This addage gets kicked around quite a bit. We discussed the addage about styles and fights, why not discuss this addage? What does it imply? Why does it seem to hold true?
On a general level there is not much to discuss: If two armies meet at a crossroads, and virtually ALL factors about them are hypothetically equal, except one army has an additional advantage, logic tells us that there is a greater chance for the army with the advantage to win...
The problem is, this situation never truly exists, and intangibles can offer more of a factor than an advantage: For example, the Mongol Japanese battles are fascinating. Interestingly enough we had two forces that both had a somewhat equal chance of persevering. But it became irrelevant when the "Kamakazie" divine wind, affected the Mongol ships.
On a specific level why does a good big man win?
1) Reach. Overlooked and very telling advantage. Anyone who has ever fought knows that reach can be a real biatch. I can well remember using reach when I fought, and having to overcome it as well... Usually bigger means more reach.
2) Strength. Usually bigger means stronger. But strengh is interesting because it does not always depend on size, rather size gives an initial advantage... lets look at the fight between Foster and Joe Frazier as an example. Both guys look to be around the same basic size. Foster even had reach over Joe, and some would argue, a punch every bit the match of Frazier's.
Yet when we get down to it, despite the weight... Frazier is just a bigger sized individual. Bigger bones, muscles... wrists, neck, etc. This fight could be an example of how strength became a material advantage for Frazier.
Discuss. What is it about size that determines a material advantage in the ring? would you rather have size, or reach?
On a general level there is not much to discuss: If two armies meet at a crossroads, and virtually ALL factors about them are hypothetically equal, except one army has an additional advantage, logic tells us that there is a greater chance for the army with the advantage to win...
The problem is, this situation never truly exists, and intangibles can offer more of a factor than an advantage: For example, the Mongol Japanese battles are fascinating. Interestingly enough we had two forces that both had a somewhat equal chance of persevering. But it became irrelevant when the "Kamakazie" divine wind, affected the Mongol ships.
On a specific level why does a good big man win?
1) Reach. Overlooked and very telling advantage. Anyone who has ever fought knows that reach can be a real biatch. I can well remember using reach when I fought, and having to overcome it as well... Usually bigger means more reach.
2) Strength. Usually bigger means stronger. But strengh is interesting because it does not always depend on size, rather size gives an initial advantage... lets look at the fight between Foster and Joe Frazier as an example. Both guys look to be around the same basic size. Foster even had reach over Joe, and some would argue, a punch every bit the match of Frazier's.
Yet when we get down to it, despite the weight... Frazier is just a bigger sized individual. Bigger bones, muscles... wrists, neck, etc. This fight could be an example of how strength became a material advantage for Frazier.
Discuss. What is it about size that determines a material advantage in the ring? would you rather have size, or reach?
Comment