Why do people always equate being brolic or buff with knowing how to fight ?

[Originalgangsta317]

Word but then you gotta put pain tolerance into the equation , alot of cats can eat some potent punch better than others .

Yea that factors in as well,some cats are tough as nails

 

[Originalgangsta317]

if you have the size, speed, agility, skills, brains, endurance, 10/10 times they'll win. just look at Jon Jones for example. he has the athletic abilities has a fighter and have the tools to put a 260 lb guy flat on his ass.

i agree with your statement Green.

the goat eddie griffin said it best.

That's what I been saying.

A natural athlete always has the advantage in a street fight,if both fighters are untrained

 

[DMGAINGREEN]

Oh nah, would never underestimate my opponent. It is for this reason, if I have any sort of weight advantage, imma kick his teeth from his mouth through his ass.
I'm not catching a n ap on account of some baby-weight chump. And if he lets me get closeShow him what 4 years of Judo taught me.

Now if a guy is bigger than meLike significantly, it goes from a fight to a hardcore match, cause im using anything and everything.

My nikka 30 on his no holds barr shyt , lol you right though ain't really any stipulations in a street fight when its all said and done

 

[BezO]

Yea,but it's some cats who are big that have great agility as well

Of course. And some smaller dudes are way stronger than they appear.

My point is that "all things bein' equal" ignores the typical advantages and disadvantages of bein' bigger/smaller. The average big dude & the average small dude train. Just like it's easier & more likely the bigger dude will end up stronger, it's easier & more likely the smaller dude will end up quicker.

Both strength & quickness are important factors in a fight.

 

[Originalgangsta317]

Of course. And some smaller dudes are way stronger than they appear.

My point is that "all things bein' equal" ignores the typical advantages and disadvantages of bein' bigger/smaller. The average big dude & the average small dude train. Just like it's easier & more likely the bigger dude will end up stronger, it's easier & more likely the smaller dude will end up quicker.

Both strength & quickness are important factors in a fight.

Yup you right, I just think whoever is the more athletic of the two has the better chance at winning

 

[Roid Jones]

It's a stupid myth, just like attractive people are inherently good and unattractive people are not

 

[Splash]

nikkas just like to make comments is all

But when you do see the David vs Goliath shyt, it pays every time

 

[godkiller]

I'm fairly skinny and I've fought numerous people who are considered brolic in my lifetime , though some I lost , I also won alot as well and I've seen numerous instances where the skinny kid emerges victor when them and the brolic cat gets into it . When it's all said and done you gotta add alot of factors beside size like agility , dexterity etc if your severely lacking in one of those departments it's a high chance you might walk off the scene with a L . That's why that size rah rah never phased me , nikkas be looking like brock lesnar but their hands be atrocious .

In terms of natural selection and evolution, brolic and buff guys are more predisposed to being physically stronger and hardier than smaller and skinnier guys. Thus in history where equally skilled brolic and skinny guys fought, the former would usually win out as he was stronger and human fights often end up on the ground anyway whereby the brolic guy can physically overpower his skinnier opponent. Accordingly then perhaps people think brolic and buff guys "can fight" because their strength advantage connotes more threat and is tantamount to fighting knowledge in terms of natural selection. It's like playing basketball with a less athletic and more athletic guy.

 

[godkiller]

Because strength and size are fairly important things in a fight, and all else being equal, the bigger guy will win.

I've seen numerous fights that refute your statement my G

I think there are certainly caveats and exceptions which run against the "Bigger is Better" fighting mantra. I have witnessed bigger guys lose boxing matches with smaller guys when the former's body is more fat than muscle and so disproportionately and unfortunately distributed that the fat deposits lend the bigger guy an ungainly and awkward countenance that interferes with his balance/speed while mitigating the perceived strength advantage his size otherwise confers. It could even be supposed the his size is more an illusion than fact because although he was bigger, his body lacked the necessary and good composition a fighter needs. He also had small hands and wrists, and didn't seem to punch very hard for that matter either. However, if he worked out more and replaced some fat with muscle, he probably wouldn't have lost. So while size matters, other things matter too, unless the guy in question is like 6'5. Strength is more important than most attributes but not all of them together, and sometimes a guy's size can interfere with his strength.

 

[godkiller]

Because strength and size are fairly important things in a fight, and all else being equal, the bigger guy will win.

I'm fairly skinny and I've fought numerous people who are considered brolic in my lifetime , though some I lost , I also won alot as well and I've seen numerous instances where the skinny kid emerges victor when them and the brolic cat gets into it . When it's all said and done you gotta add alot of factors beside size like agility , dexterity etc if your severely lacking in one of those departments it's a high chance you might walk off the scene with a L . That's why that size rah rah never phased me , nikkas be looking like brock lesnar but their hands be atrocious .

I actually missed this part of your post and you're 100% right. Whenever I've seen a bigger guy lose, it was when he was severely lacking in other categories which matter in fighting like agility, dexterity, etc. Sometimes a guy's size itself can work against him in these categories too, like is the case when a guy is too fat and his size weighs him down such that his agility, dexterity, etc are negatively affected. But when a guy is just brolic and buff without being fat and losing too much athleticism, he'll win against a skinnier and smaller opponent most of the time. A brolic looking guy that is big without losing much in terms of other important fighting variables is IK Enemkpali:

Roy Nelson, who's fat but not so fat that he loses too much of his other fighting measurables at 6'0:

 

[Gold]

All things being equal, the bigger guy probably has a better chance of winning.

But I agree... that doesn't mean he knows how to fight, it just means if they both don't know how to fight, you should pick on someone your own size... or smaller.

I consider myself a big guy, and I always assumed I was a good fighter until I started actually training a couple of years ago.


Breh... I have no shame admitting how lacking I was in martial arts knowledge.


But like I said above... If both parties are clueless about fighting... why pick a fight with a big dude?

 

[O.T.I.S.]

The skinny guy was a trained boxer while the other guy was a meathead who claimed to be in MMA

 

[Danny Up]

well if they could fight they wouldn't need all those muscle to begin with.

 

[Originalgangsta317]

well if they could fight they wouldn't need all those muscle to begin with.

Not true

Some people just like to be strong and in shape

 

[Gold]

well if they could fight they wouldn't need all those muscle to begin with.

Fighting isn't the only reason dudes workout...


The look on your girl's face when you effortlessly pick her up and carry her around like a child is worth the 3day gym split