The tall mans advantage?

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hi Tim, <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

As I said, I can't speak for sword fighting but I have wrestled (I am a smaller guy) both tall strong people and short square strong ones (with those damned low centers of gravity and stubby limbs). Every time, it is the short people built like low filing cabinets who are more difficult. The thing is, it is very important to be able to get under someone (hard with short people) or alternately get them to overextend (once again easier to do with long limbed tall folks).

J.

[JeffGentry]

Well i agree with John C. on this if you are INTENT on winning(killing) and are CONFIDENT in your skill's, you might get a "bloody nose", You can win against a taller fighter and to an extent level the playing field. Once you get inside it is up to you and what you do, the FEAR of trying to get inside is what will stop most people and result in there defeat. Height is not the advantage of the talll man intimadation(FEAR) is the advantage.

[Matthew_Anderson]

You're right Shane, the taller guy definately has an advantage. Since you have a least a couple of inches of height and reach on me, when we spar from now on, you must fight left handed and stand on one leg. Seems only fair <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Andrey Lileyev]

I'm partly agree with John. The opponent's height is not a thing which must definitely cause his victory. But there is one thing I suppose John to be mistaken. He speaks from the position of highly skilled master. When two highly skilled fencers spar it is usualy doesn't metter what is their height. Because as more you learn technique and as more experienced you became as less the natural advantages metter. But speaking about two scholars sparing (we should understand that scholars are not so skilled or else they were not scholars) the natural advantages do metter.

And so I dot'n think that closing and greaping are panacea. Closing and greaping and wrestling during swordplay usualy take 5% to 15% of all that we use. And it is right IMHO because of the weapon in our hands. It is quite bad idea to plan winning due to wrestling while your opponent uses sword. One slash or thrust and you are dead. So if you use wrestling more than fencing in swordfight it is a good idea to think what is wrong with your fencing. It is good to greap your opponent or throw him to the ground but the fencer uses this tecnique only when there's a good chance for it.

[Scott Anderson]

I was thinking mostly on the lines of, because I train with someone so much bigger than I am, I'm less intimidated by other large people.

SPA

[TimSheetz]

HI Jaron,

I am not a wrestler, but I've played one on tv...

I know the deal on shorter levers .... but have you wrestled when kicking and striking is also allowed?

Once you add the fact that the guy with reflexes, speed and USEFUL bulk can kick and beat on you while you try to shoot in, I would submit that the leverage advantage matters less. I am less interested in discussing wrestling and more interested in fighting.

IN the fight, speed and timing are the two most important factors. all else is subordinate to one degree or another. And in general, all else being EQUAL, the bigger and stronger will win.

John has excellent natural reflexes. That is nothing compared to the trained reflexive responses he has piled up on top of it. Add to the fact that he has USEFUL bulk, not really any extra he can easily defeat those who are bigger quite easily.

Peace,

Tim

[Jake_Norwood]

The Codex Wallerstein, in the introduction to Ringen, last paragraph, paraphrased, says that in "friendly wrestling" the larger man always has the advantage, but that this changes in "death wrestling," when "death tricks" and other nasty techniques such as arm breaking and eye gouging are allowed. Note that he doesn't say that the shorter guy has the advantage, but rather that the bigger guy doesn't. Also, when working extensively with Wallerstein's Ringen section, I found that many, many of the moves are meant for smaller people against larger people (which probably says something about the author).

Jake

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hi Tim, <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

"I know the deal on shorter levers .... but have you wrestled when kicking and striking is also allowed?"

Yup. It changes the dynamics in many ways not related to height when you allow striking. In that kind of sparring (open fingered gloves with striking and wrestling) I have found (just my personal experience, others may differ) that the tall guy only has an advantage if he can keep you out at the edge of his reach. In live situations, it is very difficult to maintain the "perfect" range. That is where the footwork comes in adjusting range. Going against that reach advantage the tall guy has, once you get past the long arms and legs (which isn't so hard) the guy who is built like Gimli the dwarf has the advantage IMO. First, he can get under the tall guy and throw him far more easily. Second, he can then use his full (shorter) reach more effectively.


Tim wrote: "Once you add the fact that the guy with reflexes, speed and USEFUL bulk can kick and beat on you while you try to shoot in, I would submit that the leverage advantage matters less."

That is the thing. You don't just shoot in. If you just blindly try a tackle it is a recipe for a bad day. What you do is wait until he throws something at long range and then attach to it with a parry, fighting in the nacht, and close the gap with footwork. Then you are in against the tall guy.


