size matters ???

michaelvpardo

White Belt
Joined
Nov 26, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Neptune, New Jersey
Size may matter, but depending on the art it could be an advantage or a disadvantage. Early in my training my Sifu and his assistant had some comments about my size. I'm not particularly muscular, but I have a large frame, stand at nearly 6'2" and have been overweight most of my life.
I didn't take up the study of Tai Chi Chuan for self defense, but I was trying to recover from a compressed disc and the art has a reputation for being useful for health and recovery from injury. My sifu's assistant believed that I was too big to attain much skill in the art, or at least felt that being tall and heavy was a distinct disadvantage. Tai Chi uses strikes with fist, foot, shoulder, elbow, knee, but the techniques are not applied at a distance, but upclose and personal. An accomplished practitioner of Tai Chi should be able to come into close contact with his or her opponent and maintain that contact to the point of applying some disabling technique. I remember reading about Bruce Lee's 1 inch punch as though this were some strange development of his own, but the technique of striking using the bodies axial musculature for power, rather than just the muscles of the arm or leg is very old. Tai Chi, like some other forms of Gungfu, Akido, and similar arts also uses grapling and joint locking techniques, as well as cavity grab and cavity press techniques, generally referred to as Chin na. Even with an experienced teacher, you are not likely to see much of these techniques as a beginner, because of the ease with which serious damage can be done to the body. If I hadn't participated in some seminars at Tai Chi festivals, I probably wouldn't have been shown any techniques by my Sifu until after many years of study.
There is a teacher in the Boston area, named Dr. Yang Jwing-ming, who teaches White Crane Kung Fu, and is quite proficient in Chin na. He's not a very big man, but he can bring a man twice his size to the ground (introduce him to the floor) with only one or two quickly performed movements. When you induce severe pain by distorting the normal position of the joints of your opponent, he will quite naturally follow your movement to remove the pressure causing the pain. When your technique is correct, it takes very little muscular effort to pacify a person, and only slightly more applied force to cause tearing of ligaments, tendons, etc., that can make a limb absolutely useless as a weapon.
I don't think that an accomplished practitioner of any effective martial art would easily allow himself to be manipulated into helplessness, but Tai Chi, like some other arts, makes use of techniques which not only deflect blows from an attacker, but steals some of the attacking energy or momentum to counter strike or to lock and break (a limb). These techniques don't require great strength, but agility and sensitivity to the movement of your opponent. The idea is largely to use your opponent's own strength and size against him (or her), but it takes a long time to develop such skills and with only a little skill, brute force tends to win the day.
"Let others attack with great force; Use four ounces to deflect a thousand pounds" from the Tai Chi classics
 

Adept

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
12
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Size may matter, but depending on the art it could be an advantage or a disadvantage.

There are very, very few instances where bigger muscles are a disadvantage.

There is a teacher in the Boston area, named Dr. Yang Jwing-ming, who teaches White Crane Kung Fu, and is quite proficient in Chin na. He's not a very big man, but he can bring a man twice his size to the ground

Ah, but imagine if Dr. Yang was twice as big as he is! He could drop men that are currently four times his size.

I don't think that an accomplished practitioner of any effective martial art would easily allow himself to be manipulated into helplessness

Well, thats it really, isn't it. If you happen to run into someone who is just as skilled as you, and is also bigger than you, then you are in a lot of trouble. It's why we have weight divisions in combat sports like boxing or MMA. The Big guys can do all the things the little guys can do, but they do it harder.
 

CuongNhuka

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,596
Reaction score
31
Location
NE
Advantages-
Tall guy: reach, probably speed and flexiblitly

Short guy: in fight, lower center of gravity makes throws easier

Skiny guy: agility

Muscle bond dude: one hit, one hit KO

Fat guy: well, unless he's a sumo, there really aren't any. if he's a sumo, or like minded, he could just steam roll you

Disadvantages-
Tall guy: probably lacks to much agility, and will be S.O.L. if throw to ground

Short guy: probably cann't kick very well. Or atleast not very high

Skinny guy: probably not gonna be a hard hitter

Muscle bond dude: probably lacks agilty, speed, flexiblity, and grappling is probably gonna be difficult to pull off if he focuses on musclcular strength.

Fat guy: obvious conditioning problems unless a sumo, and most grappling is gonna be difficult too. however, if exerpienced, he could use his size to simply evelep and crush his opponent.

While slightly off topic, I think you could get what I'm saying.
 

