For someone like myself, physical attributes play a major role. I'm very tall (6'3", 191cm) and fairly strong, but I have a deficit in skill. However, my height and physique have actually allowed me to overcome more skilled opponents in the past. Although skill is still the ultimate deciding factor generally, reach and strength are nothing to scoff at.
Being tall, and therefor having more reach, is usually an advantage. Except when it isn't, and one of the advantages-that-also isn't of being tall is that it sets you up to do high outside windings. And observation of the taller fencers in my club shows that as a shorter fencer closes in with them, they find they simply reach over the shorter person's guard and stab them or cut them in the higher openings. "But that just sounds like and advantage!" You exclaim. Well yes... except that doing so means the shorter person now has their sword free and a clear line to your lower openings. Doubles often ensue. A skilled fencer will know to only do this if their opponent's sword is in some way tied up. A less skilled fencer will try to reach over a short person's guard every time and end the evening wondering why their legs and armpits hurt. The really good tall fencers I tangle with realize that they have to fight as if they were the same size and strength as everybody else, and treat their height and strength as handy bonuses that help them use their skill to get out of tight spots, not replacements for it.
Tbh, in all kinds of fights you will see that physical attributes are one of the most important factors. Sure skill is more important but not that much more!(But before i write the rest i have to say that weapons are a great equalizer.... to an extend!) Strength is NEVER a weakness. Not getting stronger means that you are just limiting the potential of your lazy ass. All the guys saying that the other guys you fight werent THAT skilled or that your moral was stronger need to face reality. Physicality/Athletcism, Skill and reaction time/speed. Those 3 things each make about 1/3 in fighting. And speed is also correlated to strength and athleticism. So in real life this is the most important factor. So because your learning curve is not linear and eventually your progress will slow down because when you get better you are mostly improving little details THAN it would be a good idea to work on you body, your strenght and speed with some training outside of sword fighting or any martial art but go and hit heavy weights or do bodyweight exercises, explosive exercises etc. To become the best version of yourself you need skill but dont forget about your body. If your body cant keep up with your technicall skill than your skills are pretty much useless.
I've weight lifted for over 10 years, I am in peak condition and people even accuse me of taking steroids. I started training with swords recently and wow, I have not felt this sore in a long time. Practicing daily will definitely make you stronger, do not neglect regular training!
Depends on the weapon to some degree, but the forearms are pretty much always used more in fencing than in other activities. To get an idea, you can hold a heavy pan out at arms length, and lift it up and down using your wrist.
@@kanucks9 Very true, I've down periodic weight lifting for years, and when I got serious about being able to swing a heavy sword, my wrists were nowhere near strong enough, and needed lots of training. Traditional weight lifting doesn't target this area too much, but I guess dead-lifts would help at least a bit.
@@mightyone3737 Do you mean actual weight lifting or just bodybuilding style. Because if you're doing Olympic weight lifting your wrists would be more than strong enough for swordfighting. Any actual functional lifting that isn't bodybuilding would accomplish this. Calisthenics, mace training and club training, Olympic training, powerlifting etc.
@Tracchofyre That's not why he won lol. I watched the video between Devon and Thor. Devon would because arm wrestling although being strength heavy is more about technique to leverage strength. Also Devon used his whole body ( which is fine in arm wrestling) while Thor did not. Most people think that's cheating because casual arm wrestling is usually only the actual arm. Thor is much stronger than Devon lol.
I've never watch this channel before but I have to say this is the most fair and balanced approach to this topic that I've seen and I commend you guys for it
This something that has come up in our HEMA group, the continual discounting if strength as an advantage… until you fight a stronger opponent that is roughly as skilled as you. Its kind of a bad move trope that the stronger you are the dumber you fight. No doubt skill in both executable knowledge and correct form are the most important thing to focus on, however in combat every advantage you can take will increase your chance of victory. A long sword that has an inch longer blade strike just out of measure, a taller opponent with slightly longer arms getting slightly better angles, and a stronger opponent able to more easily break the flow of an advance to gain the initiative are things to consider and train against. Thanks for this awesome video!
Pretty much a perfect lesson in all martial arts here. I've seen too many internet armchair warriors saying that size/strength doesn't matter... but it totally does. This vid puts into words what I've been suggesting for ages. Excellent vid
Of course, it matters, but it isn't a key factor as people might think. That's what those people are trying to say. Strength matters such as speed, flexibility and etc.
I think they were very clear that skill plays a much bigger role than strength/size? Their is a very good reason we don't see many heavyweight boxers over 300 lb at the top level. Size isn't a big advantage in most cases compared to speed, and I say this as a pretty big guy who misses how fast he used to be. Velocity is equally important to mass in the force equation remember, and you can raise your speed to a point without increasing your mass, which will also make you much, much harder to fight since you can move faster in every way. Strength rewards increases in skill less than an increase in speed would. Speed can allow you to, as the video showed, set up situations where you have a mechanical advantage over the other, slower fighter, and even if they are stronger, they are still not necessarily stronger enough to win at this point, IE catching their blade at extension low on your blade, so you can exert a lot of torque on their wrist. If size and strength were all that important, I think we'd see way more gigantic athletes dominating combat sports, and we really don't, even in unlimited weight classes. Armed it's even less important: it's really easy to kill people with implements vs ending fights unarmed, where strength is much more useful. Even bludgeoning weapons like a mace weren't terribly unwieldy. All that said, professional fighters generally train to be as big and strong as they can be without losing speed/endurance, and while staying within a desired weight class if applicable. Strength is an advantage, but in most situations it is better to be faster with better endurance than to have trained for bulk strength. I say this as a guy that does bulk strength training for heaven's sake.
I know what you mean. While I certainly disagree with the dated hollywood/gaming notion that strength is what makes a good swordsman, many people stray to far in the other extreme by claiming strength doesn't matter at all. That said, I feel like most people just sound like that because they feel it's obvious that strength still has a place in swordfighting and they therefore don't feel the need to point it out, ignorant of the fact that pointing out so many ways to win against someone who's stronger than you can make it sound as though strength isn't an advantage or factor at all. They debunked the myth that strength was the most important factor in combat, unaware of the fact that they were spreading a new myth of strength being made completely obsolete by weapons. It reminds me a bit of the katana debate where you used to have people believing it was somehow the best sword in history, which is obviously false, but then you got people responding with claims that is was a crappy sword altogether and longswords were superior to katanas in every way, which isn't the case either.
I really like the level-headed and realistic approach. Too many people fall into the trap of believing their chosen martial art or even their individual skill level negates physical advantages entirely. It is good to understand your limitations so that you are prepared to deal with them. Also thanks for addressing the idea that a larger opponent is somehow less skilled because they are stronger (and vise versa).
Really funny how in most games and film, you have to be strong to be a swordfighter and agile to be an archer, while in archaeological digs of medieval battles, you can easily recognized the archers by their deformed shoulders. (not that this is the only thing they get completely wrong...)
