Say you have a 5'6 guy and 6'6 guy benching 225. The first guy has short arms and moves the bar half as far as the tall guy. How much "stronger" in actuality is the tall guy?
How does this apply in real life? If they got in a fight would the tall guy be substantially stronger or would his bad leverages disadvantage him there as well?

>>76265346 (OP)
Now control for weight. Mass moves mass.

>>76265346 (OP)
how does having fat heavy arms make benching easier? Its just more weight against gravity.

>>76265357
It’s the distance you have to push the bar. Long arms necessarily have a longer bar path

>>76265346 (OP)
Assuming same muscle mass and both lifting 225. Tall/long arm guy is doing more work for each rep of 225 because he's pushing the weight a longer distance than the short/short arm guy. This means the long arm guy has a higher work capacity than the short arm guy. In a fight where the force is being applied in the same plane as the bench press, he'll be able to exert the same force over a longer distance than the short guy, knocking him back further. It gets more complicated than this, but because he has a higher work capacity at that weight, he could probably also exert a higher force over the same distance as the short guy can press 225. In my opinion this makes the tall/long arm guy stronger, just "worse" or disadvantaged at competition style benching.
t. long armed bench press coper

>>76265346 (OP)
the shorter man thinks it's easier; the force generated will scale linearly with limb length and inversely by a square for muscle strength gained by height (the cross sectional area of the muscles). The linear term dominates. Quick google search suggests with the heights you've listed limbs on the shorter guy will be ~10-20% shorter, so it will be ~10-20% easier compared to the ~0.6% ease the increased muscle size will net you.

>>76265346 (OP)
Taller people have larger bones and larger muscles so they’re stronger by default

>>76265489
>t. failed high school physics

>>76265346 (OP)
The whole "short guys have it easier because they don't have to move the weight as far" is pure cope. It's like saying a plastic RC car is going to be faster than a ferrari because it weighs less and doesn't take as much force to accelerate.

Now theoretically, if all things were equal, and you somehow had two guys who were identical in every way except one had his limbs stretched out like slenderman, there might be a point there. But that's not reality, it doesn't work like that. Larger people are larger overall. They have more meat, more capacity for raw poundage of muscle on their frame. If you look at any strength competition like strongman, it's going to be these massive 7" giganiggas who perform the best, not some literal 4" dwarf. Weightclasses exist to give smaller guys a place they can perform, it's not the opposite, to give bigbois a safe space.

>>76265507
a plastic RC car with rotors capable of comparable force to a ferrari engine would accelerate faster than a ferrari. OP very obviously means "comparably athletic guys of different heights." Your example is bad.

>>76265364
I'm not talking about arm length, dipshit. I'm talking about this mass moves mass meme.

>>76265514
a plastic RC car isn't going to have an engine as powerful as a ferrari, that's the point I'm making. The larger guy has to move the weight a couple extra inches due to his height, but his frame is also larger and has more muscle on it, capable of generating more force. It's not even close.

>>76265529
Yes, but a scaled down ferrari engine, a thing an RC wouldn't have but would be the comparative case to what OP is asking, would allow a plastic RC car to accelerate faster than a ferrari. 2 equally athletic guys of different heights, they'll have the same muscle density but different muscle volumes.
Can you tell me what you would've felt like yesterday if you hadn't had breakfast?

>>76265529
>The larger guy has to move the weight a couple extra inches due to his height, but his frame is also larger and has more muscle on it,
see >>76265374
You're dumb

>>76265537
a dinky toy car having higher acceleration doesn't make it faster. This is the same cope as pointing out that an ant can lift 200x its bodyweight. Things don't scale that way.

>>76265541
so show me all the dwarf strongman champions if it's an advantage.

>>76265543
>This is the same cope as pointing out that an ant can lift 200x its bodyweight
So you know you're wrong, and you cannot engage in any kind of imaginative thought, got it.

>>76265543
>an advantage.
For the same weight*
The taller person can still lift a larger total weight
I don't understand what's so difficult about this for you to grasp

>>76265369
>Assuming same muscle mass
Why the fuck would you assume that? Everything in your post is founded on a stupid assumption.

>>76265349
>Mass moves mass

Except for when it doesn't. Strength moves mass, mass on a person can be muscle or it can be fat. A roid head with an underdeveloped nervous system is going to fail to compete with someone half his size who trains for strength.

Effective mass moves mass, giants who train to be strong move more weight than giants who train to look good.

