How much of strength do you base on size?

I'd agree with you here. This argument isn't about which guy is stronger. Whichever one lifts more is stronger. Which is more impressive though? I'd say that's case by case.

This often degrades into ridiculous examples with enormous gaps in bodyweight and weight lifted.

Rather then a 115lb guy bench 10 times his bodyweight vs a 400 pound guy benching 1.5 times has bodyweight, real examples would be better

For example, my workout partner is 155 and can bench 305. I'm about 205 right now and can bench 315. His bench is easily a bigger feat of strength in my opinion.

Whether you’re 205 or 155, the best benchmark to see where you stack up is to compare to other people similar to you.

Funny how common sense it seems but bias clouds judgment
 
It’s not actually, that is a hilariously unobjective statement.

There are clearly two sides to this and I’m acknowledging both. You assuming my viewpont of balance is because I’m not strong or small is hilarious and highlights the bias.

Is it fair to assume that people who negate relative strength are 25% < bodyfat and relatively weak compared to strong people their same size?

Why didn't you answer the questions?

I'm basing it on experience. Strong people don't tend to think like this.

Of course not. I'm single single digit body fat, and I don't care about relative strength. I'm not the strongest, but can squat 200kg at 90kg. Judging by the low standards in your examples, my relative strength is pretty good.

Exactly how am I biased?
 
Last edited:
Why didn't you answer the questions?

I'm basing it on experience. Strong people don't tend to think like this.

Lol. But that’s literally what powerlifting is. You work your ass off to be stronger in key lifts than other people that weigh the same as you.

If you weigh 70kg or 110kg, it doesn’t matter. Your benchmark for strength is other people in your weight category, not a macro idea of weight.

And your squat is impressive because it’s over twice your body weight. If you weighed 5 lbs less than your max, do you really think you’d feel as strong? It’s the difference between “job well done, you’re strong”, and “get working”.
 
I compete in powerlifting. Powerlifting is a weight class sport. As I said, relative strength matters in weight class sports. Having said that, anyone who has competed in it knows that you're really just competing against yourself. They have wilks in powerlifting, but only the smaller people seem to care about that. Never hear the stronger guys talk about it. If you're small, and want to compare yourself against other small people fine, but that doesn't make your strength impressive. Just good for a small guy.

It doesn't help that you keep coming up with such silly and extreme examples. If someone only squatted 5lbs less than their weight, the chances are they aren't very strong.

I don't consider myself strong at all. 200kg squat isn't amazing. Once I get to 230lkg, I'll start to be happy with it. It won't make any difference to me if I still weigh 90kg, or if i weighed 100kg when I do it.
 
It's important not to cream your pants about relative strength, because it naturally decreases with mass. That's why ants spend much of the day walking around with 20x their bodyweight and Hathor Bjornsson can walk half a dozen steps with 3.5x his bodyweight. It's a power law thing- as you get larger mass increases as a power of three and muscular cross-section increases as a power of two. If you doubled in size you would be four times as strong, but 8 times as heavy. We shouldn't idolize smaller strength athletes because they have been less victimized by mathematics than larger athletes.

To know how impressive something is you need to start by look at the distribution of performance for similar athletes, not multiples of bodyweight. You need to compare lifts to records at different levels. A 130lb lifter squatting 600 would be more impressive than a 300lb lifter squatting 900 not because of bodyweight multiples, but because the 130lb lifter pretty absolutely destroyed the world record, while the 300lb lifter is doing something that a few other people can do (I think- I don't know much about PL records). Performance against records tells you what is impressive because the record tells you what people think is more or less the limit given incredible dedication, great technique, perfect preparation and amazing genetics.

But then what about two athletes who both just narrowly beat the world records, one 130lbs and one 300lbs? Well, it's nice to know that both of these are at the limit compared to athletes of similar size... but don't we want to know what is the limit for all athletes? Yeah, I want to know how strong a 130lb guy can be, 140lb guy can be... and also women too... but perhaps most of all I want to know how strong a human being of any size can be. I want to know the strongest a human can be. Also fastest. Highest possible jump. Etc. And that's the argument for absolute strength as the clincher, once you've taken into account performance relative to the population of similar athletes.

