Question for Peter

[Pckts]

(04-07-2015, 03:04 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: In other words, you are saying that the tiger must be considerably taller and longer to compare equally with a grizzly... because at height and length parity, the bear is too robust for the tiger. The grizzly is without a doubt the more robust of the two. Thank you Pockts for proving my point.  [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

 

 

Wow, that is pretty sad if you think that is what was said.
The best thing is, that after explaining what lb for lb strength means, explaining what anatomical differences are, muscle and fat distribution, you still think this. So if you want to switch the debate to "robust" and not "strength" then go ahead. A sumo wrestler is far more "robust" than a power lifter but the sumo wrestler is far weaker as well. Hence why you compare Lb for Lb, also why the entire world uses this method to compare strength. Reply