Strength Difference in Comparison to Size

Trickster***

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,778
Reaction score
0
This argument came up in the Grappling Forum so I figured I would ask you guys...

Do you think there is a bigger strength difference between:

1. a 150lb guy and a 175lb guy

OR

2. a 175lb guy and a 205lb guy


This is more in reference to grappling. We arent really talking weight training and how much each would bench press. We are talking about if a 150lb guy grappled a 175lb guy. And a 175lb guy grappled a 210lb guy....where would be bigger difference lie?

Thanks!
 
I would say it entirely depends on the two people in question. Just because you are bigger than someone doesn't mean you are stronger.
 
This argument came up in the Grappling Forum so I figured I would ask you guys...

Do you think there is a bigger strength difference between:

1. a 150lb guy and a 175lb guy

OR

2. a 175lb guy and a 205lb guy


This is more in reference to grappling. We arent really talking weight training and how much each would bench press. We are talking about if a 150lb guy grappled a 175lb guy. And a 175lb guy grappled a 210lb guy....where would be bigger difference lie?

Thanks!

Between the 175 pound guy and the guy who started off at 205 and had swole to 210 by the time you finished typing the question. What's he at now, 225? Better test that guy!
 
I would say 150 to 175. The weight difference in percent is the same (~17%) between 150-175 and 175-210 however the potential for a bigger absolute strength difference is greater between a 150lb and a 175lb athlete.
 
Between the 175 pound guy and the guy who started off at 205 and had swole to 210 by the time you finished typing the question. What's he at now, 225? Better test that guy!


Haha he was juicing as I was typing!
 
No way. Paul Bunyan's got an ax and an ox.

Ya, but I think Zeus will have Hercules's back. If Paul can use his ox can't Hercules bring some friends to the party as well? PB does have a ridiculous height advantage though.
 
I'd go with herc. I mean, he took out a hydra, so obviously a height and reach advantage doesn't really phase him, and if PB can tag team his ox... well as has been said before gods>blue ox.
 
Those weights just keep changing, eh?
 
Also, assuming a perfect scenario where each larger man is just a strict percentage increase in the proportions of the smaller man, there's probably a bigger strength difference between 150 and 175. I say this because the cross sectional difference in muscle is greater there than in the 175/205 comparison. IN powerlifting this looks to be true, while there are some outliers, generally as the weight classes go up the differences in the lifts and totals begin to narrow from one weight class to the previous.

Consider that if you assume the mass of a muscle is directly proportional to its size, you have to quadruple the mass of a muscle to double the cross sectional area.
 
Wouldn't it really matter on the height of the people in question as well?

I would say there would be a more significant strength difference between a 6'6" 175# person and a 6'3" 205# person (2.24 lbs per inch vs 2.73 lbs per inch, a 22% difference) than there would be between a 5'3" 150# and a 5'6" 175# (2.38 lbs per inch vs 2.65 lbs per inch, a 11% difference)

In the first example the 6'6" person would have to be very lightly muscled to be 175#, whereas the 6'3" person would be far closer to his strength potential.

In the second example, both of them could likely be at the point of diminishing returns of functional strength. Both, assuming a low bf%, could be quite strong.

So the advantage could go either way depending on height, and body fat percentages. In general I have noticed a far bigger difference between lightly muscled and well muscled than between heavily muscled and extremely muscled, if that makes any sense. Typically once you get past "heavily muscled" it becomes more of an issue of hypertrophy training rather than strength training, and will vary hugely by type and intensity of lifts the individuals adhere to.
 
Just look at weightclass increments in fight sports.
 
Who is stronger, Hercules or Paul Bunyan?
I'm going to go with Hercules. I don't think Paul Bunyan could do all this:
  1. Kill the Nemean Lion.
  2. Destroy the Lernaean Hydra.
  3. Capture the Ceryneian Hind.
  4. Capture the Erymanthian Boar.
  5. Clean the Augean Stables.
  6. Kill the Stymphalian Birds.
  7. Capture the Cretan Bull.
  8. Round up the Mares of Diomedes.
  9. Steal the Girdle of Hippolyte.
  10. Herd the Cattle of Geryon.
  11. Fetch the Apples of Hesperides.
  12. Capture Cerberus.
 
Paul could cut down acres of timber single-handedly in just a few minutes by tying his huge ax to the end of a long rope and swinging it in circles.

PAUL BUNYPWNED.
 
I'm going to go with Hercules. I don't think Paul Bunyan could do all this:
  1. Kill the Nemean Lion.
  2. Destroy the Lernaean Hydra.
  3. Capture the Ceryneian Hind.
  4. Capture the Erymanthian Boar.
  5. Clean the Augean Stables.
  6. Kill the Stymphalian Birds.
  7. Capture the Cretan Bull.
  8. Round up the Mares of Diomedes.
  9. Steal the Girdle of Hippolyte.
  10. Herd the Cattle of Geryon.
  11. Fetch the Apples of Hesperides.
  12. Capture Cerberus.

Most of those accomplishments didn't require limit strength. They're more conditioning intensive. Hercules is like Marius and Paul Bunyan is Big Z. Paul is stronger.

Some of you are getting strength confused with who would win in a fight. Paul is stronger. Google that shit.
 
Most of those accomplishments didn't require limit strength. They're more conditioning intensive. Hercules is like Marius and Paul Bunyan is Big Z. Paul is stronger.

Some of you are getting strength confused with who would win in a fight. Paul is stronger. Google that shit.
These are good points. I really need to devote more time and energy to analyzing this.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,233,013
Messages
55,184,916
Members
174,661
Latest member
WinnieGrim
Back
Top