Speed and Agility vs. Brute Strength

Started by Rogue Jedi4 pages

Originally posted by Strangelove
more often than not.
depends on many factors.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
depends on many factors.
I bet if you took every instance of brute force vs. agility, with no extenuating circumstances, agility would have more in the "win" column.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I bet if you took every instance of brute force vs. agility, with no extenuating circumstances, agility would have more in the "win" column.
probably.

Originally posted by Strangelove
I bet if you took every instance of brute force vs. agility, with no extenuating circumstances, agility would have more in the "win" column.

I'd have to disagree with that.

I mean , we are talking about humans right? Not like...Spiderman or anything.

yes, no super powers.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Which of the two would you rather have in a fight to the death?
In wrestling (real wrestling, not the WWE crap) there's a delicate balance between strength, and speed. Usually, if you're strong, you can deal a lot of damage to an opponent. However, speed can often outwit the slower person. However, speed can only get you so far. Same with strength. The point I'm trying to make here is that if a super strong guy were to fight a super fast guy, it'd be extremely difficult for either to gain an advantage. What you need is someone who possesses a balance of both qualities.

However, in boxing, it's much mroe complex. Joe Frasier and Muhammad Ali, who best represent power and speed respectively, have faced off three times. Each fight has been extremely close, and each have victories ove rthe other. Just last week, Roy Jones Jr. (power) be Tito (speed) by decision.

So maybe there's no real advantage to having speed over strength, or vice versa. Rather, the knowqledge of how to use the aforementioned attribute.

Speed and agility.

I mean, Brutte stregnth may be unorthodoxed but the Best wrestler ever can easily take down the fastest martial artist if the wrestler had better technique than the Martial artist.

It depends, alright? No need to make a huge debate over it 😛

Originally posted by JacopeX
I mean, Brutte stregnth may be unorthodoxed but the Best wrestler ever can easily take down the fastest martial artist if the wrestler had better technique than the Martial artist.

True. Skill would obviously trump either one.

Also, Kok has a nice point about needing both.

I think people are forgetting one key thing about speed. No human is so blindingly fast that he or she can simply evade every attack thrown at him or her. In all honesty, the speed disparity between two humans isn't usually that great. However, people do vary greatly in strength. It's actually quite easy to overpower someone who is weaker than you are. Also, the speedy fellow pretty much can't slip up at all in a fight. One wrong move and the stronger guy can pretty much end it. The speedy guy is actually in more danger when he attacks than the guy he is attacking is in.

I'd go with the strength.

Speed and Agility hands down.

If your fast enough you can dodge the attacks and throw out your own. though it wont be REALLY strong eventuall the weight of the minor blows will take a toll on the Brute Str guy and he will topple. Kinda like Diablo 2. diablo couldnt hit my guy but i didnt do much dmg. but he never hit me and about 5 minutes later i killed him ^_^

Odds are the guy with brute strength will tire faster.

True as well. He keepts throwing those hard punches or what ever in a futile manner, yes he will tire before the Speed and Agility guy since he obviously has more stamina

Mhm....Jason Bourne versus Ivan Drago, Bourne pwns.

Lol. Pretty much.

speed an agility.

to get more indepth with it you have to consider smarts too. If the Brute has Strategy he could win.

Obviously depends on the levels of brute strength or agility one would have.

[edit] Though Itzak is of course right, the two are closely related.

Strength pretty much directly translates into speed.

But I guess you are thinking in simple Spider-Man vs. Juggernaut terms.

Originally posted by Itzak
Maybe the amount of force, but it wouldn't be as effective. Think for a second; the body is made of protective muscles and bones working together. If a strong but slow punch hits the body, the force is absorbed into those muscles and bones. If an accurate and quick punch with the same amount of force is delivered to the body it penetrates the muscles and bones that are protecting it and the force is sent through the nervous system and to the brain. If the blow has enough force in it it could overload the nervous system and shut it down.

Shut the nervous system downI call B.S.

To accomplish what are describing, you could punch them in the spine hard enough to effect the Spinal cord, punch them in the throat, or strike other softer tissues that cause sever adverse affects to obtain the goal of disabling someone, NOT shutting down the nervous system. 😐

lol, in order to shutdown the nervous system, you'd have to put some sort of substance that interacted with neuronic cell site receptors. We are talking neurotoxins. 😐 I could understand overloading the nervous system...or, more to the point, overWORKING the nervous system. (I.E. Overtraining.)

What YOU are actually looking for is the surface area of the object delivering the blow, the mass of the object delivering the blow, and velocity on impact (the latter two combine to form...CAPTAIN PLANET!...wait. wait...wrong shit. I mean "inertia".) You know, force per unit area. THAT is what you really mean.

It's not like Fist of the North Star. You can't punch or touch several places and it makes someone's head explode. It's not like kun fu panda, either. You can't use paralyzing palm techniques. That's a crock of crap. Post one shred of evidence that punching a man two inches above and one inch left of his heart, and two finger punching 2 inches left of his spleen causes him to collapse and vomit uncontrollable (that's an example and it is NOT to be taken as representative of "pressure point techniques". Sure, pressure points exist...but not like you're describing.

You may want to study neurology instead of kinesiology. Kinesiology is the study of the body's motion and the tissues involved in that happening...hence the "kinetic" portion of the word. Also, what is studied in kinesiology is not what you're talking about, either. That's more like martial arts. I suspect that you heard this word in the gym and you're not actually studying it. (Edit - wow...this last line was really dick. I'm leaving it in hear to show you how pissy I was being. You're a smart fella when it comes to the body...that last comment was out of line)

And, no RJ, I didn't over think this. I consider this information to be common knowledge and I didn't have to think about jack shit. We all learned in elementary school that a spider's venom paralyzes a bug when it bites it because of its neurotoxic venom (I, of course, learned more about neurotoxins than just grade school exposure, but you get the point.)

To answer your question, neither of the choices is acceptable. As Bruce Lee taught, strength, speed, efficiency, technique, etc. are all part of the martial art pie. I'll take all three and then some technique, thank you. They are complementary pieces of the same pie. One without the other is incomplete.

Why can't someone be very strong, very fast, very agile, AND have great technique?

I'll say this: being fast and agile means jack shit if you can't generate enough force to knock someone out or do some damage. I've sparred with those types before (usually tae kwon do types. 😐 )

Edit- I just read over what I posted. Man, I'm a dick. Sorry about that Iztak. You is good people. I'll edit my post to read better...and not so dick.

Double edit- I left the pissy stuff in there...but underlined it to show that I wanted to eliminate it. Sorry for being such a dick to a cool person.

Triple edit - I'm quite sure Bruceskywalker could back me up on the martial arts and force per unit area things I was talking about...he knows even more about martial arts than I do.

You're a Richard haermm