PDA

View Full Version : Strength Comparisons between Men and Women


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


rob_liberti
06-08-2008, 10:17 AM
I read a silly comment in this thread that "Women are not any weaker than men." The strongest women are 1.6335 times weaker than the strongest men. Here is a link: http://www.columbusweightlifting.org/2007/ARNOLD_FORMULA_FINAL.pdf

Unless that was discussing emotional strength. Then fine, but I wouldn't go with "any weaker"....

As far as this zombie thread goes, I am with what Jim said. If someone is doing something bullshit in your dojo, speak up. (And if someone is writing BS on aikiweb challenge them there too.)

Rob

natasha cebek
06-09-2008, 05:57 AM
I read a silly comment in this thread that "Women are not any weaker than men." The strongest women are 1.6335 times weaker than the strongest men. Here is a link: http://www.columbusweightlifting.org/2007/ARNOLD_FORMULA_FINAL.pdf

Unless that was discussing emotional strength. Then fine, but I wouldn't go with "any weaker"....

As far as this zombie thread goes, I am with what Jim said. If someone is doing something bullshit in your dojo, speak up. (And if someone is writing BS on aikiweb challenge them there too.)

Rob

There is NOTHING silly about that comment. If we're talking about pure physical strength - Sure, men are generally much stronger than women, so what. I suppose if Ueshiba was a woman, this would be a moot point.

A woman (by virtue of her gender) can (with relative ease), unbalance a man with just look.
A highly skilled female martial artist can be a formidable (if not dangerous) opponent, to even the strongest male in the world.

I think the statement that "Women are not any weaker than men.", was meant in a broad sense.

gdandscompserv
06-09-2008, 08:30 AM
A woman (by virtue of her gender) can (with relative ease), unbalance a man with just look.
A highly skilled female martial artist can be a formidable (if not dangerous) opponent, to even the strongest male in the world.

I think the statement that "Women are not any weaker than men.", was meant in a broad sense.
Well said Natasha.

jennifer paige smith
06-09-2008, 10:36 AM
[QUOTE=I think the statement that "Women are not any weaker than men.", was meant in a broad sense.[/QUOTE]

Or, perhaps "in a 'brood' sense".:p

DH
06-09-2008, 10:51 AM
Well women are strong and able in so many apects it doesn't need to be discussed. I mean come on, women can be incredible.
Women equalling or being better than men in MA in an all out fight? I won't buy into that nonsense. I'm all for women in the MA...all for it. But equal to men? Never gonna happen.
a) A women well trained against and untrained male Ok Maybe.
b) Pound for pound and equally trained? Not a chance.
I don't think you'll ever see a women compete and succeed against equally trained men in any open venue, they would need some sort of rules to compensate, or they'll get their heads handed to them.

natasha cebek
06-09-2008, 01:33 PM
Well women are strong and able in so many apects it doesn't need to be discussed. I mean come on, women can be incredible.
Women equalling or being better than men in MA in an all out fight? I won't buy into that nonsense. I'm all for women in the MA...all for it. But equal to men? Never gonna happen.
a) A women well trained against and untrained male Ok Maybe.
b) Pound for pound and equally trained? Not a chance.
I don't think you'll ever see a women compete and succeed against equally trained men in any open venue, they would need some sort of rules to compensate, or they'll get their heads handed to them.

Amusing response, to say the least - suggesting a very limited understanding of the Martial Arts. Do you think Ueshiba (all 4 feet of him), if alive would agree with you?

DH
06-09-2008, 02:19 PM
Amusing response, to say the least - suggesting a very limited understanding of the Martial Arts. Do you think Ueshiba (all 4 feet of him), if alive would agree with you?
Yes.

Actually, I agree that one of us has a limited view of the martial arts and their real potentials and limits. That would be you. That aside, I was talking about fighting and actual results. Not martial arts. I made a clear and distinct differentiation in my response. There is a dramatic difference between the two. I think your statement- A highly skilled female martial artist can be a formidable (if not dangerous) opponent, to even the strongest male in the world. is very hopeful, but has never statistically panned out in any serious open and tested martial venue, or even a sport venue.

As for amusing responses, actually I found this statement to be sexist, presumptuous and humorous, A woman (by virtue of her gender) can (with relative ease), unbalance a man with just look.
I'm not interested in going into details but I have not found this to be true even with more open and overt behaviors. I'd suggest you think too much of your gender and too little of men.

Ron Tisdale
06-09-2008, 02:26 PM
a very limited understanding of the Martial Arts.

Uh, sorry, but I know Dan, and that statement does not describe him at all.

Glad you were amused though...not enough amusement in the world, in my opinion... :D

Best,
Ron

DH
06-09-2008, 02:52 PM
Hi Ron
I think we are discussing two different things. I took it the extra step because it is a fairly common misconception of just how far women can go in physical competition with men. It has been given more steam over the years. I think stretching the truth in teaching- is no truth at all. In fact, failing to admit and teach the almost insurmountable power differences makes it a weakness in approach, as the mindset will be more susceptible to being broken through shock.

I also didn't appreciate the sexist comment (funny how it's always OK in reverse huh?) that men can be so easily led by the merest look/whim/ dalliances of a girl. Please. What arrogance!! Oh the stories I could tell. Remind me to tell you of the time I made a girl who was hitting on me -a married man- cry in utter embarrasment.:rolleyes:

Ron Tisdale
06-09-2008, 02:54 PM
:D Sounds like a good one over a beer after 6 hours of walking mabu... :D

I know more than one woman whose body skills are better than mine, and quite a few whose technique is better than mine. And they are all smaller than I am. But that doesn't necessarily translate to who would win in a fight. Three entirely different things...

Best,
Ron

natasha cebek
06-09-2008, 04:17 PM
"Tomoe Gozen captured the city of Kyoto in Japan in 1584 after winning the Battle of Kurikawa. She was described as being a strong archer and excellent swordswoman.Her last act, on the verge of Yoshinaka's defeat, is the subject of many plays and poems. To buy time for her husband to commit seppuku, she rode into the enemy forces and, flinging herself on their strongest warrior, unhorsed, pinned, and decapitated him.
(source Famous Women of Japanese History.)"

I suppose that the "strongest warrior" probably let Gozen decapitate him, so that Gozen could become famous someday.

You are correct when talk about pound for pound..strength vs strength...so what, I agree men are stronger, but that doesn't mean anything. However lets use our imagination for a minute. Two opponents - a man and a woman. They are equally skilled. What determines the winner?
Strength?
Speed?
Timing?
Physics?

Furthermore, it was because of your sexist views that initiated this particular discussion.

Ron Tisdale
06-09-2008, 04:25 PM
I agree men are stronger, but that doesn't mean anything.

Oh common...sure it does. It means that men are stronger...nothing less, and nothing more. If it's a gunfight, and the woman has better aim and draws a bead faster, she wins. Doesn't matter in that instance that the man is stronger, he still loses. Do you really think we don't get that???

Likewise, there are times when it does matter. Acknowledging that doesn't make someone sexist. Got any more labels to toss around?

Sheesh...

Oh, I forgot to mention above that they are all smarter than I am too... :D

Best,
Ron

DH
06-09-2008, 05:19 PM
Hmm..Sexist?
I said
Men are stronger than women. Equally trained men will win in a physical confrontation over women. It is a reality that you think is a sexist comment. Now you change the discussion to tactical leadership and …and… agree with my earlier comments, thus making yourself? Sexist.
You on the other hand claimed all men are susceptible to being “unbalanced” by a women merely "looking at them in a certain way"
I think that is one of the most sexist and ludicrous things I have ever heard. Again, it is also arrogant, presumptuous, and speaks volumes about what you think of men.