I think the main reason for this trope comes down to the psychology of the person consuming the media. We naturally want to see the strong protect the weak so it makes sense that we'd rather see the muscular guy engaged in close combat while the weaker person fights from a safe distance. Both should be strong but we also want diversity in body type to make the media more interesting.
+Jim Giant I think I goes much further than that as I've herd of books from long ago describing certain swordsman that use particular weapons as sneaky and the other as more honest and brute as mentioned by Matt Easton.
Only in the Mary Rose skeletons could you identify strain injuries to the shoulder and lower back - on a ship packed full with archers. On battlefields, not so much. There is no deformity of the shoulder or spine, just tell-tale strain injuries - but you'd have to look for them. They are not severe, and not universal.
So, basically, if you are stronger, you have an advantage. In other news, water is wet. But seriously, good video. Problem is, the controversy arises when you point out that men are, generally speaking, bigger and stronger.
True for a gun, not true for a martial art. Martial arts makes the strong stronger just as much as it makes the weak stronger. To wit heres a reason boxing is separated by weight classes
@@geringasG Yeah, you have right. Physically strong person can learn it too. But I think strong person had no reasons to invent sth like martial arts in the past. I always thought it was invented by physically weaker to overcome strength of others by skills but then stronger realized what's going on and they can learned it too. Main point is this is not strength against strength. It is Skill and strength vs. Skill and strength. More inputs gives more permutations of variants.
@@geringasG weapons differ from unarmed martial arts significantly however. You can be incredibly gifted in hand to hand combat, yet still be taken out by a relatively untrained individual with a knife. I used to be pretty confident in using my grappling and striking to defend myself, after a few marker tests I decided I would never ever want to be in that situation. A knife is incredibly dangerous, and an excellent equaliser if there is a size difference. The same goes for a sword, and beyond that a spear which gives greater reach. The only time strength really matters is in unarmed combat, where a size difference can result in a much easier fight if skill is the same. Even if you have a significant size advantage, if unarmed you would need to be very well trained in handling an armed opponent to prevent them overwhelming you, and if even the opponent has even a little bit of weapons training it could cost you your life.
@@arsov9885 That is ridiculous idea, strong always wants to get stronger, and most importantly to keep their power, weapons and martial arts were always invented by the strong, not the weak.... that is why knight has best armor and weaponry and is virtually untouchable by peasantry
Why im so addicted to HEMA videos suddenly. So interesting. They should use hema experts when making movies. Ofc movies need some cool stuff over "real" stuff :D
There's a lot of really cool videos on RUclips where HEMA enthusiasts make swordfighting scenes based on real techniques, with the drama and excitement of good choreography and editing. It's really effective and way beyond most of what you see in Hollywood movies. You get the excitement of "cool stuff" with the feel that the fight is actually real and dangerous.
I'm in the process of writing an RPG, and this video (and so many other in your series) is absolutely wonderful for helping me decide what emphasis to put on what stats.
Very nice video. Contrary to popular belief, it also applies to Brazillian Jiu Jitsu. Im a blue belt, and i find myself getting submitted sometimes by white belts that just have a much stronger physique than me. Sure they aren't as skilled as me, but they can force the issue at times. People say its all about using the opponents strength against them, which is true, but it doesnt mean strength cant help you.
Maybe because you have limited training time and skill training requires a lot of time but less food than getting a ripped body. With food being accessible in limited amount, especially in military campaigns, there is a trade off between the mean individual soldier strength and size of the army you can maintain. You can still have a few elite units for specific and critical missions but they cannot compose an entire army.
@@PostNoteIt you would not get as strong as if you did a specific musculation exercise, mostly because the point of skill is to minimize the amount of strength needed.
Had a guy in my old fencing class who was a triple threat: Very tall and strong, very skilled, and he was a southpaw. Don't think I ever scored on him but he was a lot of fun to fight. Nice guy, too.
The rear foot moved back first obviously that was corrected as soon as she realized moving the front foot is the one that actually controls striking and distance. Although weakness is a relative term, when I was teaching (retired) I noticed collapsing joints such as shoulders, elbows, knees, and wrists were the culprits in many cases. Once corrected the boy's frame became stronger and exercising is a must.
Strength is an advantage. In any kind of fight, you always want to have as many advantages as possible. In swordplay, it's not a massive advantage, but it does help.
Great video! You guys help me so much. I am a HEMA pioneer in my country, and we are kinda autodidactics, so without channels like yours it would be so hard. So, thanks a lot!
I'm a fan of Ramsey Dewey's channel, and remember him saying (a good few months ago know) when asked about strength, in terms of unarmed combat, that strength should be counted as another skill (also weight falls into this category), but not THE skill, as it can be countered by a weaker/lighter person, with superior skills in other areas. This video is a great example of this.
The issue is that the strength skill makes up for a lot of ground, and forces the weaker person to really push their skill. I watch him as well hes a great guy. We tend to underestimate how important conditiining is in all arts. In many ways irs vital.
A lot of people seem to say stuff like "I might not be as strong as the average competitive male adult, but finesse / experience can trump brute strength". Yes it can. But there's no reason to believe that you have the capacity to gain more experience than the average physically strong opponent. In fact, everyone probably has a lot of experience if they're ready to go to a competition, let alone bet their life on a sword fight. As for finesse... There's no evidence that an individual with high strength would have less dexterity. This isn't a video game. There's no stats balancing at character creation. Being tall makes you both faster and stronger. Being healthy and in shape makes you both stronger and faster. Muscle mass makes you both stronger and faster, except for the extreme. The average male gymnast will arm wrestle a body builder. While you can compensate for your lack of strength, your adversary also can 'compensate' and capitalize on his superior strength. David didn't beat Goliath because dex builds beat strength builds; in the story, it was divine intervention.
That being said, Strenght is never a weakness. To become the best version of yourself you need skill but dont forget about your body. If your body cant keep up with your technicall skill than your skills are pretty much useless. You WANT to have both!
"But there's no reason to believe that you have the capacity to gain more experience than the average physically strong opponent." 1. Yes, but there's no reason to believe that the stronger opponent would win either. Unless you believe that strong alone makes you win, then going against your first statement. "As for finesse... There's no evidence that an individual with high strength would have less dexterity. This isn't a video game. There's no stats balancing at character creation. Being tall makes you both faster and stronger. Being healthy and in shape makes you both stronger and faster. Muscle mass makes you both stronger and faster, except for the extreme. The average male gymnast will arm wrestle a body builder." 2. There's a lot of evidence for that. Just search powerlifters/bodybuilders sparring videos. They are a lot slower than his opponent, and generally gas out after some minutes. That's why you don't see hugely muscled guys in combat sports below the HeavyWeight division. And even then, they have a limit. Of course being in shape makes you faster, but I fail to see the correlation between that and having a lot of muscle mass. What's your definition of "being in shape"? "While you can compensate for your lack of strength, your adversary also can 'compensate' and capitalize on his superior strength. David didn't beat Goliath because dex builds beat strength builds; in the story, it was divine intervention." 3. Of course he can, if it goes to grappling. The problem is, weapons were created in the first place to lower that disparity(strength), so there's no way a smaller person can't beat a stronger and taller one. About David and Goliath, yeah dude, that was a metaphor for facing life difficulties. It's likely that David and Goliath didn't even exist in the first place.
