A topic on height in swordfighting

[GyantSpyder]

The other alternative is we're looking for the answer to a really specific question - which is when two medieval fighters of different heights but the same weights, wearing plate armor and going at it with longswords fight each other 1 on 1 to the death outside a tournament under otherwise equal circumstances (a comparatively rare and not particularly useful exercise, but an interesting scenario), is there an advantage for the shorter man getting inside the effective range of the taller man and punching through with greater power?

And I don't know enough about medieval combat to be confident in that one way or the other, but my sense is that for one knight of this sort to actually kill the other, he'd want to bring him to ground first - buffet him with the shield, knock him over, and stab him in the face or neck or something. Meaning the kind of stand-up beating that OP is talking about isn't really the goal in that situation.

But whether longer legs or a more compact frame help you more with quickness and covering ground when you're in armor, I don't know at all and would want to ask an expert in this specific kind of combat.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that I don't think these kinds of fighters would primarily keep trying to use their longswords against somebody who got in close. It's not like a boxer where shortening up your punches is a sometimes tricky technique. You would have other things you would do in close quarters that might negate the mechanical disadvantage in that situation of having longer arms.

Although if they were using spears then they could do it - and shortening the stroke is very much a technique, with the idea of getting inside the reach of the spear being highly overrated as a tactical approach. But I only know little bits here and there and not too much.

[dxft43rto]

 

37 minutes ago, GyantSpyder said:

The other alternative is we're looking for the answer to a really specific question - which is when two medieval fighters of different heights but the same weights, wearing plate armor and going at it with longswords fight each other 1 on 1 to the death outside a tournament under otherwise equal circumstances (a comparatively rare and not particularly useful exercise, but an interesting scenario), is there an advantage for the shorter man getting inside the effective range of the taller man and punching through with greater power?

And I don't know enough about medieval combat to be confident in that one way or the other, but my sense is that for one knight of this sort to actually kill the other, he'd want to bring him to ground first - buffet him with the shield, knock him over, and stab him in the face or neck or something. Meaning the kind of stand-up beating that OP is talking about isn't really the goal in that situation.

But whether longer legs or a more compact frame help you more with quickness and covering ground when you're in armor, I don't know at all and would want to ask an expert in this specific kind of combat.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that I don't think these kinds of fighters would primarily keep trying to use their longswords against somebody who got in close. It's not like a boxer where shortening up your punches is a sometimes tricky technique. You would have other things you would do in close quarters that might negate the mechanical disadvantage in that situation of having longer arms.

Although if they were using spears then they could do it - and shortening the stroke is very much a technique, with the idea of getting inside the reach of the spear being highly overrated as a tactical approach. But I only know little bits here and there and not too much.

Look man my question was pretty simple -the ideal height range of a medieval knight.And to make the answer reasonable you should take both the advantages of a compact fighter and a lanky one,not just say -7ft monster is the best bcause as can be seen in the real wold no real mma champion(the thing in modern day that comes most close to actual combat-at least it has some kind of ringen) is more than 6'3 tall.I get that you say that there is no specific type of body a soldier can be due to the fact that different weapons favour different body types but at least try to come to the ideal height range in which as i said the lower centre of gravity,greater agility,power and sufficient reach are combined.

[Wight in Shining Armour]

I do a fair bit of sword fighting, being a Larper. And I'm fairly small at 5'4'', and not exceptionally strong. For a bit of context, I generally use sword and shield, in plate armour. 

I don't find that my height is too much of a factor at all tbh, other than occasionally making people underestimate me. What wins my fights is spacial awareness, and the stamina to keep focused while wearing heavy gear.

When fighting someone especially huge, I get in close fast, because why let them use superior reach? 

[dxft43rto]

1 hour ago, Wight in Shining Armour said:

I do a fair bit of sword fighting, being a Larper. And I'm fairly small at 5'4'', and not exceptionally strong. For a bit of context, I generally use sword and shield, in plate armour. 

I don't find that my height is too much of a factor at all tbh, other than occasionally making people underestimate me. What wins my fights is spacial awareness, and the stamina to keep focused while wearing heavy gear.

When fighting someone especially huge, I get in close fast, because why let them use superior reach? 

Do you often win ?

[elder brother jonothor dar]

Too big

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonahLomu

Too small

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Williams

[elder brother jonothor dar]

Usain Bolt is also too tall to run the 100m

[sweetsunray]

15 hours ago, Wight in Shining Armour said:

What wins my fights is spacial awareness, and the stamina to keep focused while wearing heavy gear.

This would indeed be the cincher.

Theoretically the tallest sword fighter has an advantage over the shorter one, especially if the taller one also wields a longer weapon than the shorter opponent. The farther you can keep your opponent and his weapon away from you, the better. But your surroundings will determine whether you actually can use that distance. And if your arm and weapon are longer than the space around you, because you end up stuck between crowding trees or corridor or alley, then the shorter opponent gains more advantage.