>>76265514
>OP very obviously means "comparably athletic guys of different heights."
Then they wouldn't have identical benches. The short guy would need to be built like a truck while the tall guy would be lanky and not filled out. That's "obviously" not comparably athletic. Use your fucking brain

>>76265570
>Then they wouldn't have identical benches
The premise of OPs question is to compare strength by height, so he's asking about two guys moving the same weight.
Can you tell me what you would've felt like yesterday if you hadn't had breakfast?

>>76265507
>it's going to be these massive 7" giganiggas who perform the best

And you aren't one of these guys so why do you even lift? Do you even lift? Do you think being 5 foot tall 300 lbs of flab makes you a "gigganigga" because you both weigh the same? Kek

>>76265575
>>76265575
Everytime one of you retards tries to derail a discussion with that breakfast question, I choose to give you what you want: I ate breakfast. Happy? You're obviously not engaging in good faith, and cannot fathom that people more intelligent than you could disagree with you. So you need to conclude they're dumb. To be perfectly clear, to address OPs question they are equally as strong by axiom. If you want to split hairs and get into a pissing contest, let's do it.

You acknowledge they must have identical benches. Which was the point of my post: to tell you that your assumption that they're comparably athletic contradicts the OPs premise. Ironic, wouldn't you say? That you're the one who demonstrates a level of reasoning (or lack thereof) consistent with failing the breakfast question. Which is probably why you fall back on it, and couldn't generalize it if your perceived intelligent depended on it.

>>76265589
Glad you admit you're too stupid to answer the question, but you should probably stop trying to

>>76265601
I accept your concession. Gg, no re.

>>76265589
2 guys benching 225 =/= 2 guys who's bench is 225
nice try ESL

>>76265608
OP said nothing about reps. And even if he did, it's irrelevant. Oh heavens, it's not their one rep max we're saying is the same—it's their eight rep max!
>Uhm, ackshually, OP never said they had to have the same reps *smug_wojack*
Then why would OP be comparing guys with different heights who have different strengths levels and ask which is stronger, lol. It's not too late to take your L here gracefully.

>>76265611
>OP said nothing about reps
Neither did I, why did you bring that up?
>Then why would OP be comparing guys with different heights who have different strengths levels and ask which is stronger, lol
Because he asked who was stronger? Are you illiterate, retarded, or both?
Study english for a few more years and try again pajeet

>>76265560
>Why the fuck would you assume that?
Because if we don't it isn't a fair comparison. If we assume that the tall guy has more mass, then of course he's going to be stronger because more muscle mass itself implies higher work capacity. If the muscle mass is the same or at least similar between the two then we can isolate the difference, which is that the tall guy being able to bench 2pl8 itself implies higher work capacity (could be from more efficient CNS for example).

>>76265524
You're calling anon a dipshit, when YOU are the dumbass randomly talking about something else lol

>>76265616
Oh no, the jeets have started calling and accusing others of being jeets. Just know that your projection isn't fooling anyone who understands English. Literally no native speaker, even an autistic one, would say something as dumb as
>>76265608

>>76265624
I accept your concession ESL
cope and seethe

>>76265626
Not an argument. Pure projection. You could've taken a graceful L. Instead opted to double down on a complete non sequitur. Unfortunately for you, you picked the fight with the wrong guy. GG, no re.

>>76265631
>Instead opted to double down on a complete non sequitur.
Oh no the logical fallacies have come out! What ever will I do now? I didn't study those in fourth grade English class because I wasn't taught a second I mean first language!
Absolute cope from a seething ESL called out for being wrong
stay mad

>>76265639
Maybe some day your English will get good enough to know why what you wrote makes no sense. You have to talk to native English speakers to properly learn (talk to in person, not on 4chan where you mistake eurofags for Americans)

What do ESLtards get out of accusing Americans of being ESL? I don't understand the logic. Then again, I guess they don't either. They don't fool anybody

>>76265653
>caring this much about (You)s
top fucking kek

Bigger muscle = stronger muscle.
A 6'0 guy at the same level of training as a 5'6 will lift heavier simply because he has more muscle mass/volume.
That's why most strongmen are over 6'6 (even though they roid). You simply don't see 5'7 strongmen at these competitions.
This is also a cope used by lanklets that they can't do basic calisthenics because of "muh leverage" and "you need to be a manlet to do gymnastics".