Exactly what Jaunty said.

Only thing I would add is: "You need to compare lifts to records at different levels" and take into consideration the talent pool and the population distribution. In any athletic endeavour, if the talent pool for a specific world record is small then the world record is less meaningful compared to an athletic endeavour where the talent pool is huge. For example, the talent pool in multi-day ultra-long-distance running is way less compared to that for marathon running. A person setting a world record in an ultra-long-distance event has less to say for how close they are to "human genetic potential" compared to a person setting a marathon world record.


In other news, when you are squatting, you are creating force to move the barbell as well as the majority of your bodyweight. A 240 lbs person squatting 2 plates is creating greater muscle tension compared to a 180 lbs person squatting 2 plates. So, seen from a specific angle, the argument has some logical base. But, on the same token, a 180 lbs person with worse mechanical leverages (e.g. a longer femur) is also creating greater muscle tension compared to a 180 lbs person with more favourable leverages when they both squat 2 plates. And a taller 180 lbs is creating more force per muscle cross-sectional area (therefore has a more efficient nervous system, etc.) than a shorter 180 lbs person, and has to more the barbell a longer way, so he creates more mechanical work per rep. Having said all that, the purpose of squatting, and lifting in general, is to move external weight. It doesn't matter what your leverages are, what your height is, how much you weigh or what your BF% is... if you squat 225 and I squat 250 I can squat more weight than you.
 
Whether you’re 205 or 155, the best benchmark to see where you stack up is to compare to other people similar to you.

Funny how common sense it seems but bias clouds judgment
A 50 kg male squatting 150 kg is more impressive than a 100 kg dude squatting 200 kg.

But the 50 kg dude is definitely still weaker than the 100 kg dude.
 
I guess I've always thought weight classes and separate gender competition to be bullshit.

Sport replaces fighting and war where weight classes don't exist and I'm much more impressed by a middleweight who fights heavyweights.

Size is as arbitrary differentiation as anything else.

Of course, I'm a heavyweight so I have motivated reasoning.
 
Dude a 250 lb guy benching 405 is stronger than a 135 lb guy benching 315. “Your only strong because you’re big” makes no sense at all. Only tiny people say these things. Big people deserve all the credit in the world for putting in the work to be both big physically and strong as fuck
 
Dude a 250 lb guy benching 405 is stronger than a 135 lb guy benching 315. “Your only strong because you’re big” makes no sense at all. Only tiny people say these things. Big people deserve all the credit in the world for putting in the work to be both big physically and strong as fuck
But in your example, the 250lb guy benching 405 is pretty strong. We see much worse examples in our gyms.

Here's the thing, I agree with you. On a macro level (the moving company example), strength is strength. I need the guy that can move the weight, regardless of what he weighs. In a bar fight, there are no weight classes.

That said, I think the balanced perspective comes strictly for our person development. If I am 185lbs, and I want to consider myself strong and elite at my lifts from an objective standpoint, I can compare myself to my previous self (self-improvement), but I should also have a pretty clear idea of what people that have my frame and weigh the same are able to push. This would help me determine whether my lifts put me in the top 10%, 5%, or even 1%. I'm not going to look at the 155lb guy and what he's squatting and say "yeah, I'm strong as fuuuuuuck."

Both sides here have legitimate points.
 
I guess I've always thought weight classes and separate gender competition to be bullshit.

Sport replaces fighting and war where weight classes don't exist and I'm much more impressed by a middleweight who fights heavyweights.

Size is as arbitrary differentiation as anything else.

Of course, I'm a heavyweight so I have motivated reasoning.
And that does make sense. I really am not in favor of people bullying others over percentages. I do think though they play a big role in our personal development. Here is what I mean... If I weigh 185lbs, and I want to know objectively where my strength stacks up, I need to compare myself to other people who are similar frame/weight.

I would never look at a 140lb guy squatting 240lbs and say "I'm strong as fuck compared to that guy". To me, that would be silly because he's so much smaller. It helps me to know what others my size are lifting so I know whether or not I'm doing well within my goal of increasing strength, or whether a need to make adjustments because I am at the bottom of the barrel. But that is me personally, and I know genetics here are fucking huge too.