Having the longest reach is only an advantage if you a) have the actual space to put your reach to use b ) you can wield your weapon of choice as good or better than your opponent.

Black Sails example:

Spoiler

In S4 Captain Flint fights an expert in katana with a broadsword and an expert in dual wielding hammer and cutlass in the same episode. As far as expertise goes all three are supposed to be the best in their weapon. In the first fight against the katana, Flint soon realizes his opponent has the reach advantage (including using legs) at a clearing in the forest, and starts to draw his opponent in between the trees. The fight equalizes. Then he rolls themselves intoa ditch, where they are so close to each other that being the strongest becomes the determining factor. And so Flint wins and his opponent dies.

In the second duel, Flint has the reach advantage and thus stays in an open space, even if slippery. His opponent is both much smaller and wielding much smaller weapons. To many it seemed as if the second suddenly became a dumb fighter who couldn't wield his weapons anymore like he used to. And I argued then: yes, that's true, but that's not OOC... it's because Flint has reach advantage and makes sure he keeps the advantage by staying in an open space. The other guy is so much shorter and has much shorter weapons that he needs to close in on Flint, which he usually does with a dash and dance parry move, except the soil is wet mud and slippery. He can't dash in without ending up on his ass. So eventually Flint's opponent can do only one thing: stiffen and stretch his arms so he can stay clear of that sharp sword, but of course with his type of weapons he won't be able to do much with them as long as he keeps his arms stiff. Flint breaks the guy's wrists.

The main reason that Flint won was because he was the one who was so aware of his space and surroundings that he picked the area for a fight always to his best advantage for that particular fight, against that particular opponent (skill, weapons, reach, strength, needs).

 

And thus to answer @KingRobbTheLord: no there is no "ideal" height. It's always relative.

[Wight in Shining Armour]

15 hours ago, KingRobbTheLord said:

Do you often win ?

Yes :p. On the other hand, the other top fighter of our group is a big tall guy. Really, training beats size and strength every time. 

[Fencer]

22 hours ago, KingRobbTheLord said:

 

Look man my question was pretty simple -the ideal height range of a medieval knight.And to make the answer reasonable you should take both the advantages of a compact fighter and a lanky one,not just say -7ft monster is the best bcause as can be seen in the real wold no real mma champion(the thing in modern day that comes most close to actual combat-at least it has some kind of ringen) is more than 6'3 tall.I get that you say that there is no specific type of body a soldier can be due to the fact that different weapons favour different body types but at least try to come to the ideal height range in which as i said the lower centre of gravity,greater agility,power and sufficient reach are combined.

The problem, as most people here are trying to tell you, is that there is not a correct singular answer to this question.  There are too many factors--more important factors--than height for any sort of definitive answer to the question you are trying to pose.  Where it be fencing, kendo, boxing, mma or any other martial art, there is simply not an ideal height for a fighter; other factors can and will always trump it.  Either end of the spectrum, or anywhere in-between, can be overmatched through some combination of weapon, tactics, style, stupid luck, or any of a host of other factors by someone of any other height. 

You are, in effect, asking for others to tell you which model of car best based solely on its color.

[dxft43rto]

9 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

Too big

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonahLomu

Too small

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Williams

What the hell does this mean ?

[dxft43rto]

8 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

Usain Bolt is also too tall to run the 100m

Do not forget that the fastest man in the US -Tyson Gay is 5'9 and was beaten by Usain just with 0,1s-Gay holds the US record in the 100 m with 9.69 s, making him the joint second fastest sprinter, along with Yohan Blake, in the history of the event after Usain Bolt.

[dxft43rto]

5 hours ago, Wight in Shining Armour said:

Yes :p. On the other hand, the other top fighter of our group is a big tall guy. Really, training beats size and strength every time. 

How big is that guy.Is he over 6'5?

[Wight in Shining Armour]

1 hour ago, KingRobbTheLord said:

How big is that guy.Is he over 6'5?

Not over it, possibly about that much. But it's not something I consider a big factor. I guess my experience is that size does not matter that much. 

Other than the intimidation factor, but I don't think that's the topic here. 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

On 11/1/2017 at 5:16 AM, KingRobbTheLord said:

His loss to Lenox Lewis had nothing to do with reach disadvantage as was evident in the first three rounds in which  Tyson started obliterating him.

Wow you really need to watch that Lennox Lewis fight again. Tyson lost every round except for the first. It's really not an argument, it's a fact. It's hard to take anything you have to say serious after that comment. Go rewatch the fight or read the recaps and scorecards. Lennox out boxed Tyson then KO'ed him. That fight was not close and Tyson only landed a few effective punches.

