• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is stronger?

Who is stronger?


  • Total voters
    17
It's just two different types of functional strength. The climber would probably be great at climbing up a pallet rack to get a box off the top. The second guy would probably be able to pick up the entire pallet of boxes.

But in today's world of fork lifts, neither is probably necessary on the job or in normal household chores. Both types of strength are only needed for their chosen sport.
 
Which means that despite their size and muscles, they have little functional strength at all. By your definition, a 200 horsepower engine in a 3000 pound vehicle is weaker than a 300 horsepower engine in a 6000 pound vehicle.

Nope. Few male gymnasts for example are small, most are pretty built, but they are not the size of a body builder.

What is "functional" strength?

functional for what? punching someone? Lifing a car? doing pullups?

the term "funcional strength" is meaningless, all strength is functional if it's trained for a certain function.

What if the function is "***** getting"???

Or what if the function is "looking good at the Beach"

Or punching People in the face, or running.

or climbing, they are all functional.

Strenght is simple, how much force can Your body assert .... if you can assert MORE force, you're stronger ... I dont' give a **** if you can do crazy stuff on teh monkey bars, those are a skill, if we are measuring strenght, the larger guy who can lift more is stronger, because he can ... lift more.
 
What is "functional" strength?

functional for what? punching someone? Lifing a car? doing pullups?

the term "funcional strength" is meaningless, all strength is functional if it's trained for a certain function.

What if the function is "***** getting"???

Or what if the function is "looking good at the Beach"

Or punching People in the face, or running.

or climbing, they are all functional.

Strenght is simple, how much force can Your body assert .... if you can assert MORE force, you're stronger ... I dont' give a **** if you can do crazy stuff on teh monkey bars, those are a skill, if we are measuring strenght, the larger guy who can lift more is stronger, because he can ... lift more.

If you don't know what Functional Strength is, then unfortunately you don't know much about strength training. Functional Strength is strength that translates to athletic performance. For example, a leg press my build your legs up, but unlike squats, it doesn't actually train your muscles in a way that you would ever actually use them athletically. What is the point of strength if you can't actually do anything with it other than move a bunch of weight on a machine?
 
Why include reps when strength is the question-it is a void question.
 
If you don't know what Functional Strength is, then unfortunately you don't know much about strength training. Functional Strength is strength that translates to athletic performance. For example, a leg press my build your legs up, but unlike squats, it doesn't actually train your muscles in a way that you would ever actually use them athletically. What is the point of strength if you can't actually do anything with it other than move a bunch of weight on a machine?

What althletic performace?

Basketball?

Baseball?

football?

gymnastics ....?


When in real life do you ever squat all the way Down With a barbell on Your back? When in athletics do you actually ever squat all the way Down and hold Your arms behind a bar on Your back?

YOu don't.

The point of strength training is to make Your muscles larger and stronger and Your CNS more efficient and stronger .... plan and simply.

"functional" training is a myth, either a muscle is stronger or it isn't, either Your Central nervous system is stronger or it isn't.

the "function" comes outside the gym, not in the gym.
 
What althletic performace?

Basketball?

Yes.

Baseball?

Yes.

football?

Yes.

gymnastics ....?

When in real life do you ever squat all the way Down With a barbell on Your back? When in athletics do you actually ever squat all the way Down and hold Your arms behind a bar on Your back?

You probably don't, but that is not the point. Squats are a compound exercise, they don't just hit your quads, they hit your hamstrings, gluteus, hip stabilizers, and back, and various core muscles. All of which you use in day to day life and virtually every sport.

The point of strength training is to make Your muscles larger and stronger and Your CNS more efficient and stronger .... plan and simply.

"functional" training is a myth, either a muscle is stronger or it isn't, either Your Central nervous system is stronger or it isn't.

the "function" comes outside the gym, not in the gym.

Of course the function is outside the gym. However, ultimately strength for all intents and purposes is your strength to weight ratio. If strength training doesn't translate into being able to better move your own body around then there isn't much point to it. For example, a 600 pound man that can't even walk on his own might be able to bench say 250 pounds if you somehow got him in the position to do so. If a 160 pound man could bench 180, I don't think anyone would argue he was not stronger than the 600 pound man. I don't care how much someone claims they can lift, if they can't do a pull-up they are not that strong. If they can't crank out pushups and maintain proper form, they are not that strong. If they can't do dips, they are not that strong.
 
Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All of those sports require vastly different movement skills and so on. some of which are better served With machines, some of which are not, some of which requrie vast amounts of strength and size, some of which do not.

You probably don't, but that is not the point. Squats are a compound exercise, they don't just hit your quads, they hit your hamstrings, gluteus, hip stabilizers, and back, and various core muscles. All of which you use in day to day life and virtually every sport.

A let press is also a compound exercise .... and so what, compound exercises are good for somethings, somethings are not ... you use Your Whole body in many sports and in everyday life.

Guess what, in everyday life most People in the west sit at a desk or in a store, in front of a computer.

Of course the function is outside the gym. However, ultimately strength for all intents and purposes is your strength to weight ratio. If strength training doesn't translate into being able to better move your own body around then there isn't much point to it. For example, a 600 pound man that can't even walk on his own might be able to bench say 250 pounds if you somehow got him in the position to do so. If a 160 pound man could bench 180, I don't think anyone would argue he was not stronger than the 600 pound man. I don't care how much someone claims they can lift, if they can't do a pull-up they are not that strong. If they can't crank out pushups and maintain proper form, they are not that strong. If they can't do dips, they are not that strong.