@@jpmisterioman 1. If Strength is an advantage, and it is, then there is a reason to believe so. 2. The evidence says no. 3. Weapons were created to gain an advantage over an opponent, by granting the ability to cut flesh, pierce skin, or use the mechanical advantage of a lever to bludgeon them or simply cut and pierce better. Melee weaponry in particular is not an equalizer in any way.
@@joshuabacker2363 old comment, honestly don't care about this stuff anymore. But in regards to number 3: How melee weapons are not equalizers? They were created for this reason. Melee weapons are ancient; even before armor exists. Sure they give all these advantages, but you're confusing cause and effect. The fact that they allow you this doesn't exclude the fact of them being equalizers between different strength ratio opponents.
These are great videos, very well explained and with perfect demonstrations. Your points fit very well with people who is starting in HEMA like me, so thank you!
I guess Most people asume that strong people Aren't as skilled because they can rely in their strenght Most of the time so the Don't Invest that much time in developing skills at least if you think about the average Person
Have anyone noticed those small very worked out muscles near their elbows? They give a strong understanding that a person had a lot of exercise on their hands - so he or she is a swordsman. Or a tennis player.
Logically speaking, I'd agree. However, with combat, particularly with swordplay, things can be complicated. There are aspects like luck, timing, and especially mindgames. Even if we put different strengths in an all "else equal scenario", I believe the less strong would still be quite formidable and difficult since the two individuals think differently and may (perhaps likely) have different strategies (like the weaker one strafing around to avoid getting caught in grapples or anything that plays into strength). Sorry for my long comment.
Although I do agree with you in almost every part, there is one problem I see here. Namely Harnischfechten combined with use of a polearm or blunt weapon like mace. In such fight skill/technique is still a key factor BUT the importance of strength goes much higher since the nature of fight in armour force you to use more grappling and to actually hurt someone in armour with warhammer or mace you have to hit really hard. Even targeting knees, elbows and head with blunt weapon won't help you much without enough power. So I would say the more protective equipment your opponent and/or you have the more important strength becomes.
Your physical attribute of strength does play a part in wield weapons with such a center of balaance as hammers ect. it can prove benifitial in allowing you to better maneuver your weapon and recovering from swings making you just a bit more effective in a fight. Also I do agree that significant blows with a hammer are a bit easier to generate with normal strength, but they do gain far more benefit from a more powerful strike than swords. Though all of this should still be accompanied by some technique.
Zephyr dyno It's a specific type of duelling described in historical manuals. In such duel opponents fight in full plate armor, armed with sword, spear, shield and dagger. But there also were duels involving other weapons, including warhammers. So, Harnischfechten - fighting/fencing in armour isn't exclusive for battlefield but also refers to duels.
This only goes to show that discipline, training and experience are the virtues that separates the winner from a (soon to be) dead body. And behind these virtues, its will power that drives all up.
There are many factors to being a good fighter, in fact a legion of them. Knowledge of technique, and structure, speed, strength, weight, endurance , flexibility, timing, perception, superior planning, and visualization, as well as feel of combat flow. In fact that's just a simple small list of factors that effect fighting. Looking for improvements in just one factor can make a difference. There is no one factor that is best.
If you know that your opponent is much weaker than you and you are skilled enough...you gonna use this advantage, right? Can you test disarming techniques against weaker opponent? Techniques wich make your opponent to drop weapon, to push away, to loose ballance etc
I really enjoy your videos, this is another great one. One thing I was considering with this is size vs weight as well. If I weigh 200 lbs and 6ft tall I also have to move that weight around and my strength may not be at as high of a ratio as someone smaller than me. This means I might be stronger overall but they might be stronger by ratio which means they might be able to move around with more ease than me. I would be interested in running some tests of strength to weight ratios and then doing some technique and power tests to see if there is some interesting ratio that is optimal for specific swords. I want to make it more concrete with an example, This is all hypothetical, I would need to think and consult some experts in other fields to get a proper test. If I use the example of 6ft 200lbs I run 3 basic measurements of strength (Leg, Arm, Torso) then put those to a ratio of weight. I do some flexibility tests and add these to the strength results. Not going to purpose a calculation on the fly, it would take a lot of thinking. Then run some basic drills and rank the quality of things like blade alignment, accuracy, speed, reaction, overpower, I can think of many more I won't make this list exhausted though. This would have a for sure margin for error and some subjective parts but it could set up some sort of chart for what seems to work well with each weapon type or types of attacks (slash vs thrust). This was just a thought I had while watching the video and figured I would share. Great video again thanks.
I'm very familiar with the concept of determining Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for different things from my prior sports background, however HEMA is still very much in it's infancy and we are a long way from having enough high level fighters that we can get population data that isn't dominated by how much an individual chooses to train. Naturally there are some broad conclusions that can be reached fairly easily, and have been supported by the crude physiological tests I've dabbled in. ie: High power to weight ratios correlate to faster movement speed, and power/weight is easily approximated by standardized jumping tests. Weapons with grosser movements (Longsword) benefit more from strength than those with finer movements (Rapier). As fun as I find sport science at the moment there are many, many more avenues in terms of technical development that are inordinately more beneficial in terms of producing better martial artists.
More muscle mass will not slow you down, it'll speed you up and improve your strength/weight ratio. Look at sprinters or gymnasts, they're the fastest and most agile people on the planet respectively and often have more muscle than most men could ever build in the gym without drugs. What will make a muscular guy slow is neglecting speed training, being disproportionate or having too much body fat. Once you factor the weight of the equipment muscle mass becomes an even bigger factor. Provided the same bodyfat someone who weighs 5 times as much as their armour is going to have a much easier time moving than someone who only weights 3 times as much as their armour. Same thing with moving the weapon. A strong guy is going to find it much easier to swing around a 3lb sword than a weak guy given the same amount of experience. More muscle mass is nearly always going to be benifical in weapon based martial arts provided you keep your bodyfat under control and you don't neglect the other aspects of your training. It makes you a slightly bigger target which is a downside and eventually muscle mass can reach a point where it effects endurance enough to be a critical factor (heart and lungs struggling to keep up with the demand of the muscles). This point however is so high though it couldn't be be reached without the use of drugs.
Sean Franklin This was something I just thought up while watching the video but it seems like you have some knowledge into a more specific version of this you called (KPI). It was something that just sounded interesting and more thinking out loud in the comments. Thanks for the response.
