Size vs groups

NIck,

Following on from my question about getting scared,I'd like to ask you about the relevance of size.

Before I go on I'd like to apologize because I have seen many posts on the GT forum over the years in which people have asked you if your success in the street has been attributable to size, and I imagine you must be heartily sick of it by now.

But,what I'd like to know is this,you are 6'8, and 280(?),I am 5'8 and approx 12 stone.With the correct type of dedication and training do you think it's possible of someone my size (or perhaps smaller) to do as well as you did if we were to be in the 21 poll tax rioters fight ?Or in the 75 man kung fu school fight? Or do you think that someone my size would be overwhelmed no matter what by sheer weight of numbers?

Please note that I am not for one nanosecond suggesting that you were successful because you are a big guy. Gary Spiers was notorious for taking on and beating groups,but he was a powerfully built bull of a man.It seems to be rarer to hear of smaller guys doing the same thing.

Dennis Martin wrote a great column about this very subject back in Fighting Arts, before it became defunct. You may wish to ask him if he still has a copy of the piece floating round.

So, on with your question. Obviously size counts for a lot...I am a firm believer in the adage "The bigger they are, the harder they hit." but, before you get discouraged, it's not a guarantee of success just as being small is no guarantee of failure.

When I first began on the doors I was only sixteen and, while tall, very skinny. (there's a photo of me doing a flying side kick over on the old GT forum someone may post here - I still can't figure out how damnit). Two of my instructors were small i.e. Mal Anderson and Tony Quinn were about your size and weight as was my older brother Anthony and they all successfully beat up/off groups of people. In Melbourne there were other small balltearers such as Trevor Barnes and Noel Hattwell was about 6'2 and 13 stone and punched and kicked like a sneaky mule.

So, while it's an asset (during the fight, not necessarily when you're standing in court trying to look innocent ) it's not the be all and end all of fighting.

Nick

Finally found the pic, mate.



Cheers,

Julian

to me size only matters if OTHER aspects are equal.. determination, nastiness, combat ability, aggressions etc..
if you make a list of ALL attributes and one guy has for example 8 out of a possible 10, but is average size, and the other has only ONE out of 10 an dthat iis size, then my money is on the first guy

but if they BOTH have say 7 out of 10 on everything else and one guy has the number 8 one of SIZE, then all bets are off

but to try and answer simply

IF YOU ARE GOOD ENOUGH .. YOU ARE BIG ENOUGH

Dave - same thing you said summed up nicely in Malcolm Harris' book "Unarmed Close Combat" which was "A good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un."

Nick

Hey Julian,

I never thanked you for locating that picture mate...cheers

Nick

No problem You very welcome.

Julian

I myself am only around 5 foot 8 inches but i weigh around the 16 stone mark. But working the doors myself, i have found that pre-emption and aggression works in my favour against bigger men. Perhaps i've just been lucky

Julian wrote:Finally found the pic, mate.



Cheers,

Julian

Love the quote on that photo,"a black belt unwittingly changes his way of life"...by shattering his jaw with a flying kick so he has to drink with a straw for the next six weeks.