Oh well. Nothing I offered was demeaning to a women’s character was it? Please continue though, I’ll lend you a shovel so you can dig deeper.;)

Keith Larman
06-09-2008, 06:23 PM
An old statistics prof of mine (who was a female, fwiw) used to comment to us that the average human being has slightly less than one testicle and slightly less than one ovary... True but of limited value as information goes...

The mean value of something is a generalization across a large number. And while it gives us some guidance and understanding of the nature of the general population it is decreasingly useful the smaller the sample. When we get down to samples of one (you, me, someone else, whomever) the average tells us nothing. Except maybe how far someone deviates from it...

So... the average strength of a woman vs. the average strength of a man is interesting in a general sense. And is probably not all that relevant to two people standing in a ring faced off against each other. Especially if one is a 1970's era female Russian athlete and the other Gilbert Gottfried... ;)

Come to think of it I'd pay to see that one...

So anyway the point is that it is silly to argue about the truth of the statement in general. It is well documented that "on the average" men are stronger than women. That said, each individual needs to deal with their own size, strength, way of using that strength, strategies for dealing with a deficit, etc. depending on where they are on the scale compared to the "other person" they're facing.

So on the average women who are attacked will likely be attacked by someone stronger than them. But of course the same is true of anyone who happens to be weaker than the average "bad guy" regardless of gender. The bigger question is whether you want to develop more raw strength or learn to use what you have at your disposal already better.... Me, I'd like to be able to take advantage of both superior strength and superior form. Or at least get as good as I can while keeping fit and strong... Seems like a reasonable goal for an individual...

But all that said most women will not be able to compete at the highest levels *if* strenght is a relevant factor. The reason being that if the top people of both genders are competing in an area where strength can be a determining factor then the scales are most certainly tipped. That *does not* mean that there cannot be very strong women who can get in the and hold their own. But the odds of them being at the very top of the pile when both genders compete is very low.

The weighting of the strenght factor in the activity is what determines that sort of advantage. If we add in other things like stealth, strategies for dealing with bad guys on the street, having the right attitude, or all the other confounding factors found in real life vs. life in a ring fight then the advantages start to balance out more. But *in the fight itself* when strength can make a difference then it is relevant. To the extent that strength matters. Which seems self-evident to me.

Keith Larman
06-09-2008, 06:35 PM
And another comment since I spent 17 years working in skills testing... I remember someone telling me that it is wrong to discriminate between two people based on a non-relevant criterion. However, the whole point of a test is to discriminate between two people. I.e., to tell them apart, to separate them. The question of validity of a measure is based on whether the criterion or criteria chosen are relevant to the task.

Strength is certainly a relevant criterion for succeeding in a "fight". Now the question becomes how you define a fight, how you define combat, and how you define success. Each of those decisions in how you define those things greatly affects the "weight" strength might have in determining outcome. So when folk bring up things like stealth, experience, etc. those mitigate the effects of strength as a factor. Of course. The bigger question is how you define things and how much you have to be better at all the other stuff to overcome the differential in strength.

I have no problem thinking many of the female sensei I've known could handle themselves against an average Joe. It is tougher when we start talking about two people of equal ability but of unequal strength. Strength can matter a great deal. To dismiss it is silly.

Kevin Leavitt
06-09-2008, 09:02 PM
I can't say I disagree with your arguments, but take a look at Kyra Gracie, pound for pound she smokes the crap out of at one guy on this video. I think it is safe to say that even though I am much bigger and stronger than her, I think she'd probably chew me up and spit me out in a short order.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_MLu0FJLzE0&feature=related

Mike Sigman
06-09-2008, 09:07 PM
Amusing response, to say the least - suggesting a very limited understanding of the Martial Arts. Do you think Ueshiba (all 4 feet of him), if alive would agree with you?Er, I think you must mean "all 5 feet of him", because Ueshiba was not 4-feet tall. At his peak power, Ueshiba weighed 180 pounds. His feats of strength were famous. The implication that Ueshiba was small and slight are tremendously off-base.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
06-09-2008, 09:15 PM
I can't say I disagree with your arguments, but take a look at Kyra Gracie, pound for pound she smokes the crap out of at one guy on this video. I think it is safe to say that even though I am much bigger and stronger than her, I think she'd probably chew me up and spit me out in a short order.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_MLu0FJLzE0&feature=relatedThe problem with a lot of these male/female discussions is that a lot of the arguments for women are just examples of trying to create a rule out of the exceptions. Sure there are exceptionally capable women fighters... but statistically they're almost non-existent, even though the dream of powerful women kicking butt is an oft-seen fantasy.

Most people know the real truth that women aren't statistically going to equal men in most sports, even though there has been this recent (historically) social trend to pretend that there is no real difference between men and women. The interesting part, IMO, is to watch how many people will try to argue that what is obvious in this sort of matchup is simply not true.

The women who apply themselves, like the men, should be applauded. If someone excels, that should be applauded. But why pretend something is true when it's obviously not? ;)

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Cady Goldfield
06-09-2008, 09:50 PM
It's pretty much no argument that the average woman does not have the muscle mass or bone density of the average male. Size, bone density and muscle mass are secondary sex characteristics that can be altered by taking the hormones of the opposite sex, so these characteristics are not black-and-white in nature. Women are wired to seek out resources that will allow them to survive and raise their young.

The purpose for the difference? Male humans are wired to compete with each other for turf and females; their larger size is not for "protecting" women from wild animals and the like, but for beating out other male competitors and keeping away from his wimmin so his genes will be favored for replication.

Female humans are built for "internal strength" -- meaning they are designed biologically to withstand the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth, both of which put enormous stresses on the body. Larger muscles and heavier bones are not necessary and in fact may be detrimental to that purpose, and represent wasted energy and resources that could be put into tissues and processes necessary for reproduction.

By nature, human societies - like many other primate societies -- do best in matrifocal "communities" (i.e. "harems" of sisters, aunts, cousins and other related females) where women help one another in childrearing while one male brings home the food and other resources, and keeps other males from bothering them. ;)

By golly, primate evolutionary ecology grad courses were fun!

tuturuhan
06-09-2008, 10:20 PM
It's pretty much no argument that the average woman does not have the muscle mass or bone density of the average male. Size, bone density and muscle mass are secondary sex characteristics that can be altered by taking the hormones of the opposite sex, so these characteristics are not black-and-white in nature. Women are wired to seek out resources that will allow them to survive and raise their young.

The purpose for the difference? Male humans are wired to compete with each other for turf and females; their larger size is not for "protecting" women from wild animals and the like, but for beating out other male competitors and keeping away from his wimmin so his genes will be favored for replication.

Female humans are built for "internal strength" -- meaning they are designed biologically to withstand the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth, both of which put enormous stresses on the body. Larger muscles and heavier bones are not necessary and in fact may be detrimental to that purpose, and represent wasted energy and resources that could be put into tissues and processes necessary for reproduction.

By nature, human societies - like many other primate societies -- do best in matrifocal "communities" (i.e. "harems" of sisters, aunts, cousins and other related females) where women help one another in childrearing while one male brings home the food and other resources, and keeps other males from bothering them. ;)

By golly, primate evolutionary ecology grad courses were fun!

You forgot to talk about the latest studies which indicated that the "women of the harem" choose the alpha male. They decide how far he moves up the hierarchy. They also remove him when he can no longer present or perform. In fact, in some societies they will "kill" him.

best,
Joseph t. Oliva Arriola

Mike Sigman
06-09-2008, 10:40 PM
It's pretty much no argument that the average woman does not have the muscle mass or bone density of the average male. Size, bone density and muscle mass are secondary sex characteristics that can be altered by taking the hormones of the opposite sex, so these characteristics are not black-and-white in nature. Women are wired to seek out resources that will allow them to survive and raise their young.

