Your second paragraph is laughable and objectively false.
Never denied women aren't designed for child bearing. I'm stating that the ability for combat is just as good as men.
The only ones they would definately lose are ones based on extreme endurance or strength.
Did not deny that estrogen doesn't mean decreased muscle but it's oxytocin that leads to empathy not estrogen.
So you are saying that women who have less muscle mass, have more reproductive baggage, and are not biologically geared towards competition are better at combat than males who's only real purpose is to compete? I would say women in modern combat can be as effective as men. I would also say that women in say medieval times would be at a huge disadvantage no matter how skilled they were. The advantage might not be huge, but it is enough to give the male a big advantage.
The whole point of this argument was whether Ciri could actually be a believable strong character in the Witcher 3. IMO she is not believable. She doesn't have the physique of a fighter. She is rather slender like me. On top of that, she is fairly feminine and doesn't seem combat oriented. It seems very forced. Her voice is also very soft and feminine which doesn't provide an air of power to command someone. Overall she just seems like a very weak person to be the pinnacle of female strength and power who was raised as a Witcher. I find many women who are portrayed as strong female characters exactly like this. I feel like in a society like the Witcher with rapists thugs and in general scumbags all over the place, she would be in a lot of trouble. She wouldn't have a society to protect her. She would have friends at best. She is simply lucky she has the magic power she does or she would be in big trouble.
Feminine is not synonymous with insecurity and if you think so then again your chauvinism is showing.
Yeah. Some women want a word with you (well, not you, but the others). Notably: - Gina Carano - Holly Holm - Cris Justino - Miesha Tate - Ronda Rousey And I'll add Sofia Boutella to round it up.
How is that a counter argument? You are pointing out women who are probably on steroids, but even if they are not they are just taking advantage of modern technology and protection from society to do something they weren't engineered to do. That's doesn't prove they were meant for fighting any more than a man staying home and raising kids proves they were biologically engineered for it. The fact that these things are taking place shows how ridiculous society is getting about equality. Society is more concerned with equality than what is natural.
So sportive women are automatically "on steroids", while males are "combat engineered" ?
Maybe you were biologically engineered for stupidity ?
If you read the article I just posted it states that the only time women competed with men was when they were heavily using steroids. Maybe these women aren't using steroids, but they aren't competing with men directly either. It's likely they would lose if they were to do so.
Less muscle mass is countered by increased flexibility and lighter mass. Reproductive issues are non issues. There is no baggage there.
Their bility to learn skills is just as great and since combat is about skill and execution they are just as good.
The whole point of this conversation is you believing that feminine means weak.
Not at all. It means simply that women have a lot of extra reproductive things going on with their bodies that men do not. As mentioned in the article they have chemicals that make their bone mass smaller. It also makes their bones more prone to breakage.
Your only counter to women's breasts being a hindrance is that men's gonad's and penis are also, but that is simply not true. You also haven't proven that women's hip fat doesn't slow them down. As I've stated I've watched a lot of women and men over the years and the women always thrust their hips slower and turn slower. This is probably partially due to all the difficulty of moving all that extra weight around.
I never said anything about their ability to learn skills.
I do think being feminine is weak if you are in a certain type of environment. It leaves you open to attack and exploitation. Not every society is going to be a super support structure for your to lean on.
You haven't proved that breasts are any more of a hindrance. Nor have you down that the hips would slow them down.
What you've observed is countered by what others observe. If they are slow due to extra weight. Well men weigh more.
And once again. Combat is about skill and execution.
Feminism is not weak in any society. Being timid is weak. Lack of training when compared to those who are trained is weak. Fear from those who are trained is normal. None of which is caused by being a woman.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I know I'm in the minority here but I don't think there should be a hide helmet features. Either wear it or don't.
I do think that maybe there could be a trade off such as (as you mention) having more protection or greater awareness (and maybe some stat buff or some such thing for that awareness.
But yeah, I'm in the minority there.
Sounds fine too me, choose between good protection or better perception (and looking better).
