Who is stronger?

A is. No matter what, he's lifting more weight. Larry Wheels is popular because he lifts massive fucking weight. No as many would care if he was 160lbs with a 455 deadlift.

this
bodyweight ratios are a huge cope from manlets that already have shorter limbs (i.e. do less work by lifting the same weight)
a 150 lbs twink deadlifting 600 is far less impressive than a 400 lbs strongman doing 1000

I bet you don't even total 1500lbs

400>300
woman logic

not how it works. If person A is 6'3" 250 lbs benching 400 lbs, he's actually stronger than a 5'8" 181 lbs powerlifter benching 400 lbs because he has longer arms

t. does lowbar squats, sumo deadlifts and wide grip bench to cope his GDE status away while Chad strongmen cuck him on every aspect

You realize that it gets harder to lift your own bodyweight the bigger you are, right?

A

Attached: Névtelen.png (1396x196, 12K)

>can have dozens of pounds of more muscle in their upper body to help
>still somehow "stronger"

Nah, I don't pull sumo and don't have an arch or wide grip on bench.

yes, moving more weight = stronger
relative strength is a big cope. Absolute weight is all that matters. And yes, heavyweight landwhales are stronger than middle/lightweight lifters, though the latter may be more athletic. But the heavyweight lifter is stronger

if there is a 400lbs box that needs to be moved it doesn't get lighter because of the mover's bodyweight. Get off the computer and out into the real world.

Why does the weight of the floor matter?

Attached: tenor.gif (256x292, 502K)

A can lift more weight so A is stronger

You nigger. We were talking about the same lifted weight. That dude claimed 400@250 is stronger than 400@183 because someone weighing 250 should be taller. As if there are no 250lbs manlets.

Depends on your definition of strength.
An ant can lift 10-50 times its weight. If you ask me, that's crazy strong, even though we can lift what an ant carries with great effort without even noticing it.

the only thing determining "strength" further (i.e. work done, or "actual" muscle output) is ROM, and in that case a taller 250 lbs lifter is usually stronger. Now, if both the 250 lbs guy and the 180 lbs are 5'8", the 250 lbs guy will probably have more fat on top of his chest, reducing his ROM and thus making the 180 lbs guy stronger.

Btw, these are small details. Absolute weight is what matters the most since everyone will have different leverages

Define strength

Attached: 1496960198288.png (363x475, 96K)

A is stronger. B is more impressive.

>have dozens of pounds of more muscle
>"stronger"

I hate to break it to you, but that is how being stronger works

A is stronger because he is lifting more. Power does not care about your own weaknesses like only being 150lbs as an adult male. Elephants are stronger than you. Them weighing more is not points against them, its points for them.

>I can bench more relative to my body so I'm better and stronger than you. Never mind the fact that I'm 5'6" and have stubby t Rex arms
Manlet cope

Attached: 90c.png (560x748, 122K)

Do you ever claim ants to be stronger than humans?

no, but scientists do compare strength between ants by how much percent of their bodyweight they can lift when carrying food

k
Do you think youre stronger or weaker than an ant?

Manlets btfo

I didn't say that. I said scientists compare different species of ants in terms of bodyweight percent strength.

Imagine if there were lbs for lbs unarmed multi animal gang battles. Like 40 humans vs a couple elephants or a tribe of monkeys vs a shitload of ants. I would watch that any day

k
Would you ever claim this to be the strongest man to walk on earth?

Attached: file.png (500x288, 281K)

>Who is stronger, the guy lifting a weight or the lifting a heavier weight

A true mathematical mystery for the ages!

A but after a point more strength has diminishing returns for health and aesthetics.

nice one

This is a dumb comparison though. Ants are only strong relative to their bodyweight because of their size. If they were scaled up to human size they would collapse under their own weight and be unable to move. Square cube law, bitches.

>One chimp
>5 million fire ants
>You leave a champion or in a body bag

only correct answer

Seriously we need to bring back the coliseum. MMA has nothing on this

>scientists
/sci/ is down the hall you fucking nerd

Lb for lb is unbalanced, numbers beats individuals any day.

A is doing more work than B

I dunno man I think I could beat 40 pigeons in a fight.

UFpwrLifter benches 410lbs @155lbs body weight. Of course you care that someone managed to hit that weight at 155 pounds because its fucking impressive.

Maybe if your fat ass is doing pull-ups.

Saved me having to tell the faggot.

Ignoring all the faggotry in this thread, perhaps the true measure should be the potential energy the lifter puts into the bar (i.e mass x height lifted).

That should fix all the sumo faggotry and mean deep squats really count for something. (I haven't done the maths so maybe it doesn't end all that cheating).

Anyway, potential energy imparted would be a good way to end the arguments.

Wouldn't matter since they're both dead in a few seconds with nothing to rack the barbells on

What is LB short for?

Absolute strength is always more impressive than twink muh relative strength.
Its a way to cope for manlets as some lanklets cope about "pushing is hard muh long arms" man up faggots

Sure, turn powerlifting into a fucking physics exam. Now we need to measure distance and speed in addition to mass.

Based as fuck

The OP asked which was stronger, not which had the highest proportional strength.

Whats up nigger mathematics scare you?

Attached: IMG_5853.jpg (640x779, 165K)

what is greater, 400 or 300?

obviously A. B is the manlet cope, akin to saying that a flea is the strongest because it can carry 100x its bodyweight.

Holy fuck user my god damn sides hahahaha

It's not like we have technology or anything is it?

The fact is that lifting a given weight higher means you've exterted more force and isn't that what strength is?

Manlets would.

A, but he's a fatass so only other men care.

>who is stronger a giant or a midget

/thread

Here's a quick guide.

Attached: how much are you REALLY lifting.jpg (1000x2500, 834K)

By definition A. He lifts more, he is stronger.

So real talk I’m 6’5” OR 1.96 m for countries that don’t matter.
This also means I weigh 225 OR 102 kg in the third world.
This means, by some of your logic, that my 275lb OR 125 kg bench is extra weak because I’m heavy, but my arms are super long so it’s hard. Somebody validate me please
Pic unrelated

Attached: A061467C-E40B-4D77-8D37-EAAB6141E924.jpg (750x575, 94K)

At least you have your freedom.

Objectively A. At the ratios in the OP graphic I wouldn't even make an argument that B is necessarily more impressive either.

400lb bench press is obviously stronger. But I think the 150 300lb is just as if not slightly more impressive. 150 is so fucking light holy shit

this post actually BTFO lanklets

Interesting that it's that close though.

A

Underrated

Nobody cares about fat shits at 20% bodyfat who eat 10,000 calories a day and bench 0.5 their bodyweight, for 1 rep. They care about people who are actually impressive examples of human athleticism and won't have a heart attack climbing a flight of stairs.

I bet you tell people about your 300lb bodyweight bench when they tell you that you don't look like you lift