Holy shit do none of you retards here realize how much the height and size/weight ratio matters in physical activity
If we're going by pure raw stats, the 6'6 guy will always have it easier and 100kg could even be his "starting point" of a serious strict bench after 3-4 months of regular lifting, a 5'6 guy would need at least year for it
Also taking into account the fact that taller guys are more likely to be pushed into sports and physical activity
A fairer comparison is 5'8 vs 6'0 because you still have leeway for them to match weight while being at close enough bmi
80kg for 5'6 is obese while for 6'6 it's healthy weight almost underweight
Also bigger size = more raw power

>>76265507
moving the weight less distance requires less strength this is a fact

>>76265349
>>76265364
>>76265369
>>76265507
There are still people on /fit who don't know what a torque is...
Shorties have it significantly easy, not just because of a range of motion. A torque is also lower.
>>76265529
We are not talking about jogging. Tall guy will have it easier while running due to longer limbs. We are talking about lifting weights and mudgets can lift significantly more due to lower amplitude and lower leverage. But tall guy will have no issue doing the same exercise with the same range of motion. It's just that midget's ass to grass squat is equivalent of a quarter squat of someone tall.

Powerlifters are all manlets because specific exercises like bench press are way easier with their leverages. Strongmen are all gigantic because they need real world strength but would probably still lose to a powerlifter in typical gym exercises.

This entire thread has failed highschool physics and doesn't understand leverages. The manlet will have way easier time lifting the same weight because not only are his leverages better but he needs to move the weight for a shorter distance.

>>76266038
>>76266101
Bigger object exert greater gravitational force both in push and pull
Yes they require equally big effort to do it in the first place but the lowest ceiling for a natty 6'6 guy isnt very far from the highest ceiling of a natty 5'6 guy

>>76266144
big rock easier to move less far

>ITT: midwits miss the question

>>76265346 (OP)
On the basic level the tall guy is doing more work, since the weight travels a longer distance. On a finer level the taller guy also has worse leverage for much of the lift, so it's even harder than simply doing more work.
Physics has the answers but I can't be bothered to remember how to do the calculations. Maybe some "AI" bullshit can sort it out (doubt it tho).

>>76266101
So all the world records in bench are by manlets, surely.

>>76267113
Putting in more work makes you stronger, retard.

The people that use this excuse are weak DYEL lankoids with the coordination of an inebriated gazelle. Their skinny, ayylmao bodies that weigh as much as a woman aren’t used to working hard and will cope with physics like science based losers instead of actually putting in the work. You don’t eat, you don’t lift, you don’t try, you don’t do anything but whine. Results matter more than what is “harder” for you.

>>76267168
Taller people can put on more mass. Ever lanklet itt is coping foe tgeir lack of work ethic. If they had good genetics and inserts they could easily grow more muscle than the average short faggot in the same amount of time.

>Julius Maddox is 6'3"
>Krill Sarychev is 6'6"
>Eric Spoto is 5'10"
>Thomas Davis is 6'1"
>Scott Mendelson is 5'11"
>James Henderson is 6'5"
>Johnnie Harris is 6'0"
These are all the people with recorded benches (by powerlifting feds) in excess of 700 lbs. If it's allegedly so easy for manlets to bench the same weight... Why is the minimum height in this list 5'10", and most of the heights are over 6'0"? Arguing manlets have it easier is just lanklet cope by not trying and eating enough.

>>76267155
Most powerlifters are manlets. Tall people compete in strongmen where leverages don't matter.

>>76267195
See:
>>76267189

>>76265346 (OP)

Short guy "wins" given the proportions are identical. Being tall means longer bones which increase leverage and require more "strength".

On the other hand a !robust! tall person most likely overpowers shorter normal folks with ease. I remember not being able to curl a 70lbs barbell at age 14 when a dude, who was 6'1", could do so easily without training.
But I trained and then was able to do 12 clean reps after a few weeks. If the taller dude, who was built like a gorilla, would have trained too he would have easily doubled my numbers.

>>76265346 (OP)
Depends on appendage length and ligament attachment AND lift, taller guys are better at deads and worse at squats/bench

The answer:
>the shorter guy would have an easier time lifting the same weight if both people had the same muscle mass or the same cross sectional area of muscle
The finest minds /fit/ has to offer:
>b-b-b-but the taller guy can get stronger than the shorter guy in total! His max bench would be higher!
OP didn't ask who could become stronger between the two, he asked who is stronger for a comparison case. It's not fucking rocket surgery.

>>76267395
>Who is stronger amongst two people with the same strength? Well, obviously the taller one!
You're a clown.

>>76267398
>two people with the same strength?
They don't though, because of the leverage difference, which is what OP was asking.

