Hard harder, or more often?

except chuck norris, who admitted that he would have been trounced in a straight fight

Depends on system.

>Chuck
>Actually trained
???
R u fucking retarded or memeing?

youtube.com/watch?v=_cPgafBEqn4

Here
Dex vs Str

>first Westerner in the documented history of Tae Kwon Do to be given the rank of 8th Degree Black Belt Grand Master.
>won Karate's triple crown for the most tournament wins of the year 1969
> Fighter of the Year award by Black Belt magazine 1969
>inducted into the Martial Arts History Museum's Hall of Fame.

despite the memes going out of hand, they originally started out of genuine respect for his martial arts prowess

Swords don't need as much strength as people think.
You are doing cutting motions, not hacking ones.

>did you just try to say Arnold wasn't "actually" strong?
Picture related.

1. Boxers and wrestlers don't look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
2. Bruce was very small. Of course he's at a disadvantage. I was talking about the general build, not about the man.
3. We are talking about fighting with weapons.

Meant to quote for the 3 points at the bottom.

> We are talking fighting with weapons

What? Since when?

> Boxers and Wrestlers don't look like Arnold Schwarzenegger

Doesn't mean he wasn't beast mode, just that it's *easier* to build muscle as a fatty.

> 2. Bruce was very small. Of course he's at a disadvantage. I was talking about the general build, not about the man.

More muscle = more strength = more power. Less muscle doesn't mean less power. And there is no such thing as "useless" muscle.

> Wu-shu magic!

But hilarious. What the hell, Mike Tyson is a weird dude.

Hey, I found an actual picture of a guy who fights bears on a mountain.

>What? Since when?
Since OP is asking for efficiency.

>Doesn't mean he wasn't beast mode,
He was (and is) a lot stronger than me. But he's nowhere near as strong as he could be if he trained for actual strength, rather than just looks.
I didn't mean to say he was weak, and I don't think I did.

>And there is no such thing as "useless" muscle.
Of course there is. Muscle is heavy. If you have to move a lot of muscles that you are not going to use much in a fight, then those muscles are largely a hindrance. If you didn't put enough attention to a certain region of the body to keep it slim, then that effect will be noted as well.

Hey, I found one too.

criticalhit.jpg
>system shock is so unrealistic

>using an how-to-draw instructional as evidence
>especially one made by a chubby bara fetishist

>evidence
No, that's called an explanation.
If you don't believe it, feel free to look this up.

>Since OP is asking for efficiency.

That would make the answer "Artillery". Or "JDAM".

> trained for actual strength, rather than just looks.

Do . . . do you not know anything about body-building or weightlifting? Dude was pretty strong, he was just on steroids. Yeah.

> If you have to move a lot of muscles that you are not going to use much in a fight, then those muscles are largely a hindrance.

I'm starting to think you've never won a fight, either. This is some "While you studied bio-mechanics, I studied the blade" level of thinking right here.

> If you didn't put enough attention to a certain region of the body to keep it slim, then that effect will be noted as well.

You JUST posted a fatass trying to claim they would be stronger than a bodybuilder because of "reasons".

Most body-builders are "weak" BECAUSE they intentionally don't work out certain muscles. Definitely not the Arnold physique though. Also the whole "no carbs, massive dehydration on show day" etc.

Body-builders are perfectly capable of being beasts with 7 - 13% body fat and big muscles.

This is the guy.

Well I had to find a picture.

Except all the Evidence says you're wrong, and that picture is wrong.

sometimes i wonder how many things that actually happened in real life gets passed over, because "its unrealistic"

I bet there are more guys like that fought bears than

>Swords don't need as much strength as people think.

Wait. Wait we all fucking missed this point here.

We all need to take a moment to point and laugh at this motherfucker for posting this.

>Dude was pretty strong,
I don't deny that. Did you even read the posts?

>This is some "While you studied bio-mechanics, I studied the blade"
Not at all. If you actually read my posts instead of being angry you'd notice I posted somebody as an example of battle efficiency who spent a lot of time working on his body.

