brilliantly articulated. I wrestled for several years and now I teach Japanese JuJutsu. I also dabble in multiple weapons, and I think you've exactly nailed the missing bits of Matt's video. I think both you and Matt are brilliant, but in this particular case I think you've got the edge, particularly when you're looking at organization wide standards like HEMA will want for the future. Thanks for the great vids and the return of gentlemanly discourse to UA-cam. So rare to see people discuss and disagree in a civilized way, and you gents are a great example.
+Nathan Welsh Thank you, that's very kind of you to say so. Matt and I are good friends, but sometimes disagree on things as we have very different backgrounds. Of course he has 75000 more subscribers than me too, but that's just a matter of time :D
I'm all up for mixing up things, this goes for weight classes as well. Maybe some tournaments would have weight classes, and some not. Doing everything always in the same way limits perspective. HEMA is in my eyes studying and mixing ground filled with pioneer spirit, which is one reason i'm not too hot for unification of it. Less there are established rules across board the better. And pitting masters of each weight class against each of other from time to time might wield interesting results, just as you say. As for strength: Strength is basis for speed, which is reason pretty much every speed/power athlete does strength training: cleans, squats and so on. In that sense i can't see any reason why strength wouldn't be important aspect of even weapon based martial arts. Strong legs enables one to have fast legs, and i'm sure same goes for hands as well even if it's not as obvious. Yes, for random sword swinger skill-work is much more essential because he's probably lacking it in huge amount, but if one wises to pursuit HEMA in professional sense (=trying to maximize one's gainz) he should put focus also in developing strength as well as endurance. And calves. And i'm not meaning that one should undergo bodybuilding routines or gain powerlifter's strength levels (which mostly are excessive for track and field athletes), which might have totally opposite result on speed. But training which enables improvements in speed.
+Second247 Thank you, I came down here to say something similar. I'm always annoyed by the false dichotomy that speed and strength are different, or that being big and strong somehow makes you slower.
Skill, size, weight, agility, reach (arms, legs, weapon), weapon and/or armor are all tools to employ on HEMA fights. As Matt pointed, when melee is involved, skill can be more relevant than weight, for example. But it is all about the match context, again. If my opponent have more reach, that is an advantage. But if I use a shield (and I'm skilled with it) we are eve again. On each match, you need take all advantages/disadvantages on place (from you and opponent) and set up your *strategy*. Personally, I avoid to be intimidated by a bigger guy (I am short) - or even a more skilled one - focusing myself *only on his weakness*: "what this guy doesn't have?", and so I try make a plan to put my own advantages against these weak spots.
I've never been in a situation in HEMA where I've done everything right but my opponent beat me anyway because they were just bigger than me. Even when it comes to grappling (in HEMA, with weapons) when I've lost, it has always been because I didn't think fast enough, or because I messed up a technique, or because my opponent was faster and smarter than me and knew how to counter what I was doing. I can't think of a single instance where a point was won through either me or my opponent trying to power through with strength or weight. Reach is definitely more of an advantage, but again, I've never been in a situation where I've done everything right but still lost out to reach. I can always list a bunch of reasons I lost before I start to get to reach. I'm 5'10'' and about 70kg, so a lot of my opponents are taller than me, and most of them are heavier than me.
My opinions on this matter are VERY complex, as I am a bit of a "gym rat" and also a fencer. However, I have done my best to simplify them down into a short, quickly readable comment. Suffice to say: If you can get stronger, get stronger, if you can get faster, get faster, if you can become more skilled, become more skilled. Neglect nothing. If you are both skilled and strong, you won't need to answer this question. You will simply know that you are the best you can be, and if you are defeated because of something that was beyond your control, like reach, then so be it. It was no fault of your own.
I covered this in my responce to skall but one of the reasons we don't have weight groups in HEMA is that the talent pool simply isn't big enough at the moment. If only 10 people enter a tournament splitting them up in to weight groups would mean some people would win just by turning up. There are also too few huge guys in HEMA who also have elite level skill for it to really matter at the moment.
Bruce Lee talked and wrote quite a bit about "attributes." I think he would suggest that there are a number of them that could decide a fight in various contexts. Skill and reach are definitely near the top of that list, as is conditioning (i.e. The ability to keep fighting skillfully after a bit of a workout.) You can also be better, taller, faster, and more comely and still have a bad bout.
Good points actually. Anyway a lot of fighters says that strength (or rather muscle mass) slows you down. Never happened to me personally (yes I do strength exercises, but also I work a lot on my speed as well), but a lot of MA instructors told me about their students becoming slower after taking strength training, so its a dangerous game to play. Speed in (weapon based) martial arts is in my opinion more important than mass and strength.
9 років тому
I can say from my experience with Messer that weight and size are not unimportant. There are many things you can or can't do if you're smaller or bigger. The key is to know that and apply the right tactics. I would consider this skill.
I am more inclined to agree with you over Matt on this one. More often than not, you can compensate lack of weight with your blade skill, until he comes to grapple. Then, more often than not, raw strength is what is gonna bring you out on top.
+Matthew “Arkhane” Brown Raw strength or grappling skill and the state/body positions of the fighters when the close happens? I would think that if someone has an advantage over you because of superior positioning, timing, or technique, then strength is at best a buffer to allow you to resist, if you able to do so at all.
I find the argument of skill vs size and strength/weight to be to broad categorization for the very complex weapon systems/martial arts we are learning, reviving and teaching
5 years late but my 2 cents: my uncle and I used to train together (weight lifting/bodybuilding). I also trained in amateur boxing, he did not, although he knew how to 'throw a punch', for want of a better word. I have had approx 80 amateur fights. He was 6ft tall, approx 200lbs. I am 5'8" on a good day, and weighed approx 140lbs. When we would wrestle/spar messing around, he had no problems in subduing me. I was quicker to be fair, but he was just so much bigger and stronger that any skill I had (which wasn't much anyway lol), was no match for him. Even if I landed a blow it had little effect, yet when he landed one it would knock me into next week! I think you have to be an extremely well rounded and highly trained combatant in order to even out the height/weight/reach advantage. And this is against an untrained opponent. Never mind an equally well trained one who is much bigger. Only my opinion folks, I'm not saying it isn't possible, just very unlikely.
I agree, that there should be an Open class, anyone, any size, any gender. A chance just to prove you are the best fighter in that group. Weight classes would also help while people are learning and coming up to speed. However, my 13 year old son still gets good hits on me, even though he is much smaller 8) he is also sneaky.
