Posts: 92 Location: Charles Town, WV
Sat 24 Nov, 2012 6:26 pm
Speaking as a relatively out of shape, 40-hours-behind-a-desk computer guy....
I've watched martial arts movies (kung fu, ninja, samurai, medieval, even *fantasy* stuff) for a long time, like a lot of us, since I was a kid. I took a few years of karate, I did a year of SCA heavy weapons, and have been reading books on proper (non-movie) combat for almost as long. I've always believed that there are 3 key points to winning a fight.
1) Control
2) Timing
3) Ability
To win the fight,
control the fight. When you can find or create an opening to strike, do so. Which brings us to...
Timing. Knowing
when to strike that isn't too early or too late is important to landing your offense. However, when you land that offensive attack, you need...
Ability. As long as you have
the ability to be effective with your technique, any power above and beyond is excessive. The difference between "dead and really dead" or "unconscious and really unconscious" is of little concern, as long as you can do enough. It doesn't require a lot of strength to be deadly, either. People performing CPR have broken ribs accidentally, with simple pushes (trying to save someone's life!). It takes somewhere around 10 pounds of pressure to collapse the trachea, and I think somewhere around 30 to break the neck. The spine is also weak to direct impact, etc.
You can be substantially out of shape, or weaker than your opponent, and still meet all those criteria. Control and timing are much more of 'martial' training than physical fitness, but ability is a physical aspect. Someone who can run for 15 minutes in harness can still take a very severe trouncing by someone who can only run 30 seconds, depending on how that energy is spent and execution of techniques. Craig Shackleton mentioned this:
Craig Shackleton wrote: |
One of the things I tell my students is that the goal of martial arts is to be as lazy as possible while fighting. The more efficient we are in our motions the better they work, and the less energy we expend doing them. |
A video example - the fighter on the left (capoeira) could be arguably in much better physical condition than the fighter on the right (a "no frills" style). He flaunts his athleticism, and, well....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_StXp1CjuM
(Yes, it's from the movie Never Back Down, but the principle is there - one well timed, well placed strike....)
And for the "frail old master" reference, see 10th Dan Mifune (this is not from a movie). He has a very smooth, almost effortless control of the fight, and excellent timing - count the number of attacks he makes that don't connect. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YS-WF6nlA0
In context for us with WMA/HEMA, and apples to apples, it could be taken as conservation of energy vs expending energy. Let's say with inefficient movement I can strike 10 times. With efficient movement, I can strike 50. It takes less physical fitness to strike 10 times with efficient movement, meaning, overall, a well trained person can supplement their relative lack of fitness with technique if their opponent burns substantially more energy to also strike 10 times. In tandem with the high athleticism and lack of martial training, those people often tense up or waste a lot of energy with unnecessary movement(s). Comparing "overweight" to "muscular" or "well defined", with enough training, overweight can win over less training at least some of the time. If we're comparing "morbidly obese", well, they're probably only a challenge as physical mass, but not skill.
Now, if we're talking in a historical context, when you had to last for potentially hours or longer on the battlefield .... when you got tired, you probably got dead quickly. I'd place physical fitness over technique in importance in that situation, along with a good bit of luck.