Why do women prefer taller men?

Edit Post

Quote from: Ajax2thousand20 on November 02, 2014, 08:23:37 PMThe fight examples you guys give are exceptions to the rule. Your making it sound like what I'm saying is a constant. I didn't say the smaller/shorter guy doesn't stand a chance. They're will always be exceptions but generally speaking unless one guy is more skilled, height and weight will dominate the fight.

What you forget is that in pretty much all cases, there will be a skill disparity, and also a speed disparity. Majority of shorter guys are faster than the taller guys. Most people are not that skilled in fighting so even small differences in skill can make a huge difference. And as we see on the highest level in the UFC, the shorter/smaller guys are more technical on average, this probably translates to average people as well although less of a difference. Tall people are generally more clumsy than shorter dudes.

So only if the height disparity is very big will it have a lot of significance, but even then the weight difference in thoses cases are even more significant as mentioned.

Edit Post

Why do so many of these discussions come down to what's best for fighting?

If I were a woman I would just sigh and go "men"

Edit Post

Quote from: Uppland on November 02, 2014, 11:50:58 PMWhy do so many of these discussions come down to what's best for fighting?

If I were a woman I would just sigh and go "men"

To be fair, the opening post pushed this topic into that territory, so fighting was highly relevant to the discussion from the beginning.

To anyone who who still believes height is such a big advantage in a fight, i suggest you look at this highlight of Igor Vovchanchyn, a 5'8 tall Heavyweight, who managed to get a 30+ fight winning streak at that weight as well as LHW (205 pounds), pretty much all his opponents where much bigger than him.

Height is an advantage, but so is speed (shorter men are faster on average, both movement and handspeed), athleticism (taller men are not more athletic on average) cardio (shorter/smaller men have better cardio on average) and durability ( humans regardless of size have very similar size heads, and how much punishment the head can take is not strongly correlated with the height of the individual)

Edit Post

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.

Edit Post

4 cm is not worth it. No one will notice a difference ttttrrrruuuussst me. and especially for the money we/you are throwing at this. 6 cm is the minimum and 7.5-8 max.

Now i will stop at probably 6 and if my body lets me or whatever i will push to 7.5 and go on with my life.

Edit Post

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.

Edit Post

Maybe because it's average height and thus just more likely than someone short or tall.

Edit Post

I also forgot the 5'5, 155 lb Victor Delamarre, who backlifted 7000 lbs.

Edit Post

Quote from: ReadRothbard on November 04, 2014, 02:33:43 PMI also forgot the 5'5, 155 lb Victor Delamarre, who backlifted 7000 lbs.

This 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.

Edit Post

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.