Josh

Blue Belt
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
234
Reaction score
5
I think size matters to an extent. It matters if you can't overcome it. (Like everything else). Two people will never be exactally the same in every area except size. Many variables go into it. I wouldn't want to fight someone much bigger than myself. (I'm only 5'10) but that's why I think its a good idea to be a well rounded fighter/martial artist. I think this relates a lot to the idea of cross training. Very few fighters or people ONLY have their height and weight. That being said, I don't think any one PART of a fighter cannot be overcome somehow. From personal exp. I believe being well rounded and knowing what you're good at, and working on your weaknesses can get you by just fine.


my 2 cents


Josh
 

kidswarrior

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 27, 2007
Messages
2,697
Reaction score
152
Location
California
In a refereed fight, of course it matters.

On the street between two haymaker-throwers, it's probably also critical (for the intimidation factor, if nothing else).

Between street-savvy fighters (without weapons), I think I've seen the most 'wins' by the one who is most determined: goes in hard, fast, and keeps at it till the other guy's done. And if the most determined is a natural counter-puncher, he evades/blocks and then goes in hard....

Between accomplished martial artists on the street--well, glad to say I've never seen or experienced that.
But that's just my experience. I could be all wet. :goop:
 

Adept

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
12
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Muscle bond dude: probably lacks agilty, speed, flexiblity, and grappling is probably gonna be difficult to pull off if he focuses on musclcular strength.

Common misconceptions. A heavily muscled person does not sacrifice any agility, speed or flexibility, nor is he more likely to 'muscle' a technique than a slim fighter.
 

Shotgun Buddha

Brown Belt
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Location
Dublin/Navan/Sinking hole in ground
Common misconceptions. A heavily muscled person does not sacrifice any agility, speed or flexibility, nor is he more likely to 'muscle' a technique than a slim fighter.

My main sparring partner is my brother Stephen. He is about 6'2, and weighs over 300 pounds. This is mostly muscle. He has been training the same length of time as me, and in the same stuff. He is fairly close to me in speed and also skill.
So would someone please try to explain how when an opponent is evenly matched in skill and speed, they would consider him being bigger and stronger to be a DISADVANTAGE for him?
I really don't see any logic in treating size as not making a difference.
Not commenting on you Adept, just general question.
 

shrek

Yellow Belt
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
There are many variables in what makes a larger or smaller man a better fighter. I would have paid good money to see Steven Seagal VS Bruce Lee...that would be a fantastic example...even money who'd win there.

Chuck Norris vs Seagal...I believe Norris would have lost. Too bad he never accepted any of Seagal's challenges back in the early 80's...that would have been another I'd have paid big bux to see.

There is a natural advantage given to a larger martial artist because of power...it only takes one or two solid hits to take out thesmaller opponent...however, that is balanced with the agility & speed of a small guy...but 9 times out of ten the little Italian guy who thinks he's Rocky is gonna get knocked on his tuckus by the big guy he's decided to annoy.
 

Adept

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
12
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I really don't see any logic in treating size as not making a difference.
Not commenting on you Adept, just general question.


As I say, it's just a common misconception, generated from years of martial arts flicks where the diminutive asian hero defeats musclebound hulks with ease.

People seem to think that being heavily muscled means a loss in agility, speed, sensitivity or skill. They think that a 300lb fighter is just going to throw wild haymakers or go for a bull-rush. They are wrong.
 

shrek

Yellow Belt
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Actually, let me put an example in here...I'm 6'3, 260bs. I can pick up engine blocks & transmissions by myself and put them where I want them. When I use a socket wrench I only use my finger & thumb to tighten because if I use more than that I'll usually snap the bolts off if I'm not really careful. In the last two years I've twisted three 4-way lug wrenches beyond any usefullness. This ain't honking my horn it's just my life. What do you think happens to someone when I apply a joint lock on 'em to throw them out of the bar? I've rarely ever had to hit anyone more than twice...and when someone hits me it usually just makes me smile. These are the benefits of size, strength, and training. To deny those benefits would be foolish, to ignore them would be seriously dumb....yet there are many drunken guys about 5'2-5'10 that deny them at least once at the bar where I work on a regular basis...for this they reap what they sow. In Tournaments the strikes are for points, not for KO's, so there is a disadvantage there in the fact that a large strong agile guy has to hold himself back so as not to cause damage to his smaller opponents...that tends to be frowned on by judges if you loosen some poor devil's teeth in a sparring match.

It's simple physics as to why a big guy is dangerous...I wouldn't want to fight me either. Size does matter.
 

Cirdan

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
2,494
Reaction score
441
Location
Oslo, Norway
Bigger persons have a higher point of gravity and, I think, are generally slightly less coordinated. However the advantages of reach, strength, weigth and ability to take a beating more than makes up for it.
If I met a clone of myself 10% larger and with comparable training, I would be at a disadvantage.
 

CuongNhuka

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,596
Reaction score
31
Location
NE
Common misconceptions. A heavily muscled person does not sacrifice any agility, speed or flexibility, nor is he more likely to 'muscle' a technique than a slim fighter.

