There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
04-14-2015, 10:04 PM( This post was last modified: 04-14-2015, 10:16 PM by Pckts )
(04-13-2015, 11:11 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Robusticity taken as a factor related to dimensions (length, height, etc) is much easier to assess and apply. Bones for example, a 400 mm bear bone is thicker than a cat bone of similar length. From that, the bear bone can take more stress, thus it can hold more muscle, thus it is heavier, in which it'd be stronger per unit length of the limb.
Pound for pound strength is beyond bone dimensions or density in my opinion. Maybe we could look at very detailed sections, such as intercondylar notches and the like, but even then, we're limited. Normally, an difference in a bone, say density or width, will translate as extra mass, so pound for pound assessment is impossible. Maybe looking at muscle themselves could give a better pound for pound comparison, but bones won't give those detailed hints.
Pound for pound comparison is thus ignored in biology more often than not, as there is not a sure-fire method to measure that. Pound for pound strength disparities do exist in a way, as for example, 175 lb Sergey Kovalev vs. 175 lbs Nathan Cleverly, the former has sledgehammers for hands while the latter is relatively light fisted. Maybe some individuals have the mass focused on the certain areas, making that aspect stronger, but others weaker, such as the boxer analogy. As a whole, working off the laws of physics, if one were to sum up the strength processes of each and every sector of anatomy (near impossible to actually do), pound for pound differences would be nil. Mass is power, and its hard to find a situation where more strength in a sector of the body is not linked to more mass in some way.
Leverage created off angles of the body is also going to be a determining factor of Lb for Lb strength, Depending on the action of course. Example:
A shorter limbed man will bench press more than a longer limb person on average since the weight travels a shorter distance. This of course can change of the longer liimbed man has a compact limb proportion and a taller man will be able to sled push or drag more weight at a higher speed since their steps are further apart and their able to leverage their body and angle it to create more distance from the weight and get it moving faster.
But reverse examples can be given, so its always impossible to try and create a rule off of morphology.
In regards to Bone Density, some examples can be given to disagree with that assessment as well.
For Example, Birds, their bones are extremely light, the construction of their bones is actually crossed on the inside but they can withstand for more weight per square inch than bones that are completely filled. Another example is a smaller bone creates room for agility with muscle mass. Example here is a Collar bone on a tiger, even compared to a Lion, its extremely small but their chest is very massive but also they are able to generate flexibility and speed with large muscles that would normally be big and bulky if they had large bones attached as well.
Morphology is an interesting thing to look into, even on human beings who live in similar settings, their body morphology can be extremely different.