>You JUST posted a fatass trying to claim they would be stronger than a bodybuilder because of "reasons".
What are you even talking about anymore?
Does your own post make sense to you?
What are you trying to argue? That something isn't pointless because it's not necessary for it to exist?

>I bet
The picture itself says that there are exactly 2 known cases of the guy winning against the bear without use of modern weaponry.

You pretty much posted this guy.

You can't decide between "Muh skinny muscle Bruce Lee" or "Muh Strongfat! Bear mode! Burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs!"

Anything to get away from the healthy muscle physique of a true Warrior.

>You pretty much posted this guy.
You cannot be this stupid.

>You can't decide between "Muh skinny muscle Bruce Lee" or "Muh Strongfat! Bear mode! Burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs!"
Seriously, read the posts. Like, READ. You know how to do that, right?
I'm not going to repeat myself just because you are too angry to actually do your part of the conversation.

Not that guy, but like doesn't it make sense for people with more mass to deliver more force, ergo to be more dangerous in a fight?

To be fair, I didn't look up at how many cases there were of guys losing.

Yes. Yes it does. And muscle, unlike fat, supports itself and builds off of "balancing" muscles.

Extra fat really isn't useful in a fight, if anything it'll just exhaust you quicker - unless you aren't wearing any armor at all. Like, padded armor would still be better than getting stabbed in your fat and bleeding.

It's just easier to build more muscle doing a dirty bulk to ensure you get enough calories than it is to build muscle eating clean and not becoming a fatass in the process.

More muscle mass = More force period.

More fatass mass = More inertia after your muscles have been tired out having to propel the extra fat along with your body.

Less mass = Less speed, because muscle literally carries itself, also less force.

Like, unless you're comparing different muscle structures that's pretty much a given that more muscle is better.

Look at golfers or baseball. Are some of them big and strong? Sure, but not all of them. When it comes to striking a ball (or one presumes a goblin) really really hard, technique is more important than brute strength.

You're going to run around golf clubbing goblins? Or swinging a sword like a bat?

You'll also note the bigger and more physically healthy athletes perform better when they're at the same skill level as others.

Anybody saying more muscle is counter-productive has been watching too much Japtoons.

>Bigger muscles = more strength.
Spoken like someone who has never stepped foot inside a gym.

>You'll also note the bigger and more physically healthy athletes perform better when they're at the same skill level as others.
Then tell me why modern sword fighters are not buff as fuck.
Why modern basketball players are fit, but not HUGE.

You gotta be impressed with Mike, being such a fighter even though he is such a manlet.

I'm not saying that more muscle implies less technique, that'd be dumb. I am saying that swinging a bat or golf club is more like striking with a weapon (where technique is very important) than lifting a heavy object.

The real benefit of having a lot of strength is that you can control a more massive (and therefore more damaging) weapon.

>Body-builders are perfectly capable of being beasts with 7 - 13% body fat and big muscles.
That would make your entire body one big weak spot. Have you ever taken a serious hit straight into a muscle? Ask someone to punch you in the bicep a couple of times.

>>The real benefit of having a lot of strength is that you can control a more massive (and therefore more damaging) weapon.
Except weapon weight wasn't really subject to a lot of variation, and most weapons are much lighter than fiction makes them seem.

> Why modern basketball players are fit, but not HUGE.

Because they are specialized in one particular sport?

> Then tell me why modern sword fighters are not buff as fuck.

Because they don't actually go into battle, and are just dicking around?

Why don't you look at Special Forces type dudes or active combatants instead? Or even sport fighters, although the weight class system tends to result in some funky body mechanics.

You'll note smaller guys try to pack every pound into the "muscle" category, whereas the heavier classes get a little bit lazy about that shit because a pound or two of muscle isn't as big a difference at that size. Still, they do try to not be stickmen or fatasses for the most part.

Control a bigger weapon, have better fine control of a smaller weapon, propel weapons faster, be able to use them for longer periods before fatigue starts to overtake you, be able to force opponents weapons.

Essentially, more muscle is always better. Better technique can certainly overcome a strength disparity (to a certain point), but more strength always is better.

>Except weapon weight wasn't really subject to a lot of variation

> Fat is armor

Have you ever been punched in fat? That's just as much a weak spot. Moreso actually, muscle is much denser and can tense up to take a punch.