Jim Giant By your explanation the the world strongest man should also be the fastest and most agile. There are different forms of strength, I don't know how all of the systems work but I can see it clearly displayed. I would want more data to back up any concrete statements on it and that is why in the original post I stated I would have to consult an expert to understand how to go down this path. Also some of your explanations I think ignores technique in the name of strength. For example when you say a stronger man can swing a 3lb sword easier I completely agree but easier does not mean better. There might be points of flexibility that is loss with muscle mass that prevents some techniques from being obtainable. For example a friend of mine is 5'7" and 195 muscle mass and very strong but he can't touch his shoulder with his hand preventing some basic articulation that could be more beneficial than swinging the sword easier. Take this same sort of thing into consideration for gymnasts in your example. More muscle is great for a gymnast but at what point does it start to become detrimental is the point. Sean Franklin replied prior to this and seems to already have at least some basic knowledge in how this applies to other sports. His response comes down to HEMA is not mature enough for this yet but I still thought it was something interesting to at least think about.
"By your explanation the the world strongest man should also be the fastest and most agile." They tend to have high levels of bodyfat, don't train enough for speed and have taken enough drugs to reach a mass where their heart and lungs become limiting factors. I mentioned all of these factors in my comment. They also tend to be too tall to make great sprinters or gymnasts. "that is why in the original post I stated I would have to consult an expert" I'm simply giving my opinions and predictions. I'm a lifelong science geek with 10 years of martial arts experience (3 years of HEMA) and an advanced powerlifter who's also coaching one of the strongest women on the planet. I wouldn't call myself an expert but you aren't going to find many people in this comment section more qualified to answer the question. "Also some of your explanations I think ignores technique in the name of strength. For example when you say a stronger man can swing a 3lb sword easier I completely agree but easier does not mean better. There might be points of flexibility that is loss with muscle mass that prevents some techniques from being obtainable." Being muscular doesn't make you inflexible, not stretching after does. As evidence of this there are quite a few gigantic bodybuilders who can do the splits, elite powerlifters squat with a stance far wider than the average person can get into and Olympic lifters need high levels of wrist flexibility. "More muscle is great for a gymnast but at what point does it start to become detrimental is the point." I'd guess when one of these happens: 1. The point at which they fail the drug tests 2. The point at which strength training takes so much to recover from that it impacts other aspects of their training. 3. The point where they become disproportionate.
This reminds me of the first time I did sparring, which was during my first longsword class (and third HEMA class in general). Naturally I wasn't in it to win, I was just asked if I wanted to try it and I didn't want to pass it up. I was going up against my instructor and a student I didn't really know. According to my instructor and the students, I did well for my first time despite losing quite badly. But the one thing that got me was that I was... puny compared to both my opponents. I'm about 5'09/5'10 but both my opponents were like 6 feet. Their height definitely played to their advantage when it came to cutting at my head.
Then either I'm lousy at judging height differences or I'm much shorter than my family says I am. Though you wouldn't be wrong about an insecure high guard. It was the first time I did any sparring as well that session being the first longsword class I ever took.
Yes he may have been less vulnerable if he improved his guard but that does not negate the advantage provided by increased reach. 3 or 2 inches does make a fair difference, as mere inches do matter in a fight. They can be the difference between the first blow or a missed attack.
2-3 inches can be quite alot. Depending on the structer 2-3 inches can make a lean muscle weight difference of 10-15 pounds which equals to much more force produced.
stronger also means you can last longer, when your opponent is fatigued becomes slower, less well coordinated and more prone to making mistakes. If you are stronger you can afford to keep the fight going for longer to put your opponent at a disadvantage without taking too many risks.
Being faster I find to be generally better than being bigger and stronger though I primarily do unarmed martial arts so the weight of equipment is less of a worry
My training partner and I have pretty decent physical trade offs, since we're learning together we have pretty equal skill. He's a good four inches taller than me and much more nimble and fluid, while I'm considerably stronger and have significantly more stamina.
This was absolutely spectacular. Such great and accurate information delivered in such a concise and clear way.
How important are machicolations in sword fighting tho? That's the real question.
I was just watching your channel
yea, grate work on both your and this videos
When you discover video as well as Shad's comment years after original posting
@Shadiversity Cheers for bringing me here, this video is fascinating.
Who else is here from Shad's response on women with sword?
I
Glad I did. Excellent video.
I am, via Blood and iron's response video
Yee
I am.
Great lesson in body mechanics and structure.
Yeah but, the rapier only does 1d8 when the greatsword does 2d6 so
Sure but if you his 1 you only cut one of your arms and if you got 1, 1 you can't even drink for the rest of the campaign.
You can't drink without arms in your Campaign? Try a straw.
It still has to hit before it can do any damage.
I really like the style of this video. Clearly communicated with good demonstration.
For someone like myself, physical attributes play a major role. I'm very tall (6'3", 191cm) and fairly strong, but I have a deficit in skill. However, my height and physique have actually allowed me to overcome more skilled opponents in the past. Although skill is still the ultimate deciding factor generally, reach and strength are nothing to scoff at.
+Meriadoc Gunson I also had a slightly bigger sword.
What? That is a very large assumption to make.
If that was true the prideful and arrogant would never fail, yet they do.
Being tall, and therefor having more reach, is usually an advantage. Except when it isn't, and one of the advantages-that-also isn't of being tall is that it sets you up to do high outside windings.
And observation of the taller fencers in my club shows that as a shorter fencer closes in with them, they find they simply reach over the shorter person's guard and stab them or cut them in the higher openings.
"But that just sounds like and advantage!" You exclaim.
Well yes... except that doing so means the shorter person now has their sword free and a clear line to your lower openings. Doubles often ensue. A skilled fencer will know to only do this if their opponent's sword is in some way tied up. A less skilled fencer will try to reach over a short person's guard every time and end the evening wondering why their legs and armpits hurt.
The really good tall fencers I tangle with realize that they have to fight as if they were the same size and strength as everybody else, and treat their height and strength as handy bonuses that help them use their skill to get out of tight spots, not replacements for it.
Tbh, in all kinds of fights you will see that physical attributes are one of the most important factors.
Sure skill is more important but not that much more!(But before i write the rest i have to say that weapons are a great equalizer.... to an extend!)
Strength is NEVER a weakness. Not getting stronger means that you are just limiting the potential of your lazy ass.
All the guys saying that the other guys you fight werent THAT skilled or that your moral was stronger need to face reality. Physicality/Athletcism, Skill and reaction time/speed. Those 3 things each make about 1/3 in fighting.
And speed is also correlated to strength and athleticism. So in real life this is the most important factor.
So because your learning curve is not linear and eventually your progress will slow down because when you get better you are mostly improving little details THAN it would be a good idea to work on you body, your strenght and speed with some training outside of sword fighting or any martial art but go and hit heavy weights or do bodyweight exercises, explosive exercises etc.
