(02-10-2015, 12:52 PM)Melkire Wrote:(02-10-2015, 11:57 AM)Gegenji Wrote: The Lala vs. Roe debate is just size difference taken to the extreme - the ultimate IG David and Goliath situation. Yet even in that story, wasn't it David that won?
Therein lies the irony of the tale. Depending on the translation, David either brained Goliath with a heavy stone from his sling, or else the thrown stone caught in Goliath's greave, causing him to stumble to his knees in time for David to cut off his head. Either way, size had nothing to do with it. The most-frequently cited example of a small man felling a large man ultimately fails to assert that the small man can win in a direct conflict - instead, he changes the game, disabling his foe from afar before taking his head.
Right, but I'm using it for the purposes of a "small man beating a large man" in a general sense. Not just through direct conflict. Skullduggery, experience, weapon advantage, element of surprise, even just being more alert and awake can make for a difference. Which, as I will always point out, applies for any combatants, not just Lala vs. Roe.
I just cite "size difference" due to the misconception that being bigger and stronger means that you will win. Melkire's own fighting style would attest that, I would think, yes?
~