David VS Goliath battles

Nick,

How much do you think size matters in a ‘real’ fight?

I just noticed on the net that Mayweather Jnr (yes the world boxing champ) at 5-foot-8 and 150 pounds is going to wrestle some guy called Big Show, who stands 7-feet and weighs 430 on Wrestlemania. This particular ‘contest’ will be pure theatrics. But, in your opinion, can someone grossly outsized and outweighed still occasionally win in a ‘real’ fight??

History shows that in a ‘controlled’ fight setting occasionally David has beaten Goliath. Henry Armstrong won world boxing titles in about 5 different weight divisions years ago, and there’s always Jack Dempsay demolishing the giant Jess Willard. But what’s your experience and opinion when it comes to ‘real’ fights (in the street etc)??

I've seen a few. One was in a nightclub in Lincoln about 3 years back Professional Boxer Tony Dowling (cruiserweight) was knocked out cold with peach of straight right by amateur light middle (just turned pro)Kevin Hammond. size difference Tony Dowling is 6ft 2ins weighing approx 14 stone when not fighting roughly and pure muscle. Kevin Hammond 5ft 9ins weighing roughly 11st 7Ibs but well muscled. There profiles are on BOXREC but that is one example i've seen and the best i can think for two people who are both trained fighters.
Sure Nick has his own views on this subject but i think its possible but lot depends on the two people fighting, if they are trained and to what level,fitness and the big one heart. The reason i'll say that is Kev hammond from above example is someone who has those attributes and big heart goes long way. It means you won't quit or backdown.
But i have also seen the opposite were big guy just takes out the small guy especially at clubs when you see some lad give bouncer some crap. I remember my mate scott mcneil(just got out nick at time) on door once getting allthis crap from some lad and scott just dropped him (back in 98 before the SIA).
There is a lot factors you got take into consideration though.

It's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog...

Cute saying, but what about the big dog with a big fight in him?

Same thing applies mate; the big dog with the big fight is one mean sumbitch!

Which is why I hate Hughes...

Size of the dog in the fight is all well and good, and I consider myself a little dog. I have a similar saying...

"Its not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog and whether the little dog can take the other dog by surprise, especially if the other dog is pissed up, or if the little dog has mates and a weapon (or two), but if the big dog is up for a scrap too and pretty handy then the little dog will likely as not get its nuts chewed off and would be best buggering off."

Its not a very catchy saying I'll grant you.

I've seen a few cases of David smacking the snot out of Goliath, the occasional "if I hadn't seen it.." situation so it can definately happen, but most times Goliath wins .

Well, David became famous, because he won against the odds in the first place, didn't he?
Although I know enough smaller guys that I don't want to mess with. It's safer for both of us this way. Size and muscle are major factors, although they can be overcome by other attributes.
Anyway, I can't do a lot about my size, so I take it the way it is and work from there. I guess everybody has to do the same, whatever his or her size-even bodybuilding can only help so much ! Of course, if I meet someone that's at least equal in the other attributes and bigger, chances really are against me .
Except when shooting. Than he is the bigger target !
(No, I have no experience in shooting-and almost zero practice. This just made sense, although I accept that size might not matter at all in combat shooting!)

The old adage used to be "A good big'un will always beat a good little'un."

I'm assuming what they meant was all things being equal, and I mean all things, then the guy with the size has a huge (no pun intended) advantage. I don't have a problem with that per se...after all the big guy has a height advantage, reach advantage and weight advantage.

Having said all that, in the real world it's very rare to find "all things" equal. I have seen many small guys devestate bigger guys and have memories of Mal Anderson and Tony Quinn - both wayyyyy smaller than me - beating the absolute snot out of me in sparring on many occasions. My older brother Tony - RIP - was also a ball-tearer in the street and he wasn't that large, just viscious, fast and trained.

Nick

PS: I've gleaned over the years though that it's usually the small guys causing the trouble and picking the fights. Most very large individuals tend to be gentle giants whereas the smaller guys tend to suffer from the Napoleon complex

It's true about smaller people. But I have to say, as a 5'8/9 guy myself, smaller people tend to get picked on or at least underestimated more than bigger guys.

So while it's not right for anyone to go round causing trouble, it can be understandable if a smaller person has a bit of a chip on their shoulder sometimes.

I agree,being 1.70 m (5foot 6?) myself i get more grief than rest of my friends.
An example is the guy who they introduce you and (in a funny way of course) touch your head/face whatever.
When you tell him not to touch you they think you are paranoid or something.
Of course they don't do that to your 6 foot friends.

