Who would win in a fight between.....

i'd say to be fair my motive wasn't to catch people out in a sneaky way but to argue my point against other counter points, which i have done, and i haven't so far seen a case against mine i consider strong enough to change my viewpoint. Now if people revealed evidence of several cases of 11 year old ass beaters, or something i might have to change my stance

 

I'd guess no examples will be forthcoming. However, this is not evidence in either direction unless you have examples of 30 year old non-martial artists beating up 11 year old black belts.

The absence of examples is likely to be because society is not set up to pit such people against each other. For obvious reasons, adults having real fights with children is discouraged. On top of that, the martial disciplines discourage flippant application.

This is just one of those arguments where you have to imagine and answer. The answer you arrive at will never probably never be tested or significant. To change your opinion someone is going to need to persuade you or catch your imagination. If you're already closed minded on the subject, that's not going to happen.

We should be asking ourselves whether our discussing it and our method of discussion has any significance or value.

 

that was the only example that came to mind, strikingly good counter points will be taken into account, infact i was nearly swayed by the fact the kid could strike at vital points, but looking at the whole picture it's still stacked heavily in the man's favour

 

Say we take a thirty year old MIDGET body builder, and a roughly 6 foot 11 year old karate student (I've seen 6 foot 11 year olds before. Okay, only about 3, but I knew them). Then I'd put money on the 11 year old.

What the hell are you apologising for Sheriff? He set the challenge, you responded. Doesn't matter what your motive originally was. Motives can and do change (you only have to watch a generic teen movie with a popular jock and unpopular girl to know that).

 

i'd say that evens the balance somewhat, an interesting fight, and hey, i never denied i was being a jerk, i can go from jerk to all round top bloke and back over breakfast, all part of your balanced nutritious wombat

thinking again, if lord of the rings is anything to go by muscly midgets are hard bastards

 

There are a couple of general principles involved here. Basically you're comparing the value of bodymass and proximity to peak physical age against training and experience.

I'd guess it's just a quesiton of the degree of the difference in value that you are putting on them in your head. You've already hinted that there is case with a less extreme difference in physical development where the training might swing it. What point is that at for you? What is the youngest age and largest body mass difference that would allow a black belt to beat an untrained mature opponent?

 

about 13? i picked 11 because that's below the age your muscles develop, you allmost double in strength between the ages of 12 and 16 (that's straight from a puberty education pamphlet i read a few years ago)

so let's say a 13 year old blackbelt vs a 30 year old powerlifting champion the kid might... MIGHT beat him

bear in mind in most if not all karate classes you do no full contact fighting, in my 2 years of tae kwon do all i learned was that i could use my weight and strength to scare superior grades into losing a point. This worried me as people with greater skill in tae kwon do were losing because i was basically being a brute, so i quit and am looking to join a style with full contact like kickboxing or jeet kune do

 

Fair enough - so all we're really disagreeing on is a couple of years. I can live with that.

 

not so much the years but the muscular development

 

Well, that's like saying how much of an increase (or decrease) does there have to be before we notice the difference?

For example, take the classic electric shock scenario. You're strapped down, and given an electric shock which you barely notice. There are say, 100 levels of shock, level 1 is what you just got, level 100 kills you. You can't tell the difference between level 1 and level 2, or level 2 and level 3, but you can tell the difference between level 1 and 3. At what point do you notice the increase? How big does it have to be?

That's a question I'd like to know the answer to. Only a scientific study will do it for me.

 

I'll get the generator

 

that's why it's done in increments of years rather than weeks, during the growth spurt you might not be able to tell the growth diffrence day to day but you definatly would in say fortnightly checkpoints.

When you have the flu you might be ill one day and not the next, you know you've stopped being ill but there is not a moment where you can pinpoint where you stopped being ill.

All this doesn't change anything exept that i can't say "at 12 and 3 months 5 days would be the minimum age" but i can say "about 13" working by average body development

 

I'm assuming it's in one of the karate styles that you can, for instance in my tae kwon do you could (tae kwon do is korean karate). However that's not the point of this discussion, and if it was it would only be fuel to my cause.

 

:-o

 

yes, tae kwon do IS Korean karate, i had to learn that for my very first grading as part of the "what is tae kwon do" question among it being a military martial art developed by General Choi Hong Hai and so forth.

Karate is one of the many basic descriptions of a fighting style. You will rarely come across a class just teaching "karate" it will mostly have another name attatched like kofuken, or wadaryu or something (excuse the spelling please). There is no single "karate" style, apart from possibly freestyle/all styles karate which is infact a mixture of many styles of fighting such as kung fu, kickboxing, boxing, aikido, vale tudo and others and so cannot acuratly be described as simply "karate"