I understand your perspective though and I think neither side here is wrong, its just about how you look at it and for what purpose.
 
And that does make sense. I really am not in favor of people bullying others over percentages. I do think though they play a big role in our personal development. Here is what I mean... If I weigh 185lbs, and I want to know objectively where my strength stacks up, I need to compare myself to other people who are similar frame/weight.

I would never look at a 140lb guy squatting 240lbs and say "I'm strong as fuck compared to that guy". To me, that would be silly because he's so much smaller. It helps me to know what others my size are lifting so I know whether or not I'm doing well within my goal of increasing strength, or whether a need to make adjustments because I am at the bottom of the barrel. But that is me personally, and I know genetics here are fucking huge too.

I understand your perspective though and I think neither side here is wrong, its just about how you look at it and for what purpose.

Your talking as if people have no control over how much they weigh.

If strength is his goal, the 140lbs guy should get his weight up. Not compare himself to other people that small.
 
Last edited:
Sport replaces fighting and war

Really? I would have thought that if this was true it is, at the very least, a pretty heavyweight thesis that would need to be backed up by a lot of sociological and ethnological research. I'm not aware of any such evidence (but would be interested to see it if you have it).

Personally, I would be willing to bet a whole Jordanian Dinar that in many or perhaps most societies you see sport and athletic contests existing side-by-side with war. I would imagine that the desire to engage in athletic competition is extremely wide ranging and universal, and is a distinct characteristic of humans and human societies. There might be some overlap- e.g. sport might channel some aggressive instincts that might otherwise lead to violence.

I also think that if you look at how sports are actually conducted, you would probably see that it is commonplace for the rules of the sport to introduce various ways of 'leveling the playing field' in order to create a closer or fairer competition. Weight classes can be seen in that light. Another side of it is that since the desire to be part of athletic competition is probably universal, it makes sense that the competitive field will typically be organized into groups of very approximately similar ability. People want meaningful competition, after all. Again, this is something where evidence would be interesting.

tl;dr not buying that analyzing the 'social role' of sport rules out weight classes. Strongly suspect the opposite. Would be interested in actual evidence either way.
 
Really? I would have thought that if this was true it is, at the very least, a pretty heavyweight thesis that would need to be backed up by a lot of sociological and ethnological research. I'm not aware of any such evidence (but would be interested to see it if you have it).

Personally, I would be willing to bet a whole Jordanian Dinar that in many or perhaps most societies you see sport and athletic contests existing side-by-side with war. I would imagine that the desire to engage in athletic competition is extremely wide ranging and universal, and is a distinct characteristic of humans and human societies. There might be some overlap- e.g. sport might channel some aggressive instincts that might otherwise lead to violence.

I also think that if you look at how sports are actually conducted, you would probably see that it is commonplace for the rules of the sport to introduce various ways of 'leveling the playing field' in order to create a closer or fairer competition. Weight classes can be seen in that light. Another side of it is that since the desire to be part of athletic competition is probably universal, it makes sense that the competitive field will typically be organized into groups of very approximately similar ability. People want meaningful competition, after all. Again, this is something where evidence would be interesting.

tl;dr not buying that analyzing the 'social role' of sport rules out weight classes. Strongly suspect the opposite. Would be interested in actual evidence either way.

On the political aspect of the Olympics:

"Power in ancient Greece became centered around the city-state in the 8th century BC.[37]The city-state was a population center organized into a self-contained political entity.[38] These city-states often lived in close proximity to each other, which created competition for limited resources. Though conflict between the city-states was ubiquitous, it was also in their self-interest to engage in trade, military alliances and cultural interaction.[39] The city-states had a dichotomous relationship with each other: On one hand, they relied on their neighbors for political and military alliances, while on the other they competed fiercely with those same neighbors for vital resources.[40] The Olympic Games were established in this political context and served as a venue for representatives of the city-states to peacefully compete against each other.[41]"

One only has to look at the state sponsored doping schemes and amount spent on the games today to see their political importance.
 