Yes its a factor but it should not be a question on setting up competition. Tournaments should be about striving for excellence so if you go against weight or reach advantage you should adapt and learn to overcome it. The highest goal is not winning meaningless fights but pushing yourself and learning. Maybe a not yet tested technique is just the thing you need to overcome it? That the sword is a great equalizer you can invest time in skill instead of bulk.
so I am 5'9" 250 lbs, and you want me to fight a 6'5" 250 lbs on the basis that we have similar reach? My total reach (measured from middle finger to middle finger across the shoulders and back) is about 72" which 3 inches total more than my height, how much more reach is someone 77" tall going to have? My only hope is to get beyond is reach and then get inside (way inside), do my damage and get out again or grapple. Which takes skill, reach is far more important in this context and even more so is skill # scholagladiatora,
I've watched the video but haven't read through all the comments to see if this has been brought up already, but the matter of reach in HEMA is different than in unarmed martial arts. Assuming equal-sized swords both fencers will always be in reach of each others' hands and arms at the same time, and a good cut to the extremities can incapacitate the opponent. Now, since moving hands are a difficult target this doesn't remove the advantage of reach altogether but I still think it's less severe than in unarmed fighting.
I've actually seen the difference that reach can make. A while ago, before i really got started training, i was sparring with a guy who was significantly more skilled than i was. When we started, he had a 40in (102cm) longsword amd i had a 28in (71cm) arming sword. He beat me in five consecutive exchanges. Then we switched weapons and went again. This time, i beat him five times, and he only beat me twice (we were doing best-of-5 sets). So reach alone can be a deciding factor in a duel if there is enough difference, even trumping skill's influence.
This is a very informative video I teach sport martial arts and I am of the opinion size and weight do count a skilled lighter person could defeat a bigger, stronger person. However, it would take allot longer its simple physics if someone has a bigger mass than you do; it will be more difficult to move that person when you hit them. The far bigger, stronger guy could simply grab you and toss you in the street no matter how skilled you are, considering a force multiplier is a must, a well hidden couple of snooker balls in a sock, a palm sized weighted bar. I don't know everything about fighting I am hear to learn and improve on my own skills I don't care where something comes from, as long as it can help you to defend yourself well.
Presumably levels of athleticism, such are being naturally quicker, could also be a difference maker between fighters at the same weight, as well as skill.
Speed vs acceleration Mass vs force Force exerted Force impacted All these things and several more equations factor in. Trying to limit it to one thing gave someone else the win in a fight is rather rudimentary analysis. We all need to take in account many things other than just strength and skill.
If skill trumps everything, then there would be no weight classes or divisions. 2 opponents of relatively equal skill, the man with greater physical attributes will always have the advantage. An agressive Chihuahua will still get eaten by a mild tempered pit bull if it pisses it off. When I was training for MMA we had a couple of powerlifters/bodybuilders come in to train with us. They didn't have much skill but because they were so damn big and strong they would pull right out of submissions attempts. Trying to take them down was difficult. And when they hit you or grabbed you then you felt it even if they had good technique or not. The laws of physics don't cease to exist just because you have a high level of technical skill. The more mass you have the more potential force you can generate.
Speed is a intresting factor. If i fight with sombody who is larger and stronger, I don´t want to Close in. Fast "hit and run" attacks might serve me better.
+Exploatores They would indeed, and that's the tack I've always taken when fighting people with much longer reach than me. But it doesn't always work as stronger people tend to be able to move their sword around faster than less strong people, and strength often goes alongside size. Again it's only one aspect, but it is certainly an important one I'd say.
It seems fairly simple to me; 1. Give the subject a sword of a measured standard length. 2. On a marked surface make him lunge on specific set of Technics, lets say a simple cut and a simple lounge, and ask the participant to stop when he feels he has reached full length (of course with somebody watching to make sure it is fairly measured) 3. Put the 0 at the place the hill of a man of 1.75 or a woman of 1.65 (Human average for each gender) 4. Use your new found units, Cut and point Reach It might sound complicated, but once tested it would probably turn out extremely simple. All you would really need to do make the actual tested Technics more refined, it should take more that a few hours, exaggerating, to come up with something that could serve the propose, and then test run it for fails.
+EnglishMartialArts I was thinking for discipline like steel sabre, where grappling seems unwelcomed. Because HEMA is really diverse, we should go on a case by case basis for each discipline.
+Gil gamesh I see what you mean, but Matt was using military sabre when he grappled in the recent competition at Fightcamp. And even if we accept that grappling is not allowed then we are effectively removing half of the repertoire of backsword technques from the compeition as closing is much more common. It would risk moving us down the line of simply recreating classical fencing, and that can't be a good thing right?
+EnglishMartialArts Oh, yes, you are right. My ignorance is showing, didn't thought about backsword in steel sabre. ^^ We would certainly not want to recreate classical Fencing, that's for sure.
+Gil gamesh Eventially I suspect different disciplines will have their own competitions, but for now it's quite nice to mix them up and see backsword against sabre against sidesword against cutlass etc.
Was a scrum-half but now a centre/wing in the wheeled game. Fencing (sports) wise it was always Sabre for me - wish I'd known about this stuff earlier!
Sir, size and weight do become important because you are not fighting "for real". If you were really following through on your attacks a bigger man crippled on the first attack does not come back equally strong in succeeding attacks. It would not make as much difference if a leg were really cut, or an arm really stabbed. Also your opponent would be weakening throughout the rest of the encounter due to blood loss. I think Matt still sees it as a real fight instead of a match, which would speak volumes for his mind set ( a very real competitor), rather than his ability to recognize an advantage that is obvious. I do enjoy your channel, I was referred to it from Matt's. Thank-you, Dante.
+100dfrost That is a very interesting thought, and one that deserves a better reply than a simple response here. I'll record a video on my thoughts. "Should we be treating HEMA tournaments as real fights?"
+EnglishMartialArts Sir, thank-you. I've given it more thought, and maybe Matt also does not want to over burden HEMA matches with even more rules. Realism vs. usefulness seems a very fine line to walk. Your sport is rapidly, at least in Briton, growing. Evolution is inevitable, but lets hope it does not go the way of fencing. Again, thank-you, Dante.
+100dfrost I think Matt truly believes that size plays no real part and that skill is all that matters. But it's very easy for him to say that as a 6' tall, fit and healthy man.
+EnglishMartialArts Sir, well you know him. I'm reminded of a story from the Old West where a small man and a large man were going to engage in a gunfight. The large man did not think it was fair as the small man would be shooting at a larger target. The small man told the bartender to chalk out a man of his size on the large man, and everything outside of the lines would not count. Thank-you, Dante.
