Pound for pound weakest fighter in the ufc?

[FIghtxIQ]

Mate, it does translate perfectly to real life.

You think it's just by chance that the pound-for-pound strongest guys are always small guys?
You think gymnasts are almost always small guys by chance?
You think it's by chance that the further away you go from the equator, animals of the same species become larger due to the fact that more volume and less surface area in relation to each other helps them keep their warmth?

All these things and many others are due to the square cube law and it's totally a thing. It's incredibly simple too, so i really don't know what you want.

You are basing all of evolution on a square cube law? That is a bit of an over simplification but you are entitled to your opinion. But animals and people on smaller islands get smaller, not bigger.

Height in gymnastics might be due more with average height competing. And it's not really about height, it's more about body type and arm length makes it easier for spins and flips. Doesn't mean a taller person is not able to do the same moves. There are gymnast competing over 6 ft, Igor Cassie from Italy won olympics at 5'11'' which is considered tall by typical gymnast measurements. So I see it more about skill than size.

There are lots of examples in the difference in bodyweight compared to what they are lifting done by smaller guys and bigger guys. That display of strength isn't reserved for smaller guys.

Either way, I'll go with real life examples of strength displayed by real people for a real measurement. I understand your theory, I just like things that are also provable in real life.

 

[Iron Nick]

You are basing all of evolution on a square cube law? That is a bit of an over simplification but you are entitled to your opinion. But animals and people on smaller islands get smaller, not bigger.

The island thing you've said doesn't stand in contrast to what i said though.

Here's what i'm referring to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule
"Bergmann's rule is an ecogeographical rule that states that within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, while populations and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions."

"The earliest explanation, given by Bergmann when originally formulating the rule, is that larger animals have a lower surface area to volume ratio than smaller animals, so they radiate less body heat per unit of mass, and therefore stay warmer in cold climates. Warmer climates impose the opposite problem: body heat generated by metabolism needs to be dissipated quickly rather than stored within.[26]
Thus, the higher surface area-to-volume ratio of smaller animals in hot and dry climates facilitates heat loss through the skin and helps cool the body."

As for basing evolution on this rule: not sure how you mean that, but i will give even more examples of that law playing a huge role:

- Warm blooded animals (like humans) have babies with very round proportions and short limbs, because since loss of heat is a big issue for us when being small (remember, this means that we haven't got a lot of volume compared to our surface area just due to size alone) round(er) proportions enable us to even that out a bit, since a ball is the geometric form with the least surface area compared to its volume.
Since we're warmblooded, our babies are also born extremely large relative to our adult sizes compared to coldblooded babies (Compare a newborn human baby and an adult human to a newborn alligator to an adult one, for example).
Cold blooded animals don't have to "worry" about heat loss, which is why even as babies, their proportions are equal to their adult counterparts.

- Elks have disproportionally thicker bones and are less active than normal deer and still break their bones more frequently.

But really, i'd suggest you to read the following article (which has been the one that explained all this stuff to me, pretty much exactly two years ago):
https://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

Height in gymnastics might be due more with average height competing. And it's not really about height, it's more about body type and arm length makes it easier for spins and flips. Doesn't mean a taller person is not able to do the same moves. There are gymnast competing over 6 ft, Igor Cassie from Italy won olympics at 5'11'' which is considered tall by typical gymnast measurements. So I see it more about skill than size.

It's obviously about skill, but if two people are equally skilled and have equal proportions, but one is smaller, the smaller one will be the better gymnast.

There are lots of examples in the difference in bodyweight compared to what they are lifting done by smaller guys and bigger guys. That display of strength isn't reserved for smaller guys.

Still, smaller guys are on average stronger pound-for-pound.

Either way, I'll go with real life examples of strength displayed by real people for a real measurement. I understand your theory, I just like things that are also provable in real life.

You can do that of course, sherbro.

 

[Dionysian]

Since TS said "P4P" then I'd go with Werdum. A HW should (P4P) be twice as strong as FLW in theory. Werdum's said plenty about just how little he strength trains, can't do any pushups, and is all technique. For a 240 pound elite athlete that then became champ it was pretty nuts.

 

[FIghtxIQ]

The island thing you've said doesn't stand in contrast to what i said though.

Here's what i'm referring to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule
"Bergmann's rule is an ecogeographical rule that states that within a broadly distributed taxonomic clade, populations and species of larger size are found in colder environments, while populations and species of smaller size are found in warmer regions."

"The earliest explanation, given by Bergmann when originally formulating the rule, is that larger animals have a lower surface area to volume ratio than smaller animals, so they radiate less body heat per unit of mass, and therefore stay warmer in cold climates. Warmer climates impose the opposite problem: body heat generated by metabolism needs to be dissipated quickly rather than stored within.[26]
Thus, the higher surface area-to-volume ratio of smaller animals in hot and dry climates facilitates heat loss through the skin and helps cool the body."

As for basing evolution on this rule: not sure how you mean that, but i will give even more examples of that law playing a huge role:

- Warm blooded animals (like humans) have babies with very round proportions and short limbs, because since loss of heat is a big issue for us when being small (remember, this means that we haven't got a lot of volume compared to our surface area just due to size alone) round(er) proportions enable us to even that out a bit, since a ball is the geometric form with the least surface area compared to its volume.
Since we're warmblooded, our babies are also born extremely large relative to our adult sizes compared to coldblooded babies (Compare a newborn human baby and an adult human to a newborn alligator to an adult one, for example).
Cold blooded animals don't have to "worry" about heat loss, which is why even as babies, their proportions are equal to their adult counterparts.

- Elks have disproportionally thicker bones and are less active than normal deer and still break their bones more frequently.

But really, i'd suggest you to read the following article (which has been the one that explained all this stuff to me, pretty much exactly two years ago):
https://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

It's obviously about skill, but if two people are equally skilled and have equal proportions, but one is smaller, the smaller one will be the better gymnast.

Still, smaller guys are on average stronger pound-for-pound.

You can do that of course, sherbro.

I brought it up to prove the evolution point, the same thing you are using - species evolving related to their environment/hunting/surviving needs.

I always believe skill is the factor and not the size and height that makes the difference. Because there would be no reason for people to try and do anything if success was predetermined relative to their size and height in a given field. People of the same size/weight/height have different strengths and it's not as simple as being bigger and smaller. Real world examples prove that, but a theory model of picking specific body/muscle mass can give you a different result in theory using those specific examples.

But you are also comparing humans to other species when they are not the same. The focus is on the human body and human strength. Unless you want to use examples of species more closely related to humans instead of just all species.

Unless we are doing gene splicing or genetic manipulation, things specific with dinosaurs and other species is not going to be something relatable to the human body.

 

[Doug Money]

Omalley seems frail af

 

[rstringer]

Cm punk?

 

[Iron Nick]

I brought it up to prove the evolution point, the same thing you are using - species evolving related to their environment/hunting/surviving needs.

I always believe skill is the factor and not the size and height that makes the difference. Because there would be no reason for people to try and do anything if success was predetermined relative to their size and height in a given field. People of the same size/weight/height have different strengths and it's not as simple as being bigger and smaller. Real world examples prove that, but a theory model of picking specific body/muscle mass can give you a different result in theory using those specific examples.

But you are also comparing humans to other species when they are not the same. The focus is on the human body and human strength. Unless you want to use examples of species more closely related to humans instead of just all species.

Unless we are doing gene splicing or genetic manipulation, things specific with dinosaurs and other species is not going to be something relatable to the human body.

Partially agree, partially disagree.
Agree about the skill thing being the most important factor (at least to a very big extent).

Disagree though that these other things aren't relatable to humans.