But then the perception actually needs to be useful, it rarely is in MMOs. Or you could blacken the part of your screen based on how much your helmet obscures your view, together with dampening certain sounds it would simulate things excellent.
You haven't proved that breasts are any more of a hindrance. Nor have you down that the hips would slow them down.
What you've observed is countered by what others observe. If they are slow due to extra weight. Well men weigh more.
And once again. Combat is about skill and execution.
Feminism is not weak in any society. Being timid is weak. Lack of training when compared to those who are trained is weak. None of which is caused by being a woman.
It is not the overall weight, but where it is condensed. Men's weight is well distributed. They have little in the way of fat tissue if they are not unhealthy.
Do I really need proof that woman's breasts are a hindrance while running? Imagine if you were in a time period before we had something to bind breasts. At best you would have them getting in your way as they flapped around in front of you. At worst they would snap down hard and cause a lot of pain as you can easily google search women who complain about it.
Combat is not always about execution. Sometimes it is just about sheer force. None the less when people are of equal skill it is the one that has stronger muscles bigger bones, and is agiler that wins (this is considering we are talking about combat. That would be the male in most cases as proven by events that have taken place throughout history and also is referred to in the article I posted. One thing I can say is I played hockey and many other sports when I was young. They were much more violent than they are today since women starting playing them more. For instance, you have things like bench brawls, people elbowing other people in the heads, people being wrestled to the ground, people getting constantly cross-checked in the back, etc. Sports seem almost tame by comparison to today's version. It was more like a war in the 80s and 90s. It's kind of like MMORPGs where no one is allowed to criticize another and part of why these games have become very boring to play for me.
You haven't proved that breasts are any more of a hindrance. Nor have you down that the hips would slow them down.
What you've observed is countered by what others observe. If they are slow due to extra weight. Well men weigh more.
And once again. Combat is about skill and execution.
Feminism is not weak in any society. Being timid is weak. Lack of training when compared to those who are trained is weak. None of which is caused by being a woman.
It is not the overall weight, but where it is condensed. Men's weight is well distributed. They have little in the way of fat tissue if they are not unhealthy.
Do I really need proof that woman's breasts are a hindrance while running? Imagine if you were in a time period before we had something to bind breasts. At best you would have them getting in your way as they flapped around in front of you. At worst they would snap down hard and cause a lot of pain as you can easily google search women who complain about it.
Combat is not always about execution. Sometimes it is just about sheer force. None the less when people are of equal skill it is the one that has stronger muscles bigger bones, and is agiler that wins (this is considering we are talking about combat. That would be the male in most cases as proven by events that have taken place throughout history and also is referred to in the article I posted. One thing I can say is I played hockey and many other sports when I was young. They were much more violent than they are today since women starting playing them more. For instance, you have things like bench brawls, people elbowing other people in the heads, people being wrestled to the ground, people getting constantly cross-checked in the back, etc. Sports seem almost tame by comparison to today's version. It was more like a war in the 80s and 90s. It's kind of like MMORPGs where no one is allowed to criticize another and part of why these games have become very boring to play for me.
Bah, it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with even men are man babies and when they get over into combat get all scared and start second guessing what they are doing and get them selves killed. Women would be good for a defensive war, or if you could convenience them it was a defensive war. I hear all the time about how people have PSTD, from killing people. The science comes from, that women have a lot more connections between the left and right side of their brains than men do, so it is easier for men to block out randomly killing people for no reason.
"logical/rational side of the brain. Women, on the other hand, use both sides of their brains because awoman's brain has a larger Corpus Callosum, which means women can transfer data between the rightand left hemispheres faster than men"
That is kinda a hindrance if your emotional side is telling you maybe you shouldn't be mass murdering people, and see a bunch of internal body parts fly all over. Now that is not to say its the end of it, because that is just general. I am sure some men have problems with randomly killing people too. Just general a man can block out his emotions of feeling bad about shooting some one to pieces, vs a women.