Just a thought... Why try to make the fight fair and the fighters to be as equal as possible? Does this happen in a real life? Did that happen on battle fields? It is a sport not a fight. If there is a guy who is huge and skilled at the same time, why not let him fight multiple opponents? (Safety gear involved) Thus we add another parameter into the equation: inteligence or tactical thinking. I think there is no need for the weapons to be matched either. When do you chose your opponent on a battle field, do you look for a guy with exactly the same weapon?
+Pavel Musiol If we're sparring, or just having fun then why not indeed! We do things like that in my club and it is a lot of fun. All I was attempting to say was that dismissing weight/size as unimportant is silly.
I got that, and thanks for your videos by the way, I really enjoy them. I just got the idea that HEMA stuff is evolving and you guys are trying to make up the rules for your tournaments. Would not it make it more fun to watch-and to compete-if you got rid of that mindset that all the conditions must be always equal? Huge, possibly armoured bloke againts two smaller, lightly armed opponents could make for a challenging fight.
+Pavel Musiol In day to day HEMA absolutely. I love to do asymetrical sparring in my club. 2 v 1, different weapons facing each other, team melees with differnt weapons/rules per team etc. But in competition, if we are going to do it at all, it needs to be fair, and that means acknowledging that weight and size/strength do indeed play a part.
+EnglishMartialArts Thank you for the video. It only needs to be fair to a given value of fair. if you take the example of non contact sports like swimming or tennis the rules are kept consistent but your relative height, density, size of lung, and any other genetic advantage are not adjusted for. And if, as competitions in HEMA grow and mature, the tall and heavy disproportionately win then we'll have learnt something important about HEMA and can do something about it then.
I'm leaning towards the opinion of never integrating weight classes into hema. I think it's a slippery slope towards sport orientated combat, and draws attention away from the reality of historical combat training.
Frankly i don´t see much of a use for weight categories. We have guys half my weight in the club and they know they will get massacred if i get in - so they stay away. We also have a Orang Utan who refuses to leave Longoint and will jump out of range constantly so yeah fully agree REACH is where its at.
+EnglishMartialArts Nah, not really. You pay for your muscle mass. You use more energy, you have more bulk. I personally have to train endurance constantly. The fights with our lighter guys are just fine. The orang utan is 2.10 meters and weighs 90 kg. So basically he is one of the light guys. Putting people in weight categories would only remove people that could really do something in the close game. Reach is not at all correlated to mass, even with athletes. Think aethiopian runners etc.
+EnglishMartialArts Yet i will agree dagger, wrestling and the like make a long range game extremely difficult to achieve. So yeah, there might be a point to weight classes there. Auerswald states that in sportive wrestling the stronger wrestler is always in an advantage, not though in combative wrestling. So we could allow serverly dangerous techniques as an alternative to weight classes there :)
+Shikami42 Oh it's certainly not an exact match, but there is definitely a correlation. Lightweights are shorter and less reach than heavyweights as a general rule. Yes there are exceptions, but that will always be the case.
My opinion echoes that of a couple other posters, but I figured I'd give it a go anyway. See what you think of my argument. Since HEMA is a scholarly inquiry into the fighting methods of the past, and not a game (combat sport), and the techniques that it taught had to be applied in many situations, always regardless of the sizes, reaches, or weights involved, there should be no physical distinction between competitors in a tournament. The same goes for gender. Fairness is not a word that need be considered. If you want to run a "Sportive Longsword Tournament" or "Sportive Rapier, Sabre, and Messer Tournament," then go ahead, but be sure to call it what it is, and not a HEMA tournament. To do anything else seems to me a dishonest use of the word.
+45calibermedic Firstly I'm still not 100% convinced on the use of tournaments in HEMA anyway, but as long as we don't allow them to become the single ultimate focus for training then thery have a use. But if we take away the possibility of ever winning from a group of people then, for them at least, they lose what utility they once had. I think to be honest I need to bite the bullet and do a video on tournaments in HEMA...
+EnglishMartialArts As someone who is “HEMA curious”, I think this is a time when you all need to be careful to not elide the word “tournament”. The question isn’t whether HEMA needs weight classes but whether HEMA tournaments need weight classes. That’s clear to people who are already in HEMA, but-I think-tends to reinforce a misnomer among those outside HEMA or just learning about it that HEMA = tournaments.
+EnglishMartialArts I see your point, and agree with you for the most part, but I think that it is an exaggeration that not having weight classes or size/reach divisions removes the possibility of ever winning from some people. I can say confidently that Agrippa would take issue with someone claiming greater strength to be a decisive advantage (although I am sure that he would recognize the ability of greater reach to help one wound an opponent from greater range), and Silver, while rightly pointing out the advantage of greater reach, only calls it advantageous. To provide some context for what he means by having the advantage, he says that the short sword has the advantage over the rapier, but goes on to painstakingly explain the danger involved in opposing the rapier with a short sword and the skill needed to overcome a skilled rapier user. It would seem that a superior body is only truly an advantage in the very highest levels of fighting skill, and that there is plenty of wiggle room for us, still but babes in terms of fencing knowledge, to compete in physically uneven matchups. Finally, though I know that it is not true for most of us (if it is true for any of us at all, which I doubt), but how many manuals say that if techniques are executed perfectly, there will be no need at all to grapple? I can think of a few. Thanks for taking the time to talk about this with us!