To become the best version of yourself you need skill but dont forget about your body. If your body cant keep up with your technicall skill than your skills are pretty much useless.
I've weight lifted for over 10 years, I am in peak condition and people even accuse me of taking steroids. I started training with swords recently and wow, I have not felt this sore in a long time. Practicing daily will definitely make you stronger, do not neglect regular training!
how much do you bench\squat\deadlift\press?
Depends on the weapon to some degree, but the forearms are pretty much always used more in fencing than in other activities. To get an idea, you can hold a heavy pan out at arms length, and lift it up and down using your wrist.
@@kanucks9 Very true, I've down periodic weight lifting for years, and when I got serious about being able to swing a heavy sword, my wrists were nowhere near strong enough, and needed lots of training. Traditional weight lifting doesn't target this area too much, but I guess dead-lifts would help at least a bit.
@@mightyone3737 Do you mean actual weight lifting or just bodybuilding style. Because if you're doing Olympic weight lifting your wrists would be more than strong enough for swordfighting. Any actual functional lifting that isn't bodybuilding would accomplish this. Calisthenics, mace training and club training, Olympic training, powerlifting etc.
@Tracchofyre That's not why he won lol. I watched the video between Devon and Thor. Devon would because arm wrestling although being strength heavy is more about technique to leverage strength. Also Devon used his whole body ( which is fine in arm wrestling) while Thor did not. Most people think that's cheating because casual arm wrestling is usually only the actual arm. Thor is much stronger than Devon lol.
I've never watch this channel before but I have to say this is the most fair and balanced approach to this topic that I've seen and I commend you guys for it
Strength is an advantage which you must leverage in order to win. It guarantees nothing, but I´d rather have it than lack it.
This.
This something that has come up in our HEMA group, the continual discounting if strength as an advantage… until you fight a stronger opponent that is roughly as skilled as you. Its kind of a bad move trope that the stronger you are the dumber you fight. No doubt skill in both executable knowledge and correct form are the most important thing to focus on, however in combat every advantage you can take will increase your chance of victory. A long sword that has an inch longer blade strike just out of measure, a taller opponent with slightly longer arms getting slightly better angles, and a stronger opponent able to more easily break the flow of an advance to gain the initiative are things to consider and train against. Thanks for this awesome video!
By FAR the best sword fighting training videos on RUclips, possibly online. Thank you guys so much!! Keep up the fantastic work!
Pretty much a perfect lesson in all martial arts here. I've seen too many internet armchair warriors saying that size/strength doesn't matter... but it totally does. This vid puts into words what I've been suggesting for ages.
Excellent vid
Of course, it matters, but it isn't a key factor as people might think. That's what those people are trying to say. Strength matters such as speed, flexibility and etc.
I think they were very clear that skill plays a much bigger role than strength/size? Their is a very good reason we don't see many heavyweight boxers over 300 lb at the top level. Size isn't a big advantage in most cases compared to speed, and I say this as a pretty big guy who misses how fast he used to be. Velocity is equally important to mass in the force equation remember, and you can raise your speed to a point without increasing your mass, which will also make you much, much harder to fight since you can move faster in every way. Strength rewards increases in skill less than an increase in speed would. Speed can allow you to, as the video showed, set up situations where you have a mechanical advantage over the other, slower fighter, and even if they are stronger, they are still not necessarily stronger enough to win at this point, IE catching their blade at extension low on your blade, so you can exert a lot of torque on their wrist.
If size and strength were all that important, I think we'd see way more gigantic athletes dominating combat sports, and we really don't, even in unlimited weight classes. Armed it's even less important: it's really easy to kill people with implements vs ending fights unarmed, where strength is much more useful. Even bludgeoning weapons like a mace weren't terribly unwieldy.
All that said, professional fighters generally train to be as big and strong as they can be without losing speed/endurance, and while staying within a desired weight class if applicable. Strength is an advantage, but in most situations it is better to be faster with better endurance than to have trained for bulk strength. I say this as a guy that does bulk strength training for heaven's sake.
Those skinny little weenars! Tell me who they are so I can crush their skullz
I know what you mean. While I certainly disagree with the dated hollywood/gaming notion that strength is what makes a good swordsman, many people stray to far in the other extreme by claiming strength doesn't matter at all. That said, I feel like most people just sound like that because they feel it's obvious that strength still has a place in swordfighting and they therefore don't feel the need to point it out, ignorant of the fact that pointing out so many ways to win against someone who's stronger than you can make it sound as though strength isn't an advantage or factor at all. They debunked the myth that strength was the most important factor in combat, unaware of the fact that they were spreading a new myth of strength being made completely obsolete by weapons.
It reminds me a bit of the katana debate where you used to have people believing it was somehow the best sword in history, which is obviously false, but then you got people responding with claims that is was a crappy sword altogether and longswords were superior to katanas in every way, which isn't the case either.
It matters but skill is the great equalizer.
I really like the level-headed and realistic approach. Too many people fall into the trap of believing their chosen martial art or even their individual skill level negates physical advantages entirely. It is good to understand your limitations so that you are prepared to deal with them. Also thanks for addressing the idea that a larger opponent is somehow less skilled because they are stronger (and vise versa).
These two are so good at demonstrating and explaining. Amazing!
Strength is never a weakness so its always good to get stronger, no matter what.
Really funny how in most games and film, you have to be strong to be a swordfighter and agile to be an archer, while in archaeological digs of medieval battles, you can easily recognized the archers by their deformed shoulders.
(not that this is the only thing they get completely wrong...)
I think the main reason for this trope comes down to the psychology of the person consuming the media.
We naturally want to see the strong protect the weak so it makes sense that we'd rather see the muscular guy engaged in close combat while the weaker person fights from a safe distance.
Both should be strong but we also want diversity in body type to make the media more interesting.
+Jim Giant I think I goes much further than that as I've herd of books from long ago describing certain swordsman that use particular weapons as sneaky and the other as more honest and brute as mentioned by Matt Easton.
And if you are big and strong in movies or games you have to use very heavy weapon that makes you very very slow.
yea in real life you actualy have to be strong to use a bow depending on the Draw force.
Only in the Mary Rose skeletons could you identify strain injuries to the shoulder and lower back - on a ship packed full with archers. On battlefields, not so much. There is no deformity of the shoulder or spine, just tell-tale strain injuries - but you'd have to look for them. They are not severe, and not universal.
As a practitioner of Japanese martial arts it was nice to see similar principles presented from a HEMA perspective. Well done.
So, basically, if you are stronger, you have an advantage.
In other news, water is wet.
But seriously, good video. Problem is, the controversy arises when you point out that men are, generally speaking, bigger and stronger.
I think thats why weapons and martial arts was invented. To overcome naturaly stronger threats (people or animals).
