Question for Peter

[Pckts]

(04-07-2015, 04:13 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Two men stand face-to-face in the wrestling ring. Both men stand six feet tall. Both men are powerfully-built athletes. One man weighs 200 pounds. The other weighs 300 pounds. Which wrestler would you place a bet on?  [img]images/smilies/cool.gif[/img]
But, you are correct Pockts when you say they are built different; the grizzly is built more robust.
 

 

And yet you still don't get it.
Its pretty sad that you resort to this and the non sense above.
I love how you resort to my "love for the tiger, and tiger is unbeatable" and blah blah blah, yet I am speaking about anatomy and morphology and you are comparing wrestlers with out even using a correct comparision.
So once again, using your nonsensical logic,
Two men stand in the ring, One man is 5'10'' tall (The Bear) one man is 6'6'' tall (The Tiger)" the bear" is 220lbs and the "tiger" is 220lbs which is stronger?
That is how you present the question, hence Morphological differences [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
Now Muscle Distribution
A "bear" aka "5'10'' man" that is 220 lbs who carries more fat vs a 6'6'' Tall 220lb man that carries relatively no fat how will we determine their strength?

So how do you determine it?
LB for LB
What does that mean?
It means if both weighed the same weight, what would their maximum strength be?

Considering I have seen both bears and tigers at the similar size use their strength, I think a bear is not as strong at similar weights. A bear with a significant weight advantage will be stronger. Tigers are not as large as bears, so overall, they are not as strong. Which of course, I have said a million times.

What you are saying is "a bear is fatter aka robust, so hes stronger" lb for lb. Which of course is false,
its like saying a 400lb man is stronger than a 360lb silver back.

So like I stated from the beginning, lb for lb there is no way to know, max weights the bear.





  Reply