Unarmed Fighting by Body Type

[Justin Lompado]

A friend of mine, when I asked what unarmed martial art he thought I would benefit from taking up, reccommended I take up an art that emphasized striking, such as kickboxing, because he beleived my athletic build and hand/eye coordination suited it. This was long before I began a real interest in martial arts, but the idea stuck with me. I am of the opinion that, by and large, if you devote enough time to serious study most people can become proficient at any unarmed martial art of their choosing, whether it be more striking or grappling oriented. However, my afore-mentioned friend was not the last person to mention a similar idea to me, and I could not help but ponder it. Obviously, people would ideally fight someone of comparable size, but even when height and weight are the same, as we all know, bodies can be quite different. Some people have more developed upper bodies with powerful arms, shoulders, back and chest on an athletic frame. Others have stronger trunks or legs. All things considered, I still beleive you can excel at either a grappling or striking (or both) martial art if you invest the proper time and effort, but I was wondering if anyone else ever gave thought to such a question. Are some people more suited to either a striking or grappling martial art by virtue of their natural body shape (meaning, as a complete novice, they would have more of an immediate aptitude for either one because of their natural body shape)? Having shared my thoughts, I welcome yours.

To be clear, I do not intend to be divisive with this post, and I apologize if anyone gets insulted, for this is not my aim, and nobody should feel offened, as that is the furthes thing from my intention.

[Jake_Norwood]

I don't know about striking vs. grappling type martial arts and body types, but I do believe that some grappling arts are better suited to certain body types than others. I find that small-circle grappling arts (all the rage in judo and some bjj nowadays) are better suited to smaller people or those with less upper body strength. Ringen, IMO, better covers people that are more...top heavy. There's a great emphasis on push/pull movements which require some upper body strength (Codex Wallerstein is a good example of this).

I've never done that well with all the small-circle kinda stuff. I'm a 6'2" 220 lb beast...but ringen is the bomb.

Jake

[Justin Lompado]

Jake

Thanks for the reply. I would agree with you, although to be honest my working knowledge of judo is miniscule. It's interesting you mention Ringen, because it does include strikes. In any martial art, technique is valued over strength, but when you have a solid foundation a large strength advantage, especially in grappling styles, you may make up for your other shortcomings. Of course this varies on the individual. Interesting also is the mentioning of judo in conjunction with ringen. Like you said, the small-circle style is more conducive to a smaller body, and ringen is better suited to a larger, more powerful person, as you described yourself and your affinity with it. Looking at where the two disciplines emerged, I beleive there is no question as to why they both developed those differing characteristics. While most people in medieval times were probably in general smaller than modern men, we have to realize that the Japanese who developed judo, or at that time jujustu, (which is actually much more similar to ringen) would have been smaller than the Europeans of the day, just as modern Japanses are generally of smaller build than modern Europeans (especially northern Europeans). There were probably very few people of your size or greater in feudal Japan, and with that body type absent, there would be no need to incorporate it into martial arts. In medieval Europe, however, there were definitley people your size or larger, as armor testifies. Therefore, it makes sense that they would develop a martial art which took advantage of their natural body shape. To be clear, I am not saying that Japanese people are weak, nor that any of these martial arts is inherently superior to the other; I am saying that there is a definite connection between body shape (which here is in the form of the difference in build between the east asian and caucasian races) and the way martial arts developed around them, to maximize effect and usability.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I would agree in principle that if a guy is small and fast, he may do better to focus on striking and kicking in his training; while a guy who is big and strong may do better to focus on wrestling. However, all things being equal mass and strength and speed between two guys, then the guy with better and/or broader range of skills has an advantage. So I guess I end up advocating that a guy do it all, with maybe at least a little more focus on wrestling.