Tim wrote: " I am less interested in discussing wrestling and more interested in fighting."

Anything you may have to say on reach in swordfighting I am quite happy to listen and take notes <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> . I am just talking about the unarmed side. One thing I saw Jake do at the 1.0 that stands out in my mind is how he seemed well out of range but used his full reach and hit with only the very end of the blade when I thought he wasn't close enough to hit. And I would say in fairness that you can recovery from a tall guys punch much better than you can recover from his zwerchhau. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />


Tim wrote: "IN the fight, speed and timing are the two most important factors. all else is subordinate to one degree or another."

No disagreement here. One little understood aspect is that speed IS power when you think of velocity. Not just mass.

Be well,
J.

[Matthew_Anderson]

Good point Jake! Fiore also defines two types of wrestling. One that is done for fun and sport and the other to kill or maim. In the latter, as Tim points out, striking, kicking, eye gouging, etc. are part of the game as well and these things rely less on size and power and more on quickness and skill.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hi Jake,

I can see that. Eyeballs and broken fingers are the same whatever your size.

[Andrey Lileyev]

We're still talking about historical fencing?
There is a principal difference between fencing and wrestling. In wrestling it's really difficult to keep a lower opponent on the "perfect range", but it is much easier to do it in fencing. A wrestler can fulfil his tactical plans even geting beaten a little. A fencer can't take such a risc because one hit may mean death. This is why the tactical cunnings are too nided when FENCING against the opponent with natural advantages (I mean any advantages, not only height). Here you can't pin your hope only on your speed or reaction or usefull bulk.

The most-neded thing in any combat is good tactics. And the technique is necessary to be able to fulfil the tactical ideas. When fighting with good technique but with no tactical ideas, that's what I call dilettante fighting. Tactics first and technique is for tactics.

[TimSheetz]

Hi Jaron,

I think the short stocky guy has the advantage in wrestling... but does he if all else is equal?

If he is as skilled, as quick, and as committed as the guy with significantly more USEFUL BULK, I am still thinking that the bigger guy will win.

I don't mean TALLER, I mean the one with MORE USEFUL BULK. Let's say that there are two fit guys, both 5'10. One is 160 pounds, the other 185. If they are just as trained, just as fast as each other, and just as determined, who has the advantage? I say the guy with more useful bulk.

Peace,

Tim

[Jaron Bernstein]

"I think the short stocky guy has the advantage in wrestling... but does he if all else is equal? "

I certainly do agree with your point that body type and natural attributes only get you so far. Trained skill levels can overcome biological advantages.

"If he is as skilled, as quick, and as committed as the guy with significantly more USEFUL BULK, I am still thinking that the bigger guy will win."

I also agree that when we talk about size here we are talking about usable bulk, as opposed to just having a big dude with no idea how to actually fight, limited endurance, no flexibility or the like. All I am saying is that IMO in an unarmed fight, the short square guy with usable bulk has the advantage over the tall guy with the same amount of usable bulk. First, it will be very difficult for the tall guy to "stand off" the short guy and in close being low counts for a lot. With weapons, that may very well change since one shot can be lethal.

"I don't mean TALLER, I mean the one with MORE USEFUL BULK. Let's say that there are two fit guys, both 5'10. One is 160 pounds, the other 185. If they are just as trained, just as fast as each other, and just as determined, who has the advantage? I say the guy with more useful bulk."

If they are both 5'10", absolutely. But if you have for instance a 6'2" guy at 200 pounds against a 5'7" 200 pounder (both with USABLE size and equal skill levels) my $$ is on the short guy for an unarmed fight. I just don't see the reach for a tall guy being as important in an unarmed fight. For a swordfight between those 2, I don't know.

Be well,
J. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[TimSheetz]

HI Jaron,

With all these extra details added to qualify our statements, I agree!




Tim

[Jake_Norwood]

We're still talking about historical fencing?

Andrew-

Fencing, in the truest and older sense of the word (and the way we use it here) means "fighting." Thus Ringen, or wrestling, is a sub-set of "fechten," or fighitng, just as using the sword or dagger or spear are.

In fact, many historical masters--Ringeck under Liechtenauer, for example--state that all fencing (fechten) comes from wrestling (ringen). Swordfighting is just wrestling with a long, sharp object, according to many historical masters. The longer I study the art, the more I agree.

Hope that clarifes.

Jake