The purpose for the difference? Male humans are wired to compete with each other for turf and females; their larger size is not for "protecting" women from wild animals and the like, but for beating out other male competitors and keeping away from his wimmin so his genes will be favored for replication.

Female humans are built for "internal strength" -- meaning they are designed biologically to withstand the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth, both of which put enormous stresses on the body. Larger muscles and heavier bones are not necessary and in fact may be detrimental to that purpose, and represent wasted energy and resources that could be put into tissues and processes necessary for reproduction.

By nature, human societies - like many other primate societies -- do best in matrifocal "communities" (i.e. "harems" of sisters, aunts, cousins and other related females) where women help one another in childrearing while one male brings home the food and other resources, and keeps other males from bothering them. ;)

By golly, primate evolutionary ecology grad courses were fun!I'm amazed that women are the victims of so many male crimes, seeing as how they're actually in charge of things and have all the advantages. :cool: My mistake; I thought we were talking about women in the martial arts. ;)

M

Buck
06-09-2008, 10:47 PM
Women are stronger then men. The reason you don't see them in a venue with men is because they can get a man to do it instead. That makes them way more stronger then men.

What guy knows of another guy who would do that, get a guy to fight for him like a women does- getting a guy to fight for her so she don't have too.

How many men went to war, tried to conquer the world, etc. for a women. There are volumes in the history books.

How many women have gone to war, tried to conquer the world, etc. for a man?

Example of a men fighting over or for a women recently is in the Tia Tequilla's reality show "A Shot At Love II" It had two guys throwin punches over Tia...not that I would-she isn't my type or my reality ....besides being on the show competing for her"love." As long as men are attracted to women, and as long as women can control men with sex or the promise of it then they are the strongest. You go Tia! More power to you!

reisler
06-09-2008, 11:01 PM
I for one am glad to be smaller and weaker. I have lots of bigger and stronger friends to take care of me :D

tuturuhan
06-09-2008, 11:17 PM
Women are stronger then men. The reason you don't see them in a venue with men is because they can get a man to do it instead. That makes them way more stronger then men.

What guy knows of another guy who would do that, get a guy to fight for him like a women does- getting a guy to fight for her so she don't have too.

How many men went to war, tried to conquer the world, etc. for a women. There are volumes in the history books.

How many women have gone to war, tried to conquer the world, etc. for a man?

Example of a men fighting over or for a women recently is in the Tia Tequilla's reality show "A Shot At Love II" It had two guys throwin punches over Tia...not that I would-she isn't my type or my reality ....besides being on the show competing for her"love." As long as men are attracted to women, and as long as women can control men with sex or the promise of it then they are the strongest. You go Tia! More power to you!

Agreed...unfortunately in this society there are a lot of men who have gone around conning women "into believing" they don't have "power". Beta men buy into the con...

Physical strength is not always an attribute. It can be a weakness. It has nothing to do with "opinion". It has all to do with the "observation of nature" and the understanding of evolutionary biology.

When I put a "knife" in the hands of my women students they don't need to go to "fake internal" seminars. They learn from day one how to use their strengths (e.g. rhythm, sensitivity and timing) to defeat their "oaf-like" opponents.

Sincerely
Joseph T. Oliva Arriola

Keith Larman
06-09-2008, 11:42 PM
I can't say I disagree with your arguments, but take a look at Kyra Gracie, pound for pound she smokes the crap out of at one guy on this video. I think it is safe to say that even though I am much bigger and stronger than her, I think she'd probably chew me up and spit me out in a short order.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_MLu0FJLzE0&feature=related

Yup, there are always exceptions and what we used to call "outlierers". Some people always seem to screw up the curve, neh?

But the underlying point remains. Men have higher bone density and muscle mass "on the average". That in and of itself says nothing about any individual (I've seen some *BIG* women and some *tiny* men), nor does it say anything about all the other factors that come together in any human behavior (experience, cunning, greater ability, etc.). But each factor exists on its own terms and whether some like to acknowledge it or not, the differences do exist.

Of course the differences do not justify thinking that strength trumps all. Or that strength is somehow "better". Strength can be a liability in some endeavors. And an asset in others. Denying the differences, however, is absurd in the face of the obvious differences between the genders.

I'm sure that lovely lady could kick my lilly white butt very quickly. Superior skill, training, etc. But again her advantage is not due to superior strength. Denying that fact would only diminish her true greatness as a fighter. She would likely beat me to a pulp due to her superior abilities. And that is a thing to be proud of.

Denything the differences exist is just silly. They exist. But thankfully the real world is a multi-factor place. It takes more than brute strength in most situations. That's the major reason I like Aikido in the first place.

When I first started I was skeptical of this stuff. Then I paired up with a woman who was easily under 5 feet tall. A very pretty, slight, quiet Japanese woman. She moved beautifully. I was thinking "Mongo going crush little woman!" but she tossed me on my neanderthal butt. Superior technique, position, and yes, internal power. That's when I decided I needed to learn this stuff. It's one thing to toss someone with brute strength. Quite another to do it so, well, elegantly... I liked that. Today? I'm pretty sure I could break her. But at the time I was given a glimpse of the "power" of everything coming together. Now how cool is that?

I can out bench press most women on the women's tennis or golf tours. But I'm pretty sure they'd beat the daylights out of me on their respective fields.

And I have sensei I outweight and I am stronger than who routinely put me in my place. Superior ability. However, last Sunday working with another instructor who outranks me considerably makes the point quit well. He tried something that didn't quite work. Given my size and strength advantage he just laughed and said he was really glad I was such a good sport. Yup, I could have broken him... Most of the time, however, he ends up on top. Which is why I train with him... Strength ain't everything.

But it is something...

dps
06-10-2008, 04:41 AM
The thread 'Strength Comparisons between Men and Women' reminded me of watching the Olympics when I was young.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/video-chapters/doping-for-gold-chapter-1

David]

dps
06-10-2008, 04:43 AM
Do the statistics in the link posted,

http://www.columbusweightlifting.org/2007/ARNOLD_FORMULA_FINAL.pdf

include any records by any East German Women Olympians of the 1970's, and 1980's?

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=208448#post208448

David

Pauliina Lievonen
06-10-2008, 05:09 AM
Strength ain't everything.

But it is something...When I just started aikido I used to buy the idea that strength doesn't matter at all. It's a lovely idea. The first dojo I trained at train in a way where uke very actively "takes ukemi". It was easy to believe that strength doesn't matter in that setting.

The dojo I train at now uke pays more attention to what is actually happening to them. Lower grades are asked to train very cooperatively, because in the beginning trying to handle a lot of force is just going to ingrain bad habit. But later we do test things a bit more.

I got really depressed about aikido somewhere along there, a couple years back. I wondered what the point is if many of the guys could just literally pick me up and set me down outside the mat if they wanted to.

Kinda funny really when you think about it, we're supposed to be doing this non competitive art so who am I competing with then? :)

I've had to do some thinking since and what it boils down to for me is that it's ok that I'm not a supernatural uber being goddess of world, I can just be plain old little me and that's enough. What I needed to do was let go of some insecurity that actually in a twisted way stemmed from a lot of arrogance if that makes any sense. An insecurity of "I know I'm awesome but what if no one else will acknowledge that?". Sort of thing. I'm more ok with just being an ordinary person nowadays, and just doing the best I can.

