how. The defender has no natural advantage over the attacker.

By your above comment here, it appears to me that, as you have studied over the years, you have not had this fact taught to you. Some people study from self-discovery and never find these truths. Others have teachers who either did not know this, did not convey it clearly, or the student did not remain long enough to learn it.

At least you said "I don't see how." So, I will attempt to show you how the defender does have a natural advantage. Consider this lesson from fencing with foils (the narrow round swords). When both opponents are in the "on guard" stance, the tip of their foil is pointed diagonally upward toward their opponent's face. When they attack, they lower the tip, lunge forward, and extend their sword arm to become straight. The defender parries by remaining in a position similar to the on guard stance with their sword arm bent (either pointing up or down). The strong position of the defender will always prevail (if timing is correct) because the attacker must extend to a weaker, straight arm position to strike.

Most every aspect of Martial Art physical combat should teach the student ways to position himself, and use their stronger muscles against an attacker's weaker muscles. This is done with a distinct advantage when my objective is to defend, and protect my body as opposed to my opponent's objective to extend and attack. This might not be the easiest lesson to learn in an internet post, but it is true, and most Masters of weaponry (staff, tonfa, nunchakku, sword, fencing, etc) will acknowledge that this is a truth within their art as well. As my 72 year old fencing instructor (back in the 1980s) would say, "The defender always has the advantage."

{The next quote pertains to my sledgehammer analogy}

A poor analogy. Muscle generates excess power, enabling a larger muscle to move a limb faster than a smaller one. Thus the 'sledge hammer' is not only heavier, but faster and more resistent to damage, with no loss in accuracy.
My analogy might have been a poor one if it did not convey the point as well as intended, however your assumption about heavier and faster is not accurate, in my opinion. I can swing a small hammer much faster than a strong man swings a sledgehammer. Once a sledge is in motion, it has greater mass and momentum, but if I hurl a small hammer at the same time a strong guy throws a sledge, mine will reach him first. (Think about David and Goliath)

Secondly, the analogy about the sledge is not to deny what a sledge can do, it is to point out that once committed to an attack with such a large weapon, it is difficult to change course. I can move a small hammer left, right, up, down, and whip it about with little effort, and never be so committed to a strike that I can not stop it, or change its direction with relative ease.

However, in terms of a physical confrontation, being larger (obviously in terms of muscle, not fat) is never a disadvantage. You gain reach, speed, strength, and natural armour without losing sensitivity, flexibility, technique or skill.

Physical size and strength are always an advantage. They increase your reach, your leverage, your speed and your ability to absorb damage without reducing any of the attributes of a smaller person. It's why they have weight classes in all forms of combat sport, and it's not because the little guys would beat the big guys...

Since my father was a professional wrestler, I too wrestled with Bobo Brazil's group in Michigan (a few matches during the mid 1980s). I would disagree with the notion that the bigger and stronger guys had an advantage without limitations due to their size and restricted mobility. Consider Andre the Giant. Large, strong, but lacked speed, mobility, and agility. There are plenty of examples, even of the best current wrestlers.

You said the advantage of size includes:
"Increase your reach." Granted, but most Martial Artists possess skills which nullify what would be an advantage against an unskilled opponent. As stated earlier, stretch your reach out to grab or strike me, and you have extended your arm into a vulnerable position. If you keep your arms close to you for more power, then your reach is no longer an issue.

"...your leverage." Leverage is a physical application of pressure in relationship to a fulcrum. If I want to move a bolder, I place a fulcrum near it, and get a long pole. If the bolder is too heavy, I get a longer pole. Thus, if my opponent has a longer arm (pole), the advantage of leverage is mine when applied properly. If I am missing your point on this, please explain what you meant.

"...your speed." Again, I don't know any evidence to support a "larger equals increased speed" capability. Running fast in a track meet requires a certain amount of toned muscles, but I do not believe we would ever see a Mr. America, or Mr. Universe out run a smaller, weaker sprinter. Guys like Bruce Lee were fast but with compact with toned muscles, not large guys with huge muscles.

"...your ability to absorb damage" This is only true if the lager person's opponent is an unskilled brawler. A Martial Artist knows where to strike at weak, vulnerable, and unprotected targets, and how to apply power that size and muscle will still be unable to prevent total destruction. The idea that a big muscular guy is going to allow punches and kicks bounce off his massive, hulking body is one for the movies, or against a novice fighter.

In my experience, and my opinion, any advantage that size or strength would ordinarily appear to have, applies to limited situations, and are countered through natural laws. Only a lack of skill would fall prey to size and brute force. A person who is standing still, is not going to do damage if you are out of range. They must first move to close the distance and make an attack (if they are the aggressor, and you are the defender). Walking is a series of falling and catching your balance.

The moment you propel your body forward in an attack, you are entering a controlled fall. If your front foot does not stop that fall, you will go down. Aggression is commitment to some kind of movement which places the aggressor at a physically, scientifically, and natural disadvantage momentarily. Skilled Martial Artists are trained to exploit that moment of vulnerability. The large, heavier attacker projects more weight into this trap. The stronger person applies more power and force to be used against him in such a trap.

Perhaps this does not convey the lesson as good as it is in a classroom, so I invite those who wish to visit Southwest Michigan to come see me. :ultracool

CM D.J. Eisenhart
___________________
Last Fearner

 

[Adept]

Hi Adept! Thank you for taking time to clearly express your difference in conclusions on this topic with a good point and counter-point presentation. I hope you don't mind that I continue with attempting to explain my position as I feel this it the best way for all to gain from these discussion threads. As long as we keep our opposing replies respectful, I don't mind that you disagree, and I enjoy reading your perspective.

:asian:

It is refreshing to be able to respectfully disagree with someone!