I mean. What you're saying is just ludicrous. It's up there with the "Aquatic Ape" theory about human bodies.

That's not a sword, THIS is a sword!

>Why don't you look at Special Forces type dudes or active combatants instead? Or even sport fighters,
Because those don't use melee weapons a lot. Boxers need a different physique from sword fighters. When your only weapon is your fist (or your foot) and you can't take out your enemy with a single successful attack, then you better load up on destructiveness.

>Because they are specialized in one particular sport?
Just like sword fighters.

>Control a bigger weapon, have better fine control of a smaller weapon, propel weapons faster, [] be able to force opponents weapons.
>Essentially, more muscle is always better.
All of these would apply to modern sword fighters. And yet they don't seem to need a lot of muscle.

In real life dex>Str all the way.

You only need enough STR to control the sword, any more is not needed. How you handle the sword is much more important.

You don't need much Strenght to cut a throath.

In real life dex is more important for a sword fighter while str is more important for a bowman.

8lb max for most war swords. Anything heavier, like that sword in the image looks were ceremonial or parade swords.

Modern sword fighter here, 3rd dan kendo. Skinny bastards operating at a high level are pretty much all muscle, and the high-level beerguts are still rock solid under the fat.

There are a number of traditional kendo exercises for building strength and endurance, because they both help. For me, taking up pistol squats has made a noticeable difference. The idea is that by the time you get old enough to start losing strength, you've seen everything so many times that you can still keep up with a younger and more inexperienced fighter; still, the athletic young guys tend to take away the medals in the end.

>the "supposed" sword of a guy who is said to have possessed super human strength
And it's still less than 7 kg.
Swords didn't come in a lot of variation.
One handed swords: some 3 pounds.
Long swords: some 4 pounds.
Really big fucking two handed swords that were used as pole arms: a bit heavier than that. They also appeared only for a short time as actual weapons.

>All of these would apply to modern sword fighters. And yet they don't seem to need a lot of muscle.

Sport fighters, doing it part time and for fun?

As opposed to guys who actually have to fight for their lives? I mean, do you think that being Special Forces is somehow not physically intensive?

I'm also willing to bet a Special Forces guy could literally wipe the floor with any "Modern Sword Fighters" you might want to name.

That's why I picked the modern equivalent of guys who would ACTUALLY use swords in combat.

No one said you don't need any strength at all for sword fighting.

>In real life dex>Str all the way.
Dexterity comes from strength. If you want that exposive power that's required for rapid movements, you're going to have to hit the gym just like the bear mode STRfags.

>I mean, do you think that being Special Forces is somehow not physically intensive?
No, I am saying, and I quote myself "[they] need a different physique from sword fighters."
>I'm also willing to bet a Special Forces guy could literally wipe the floor with any "Modern Sword Fighters" you might want to name.
In a sword fight?
Not fucking likely.

>That's why I picked the modern equivalent of guys who would ACTUALLY use swords in combat.
And you ended up picking guys who aren't using swords at all.
Nice try, but you failed utterly.

People on anonymous internet Korean Rock Carving appreciation boards don't know shit about physical prowess.

For instance, this is what a Gymnast looks like. IRL Dexfag

I was replying to the guy who asked why modern sword fighters aren't buff as fuck.
If they're good, they probably are buff as fuck (for their frame) or just have enough fat that you din't notice.

You haven't picked guys who use swords in combat at all either.

And here pointed out that you're wrong as well. Muscle + Skill = Winning over just muscle or just skill.

>I was replying to the guy who asked why modern sword fighters aren't buff as fuck.
Sorry, I meant to say bulky. Of course they are physically fit.

That's more steroids and less prowess.

>And here pointed out that you're wrong as well.
I'd let him respond to you, but I'm sure he can defend himself if I misrepresent what he said:
"Skinny bastards operating at a high level" exist, according to him. Of course they are fit. But no, they are not HUGE.