[Shane Smith]

I'm also in Jakes boat to a degree. I'm 6'3" and about 220# as well. I find ringen to be some pretty darn good stuff but I admit that I prefer to strike rather than roll on the ground with anyone...especially when weapons are about.How many of us haven't caugh a sword or dagger point in freeplay while we were grappling with a guy on the ground after the swords were cast aside to the ground previously(they always end back up in someones hands unexpectedly)? I like Ringen simply because it doesn't tell you to take them to the ground and follow them as a rule...it simply gives that as one option. I prefer to strike, and as a bigger guy, I have a bigger hammer to do so with. I'm a ringen guy with a bit of bias for a good right hand. <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[Mike Cartier]

genrally speaking a bigger man has more advantage in a stand up fight as he can throw with more power and it takes more power to knock him down. There are exceptions of course, but as a general rule of leverage. of course it takes greater skill for a smaller man to do so however.

i think the clinch advantage also goes to the bigger guy due to strength. On the ground, provided you have the ground skills you can neutralize the bigger mans strength and weight. But and this is a big but, if he posseses greater grappling ro specifically ground fighting skills his weight will be of incredible use to him. When you add ground skills with weight and strength advantage its an unbeatable combination.

So really in both cases, either stand up or ground greater skill than your opponent is required, if you take 2 skill less people and one outweighs the other by 30 - 70 pounds the bigger man will win on either the ground or in stand up. Thats why martial arts are important, they are the only avenue for gaining the skillset needed to overcome the natural athletics, strength or weight advantages bigger guys have.

Personally i think we should just make it the law that big guys have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, its only fair.

[Justin Lompado]

Great points all. I definitley agree with you, Mike, that a man who has a good ground game and is very strong is almost impossible to beat in a grappling match if his oppenent is lacking in power. And since you touched on novices, I thought this would be a good time to make another point. When I made ths post, it was with respect to people ignorant of martial arts training. My initial thoughts on striking vs. grappling are that strength is more useful or a bigger advantage in grappling. Like Mike said, a strong man can throw a more powerful punch; but I beleive that when dealing with people not used to taking punches, a solid hit that connects right, even from someone of average build, can be a knockout strike, and so if there is no techincal difference between the fighters it seems that the winner will be whoever lands a good hit first. With grappling or wrestling, however, because the combat is less spontaneous and among novices it won't usually end with a single technique (like a knockout punch would), it seems that the stronger of the two will most f the time be able to muscle his way to victory, even if he winds up in a bad situation. I'll use myself as an example. I have a friend who is smaller than me, but I know if he punched me and connected he might knock me out. However, we recently wreslted, and after a minute he had me in a headlock. Despite this, I was able to pull his hands apart and twist him over through sheer force before I ended the bout with a hold of my own. I just wanted to illustrate here that I beleived among grappling martial arts strength plays a more direct role than in striking arts. In keeping with the nature of the post, however, I would like to make a clarification. My intention was not to distinguish necessarily between large and small people, but between people of different shapes, whether big or small. Provided the size is the same, I meant to say do any of you find differences in the natural affinity a person has for either striking or grappling with regards to his body shape (I mentioned, for example, a big torso; stronger shoulders/back or upper torso; strong legs or arms;basically the differences in body type)

[Jaron Bernstein]

I think the Codex Wallerstein says (for wrestling) that if you are bigger than the other fellow, aggressively go after him and if you are smaller, try to work counter techniques against his offensive moves.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I would add to Jaron's point:

Ott Jud states that:

In all wrestling there should be three things / the first is the skill / Another is the quickness / The third is a proper application of strength / Thus you should note that the best is / The quickness which does not allow one to use a counter / Next you should note / that with every weaker [person] one should wrestle before / and with every equal one should wrestle with / and with every stronger [person] one should wrestle after / and in all wrestling before works the quickness / In all wrestling with works the scale / and in all wrestling after works the bending of a knee

That is from this article:

Master Ott’s Wrestling

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/master-ott-wrestling.html

[Erich Wagner]

First, I do believe a person's body type has some bearing on their apptitude with certain things. However, when I hear discussions like this, it more often than not boils down to how someone would perform in a point scoring system. I think you need to be familiar, if not proficient, with all aspects of unarmed fighting. You need to be able to use appropriate action against in light of the situation you're presented with. Also, don't ever forget that, no matter how much bigger or stronger a person is than you, the tip of your thumb is way stronger than their eye ball. It's not so much the force you apply as where you apply the force.

