Meanwhile, somewhere back on page 3.
Quote:
Me
No bs here, just want to know, as I did before why you think that a bigger person's rate of movement is lower, and now I' d like to know esp why this applies esp to direct lateral striking...
When you have time, cheers.
Quote:
Originally posted by blooming lotus
not rate, range. But on speed , if you look at the science of muscle fibes and what capacities and characteristics they posses, you will understand my point
Thanks for your time. :rolleyes:
Anyway, to the growed up posters on this thread (Toby, Icewater etc), thanks for your detailed explanations.
But all of these biologically correct details aside (the summary of which is that bigger people are naturally going to have a predisposition to be a little slower) I think we can safely say that among trained people, size is usually gong to be an advantageous factor.
Admittedly, the hypothesis that 'all other things being equal' is an impossibility itself, as all other things will probably not be equal, in a realistic framework in many situations, all variables taken into account, bigger people are going to kick proportionally more ass than scrunties... er shortarses... er, fanatic midget ozzie strippers with Napoleon Complex... er, smaller people.
This is, as Ego pointed out, even more likely in a ring situation. This is because outside there are more and less-controlled variables to take into account, so Ego's choice of boxing was rather one-sided (if you forgive the pun) as there are a lot more ring sports where attacks are permitted from all sides.
And apart form all that, the original question was:
Quote:
no matter how much weigfht they lift, how strong they are or mascular this will not mean they have a stronger punch or can manhandle you in the clinch. I think size does matter
which is although frankly, a **** silly question I think I'd be right in saying that not even Ass Lotus would agree.
END OF THREAD
but since it's caught the ghey...
Quote:
Originally posted by blooming lotus
PhD (PRELIMINARY)
A COURSE OF SUPERVISED RESEARCH PREPARATION
If an applicant does not meet the normal entrance requirements for the PhD program (listed above) they may be permitted to enrol in a PhD (Preliminary) program on the recommendation of the Head of School and with the approval of the Board of Postgraduate Research Studies.
The course of study and research for the PhD (Preliminary) is determined by the Head of School and usually involves a combination of coursework units and research projects over a period of one year full-time and eighteen months part-time...
a PhD Research Proposal (following the Board¡¯s Guidelines).
a statement from the relevant Head of School (of the Master¡¯s degree) which sets out:
the nature, duration and quality of the work already done
the supervisor
status (full or part-time)
the relevance of the work to the proposed PhD thesis
the recommended amount of time credit.
BTW, what you actually have from the above recs Lotus, is ... a research proposal, and ...? If you don't at least have a supervisor, you are not doing a PhD. Sorry to break it to you, I know it's a niggling little piece of bureaucratic red-tapery, but what you have (at best, to be charitable) is a load of 'research' (tho at risk of not sounding charitable, I don't think ranting over an internet forum and reading a couple of books constitutes research in most establishments) which you hope to turn into a PhD... you are not doing a PhD!... are you now honey?
Plus of course, the overriding factor which prevents you from doing one, is that no institutions allow Ass Turnips to do research. Sorry. It's a rule.