On 11/2/2017 at 7:45 AM, KingRobbTheLord said:

Gregor Clegane was a fucking lackwit and brute who could only kill armed peasants and when faced with a knight he got his ass whooped.

The Author of the book series that created Gregor Clegane would disagree agree with you. He lists Gregor and Sandor Clegane as some of the top Fighters in modern day Westeros. 

Martin: Well, LeBron James is the greatest active basketball player I suppose so the parallel in Westeros would be who is the greatest active swordsman. You can make a case for Jamie Lannister. You can make a case for The Hound or his brother Ser Gregor [Clegane] or Sir Loras [Tyrell], the Knight of Flowers. These are all first class Knights. Or even Ser Barristan The Bold [Sir Barristan Selmy]. These are all guys who are top at their own particular sport, which is swordsmanship and jousting, and all of the combat skills that attend knighthood.

Sports Illustrated Interview with GRRM

On 11/2/2017 at 2:21 PM, KingRobbTheLord said:

no real mma champion(the thing in modern day that comes most close to actual combat-at least it has some kind of ringen) is more than 6'3 tall.

The current UFC HW champion Stipe Miocic is 6'4, the champ before him was Fabrício Werdum, who defeated Fedor in the first round, he is also 6'4.

The best LHW champion of all time is Jon Jones and he is 6'4'. The only guy to ever give him a close fight, Gustaffson was  6'5'.

All of the Heavyweight Champion Boxers of the last 15 years have all been 6'5' and taller. Lennox Lewis, Vitali Klitschko, Wladimir Klitschko,Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder, Anthony Joshua.

All this data points to your little theory about tall guys being inferior fighters as being flat out false.

[elder brother jonothor dar]

4 hours ago, KingRobbTheLord said:

What the hell does this mean ?

Neither considered the optimal height for their positions but both considered the best in the world.

4 hours ago, KingRobbTheLord said:

Do not forget that the fastest man in the US -Tyson Gay is 5'9 and was beaten by Usain just with 0,1s-Gay holds the US record in the 100 m with 9.69 s, making him the joint second fastest sprinter, along with Yohan Blake, in the history of the event after Usain Bolt.

Not sure what relevance that has on Bolt being too tall to run 100m.  My point is Bolt is a freak he should not be able to compete with the optimal body size for a sprinter.  5'9 might be the optimal height until it isn't.

Plenty of sportsmen have broken the mould and set new trends of what the ideal body shape/tactics should be, but every now and then you get a Bolt, perfect attributes combined braking all the rules and probably never to be repeated again.

If you can fit all the ideal attributes into one guy; height is almost irrelevant but generally the bigger the better for most sports.  Just imagine what Tyson could have been if he was 7' and still Tyson.

[dxft43rto]

17 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

The current UFC HW champion Stipe Miocic is 6'4, the champ before him was Fabrício Werdum, who defeated Fedor in the first round, he is also 6'4.

The best LHW champion of all time is Jon Jones and he is 6'4'. The only guy to ever give him a close fight, Gustaffson was  6'5'.

All of the Heavyweight Champion Boxers of the last 15 years have all been 6'5' and taller. Lennox Lewis, Vitali Klitschko, Wladimir Klitschko,Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder, Anthony Joshua.

All this data points to your little theory about tall guys being inferior fighters as being flat out false.

17 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

 

First off the best LHW champion currently and prized as one of the greatest fightres is Daniel Cormier who is around 178cm.One of the longest reighning HW champions -Randy Couture is 185cm.Another great champion is Cain Velasquez also 185cm.However there is one VERY important thing about UFC heights you gotta understand-they are all EXAGGERATED (this btw was said by Couture who at one time was listed at around 6'3 and he stepped out and said that he is actually 6'1 and the UFC always exxagerates.So when talking about Miocic (who is a champion from this year) remove 2 inches from his actual height and you will see how tall he actually is.Btw to speak about a guy who has around 20 matches (Jon Jones) as one of the greatest champions alive is stupid.One thing is certain thought -the greatest HW of all time :" Sports and MMA media, ESPN, Bleacher Report, Sherdog, SB Nation (mmafighting) and Fight Matrix, list him as the greatest MMA Heavyweight fighter of all time.^[19] Emelianenko is also the longest reigning Heavyweight lineal champion and #1 pound for pound ranked fighter in MMA history.^[20] Former combat sports fighters Chuck Norris and Mike Tyson; current MMA fighters such as Junior dos Santos, Fabrício Werdum, and Jose Aldo; and other publications have called Emelianenko the greatest mixed martial artist of all time." One of the best fighters in MMA is also GSP.The taller fighters-Stefan Struve,Hong man-choi got annhilated by Feodor (in the case of Hong man choi).Everyone can beat Stefan Struve even though he is 7ft tall.Even Roy fucking Nelson -this slow pig and excuse of a fighter who looks like a truck driver knocked him out without much problem,so no i am not saying taller=weaker.I am saying that there is some kind of ultimate height range (most people in Sherdog say 5'9-5'10 to 6'1-6'2) in which sufficient reach is combined with explosiveness,shorter gravity centre,advantages on the ground(as wiki says exist for shorter fighters),ability to pack a heavier punch and so on and thus producing a perfect fighter.   I have explained in a previous post why are we seeing such trends in boxing-nowadays HW is not the most profitable of the divisions as can be seen that guys like Floyd Mayweather are the richest boxers of all time even though they did not compete in HW.So normally people ask themselves -why fight in the most dangerous divisions when you can face easier challengers in lesser divisions and earn the same amount of money.That's why you can see for example people who are 6'3+who fight in welterweight (even though they look like skeletons). If you go back to the 30's, there was a deep talent pool of superheavyweights. You had Carnera, Buddy Baer, Ray Impelletiere, Doyle, and others who were the same size as the currents SHWs. S it's important to know that giants are not knew to the division. During the 20th century, it was widely believed that giants were naturally good, but rarely had the speed to contend with the likes of Dempsey and Louis, both who brutally knocked out super heavyweights.