Funny thing is some of the guys feel a bit guilty about being so easily able to stop me, too. I think that really says something about aikido culture.

kvaak
Pauliina

Ron Tisdale
06-10-2008, 07:45 AM
Hey Paulina,

Nice post, and believe me, there are guys plagued by the same kinds of issues. It isn't as in your face for us on a daily basis, but it's still there.

Agreed...unfortunately in this society there are a lot of men who have gone around conning women "into believing" they don't have "power". Beta men buy into the con...

Well, that's nice, but how does it apply to this thread? No one here has said that women "don't have power". What they have said is that on average, women are not as strong as men. Then the thought police came on full bore. I see you fit in nicely there...

When I put a "knife" in the hands of my women students they don't need to go to "fake internal" seminars.

Gratuitous shot. You should know better. If they are fake, then show up and debunk them.

Again, no one said that a knife isn't a great equalizer, no matter who is weilding it. Same could be said of some teenage junkie against a well trained judoka and aikidoka from the Bond street dojo in the seventies. Guy dismissed kid as not a threat, and died for his trouble. Same probably happens every day with women too.

It's never smart to dismiss your opponant, even if you don't know they are one, yet.

Best,
Ron (it's Yoshin-Orc, not Yoshin-Oaf) :D

Randy Sexton
06-10-2008, 09:27 AM
IMHO-My two cents worth.
Pound for pound in untrained wrestling the weaker may lose because of less strength, a lucky hit, or loss of will to fight.
Add training to the equation and a well placed throat strike wins no matter who throws it!
Add a weapon and it is training and skill. For example, I am sure at 240 pounds I far outweigh Jennifer Smith but give us both a knife or a sword I am probably going down, and the more I use my weight the easier I am to defeat, and the madder I get the greater my openings. Again, a well placed strike to the throat with a knife I bleed to death almost immediately and when she uses her sword there goes my head!
Final thought-I am 6 feet 240 pounds 52 years old with a third degree in Taekwondo and 15 months in Aikido and ex-military police and have had my share of unwanted street fights and never lost (except my tears over having to injure another human being) and now imagine O Sensei at barely 5 feet and less than 140 at the age of 52 and you know his training. Now we fight unarmed and armed with a knife and then armed with a sword. Place your bets!
Doc:eek:
p.s. In my opinion the fight would never occur but imagine if it did.

tuturuhan
06-10-2008, 09:42 AM
IMHO-My two cents worth.
Pound for pound in untrained wrestling the weaker may lose because of less strength, a lucky hit, or loss of will to fight.
Add training to the equation and a well placed throat strike wins no matter who throws it!
Add a weapon and it is training and skill. For example, I am sure at 240 pounds I far outweigh Jennifer Smith but give us both a knife or a sword I am probably going down, and the more I use my weight the easier I am to defeat, and the madder I get the greater my openings. Again, a well placed strike to the throat with a knife I bleed to death almost immediately and when she uses her sword there goes my head!
Final thought-I am 6 feet 240 pounds 52 years old with a third degree in Taekwondo and 15 months in Aikido and ex-military police and have had my share of unwanted street fights and never lost (except my tears over having to injure another human being) and now imagine O Sensei at barely 5 feet and less than 140 at the age of 52 and you know his training. Now we fight unarmed and armed with a knife and then armed with a sword. Place your bets!
Doc:eek:
p.s. In my opinion the fight would never occur but imagine if it did.

Smart bet...

Randy Sexton
06-10-2008, 09:44 AM
Scarey what we do to ourselves. Thanks for the info.
Doc:eek:

Keith Larman
06-10-2008, 10:03 AM
Do the statistics in the link posted,

http://www.columbusweightlifting.org/2007/ARNOLD_FORMULA_FINAL.pdf

include any records by any East German Women Olympians of the 1970's, and 1980's?

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=208448#post208448

David

I doubt it matters as you could probably safely assume both males and females were doping equally...

DH
06-10-2008, 10:04 AM
Everyone keeps introducing other factors into a simple discussion.
Using a model of traned athletes such weight lifters doesn't pan out either. That's a 1.6 advantage for men over trained women. But how trained and ready is the average guy to the average girl. I'd bet the average man will increase that ratio advantage in day to day living.

I was talking about violence and force on force fighting. That's a more complex subject, and one which your average male owns.
Men and women in any discussion should be an average example.
It has been proven that women respond to violence differently than men do. It’s why model mugging and so many other successful self defense/rape courses focus on the mindset of women in conflict over martial art thingies for them to do. Those progams were developed from real life violent acts and what not to do.
They recognized you had average womens muscle; you had the average mind activating that muscle. You had an average mental state of women in delivery of violenc and it was different in women.

That is why I'd bet on the average man over the average women every time. And its not necessarily good thing is it? It also leads to many bad traits as well, which is why the need for those programs in the first place.

Even the weight difference between two men being the weight difference between two women, the difference between the two men is of lesser importance. Its goes back to delivery of violence and what the average guy’s life experience will have allowed him to bring to the fore.
Pound for pound in equal training of full on fighting? A woman will get her ass handed to her. Never confuse martial arts with fighting. And if a woman wants to learn to fight, she learns to play all the odds of advantage that martial arts can offer, and then add mental readiness and planning to beat the average attacker or prevent it from ever happening. That is doable and attainable. Encountering mental preparedness and lack of fear will be daunting enough for most men as it is shocking and will make them question why its there in the first place-which was another factor realized by interviewing bad guys who attack women.

Dare I say it?
Internal training is a whole other aspect of MA that will give a women a tremendous advantage as well.

Personally I'd rather just enjoy where and why my wife is better and stronger at things than me and helps me. Not the least of which is her mind.

Cady Goldfield
06-10-2008, 11:37 AM
You forgot to talk about the latest studies which indicated that the "women of the harem" choose the alpha male. They decide how far he moves up the hierarchy. They also remove him when he can no longer present or perform. In fact, in some societies they will "kill" him.

best,
Joseph t. Oliva Arriola

That wasn't my point, Joseph. My point was that women have less muscle and bone density because it is not necessary, and in fact may be a waste of resources for them. Their energies are centered on bearing young and garnering the resources with which to raise them - either on their own or via a male; males' energies are centered on garnering turf/territory (on which to keep females) and on chasing off male competitors. It's true for humans and most other mammals (excluding hyenas and certain other species) and birds (a big exception being raptors, where the female is larger and more powerful than the male).

tuturuhan
06-10-2008, 11:59 AM
That wasn't my point, Joseph. My point was that women have less muscle and bone density because it is not necessary, and in fact may be a waste of resources for them. Their energies are centered on bearing young and garnering the resources with which to raise them - either on their own or via a male; males' energies are centered on garnering turf/territory (on which to keep females) and on chasing off male competitors. It's true for humans and most other mammals (excluding hyenas and certain other species) and birds (a big exception being raptors, where the female is larger and more powerful than the male).

No...but it was my point.

Furthermore, in most insects, in several species the female is bigger and larger. Think of the preying mantis and the black widow spider.

In mammals, such as the elephant we see strength and control by the "alpha female". She rules the herd and all males are subordinate to her.

In humans, IMO, a female's power is in "rocking the cradle" and influencing the behavior of her children.

DH
06-10-2008, 12:55 PM
I can't say I disagree with your arguments, but take a look at Kyra Gracie, pound for pound she smokes the crap out of at one guy on this video. I think it is safe to say that even though I am much bigger and stronger than her, I think she'd probably chew me up and spit me out in a short order.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_MLu0FJLzE0&feature=related

You are agreeing to play nice.
If you stood outside her range and used YOUR full range of combatives? Like beating her about the face with your fists and feet instead of rolling on the floor and not being allowed to be you... in all your glory?
Or do you suppose she can hit as hard as you?

