The Truth Behind Physical Combat Competitiveness: Men vs. Women

Have you ever wondered who would win in a fight between a boy and a girl, given the same height, age, and training, but with the girl being 15 kg heavier?

Biological Differences in Combat Performance

One stark reality is that throughout history, men have often been seen as the stronger entity in combat. This article delves into how and why this might be. Without further context, it often defaults to assumptions about the male combatant. It withastonishment at the notion that such a question could even be posed. The evolutionary history of humans bodes well for this male-centric perspective.

Physical and Biological Factors in Combat

Historically, men have been larger, stronger, and faster than women. These biological differences give them an edge in nearly every spectrum of direct combat. Exceptions do exist, such as in sniping or fighter pilot roles, where technical skills and not brute physical strength matter more. However, when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, men’s greater physical capabilities become more significant.

In a 2015 study conducted by the USMC, it was found that among men and women both with room-temperature IQs, men outperformed women in infantry tasks. This outcome was due to differences in their body structures: men required less energy to carry the same load and were less prone to muscular and skeletal injuries. Interestingly, male untrained Marines outperformed trained female Marines in many tasks.

Biological and Physical Disparities in Battle Scenarios

The disparity in combat performance becomes even more pronounced in more primitive or low-tech combat scenarios. Hand-to-hand combat heavily relies on physical strength, making women even more disadvantaged in such situations. Even professional fighters, like Ronda Rousey, can have their limits. The best female fighters can perform on par with average male fighters, but they are unlikely to be exceptional. This is a crucial takeaway: the best female fighters can compete, but they will not excel in the same way as top male fighters.

Personal Anecdotes and Observations

Two personal anecdotes highlight the physical strength differences. In teaching medieval fencing, I found that after three months of training, I became an even match with my female coach. She was technically proficient, but my physical attributes (taller, stronger, longer arms) gave me an advantage in some exchanges. Similarly, during a grappling match sparring night, I chose to pick up and throw my exhausted female student, despite her skills and fatigue. Here, the height and strength discrepancy became clearer.

Modern Cultural Shifts in Perception

It seems that modern culture has overlooked these biological facts. In older media, there were often narratives where underdogs (often with supernatural or exceptional abilities) outperformed burly men, making the story more exciting. However, today, such stories lack the cheat factor; shoddy writing lacks the substance of historical and biological realities. Women, even those trained, are often portrayed as curb-stomping those physically bigger and stronger because of reasons.

In the real world, losing is measured in blood and broken bodies. Men, on average, make better fighters. Smart women will use every tool available to them, and both men and women must adapt their tactics accordingly if they find themselves in a fair fight.

Conclusion

The bottom line is stark: men are generally better at fighting than women, and modern culture has largely forgotten this reality. Understanding these biological and physical factors is crucial for both men and women to develop effective combat strategies.