Nick Hughes wrote:
PS: I've gleaned over the years though that it's usually the small guys causing the trouble and picking the fights. Most very large individuals tend to be gentle giants whereas the smaller guys tend to suffer from the Napoleon complex

Ooo, now there's a self-portrait in words if I ever heard one! Nick, ya cuddly old gentle giant...

D

Excellent point.

Nick is just a "big cuddly gentle giant."

And by "big cuddly gentle giant" I mean "Giant super-experienced fighing machine it's best not to antagonize."

WhatThe... wrote:Nick,

How much do you think size matters in a ‘real’ fight?

I just noticed on the net that Mayweather Jnr (yes the world boxing champ) at 5-foot-8 and 150 pounds is going to wrestle some guy called Big Show, who stands 7-feet and weighs 430 on Wrestlemania. This particular ‘contest’ will be pure theatrics. But, in your opinion, can someone grossly outsized and outweighed still occasionally win in a ‘real’ fight??

History shows that in a ‘controlled’ fight setting occasionally David has beaten Goliath. Henry Armstrong won world boxing titles in about 5 different weight divisions years ago, and there’s always Jack Dempsay demolishing the giant Jess Willard. But what’s your experience and opinion when it comes to ‘real’ fights (in the street etc)??

Happens in the ring at times -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2SqIkt0E7o&feature=related

Bloody Nuisance wrote:Excellent point.

Nick is just a "big cuddly gentle giant."

And by "big cuddly gentle giant" I mean "Giant super-experienced fighing machine it's best not to antagonize."

Yeah but how many people would actually cuddle Nick?

Well you certainly would.Nudge nudge wink wink say no more tally ho.

Nick said......Having said all that, in the real world it's very rare to find "all things" equal. I have seen many small guys devestate bigger guys and have memories of Mal Anderson and Tony Quinn - both wayyyyy smaller than me - beating the absolute snot out of me in sparring on many occasions.

Nick,

The gig question is - How did these guys who must have been a minimum of 6 inches shorter than you, and much shorter in both leg and arm reach, get inside? Most people you would have squared off against probably never managed to get within their own striking range.

That's the difference between trained and untrained. Untrained yobs try by charging straight in and overwhelm you by bluff, bluster, noise and raw aggression. If you've been exposed to that to the point where it doesn't phase you, their technical skill level is laughably useless.

With Mal & Tony, there'd be angular attacks, fakes and feints, set ups and a skill level far superior to mine.

Nick

I agree with Nick Hughes that a lot of big guys are useless technically.

However big 'lumps' hit hard (even the untrained ones) and can often absorb a shot pretty well. They are also hard for a littledog like me to take down, and near impossible to restrain!

Most of the best street fighters I've seen have been middleweights or thereabouts.

Its the total package that matters .. OK I know I am not a fan but Bruce Lee wasnt Andre the Giant
Higaonna was (is) under 5ft 5ins etc

I am 5ft 7 and have beaten bigger guys..

if a small guy has all the right attributes of training, skill, aggressions, determination etc he can prevail over a larger guy .. but if the larger guy has the same attributes attributes to the same level then his size will give him the edge

as a screen example, look at Joe Pesci in Casino with the big guy and the pen scene.

in the 'dog world, who would pick the ST Bernard over the Staffardshire bull terrier?

It's always a case of wheeling out a selection of shorter-statured fighters when this subject is addressed, and saying 'he's not very big but can fight' as the answer - but the fact remains that if the same person were bigger they'd be better at it!

I've said it many times, but it's worth repeating - I've never met a big guy who wished he was smaller so that he'd be better at fighting.

There's a very good reason why combat sports have weight categories, and it certainly isn't to protect the big 'uns from the little 'uns!

I've faced bigger adversaries and come through the other side generally intact - but each and every time I'd wished I was bigger.

Using cinematic exploits to make a point about real fighting isn't especially accurate - Pesci prevailed in that particular scene due to it being in the script....

Now size certainly isn't everything, but it's definitely more than a lot of 'trained' types make it out to be, and can't be discarded or disregarded just because it 'isn't fair' when someone is genetically advantaged!

Welcome back by the way Dave!

Mick

I agree with what's above.

It's the total package and there's no absolutes but a good big un will beat a good little un.

I've beated bigger guys but it was a damn sight harder work for me than it would have been had I weighed another three stone!

Where the smaller guys can have an advantage is the fact that they will be (or fe*ken should be!!) consistently training with bigger guys. If they have anything about them at all they will be constantly looking for ways to even up the playing field and seeing that greater speed, aggression and surprise are essential to success for them.

