mrtall,
Is most of your height in your legs? The reason I ask is because I want to know if you'll be worried about disproportion if you remove that amount of length from your legs.
Walked past my somewhat friend when leaving the bathroom at a party once. All i could say is Wow when he was infront of me.
If we wore to fight we would probably grab each other and wrestle. In that sense he would use his bodyweigt to get me down. And i feel that i see no damage points that i can take on him. Weird to fight a dude that has his shoulders/ribcage in your face. It feels like im fighting his body more than his face. And as a unexperienced fighter i would like to go for the face because that is the 1 shot scenario. While if i have to work the body i have to punch through layered clothes and it feels like my punches does no damage you know?. Really need to learn how to fight taller guys efficently incase it ever goes down.
And that i mean unprovocted fighting. If i was mad as hell i guess it wouldn't matter what height he is i get a f**king wire and strangle his ass..
Quote from: Slim_tim on October 02, 2014, 02:50:54 PMWalked past my somewhat friend when leaving the bathroom at a party once. All i could say is Wow when he was infront of me.
This^^
it takes years of specific training for a smaller built guy to easily take on a strong, trained 6'2+ fighter. EVEN FOR ME AT 6'7 I find it way more difficult and daunting.. its that penetrating reach that's so difficult to deal with.. its a nightmare infact.
All this talk of.. oh just kick him in the groin, oh smaller guy will be much faster etc... sounds good in theory, but when some angry, stacked 6'4 guy is throwing punches in your face its a whole different story. I can't even imagine what it'd be like dealing with that at 5'8!!!! And then you go.. "just go on the inside" and f**k him up with grappling... well unfortunately all it takes is one knee or elbow drop on on your head as you go down low for the takedown and your dead. A smaller fighter has to take on a lot more risky a strategy to take down a bigger one. I'd rather be the rule than the exception to the rule.
In America they use guns, as for fighting skills they are barely needed nowdays. Oh and a 5'4 man who is reach can kill any guy with just a phone call.
Quote from: mrtall on October 04, 2014, 11:46:44 AMThis^^
it takes years of specific training for a smaller built guy to easily take on a strong, trained 6'2+ fighter. EVEN FOR ME AT 6'7 I find it way more difficult and daunting.. its that penetrating reach that's so difficult to deal with.. its a nightmare infact.
All this talk of.. oh just kick him in the groin, oh smaller guy will be much faster etc... sounds good in theory, but when some angry, stacked 6'4 guy is throwing punches in your face its a whole different story. I can't even imagine what it'd be like dealing with that at 5'8!!!! And then you go.. "just go on the inside" and f**k him up with grappling... well unfortunately all it takes is one knee or elbow drop on on your head as you go down low for the takedown and your dead. A smaller fighter has to take on a lot more risky a strategy to take down a bigger one. I'd rather be the rule than the exception to the rule.
It doesnt take years, it depends on the talent on the individual, even rookie trained guys will have a significant advantage over guys who havent even tried the sport.
Also you are making the unfair comparison of making the short guy seem unathletic compared to the taller one ("smaller built" vs strong 6'2 guy). We are discussing the effect height has, so to make a fair comparison, a strongly built short guy against a strongly built tall guy, lets say Mark Hunt vs Cheick Kongo:
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/968995/Hunt-Kongo_SDW.jpg
Mark Hunt is 5'10, Cheick Kongo is 6'4. And in this case the taller guy was actually significantly faster than the shorter guy which is unusual. Didnt stop Hunt from wrecking Kongo with ease thanks to his superior skill. His build would also make it very very difficult for the taller guy to take him down.
Also another thing to take into account, is that without steroids/PEDs, its very difficult for a taller guy to become as thickly built as a shorter guy, its easier to become bulky and strong at a shorter height on average. If you see a 6'3 guy who looks like body builder you can almost be certain that he is on some type of PED.
this means that we are more likely to see a strong and bulky short guy vs a slimmer but still strong tall guy. And then it becomes a lot more even in terms of advantages and disadvantages.
