Why is weight so important?

[Ironbear24]

Who? I have never once heard a serious martial artist make that claim. I've heard people say that technique matters more than weight, or that lighter people have certain advantages to minimize their disadvantages(hear that one sometimes when talking to grappling friends), but I've never heard anyone deny that it has an effect.

I hear it all the time. You never hear of the age old romanticized tale of how the 5'2 100 pound old Asian men could beat people twice their size?

It is so beaten into the minds of people that many thin guys get cocky and even trash talk big dudes. Saying things like pfft I'll dance around you until you tire out. Honestly a fight like that could go any which way, it all depends on the two individuals experience.

Size however does matter, if it didn't we wouldn't have weight classes in combat sports. It's why bigger guys have to be careful when sparring with smaller guys and it's why I accidentally hurt someone, becuase I have a hard time controlling how much force I use.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I hear it all the time. You never hear of the age old romanticized tale of how the 5'2 100 pound old Asian men could beat people twice their size?

It is so beaten into the minds of people that many thin guys get cocky and even trash talk big dudes. Saying things like pfft I'll dance around you until you tire out. Honestly a fight like that could go any which way, it all depends on the two individuals experience.

The first tale never sounds to me like they are saying that size doesn't matter, but that the old Asian master is so much better than them he overcomes the difference in weight. If they didn't think size mattered, they would never mention how huge the guy he beats are. It's also generally said, from my experience, not from serious martial artists but by people who read a lot of martial arts manga or watch a lot of anime.

And the thin guys who say that, from my experience, say it to people who don't train and just lift. Again, this isn't them suggesting that size doesn't matter, it's them suggesting that they are so much faster they don't have to worry about it.

Both are generally flawed ideas, but in both cases the argument is essentially technique is much more important than power/size, not that size doesn't play a factor in it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Who? I have never once heard a serious martial artist make that claim. I've heard people say that technique matters more than weight, or that lighter people have certain advantages to minimize their disadvantages(hear that one sometimes when talking to grappling friends), but I've never heard anyone deny that it has an effect.

I've heard people say it. I've even heard someone blatantly claim that training completely negates any advantage conferred by strength, weight, reach, etc. All pure poppycock, of course. Training can offset those things, but only insofar as the other person isn't equally trained/skilled.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I hear it all the time. You never hear of the age old romanticized tale of how the 5'2 100 pound old Asian men could beat people twice their size?

It is so beaten into the minds of people that many thin guys get cocky and even trash talk big dudes. Saying things like pfft I'll dance around you until you tire out. Honestly a fight like that could go any which way, it all depends on the two individuals experience.

Size however does matter, if it didn't we wouldn't have weight classes in combat sports. It's why bigger guys have to be careful when sparring with smaller guys and it's why I accidentally hurt someone, becuase I have a hard time controlling how much force I use.

The idea of a tiny master beating people much bigger doesn't suggest to me that size doesn't matter. Rather, it suggests that the tiny master was simply that good. I do know that skill can overcome reach, weight, and strength. One of my training partners was a bear of a guy (6'3"-ish, about 80 lbs. heavier than me, and significantly stronger). Even in ground work, we were fairly matched, but that was level of training. If I ever let his weight come to bear (no pun intended), I'd be toast.

 

[Ironbear24]

The idea of a tiny master beating people much bigger doesn't suggest to me that size doesn't matter. Rather, it suggests that the tiny master was simply that good. I do know that skill can overcome reach, weight, and strength. One of my training partners was a bear of a guy (6'3"-ish, about 80 lbs. heavier than me, and significantly stronger). Even in ground work, we were fairly matched, but that was level of training. If I ever let his weight come to bear (no pun intended), I'd be toast.

Sounds like me and him are both unBEARable.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sounds like me and him are both unBEARable.

We need a "groan" icon, for rating posts like this one.

 

[Juany118]

I hear it all the time. You never hear of the age old romanticized tale of how the 5'2 100 pound old Asian men could beat people twice their size?

It is so beaten into the minds of people that many thin guys get cocky and even trash talk big dudes. Saying things like pfft I'll dance around you until you tire out. Honestly a fight like that could go any which way, it all depends on the two individuals experience.

Size however does matter, if it didn't we wouldn't have weight classes in combat sports. It's why bigger guys have to be careful when sparring with smaller guys and it's why I accidentally hurt someone, becuase I have a hard time controlling how much force I use.

I think you are misinterpreting the tale. The purpose of that tale is the exemplify the "bigger guy wins if skill is equal" axiom. So the ancient master beats the younger stronger guy because skill is not equal. One of the reasons your Sifu may tell you this is so you focus on learning, even mastering your chosen art and not relying on time in the gym to be the equalizer. It is a truth that you will always run into someone bigger than you, especially in this day in age. It is also a truth, if you formally train in Martial Arts, that you will run into a better fighter than you, but in this day in age that is less likely.

