There has been a lot of hoopla about the one legged wrestler Anthony Robles who just won the NCAA 125 lb Championship. Not trying to be a dick, but if you think about it analytically, is it really that shocking? I actually believe he had several ADVANTAGES, to be honest.
First, he weighs 125 without one whole leg. So if you look at his body, he really has the body of a 165 lb wrestler, only cut the leg off that wrestler and he is now 125. So his upper body strength is massively greater than his opponents in his weight class. Second, in wrestling, legs are attack points. Everyone else has two, he only has one, which is probably confusing as hell for an opponent on the ground.
So, at risk of coming off like an ass, my question for anyone who has any wrestling knowledge is, did he win IN SPITE of having one leg, or did he win partly BECAUSE he only has one leg?
Seriously, he has one leg. This is not an advantage. You talk about how it's an advantage in strength. Question: Which limbs are the strongest? The legs. And he only has one of them. There are a number of ways to score in a match. and almost all of them are facilitated by having a second leg. Take "the escape." The defensive player gets points by getting himself out of bounds while the offensive player is in-bounds. Like every other part of wrestling, that is greatly effected by mobility. And who is more mobile, the guy on one leg or two? Or scoring a fall. Who is easier to topple, the man on one leg or two? This guy does have an edge in upper-body strength, but not having a leg is a serious-enough disadvantage that anyone complaining about how easy having three limbs makes things is pretty much an idiot that should never speak again.