Deontay Wilder in the reddit Q&A said that the toughest people to fight, are the short stocky hard hitters. We haven't seen these fighters in the division, because the best athletes who fit the right criteria are not in boxing. They are in football or basketball. Also, sociological improvements in the last 100 years have given many people who may have boxed, other avenues in life to pursue.

In a division where the best potential talent is unavailable, you have to assume that low common denominator attributes will take a  person a long way.

[dxft43rto]

13 hours ago, elder brother jonothor dar said:

If you can fit all the ideal attributes into one guy; height is almost irrelevant but generally the bigger the better for most sports.  Just imagine what Tyson could have been if he was 7' and still Tyson.

If Tyson was 7 ft he would not have been Tyson-he would have lost his explosiveness,his coordination,his speed,his great angles(allowing you when entering in your range to hit you just below the most vulnerable part in your body-lower chin and KO you),his defense,his power(being taller means gretater bone density so instead of muscle you would have had bone and thus less power-this btw is written in wikipedia you can see in previous post that i have already quoted it),his agility,his stamina(taller and heavier people tire more quickly as can be seen in the post prison more bulkier Tyson).He would have turned into a fucking joke a guy like-Valuev (214cm) who have never won any titles and was KOed by semi professionals.Or maybe Jim Cully (218cm) who had 3 fights of which 2 are losses.Or he would have been like his MMA equivalent -Stefan Struve who turned into a meme with his easy KOs against the likes of Roy Nelson(the guy annhilated him and he looks like a lorry driver ).So no bigger is not better.As i have said we should search for the optimate height RANGE in which sufficient reach is combined with explosiveness,shorter gravity centre,advantages on the ground(as wiki says exist for shorter fighters),ability to pack a heavier punch and so on and thus producing a perfect fighter.

[dxft43rto]

16 hours ago, Wight in Shining Armour said:

Not over it, possibly about that much. But it's not something I consider a big factor. I guess my experience is that size does not matter that much

Can he be below that height ?Have you sparred with him ?How did it feel ?Can you say that sometimes range can be turned into a disadvantage(for example stepping in close range and being able to generate more power than the other guy who can not fully extend his arm.)?

[dxft43rto]

17 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

You can make a case for The Hound or his brother Ser Gregor [Clegane]

That is what grr said.He didn't say they are but that you can make a CASE about it,which will be pretty hard considering that we have not seen Clegane in the books fight with anyone of value.On the opposite- he was mortally wounded by two malnourished peasants fighting in the Mountain's group.And he had Arya helping him.WTF ?I don't know where you people come with these myths but the Clegane brothers are not in the top 10.They are good in fighting with an army (again doubtful considering Sandor's desertion).Oh,just another thing Sandor nearly lost to a crippled Beric Dondarrion(with missing eye,pierced chest,brutally severed bodyparts etc.),who btw is again a weak opponent (considering that he died like 100 times).If you read about their fight you will see that if it was not for the weakened (in the first book Tobbho Mott mentions that setting a sword on fire destroys quality steel,makes it brittle and weakened)flaming sword that broke Sandor would have lost,Beryc just outfought him.

[elder brother jonothor dar]

7 hours ago, KingRobbTheLord said:

If Tyson was 7 ft he would not have been Tyson-he would have lost his explosiveness,his coordination,his speed,

I can't help but respond for some reason, so what you are saying is Bolt is too tall to run the 100m and can never be Olimpic champion? Just using the same logic and wiki info you are using.

Tyson is a freak Bolt is a freak they should not be able to do what they did.  If it was remotely possible people would be copping them and we would be seeing taller sprinters and shorter heavy weight boxers.