9 років тому+1
First, I don't understand squat of what you are saying : you say that you agree with Matt, on every points, but you say then that he is wrong on every points. You say that he is right saying wheight classes on HEMA is a bad thing, but then you say that you thing it is a good thing. Let me put it this way : In HEMA there is a "H". like "Historical". and there is a "M", like "MARTIAL". The goal of HEMA is not to be fair or to be more efficient or anything. The only goal is to reproduce HISTORICAL ways of killing people. Wheight doesn't matter. You don't "not" provoke someone in duel because he is heavier than you. Or stronger, or even taller. This is ridiculous. HEMA is not an olympic game discipline where every thing must be fair to the challengers. It is a way to study historical combats and fights and how they killed each others. And small guys killed big guys. Big guys killed small guys. Girls killed boys and boys killed girls (even though the society through time didn't set easy standards for this last point) This is HEMA you are talking about. Not MMA or anything else. HEMA. Remove the "H" of your discipline and I may follow you, even though there is still the Martial word which could be taken in it's lightened sense. But with a "H" in your discipline, you are simply wrong on all accord. It is important to reproduce historical situations and possibilities, with health and safety limitations of course. (please don't go that way in your counter argumentation... please...) And as far as we have seen, a lot of small people fought big people and for what it's worth, it must not be ignored. If you do so, you'll reproduce the EXACT pattern of 1800-1900 martial arts, where it became more and more a sport and less and less a real martial art. And our grand childrens will have to re-create HEMA from the begining like we did those last decades. One last touch : you say that wheight is "often" or "in genral" reach. This is wrong. A lot of small people going into martial arts are people with intiial wheight that is high. And often, small people have heavy muscular mass when tall people have light muscular mass (relative mass, not absolute, we agree on that). I know a lot of bunch of people that are small but that have the same calf as yours, one in perticular has twice size as yours. They are heavy, fast, strong but shrot. If and I say If the postulate of creating categories is true, then the categories must not be considered in wheight but in size. Let's be clear here : why trying to englobe something in an other parametre ? Is it nos easier just to consider the size, or even more, if you want to go that far : the arm size ? Anyhow, while I respect your opinion, I think you are wrong. And I am 5 foot 2 tall.... (or 5 foot 3, I never known, conversions are strange and I am from a metre system country...)
+Grégory Fleury I'm sorry I made you so angry. I think you must have misunderstood a lot of what I said. Matt makes some good points, but misses several very important things. Hence my video. It is of course your right to disagree with me, but if you are going to suggest that bigger people don't tend to have longer reach than smaller people I think youre going to have to come up with actual evidence. Yes short heavy people don't, but in general if we are comparing people of a similar level of fitness, bigger people are... well... bigger. Anyway, I don't really want to get in an argument with you as you clearly feel very strongly about this, so thanks for your comments.
9 років тому
EnglishMartialArts Hey, it is me who is sorry if I didn't made me myself clear. Written language may be very difficult to "read" and English is not my primary language. I am not angry at all. I simply use the words I know. (and tend to be straight with them because when I don't, I am often not understood) About evidence, well, let's put it that way ; the one who is making the claim is the one who must provide evidence, and not the contrary. Your claim is that you find heavier people will have more reach in general, and while I don't strongly disagree with you, I find that is an imprecise way to catalogue things and that the actual initial parametre should be used instead (reach itself, or size as a compromise...) to be more fair. If you find me proof supporting your claim that wheight is enough and better than reach, then I have no problem with that ! Anyhow, I stay on my position about the historical and martial words that are the most important things in HEMA. And of course you have the right not to argue with me, and I don't hold any grudge with you whatsoever. I am not angry, because if I was I would not have answered your video. Take care.
+Grégory Fleury I took six professional fighters and looked at their stats. I didn't discount any of them due to them not fitting with what I thought I might find. I realise this is not a scientific method, but I am only looking to see if there is a correlation. Here is what I found. Three "Heavy" fighters. Josh Barnett 252lb Reach 78”Travis Browne 236.5lb Reach 79”Daniel Cormier 205lbs Reach 72.5” Three Lighter Fighters Demetrious Johnson 124.5lbs Reach 66”Brad Pickett 138lbs Reach 68”Yves Jabouin135.5lbs Reach 68” So whilst it isn't a scientific method, we can say that when people are in shape and training hard for a type of combat sport there is a correlation between weight and reach. It isn't perfect but it is there. However that is not the real issue. The real issue is that HEMA includes grappling techniques, and anyone that says weight isn't an issue in grappling is demonstrably wrong.
9 років тому+1
EnglishMartialArts I completely agree with you about close quarter fighting. About reach, what I don't understand is why not use the reach category? Is there a problem with that forcing the weight to be taken account to emulate reach when reach could be used in the first place? That said while acknowledging your numbers of course.
+Grégory Fleury Well it's going to be quite a difficult calculation to work out the combination of reach and/or length. My personal favourite idea is to sometimes split people by weight, sometimes by reach, and sometimes not at all.
I will say this all HEMA practitioners and not meaning any offence to them because I want to learn also but none of you are warriors and no matter how skilled you all are none would really survive in a war scenario, because in battle warriors and soldiers go up against all kinds of builds and skill levels and it is the skill and a pinch of luck that wins the day in an actual fight to the death. so every sport with weight classes aren't really true tests of skill for the participants but in a sport scenario weight classes and skill classes will even the field
GamingNoobs101 You wrote that it doesn't matter how skilled one is. However if, as you say, skill and luck wins a fight, then clearly it does matter how skilled one is.
yh Just realised that, yh skill can come iinto and plays a big part as does luck, what I poorly tried to say was that HEMA practitioners are not soldiers or warriors and would not survive in fights to the death
@@slipper329this is such an ignorant comment on so many levels. Several of the members of the hema club im in are indeed military or exmilitary and have real experience on battle fields. That isn't uncommon either. A good portion of hema practitioners have a lot of experience in other martial arts and a lot are "real warriors" Your argument is stupid.
You keep saying "weight". I actually tend to disagree with you here. Having been a wrestler technique is about 70% of the grappling and the rest strength and stamina. While a larger opponent is more difficult to move, unless they're stronger the advantage isn't extremely significant especially with weapons involved. A stronger and larger opponent is still a problem but it's also problem that people should learn to overcome. I'd also like to mention that if you take a look at the strength of professional fighters which is quite high, they aren't as large as many bodybuilders or other meathead types. Reason being is that speed is as important as strength and with a weapon I would argue slightly more important. Anderson Silva seems like a decent example to me, even with whatever substances he took he was not exceptionally strong or large looking but he was explosive and fast. F = MA :)
Strength is a huge factor in every martial art.
brilliantly articulated. I wrestled for several years and now I teach Japanese JuJutsu. I also dabble in multiple weapons, and I think you've exactly nailed the missing bits of Matt's video. I think both you and Matt are brilliant, but in this particular case I think you've got the edge, particularly when you're looking at organization wide standards like HEMA will want for the future. Thanks for the great vids and the return of gentlemanly discourse to UA-cam. So rare to see people discuss and disagree in a civilized way, and you gents are a great example.
+Nathan Welsh Thank you, that's very kind of you to say so. Matt and I are good friends, but sometimes disagree on things as we have very different backgrounds. Of course he has 75000 more subscribers than me too, but that's just a matter of time :D
I'm all up for mixing up things, this goes for weight classes as well. Maybe some tournaments would have weight classes, and some not. Doing everything always in the same way limits perspective. HEMA is in my eyes studying and mixing ground filled with pioneer spirit, which is one reason i'm not too hot for unification of it. Less there are established rules across board the better.