As far as your idea about our bodies being different, that is totally useless. Modern combat is not about who can run faster, or who is physically stronger. It is about who has the better technology, and higher intelligence. So yeah, if you took a bunch of barely sentient highly fit men, vrs highly intelligent over weight women. Stuck them on each side of the battle field with the men having pistols and the women having high powered machine guns...............
Not really sure what any of this has to do with sexy cloths and video games though..... It 100 percent has nothing to do with if women and men are equal or not. I am pretty sure a bunch of men running around with chainmail thongs on wouldn't be all that popular. As I already stated women choice to wear skimpy cloths and made it a western standard of a symbol of freedom from oppressive men that told them to dress basically like Muslim women.
If a women felt inferior to a man, because a video game depicted women in sexy cloths, I dono I guess no one took the time to educate her very well. Or if a man felt superior to women because a video game depicts women in sexy cloths, or they both are just stupid.
I mean when i walk down the street and see a girl dressed in skimpy cloths I dont think I am superior to them. If some one does or feels inferior because they are wearing it, they have some serious, serious issues.
I always find it funny when a forum thread starts from talking about women's armor in an MMO to real life armor to the crap that @Flyte27 is spewing out. Your comments are ignorant; I'm trying to understand how a guy that used to get beat up in school is a good judge of what women can or cannot do. At least be a tough guy if you're going to back your claim. Some online warrior you are; do you think that you're any better than the man-hating feminists going around? Or the religious extremists that @Jean-Luc_Picard mentioned? No, you're not.
"I have found a desire within myself that no experience in this world can satisfy; the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." ~ C. S. Lewis
Basically all the games that have nothing but 100% almost fully naked armor are because they try to seduce the younger people into buying and spending money in a cash shop, and I hate to admit but half the time it works because almost everyone running around is wearing the same things sometimes...
And you should see my Arche Age inventory before I quit it was fully every costume in that game.
Basically all the games that have nothing but 100% almost fully naked armor are because they try to seduce the younger people into buying and spending money in a cash shop, and I hate to admit but half the time it works because almost everyone running around is wearing the same things sometimes...
And you should see my Arche Age inventory before I quit it was fully every costume in that game.
That animation is hypnotic, really omg, it must have taken 100 animations and an entire year to animate some of those smoooooooooooooooooooooooth....... ..... ..... .... armors!
A mans weakness is thinking with his dick instead of his head. Women are far superior in that regard. Scantily armoured big boobed warrior women are there to exploit the weakness in men.
What nonsense am I reading the last few pages? You people do understand that every physical sport is segregated at every level from puberty on because females are not competitive against males, right? It's not just as the highest levels. It's every level at every age.
Professional world champion women's soccer teams scrim against 14-15 year old boys teams to prepare for tournaments and get blown out. Sex differences in physical ability are massive.
Do none of you remember when a trans woman (MTF) was dominating MMA and nearly killing her opponents until they barred her from the sport? That was even with hormone therapy to lower testosterone. There's a reason none of the female fighters listed earlier are even willing to make an attempt at entering the male amateur circuit. If they could compete in the much higher earning men's categories they would. They can't.
Every combat sport has strict weight categories and fighters try their best to fit into the lightest they can, because being at the bottom of your weight class is a good way to get your butt handed to you. Larger fighters have more reach, more leverage, more strength, more weight that makes it much harder to move and manipulate them, and simply thicker bones and more tissue between danger and their vitals that lets them take more punishment. Anyone who thinks size doesn't matter has never been in a fight.
Stop trying to reshape reality to fit your political agenda.
Yes there are differences. We've explained that many times 60% upper body strength 80%lower body strength and 10-20 % less blood volume. Sex specific fat even.
Those differences are really only apparent at high levels near elite of sport. The boys team are very nearly men and A level. They are highly trained. True there season so far is only 18%.
So two very well trained teams. The added strength and speed win out.
In most military units hey are not highly trained. It's pretty darn average.