My fist is bigger than most woman's faces. The thought of hitting one is appalling.
You will NEVER see women in any full-on force venue compete with a man. Ain't gonna happen.
Why does there need to be. Women are better than men at many things. My wife proves it to me over and over. Do we need to compete all the time? So, we're different. I happen to like all the differences, and as I suggested about women competing? I look at it obejctively and I use those differences to my advantage too. Such as "Honey you're so amazing at planning vacations- you should just go ahead and do it." Or "I'll do the grocery shopping, You just do four more admittions and help our retirement fund." Pappa didn't raise a fool ;)

Keith Larman
06-10-2008, 01:10 PM
Pound for pound in equal training of full on fighting? A woman will get her ass handed to her. Never confuse martial arts with fighting. And if a woman wants to learn to fight, she learns to play all the odds of advantage that martial arts can offer, and then add mental readiness and planning to beat the average attacker or prevent it from ever happening. That is doable and attainable.

That is the bottom line.

This sort of discussion is an "all things being equal" discussion. Sure, we can introduce all sorts of "other" things (swords, superior training, etc.) that can and will tip the balance one way or the other. But that should be self-evident and in no way changes the basic point.

But nothing in thereal world is ever "all things being equal". Each person brings a unique balance of attributes to the discussion. Some are stronger, some are weaker, some have better form, some are more cunning, and some have blades hidden in their pocket... So IMHO opinion the best strategy is to be honest with yourself about your strengths and weaknesses. Thinking that strength doesn't matter is just plain silly. It does matter. The bigger question is are you good enough to overcome the strength advantage an attacker may have?

I don't worry so much about tiny little people with no training attacking me. I do have sensei who are smaller than me (well, all of them are smaller than me) who are better than me. Superior technique makes a difference. So I worry about people who are bigger and stronger than me attacking me. Or people with better form. Or worse yet people who are stronger than me with better form. Yikes. Or nightmare scenario of someone using force magnifiers to tip the balance to their side.

So you work on what you can improve. Just don't wave away strength differences as somehow not relevant. They are. They are part of the thing we need to pay attention to in order to improve our skills to deal with that guy who is stronger and tougher. And that's where aikido's strength really lies IMHO, dealing with someone bigger and stronger. It ain't easy for a reason...

Ron Tisdale
06-10-2008, 01:27 PM
And all of the side issues, and "I don't like how that sounds" won't change the simple fact.

So I say, step up to the challenge.

Best,
Ron

Mike Sigman
06-10-2008, 01:43 PM
And all of the side issues, and "I don't like how that sounds" won't change the simple fact.

So I say, step up to the challenge.
Best statement I've read in many months, Ron.

Pauliina Lievonen
06-10-2008, 01:47 PM
And all of the side issues, and "I don't like how that sounds" won't change the simple fact.

So I say, step up to the challenge.Hear hear!

Or, don't, and learn to live with it.

I think what happens is that people confuse strength with power and control. And similarity with equal worth. Like arguing that apples really are just like oranges because they are both good for you. And not wanting to hear that apples really are quite different from oranges, as if that would somehow make them less worthy of a fruit.

So I'm weaker and less aggressive than many/most men. Does that make me less valuable a human being, of course not. Should I take it into account? Yes. Should it make me feel bad about myself? Of course not.

Sheesh, it's like complaining that it rains a lot in Holland...:D

kvaak
Pauliina

Cady Goldfield
06-10-2008, 01:49 PM
No...but it was my point.

Furthermore, in most insects, in several species the female is bigger and larger. Think of the preying mantis and the black widow spider.

In mammals, such as the elephant we see strength and control by the "alpha female". She rules the herd and all males are subordinate to her.

In humans, IMO, a female's power is in "rocking the cradle" and influencing the behavior of her children.

Joseph,
As soon as you get away from mammals and into invertebrates, the scenario changes completely. Don't get me started with bees and other communal insects, where the females are all so closely related that they could be considered almost clones, and males are stingless drones who are tossed out after they have done their sole job: to fertilize the fertile female. ;)

Elephants -- the male/bull elephant is still larger and stronger muscularly than the female, and a rogue bull can destroy a family unit's young and females. But we won't go there, either.

The one issue that everyone here seems to be missing, is that the very type of physical activity being discussed here -- male ritual combat ("fighting") is just that: male ritual fighting. You are comparing apples to oranges when you superimpose female capabilities onto what is and has always been a male-specific activity. In humans, it has been abstracted to create a broader arena (no play on words intended) into which women have made a fit ranging from unwieldy to comfortable, but essentially it is absurd to ask "how does a female fighter compare to a male fighter of equal skill and average build"; it's like asking, "How does a female fare in fighting men in male ritual combat?"

Why would you ponder how women will fare if trying to "beat a man at his own game"? Ridiculous.

We take it for granted because this biologically-rooted social behavior is so pervasive in all human culture in some form or other, whether as bar fights, football games, wrestling, or belching contests. One key feature of MRC is that one party eventually backs down, and the other "grants him mercy." I watch my pet roosters go through this ritual every day, and if one is injured or killed, it is very rare and normally accidental.

Sure, women get in the ring, women play competitive sports. But there are degrees and varied angles as well as societal pressures that compare the way women play sports to the way men do (women are lauded for playing "like men"). Ever watch some women play hoops with finesse and artfulness, as compared to some men using their height and jump to make up for actual skill?

And, in Nature, there is no black-and-white in defining individual women (or men). Some produce more androgens and less estrogen/progesterone than others, just as some men produce more less testosterone than others; it will be evident in their physiques and other traits.

Now, if you want to talk about the actual ability of a woman to knock out or kill a guy, that's another topic. A 200 lb man can be killed by a mere 10 lb. weight if applied properly. You don't need a lot of muscle to drop a man on his ass. ;)

But let's keep the "What if Spartacus Had Had a Piper Cub"** kinda questions out of this, 'k?

** Reference to 1970s Saturday Night Live comedy sketch, in which absurd questions were pondered and played out in a "what if" scenario.

Mike Sigman
06-10-2008, 02:10 PM
So I'm weaker and less aggressive than many/most men. Does that make me less valuable a human being, of course not. I dunno, Pauliina.... how much are you worth, simply as "a human being"? :D

How much are you worth if you simply sit on the front porch and do nothing productive in life? How much, in comparison, are you worth if you contribute a lot to society? Our "worth" varies in relation to what we do, not just in relation to the fact that we exist. What I think is important is that we value and enjoy our lives.

One of the things I noticed in my years in Asia was that many people accepted who they were and had pride in themselves regardless of status, skills, ability to fight, and so on. There was never a need, that I saw, to pretend that everyone was intrinsically "equal" (which is really a status worry, if we think about it). We are who/what we are. Holland is rainy. ;)

Best.

Mike

Pauliina Lievonen
06-10-2008, 03:47 PM
I dunno, Pauliina.... how much are you worth, simply as "a human being"? :D Depends on who you ask I guess. :D :p

kvaak
Pauliina
Today, Holland is actually nice and sunny. But we're not so easily fooled! :D

tuturuhan
06-10-2008, 04:25 PM
Joseph,

The one issue that everyone here seems to be missing, is that the very type of physical activity being discussed here -- male ritual combat ("fighting") is just that: male ritual fighting. You are comparing apples to oranges when you superimpose female capabilities onto what is and has always been a male-specific activity. In humans, it has been abstracted to create a broader arena (no play on words intended) into which women have made a fit ranging from unwieldy to comfortable, but essentially it is absurd to ask "how does a female fighter compare to a male fighter of equal skill and average build"; it's like asking, "How does a female fare in fighting men in male ritual combat?"

