Question for Peter

[tigerluver]

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.

  Reply