Women beat men all the time in many many martial arts. Rarely at the elite level. There's a few thousand you tube video on it.
The point is combat is about skill. Skill will over come brute force. It's the old argument. Who wins Bruce Lee or Mike Tyson. Bruce will win if he can avoid the one knockout blow. Both skill with force is a dangerous combination which is why men will likely almost always dominate the top. Who would win Bruce Lee Mohammed Ali?
Most military units are not like that. Now or in the past. Heck in the past the bulk of military in battle was made of Farmers and serfs with a few weeks of training and just a few scattering of trained militia.
Average City marathon times aren't very different. Just the winners are different.
The more trained the individuals are the more those differences become apparent.
Why are teenage girls dominating climbing lately. They can't use brute Force so must learn skill. Skill overcomes the strength deficit and when combined with light weight makes them a powerful force.
Post edited by VengeSunsoar on
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The only "martial arts" that women beat men in are heavily scripted play fights with lots of rules. There's not one real combat sport that they even compete in, much less win thousands of times.
Mike Tyson isn't even a big dude (5'10 210) and he would still easily defeat the 5'7 125 lbs Bruce Lee. Somebody like Foreman in his prime (6'4 260) would probably kill him.
No, the bulk of military forces were not untrained farmers. Most armies throughout history have been made up of professional soldiers or noblemen trained from childhood. Nations foolish enough to field untrained peasants were generally massacred. I'm not sure where you got this idea from.
Bruce would destroy Mike. Mike's fighting weight was 220.
To your last part. History. Most did have a standing army yes. But the army was extremely basic. The bulk of war was conscripted. As far as massacred no because they're opponent was also largely conscripted.
Heck even Rome which had one the best professional armies relied on mandatory conscription for campaigning seasons which were then disbanded after. That was slowly changed to long term standing 6 year service.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There was recently a football match (soccer) between the americans professional womens soccer team, and an under 15's team, school kids basically, the womens team lost. Its not the first time something like that has happened though, the Australian national womens football team played against 15 year old boys last year too, and were trounced 7- 0, basically when it comes to sports, women and men cannot compete on a level playing field, they are at too severe a disadvantage physically, while some people may try to pretend that women can be as strong as men, reality refuses to play along. O.o
No one said they were as strong. We addressed that game above. New castle jets an A level team. Two highly trained teams. Was Australian.
Skill plus force is awesome. Combat was and is primarily skill. There just weren't and aren't manys situations where Max strength was needed.
Most of the armor wasn't heavy. Short swords were a few pounds as were short bows. Heck even a full suit of armor was about 50 lbs. Less than many modern armor and less than fire fighter great.
Long bows did have huge draws but most units didn't wield them. Those units were specialized.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Given modern combat only requires the strength to pull a trigger I'd say we're all pretty equal now?
As the old saying goes. They say God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.
Bruce Lee likely beats Tyson but that is more a matter of Jeet Kune Do vs boxing. Bruce Lee probably loses to someone like Royce Gracie as grappling generally defeats striking for the same reasons Bruce beats Tyson. If they can avoid the one knockout blow, likely a win after that.
Anyone old enough to remember Arnold Shwarzneggers conan movies, The cartoon movie heavy metal, or just high fantasy and nerd stuff from the 80's? Yeah so do I, Don't you hate this generations politically correct whiny bullshit lol
Anyone old enough to remember Arnold Shwarzneggers conan movies, The cartoon movie heavy metal, or just high fantasy and nerd stuff from the 80's? Yeah so do I, Don't you hate this generations politically correct whiny bullshit lol
I don't have an opinion that is trying to push any agenda but what you said also talks about a time when women were unable to complain about what they were being made to do either. The likes of Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly ruled.
No one said they were as strong. We addressed that game above. New castle jets an A level team. Two highly trained teams. Was Australian.
Skill plus force is awesome. Combat was and is primarily skill. There just weren't and aren't manys situations where Max strength was needed.