Why would you ponder how women will fare if trying to "beat a man at his own game"? Ridiculous.



Ahhh...that's why I teach women "yin/internal" method. They play a different game. Yet, most teachers (male and female) insist that everyone "all students" should move like the majority of "men" students.

So, I agree..."MALE PRESENTATION, male ritual combat is one of evolution's means of demonstrating "the alpha male" and his superior immune system. (Nonetheless, the act of presentation has to do with the female's CHOICE.)

Nonetheless, in nature...females do most of the killing and males do most of the scavenging.

It is not a matter of one being better than the other. Females are powerful in their "sensitivities" and Males are powerful in their physical strength (notwithstanding outliers). Each plays a role.

I for one, sit in my chair watching the Celtics trounce the Lakers. But, then I know my place. When the game is over, I follow my wife's orders, "Go take out the garbage". And then angrily I say to myself "I know who the boss is!"

Keith Larman
06-10-2008, 04:41 PM
And all of the side issues, and "I don't like how that sounds" won't change the simple fact.

So I say, step up to the challenge.

Best,
Ron

Amen.

Mary Eastland
06-10-2008, 04:53 PM
Never confuse martial arts with fighting.

.

I could not agree more...;o) :cool:

That said...

Let's talk about how we will find our strength together...man and woman helping each other embrace their seperate frailties. Our strength comes from the process of awareness and union.
Aikido training where uke and nage work together so both become resilient and soft is a perfect vehicle for the blooming strengths of man and woman.

Mary

Mary Eastland
06-10-2008, 04:55 PM
And all of the side issues, and "I don't like how that sounds" won't change the simple fact.

So I say, step up to the challenge.

Best,
Ron

What would the challenge be, Ron?

Mary

Keith Larman
06-10-2008, 05:10 PM
I'm not Ron (at least I'm pretty sure I'm not...) but I'll give my interpretation of the challenge in how it directly affects me and my aikido. I'm over 200 pounds. 6 feet tall. Good, solid barrel chested Norwegian stock. That combined with my Welsh grandfather's oddly short legs (proportionally that is). So here I am at 6 feet tall with a slightly under 30 inch inseam. Which basically means I'm mostly upper body on top of two muscle stumps I like to call legs. Given all that trying to throw me is much like trying to toss a Buick. Things better be just right.

My challenge? Not to use the large chest, strong back muscles, low center of gravity or the strong legs to overpower my training partners. I know I'm big. It is easy to fall back on that. My continual goal is to learn to move with grace and elegance while controlling the attacker with as little of that strength and mass as possible. I have no problem bringing the strength and mass into play -- I've done enough other arts to have zero problem with that. The challenge, for me, is to develop the grace and elegance I often see in some of the smaller, lighter people who can throw and control me. In other words my challenge is to not rely on the strength over form. And to develop more of the power that comes not from muscle but from proper alignment, form, and integration/coordination of the movement and mind.

Ironically it is the same challenge facing those who are smaller, lighter and less strong. My advantage is that I can easily cheat a bit. Or a lot.

Mary, your appeal to that other type of strength in your other post is just fine and I agree with you in some senses and scenarios. But it is a totally different topic. Your post is very poetic and lovely, however, it really isn't what we were talking about as you're talking about a more poetic and less specific idea of strength. As my old philosophy profs used to tell me you have to be really careful you're not arguing in circles simply because you're using words differently. There is no point in having a discussion if the word meaning is going to be changed according to each individual's particular point of view. We have to be on the same page to have a meaningful discussion.

DH
06-10-2008, 05:26 PM
I could not agree more...;o) :cool:
That said...
Let's talk about how we will find our strength together...man and woman helping each other embrace their seperate frailties. Our strength comes from the process of awareness and union.
Mary
Hi ya Mary
Well, I have been doing that my whole life. And having quite a bit of fun while doing it. She still likes me!!

Aikido training where uke and nage work together so both become resilient and soft is a perfect vehicle for the blooming strengths of man and woman.
Well no, I can't go there, kiddo.
I don't see any femininity or masculinity in softness. And if you are trying to equate softness to feminine-the only thing I 'd offer is "The softer I get the more I break people." I have to be really careful when I am feeling all warm and fuzzy in the Dojo:D

Softness-when done correctly in the martial arts is the key to overwhelming and controlling power. It doesn't require any cooperation or agreement between people (men or women or otherwise) rather it culminates in the control of one party, with the other party not really dong much. It does lead to lots of laughter and warm and fuzzy feelings though.
We should get together sometime and play, I love the Berkshires we could compare notes. I'd have to be the soft feminine one though. You can be the bruiser.:cool:

Mary Eastland
06-10-2008, 06:56 PM
Sounds like fun...name the day...we have a dojo right at our house.
You are welcome anytime....the Berkshires are nice in the summer.
Mary

Cady Goldfield
06-10-2008, 08:03 PM
Ahhh...that's why I teach women "yin/internal" method. They play a different game. Yet, most teachers (male and female) insist that everyone "all students" should move like the majority of "men" students.

So, I agree..."MALE PRESENTATION, male ritual combat is one of evolution's means of demonstrating "the alpha male" and his superior immune system. (Nonetheless, the act of presentation has to do with the female's CHOICE.)

Nonetheless, in nature...females do most of the killing and males do most of the scavenging.

It is not a matter of one being better than the other. Females are powerful in their "sensitivities" and Males are powerful in their physical strength (notwithstanding outliers). Each plays a role.

I for one, sit in my chair watching the Celtics trounce the Lakers. But, then I know my place. When the game is over, I follow my wife's orders, "Go take out the garbage". And then angrily I say to myself "I know who the boss is!"

Male ritual combat isn't always the "woman's choice." Men have no trouble getting into a brawl over a woman who is not even in the room. ;)

IMO, and IME, women -- and also smaller, weaker men -- have to make up for lesser muscle power with greater tactics and "smarts," plus killer attitude, fudoshin. Adrenalin, controled, can make up for lack of muscle mass, I know this from firsthand experience. Against a large male psychotic from drugs, who felt no pain and came at me like a locomotive, swinging, and grabbing. I successfully broke his knee so he couldn't stand. End of attack.

And going back to my previous post, it doesn't take much to drop even a large man, because all the muscle mass in the world doesn't cover the carotid artery and other key spots. With a very soft strike, a 5'6" woman I know once dropped a muscular 6' man who outsized her by a good 50-60 lbs. Knocked him out cold with just one relaxed, simple move, and he dropped like a bag of cement. It's not all about muscle. Smarts, tactics, timing, and attitude.

Most germaine to the whole idea of male vs. female "strength," for me, comes down to what was said earlier about women having a different response to violence than men. It is a reflection of how a "person" fights OUTSIDE of male ritual combat. Men fight for status and power; women fight for their lives. It makes a huge difference when fighting "on the street." If a woman harnesses her fear in a life-or-death conflict and uses her training in tandem with it, she stands a pretty fair chance of surviving, and of seriously damaging and perhaps killing her attacker.