And pitting masters of each weight class against each of other from time to time might wield interesting results, just as you say.
As for strength:
Strength is basis for speed, which is reason pretty much every speed/power athlete does strength training: cleans, squats and so on. In that sense i can't see any reason why strength wouldn't be important aspect of even weapon based martial arts. Strong legs enables one to have fast legs, and i'm sure same goes for hands as well even if it's not as obvious. Yes, for random sword swinger skill-work is much more essential because he's probably lacking it in huge amount, but if one wises to pursuit HEMA in professional sense (=trying to maximize one's gainz) he should put focus also in developing strength as well as endurance. And calves.
And i'm not meaning that one should undergo bodybuilding routines or gain powerlifter's strength levels (which mostly are excessive for track and field athletes), which might have totally opposite result on speed. But training which enables improvements in speed.
+Second247 Exactly!
+Second247 Thank you, I came down here to say something similar. I'm always annoyed by the false dichotomy that speed and strength are different, or that being big and strong somehow makes you slower.
Skill, size, weight, agility, reach (arms, legs, weapon), weapon and/or armor are all tools to employ on HEMA fights.
As Matt pointed, when melee is involved, skill can be more relevant than weight, for example. But it is all about the match context, again.
If my opponent have more reach, that is an advantage. But if I use a shield (and I'm skilled with it) we are eve again.
On each match, you need take all advantages/disadvantages on place (from you and opponent) and set up your *strategy*.
Personally, I avoid to be intimidated by a bigger guy (I am short) - or even a more skilled one - focusing myself *only on his weakness*: "what this guy doesn't have?", and so I try make a plan to put my own advantages against these weak spots.
love it when you two converse via those videos :D
I've never been in a situation in HEMA where I've done everything right but my opponent beat me anyway because they were just bigger than me. Even when it comes to grappling (in HEMA, with weapons) when I've lost, it has always been because I didn't think fast enough, or because I messed up a technique, or because my opponent was faster and smarter than me and knew how to counter what I was doing. I can't think of a single instance where a point was won through either me or my opponent trying to power through with strength or weight. Reach is definitely more of an advantage, but again, I've never been in a situation where I've done everything right but still lost out to reach. I can always list a bunch of reasons I lost before I start to get to reach. I'm 5'10'' and about 70kg, so a lot of my opponents are taller than me, and most of them are heavier than me.
My opinions on this matter are VERY complex, as I am a bit of a "gym rat" and also a fencer. However, I have done my best to simplify them down into a short, quickly readable comment. Suffice to say: If you can get stronger, get stronger, if you can get faster, get faster, if you can become more skilled, become more skilled. Neglect nothing.
If you are both skilled and strong, you won't need to answer this question. You will simply know that you are the best you can be, and if you are defeated because of something that was beyond your control, like reach, then so be it. It was no fault of your own.
I covered this in my responce to skall but one of the reasons we don't have weight groups in HEMA is that the talent pool simply isn't big enough at the moment.
If only 10 people enter a tournament splitting them up in to weight groups would mean some people would win just by turning up.
There are also too few huge guys in HEMA who also have elite level skill for it to really matter at the moment.
+Jim Giant For reference the Eggleton Cup at Fightcamp this year had 51 entrants.
Bruce Lee talked and wrote quite a bit about "attributes." I think he would suggest that there are a number of them that could decide a fight in various contexts. Skill and reach are definitely near the top of that list, as is conditioning (i.e. The ability to keep fighting skillfully after a bit of a workout.) You can also be better, taller, faster, and more comely and still have a bad bout.
Yeah, I also think Height should be the measure rather than Weight.
Good points actually. Anyway a lot of fighters says that strength (or rather muscle mass) slows you down. Never happened to me personally (yes I do strength exercises, but also I work a lot on my speed as well), but a lot of MA instructors told me about their students becoming slower after taking strength training, so its a dangerous game to play. Speed in (weapon based) martial arts is in my opinion more important than mass and strength.
I can say from my experience with Messer that weight and size are not unimportant. There are many things you can or can't do if you're smaller or bigger. The key is to know that and apply the right tactics. I would consider this skill.
I am more inclined to agree with you over Matt on this one. More often than not, you can compensate lack of weight with your blade skill, until he comes to grapple. Then, more often than not, raw strength is what is gonna bring you out on top.
+Matthew “Arkhane” Brown Raw strength or grappling skill and the state/body positions of the fighters when the close happens? I would think that if someone has an advantage over you because of superior positioning, timing, or technique, then strength is at best a buffer to allow you to resist, if you able to do so at all.
I find the argument of skill vs size and strength/weight to be to broad categorization for the very complex weapon systems/martial arts we are learning, reviving and teaching
Very very interesting. Really like the pool system.
5 years late but my 2 cents: my uncle and I used to train together (weight lifting/bodybuilding). I also trained in amateur boxing, he did not, although he knew how to 'throw a punch', for want of a better word. I have had approx 80 amateur fights. He was 6ft tall, approx 200lbs. I am 5'8" on a good day, and weighed approx 140lbs. When we would wrestle/spar messing around, he had no problems in subduing me. I was quicker to be fair, but he was just so much bigger and stronger that any skill I had (which wasn't much anyway lol), was no match for him. Even if I landed a blow it had little effect, yet when he landed one it would knock me into next week! I think you have to be an extremely well rounded and highly trained combatant in order to even out the height/weight/reach advantage. And this is against an untrained opponent. Never mind an equally well trained one who is much bigger. Only my opinion folks, I'm not saying it isn't possible, just very unlikely.
I agree, that there should be an Open class, anyone, any size, any gender. A chance just to prove you are the best fighter in that group. Weight classes would also help while people are learning and coming up to speed. However, my 13 year old son still gets good hits on me, even though he is much smaller 8) he is also sneaky.
Yes its a factor but it should not be a question on setting up competition.
Tournaments should be about striving for excellence so if you go against weight or reach advantage you should adapt and learn to overcome it. The highest goal is not winning meaningless fights but pushing yourself and learning.
Maybe a not yet tested technique is just the thing you need to overcome it?