Most of the armor wasn't heavy. Short swords were a few pounds as were short bows. Heck even a full suit of armor was about 50 lbs. Less than many modern armor and less than fire fighter great.
Long bows did have huge draws but most units didn't wield them. Those units were specialized.
A baseball bat only weighs about two pounds. A baseball weighs less than 1/3 of a pound. Even six-year-old children can swing a bat and throw a ball.
But that didn't stop world-class athletes from taking steroids to enable them to swing a bat harder and throw a ball faster. Sometimes physical strength matters a lot even when the instruments you're dealing with aren't very heavy.
Anyone old enough to remember Arnold Shwarzneggers conan movies, The cartoon movie heavy metal, or just high fantasy and nerd stuff from the 80's?
Err... you surely mean those youngsters who've learned everything from the screen, since they aren't old enough to remember the Conan comics, or the Heavy Metal comics? (hint: those were before the movies) Heck, the french ones here like Picard probably remember even the french original from Moebius... (another hint, Heavy Metal was a copy of a french comics series)
Funny thing is, I'm not old enough either, just... maybe more open? More curious? (actually, as far as I remember in the mid-70's I've had much better things to do than reading french comics, like finger-painting, running around the kindergarten, colouring books, that kinda stuff.)
I have the original Moebius comics. Good stuff. Well I was born in the 60's too lol. Mœbius I have a huge collection of comics I have no space for any more.
No one said they were as strong. We addressed that game above. New castle jets an A level team. Two highly trained teams. Was Australian.
Skill plus force is awesome. Combat was and is primarily skill. There just weren't and aren't manys situations where Max strength was needed.
Most of the armor wasn't heavy. Short swords were a few pounds as were short bows. Heck even a full suit of armor was about 50 lbs. Less than many modern armor and less than fire fighter great.
Long bows did have huge draws but most units didn't wield them. Those units were specialized.
A baseball bat only weighs about two pounds. A baseball weighs less than 1/3 of a pound. Even six-year-old children can swing a bat and throw a ball.
But that didn't stop world-class athletes from taking steroids to enable them to swing a bat harder and throw a ball faster. Sometimes physical strength matters a lot even when the instruments you're dealing with aren't very heavy.
You can't get any more elite then the best in the world taking enhancements. Far removed from most situations including most combat.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
The whole point of this argument was whether Ciri could actually be a believable strong character in the Witcher 3. IMO she is not believable. She doesn't have the physique of a fighter. She is rather slender like me. On top of that, she is fairly feminine and doesn't seem combat oriented. It seems very forced. Her voice is also very soft and feminine which doesn't provide an air of power to command someone. Overall she just seems like a very weak person to be the pinnacle of female strength and power who was raised as a Witcher. I find many women who are portrayed as strong female characters exactly like this. I feel like in a society like the Witcher with rapists thugs and in general scumbags all over the place, she would be in a lot of trouble. She wouldn't have a society to protect her. She would have friends at best. She is simply lucky she has the magic power she does or she would be in big trouble.
Their bility to learn skills is just as great and since combat is about skill and execution they are just as good.
The whole point of this conversation is you believing that feminine means weak.
Your only counter to women's breasts being a hindrance is that men's gonad's and penis are also, but that is simply not true. You also haven't proven that women's hip fat doesn't slow them down. As I've stated I've watched a lot of women and men over the years and the women always thrust their hips slower and turn slower. This is probably partially due to all the difficulty of moving all that extra weight around.
I never said anything about their ability to learn skills.
I do think being feminine is weak if you are in a certain type of environment. It leaves you open to attack and exploitation. Not every society is going to be a super support structure for your to lean on.
What you've observed is countered by what others observe. If they are slow due to extra weight. Well men weigh more.
And once again. Combat is about skill and execution.
Feminism is not weak in any society. Being timid is weak. Lack of training when compared to those who are trained is weak. Fear from those who are trained is normal. None of which is caused by being a woman.
Sounds fine too me, choose between good protection or better perception (and looking better).