They have to work harder for success, their conditioning should be better physically and mentally and their mindset should be more aggressive. Put that up against someone who doesn't have that conditioning and it can provide an edge.

I would ask Nick as a bigger guy who was training with smaller guys. How much of the success they had against you was down to your mental picture of these guys. You understandably had respect for them as ranking students, you would have seen them in action before facing them on the mats and my guess is that a lot of what made them so potent against bigger guys in training was that same respect they were shown. Out in a street fight I'd put fortunes on their success being based on speed and aggression rather than their skillset.

Here's what I see as being one of the two major problems with martial arts training in todays world.

- A lot of training purports to provide a silver bullet which will allow smaller, weaker, less experienced and sometimes less conditioned people to defeat bigger, stronger more naturally violent people. The kick in the arse is that is purports to provide that bullet without the correct intensity of training to make those statements even partially true.

- A lot of martial arts training is geared towards insecure, fearful people and instead of assisting in alleviating that insecurity and fear it feeds on it for gain.

In both instances above you get the statements.

You can beat guys twice your size. Protect yourself easily against street attacks. etc etc.

The real world situation is that unless you are prepared to act with greater overwhelming ferocity and aggression (a la Pesci in Casino which I think Dave mentioned above as an example of the type of behaviour necessary) then as a smaller, weaker person you are food for the bigger guys.

I overheard a conversation once during training between two guys. One was twenty stone and built like a dumper truck on rims. The other was about twelve stone if he was lucky. They were working on some grappling technique or other.

The smaller guy asked,

"Jock, why can't I get this technique to work?"

The answer came back without any malice or slde at all,

"Cos you're small and not very strong."

Kind of summed the whole thing up for me very nicely indeed.

As a side note, I don't think height has anything to do with it. It's all about the weight you can bring to bear.

Chris,

There's no doubt guys like Tony and Mal were fast and aggressive but to put their success in the street down to that, as opposed to their skill set is completely barmy mate.

I've been in fights beside Quinny (where the other side were also fast and aggressive [and experienced]) and I've seen them grab him and come undone due to his background in wrestling...that was pure skill and knowledge of the technique, not anything else.

Nick

Nick,

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that training means nothing. I'm just saying that smaller guys have to put themselves in a position where the training can pay off with greater initial aggression applied with speed and surprise.

Wrestling is a great example where you have to be a REALLY good little 'un to stand a chance against a remotely competent big 'un. If you're dealing with an untrained guy then definitely that helps but you still have your work cut out for you unless you are first and with overwhelming force.

There is no upside to being smaller in a scrap and greater skillset only makes a certain amount of difference. We can't quantify how much because success is based on a sliding scale of attributes, environment and skill.

this is constantly going to be one of those debates .... not EVERY big guy can win over the smaller ones and not EVERY small guy will prevail over bigger foes if he has the right attributes...

Chris was right by the way I used Pesci as an example of venomous ferocity...

I think I won aganst the few really bigger guys I came up against because of combination of factors.. mainly they werent really all THAT hard.. they were comparitively (to me) unskilled and untrained) and I was a damn site nastier than them.

I guess the reason I took to the weights 40 years ago was to move from being a lightweight to a lightheavy ,, I went from 9stones to 12 stones, and stayed at 12.5 for most of my 20's and 30's ....
I went up to nearly 14 stones in the 1980's, but found the extra strength and weight wasnt enough of a compensation for the loss of speed and mobility..

Harry Greb wasnt heavy but he beat some BIG guys.. however like many a GREAT middle/Lg Hvy weight he couldnt handle GOOD big guys

If ONLY size and strength were taken into consideration then the worlds strongest man should also be the worlds best fighter.. he hasnt been both YET...

But be honest Nick.. there must have been many a BIG guy you WOULDNT want on your side and many a smaller one you would...

Size matters but ferocity and training matter more

Some good points have been raised above including the last one from Dave ie ‘Size matters but ferocity and training matter more.’

In my experience, amongst most groups of guys you train with there’s usually the big monster, a few bigger than average, the average size ones, plus a few smaller ones. And amongst them somewhere there’s usually the really crazy one! The crazy one is usually not the biggest or smallest. But he’s fairly easy to identify. He’s on the edge most of the time. He’s unpredictable. Totally loses the plot at the drop of a hat, and when he does, the eyes go white and look out!

The monster sized guy and the crazy one are usually the ones to look out for, and not necessarily in that order.

The thing that gives the crazy one his edge is that he’s amped up almost all the time, and if he’s not he can be almost instantly. It borders on insanity in some cases, and he’s certainly not the guy to have a car accident with, or whose beer you want to be spilling.