Who do you think would win in a fight: both are equal weight, both have street smarts,.....................?

Question

one is black belt karate but the other one works out with equipment.

Answer 1

Well, if they're both equally in shape, I would say the black belt. Why? Because it's not the power, it's mostly technique and speed. The guy that works out, doesn't have any fighting capabilities. The martial artist, knows exactly where to hit, resulting in K.O.

Answer 2

The one who wants to win the most. Doesn't matter if you're a blackbelt or not, if you are ready to kill or be killed you have the advantage. It's what usually happens when a black belt gets beaten by a street fighter. The Black belt is only trained to take down and try to knock out his opponent, a street fighter on the other hand goes all out in a k1lling frenzy no matter what.

Answer 3

If both have "street smarts", as you say, the fight wouldn't happen, because the karateka would be smart enough to avoid the situation. That is just independent of the karate training pretty much, a lot of being "street smart" is about knowing when to avoid situations and get out, as well as where not to be.

But if the fight happened...we'd still need more info. If you are really implying an out-of-shape McDojo "karateka", he'd get tooled by anyone sober, but a full-contact, bare-knuckle *knockdown* karateka is a handful for anyone. Likewise, the one who works out "with equipment" *might* be a huge, lean bodybuilder as you imply, or he might be one of those scrawny *cardio dudes* who is better off running.

But okay, to keep it interesting and non-wussy....assuming the karateka trains competitively and with full-contact, and assuming that the other guy does weights, cardio and stretches....Mr. Fitness, with his lower Body Mass Index, his leaner, more muscular build, would likely look *less* like a target than the karateka, which may or may not be more of an intimidation factor. It might keep people from attacking one-on-one, but it might also *encourage* folks to attack the "big man" in a group.

Hmm, I'd say in a straight-up unarmed confrontation, especially one that goes for more than a few seconds, the karateka, the well-trained one anyway, has a slight advantage in terms of pain tolerance. A full-contact karateka hits and *takes hits* and likely wouldn't go down even if hit in the face by Mr. Fitness here. But....

The *minute* a weapon comes into play, even something improvised like a big stick or a broken piece of glass lying around, Mr. Fitness gets more of an advantage as *attributes* other than toughness come into play (explosive speed being the major one--which is derived from a combination of strength and flexibility). If there's a weapon, even a simple bludgeon, that makes the fight much shorter, higher-risk, and less about trading blows and more about not getting brained or shanked.

Essentially my point is, weapons are themselves a delivery system, enough so that they can and do change the game, in terms of the attributes needed to "win it". It is *NOT* rocket science to either a) poke someone repeatedly with something moderately sharp, or b) to bash someone repeatedly with something thick and heavy. Chimpanzees can do it. It's a gross-motor skill that nearly everyone learns as a child.

So yeah, in a one-on-one, unarmed scenario, the karateka can get by, and is more likely to win if the conflict goes on for minutes versus seconds.

If the conflict is a brief ambush lasting seconds or if a weapon of *any* sort is involved though, the person with more muscle is likely to at least *shed blood* if not win outright.

Hope this helps....thanks for your time! ^_^

Answer 4

still depends the quality of his training.

at least you are plugging the one loophole of them being different sizes. saying they are the same size at least implies similar stregths so you don't habe pee-wee herman squaring off against bob sapp.

Still, many karate gyms don't train properly, they might only have trained in point sparring. In which case he would develop bad habits in which a "natural" or untrained fighter would have a clear advantage.
this type of training often also causes you to sacrifice power for a "race to the target".

Proper training in karate, where the guy was training against fully resistant opponents vs. an untrained fighter who just works out I would go with the karateka.

however if the karateka recieved poor training and did point sparring as his "experience" to learn to fight, then he will be at a disadvantage and I will go with the "natural" fighter.

by "natural" I don't mean someone naturally skilled at a sport or game, I mean a fighter that acts and fights like a person without any training.

Answer 5

I will put my money on the martial artists as a general rule. However, most martial artists are not used to fighting in closed environments. There's some old anecdote about who would win if you put a boxer and martial artists to fight in a telephone booth. Supposedly the boxer will win because he does not need room to fight. This is not true of all martial arts by any stretch of the imagination. However, setting plays a huge part in fighting.

Answer 6

The one with the black belt in karate.

Answer 7

Chuck Norris, Toshishiro Obata, and Royce Gracie would join forces and swiftly erase their atoms from the universe in a thunderous and bloody hurricane of armbars, slashes, and roundhouse kicks.

Then they would meet Oyama and Huo Yuanja in the afterlife and suffer an eternity being used as a makiwara. Kicking type, mind you.

Answer 8

If you know Martial Arts, you will understand that when you punch, the power is not just generated by contracting and expansion of 1 group of muscles. The punch or kick delivered by people of same height and same weight can vary a lot.

Answer 9

the best type of fighter is a street boxer who cank wrestle and kick is about six four and 190- 200 pounds with amazing athletism

Answer 10

Depends on many things... the lighting, the time of day, the condition of each. I would tend to go with the martial artist.