A fencer's 'size'.

[Gogsnik]

It annoys me how some people equate large people (heavily muscled or otherwise) with being slow.

Now I'm not that big (12 and a half stone) and I'm fairly 'fast' but I've seen peole much much bigger than me who are also extremely fast.

So my question is would you agree with me that simply saying big=slow is in fact nonsense?

[El Chucko]

Use it to your advantage.

As my avatar would suggest, I am one of the shortest and stockiest epee fencers out there. Nobody ever expects me to be anything but slow, and they sure as heck don't think I can lunge more than a couple feet. It makes the first few touches alot of fun for me.

(Not that I'm Shazaam or anthing, but I sure have surprised a few fencers in my time.)

Out of curiosity, for those of us in the US, what is 12 1/2 stone equal to in pounds?

[Goofy]

One stone is approximately 14 pounds, so Gogsnik (at 12 and one-half stone) goes around 174 pounds or 6.35 kilos.

[broncofencer]

SHHHHHHH!

No.

I say all big people should be thought of as slow. I especially encourage this thought since I am 6'4" 250lbs. I want everyone to think I am slow. very very slow yes come closer I can't move fast enough to hit you from there. oh wait I just did. Never mind maybe I was just lucky.

[mollusk]

Originally Posted by el chucko

Use it to your advantage.

As my avatar would suggest, I am one of the shortest and stockiest epee fencers out there. Nobody ever expects me to be anything but slow, and they sure as heck don't think I can lunge more than a couple feet. It makes the first few touches alot of fun for me.

(Not that I'm Shazaam or anthing, but I sure have surprised a few fencers in my time.)

Out of curiosity, for those of us in the US, what is 12 1/2 stone equal to in pounds?

1 stone = 14 lb, IIRC, so 12.5 stone = 175 lb.

[Gogsnik]

Thank you all for responding.

This came up as part of a descussion in another forum and I thought to myself why not ask some fencers what they think.

Aye the good ol' stone. Why weigh 174 when you can just be 12 and a half! .

[scrapinpeg]

Just think of all those pokey (US) football and basketball players.

[Be_Like_Water]

It is nonsensical to assume all "big" fencers are slow, but it's an understandable assumption to make. If you see hig level competition (like div 1 nationals) in any weapon those men are for the most part enormous...and they can MOVE. But if you see bigger guys at local stuff, chances are they can't move at all. But yes, the idea that larger or heavier fencers are less explosive or quick is a pretty dangerous one to have if you find yourself on strip against someone of that description.

[Sciurus-Rex]

Originally Posted by Gogsnik

It annoys me how some people equate large people (heavily muscled or otherwise) with being slow.

Now I'm not that big (12 and a half stone) and I'm fairly 'fast' but I've seen peole much much bigger than me who are also extremely fast.

So my question is would you agree with me that simply saying big=slow is in fact nonsense?

Let's put it this way: In as much time as it took you to type that message, I could have typed it three times. And eaten lunch with my grandmother in the next state over. And still had time to drive to your fencing club and make fun of your grungy, stinky socks before I dominated with my m@d epee skilz 15-0.

[AntonioDelMonte]

i would love for that myth not to be debunked because i am 6'3 and 240 or in stones i'm 17.25 and i love to make it look like i'm slow til i's time to explode onto people it's an effective tactic in my arsenal

[poor_nizzie]

Conversely, are there any myths or misconceptions about small fencers?
Being 5'3" and about 115 lbs (~8.2 stones), I can be at a disadvantage too.

[Zasha]

Originally Posted by Gogsnik

So my question is would you agree with me that simply saying big=slow is in fact nonsense?

it is, and you have found my secret. being stocky, i can use the acceleration and the long lunge that my opponent doesn't think i have. do not underestimate the large girl. i witnessed a thin girl, refer to her opponent as a 'fat cow,' and then get thrashed.

[Cipher]

You have to separate the athletes from the non-athletes. For non-athletes, in general, thin = quick, big = slow (of course many exceptions). For athletes it is much different. Big = strong, fast, powerful (think sprinters and football players). Thin = average speed with incredible stamina (think marathon runners and cyclists). Overall, the non-athletes are pretty mediocre in their abilities. Thin non-athletes are faster only because they have less weight to slow them down.