But then the perception actually needs to be useful, it rarely is in MMOs. Or you could blacken the part of your screen based on how much your helmet obscures your view, together with dampening certain sounds it would simulate things excellent.
Do I really need proof that woman's breasts are a hindrance while running? Imagine if you were in a time period before we had something to bind breasts. At best you would have them getting in your way as they flapped around in front of you. At worst they would snap down hard and cause a lot of pain as you can easily google search women who complain about it.
Combat is not always about execution. Sometimes it is just about sheer force. None the less when people are of equal skill it is the one that has stronger muscles bigger bones, and is agiler that wins (this is considering we are talking about combat. That would be the male in most cases as proven by events that have taken place throughout history and also is referred to in the article I posted. One thing I can say is I played hockey and many other sports when I was young. They were much more violent than they are today since women starting playing them more. For instance, you have things like bench brawls, people elbowing other people in the heads, people being wrestled to the ground, people getting constantly cross-checked in the back, etc. Sports seem almost tame by comparison to today's version. It was more like a war in the 80s and 90s. It's kind of like MMORPGs where no one is allowed to criticize another and part of why these games have become very boring to play for me.
Bah, it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with even men are man babies and when they get over into combat get all scared and start second guessing what they are doing and get them selves killed. Women would be good for a defensive war, or if you could convenience them it was a defensive war. I hear all the time about how people have PSTD, from killing people. The science comes from, that women have a lot more connections between the left and right side of their brains than men do, so it is easier for men to block out randomly killing people for no reason.
"logical/rational side of the brain. Women, on the other hand, use both sides of their brains because awoman's brain has a larger Corpus Callosum, which means women can transfer data between the rightand left hemispheres faster than men"
That is kinda a hindrance if your emotional side is telling you maybe you shouldn't be mass murdering people, and see a bunch of internal body parts fly all over. Now that is not to say its the end of it, because that is just general. I am sure some men have problems with randomly killing people too. Just general a man can block out his emotions of feeling bad about shooting some one to pieces, vs a women.
As far as your idea about our bodies being different, that is totally useless. Modern combat is not about who can run faster, or who is physically stronger. It is about who has the better technology, and higher intelligence. So yeah, if you took a bunch of barely sentient highly fit men, vrs highly intelligent over weight women. Stuck them on each side of the battle field with the men having pistols and the women having high powered machine guns...............
Not really sure what any of this has to do with sexy cloths and video games though..... It 100 percent has nothing to do with if women and men are equal or not. I am pretty sure a bunch of men running around with chainmail thongs on wouldn't be all that popular. As I already stated women choice to wear skimpy cloths and made it a western standard of a symbol of freedom from oppressive men that told them to dress basically like Muslim women.
If a women felt inferior to a man, because a video game depicted women in sexy cloths, I dono I guess no one took the time to educate her very well. Or if a man felt superior to women because a video game depicts women in sexy cloths, or they both are just stupid.
I mean when i walk down the street and see a girl dressed in skimpy cloths I dont think I am superior to them. If some one does or feels inferior because they are wearing it, they have some serious, serious issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUFEg_7KH8
Basically all the games that have nothing but 100% almost fully naked armor are because they try to seduce the younger people into buying and spending money in a cash shop, and I hate to admit but half the time it works because almost everyone running around is wearing the same things sometimes...
And you should see my Arche Age inventory before I quit it was fully every costume in that game.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Professional world champion women's soccer teams scrim against 14-15 year old boys teams to prepare for tournaments and get blown out. Sex differences in physical ability are massive.
Do none of you remember when a trans woman (MTF) was dominating MMA and nearly killing her opponents until they barred her from the sport? That was even with hormone therapy to lower testosterone. There's a reason none of the female fighters listed earlier are even willing to make an attempt at entering the male amateur circuit. If they could compete in the much higher earning men's categories they would. They can't.