That the sword is a great equalizer you can invest time in skill instead of bulk.
so I am 5'9" 250 lbs, and you want me to fight a 6'5" 250 lbs on the basis that we have similar reach? My total reach (measured from middle finger to middle finger across the shoulders and back) is about 72" which 3 inches total more than my height, how much more reach is someone 77" tall going to have? My only hope is to get beyond is reach and then get inside (way inside), do my damage and get out again or grapple. Which takes skill, reach is far more important in this context and even more so is skill # scholagladiatora,
I've watched the video but haven't read through all the comments to see if this has been brought up already, but the matter of reach in HEMA is different than in unarmed martial arts. Assuming equal-sized swords both fencers will always be in reach of each others' hands and arms at the same time, and a good cut to the extremities can incapacitate the opponent. Now, since moving hands are a difficult target this doesn't remove the advantage of reach altogether but I still think it's less severe than in unarmed fighting.
Some tournaments, such as those run by Blood & Iron, prohibit hand strikes, and most provide fewer points for limb strikes.
Well said.
I've actually seen the difference that reach can make. A while ago, before i really got started training, i was sparring with a guy who was significantly more skilled than i was. When we started, he had a 40in (102cm) longsword amd i had a 28in (71cm) arming sword. He beat me in five consecutive exchanges. Then we switched weapons and went again. This time, i beat him five times, and he only beat me twice (we were doing best-of-5 sets). So reach alone can be a deciding factor in a duel if there is enough difference, even trumping skill's influence.
This is a very informative video I teach sport martial arts and I am of the opinion size and weight do count a skilled lighter person could defeat a bigger, stronger person. However, it would take allot longer its simple physics if someone has a bigger mass than you do; it will be more difficult to move that person when you hit them. The far bigger, stronger guy could simply grab you and toss you in the street no matter how skilled you are, considering a force multiplier is a must, a well hidden couple of snooker balls in a sock, a palm sized weighted bar. I don't know everything about fighting I am hear to learn and improve on my own skills I don't care where something comes from, as long as it can help you to defend yourself well.
Presumably levels of athleticism, such are being naturally quicker, could also be a difference maker between fighters at the same weight, as well as skill.
Speed vs acceleration
Mass vs force
Force exerted
Force impacted
All these things and several more equations factor in.
Trying to limit it to one thing gave someone else the win in a fight is rather rudimentary analysis.
We all need to take in account many things other than just strength and skill.
If skill trumps everything, then there would be no weight classes or divisions. 2 opponents of relatively equal skill, the man with greater physical attributes will always have the advantage. An agressive Chihuahua will still get eaten by a mild tempered pit bull if it pisses it off. When I was training for MMA we had a couple of powerlifters/bodybuilders come in to train with us. They didn't have much skill but because they were so damn big and strong they would pull right out of submissions attempts. Trying to take them down was difficult. And when they hit you or grabbed you then you felt it even if they had good technique or not. The laws of physics don't cease to exist just because you have a high level of technical skill. The more mass you have the more potential force you can generate.
Speed is a intresting factor. If i fight with sombody who is larger and stronger, I don´t want to Close in. Fast "hit and run" attacks might serve me better.
+Exploatores They would indeed, and that's the tack I've always taken when fighting people with much longer reach than me. But it doesn't always work as stronger people tend to be able to move their sword around faster than less strong people, and strength often goes alongside size.
Again it's only one aspect, but it is certainly an important one I'd say.
Or tempt them into the first hit, then use their strength to power the repost.
And I would argue that fighting to subdue without killing requires more skill than just fighting to kill.
Discipline is part of skill.
Here's a novel concept: instead of using weight classes, what would you think of setting "reach classes" for competition in HEMA?
Leg length and torso length both influence reach, so how would you measure it?
It seems fairly simple to me;
1. Give the subject a sword of a measured standard length.
2. On a marked surface make him lunge on specific set of Technics, lets say a simple cut and a simple lounge, and ask the participant to stop when he feels he has reached full length (of course with somebody watching to make sure it is fairly measured)
3. Put the 0 at the place the hill of a man of 1.75 or a woman of 1.65 (Human average for each gender)
4. Use your new found units, Cut and point Reach
It might sound complicated, but once tested it would probably turn out extremely simple. All you would really need to do make the actual tested Technics more refined, it should take more that a few hours, exaggerating, to come up with something that could serve the propose, and then test run it for fails.
You should put the videos you mention in the description.
Instead of Weight, shouldn't we go for something more like height or reach class?
+Gil gamesh POssibly, but that's only the best option is we completely remove grappling, and that would be a real shame.
+EnglishMartialArts I was thinking for discipline like steel sabre, where grappling seems unwelcomed. Because HEMA is really diverse, we should go on a case by case basis for each discipline.
+Gil gamesh I see what you mean, but Matt was using military sabre when he grappled in the recent competition at Fightcamp. And even if we accept that grappling is not allowed then we are effectively removing half of the repertoire of backsword technques from the compeition as closing is much more common. It would risk moving us down the line of simply recreating classical fencing, and that can't be a good thing right?
+EnglishMartialArts Oh, yes, you are right. My ignorance is showing, didn't thought about backsword in steel sabre. ^^ We would certainly not want to recreate classical Fencing, that's for sure.
+Gil gamesh Eventially I suspect different disciplines will have their own competitions, but for now it's quite nice to mix them up and see backsword against sabre against sidesword against cutlass etc.
Interesting topic. I Think it'll work and make things fairer but at 5'7 and 17st where would I fit? Short fatties weight? :)
+Liam H At 5'7" and 17st I don't think you'll fit many places! **insert comedy cymbals here** :D
This is true! Rugby both running and Wheelchair rugby league has made me an odd shape!
+Liam H I'm guessing you're not a back then?
Was a scrum-half but now a centre/wing in the wheeled game. Fencing (sports) wise it was always Sabre for me - wish I'd known about this stuff earlier!
Sir, size and weight do become important because you are not fighting "for real". If you were really following through on your attacks a bigger man crippled on the first attack does not come back equally strong in succeeding attacks. It would not make as much difference if a leg were really cut, or an arm really stabbed. Also your opponent would be weakening throughout the rest of the encounter due to blood loss. I think Matt still sees it as a real fight instead of a match, which would speak volumes for his mind set ( a very real competitor), rather than his ability to recognize an advantage that is obvious. I do enjoy your channel, I was referred to it from Matt's. Thank-you, Dante.
+100dfrost That is a very interesting thought, and one that deserves a better reply than a simple response here. I'll record a video on my thoughts. "Should we be treating HEMA tournaments as real fights?"
+EnglishMartialArts Sir, thank-you. I've given it more thought, and maybe Matt also does not want to over burden HEMA matches with even more rules. Realism vs. usefulness seems a very fine line to walk. Your sport is rapidly, at least in Briton, growing. Evolution is inevitable, but lets hope it does not go the way of fencing. Again, thank-you, Dante.