Yeah that's exactly it, I'd say
True for a gun, not true for a martial art. Martial arts makes the strong stronger just as much as it makes the weak stronger. To wit heres a reason boxing is separated by weight classes
@@geringasG Yeah, you have right. Physically strong person can learn it too. But I think strong person had no reasons to invent sth like martial arts in the past. I always thought it was invented by physically weaker to overcome strength of others by skills but then stronger realized what's going on and they can learned it too.
Main point is this is not strength against strength. It is Skill and strength vs. Skill and strength. More inputs gives more permutations of variants.
@@geringasG weapons differ from unarmed martial arts significantly however. You can be incredibly gifted in hand to hand combat, yet still be taken out by a relatively untrained individual with a knife. I used to be pretty confident in using my grappling and striking to defend myself, after a few marker tests I decided I would never ever want to be in that situation. A knife is incredibly dangerous, and an excellent equaliser if there is a size difference. The same goes for a sword, and beyond that a spear which gives greater reach. The only time strength really matters is in unarmed combat, where a size difference can result in a much easier fight if skill is the same. Even if you have a significant size advantage, if unarmed you would need to be very well trained in handling an armed opponent to prevent them overwhelming you, and if even the opponent has even a little bit of weapons training it could cost you your life.
@@arsov9885 That is ridiculous idea, strong always wants to get stronger, and most importantly to keep their power, weapons and martial arts were always invented by the strong, not the weak.... that is why knight has best armor and weaponry and is virtually untouchable by peasantry
Why im so addicted to HEMA videos suddenly. So interesting. They should use hema experts when making movies. Ofc movies need some cool stuff over "real" stuff :D
There's a lot of really cool videos on RUclips where HEMA enthusiasts make swordfighting scenes based on real techniques, with the drama and excitement of good choreography and editing. It's really effective and way beyond most of what you see in Hollywood movies. You get the excitement of "cool stuff" with the feel that the fight is actually real and dangerous.
I'm in the process of writing an RPG, and this video (and so many other in your series) is absolutely wonderful for helping me decide what emphasis to put on what stats.
Very nice video. Contrary to popular belief, it also applies to Brazillian Jiu Jitsu. Im a blue belt, and i find myself getting submitted sometimes by white belts that just have a much stronger physique than me. Sure they aren't as skilled as me, but they can force the issue at times. People say its all about using the opponents strength against them, which is true, but it doesnt mean strength cant help you.
Strength or skill? Why not both?
Maybe because you have limited training time and skill training requires a lot of time but less food than getting a ripped body. With food being accessible in limited amount, especially in military campaigns, there is a trade off between the mean individual soldier strength and size of the army you can maintain. You can still have a few elite units for specific and critical missions but they cannot compose an entire army.
You could train for skill and get stronger in the process, you know.
@@PostNoteIt you would not get as strong as if you did a specific musculation exercise, mostly because the point of skill is to minimize the amount of strength needed.
@@PostNoteIt slow progression compared to starting out much stronger, ie: man vs woman of a typical specimen.
Had a guy in my old fencing class who was a triple threat: Very tall and strong, very skilled, and he was a southpaw. Don't think I ever scored on him but he was a lot of fun to fight. Nice guy, too.
Clear, precise, correct... Very good video about swordfights! Greetings from Germany!
The rear foot moved back first obviously that was corrected as soon as she realized moving the front foot is the one that actually controls striking and distance. Although weakness is a relative term, when I was teaching (retired) I noticed collapsing joints such as shoulders, elbows, knees, and wrists were the culprits in many cases. Once corrected the boy's frame became stronger and exercising is a must.
Logical and believable. Great lesson.
Strength is an advantage. In any kind of fight, you always want to have as many advantages as possible. In swordplay, it's not a massive advantage, but it does help.
Fascinating stuff :) (speaking as a layman on HEMA).
This is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. Thank you.
Can't agree less, especially what they point out within the last minute.
Great video! You guys help me so much. I am a HEMA pioneer in my country, and we are kinda autodidactics, so without channels like yours it would be so hard. So, thanks a lot!
Came over to do some trolling.. but you guys were so honest about the topic..
you guys are amazing! You do the best job at demystifying martial arts. thank you two so much.
I'm a fan of Ramsey Dewey's channel, and remember him saying (a good few months ago know) when asked about strength, in terms of unarmed combat, that strength should be counted as another skill (also weight falls into this category), but not THE skill, as it can be countered by a weaker/lighter person, with superior skills in other areas. This video is a great example of this.
The issue is that the strength skill makes up for a lot of ground, and forces the weaker person to really push their skill. I watch him as well hes a great guy. We tend to underestimate how important conditiining is in all arts. In many ways irs vital.
this was a brilliant video!
Okay, I'm gonna go and fight the Mountain now. Wish me luck!
Feels like a blockbuster instruction video
wow great info thanks guys!!!!!!
love u both!
Well done!
Wow, I am amazed. This video was so clear, so precise and explained things so clearly.
Wow! This is one of the most impressive videos I've ever seen that was made for the sake of an argument. Great Job!
A lot of people seem to say stuff like "I might not be as strong as the average competitive male adult, but finesse / experience can trump brute strength".
Yes it can.
But there's no reason to believe that you have the capacity to gain more experience than the average physically strong opponent. In fact, everyone probably has a lot of experience if they're ready to go to a competition, let alone bet their life on a sword fight.
As for finesse... There's no evidence that an individual with high strength would have less dexterity. This isn't a video game. There's no stats balancing at character creation. Being tall makes you both faster and stronger. Being healthy and in shape makes you both stronger and faster. Muscle mass makes you both stronger and faster, except for the extreme. The average male gymnast will arm wrestle a body builder.
While you can compensate for your lack of strength, your adversary also can 'compensate' and capitalize on his superior strength. David didn't beat Goliath because dex builds beat strength builds; in the story, it was divine intervention.
That being said, Strenght is never a weakness.
To become the best version of yourself you need skill but dont forget about your body. If your body cant keep up with your technicall skill than your skills are pretty much useless.
You WANT to have both!
"But there's no reason to believe that you have the capacity to gain more experience than the average physically strong opponent."
1. Yes, but there's no reason to believe that the stronger opponent would win either. Unless you believe that strong alone makes you win, then going against your first statement.
"As for finesse... There's no evidence that an individual with high strength would have less dexterity. This isn't a video game. There's no stats balancing at character creation. Being tall makes you both faster and stronger. Being healthy and in shape makes you both stronger and faster. Muscle mass makes you both stronger and faster, except for the extreme. The average male gymnast will arm wrestle a body builder."
2. There's a lot of evidence for that. Just search powerlifters/bodybuilders sparring videos. They are a lot slower than his opponent, and generally gas out after some minutes. That's why you don't see hugely muscled guys in combat sports below the HeavyWeight division. And even then, they have a limit. Of course being in shape makes you faster, but I fail to see the correlation between that and having a lot of muscle mass. What's your definition of "being in shape"?
