How Effective Is Bodybuilding For Self Defence?

[Steve]

When I first started training, there was a guy who was a bodybuilder who was also a white belt. It was eye opening to me what he shared about that sport. The entire idea of that sport of that sport is to sculpt the body into a shape, which represents and ideal. The wide shoulders and huge thighs are in contrast to a very small waist.

When he started, he had very strong arms and legs, but his core was underdeveloped. Eventually, after about 7 months, he suffered from his first hernia. He had surgery, eventually had another hernia and had to quick training. I don't know whether there is a direct correlation between his previous training as a bodybuilder, his lack of core strength and his hernia issues, but he believed there was.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Nobody asked if bodybuilding was a good substitute for MA training. They were asking if the physical intimidation factor might be useful in preventing attacks.

To some extent perhaps it can but attackers all too often choose their victims based in their vulnerability not their size. For instance, somebody with headphones on whose absorbed in their iPhone would be at a much greater level of vulnerability than somebody who is alert to their surroundings and thus much more likely to be picked as a victim regardless of their respective sizes and musculature.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To some extent perhaps it can but attackers all too often choose their victims based in their vulnerability not their size. For instance, somebody with headphones on whose absorbed in their iPhone would be at a much greater level of vulnerability than somebody who is alert to their surroundings and thus much more likely to be picked as a victim regardless of their respective sizes and musculature.

Agreed, but that doesn't address whether the same person would be less likely to be chosen if they were bigger. In most cases, I think the answer is yes. It doesn't trump other factors, but it is a factor that matters.

 

[Paul_D]

Agreed, but that doesn't address whether the same person would be less likely to be chosen if they were bigger. In most cases, I think the answer is yes.

Why do you think that? In the only interview I've read with a mugger interview, when asked if size played a part in selecting their victim, they said no.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why do you think that? In the only interview I've read with a mugger interview, when asked if size played a part in selecting their victim, they said no.

That's one person, and one type of instance. Size affects some people some of the time (or maybe some people all of the time). Thus, it plays a role. If someone sees two equally vulnerable looking people who appear to have equal stuff to take, and one of them looks like the Rock in his prime, and the other looks like Woody Allen in his prime, which do you think they'd choose? Same for if someone is just propping their ego and looking to pick a fight they can easily win - do they pick Woody or the Rock? There are scenarios where size doesn't matter. There are even scenarios where it may play in the opposite direction (someone with lots of confidence wanting to show off). In most cases it's either a positive or neutral.

 

[Paul_D]

That's one person, and one type of instance. Size affects some people some of the time (or maybe some people all of the time). Thus, it plays a role. If someone sees two equally vulnerable looking people who appear to have equal stuff to take, and one of them looks like the Rock in his prime, and the other looks like Woody Allen in his prime, which do you think they'd choose? Same for if someone is just propping their ego and looking to pick a fight they can easily win - do they pick Woody or the Rock? There are scenarios where size doesn't matter. There are even scenarios where it may play in the opposite direction (someone with lots of confidence wanting to show off). In most cases it's either a positive or neutral.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking why you think that.

Asking me what I think about the Rock and Woody Allen doesn't is irrelevant as I'm not a criminal. The one interview I have read with a criminal where they were asked about size tells me size isn't a factor. So my question remains why do you think it is? What evidence do you have from criminals that influences the way you think, or are you just superimposing what you think onto criminals on the assumption they think they same way you do?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking why you think that.

Asking me what I think about the Rock and Woody Allen doesn't is irrelevant as I'm not a criminal. The one interview I have read with a criminal where they were asked about size tells me size isn't a factor. So my question remains why do you think it is? What evidence do you have from criminals that influences the way you think, or are you just superimposing what you think onto criminals on the assumption they think they same way you do?

You're assuming the only situation to be considered is the "criminal". I've referred to more situations than that. I'll see if I can dig up any of the old references I have about target choice. Vulnerability is the primary criterion, and that includes perceived physical vulnerability (their likely ability to fight back). In that, smaller/weaker is perceived as more vulnerable.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Bodybuilding is for looks and for image, its not about self defense. Here is a video that shows that when a bodybuilder goes up against a Jiu Jitsu fighter.

To be more precise, that's what happens when a body builder goes against Pedro Sauer in his prime. Sauer may have been giving up 100 pounds, but he is also a very good black belt. Put an average blue belt up against that same body builder and the outcome may have been different.

That said, you are generally correct about body building. It's focused on developing a certain type of appearance. There are strength gains involved, but they are a side effect of the main goal. Competitors in power lifting, Olympic weight lifting, and strong man contests will generally have much more functional strength than their body building counterparts. None of those are directly aimed at fighting or self-defense, but having a high level of functional strength can certainly be useful in a combative situation.

 

[Paul_D]

I'll see if I can dig up any of the old references I have about target choice.

Thank you, that would be much appreciated. The more information I can access the better.

 

[Ironbear24]

Idk how afraid are you of me?

 

[Headhunter]

Body builders are not tough guys sure they could probably throw a hard Punch but not with any speed or technique. Look in boxing or mma these big muscular guys after a few minutes they're exhausted and get picked apart

 

[Sami Ibrahim]

intimidation causes more problems than it helps, trust me, I am not that muscular but something about me intimidates people and it just causes problems. That said being conditioned including having well developed muscles will absolutely help you when your engaged in combat.

 

[kuniggety]

I'm not a bodybuilder, ie I don't do the high rep low weight reps used to maximize blood flow to get big puffy muscles. I do however do power lifts (back squat, deadlift, bench press, overhead press and occasionally snatched and bent over rows) with high weight and low reps which help tremendously with core strength. It conditions you to work with very heavy weight and so when you're, say, dealing with an averaged sized person, it winds up being almost effortless to move them around. It really helps in grappling... as a supplement to good technique.

 

[Headhunter]

intimidation causes more problems than it helps, trust me, I am not that muscular but something about me intimidates people and it just causes problems. That said being conditioned including having well developed muscles will absolutely help you when your engaged in combat.

Absolutely a lot of times people see a big guy as a challenge and want to take him to prove their manhood by taking on a big guy and looking good in front of the girls, I mean if you pick a fight with a guy smaller than you you look like a pussy....I'm saying that from the drunken idiots perspective obviously getting in fights in general is just stupid

 

[Paul_D]

I'm saying that from the drunken idiots perspective obviously getting in fights in general is just stupid

But then, drunken getting into fights isn't self defence. The thread is about self defence, not consensual violence.

 

[drop bear]

But then, drunken getting into fights isn't self defence. The thread is about self defence, not consensual violence.

Defending a drunken fight absolutely is though.
90 killed in single-punch assaults since 2000

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But then, drunken getting into fights isn't self defence. The thread is about self defence, not consensual violence.

I don't think he was referring to being drunk, but to being attacked by a drunk idiot with something to prove.

 

[Steve]

You guys are falling into the trap of believing that "self defense" is a useful term with a universally understood and agreed upon definition.

When people start saying, "but X is not self defense," that is a red flag.

 

[Steve]

But then, drunken getting into fights isn't self defence. The thread is about self defence, not consensual violence.

Not every person who drinks wants to get into a fight. And not every person who is drunk and fights did so consensually. And, even if it is consensual, I don't think it's any less "self defense" than a cop getting into a fight (which many have stated is somehow self defense).

It's not the same as being mugged or being raped, but I don't get the sense that's what you have in mind.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You guys are falling into the trap of believing that "self defense" is a useful term with a universally understood and agreed upon definition.

When people start saying, "but X is not self defense," that is a red flag.

There may not be a universal definition, but there are things that are fairly universally understood as not being self-defense.