I mostly meant the people who spend more time lifting weights then training technique. If you can only train for 3 hours a day, and are covered in muscles, you probably spend most of your training time working on that. Which leaves you with less time to work on most other things.
Look at the Arnold. I some how find it hard to believe that he can do too much of any thing that requires a great deal of flexiblity. And it was a person with his kind of build that I was referring to. I could be wrong though. Thats always a possibilty. And of course there is an exception to every rule.
And shotgun buddha, if you looked at my post, earlier on I put advantages. Under which was the whole, one hit knock out becoms a possibilty. Also about agility, I mostly mean the ability to step around an attack. If you weigh 300 lb.s, muscle or not thats alot to get moving all at once. Also my reasoning behind speed. It's simply so much to get moving that generating alot of speed in short distance is gonna be hard. And once agian, if you can get that moving, I'm gonna stay as far away as possible because your gonna get some pretty serious force out of it.
 

Kwan Jang

Purple Belt
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
345
Reaction score
27
Location
Gallatin, TN. (suburb of Nashville)
Muscle is what moves the body. Your argument is like saying that an SR-71 Blackbird jet should be slower than a sparrow because the bird weighs less. Unlike fat, muscle provides the horsepower to move itself and then some. Also, Arnold was very flexible and an incredible overall athlete, just giving credit where it is due. I carry a comparable amount of lean muscle on my frame as he did in his prime (my arms and chest are a bit behind his in mass, my thighs and shoulders notably ahead) and can do all versions of splits cold. Tom Platz whose thighs dwarfed both mine and Arnold's could do full front and side splits as well.
 

Shotgun Buddha

Brown Belt
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Location
Dublin/Navan/Sinking hole in ground
I mostly meant the people who spend more time lifting weights then training technique. If you can only train for 3 hours a day, and are covered in muscles, you probably spend most of your training time working on that. Which leaves you with less time to work on most other things.
Look at the Arnold. I some how find it hard to believe that he can do too much of any thing that requires a great deal of flexiblity. And it was a person with his kind of build that I was referring to. I could be wrong though. Thats always a possibilty. And of course there is an exception to every rule.
And shotgun buddha, if you looked at my post, earlier on I put advantages. Under which was the whole, one hit knock out becoms a possibilty. Also about agility, I mostly mean the ability to step around an attack. If you weigh 300 lb.s, muscle or not thats alot to get moving all at once. Also my reasoning behind speed. It's simply so much to get moving that generating alot of speed in short distance is gonna be hard. And once agian, if you can get that moving, I'm gonna stay as far away as possible because your gonna get some pretty serious force out of it.

As I said, he is close in speed to me. Any problems with speed and agility a larger person ecounters, they can deal with just by training hard enough that they can move quickly. They would be faster if they were smaller yes, But that doesn;t matter so long as they are FAST ENOUGH.
 

CuongNhuka

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,596
Reaction score
31
Location
NE
O.k, my point was it's hard to get speed in a short burst. And a sparow will be faster at first, because the jet has to build up it's speed. But once the jet gets started, it's gonna be hard to stop, and harder to beat. That's what I meant. I even said that (though not in so many words). Look at the last 3 lines of my last post. A basic law of physics says that the heavier an object is, the more it's gonna resist a change in it's velocty. (a= m/f)
As for the splits, while yes it is possible, it's hard for me to believe that too many people who spend all day lifting weights can do them. If their a pro athlete and have a trainer (who they listen to) of course they're gonna be able to. But the knuckle head down the street who lifts weights with his buddy's isn't gonna think of that.
But if you folks are gonna be so critical of my oppion about this, then why don't you tell me yours? What is the disadvantages of being heavlied muscled?
 

Kwan Jang

Purple Belt
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
345
Reaction score
27
Location
Gallatin, TN. (suburb of Nashville)
Disadvantages of being having a large, powerful musculature? You often feel that you live in a world too small and too fragile for you. It can be very hard to find training partners that you can go anywhere near full out with and it can mess up your timing, ect. by having to "play" with the people around you (even though some of them may be very good or even world class fighters themselves). It's kind of like what it would be for the average, athletic adult male only having 13-14 year olds to spar or grapple with.

I find that while I can perform jump kicks at a world class level, the stress on my joints is not really that much fun. Though in part, that is because I was born with very small joints in relation to the size of my muscle bellies (which was considered a major plus as a bodybuilder) and my overall mass. Also, there is the constant challenge of finding clothes that fit.

Other than those challenges, it has been my personal experience that the benefits of greater size and strength have been overwhelmingly positive. If you train properly and intellegently, you will enhance your speed, agility and flexibility, as well as your functional strength. While there are people who don't perform their strength training in a positive manner and may in some areas actually diminish some of these attributes; it could just as easily be argued that there are many in the MA community that have trained in a counter productive (or less than intellegent) manner and may be worst off than when they started martial arts as well.

