It is no secret that one of the reasons many of us get leg lengthening is to fair better with the opposite sex. Now, I don't exactly do poorly with the ladies, but I know that I would do better if I was taller. I've heard plenty of men and women cite the evolutionary argument--that women are "programmed" to seek taller men, as they supposedly are better protectors. However, height doesn't seem to play more than a minor role in one's combat ability, with most boxing experts saying that smaller guys tend to punch with just as much force as larger dudes, as smaller guys punch with more speed. Plus, it is no secret that being short and strong are not mutually exclusive; lamar Gant, Ed Coen, and Franco Columbu all sported 600+ lbs deadlifts at heights of 5'6 or less (Gant was barely 5'2). If women were concerned with ability to protect, than height would be less important than muscular strength, but most research has shown height to be as of more important.
I've also heard the argument that tall men are preferred because one can generate more force punching down rather than punching up (as tall men can punch down to strike their smaller opponents). But, this argument still seems weak at best, as short men can easily strike the solarplexes, lower abdomen, or even the genitals of a tall opponent by striking downward, which would arguably give short men an advantage in fighting.
So, what do you think? Why do women prefer taller men?
Quote from: Ajax2thousand20 on November 01, 2014, 09:09:28 PMAs a general rule, taller men are stronger and have a greater advantage when it comes to fighting but there are exceptions. As for women, they're brained are wired to like taller men because it will aide their survival better in that aspect unless you like Tom Cruise who has millions of dollars which is blatantly better for ones survival but I'm speaking for the general public obviously.
I would definitely say that is not a general rule, whatsoever. A good portion of your world'a strongest men are average height and under, and like I said, most boxing experts say that body mass, really the only thing that changes with height besides reach, doesn't really affect punching power.
Quote from: Uppland on November 01, 2014, 09:17:46 PMBody size (height) is in itself not much of an advantage, actually excessive height is unhealthy to some degree. However much like attractive facial symmetry isn't practical it's an indication of effective genetics.
Now before I say anything else it's good to know there is no consensus on this but some of the most likely reasons are: A tall height signals a childhood/adolescence free from diseases that stunt growth and with plenty of nutrition.
It has also been proven that women are attracted to men with a high level of testosterone such as large muscles, low browridges and even pheromones. Testosterone also accelerates growth plate closure so a tall men tend to have statistically less testosterone and that makes handsome tall men very valuable. Finally when you ask women they all say they feel "safe" with tall men. This is because body size signals a powerful protector that can succesfully compete against other smaller men.
But the truth is no one know for sure. Interesting question nonetheless.
But the correlation between height and health on an individual basis is weak at best--it only really works as an indicator of health when discussing the average heights of entire populations (ex. countries). Also, I'm not so sure there is a very large advantage to having a large body size and fighting ability. When looking at boxers, we do see great fighters whom are fairly large, such as Muhammed Ali and George Foreman, but Julio Chavez, Tommy Burns, Barney Ross, Rocky Marciano, Sugar Ray, Willie Pep, and Henry Armstrong are all routinely cited as some of the best boxers in history, but were hardly massive at 5'5-5'10.
Quote from: Ajax2thousand20 on November 01, 2014, 11:06:32 PMYes they are. 2 men of equal skill in every aspect except for height, the taller one will win almost always.
This is most certainly not true. Just take a look at some of these links:
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-strategy/boxing-styles/how-to-beat-a-shorter-boxer
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/why-shorter-guys-better-fighters-2424033/
http://m.livescience.com/1358-short-legs-human-predecessors-fighters.html
Quote from: Wannabegiant on November 02, 2014, 01:34:59 AMBoxing isnt really that good of a reference for fighting though, its very limited so it doesnt represent the assumed disparity of fighting ability between short and tall men.
MMA is much better to compare, its much closer to real fighting and in that sport, short guys have just as much success as tall ones do overall, regardless of weight class.
I realize height and reach are definite advantages, but they are most of the time not significant enough to make a significant difference after all the other factors come into play.
Only a few fighters rely excessively on height and reach for their success, like Jon Jones. But he is lacking in his stand up skills, it can be argued that he simply isnt skilled at stand up, and his reach and height compensate for his average stand up skills. But it can also be argued that his reach and body build makes it more difficult to develop good technique, form, handspeed and knockout power. Jones is lacking in all those areas, the only good standup skill he has is kicks but even his kicks lack power.
I agree with this.
Short guy is going to be faster; a short guy has less weight he needs to throw around for a punch, plus his reach is usually shorter, thus he can accelerate a punch across a shorter reach in less time than a tall guy can accelerate a punch across his longer reach.
Quote from: KirP1 on November 02, 2014, 11:19:19 AMits easy, tall mans are more aestetic than short ones .
Taller mans will always have advantage in a fight or in supervivence.
More height = more weight and longer arms to punch.
If they need to climb a mountain or a tree, its easier for taller man, because short man often cant get points to climb where taller ones can.
Tall mans can walk and run faster
there are lots of reasons.
Yet, oddly enough, the two undisputedly strongest men in history, Louis Cyr and Paul Anderson, were only 5'8.5 and 5'9.5 respectively.
I also forgot the 5'5, 155 lb Victor Delamarre, who backlifted 7000 lbs.
Quote from: 123 on November 04, 2014, 03:41:12 PMThis is a stupid way to argue, just because there are/were some strong short men doesn't mean short men are stronger in general. You won't get strong by being tall or short, you get strong by doing exercises and eating.
But the taller you are the more potential you have.
What evidence do you have that taller men have more "potential" to be stronger?
Also, don't commit a strawman argument; I never claimed that being tall or short had anything to do with being strong, and you know that. My whole position is counter to that.
Finally, how would taller men have more "potential" to be stronger if the strongest men in history have been from a whole range of heights, from 5'4 (Franco Columbu) to 6'3 (Zyndrunas Savickas)?
Hell, Ed Coan's drug-tested powerlifting total of 2282 lbs bested the legendary 6'3 Konstantins Konstantinovs' 2217 lbs total despite being a whole nine inches shorter than Konststinovs.
I don't follow your logic that height somehow equals strength potential.
What's more aesthetic about being tall?
You must be logged in to post a reply.