It brings to mind the old story about the Japanese monks who were watching a fox chase a rabbit. "The rabbit will win; the fox will lose," says one monk. "How can you know that," asks the second monk. "Because," says the first, "the fox is running only for his dinner; the rabbit is running for his life."

tuturuhan
06-10-2008, 08:28 PM
Male ritual combat isn't always the "woman's choice." Men have no trouble getting into a brawl over a woman who is not even in the room. ;)

IMO, and IME, women -- and also smaller, weaker men -- have to make up for lesser muscle power with greater tactics and "smarts," plus killer attitude, fudoshin. Adrenalin, controled, can make up for lack of muscle mass, I know this from firsthand experience. Against a large male psychotic from drugs, who felt no pain and came at me like a locomotive, swinging, and grabbing. I successfully broke his knee so he couldn't stand. End of attack.

And going back to my previous post, it doesn't take much to drop even a large man, because all the muscle mass in the world doesn't cover the carotid artery and other key spots. With a very soft strike, a 5'6" woman I know once dropped a muscular 6' man who outsized her by a good 50-60 lbs. Knocked him out cold with just one relaxed, simple move, and he dropped like a bag of cement. It's not all about muscle. Smarts, tactics, timing, and attitude.

Most germaine to the whole idea of male vs. female "strength," for me, comes down to what was said earlier about women having a different response to violence than men. It is a reflection of how a "person" fights OUTSIDE of male ritual combat. Men fight for status and power; women fight for their lives. It makes a huge difference when fighting "on the street." If a woman harnesses her fear in a life-or-death conflict and uses her training in tandem with it, she stands a pretty fair chance of surviving, and of seriously damaging and perhaps killing her attacker.

It brings to mind the old story about the Japanese monks who were watching a fox chase a rabbit. "The rabbit will win; the fox will lose," says one monk. "How can you know that," asks the second monk. "Because," says the first, "the fox is running only for his dinner; the rabbit is running for his life."

In total agreement. (PS Thank you for the evolutionary biology conversation...now back to the Celtics)

Gernot Hassenpflug
06-10-2008, 09:07 PM
IMO, and IME, women -- and also smaller, weaker men -- have to make up for lesser muscle power with greater tactics and "smarts," plus killer attitude, fudoshin.

Well, most usually with a weapon evileyes ...

Well done on your personal victory BTW, I wish I could get my wife to feel a strong enough urge to learn to protect herself (from me at the least, considering how I've managed to hurt her accidentally at times!). The latest stabbing frenzy in everyone's favourite electronics and anime haunt in Tokyo has proved a "good" incentive.

It brings to mind the old story about the Japanese monks who were watching a fox chase a rabbit. "The rabbit will win; the fox will lose," says one monk. "How can you know that," asks the second monk. "Because," says the first, "the fox is running only for his dinner; the rabbit is running for his life."

Um, if that were really true, foxes would starve. When is "only a dinner" really only a dinner? When the fox isn't starving... Maybe the point of the story was a bit different?:D Sort of like surviving an "investigative event" by a great white pointer compared to a "predatory event"? <shudder>

Buck
06-10-2008, 09:33 PM
I am a small framed short man, a.k.a wimp. Most women could take me in a fight, if it wasn't for Aikido. When I was in high school I was picked on by guys bigger and stronger. I think there is the myth that all men are stronger then women. That is just not true. I have been K.O. (by accident) by a women once. I have had the wind knocked out of me by a women. Women can do damage. How many of us guys have had our packages rattled by a well focus and placed attack by a women. It is a myth that people support resulting putting women at a disadvantage. It is the myth that makes women weak, and makes them think they are weak. Even the most biggest strongest women.

But this Victorian and post-Victorian view of women being helpless and weak is just women cultured to be weak. A guy who admits he was beat up, hurt, etc. by a girl is humiliated and branded by other men. But if we men are get a shot to the groin (being defeated by a women) that is a different story. Just other examples of how we are to enforce the culture of the weaker sex being women.

Smaller framed and weaker men who are not the jocks but the geeks and the nerds who get beat up by the stronger larger more muscled jocks are in the same position women are. We are at a more disadvantage then women. Because we are humiliated by society. For one, women are not attracted to us like they are the stronger physiqued male species. Two, we are shamed by both men and women if we are beat up by a women. Lastly, we are wimps, nerds, and geeks, thus because of that we are targets of bullies both female (usually verbally humiliating type) and males (physical). No one cuts us males any slack.

Yes, we are on the same ground as women. To say all women are at a disadvantage to all men -because men have a stronger anatomical features -it isn't true. Not all of us men are a Lou Ferrigno, some of us got cheated on the testosterone supply. And we CAN'T equalize it by using sex as a weapon! :eek:

Gernot Hassenpflug
06-10-2008, 09:53 PM
I feel for you Philip, I really do. You really let it all hang out there didn't you LOL I've seen my share of such encounters, but I've stayed away from such women myself. Pick on the smaller ones I always says to myself. One solution is to grow up on a diet that makes you fairly big, and then move to a place where the diet makes people fairly small. Works for me <g>

Keith Larman
06-10-2008, 10:26 PM
Yes, we are on the same ground as women. To say all women are at a disadvantage to all men -because men have a stronger anatomical features -it isn't true. Not all of us men are a Lou Ferrigno, some of us got cheated on the testosterone supply.

Again, exceptions do not make the rule. And NO ONE said all men are stronger than all women. The original statement was a generalization. A group mean. One with ample evidence to substantiate it. Of course a generalization is a summary of a larger, much more diverse group. OF COURSE it does not mean that all men are stronger than all women. That is absurd. To state a fact does not mean that anyone is trying to denigrate women or "keep women in their place". That is absolutely ridiculous.

Good lord, I spent 17 years working in research working often with bio-data on stuff like this. Why is this such a hard concept?

Okay, okay, okay... I give up. :hypno: We're all the same. Let's all hold hands, sing "shamabala" and the world will be exactly the way we want it to be... I guess I'm a total neanderthal for even suggesting that women on the average aren't as strong as men on the average.

We're all the same, we're all the same, we're all the same. Now excuse me while I go breast feed by daughter...

Lauren Walsh
06-10-2008, 10:50 PM
This is an interesting topic indeed, as are eveyone's responses to the subject. It would be incredibly nieve to think that women in general are physically stronger than men in general. If two "average" martially un-trained people of the opposite sex faced off on the street, then yes, the female would probably be overcome physically.

However, if a man and a woman are both trained in a martial sense then there are many factors which should be considered other than strength. The victor won't neccessarily be determined by muscle-mass or testosterone levels, but rather by the individual's talent and physical comprehension of their own training or martial art.

I think it is very important to remember that power is infinately stronger that strength. There is a very distinct difference between the two.

For arguments sake, yes, men are of greater physcial prowess than women. Simple. But then it is also important that men do not underestimate a women based on gender. In fact it's best to never underestimate anyone, regardless. Period.

Ron Tisdale
06-11-2008, 08:09 AM
:D
Keith, it's KUMBAYA... ;)

Mary,

What would the challenge be, Ron?

Which one? There are many...Keith mentioned one of my main ones. Above that:

To Be Human. Regardless of situation. Tough challenge.

For more on Keith's points, I'm not as large as he is, but I am relatively strong. (not compared to Dan, but to your average dojo bunny ;)), and really stiff. Tension seems to be my middle name. So I'm trying really hard to find the balance between tensile strength and being a wet noodle. Proper relaxation, I guess you would call it. Along with the strengh of mind to maintain that under serious pressure. Aikido is an art filled with lovely contradictions:

Don't hurt your partner, but really throw him.

Relax, but stay strong.

Be focused, but not to the exclusion of what is around you.

Do not allow your mind to be moved, but give way when faced with greater force.

If uke comes with 8, meet, join and vanquish him with 2.

If uke comes with 2, meet, join and vanquish him with 8.

Yikes.