[kalivor]

Originally Posted by Gogsnik

It annoys me how some people equate large people (heavily muscled or otherwise) with being slow.

Now I'm not that big (12 and a half stone) and I'm fairly 'fast' but I've seen peole much much bigger than me who are also extremely fast.

So my question is would you agree with me that simply saying big=slow is in fact nonsense?

1. Large, heavily muscled = longer more powerful strides/steps = faster. However, it also means more weight, making a rapid change in direction more difficult -- so slower for some things.

2. Smaller (but still fit) people = less momentum, allowing for a faster change in direction. Also, less energy is required to move the body around, making endurance sports and jumping sports easier for smaller people (well, for the second you need to be tall, but slimmer is better). However, smaller people have less powerful and/or shorter strides (depending on how you're defining "smaller"), making them slower for some things.

3. Large unfit people are definitely slower. They have the extra weight, without the extra muscle to propel it. One shouldn't get their idea of "unfit" from magazines or anything -- our idea of what "fit," "heavily muscled" and such look like might be removed from reality ... but if one really does have too much weight and not much muscle, they'll be slow ...

[prototoast]

A "large" person cannot be in peak shape for speed. Look at sprinters or high jumpers. They are muscular, but lean. The simple physics of it is that more mass requires more force to accelerate, and at some point in the human physiology, the marginal weight gain in muscle outweighs the marginal increase in strength.

That really only deals with the extremes, though. There are many larger people who can be faster than their smaller counterparts because of increased muscle strength (there are countless NFL linemen/linebackers who are faster than me despite weighing at least 100 pounds more).

So while a large person cannot be as fast as their otherwise-identical-but-weighing-less counterpart, they're not all slower.

In fencing, there are other issues associated with "speed" though. It's not strictly running faster or jumping higher. There is footspeed and handspeed. Particularly with handspeed, one of the biggest factors is economy of motion and reaction time. Footspeed impressions can appear to change based upon how effectively a fencer utilizes tempo changes.

[Mauler]

Some of the fastest human beings I have seen are Judo players. Heavier class, many of them carrying their share of body fat. But phoenomenally fast and totally aware and in control of their body. They can go from a relaxed standing posture to a rolled configuration, floating mid-air, underneath your center-of-gravity in the time it takes a fencer perform a parry-flick-riposte.

Of course you ask them to run, that's a different story. Every sport has different needs in terms of "speed."

[drseudo]

Huh. When I saw the thread title, I was sure it was going to be another thread about cups.

[Chafunkta]

Where are you from? I'm ~180 lbs and i'm by no means big... of course, i'm not 13 either

[Alain]

Originally Posted by Gogsnik

It annoys me how some people equate large people (heavily muscled or otherwise) with being slow.

Now I'm not that big (12 and a half stone) and I'm fairly 'fast' but I've seen peole much much bigger than me who are also extremely fast.

So my question is would you agree with me that simply saying big=slow is in fact nonsense?

I think it's pretty clear that the bigger=slower perception doesn't hold true in general. For me one of the biggest joys of fencing is the fact that you can beat people not by fencing harder, but by fencing smarter.

This 'smartness', coupled with experience (and obviously good technique) is far more valuable than size, speed, or strength. Hence why even some veterans are pretty tough to beat!

Another important point, I think, is that any decent fencer (and person, for that matter) should never underestimate their opponent. Especially in the latter stages of a competition: the very fact that your opponent is there infront of you would indicate that they're capable of beating people regardless of their (and their opponents) size.

Golden Rule #1 : Don't trust anyone!
Golden Rule #2 : One hit at a time!

[sabreur]

Not to cast cold water on this, but if you lose weight, your fencing will probably improve. When I'm down to fighting weight, which in my case is just under 200 pounds, I change directions and accelerate with a lot less effort. The difference is particularly noticeable when I'm on defense--it is much easier to get that last couple of inches on a jump back or a long retreat to make a distance parry work. It is also a lot easier to get the tempo or change in speed right, which is actually more important. Using less effort also means that you are more relaxed, which makes a lot of difference in both hand and foot work, and you are less likely to telegraph your movements by hunching or coiling before you make an action.

If you want to see what the difference is, do footwork while wearing a backpack with a couple of liter bottles of water in it. A liter of water weighs a kilogram or 2.2 pounds. I imagine you will feel a noticeable difference carrying two or three bottles.

MR