As far as I know, there's burst power (generally placed under DEX) and consistent power (generally placed under STR).
Burst power is more immediately useful in a swordfight, because it lets you end the fight faster.
However, if you're fighting someone as fast or more skilled than you, you often have to depend on your strength to outlast the other guy. This goes double in extended conflicts where there are a lot of enemies and you have to carry your ass around.
So it basically goes like this:
>Hope you're more skilled than him
>If you're not more skilled than him, hope you're faster than him
>If you're not faster than him, hope you're stronger than him so you can overwhelm him
>If you're not stronger than him, hope you're less tired than him
>If you're not less tired than him, hope you're luckier than him

>But no, they are not HUGE.
Yeah, not strongman huge, but certainly swole as fuck.

None asked you about IRL, why you even bother to come to this threads if you don't want to answer on OP's question but want to educate people

But would being HUGE with HUGE muscles help more than being "sleek" or whatever?

Like, if you could be supported from 15 - 25 year old 6'4" and just work out and swordfight, would you not do that? Would you not shit your pants at having to swordfight a guy like that? Would you say things like "Oh, I bet all those muscles are going to slow him down"?

Kiyoshi Yamazaki thought it was a good thing for Arnold to have all that strength during the making of Conan.

Fun fact, they used real swords for the movie that weighed 9lbs.

Yeah, they totally are.

Well, I did start out asking about Str. vs. Dex builds as in "is it better to hit harder, or hit more often"

And maybe get some Str vs Dex gifs/webms

But then autism reared it's stupid fucking head about "Muh Muscles are unnecessary".

>Would you not shit your pants at having to swordfight a guy like that?
I'd punch the guy next to me and tell him to take down that dismounted knight with me. His muscles ain't going to save him from steel.

I don't really see how real life fencing is the equivalent of being a dexfag. Does he throw mean flips while he's at it? Or does dexterity these days mean skill levels instead?

Polearms are OP, pls. Nerf, Peasants are just for atmosphere on the battlefield.

Who is this man and why am I going to make fun of the competition he was in for being nancy pants fake sword fighting for points where they aren't even allowed to punch the other guy in the face or grapple him for a takedown.

>Would you not shit your pants at having to swordfight a guy like that?
No, because blades are exceptionally good at penetrating bodies with a minimum use of force. You don't need to be strong to accomplish that.
>they used real swords for the movie that weighed 9lbs.
Sounds like shit replicas.

>being a dexfag
Who's a dex fag?

Oh sorry, my mistake. I mistook the reply chain for another. Why aren't fencers and swordfighters on gear these days? Everyone else is.

>Who is this man and why am I going to make fun of the competition he was in for being nancy pants fake sword fighting for points where they aren't even allowed to punch the other guy in the face or grapple him for a takedown.
He's a HEMA champion, as in "Historical European Martial Arts. They are serious enough about being historically accurate.
The name is Rory van Noort. I just googled for HEMA champion.

But you do need to be strong to push the other guys sword out of the way, no? To be able to prevent him from doing the same? To move your sword faster than he can move his, no?

>You're going to run around golf clubbing goblins?
Yes, I will. Everything about my lv.4 Golfer makes him a perfect killing machine. His massive hat acts like a lions mane, distorting the profile of his head and making it harder to wound him there with arrows. Not to mention the fear factor. In melee, he is no less fearsome, for indeed, for his crisp white shirt can reflect the suns rays into your eyes. The utility of his poofy pants is limitless, their greatest function being an aid to keeping my Golfers balance. Everyone knows a lower center of gravity is the key to stability. Speaking of stability, his cleats serve to make him a terror to the small folk, while also preventing any slipping in the mud and blood of the battlefield.
Now, as to his weapons. Like all fighters, he has a range of weapon proficiencies, from the lowest Iron to the mighty Driver. Crafted from Titanium, the strongest metal in existence (apart from diamonds) they are truly a bane to monsters everywhere.
The best part is when they try to run away. They always realise too late that Golfers are specced for Range over Melee.

There is a reason the Japs fear the number 4. They know the wrath of Golf.

> youtube.com/watch?v=yE4UC8GE5dY

Looks like you didn't really disprove anything I said. Might as well be Olympic fencing by the looks of it.

