I understand this is trial by combat stuff, woman vs. man, and putting the man in the hole is meant to make the fight more fair. But what about man vs. man (or woman vs. woman) trials where one man is significantly bigger than the other, or more trained (or trained at all vs. completely untrained), or any other disparity between the combatants? What exactly is this concept of "fair"? Why would someone choose a trial by combat if they didn't think they had some [unfair?] advantage over their opponent? If fairness is desired, why not just roll dice and then execute (or beat) the loser? If the decision has to be through combat, and "God's favor" is expected to be the deciding factor, why isn't the larger man's advantage considered to be part of "God's plan"?

I'm asking legitimate questions, here, to hear answers. I'm not asking rhetorical questions to make a point.

Really, what variables were considered still fair, vs. what variables were considered unfair for a trial by combat?