"While you can compensate for your lack of strength, your adversary also can 'compensate' and capitalize on his superior strength. David didn't beat Goliath because dex builds beat strength builds; in the story, it was divine intervention."
3. Of course he can, if it goes to grappling. The problem is, weapons were created in the first place to lower that disparity(strength), so there's no way a smaller person can't beat a stronger and taller one. About David and Goliath, yeah dude, that was a metaphor for facing life difficulties. It's likely that David and Goliath didn't even exist in the first place.
your comment adds nothing bro. it just shows that you cannot handle positively described possibility of weaker people.진짜 쓸데없는 소리를 하네
@@jpmisterioman
1. If Strength is an advantage, and it is, then there is a reason to believe so.
2. The evidence says no.
3. Weapons were created to gain an advantage over an opponent, by granting the ability to cut flesh, pierce skin, or use the mechanical advantage of a lever to bludgeon them or simply cut and pierce better. Melee weaponry in particular is not an equalizer in any way.
@@joshuabacker2363 old comment, honestly don't care about this stuff anymore. But in regards to number 3: How melee weapons are not equalizers? They were created for this reason. Melee weapons are ancient; even before armor exists. Sure they give all these advantages, but you're confusing cause and effect. The fact that they allow you this doesn't exclude the fact of them being equalizers between different strength ratio opponents.
Thank you so much. I was having trouble sleeping, but this video fixed that.
Their delivery has a very 1950's vibe to it. Makes the whole video lot more entertaining.
Great video!!
The quality of these videos keeps going up, keep it up!
I like these excellent illustrations of biomechanical principles
Heu guys, local BC'er here, stoked to know you exist, Ive been looking for weapon training.
Yet another A-class video, well done guys!
This is a great video. Thanks to Shad for showcasing it.
Me encanta sus videos son muy buenos
These are great videos, very well explained and with perfect demonstrations. Your points fit very well with people who is starting in HEMA like me, so thank you!
excellent video!
This is so beautiful I love it!
As always, top notch information and presentation. Thanks!
Fell in love with sword fighting now 😁
I love watching your videos I get lots of useful tips thank you for doing a great job showing and explaining things fully and clearly.
You guys rock!
The hand on the ground technique was used in the movie " The Duelists" by Ridley Scott.
real cool video
Well illustrated!
I guess Most people asume that strong people Aren't as skilled because they can rely in their strenght Most of the time so the Don't Invest that much time in developing skills at least if you think about the average Person
cool..this really helped me a bit...thanks
Yes!
Have anyone noticed those small very worked out muscles near their elbows? They give a strong understanding that a person had a lot of exercise on their hands - so he or she is a swordsman. Or a tennis player.
As with most sports. Strength/speed
Logically speaking, I'd agree. However, with combat, particularly with swordplay, things can be complicated. There are aspects like luck, timing, and especially mindgames.
Even if we put different strengths in an all "else equal scenario", I believe the less strong would still be quite formidable and difficult since the two individuals think differently and may (perhaps likely) have different strategies (like the weaker one strafing around to avoid getting caught in grapples or anything that plays into strength).
Sorry for my long comment.
Wow this video is quality. Thank you
Although I do agree with you in almost every part, there is one problem I see here. Namely Harnischfechten combined with use of a polearm or blunt weapon like mace. In such fight skill/technique is still a key factor BUT the importance of strength goes much higher since the nature of fight in armour force you to use more grappling and to actually hurt someone in armour with warhammer or mace you have to hit really hard. Even targeting knees, elbows and head with blunt weapon won't help you much without enough power.
So I would say the more protective equipment your opponent and/or you have the more important strength becomes.
Your physical attribute of strength does play a part in wield weapons with such a center of balaance as hammers ect. it can prove benifitial in allowing you to better maneuver your weapon and recovering from swings making you just a bit more effective in a fight. Also I do agree that significant blows with a hammer are a bit easier to generate with normal strength, but they do gain far more benefit from a more powerful strike than swords. Though all of this should still be accompanied by some technique.
Zephyr dyno I assume you never have heard about Kampffechten?
Zephyr dyno It's a specific type of duelling described in historical manuals. In such duel opponents fight in full plate armor, armed with sword, spear, shield and dagger.
But there also were duels involving other weapons, including warhammers.
So, Harnischfechten - fighting/fencing in armour isn't exclusive for battlefield but also refers to duels.
like that scene in game of thrones where daario puts his money on the smaller quicker fighter... right before the smaller guy gets beheaded. ..
拳击运动员的突进往往是脚尖落地，击剑运动员的突进往往是脚跟先落地，但是我们平时练的套路基本上都是脚跟落地
be strong and skilled. got it.
This video is so brilliant and informative. I'd like to see an armchair pundit vs actual practitioner HEMA bout next.
Great video, thanks! Fitness really helps!
This only goes to show that discipline, training and experience are the virtues that separates the winner from a (soon to be) dead body. And behind these virtues, its will power that drives all up.
Here from Shadiversity. Great video you guys.
Very interesting! I subscribe
👍😊🇲🇽
It's always interesting and intimidating how easily and quickly a melee fight can be won.
Maybe that Andrew Klaven guy should watch this video.
There are many factors to being a good fighter, in fact a legion of them. Knowledge of technique, and structure, speed, strength, weight, endurance , flexibility, timing, perception, superior planning, and visualization, as well as feel of combat flow. In fact that's just a simple small list of factors that effect fighting. Looking for improvements in just one factor can make a difference. There is no one factor that is best.
Hmm, what if you are both wearing chain or plate armor though .. ?
If you know that your opponent is much weaker than you and you are skilled enough...you gonna use this advantage, right? Can you test disarming techniques against weaker opponent? Techniques wich make your opponent to drop weapon, to push away, to loose ballance etc
Well done
Slow motion will be welcome...
Thank you. That was great :)
Gracias por los subtitulos en español!!!!
interesting, at 2:05 she actually closes her eyes , in fact just before the hit
People may need to have a certain amount of strength. For example, the military has people march with a pack. It maybe good to have that.
This video was tight there wasn’t a wasted breath
I really enjoy your videos, this is another great one.
One thing I was considering with this is size vs weight as well. If I weigh 200 lbs and 6ft tall I also have to move that weight around and my strength may not be at as high of a ratio as someone smaller than me. This means I might be stronger overall but they might be stronger by ratio which means they might be able to move around with more ease than me. I would be interested in running some tests of strength to weight ratios and then doing some technique and power tests to see if there is some interesting ratio that is optimal for specific swords.
I want to make it more concrete with an example, This is all hypothetical, I would need to think and consult some experts in other fields to get a proper test.
If I use the example of 6ft 200lbs
I run 3 basic measurements of strength (Leg, Arm, Torso) then put those to a ratio of weight.
