Inspired from a question I saw at AllExpert. Self Defense: strength, silverback gorilla, bob sapp Be sure to read the above link because its fundamental tot he question and my upcoming details are so entwined you won't comprehend the rest of this post without reading the AllExpert response by Marc MacYoung at least once. On the other far extreme often prevalent in the TMA, I notice many traditionals disregard strength believing that if you have technique, skill, and strategy, you don't need strength at all. This is especially true in the dumbed down standards of Western schools and the McDojo ridden markets of North America. To bring back the bull analogy mentioned in the link, is the old bull who prefers to slip sideways and attack from an angle STRONG? Despite being old age and weaker than the young bull he always beat? Because right now TMAs in the West have dumbed down to the point there is almost little emphasize on physical conditioning (esp strength training like pushups and weights) and like the asker in that question said man "masters" are saying its skills and techniques and brains you should all focus on rather than conditioning. If the old bull was 0 at strength, would attacking from another angle and slipping be ineffective no matter how well executed? I read an extremely overlooked fact about styles that rely on techniques and angle such is that the old school masters tended to be PHYSICALLY STRONG for their age. Sure a young weightlifter can probably overpower them in an arm wrestling match but these guys were in far better shape than most elderly of equal age and even many young kids today in obese America. In fact I recall the creator of Aikido was so strong that many of his younger and healthy students described his gripping power as monstrous that you felt our wrists or hands or ARMS period was going to break if he put pressure on it. And he was a dedicated weightlifter (or at least used weights heavily in his training) so he was out of the norm. I also remember reading that Mas Oyama, despite having arthritis because of old age, was still able to do lovely impressive feats and this is not attributed because not only due to his mastery of skills but also he was so physically strong in his youth that it carried to his old age and more importantly he never stopped training thus he was able to grow into an elderly years as still a reasonably fit person. Whats your take on this? Is the "old man easily crushing muscular young teen/college jocks in seconds" being proof of skill over strength incredibly overblown (and ignores key components such as these old men being light years ahead in healthy habits and physical state to their peers)?