No, for all intents and purposes is NOT Your strenght to weight ratio, if you're small, and can lift a lot for Your size ... you can still probably lift less than someone who is twice Your size and average strength for his size, the latter guy is OBJECTIVELY stronger ... the thing being lifted doesn't know, nor does it care how big you are.

Strenth training DOES translate into being ablto to better move Your own body, as does all sorts of other training.

If you can do a backflip and whatever, but ultimately, I can lift more than you, I'm stronger ... plain and simple, it doesn't matter how big I am, I am OBJECTIVELY stronger.

now they may be weak for their size, but they are still stronger than a tiny guy who is strong for their size ... objectively.

This idea of "functional" strength is nonsense, functional for what? I Train quite a bit, I don't do navy seal stuff, i don't get in fights, I Train in a way that People would classify as "functional" (ring work, kettlebells, chinups, dips, straps and so on), because it Works better for me, but I'm not dillusional by thinking that somehow training that way makes by body more "functional," whatever that means, than doing straight weights and machines, it doesn't, the function I get from it is trained outside the gym, the function ig mostly gives me is *****-getting ... and thats why most men Train, and thats ok, most of them are not jumping over cars and cutting Down trees With axes or whatever, and if they did, weight training wouldn't make them good at that, actually practicing those Things would. weight training puts muscle under tension nad Trains the CNS system ... THATS IT.
 
Why include reps when strength is the question-it is a void question.

Great point, I should have thought of that.

If we are talking about pure strength, the only thing that really matters is how much force you can exert - one time.
 
What althletic performace?

Basketball?

Baseball?

football?

gymnastics ....?


When in real life do you ever squat all the way Down With a barbell on Your back? When in athletics do you actually ever squat all the way Down and hold Your arms behind a bar on Your back?

YOu don't.

The point of strength training is to make Your muscles larger and stronger and Your CNS more efficient and stronger .... plan and simply.

"functional" training is a myth, either a muscle is stronger or it isn't, either Your Central nervous system is stronger or it isn't.

the "function" comes outside the gym, not in the gym.

Exactly.

And yes, you are much more likely in day to day life, to have a "need" to look good at the beach, than to have a need to do deep squats with a barbell.
 
...the function ig mostly gives me is *****-getting ... and thats why most men Train...

For you single youngsters, that's good enough reason. But for us old happily married farts who workout, we are just trolling for complements, or just wanting to feel better (more confident) about ourselves.

A couple of days ago I was in the grocery store and standing in line next to me was this young lady, quite well toned looking and maybe just a little more muscular/athletic looking than average, and I couldn't keep my eyes off her. She wasn't ripped like a bodybuilder in competition shape, nor was she huge, she was just in-shape looking. Just muscled enough that I instantly recognized her as someone who lifts weights on a regular bases, but probably no more than fifteen lbs more muscle than an average female her height. There is nothing more attractive than a healthy and strong looking person, regardless of sex.
 
There are no 100 pound male gymnasts. I know a guy that is a powerlifter, the dude is huge, and can do 39 pull-ups. I doubt 1 in a 1000 men could do that many. So there are big guys with high functional strength. However, there are also a lot of guys that brag about how much they can bench, but have a high body fat percentage and can't hardly do a pull-up. So while they might be able to throw some weight up, they can hardly move their body around so its rather pointless in terms of athleticism.

In terms of functional strength (what is the point of strength if it isn't functional), this guy:

View attachment 67171808

Is a hell of a lot stronger, than this guy probably is:

View attachment 67171809

By the way, if the skinny high school guy doesn't have a lot of upper body strength, he probably can't do any pull-ups or dips.

To give credibility to your argument, not that you necessarily need any but I think people have never met this guy

mvm-wsm11_lg.webp

He's the 4 time winner in the World's Strongest Man competition.

Magnus ver Magnusson.

He consistently won despite usually being the smallest guy in the competition.
 
For you single youngsters, that's good enough reason. But for us old happily married farts who workout, we are just trolling for complements, or just wanting to feel better (more confident) about ourselves.

A couple of days ago I was in the grocery store and standing in line next to me was this young lady, quite well toned looking and maybe just a little more muscular/athletic looking than average, and I couldn't keep my eyes off her. She wasn't ripped like a bodybuilder in competition shape, nor was she huge, she was just in-shape looking. Just muscled enough that I instantly recognized her as someone who lifts weights on a regular bases, but probably no more than fifteen lbs more muscle than an average female her height. There is nothing more attractive than a healthy and strong looking person, regardless of sex.

Or just to stay healthy.

This so-called "funcional strength" fad is nonsese, everything is functional when it gets you stronger or more in shape, it just Depends on what you "mean" by functional, it's a term that can mean anything.
 
Anyone that voted for B has no idea what Functional Strength is. For example, for all intents and purposes, a guy that weights 160 pounds that can bench 170 pounds, but can also do 20 pullups is much stronger than a 200 pound man that can bench 250 pounds but can hardly do a pullup. If you can't move your own body then you are not strong.
strong strôNG
adjective
adjective strong comparative adjective stronger superlative adjective strongest
having the power to move heavy weights or perform other physically demanding tasks.
 
Back
Top Bottom