Given how small a time difference separates winners from also-rans (in swimming it’s hundredths of seconds) having a fast (brain) reaction time could well be what makes your world-record holder.

I’ve addressed the other points in my previous posts.

I suggest that it’s a misconception to think that an elite woman warrior could beat “most” opponents, unless you’re talking unarmed peasants on foot or something. In my experience, she would most likely fight at the level of a below-mediocre male fighter. It’s not just speed, it’s not just strength, it’s not just mass, it’s the multiple of all these things that makes the prospect so challenging.

The problem is that most people simply can’t grasp how great the cumulative delta is without experiencing it in some manner. I highly recommend testing the matter, as there’s no more effective test of one’s basic character than discovering if you’ll get up or not after you get knocked on your posterior. You just never know; I’ve seen big, strong linebackers quit and I’ve seen pretty little daddy’s girls grit their teeth and get up for more.

By the way, no insult to Flo-Jo. I loved Flo-Jo, she was always my favorite. I just think it’s amazing that after 20 years, not even a doped-up Marion Jones can get within two-tenths of her times.

I’m not certain of the relevance of the speed issue to my post, however. Theo raising it had me thinking about my own experience training largely or, for many years, exclusively with men (for various reasons, despite most aikido schools having a relatively large proportion of women students, ours did not). In the last five or six years, most of the regularly training black belts overlapping with my schedule have been 6′2″ or over. I never felt a gender-linked speed differential in the execution of technique, although I absolutely felt the weight and strength issue whenever I didn’t do a technique correctly.

For obvious reasons aikido and my experience in it is my primary reference point for thinking about women warriors, and I think there is a fundamental difference between the kind of fighting Theo is talking about and what we do. Theoretically speaking (the reality is not quite that simple) aikido has no offensive moves. This is not purely philosophical. Aikido and aiki-jujutsu come from open-hand-against-sword techniques where you don’t have the luxury of taking repeated hits. Having been knocked on my butt when I, as my sensei said, blocked with my face, I know I couldn’t receive many full-strength blows and be useful for very much.

In principle you can accomplish not getting hit (and mostly I do) with very little movement. I may have 10% less fast-twitch muscle (probably a lot less given my current state of conditioning), but shifting off the line of attack to hitoi-mi (one line) stance might require only 10% as much movement as my punch-throwing attacker has to make, especially if I maintain the ma-ai and keep the distance I like. I don’t have to move quickly, I only need move to the right place at the right time, which is a very different thing.

Aiki throwing and pinning techniques are also based on timing, along with momentum, and a few anatomical facts, for example, the natural circular motion of joints, the uneven distribution of muscle around any joint, and the transfer of momentum through the human body that becomes possible when joints, e.g., wrist, elbow, shoulder, are aligned in a certain way. Also the fact that we are bipedal, and once one hip is higher than the other, everyone of us, no matter how strong or quick, is vulnerable to not being able to regain balance.

One last martial-arts point Theo’s post made me think of, and that is “Big Steps.” We are trained to take extra-long strides, so as to be able to close distance or open it quickly. I don’t know that the fast-twitch/slow-twitch thing would affect this, but it comes out of sword technique as well. One teaching story I heard about this was about a daimyo’s guard searching for enemy samurai in disguise who had infiltrated the town. They looked at footprints in the market and could tell which had been made by samurai, because of the length of the stride.

I’m intriued by Theo’s observations on speed, because at one point he’s talking about sprinting speed but elsewhere he seems to be talking about reaction speed. I’ve not seen any figures on female reaction times but I’d guess that the same applies as other physical characteristics - i.e. the very fastest men are faster than the very fastest women, but the very fastest women are faster than most men. So an exceptional woman will be able to beat many opponents, but can also come up against someone where she is genuinely outclassed, and may have to rely on some alternative technique…

…and there’s where it can work. Because women have learnt coping and compensation strategies for a long, long time and so it’s perfectly plausible for women to defeat “better” opponents through innovation. My rapier-wielding woman defeats a fencing master largely because she gets him outside his comfort zone; she taunts him, makes unconventional moves outside his catalogue of classic attacks, and eventually needles him enough that he makes a mistake and she capitalises on it. She finds where his weakness is, and exploits it. And if you can do that plausibly (and maybe add a soupcon of luck… luck always helps and is legitimate to a degree), then your woman warrior can beat a “better” opponent.

“With all due respect, Ms Berman’s basic thesis is entirely absurd and reflects her apparent lack of full-contact fighting.”

And also:

“However, I do commend her recommendation to writers, as there are certainly situations where a woman warrior is more likely to be able to defeat a male opponent than others.”

One of these things is not like the other.

That nine percent speed difference between the sexes doesn’t seem like much, but in the ring it is noticeable. It’s not a question of aggression or social inculcation, you feel like you have all day to react when you’re fighting any woman, even a woman of superlative skill who dominates other women at tournaments.

But as I said, don’t take my word for it. You’ve got some training, so visit a dojo and spar a female black belt. Or fight one of those female boxers full-contact. You’ll see what I mean soon enough.

The size thing isn’t irrelevant either. I once tried to go toe-to-toe at 180 with a 235-pound heavyweight with whom I lifted weights and could outbench. I figured I could hit him as hard as he could hit me… forgetting that whole “mass absorbs force” thing.

I ended up on my butt three times in a row before I realized why there are weight classes. Smaller and lighter fighters just can’t afford the same mistakes a larger one can get away with. Now, with smaller men, their relative quickness tends to be a compensation. But with women, they’re usually smaller and slower, a combination that is very hard to overcome even with great skill.

isn’t it a little weird to say “with all due respect…the argument is absurd”?

No, I don’t think so. I quite liked Ms Berman’s reasoning, actually, and anyone can make an absurd argument due to lack of relevant information. While the logic is reasonable enough, the contradicting empirical evidence has been available for centuries and can be readily obtained by anyone today. It’s not a question of my unique and esoteric experience, as the obvious and predictable results are available to anyone who bothers to test the matter. If you’re curious, test it and see for yourself.