Every combat sport has strict weight categories and fighters try their best to fit into the lightest they can, because being at the bottom of your weight class is a good way to get your butt handed to you. Larger fighters have more reach, more leverage, more strength, more weight that makes it much harder to move and manipulate them, and simply thicker bones and more tissue between danger and their vitals that lets them take more punishment. Anyone who thinks size doesn't matter has never been in a fight.
Stop trying to reshape reality to fit your political agenda.
Those differences are really only apparent at high levels near elite of sport. The boys team are very nearly men and A level. They are highly trained. True there season so far is only 18%.
So two very well trained teams. The added strength and speed win out.
In most military units hey are not highly trained. It's pretty darn average.
Women beat men all the time in many many martial arts. Rarely at the elite level. There's a few thousand you tube video on it.
The point is combat is about skill. Skill will over come brute force. It's the old argument. Who wins Bruce Lee or Mike Tyson. Bruce will win if he can avoid the one knockout blow. Both skill with force is a dangerous combination which is why men will likely almost always dominate the top. Who would win Bruce Lee Mohammed Ali?
Most military units are not like that. Now or in the past. Heck in the past the bulk of military in battle was made of Farmers and serfs with a few weeks of training and just a few scattering of trained militia.
Average City marathon times aren't very different. Just the winners are different.
The more trained the individuals are the more those differences become apparent.
Why are teenage girls dominating climbing lately. They can't use brute Force so must learn skill. Skill overcomes the strength deficit and when combined with light weight makes them a powerful force.
Mike Tyson isn't even a big dude (5'10 210) and he would still easily defeat the 5'7 125 lbs Bruce Lee. Somebody like Foreman in his prime (6'4 260) would probably kill him.
No, the bulk of military forces were not untrained farmers. Most armies throughout history have been made up of professional soldiers or noblemen trained from childhood. Nations foolish enough to field untrained peasants were generally massacred. I'm not sure where you got this idea from.
Bruce would destroy Mike. Mike's fighting weight was 220.
To your last part. History. Most did have a standing army yes. But the army was extremely basic. The bulk of war was conscripted. As far as massacred no because they're opponent was also largely conscripted.
Heck even Rome which had one the best professional armies relied on mandatory conscription for campaigning seasons which were then disbanded after. That was slowly changed to long term standing 6 year service.
Skill plus force is awesome. Combat was and is primarily skill. There just weren't and aren't manys situations where Max strength was needed.
Most of the armor wasn't heavy. Short swords were a few pounds as were short bows. Heck even a full suit of armor was about 50 lbs. Less than many modern armor and less than fire fighter great.
Long bows did have huge draws but most units didn't wield them. Those units were specialized.
As the old saying goes. They say God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal.
Bruce Lee likely beats Tyson but that is more a matter of Jeet Kune Do vs boxing. Bruce Lee probably loses to someone like Royce Gracie as grappling generally defeats striking for the same reasons Bruce beats Tyson. If they can avoid the one knockout blow, likely a win after that.
Aloha Mr Hand !
I don't have an opinion that is trying to push any agenda but what you said also talks about a time when women were unable to complain about what they were being made to do either. The likes of Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly ruled.
A baseball bat only weighs about two pounds. A baseball weighs less than 1/3 of a pound. Even six-year-old children can swing a bat and throw a ball.
But that didn't stop world-class athletes from taking steroids to enable them to swing a bat harder and throw a ball faster. Sometimes physical strength matters a lot even when the instruments you're dealing with aren't very heavy.
Err... you surely mean those youngsters who've learned everything from the screen, since they aren't old enough to remember the Conan comics, or the Heavy Metal comics?
Heck, the french ones here like Picard probably remember even the french original from Moebius... (another hint, Heavy Metal was a copy of a french comics series)
Funny thing is, I'm not old enough either, just... maybe more open? More curious?
(actually, as far as I remember in the mid-70's I've had much better things to do than reading french comics, like finger-painting, running around the kindergarten, colouring books, that kinda stuff.)
I have a huge collection of comics I have no space for any more.
You can't get any more elite then the best in the world taking enhancements. Far removed from most situations including most combat.