The science of Djengis Khan

And jumping in from way behind and just seeing this, I can confirm. I've done research into elite military units for creative writing purposes, and the personal accounts all agree; the most successful warriors in terms of mobility are mid-sized. At least, when we're talking about an obstacle course built for training purposes. Big men can cover more ground, but they have more weight to move and they get snarled in the tight confines of the obstacles. Small men can easily slip through and save time on most obstacles, but their shorter stature means they cover less ground in between and they sometimes have difficulty reaching hand and footholds. Medium sized men navigate the course the fastest, which is no surprise as the course is designed to accommodate the average man. In the field, success depends strictly on the mission parameters, and topography of the environment. Some challenges require a lot of strength, some require stamina, some require speed, and sometimes they need a man to fit into a tight space. That is why elite units recruit a range of body types, well-rounded physical training, and emphasize group cooperation above all. It's not about personal glory, or who can do what. It's about suppression of ego, and getting the job done.

On an individual level outside the military, it depends on the athletic feat you want to accomplish. Pro American footballers are massive beasts, no matter what position, and they further have flexibility that most laymen don't appreciate. However, the specifics of their body types vary depending on the position they play. Wide receivers are tall and fast, offensive linemen are big and wide, explosively fast but lack the juice to outrun a defensive safety or cornerback. Switch to basketball, and they are all absurdly tall. Again, big, but fast enough to run up and down court and leap to sink or block shots into the goal. Unless you're Muggsy Bogues from 1987-2001, in which case you are only 5'3" (1.6 meters) but with a 44 inch (112cm) vertical, and inhuman tenacity. However, switch to a sport like gymnastics, and the athletes are suddenly 5'3", 5'6", 5'7". Pro snowboarders are average height, presumably for a mix of speed and power to make the leap, and mobility in the air to complete the trick. And of course, horse jockeys are as small and light as humanly possible, averaging 5'2" and between 108-118 lbs (49-53.5kg). To me, it's all about understanding the body you were dealt, and playing to your strengths.

Most of us don't compete in athletics, though, and when we do, it's in a league where physical deficiencies can be overcome by training and willpower. There are other fields of competition, though, and many favor different body types. Hookup culture notoriously favors tall men, to the point where men lie about their height as egregiously as women do their weight, strictly because women won't even look at a profile below 6'1" even though in reality this excludes 80% of the dating pool. Short men have problems finding a mate, that's harsh reality. I'm sorry it's that way, because it shouldn't be. Height doesn't mean a man will be good at sex or material provision, or whatever a mate is after, any more than a large cup size means a woman will be good in bed or life. Short men, however, can still be successful by playing into other strengths. They can be smart, funny, confident, and adept at maneuvering themselves from the "friend zone" into "potential sexual partner" by learning how to make a woman feel desirable and relevant. Fortunately for men, I think most women are relatively good at evaluating potential mates on a wider spectrum than simple physical appearance. It's not that way on dating apps, but that's more about the platform or tool, and the kind of person who uses dating apps.

If I were short, I wouldn't lie about my height and I'd try not to get bitter about it. I'd simply either not use dating apps, or get used to the disadvantage and attempt to emphasize my confidence despite the "disability." I would definitely work on talking to potential mates in real life, and as always, be a little more discriminating about who qualifies as "potential mate" for me. Like I said, physical appearance makes little to no difference, really when it comes to this field except for the admittedly significant portion of immediate physical attraction. It might be worthwhile to consider moving some of the women in your life out of your friend zone. I didn't say you need to lower your standards. I mean you might need to reevaluate your standards to a more practical, more satisfactory system. I'd rather date a woman with the face of a 5 and the conversational skills of a 7, than a self-centered 9 or 10.

 

I am a Varangian Guardsman i aspire to be no other men than the men that i already am