I can only quote a HEMA instructor who said longsword fighting is not a hugely strength intensive sport and actually requires less strength than more recent weapon developments (saber, rapier).

Parrying doesn't require that much strength. Grappling is where things get messy, but nobody wants to get there, because it seriously eats at your stamina and there's loads of other people looking to kill you in a battle.

>Str. vs. Dex.
You mean Str. vs. Agi., right?
DnD keeps propagating the meme that Dexterity is responsible for quick, agile movement, when in fact Dexterity corresponds to hand-eye coordination and precise movement.

Protip: precision is not mobility.
A surgeon benefits from having high Dexterity, but not from high Agility. An olympic runner benefits from having high Agility, but not from high Dexterity.

Combining those two into a single attribute is dumb.

> Best answer in this thread, really.

The only diminishing return from building muscle mass for strength for any sport, as far as I can see, is if it takes time away from practicing the skills or causes problems from "overtraining".

They're not wearing armour and the sport seems to be similiar to fencing, where touching the opponent with your blade scores points. How is this historically accurate?

>How is this historically accurate?
In that they used to have similar competitions in the middle ages.
HEMA also includes armored combat.
>where touching the opponent with your blade scores points.
From what I know (from Matt Easton they have to perform actual attacks, not just touches with their weapons, and doublehits for example are severely punished.

So one kind of sword is less strength intensive in sport fencing than other kinds of swords?

Still doesn't discredit strength from being important as a decider between people of equal skill, or an asset.

>HEMA also includes armored combat.
Which still isn't realistic, since neither side is actually trying to kill eachother.
>actual attacks
Yeah, right. I'd like to see a sport where they're swinging the pommel of their sword at eachothers' skulls and necks, stabbing the opponent in their knee and armpits. I'd love to see 21st century blood sports.

>So one kind of sword is less strength intensive in sport fencing than other kinds of swords?
For two simple reasons:
1. You can use two hands to hold it.
2. You hold it close to your body, which doesn't require much strength.

As you can see, the actual fighting doesn't even come into it for him.

Strength and stamina are of extreme importance in actual combat. Sports aren't combat and you shouldn't even try to compare the two.

>I'd like to see a sport where they're swinging the pommel of their sword at eachothers' skulls and necks, stabbing the opponent in their knee and armpits. I'd love to see 21st century blood sports.
That is described in detail on Matt's youtube channel. I am usually bored by the fencing videos, but I'm pretty sure all the stuff is included in the rule set.

OP never said dex vs str. He asked what is better, slow and strong fighter(like goliath or giantdad) or faster precise fighter. You inbred retards are functionally illiterate

>which subjective thing is better in an objective fashion
It depends on the situation, numbnuts. Can't you use your brains a little?

You won't find examples of people swordfighting for their lives any more, but if you look at professional kendo or fencing you can find people who fight for their livelihoods in competition.
This guy isn't one of them and most likely wasn't trained by and doesn't train with them.

>is it better to hit harder, or hit more often

Unless you're dealing with some kind of damage reduction, hitting more is always better. It gives you more chances to apply status effects, more chance to bypass defenses, and you're less likely to waste DPS by overkilling things.

>Can't you use your brains a little?
You surely need, because I wasn't the one asking you this question but OP did

If you hit somebody 5 times and he's still not dead, there's something wrong with your weapon.

giantdad only has 16 STR, the bare minimum to two-hand the Chaos Zweihänder. He's not particularly strong, just minmaxed to hell and back.

>OP never said dex vs str. He asked what is better, slow and strong fighter(like goliath or giantdad) or faster precise fighter. You inbred retards are functionally illiterate

>Hey, what's better? A slow but strong fighter, or a speedy dex cannon?
>Also, any Strength vs. Dex gifs and webms would be appreciated.
>any Strength vs. Dex gifs and webms would be appreciated.
>Strength vs. Dex
What the fuck kind of bait is this?

>if you look at professional kendo or fencing
I wasn't going to bring up fencing because the weapons weigh almost nothing and you only need to tap the opponent to win. No one would accept a professional modern fencer as evidence that sword fighters shouldn't have enormous muscles.
Good idea with the kendo though.
Do you happen to have an image at hand?