> Hey, I am 5'10" and 120 pounds, but I could
>>probably kill a person with a matchbox with appropriate training.
>
>Cool! I weigh more than you do! Myself, I'm 5'10" and 130 lbs (and always I
>am being told to eat)- but one of the toughest women I've known is 5'4",
>125 or so, and blond. And I'd want her on my side in any kind of physical
>confrontation, any day. Throw those stereotypes away, y'all.
>
>I haven't seen the movie - but if the implication is that women can't be
>tough without fitting a certain body type (and that Demi Moore doesn't fit
>that type; ergo, she wasn't right for the role), that seems to me to be
>making some dangerous assumptions. Sure, it's handy to have weight and
>muscle mass in a fight, but training, speed, and endurance can more than
>tip the balance. Not to mention determination.
Of course, it's ideal so have all of the above. I find it intriguing and
frustrating when people limit themselves to thinking that if they have some
muscle, they can't be as quick, or as enduring (to a point). I've found my
reflexes much faster with added muscle. I think it's the ultimate to have
a person be very muscular and strong (who'll hit harder, Holyfield or Sugar
Ray Leonard?) as well as extremely quick and enduring and couple all that
with great smarts and iron determination. See Steve Barnes' character
"Aubry Knight" in "Firedance" for a great example of what I'm talking
about. Basically, it's best to have weight, mass, training, speed,
endurance, determination and intelligence to the greatest degrees possible.
-Sean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:38 PDT