Another reason for the tale is this. You WILL become weaker as you age, there is no escaping that, you will not be as as you are today when you are 60 (meaning you specifically, if I remember right you are in your 20s). If strength becomes a crutch then you will decline far more rapidly as a Martial Artist. However, martial arts skill can continue to improve as long as you regularly train.

So the story is a bit hyperbolic but it is about, if your goal is to be a Martial Artist throughout your life, to not allow strength to become a crutch.

 

[JP3]

The answer to the O/P actually, IMO, has two facets. One is physics, the other is economics. Stick with me here. The physics is easy to understand, of course...

Kinetic energy = .5MV(squared)... I don't know how to get the symbols for the proper equation up here, just rread it out loud and you'll be like, "Yeah, that's the equation). One-half mass times the square of velocity (which is why speed kills, it's the squaring on the velocity of the inbound... whatever)

Momentum = MV (Mass times velocity)

and so on and so forth. A person with equal skill, or even perhaps less (which is what martial arts are really all about) but less mass is behind in the multiplier, and needs to make it up in other ways.

Now on to economics...

Purely a function of professional sports, people have weight classes in professional sports primarily because of the advantage that a skilled big man has over an equally skilled small man. Think Sugar Ray leonard vs. Mike Tyson. Roughly equal in height I think... like what 5'8" to 5'10? But, mass...?? Shoot. Iron Mike would eat Ray for a breakfast burrito.

I'm not saying that Ray couldn't stick and move Mike a few momeents, but sooner or later Mike Would hit him, and then I bet the fight would be over. Too much power, originating out of the weight, I think.

AND since this wouldn't be much of a fight to "watch" and pay money for, and since it offends our western sense of "fair play" in sport, and we really want to see a good fight that goes the distance.... there you go. Economics.

 

[JR 137]

I hear quite often that taking an opponent to the ground negates strength, weight, reach, etc. Absolute nonsense. Having wrestled and coached it for quite some time, all I can say is get on the mat and tell me my 100 lbs advantage is negated.

Against a fish out of water, sure, you can overcome weight, height, etc. differences in any aspect of combat. Against anyone who has trained and/or been in his/her share of fights, weight is definitely an advantage.

 

[Juany118]

I hear quite often that taking an opponent to the ground negates strength, weight, reach, etc. Absolute nonsense. Having wrestled and coached it for quite some time, all I can say is get on the mat and tell me my 100 lbs advantage is negated.

Against a fish out of water, sure, you can overcome weight, height, etc. differences in any aspect of combat. Against anyone who has trained and/or been in his/her share of fights, weight is definitely an advantage.

I don't think anyone says it is "negated", only that the size difference can be mitigated. Once you are on the ground, "wrapped up" with one another reach, while potentially still an issue, isn't as large a factor. If you are using arts that exploit joints via fine muscle coordination vs the gross, strength, while still a factor, is again reduced to a certain degree.

 

[Kickboxer101]

Also when it comes to muscle that's not always an advantage in a fight street or ring. Look at this.

Jon Jones blames UFC 197 performance on powerlifting

 

[JR 137]

I don't think anyone says it is "negated", only that the size difference can be mitigated. Once you are on the ground, "wrapped up" with one another reach, while potentially still an issue, isn't as large a factor. If you are using arts that exploit joints via fine muscle coordination vs the gross, strength, while still a factor, is again reduced to a certain degree.

I agree with "reduced to a certain degree." What the certain degrees is, I don't know. I feel you have a better chance throwing, joint locking and choking a much larger opponent than you would standing toe to toe with them. No argument from me.

But I've heard "negates" specifically from many grapplers. I'm not saying here specifically, but I've heard it far too many times. I've rolled my eyes and walked away several times in face to face conversation about it. Wrestlers, judoka and BJJers get "out-muscled" quite often. If grappling negates strength advantages as some have claimed, this would be an impossibility.

Again, not say you nor anyone here specifically said it, but it's a term I've heard many a grappler throw around.

 

[Phobius]

I agree with "reduced to a certain degree." What the certain degrees is, I don't know. I feel you have a better chance throwing, joint locking and choking a much larger opponent than you would standing toe to toe with them. No argument from me.

But I've heard "negates" specifically from many grapplers. I'm not saying here specifically, but I've heard it far too many times. I've rolled my eyes and walked away several times in face to face conversation about it. Wrestlers, judoka and BJJers get "out-muscled" quite often. If grappling negates strength advantages as some have claimed, this would be an impossibility.

Again, not say you nor anyone here specifically said it, but it's a term I've heard many a grappler throw around.

Having more experience and/or better skill negates weight. An art itself does nothing. To think an opponent that has size and strength as advantage would simply have a harder time on the ground than his opponent is rather silly. However some techniques become easier for the larger guy while others become a disadvantage if used, which could mean that equally skilled opponent may in fact not be so equal in skill as the larger opponent may have more experience struggling against smaller opponents than the smaller opponent has experience facing someone big.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with "reduced to a certain degree." What the certain degrees is, I don't know. I feel you have a better chance throwing, joint locking and choking a much larger opponent than you would standing toe to toe with them. No argument from me.