Now, the translation to physical combat that I am making is first that a larger body moves differently according to the laws of nature. Those differences will typically increase momentum once the body is in motion, but slow the speed and acceleration.

The body is larger and heavier, and so will experience more resistance. However, it will also generate much more power, increasing the power-to-weight ratio which in turn increases the speed and overcomes the resistance.

Secondly, the mere notion of a bigger, stronger person seems to imply greater threat of damage, but this is contrary to Martial Art application of scientific principles of motion. The greater the size, and strength, the more power applied when attacking, thus the more power available to the defender when using the opponent's own strength, size, and weight against him.

Indeed, but when both opponents are equally (or at least, similarly) skilled, then the larger opponent is more difficult to deal with than the smaller opponent. The larger opponent can do everything the smaller opponent can do, but he can do it faster and harder.

Not sure what your point is by this comment. Perhaps you can clarify.

An attack is at a disadvantage if you can accurately predict it. A succesful attack will minimise your ability to predict it. Likewise, commitment to a defensive move is a liability, if that move is responding to a false prediction.

Either way, the larger person is just as likely to be the defender as the aggressor, even if the larger person initiated the conflict.

When both opponents are in the "on guard" stance, the tip of their foil is pointed diagonally upward toward their opponent's face. When they attack, they lower the tip, lunge forward, and extend their sword arm to become straight. The defender parries by remaining in a position similar to the on guard stance with their sword arm bent (either pointing up or down). The strong position of the defender will always prevail (if timing is correct) because the attacker must extend to a weaker, straight arm position to strike.

But if the attacker has launched a feint, to which you have commited your defense, and then attacks in a manner to take advantage of that, they now have the advantage. The disadvantage lies in commitment to movement, whether it be aggressive or defensive in nature. The advantage lies in being able to predict your opponents movement and react accordingly.

Most every aspect of Martial Art physical combat should teach the student ways to position himself, and use their stronger muscles against an attacker's weaker muscles. This is done with a distinct advantage when my objective is to defend, and protect my body as opposed to my opponent's objective to extend and attack.

I'm still not sure I understand. As I said, whenever you can predict your opponents next move, you hold the advantage, but that is an advantage that will be held by the most experienced and skilled fighter, not automatically by the defender.

My analogy might have been a poor one if it did not convey the point as well as intended, however your assumption about heavier and faster is not accurate, in my opinion. I can swing a small hammer much faster than a strong man swings a sledgehammer. Once a sledge is in motion, it has greater mass and momentum, but if I hurl a small hammer at the same time a strong guy throws a sledge, mine will reach him first. (Think about David and Goliath)

Yes, but a stronger man than you will be able to swing that smaller hammer faster, and throw it further!

You said the advantage of size includes:
"Increase your reach." Granted, but most Martial Artists possess skills which nullify what would be an advantage against an unskilled opponent. As stated earlier, stretch your reach out to grab or strike me, and you have extended your arm into a vulnerable position. If you keep your arms close to you for more power, then your reach is no longer an issue.

I am only in a vulnerable position when attacking if I have allowed you to predict my movement. A longer reach is an undenable advantage. It allows you to strike from outside your opponents range, it forces your opponent to move into your range, making his moves more telegraphic, and it gives you a greater reaction time.

"...your leverage."

Leverage is a physical application of pressure in relationship to a fulcrum. If I want to move a bolder, I place a fulcrum near it, and get a long pole. If the bolder is too heavy, I get a longer pole. Thus, if my opponent has a longer arm (pole), the advantage of leverage is mine when applied properly. If I am missing your point on this, please explain what you meant.

A stronger person requires a smaller lever to move an equal weight. Being larger, a smaller person requires a larger lever to move them. Remember, your arm is just as likely to be the 'pole' as theirs is!

"...your speed."

Again, I don't know any evidence to support a "larger equals increased speed" capability. Running fast in a track meet requires a certain amount of toned muscles, but I do not believe we would ever see a Mr. America, or Mr. Universe out run a smaller, weaker sprinter. Guys like Bruce Lee were fast but with compact with toned muscles, not large guys with huge muscles.

Granted. How many olympic sprinters are little guys? Do you think the smaller, leaner marathon runners could out-sprint them? A Mr Universe contestant might never win a 100m gold medal, but thats not what he trains for, and he can safely ignore his flexibility and speed with no impact on his performance. A muscle is like an engine. A larger engine is heavier, but it generates power far in excess of that required to move itself. And that excess is speed.

A limb isn't like a car or jet which have only one engine, and which at high speeds can be ponderous to maneuver. A limb has other muscles (ideally of equal size) which work in unison to instantly halt and reverse its movement with no loss of speed, regardless of it's size.

The smaller person has less weight to move, but also significantly less power to move it.

"...your ability to absorb damage"

This is only true if the lager person's opponent is an unskilled brawler. A Martial Artist knows where to strike at weak, vulnerable, and unprotected targets, and how to apply power that size and muscle will still be unable to prevent total destruction.

If a large skilled fighter is fighting a smaller skilled fighter, then the larger fighter has the larger range of effective targets, as many of the more superficial parts of his body are buried under damage-absorbing muscle tissue.

Aggression is commitment to some kind of movement which places the aggressor at a physically, scientifically, and natural disadvantage momentarily. Skilled Martial Artists are trained to exploit that moment of vulnerability.

I take issue with the use of the word 'aggression' in this context. Commitment to any kind of action is a liability, if you have allowed your opponent to predict that movement. It doesn't matter if that movement is aggressive or defensive in nature, or who is the aggressor or defender in the situation.

The large, heavier attacker projects more weight into this trap. The stronger person applies more power and force to be used against him in such a trap.

But the larger person is just as likely to initiate the trap, and is more able to inflict damage with it due to his improved speed, power, and reduced need for leverage.