Dave,
First see my previous disclaimer....
Quote:
|
IOW; is size/build really when you get right down to it a factor for the arts, or simply an accepted mythology?
|
All martial arts/martial sports were developed for use by people, and there are only so many ways anyone can move. Off hand, I couldn't think of one martial art/martial sport where a specific build is completely advantageous. (The only exception I can think of might be sumo...but I'm not too familiar with sumo and defer to others)
That is not to say that some martial arts/martial sports are not strongly attribute driven. In general empty hand arts seem to require more physical ability than weapon based arts, since weapons increase the potential for damage and reduce the need for strength.
Looking at further at martial sports....
The "sportive" people will tell you that within a given weight class, it is advantageous to not only have the best technique and the most experience, but to be more athletic than your opponent. This means faster, better endurance, better sense of balance, more durable (able to withstand impact), stronger, and yes, "bigger". In particular, "bigger" matters so much that athletes in competitive sports will often diet down to make a weight class (a process referred to as "cutting" weight) and then rehydrate so they may actually exceed the weight limit at the time of the actual competition.
But outside of weight classes, given the same (roughly) technique and experience, bigger athletes are considerably more likely to "win" over smaller athletes. In essence, Ian's supposition is nearly universal among combative sports: big + strong > small + weak.
But I digressed.....
Regards,
Paul