Quote from: Wannabegiant on October 04, 2014, 12:54:28 PMMark Hunt is 5'10, Cheick Kongo is 6'4. And in this case the taller guy was actually significantly faster than the shorter guy which is unusual. Didnt stop Hunt from wrecking Kongo with ease thanks to his superior skill. His build would also make it very very difficult for the taller guy to take him down.
This guy Cheick Congo was pretty lame so I can't really take this as a representative example... deserved to get his ass kicked by that fat guy.. (samoans are freakishly strong tho.. they are somewhat exceptional at any height)
I did some analysis to see how commonplace shorter fighters are, as by your logic there should be at least some champions knocking around given the tiny factor height plays is in your eyes. Shall we see the the results?
List of ALL consecutive UFC heavyweight champions since 2000
jDSantos 6'4
Cain Velasques 6'1
Shane Carwin 6'2
Frank Mir 6'3
Brock Lesnar 6'3
Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira 6'3
Randy Couture 6'1.5
Tim Sylvia 6'8
Andres Arlovski 6'4
Rico Rodriguez 6'3
Josh Barnett 6'3
Mean height: 6'3.2 inches
Mode height: 6'3
instances of sub six foot fighters: ZERO
The fact is, the most undefeatable fighters are tall. And there may be
some rare exceptions otherwise amongest journeymen contenders or examples of loss (I know they may have lost the occassional fight to a shorter guy -- no need to list them 
, but the CHAMPIONS are
tall with no exceptions.
I am choosing 6'3.5 as a height because I believe it to be the best alround,
these numbers almost exactly support such thinking.
I didn't even bother with heavyweight boxing because height is an even bigger advantage.. even 6'2 David Haye was considered small in this division!!
Mark hunt is samoan. They no humans
Quote from: mrtall on October 04, 2014, 03:30:21 PMThis guy Cheick Congo was pretty lame so I can't really take this as a representative example... deserved to get his ass kicked by that fat guy.. (samoans are freakishly strong tho.. they are somewhat exceptional at any height)
I did some analysis to see how commonplace shorter fighters are, as by your logic there should be at least some champions knocking around given the tiny factor height plays is in your eyes. Shall we see the the results?
List of ALL consecutive UFC heavyweight champions since 2000
jDSantos 6'4
Cain Velasques 6'1
Shane Carwin 6'2
Frank Mir 6'3
Brock Lesnar 6'3
Antônio Rodrigo Nogueira 6'3
Randy Couture 6'1.5
Tim Sylvia 6'8
Andres Arlovski 6'4
Rico Rodriguez 6'3
Josh Barnett 6'3
Mean height: 6'3.2 inches
Mode height: 6'3
instances of sub six foot fighters: ZERO
The fact is, the most undefeatable fighters are tall. And there may be
some rare exceptions otherwise amongest journeymen contenders or examples of loss (I know they may have lost the occassional fight to a shorter guy -- no need to list them , but the CHAMPIONS are
tall with no exceptions.
I am choosing 6'3.5 as a height because I believe it to be the best alround,
these numbers almost exactly support such thinking.
I didn't even bother with heavyweight boxing because height is an even bigger advantage.. even 6'2 David Haye was considered small in this division!!
That is an extremely bad argument, dont you realize that the fact that most shorter fighters will weigh significantly less, which means that in their optimal fighting weight there is no reason for them to fight above their natural weight class. Very few sub 6 feet fighters will weigh enough in shape to fight at that weight. In the UFC pretty much every fighter cuts signicant weight which means that mos shorter fighters will not only have the height and reach disadvantage, but also a massive weight disadvantage if they where to fight at HW.
So that explains why the HW fighters are all around that height, because fighters of those kind of heights are natural heavyweights, most smaller guys dont even try to fight at HW, but that doesnt mean they cannot be successful there despite the huge weight disadvantage in addition to being shorter.
Look at Igor Vovchanchyn, he is 5'8 and he only fought LHW and HW opponents and managed to get an 36 fight winning streak only fighting bigger and taller opponents, many which where very skilled.
So your argument is simply invalid, it might sound reasonable in theory, but in the real world we dont actually see any proof of it. So many examples of shorter fighters destroying bigger and taller fighters on the elite level that you cannot claim that the taller fighters are more undefeatable.
You must be logged in to post a reply.