Too many damn contradictions! Doncha' just love it?!?!? :D

Best,
Ron

Keith Larman
06-11-2008, 09:45 AM
:D
Keith, it's KUMBAYA... ;)

Oh, yeah.

The kid is rather fond of my old Three Dog Night cd. And since I'd rather stick long needles through my eardrums than listen to the Alvin and the Chipmunks disc or the Hannah Montana disc (aaaiiiEEEEE!!!!) one more time we've been listening to Three Dog Night on solid rotation... "I'm on the road to Shambala... " At least I can live with that. Of course now that we've listened to Shambala roughly 83 thousand times (that's my low estimate) I'm searching for something else she might like.

Hmmm, I wonder if she'd like Nine Inch Nails... :D

P.S. Ron -- we call it "controlled relaxation" fwiw. Something I try to do every time the kid starts asking about listening to Shambala again... "Breath, breath, at least she's not asking for Alvin and the Chipmunks..."

Buck
06-11-2008, 08:09 PM
I feel for you Philip, I really do. You really let it all hang out there didn't you LOL I've seen my share of such encounters, but I've stayed away from such women myself. Pick on the smaller ones I always says to myself. One solution is to grow up on a diet that makes you fairly big, and then move to a place where the diet makes people fairly small. Works for me

The best advice I've gotten all day, though I missed the bus on the diet and growing. I guess I will just have to keep dodging the size 6 secretaries, ahhhh shucks.....more bruises.

Cady Goldfield
06-11-2008, 08:21 PM
Phillip,
Ever notice in the newspapers when there is an article about some guy who is attacked by a dog? Such a big to-do. Come to find out it turns out to be something like a 90 lb. German shepherd, and the man is a 180, 5'11" guy. But he is outmatched by a dog half his weight?

In another story maybe 10 years ago, a 105 lb. woman was attacked by a 125 lb. wolf in a remote part of the Navajo Nation where she lived. She managed to get on its back and grapple it down into a submission choke. She won.

Fighting is not always about strength, but how you use your weapons.

Kevin Leavitt
06-11-2008, 10:28 PM
It is also about the situation an luck.

Buck
06-11-2008, 11:22 PM
Phillip,
Ever notice in the newspapers when there is an article about some guy who is attacked by a dog? Such a big to-do. Come to find out it turns out to be something like a 90 lb. German shepherd, and the man is a 180, 5'11" guy. But he is outmatched by a dog half his weight?

In another story maybe 10 years ago, a 105 lb. woman was attacked by a 125 lb. wolf in a remote part of the Navajo Nation where she lived. She managed to get on its back and grapple it down into a submission choke. She won.

Fighting is not always about strength, but how you use your weapons.

The dog and the guy. A German Shepard (wouldn't doubt if it was a bitch) has teeth and lots of them. Big ones too. It works for me, if you know what I mean.

The wolf and the woman. Evidently that woman had lots of experience with men.

Well I can't use sex-as a weapon-, and now when I was only worried about bruises, I have to watch out for those secretaries jumping on my back and choking me out. I hate the spike heeled shoes, they really hurt.

Us wimpy men are doomed.

Not all men can take on a women. Some women are be 5'.10" 160lbs or more, and could do some serious damage to lots of guys, I am speaking about Laila Ali, or her many opponets. Why is it assumed women are all tiny fragile helpless creatures that drown in a size 6 making Kate Moss look like a brute.

As I said before, it is the Victorian hang-up of what dictates a woman. A friend of mine a couple of years ago pointed that too me. He would say we are not in the Victorian age, but we still keep many of those ideas alive for women. That they are all weak, helpless creatures that only have one weapon over men and it is sex. He was really into it. So it go me thinking why isn't there talk of Penthesilea, Joan of Arch, or these women (http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html) or others around the world who where warriors fighting against men and women? No one brings up Laila Ali either even though she fought women, there are lots of men she could open a can of whoopass on.

We really got to get out the Victorian age thinking when it comes to women. We got to update our thinking to modern times of women -mudwrestling guys in the bars. Whooo hooo!

Gernot Hassenpflug
06-11-2008, 11:44 PM
In another story maybe 10 years ago, a 105 lb. woman was attacked by a 125 lb. wolf in a remote part of the Navajo Nation where she lived. She managed to get on its back and grapple it down into a submission choke. She won.

Huh? Just correcting some spelling considering what I have experienced about Indian ladies:

a 105 lb. female wolf was attacked by a 125 lb. wolf in a remote part of the Navajo Nation where she lived.

What's a few pounds between wolves. The male was at a disadvantage I say.

Buck
06-11-2008, 11:49 PM
One more thing, I think it really does disservice to women when we make accommodations to and for them, because we are telling them that they are the weaker sex. When that is just plain poor thinking and backwood generalization. The truth of the matter is, the biggest guy in the room usually wins. Everyone else regardless of sex is usually the losers. When it comes to toe to toe and pound for pound. Hey there are exceptions, one being the story of Samson and Delilah, it's a old favorite. It took a women to defeat the strongest man in town- not toe to toe of course, just his hormones vs her brain. What ever the exception, it is still the biggest guy pound for pound that dominates everyone else, because he is the strongest. And everyone one else male and female are equally defeated. That is why I enjoy women's mudwrestling from the bar.

hapkidoike
06-12-2008, 12:37 AM
Phillip,
Ever notice in the newspapers when there is an article about some guy who is attacked by a dog? Such a big to-do. Come to find out it turns out to be something like a 90 lb. German shepherd, and the man is a 180, 5'11" guy. But he is outmatched by a dog half his weight?

In another story maybe 10 years ago, a 105 lb. woman was attacked by a 125 lb. wolf in a remote part of the Navajo Nation where she lived. She managed to get on its back and grapple it down into a submission choke. She won.

Fighting is not always about strength, but how you use your weapons.

I really don't see how such anecdotal evidence is relevant, especially given there is evidence of this behaviour on both sides.

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/01/31/dog-bites-man-man-kills-dog/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/5038304.stm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B06E2D81139EF34BC4051DFB166838F669FDE
(read the pdf link)

I will agree with the idea that most folks (and by folks I mean men, women and hemo's) will get their asses handed to them in a fight with a 'dog' (depending on how we define dog, I am convinced I could take at least 4 or 5 chihuahuas at once and not get much more than a scratch). Dogs can be dangerous as hell (big ass teeth, strong jaws, and sharp claws which we do not have). I am totally willing to stipulate to that idea, but there is always going to be somebody that can challenge a beast and win, due to luck, having a weapon, superior skill, using their brains or whatever.

I would also agree that fighting is not always about strength, but to suggest that it never is an issue in the determination of a victor seems a bit hokey.

If you could find the account of that woman killing that wolf I would like to read it. I searched the web for it for about 3 minutes before giving up and deciding just to ask you. Man (that is to say man/woman/hemo) stories are often a good read.

Ron Tisdale
06-12-2008, 08:25 AM
I'd be interested in a source for that as well. I've heard VERY few stories of wolves attacking adults that were actually documented. Now, coyotes attacking kids is another kettle of fish entirely (pardon the mixed metaphore...)

And once again, I don't think anyone posting in the thread is suggesting any of the things Phillip is stating...complete non-sequitor (though probably true for way too many).

Best,
Ron

hapkidoike
06-12-2008, 09:57 AM
Man (that is to say man/woman/hemo) stories are often a good read.

That last sentence is supposed to read 'Man (that is to say man/woman/hemo) vs. nature stories are often a good read'.

gdandscompserv
06-12-2008, 11:12 AM
People vs dogs and wolves is relevant to "Strength Comparisons between Men and Women" how?:eek: