| From: | NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts) |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Jun 2000 17:22:40 -0500 |
Subject: Re: Technique and Damage (was Re: CC Martial Arts)
> Sorry, I'm not being specific. Please let me try again.
Okay, but don't say you weren't warned... ;-)
> The primary determinants of damage in unarmed combat are skill and weight.
Skill and application of weight.
> Yes, a stronger person will hit harder than a weaker person. But the
> difference due to strength isn't that much.
Actually, it is considerable. The ability to apply one's strength is where
a LOT of it matters.
> A skilled fighter will put their body into it (adding more mass to the
> blow) and will hit a lot harder than an unskilled fighter (in general).
Which is more or less a type of "ramming" rule actually, and you might be
able to argue adding a portion of Body to the damage code in Shadowrun with
this idea in mind.
> A heavier person will hit a lot harder than a lighter person.
Oh now don't go there. I've seen some VERY heavy people who couldn't hit
anything harder than my kid brother could at age 4 (don't get me wrong, a
kick to the 'nads is still a kick to the 'nads). But only a skilled
heavier person will know how to bring their weight into the application of
the fight.
> > Again, don't confuse skill with strength, skill with quickness, or
> >skill with reaction. Skill is skill. It dictates how many successes you
> >have, and that's all. How many successes you have is a direct map to how
> >well you have placed your blow, put your body behind it, and followed
> >through.
>
> Agreed.
Agreed.
> > Also keep in mind that SR melee combat is abstract. In an
> >abstract system that takes multiple blows, parries, counters, etc into
> >account, there will be instances where Strength will be important, just
as
> >there are instances where Body will be very important.
>
> But Body is more important when it comes to strikes (punchs/kicks). Skill
> and quickness are important when it comes to locks and throws. I can't
> think of a form of attack in which strength is the primary determinant of
> the outcome. No wait, yes I can, a bear hug. There, that's one.
No wait, that's not even right. A "Bear Hug" (also found in similar
relations in Sumo or "Overwhelming" styles of combat). Strength is still
what determines the crushing force behind this kind of action. Body of the
opponent determines how well they resist the crushing force. Apply their
strength (as the victim) against the other strength is often (in the
untrained individuals case more than anything) the only way they will likely
get free of such an attack. Bear Hugs and similar actions are best to get
free if the attacked/target can get a grip with their feet ... which in most
cases does mean keeping their feet on the ground (unless you get some
asshole like me who on the rare occasions does meet someone who can pick me
often finds themselves made the new center of base gravity.... not nice even
for those skilled in knowing what they are doing when they find their own
sense of balance being applied as their own enemy now).
> Every form of attack I've been taught relies using my mass, using their
> mass, using gravity, using pain, using technique, or using speed. With
the
> exception of the bear hug, I have yet to be taught, nor have I witnessed,
a
> form of attack that relies on strength.
I have, at all times. All forms of training teach/instruct/direct one on
how best to apply the resources you have however into a fight, be it
offensive or defensive.
> > If you place your blow with equal efficacy and have a higher
> >Strength, your attack *should* do more damage.
>
> But not much more. Mass + velocity = energy. And more muscle doesn't
> increase the velocity enough to really be significant.
No offense Dave (or is this Marc?) but I love it when anyone brings into
play mathematic formulae into a discussion on applied artists and individual
applications of such.
> Here's where I think the confusion occurs.
>
> Everyone imagine a weak guy hitting a punching bag. Now imagine a strong
> guy hitting a punching bag. Is the weak guy you imagined small and
> light? Is the strong guy you imagined big and muscular? More muscle
> equals more weight/mass. The strong guy isn't hitting harder because he's
> stronger, he's hitting harder because he has more mass behind his punches.
>
> And although the muscle mass is significantly contributing to the damage,
> the energy generated by the muscles isn't significantly contributing to
the
> damage when compared to a weaker person. It's the extra mass that's
> generating more damage.
>
> The boxing world knows this. That's why they have weight classes, not
> strength classes. Boxers are not divided into classes by how much weight
> they can lift, but by how much they weigh. The heavy boxers hit harder
> because they have more mass behind their punches.
>
> The power of an unarmed strike shouldn't based on Strength, it should be
> based on Body.
More later, the grill is ready prior to the game tonight.... Steaks at a
Game... (evil grin)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
NeoJudas ("K" to Friends)
"Children of the Kernel: Reborn"
(neojudas@******************.com)
Hoosier Hacker House (http://www.hoosierhackerhouse.com/)