+100dfrost I think Matt truly believes that size plays no real part and that skill is all that matters. But it's very easy for him to say that as a 6' tall, fit and healthy man.
+EnglishMartialArts Sir, well you know him. I'm reminded of a story from the Old West where a small man and a large man were going to engage in a gunfight. The large man did not think it was fair as the small man would be shooting at a larger target. The small man told the bartender to chalk out a man of his size on the large man, and everything outside of the lines would not count. Thank-you, Dante.
Just a thought... Why try to make the fight fair and the fighters to be as equal as possible? Does this happen in a real life? Did that happen on battle fields? It is a sport not a fight. If there is a guy who is huge and skilled at the same time, why not let him fight multiple opponents? (Safety gear involved) Thus we add another parameter into the equation: inteligence or tactical thinking. I think there is no need for the weapons to be matched either. When do you chose your opponent on a battle field, do you look for a guy with exactly the same weapon?
+Pavel Musiol If we're sparring, or just having fun then why not indeed! We do things like that in my club and it is a lot of fun. All I was attempting to say was that dismissing weight/size as unimportant is silly.
I got that, and thanks for your videos by the way, I really enjoy them. I just got the idea that HEMA stuff is evolving and you guys are trying to make up the rules for your tournaments. Would not it make it more fun to watch-and to compete-if you got rid of that mindset that all the conditions must be always equal? Huge, possibly armoured bloke againts two smaller, lightly armed opponents could make for a challenging fight.
+Pavel Musiol In day to day HEMA absolutely. I love to do asymetrical sparring in my club. 2 v 1, different weapons facing each other, team melees with differnt weapons/rules per team etc. But in competition, if we are going to do it at all, it needs to be fair, and that means acknowledging that weight and size/strength do indeed play a part.
+EnglishMartialArts Thank you for the video. It only needs to be fair to a given value of fair. if you take the example of non contact sports like swimming or tennis the rules are kept consistent but your relative height, density, size of lung, and any other genetic advantage are not adjusted for. And if, as competitions in HEMA grow and mature, the tall and heavy disproportionately win then we'll have learnt something important about HEMA and can do something about it then.
if skill isn't one of the most important factors, why study? Just eat a lot and workout.
Martial arts gives you a chance, where you would no chance.
I'm leaning towards the opinion of never integrating weight classes into hema. I think it's a slippery slope towards sport orientated combat, and draws attention away from the reality of historical combat training.
Frankly i don´t see much of a use for weight categories. We have guys half my weight in the club and they know they will get massacred if i get in - so they stay away. We also have a Orang Utan who refuses to leave Longoint and will jump out of range constantly so yeah fully agree REACH is where its at.
+Shikami42 It seems from what you're saying that in both of these examples the bigger guy has the advantage?
+EnglishMartialArts Nah, not really. You pay for your muscle mass. You use more energy, you have more bulk. I personally have to train endurance constantly. The fights with our lighter guys are just fine. The orang utan is 2.10 meters and weighs 90 kg. So basically he is one of the light guys. Putting people in weight categories would only remove people that could really do something in the close game. Reach is not at all correlated to mass, even with athletes. Think aethiopian runners etc.
+EnglishMartialArts Yet i will agree dagger, wrestling and the like make a long range game extremely difficult to achieve. So yeah, there might be a point to weight classes there. Auerswald states that in sportive wrestling the stronger wrestler is always in an advantage, not though in combative wrestling. So we could allow serverly dangerous techniques as an alternative to weight classes there :)
+Shikami42 Oh it's certainly not an exact match, but there is definitely a correlation. Lightweights are shorter and less reach than heavyweights as a general rule. Yes there are exceptions, but that will always be the case.
+Shikami42 Lets just do that. Every tournament is to the death, and then we can take an average of the body type of the survivors! :D
My opinion echoes that of a couple other posters, but I figured I'd give it a go anyway. See what you think of my argument.
Since HEMA is a scholarly inquiry into the fighting methods of the past, and not a game (combat sport), and the techniques that it taught had to be applied in many situations, always regardless of the sizes, reaches, or weights involved, there should be no physical distinction between competitors in a tournament. The same goes for gender. Fairness is not a word that need be considered. If you want to run a "Sportive Longsword Tournament" or "Sportive Rapier, Sabre, and Messer Tournament," then go ahead, but be sure to call it what it is, and not a HEMA tournament. To do anything else seems to me a dishonest use of the word.
+45calibermedic Firstly I'm still not 100% convinced on the use of tournaments in HEMA anyway, but as long as we don't allow them to become the single ultimate focus for training then thery have a use. But if we take away the possibility of ever winning from a group of people then, for them at least, they lose what utility they once had.
I think to be honest I need to bite the bullet and do a video on tournaments in HEMA...
+EnglishMartialArts As someone who is “HEMA curious”, I think this is a time when you all need to be careful to not elide the word “tournament”. The question isn’t whether HEMA needs weight classes but whether HEMA tournaments need weight classes. That’s clear to people who are already in HEMA, but-I think-tends to reinforce a misnomer among those outside HEMA or just learning about it that HEMA = tournaments.
+EnglishMartialArts I see your point, and agree with you for the most part, but I think that it is an exaggeration that not having weight classes or size/reach divisions removes the possibility of ever winning from some people. I can say confidently that Agrippa would take issue with someone claiming greater strength to be a decisive advantage (although I am sure that he would recognize the ability of greater reach to help one wound an opponent from greater range), and Silver, while rightly pointing out the advantage of greater reach, only calls it advantageous. To provide some context for what he means by having the advantage, he says that the short sword has the advantage over the rapier, but goes on to painstakingly explain the danger involved in opposing the rapier with a short sword and the skill needed to overcome a skilled rapier user. It would seem that a superior body is only truly an advantage in the very highest levels of fighting skill, and that there is plenty of wiggle room for us, still but babes in terms of fencing knowledge, to compete in physically uneven matchups. Finally, though I know that it is not true for most of us (if it is true for any of us at all, which I doubt), but how many manuals say that if techniques are executed perfectly, there will be no need at all to grapple? I can think of a few. Thanks for taking the time to talk about this with us!
First, I don't understand squat of what you are saying : you say that you agree with Matt, on every points, but you say then that he is wrong on every points. You say that he is right saying wheight classes on HEMA is a bad thing, but then you say that you thing it is a good thing.