But I've heard "negates" specifically from many grapplers. I'm not saying here specifically, but I've heard it far too many times. I've rolled my eyes and walked away several times in face to face conversation about it. Wrestlers, judoka and BJJers get "out-muscled" quite often. If grappling negates strength advantages as some have claimed, this would be an impossibility.

Again, not say you nor anyone here specifically said it, but it's a term I've heard many a grappler throw around.

A better word would be "offsets" or "counters".

 

[Juany118]

Having more experience and/or better skill negates weight. An art itself does nothing. To think an opponent that has size and strength as advantage would simply have a harder time on the ground than his opponent is rather silly. However some techniques become easier for the larger guy while others become a disadvantage if used, which could mean that equally skilled opponent may in fact not be so equal in skill as the larger opponent may have more experience struggling against smaller opponents than the smaller opponent has experience facing someone big.

I wouldn't say quite that. Yes skill is arguably the biggest factor but different arts are created with different theories in mind. Some forms of Jujutsu, according to beliefs perpetuated in the school, were designed to address the fact your opponent may be armored and/or armed. Punching a guy in armor, and having to get inside the guard of his weapon to do so are inadvisable. WC, according to popular belief inside the system, was designed so that a smaller person could "keep" their weight behind attacks, rather than "throw" their weight, the later believed, again by many inside the system, to be more reliant on strength.

However it is basically a fact of physics. When standing a larger and strong person has advantages. When standing they can exert more leverage into techniques, their reach is a greater factor etc. On the ground the added strength is still a factor, it's influence is simply reduced because of the different dynamics.

 

[Phobius]

I wouldn't say quite that. Yes skill is arguably the biggest factor but different arts are created with different theories in mind. Some forms of Jujutsu, according to beliefs perpetuated in the school, were designed to address the fact your opponent may be armored and/or armed. Punching a guy in armor, and having to get inside the guard of his weapon to do so are inadvisable. WC, according to popular belief inside the system, was designed so that a smaller person could "keep" their weight behind attacks, rather than "throw" their weight, the later believed, again by many inside the system, to be more reliant on strength.

However it is basically a fact of physics. When standing a larger and strong person has advantages. When standing they can exert more leverage into techniques, their reach is a greater factor etc. On the ground the added strength is still a factor, it's influence is simply reduced because of the different dynamics.

Which is what I said. The advantage of weigh is not gonna become a disadvantage because of the art or being on the ground. Skill is the deciding factor. Just that some arts can survive against an unskilled heavy fighter.

 

[Juany118]

Which is what I said. The advantage of weigh is not gonna become a disadvantage because of the art or being on the ground. Skill is the deciding factor. Just that some arts can survive against an unskilled heavy fighter.

Okay, I was confused because no one is saying size is a disadvantage on the ground, they have just been saying once on the ground size advantages are mitigated.

 

[Buka]

We used to have small posters containing words of wisdom on our dojo walls. Sized so that you would have to walk up to them in order to read them. Two that were side by side read - "Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk" and "The bigger they are....the harder they hit."

 

[Phobius]

Okay, I was confused because no one is saying size is a disadvantage on the ground, they have just been saying once on the ground size advantages are mitigated.

Mitigated is what I do not believe in. An advantage is an advantage, mitigated means that there is less advantage but instead I say skill can mitigate weight difference on the ground. Equally skilled there is no mitigation unless one is more skilled fighting with that specific weight difference than the other.

Same goes for standing. Fighting someone larger or taller than you puts you at a disadvantage that is only mitigated by proper skill and footwork.

Of course there are other attributes such as speed as well both on ground and standing as well as flexibility.

We can't mitigate advantages, unless we train other attributes to match or become more skilled.

This is my belief. Especially since height and some cases even weight is an advantage for me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Mitigated is what I do not believe in. An advantage is an advantage, mitigated means that there is less advantage but instead I say skill can mitigate weight difference on the ground. Equally skilled there is no mitigation unless one is more skilled fighting with that specific weight difference than the other.

Same goes for standing. Fighting someone larger or taller than you puts you at a disadvantage that is only mitigated by proper skill and footwork.

Of course there are other attributes such as speed as well both on ground and standing as well as flexibility.

We can't mitigate advantages, unless we train other attributes to match or become more skilled.

This is my belief. Especially since height and some cases even weight is an advantage for me.

I have to agree with the premise that some height, weight, and strength advantages are automatically mitigated on the ground. Reach ceases to be as much of a factor, unless the height/reach difference is extreme (such that one cannot reach the face/neck of the other). Weight doesn't bring as much striking power, so matters mostly on pinning and escaping (analogous to the standing grappling advantages). Strength has some of the same effects as when standing, though some of the leverage multiplication is lost.

At the same time, since drop-away escapes and balance breaking are mostly lost, weight on top (especially paired with strength) can have a new advantage on the ground.