Dude a 250 lb guy benching 405 is stronger than a 135 lb guy benching 315. “Your only strong because you’re big” makes no sense at all. Only tiny people say these things. Big people deserve all the credit in the world for putting in the work to be both big physically and strong as fuck

Hear hear.
I'd take micromanaging my diet over wolfing down 10000 calories daily anytime. Add to that having to move around substantially bigger weights in the gym and dealing with all the problems, health-related and otherwise, that comes from being huge.
I just don't see any way you could argue against the biggest guys in the top levels of strength sports also being the hardest workers.
 
On the political aspect of the Olympics:

"Power in ancient Greece became centered around the city-state in the 8th century BC.[37]The city-state was a population center organized into a self-contained political entity.[38] These city-states often lived in close proximity to each other, which created competition for limited resources. Though conflict between the city-states was ubiquitous, it was also in their self-interest to engage in trade, military alliances and cultural interaction.[39] The city-states had a dichotomous relationship with each other: On one hand, they relied on their neighbors for political and military alliances, while on the other they competed fiercely with those same neighbors for vital resources.[40] The Olympic Games were established in this political context and served as a venue for representatives of the city-states to peacefully compete against each other.[41]"

One only has to look at the state sponsored doping schemes and amount spent on the games today to see their political importance.

Sure. Sports can become political and can be part of nation-building and other things.

But it's a huuuuge leap to say either "sports are sometimes political, therefore sports are always and only a substitute for war". And also a huuuuuuuge leap to say "Sports often have political aspects, and therefore that is all they are- a political exercise".

As I said, I think if you studied it you would see that sports play many different roles at the individual, community and national level. We are, after all, complex creatures and our societies are also complex. Extremely simple reductive explanations of what we do aren't usually correct.

BTW, I strongly suspect that you were knowingly over-stating it when you said "sports replace war", or using colorful language to make a nice point. Right?
 
Sure. Sports can become political and can be part of nation-building and other things.

But it's a huuuuge leap to say either "sports are sometimes political, therefore sports are always and only a substitute for war". And also a huuuuuuuge leap to say "Sports often have political aspects, and therefore that is all they are- a political exercise".

As I said, I think if you studied it you would see that sports play many different roles at the individual, community and national level. We are, after all, complex creatures and our societies are also complex. Extremely simple reductive explanations of what we do aren't usually correct.

BTW, I strongly suspect that you were knowingly over-stating it when you said "sports replace war", or using colorful language to make a nice point. Right?

Yup, totally exaggerating. It's more that I feel there is a defensible position there somewhere and I'm still trying to work it out. It holds promising though.

I think it's why heavyweight fighting is considered the most interesting by most people.
 
Last edited:
Yup, totally exaggerating. It's more that I feel there is a defensible position there somewhere and I'm still trying to work it out. It holds promising though.

I think it's why heavyweight fighting is considered the most interesting by most people.

I am sure there are quite a few possible links: sport channeling competitive or aggressive instincts, sport being political, war being 'politics by other means'.

I think in terms of the allure of heavyweight fighting, there is also the likely explanation that while we are frequently happy to see who wins who is the best given some restrictions on who can compete, ie there are some levels of competitor who won't be able to compete, we are probably going to be most interested when the highest levels can compete. In strength sports and combat sports it's the big guys (in that they can lift the most or would tend to win in a real fight or a fight without weight classes). In other sports it's nothing to do with size at all, or significant size might even be a disadvantage.
 
I am sure there are quite a few possible links: sport channeling competitive or aggressive instincts, sport being political, war being 'politics by other means'.

I think in terms of the allure of heavyweight fighting, there is also the likely explanation that while we are frequently happy to see who wins who is the best given some restrictions on who can compete, ie there are some levels of competitor who won't be able to compete, we are probably going to be most interested when the highest levels can compete. In strength sports and combat sports it's the big guys (in that they can lift the most or would tend to win in a real fight or a fight without weight classes). In other sports it's nothing to do with size at all, or significant size might even be a disadvantage.

Yes that's a better explanation by far.
 
Is it only iron weight that puts someone in the strong category?

150lb guy doing 10 pull ups for warm up and 250 lb guy can't do 1. But then they go to lat pulleys and the smaller guy can't budge the weight the bigger one is repping. Who's stronger
 
Back
Top