Let me put it this way :
In HEMA there is a "H". like "Historical". and there is a "M", like "MARTIAL".
The goal of HEMA is not to be fair or to be more efficient or anything. The only goal is to reproduce HISTORICAL ways of killing people.
Wheight doesn't matter. You don't "not" provoke someone in duel because he is heavier than you. Or stronger, or even taller. This is ridiculous.
HEMA is not an olympic game discipline where every thing must be fair to the challengers. It is a way to study historical combats and fights and how they killed each others.
And small guys killed big guys. Big guys killed small guys. Girls killed boys and boys killed girls (even though the society through time didn't set easy standards for this last point)
This is HEMA you are talking about. Not MMA or anything else. HEMA.
Remove the "H" of your discipline and I may follow you, even though there is still the Martial word which could be taken in it's lightened sense.
But with a "H" in your discipline, you are simply wrong on all accord. It is important to reproduce historical situations and possibilities, with health and safety limitations of course. (please don't go that way in your counter argumentation... please...)
And as far as we have seen, a lot of small people fought big people and for what it's worth, it must not be ignored.
If you do so, you'll reproduce the EXACT pattern of 1800-1900 martial arts, where it became more and more a sport and less and less a real martial art.
And our grand childrens will have to re-create HEMA from the begining like we did those last decades.
One last touch : you say that wheight is "often" or "in genral" reach. This is wrong. A lot of small people going into martial arts are people with intiial wheight that is high. And often, small people have heavy muscular mass when tall people have light muscular mass (relative mass, not absolute, we agree on that). I know a lot of bunch of people that are small but that have the same calf as yours, one in perticular has twice size as yours. They are heavy, fast, strong but shrot.
If and I say If the postulate of creating categories is true, then the categories must not be considered in wheight but in size. Let's be clear here : why trying to englobe something in an other parametre ? Is it nos easier just to consider the size, or even more, if you want to go that far : the arm size ?
Anyhow, while I respect your opinion, I think you are wrong.
And I am 5 foot 2 tall.... (or 5 foot 3, I never known, conversions are strange and I am from a metre system country...)
+Grégory Fleury I'm sorry I made you so angry. I think you must have misunderstood a lot of what I said. Matt makes some good points, but misses several very important things. Hence my video.
It is of course your right to disagree with me, but if you are going to suggest that bigger people don't tend to have longer reach than smaller people I think youre going to have to come up with actual evidence. Yes short heavy people don't, but in general if we are comparing people of a similar level of fitness, bigger people are... well... bigger.
Anyway, I don't really want to get in an argument with you as you clearly feel very strongly about this, so thanks for your comments.
EnglishMartialArts Hey, it is me who is sorry if I didn't made me myself clear. Written language may be very difficult to "read" and English is not my primary language. I am not angry at all. I simply use the words I know. (and tend to be straight with them because when I don't, I am often not understood)
About evidence, well, let's put it that way ; the one who is making the claim is the one who must provide evidence, and not the contrary.
Your claim is that you find heavier people will have more reach in general, and while I don't strongly disagree with you, I find that is an imprecise way to catalogue things and that the actual initial parametre should be used instead (reach itself, or size as a compromise...) to be more fair.
If you find me proof supporting your claim that wheight is enough and better than reach, then I have no problem with that !
Anyhow, I stay on my position about the historical and martial words that are the most important things in HEMA.
And of course you have the right not to argue with me, and I don't hold any grudge with you whatsoever.
I am not angry, because if I was I would not have answered your video.
Take care.
+Grégory Fleury I took six professional fighters and looked at their stats. I didn't discount any of them due to them not fitting with what I thought I might find. I realise this is not a scientific method, but I am only looking to see if there is a correlation. Here is what I found.
Three "Heavy" fighters.
Josh Barnett 252lb Reach 78”Travis Browne 236.5lb Reach 79”Daniel Cormier 205lbs Reach 72.5”
Three Lighter Fighters
Demetrious Johnson 124.5lbs Reach 66”Brad Pickett 138lbs Reach 68”Yves Jabouin135.5lbs Reach 68”
So whilst it isn't a scientific method, we can say that when people are in shape and training hard for a type of combat sport there is a correlation between weight and reach. It isn't perfect but it is there.
However that is not the real issue. The real issue is that HEMA includes grappling techniques, and anyone that says weight isn't an issue in grappling is demonstrably wrong.
EnglishMartialArts I completely agree with you about close quarter fighting.
About reach, what I don't understand is why not use the reach category? Is there a problem with that forcing the weight to be taken account to emulate reach when reach could be used in the first place?
That said while acknowledging your numbers of course.
+Grégory Fleury Well it's going to be quite a difficult calculation to work out the combination of reach and/or length. My personal favourite idea is to sometimes split people by weight, sometimes by reach, and sometimes not at all.
khabib nurmagomedov vs untrained gorilla
I will say this all HEMA practitioners and not meaning any offence to them because I want to learn also but none of you are warriors and no matter how skilled you all are none would really survive in a war scenario, because in battle warriors and soldiers go up against all kinds of builds and skill levels and it is the skill and a pinch of luck that wins the day in an actual fight to the death. so every sport with weight classes aren't really true tests of skill for the participants but in a sport scenario weight classes and skill classes will even the field
GamingNoobs101 You wrote that it doesn't matter how skilled one is. However if, as you say, skill and luck wins a fight, then clearly it does matter how skilled one is.
yh Just realised that, yh skill can come iinto and plays a big part as does luck, what I poorly tried to say was that HEMA practitioners are not soldiers or warriors and would not survive in fights to the death
@@slipper329this is such an ignorant comment on so many levels. Several of the members of the hema club im in are indeed military or exmilitary and have real experience on battle fields. That isn't uncommon either. A good portion of hema practitioners have a lot of experience in other martial arts and a lot are "real warriors"
Your argument is stupid.
You keep saying "weight". I actually tend to disagree with you here. Having been a wrestler technique is about 70% of the grappling and the rest strength and stamina. While a larger opponent is more difficult to move, unless they're stronger the advantage isn't extremely significant especially with weapons involved. A stronger and larger opponent is still a problem but it's also problem that people should learn to overcome. I'd also like to mention that if you take a look at the strength of professional fighters which is quite high, they aren't as large as many bodybuilders or other meathead types. Reason being is that speed is as important as strength and with a weapon I would argue slightly more important. Anderson Silva seems like a decent example to me, even with whatever substances he took he was not exceptionally strong or large looking but he was explosive and fast. F = MA :)