[Justin Lompado]

Totally agree Eric. The needs of the situation must be met, so you wouldn't fight the heavyweight boxing champ with your fists, and wouldn't wrestle with a champion grappler (unless you had the ability to do both on their level). But the first part of your response is what I was going for in the post, and to tell you the truth, I hadn't given point-scoring bouts any thought when I made it. Obviously, we stay away from those systems here, and they gauge how well you prepare for them, which since I was discussing novices in this post seeking to take advantage of the body they were given, makes the point based systems irrelevant. Good that you brought that up Eric, because as I said, it did not even enter my mind.

[S. Hord]

genrally speaking a bigger man has more advantage in a stand up fight as he can throw with more power and it takes more power to knock him down. There are exceptions of course, but as a general rule of leverage. of course it takes greater skill for a smaller man to do so however.

i think the clinch advantage also goes to the bigger guy due to strength. On the ground, provided you have the ground skills you can neutralize the bigger mans strength and weight. But and this is a big but, if he posseses greater grappling ro specifically ground fighting skills his weight will be of incredible use to him. When you add ground skills with weight and strength advantage its an unbeatable combination.

So really in both cases, either stand up or ground greater skill than your opponent is required, if you take 2 skill less people and one outweighs the other by 30 - 70 pounds the bigger man will win on either the ground or in stand up. Thats why martial arts are important, they are the only avenue for gaining the skillset needed to overcome the natural athletics, strength or weight advantages bigger guys have.

Personally i think we should just make it the law that big guys have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, its only fair.

I second that! Of course at 5'3" & 125# most everyone is bigger than me. That's ok though it makes me work that much harder.

[Jay Vail]

I'd say you need all six skill sets. A training regime that doesn't include a balanced mix of any of these is incomplete and leaves the trainee vulnerable.

1. Striking (including kicking)
2. Defense, that is deflecting blows and breaking grabs
3. Throwing
4. Locking
5. Groundwork
6. Weapons defense

I include weapons defense as a separate skill set, although it requires knowledge of techniques from the previous ones, because anti-weapons self defense demands a different tactical and strategic approach than unarmed fighting. However, if your intention is sportive training, you don't need weapons defense training.

[Jaron Bernstein]

This is from Wallerstein prg 66-67 (Bart's translation):

"It is to be noticed that close quarters fighting should have 3 elements: strength, reach and agility.......You should also know that that you should fight a weak opponent first with strength and a equal opponent simultaneously with reach, and should let a strong opponent attack first and fight him with agility. "

It goes on for 2 more pages with advice on how different body types should fight other body types. Even offering some advice for the weak on pg 69:

"Although a weak fighter in a serious combat can be equal to a strong opponent, if he has previously learned agility, reach, fighting tricks, and killing tricks, in a friendly combat strength has always the advantage."

[LynGrey]

Lankier longer limbed people tend to have trouble on the ground. The stockier people tend to excell well at ground work. In a stand up the Lankier people got a reach advantage and it really is... use it.. i would suggest alot of stand up training like Muay Thai for them with alot of work on staying off the ground, and quick retreat on the ground. Stockier people i suggest a stronger ground work start something in the lines of JJ or BJJ or Grecco-Roman even.

To break it down even more. The Quicker one's have the advantage in the striking game, and the stronger(i use this in the bulkier size advantage sense) ones have it in the grapples. So if you are quick and lanky i would suggest Muay Thai, if you are Quick and Stocky i suggest an art that incorperates strikes in the grapple, if you are Strong and Stocky i suggest something like JJ or BJJ, if you are Strong and Lanky work on the clinch work.

this is a real sweeping generalization of what is more advantagous to people. I'm a Stocky Quick fellow...and i do well in my stand up. Cause i work with what i can use well... Just set your mind to something, and train agianst the widest variety of people you can.