I do some flexibility tests and add these to the strength results. Not going to purpose a calculation on the fly, it would take a lot of thinking.
Then run some basic drills and rank the quality of things like blade alignment, accuracy, speed, reaction, overpower, I can think of many more I won't make this list exhausted though.
This would have a for sure margin for error and some subjective parts but it could set up some sort of chart for what seems to work well with each weapon type or types of attacks (slash vs thrust).
This was just a thought I had while watching the video and figured I would share. Great video again thanks.
I'm very familiar with the concept of determining Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for different things from my prior sports background, however HEMA is still very much in it's infancy and we are a long way from having enough high level fighters that we can get population data that isn't dominated by how much an individual chooses to train.
Naturally there are some broad conclusions that can be reached fairly easily, and have been supported by the crude physiological tests I've dabbled in.
ie: High power to weight ratios correlate to faster movement speed, and power/weight is easily approximated by standardized jumping tests. Weapons with grosser movements (Longsword) benefit more from strength than those with finer movements (Rapier).
As fun as I find sport science at the moment there are many, many more avenues in terms of technical development that are inordinately more beneficial in terms of producing better martial artists.
More muscle mass will not slow you down, it'll speed you up and improve your strength/weight ratio.
Look at sprinters or gymnasts, they're the fastest and most agile people on the planet respectively and often have more muscle than most men could ever build in the gym without drugs.
What will make a muscular guy slow is neglecting speed training, being disproportionate or having too much body fat.
Once you factor the weight of the equipment muscle mass becomes an even bigger factor. Provided the same bodyfat someone who weighs 5 times as much as their armour is going to have a much easier time moving than someone who only weights 3 times as much as their armour.
Same thing with moving the weapon. A strong guy is going to find it much easier to swing around a 3lb sword than a weak guy given the same amount of experience.
More muscle mass is nearly always going to be benifical in weapon based martial arts provided you keep your bodyfat under control and you don't neglect the other aspects of your training.
It makes you a slightly bigger target which is a downside and eventually muscle mass can reach a point where it effects endurance enough to be a critical factor (heart and lungs struggling to keep up with the demand of the muscles). This point however is so high though it couldn't be be reached without the use of drugs.
Sean Franklin This was something I just thought up while watching the video but it seems like you have some knowledge into a more specific version of this you called (KPI). It was something that just sounded interesting and more thinking out loud in the comments. Thanks for the response.
Jim Giant
By your explanation the the world strongest man should also be the fastest and most agile. There are different forms of strength, I don't know how all of the systems work but I can see it clearly displayed. I would want more data to back up any concrete statements on it and that is why in the original post I stated I would have to consult an expert to understand how to go down this path.
Also some of your explanations I think ignores technique in the name of strength. For example when you say a stronger man can swing a 3lb sword easier I completely agree but easier does not mean better. There might be points of flexibility that is loss with muscle mass that prevents some techniques from being obtainable. For example a friend of mine is 5'7" and 195 muscle mass and very strong but he can't touch his shoulder with his hand preventing some basic articulation that could be more beneficial than swinging the sword easier. Take this same sort of thing into consideration for gymnasts in your example. More muscle is great for a gymnast but at what point does it start to become detrimental is the point.
Sean Franklin replied prior to this and seems to already have at least some basic knowledge in how this applies to other sports. His response comes down to HEMA is not mature enough for this yet but I still thought it was something interesting to at least think about.
"By your explanation the the world strongest man should also be the fastest and most agile."
They tend to have high levels of bodyfat, don't train enough for speed and have taken enough drugs to reach a mass where their heart and lungs become limiting factors. I mentioned all of these factors in my comment. They also tend to be too tall to make great sprinters or gymnasts.
"that is why in the original post I stated I would have to consult an expert"
I'm simply giving my opinions and predictions.
I'm a lifelong science geek with 10 years of martial arts experience (3 years of HEMA) and an advanced powerlifter who's also coaching one of the strongest women on the planet.
I wouldn't call myself an expert but you aren't going to find many people in this comment section more qualified to answer the question.
"Also some of your explanations I think ignores technique in the name of strength. For example when you say a stronger man can swing a 3lb sword easier I completely agree but easier does not mean better. There might be points of flexibility that is loss with muscle mass that prevents some techniques from being obtainable."
Being muscular doesn't make you inflexible, not stretching after does. As evidence of this there are quite a few gigantic bodybuilders who can do the splits, elite powerlifters squat with a stance far wider than the average person can get into and Olympic lifters need high levels of wrist flexibility.
"More muscle is great for a gymnast but at what point does it start to become detrimental is the point."
I'd guess when one of these happens:
1. The point at which they fail the drug tests
2. The point at which strength training takes so much to recover from that it impacts other aspects of their training.
3. The point where they become disproportionate.
What a great video! :O I have been directed here from Shadiversity YT channel.
This reminds me of the first time I did sparring, which was during my first longsword class (and third HEMA class in general). Naturally I wasn't in it to win, I was just asked if I wanted to try it and I didn't want to pass it up. I was going up against my instructor and a student I didn't really know. According to my instructor and the students, I did well for my first time despite losing quite badly. But the one thing that got me was that I was... puny compared to both my opponents. I'm about 5'09/5'10 but both my opponents were like 6 feet. Their height definitely played to their advantage when it came to cutting at my head.
Then either I'm lousy at judging height differences or I'm much shorter than my family says I am.
Though you wouldn't be wrong about an insecure high guard. It was the first time I did any sparring as well that session being the first longsword class I ever took.
Yes he may have been less vulnerable if he improved his guard but that does not negate the advantage provided by increased reach. 3 or 2 inches does make a fair difference, as mere inches do matter in a fight. They can be the difference between the first blow or a missed attack.
2-3 inches can be quite alot. Depending on the structer 2-3 inches can make a lean muscle weight difference of 10-15 pounds which equals to much more force produced.
Nicole ı love you from kurdish
This video is excellent.
I wish I could travel more and visit different schools
I maxed out STR and didn't put any into DEX. Now I just use Demon's Great Hammer.
Anything can happen in a fight I have taken martial arts and used it with my body type and mix others to make one hell of a combination
stronger also means you can last longer, when your opponent is fatigued becomes slower, less well coordinated and more prone to making mistakes. If you are stronger you can afford to keep the fight going for longer to put your opponent at a disadvantage without taking too many risks.
this of course assuming all the rest is equivalent between the two, things like skill level, fitness, agility, experience, etc..
Смотрю на Вас, вы увлечены по самое не болуйся! молодцы
Thanks for video! That helped me to win a couple of sparrings
Being faster I find to be generally better than being bigger and stronger though I primarily do unarmed martial arts so the weight of equipment is less of a worry
My training partner and I have pretty decent physical trade offs, since we're learning together we have pretty equal skill. He's a good four inches taller than me and much more nimble and fluid, while I'm considerably stronger and have significantly more stamina.