P.S. Another area that can be a challenge is the perception of others of you when you possess a large amount of lean muscle mass. This can vary from the fact that your size can intimidate others to others feeling they need to try to put you down (verbally) and try to knock you down a peg. Also, many will attribute the results you get from good technique to just being caused by your size and strength.
 

Shotgun Buddha

Brown Belt
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
6
Location
Dublin/Navan/Sinking hole in ground
O.k, my point was it's hard to get speed in a short burst. And a sparow will be faster at first, because the jet has to build up it's speed. But once the jet gets started, it's gonna be hard to stop, and harder to beat. That's what I meant. I even said that (though not in so many words). Look at the last 3 lines of my last post. A basic law of physics says that the heavier an object is, the more it's gonna resist a change in it's velocty. (a= m/f)
As for the splits, while yes it is possible, it's hard for me to believe that too many people who spend all day lifting weights can do them. If their a pro athlete and have a trainer (who they listen to) of course they're gonna be able to. But the knuckle head down the street who lifts weights with his buddy's isn't gonna think of that.
But if you folks are gonna be so critical of my oppion about this, then why don't you tell me yours? What is the disadvantages of being heavlied muscled?

Well thats the thing, there really doesn't seem to be many disadvantages to it from a combat point of view. About the only thing Ive noticed is as was said above by Kwan Jang, a tendency for these characteristics to ne not be fully utilised in martial arts training.
And what makes you think someone needs to be a pro athlete to be both well muscled and train intelligently?
The majority of larger guys I know involved in either fitness or martial arts training tend to mostly follow training methods such as on crossfit.com or rossboxing.com
 

Adept

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
12
Location
Melbourne, Australia
A basic law of physics says that the heavier an object is, the more it's gonna resist a change in it's velocty. (a= m/f)

Yes. But a muscle generates much more force than required to move it's own mass. The smaller guy has less mass to move, but also has less muscle to move it with.

Just compare the sprint athletes with the marathon runners. The size (and speed) difference is massive.

As for the splits, while yes it is possible, it's hard for me to believe that too many people who spend all day lifting weights can do them. If their a pro athlete and have a trainer (who they listen to) of course they're gonna be able to. But the knuckle head down the street who lifts weights with his buddy's isn't gonna think of that.

But thats not what we are talking about. If we assume the bigger guy is poorly trained, then it is only fair to assume the smaller guy is also poorly trained. The topic is not whether big guys do enough MA training, but whether being big is an advantage or not. Which it certainly is.

But if you folks are gonna be so critical of my oppion about this, then why don't you tell me yours? What is the disadvantages of being heavlied muscled?

Well thats the thing. Effectively, there are no disadvantages. Assuming a comparable level of skill, the bigger guy has all the advantages.
 

CuongNhuka

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,596
Reaction score
31
Location
NE
Well thats the thing. Effectively, there are no disadvantages. Assuming a comparable level of skill, the bigger guy has all the advantages.

There must be a disadvantage to every thing. Period. If there were no disadvantages then why doesn't everyone lift weights? Because there are disadvantages. There have to be.

I'll admint that what I said was presented as being a fact, when it's only some times true. Now then if you'll allow me, I'll change my orginal statement, and hope it'll be a little more agreeable.

Speed in short range (such as changing a line of attack to deal with a changed target location), aglity in some circumstances (such as foot work that put your opponent in a place of disadvantage), flexibility (assumeing the guy is a bit of an idiot and hasn't done any real research into how to lift weights, which also means risk to damaging joints)

And grappling has it's own advantages and disadvantages. Since someone will probabaly ask...

Advantage: Size of anything that could be locked out could be too large to be locked out. Muscle size also equals weight, so certian throws are gonna be difficult (try weighing 180, and do a judo hip throw to someone who 300).

Disadvantages: That whole flexibilty thing agian, and (again that idiot thing) if they try to muscle it against someone who doesn't muscle it, and really knows what they're doing, they could end up in a bad place fast. And certian sweeps could be much easier.

Is this better? Cause if I think all thats gonna happen is I get people ticked off, I'm gonna give up.
 

CuongNhuka

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
2,596
Reaction score
31
Location
NE
Also, just for the record, I do lift weights. Granted, it's a pair of 20 pound bars. I don't lift for size (which seems to be the root of alot of the problems I see with weight lifters). I lift for explosive strength. So I'll do about 50 lifts with my 20 pound bars, and do something else. I also lift really only once week, but I do alot of running, push ups, sit ups, pull ups, curls, that sort of thing with a few other people with a JROTC team at my school. And of course there is also the stick work with a piar of steel pipes. Thats always fun.
 

Latest Discussions

Top