>>76267395
>if both people had the same muscle mass or the same cross sectional area of muscle
This was addressed already.
>>76265570
You really have to understand that if they have the same muscle mass then one is borderline overweight while the other is borderline underweight. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either their benches are the same (with vastly different bodies), or their bodies are the same (yielding vastly different benches). The latter contradicts the OPs question, so we must take the former.

>>76265346 (OP)
6'6 guy is a fucking faggot and 5'6 guy easily holds him down and rapes him since he can generate much more force with his shorter range of motion.
Think about this OP. Your rectal virginity is at the mercy of midgets

>>76267406
>This was addressed already.
yes, by the OP question.

>>76267195
>leverages don't matter
I thought they were lifting heavy objects in strongman. Idiot.

>>76265346 (OP)
Its just as strong just less rom, it is over a longer distance but if the bar moves its the same torque im pretty sure just requires more energy.

>>76265346 (OP)
I have a coworker who's a lot taller than me and he says that it's way harder for him to do squats with full rom, even for deadlifts he uses a hex bar

>>76265357
Stronger triceps is just free bench press weight

>have an advantage you didn't earn, it just happened by accident
>still try to shit on short people and their earned accomplishments
Why are some people like this

>>76268749
Tall privilege folx cannot outrun their insecurities because of their lanky legs. Many such cases.

>>76268590
Yeah so if you can move the bar at all its same torque, if arguing mechanics of proportions than even at same ratio of pecs/drumstick would be a longer distance and especially hard for slow reps id think or even require more accel on the bounce to get to the top, so op is seemingly right here but then the actual rom length not being as significantly different as wingspan might make you assume.

So... what's the consensus?

>>76270223
Tall guy has to do more work for the same weights but tall guy will compensate by having a bigger frame for more muscle. Individual leverages vary at the same heights too, there is no black or white answer. There are too many variables involved to specify "harder" and answer the question in a satisfactory manner.

Biggest myth ever.

All of the world's strongest benchers raw and assisted are 6'0+

>>76268749
>>76269211
>t-rex armed little midget is mad that tall people have longer leverages and can't do 2x bodyweight bench press when they're 6'4 and 280lbs
Abloo abloo wahhhhh. Go on the pull up bar whenever you get mogged little buddy, I'll make sure to walk by and do my deadhangs so everyone can see our height difference.

>>76267356
I'd love to hear your thoughts on all of the bench press records holders being around 6'5.

>>76270326
Can't wrap your heads around the difference between a 6'4 280lbs natty and a 6'5 430lbs roider injecting $200 of steroids a day? Must suck to be both a mental midget and an actual midget.

>>76265537
>Muscle density
Have you even seen a human physiology book's cover from afar? OP is a retarded faggot making up cope for being outlifted by child sized adults, why would you engage with his extreme retardation?

>>76270336
Never heard of leverage, mental midget?

>>76270338
Faggot I will shove the goal posts you're trying to move so far up your ass you will be posting hypotheticals about stretched out 7'6 guys being outlifted by 5'6 guys. What does the bullshit explanation of muscle *density* have to do with leverages you abject nigger?

>>76270358
I didn't read your convo retard I'm not reading all that shit I just saw you crying about OP's thread
>OP is a retarded faggot making up cope for being outlifted by child sized adults
You're just butthurt because OP called you t-rex armed little manlets out. Fuck you napoleon complex asshole

>>76270332
Is 6'4 short?

>>76270319
Nobody told you to be morbidly obese.

>>76270332
>Go to open powerlifting
>Sort by bench, raw, all tested lifters
>See a couple dozen benches over 600 lbs
>Google their name & height
It's that easy to prove yourself wrong. But you won't do it because you're a bitch.

>>76265346 (OP)
Less about height and more about body proportions. Long torso and short limbs is pretty much the optimal frame for most lifts.

>If they got in a fight would the tall guy be substantially stronger or would his bad leverages disadvantage him there as well?

Depends, for wrestling/grappling the aforementioned bodytype (long torso, short limbs) is ideal, for striking the opposite is true, long limbs and a short torso are best.

That's why MMA has an insane variety of bodytypes and height compared to other sports, there is no "bad" body type for fighting

>>76270434
Maybe if you ate more when you were growing you'd be taller and wouldn't have to cope with your napoleon complex.

>>76270319
I'm so sorry anon

>>76270336
>t. didn't finish high school

>>76270379
Since you are a nigger you are unable to read, but you will involve yourself in matters that you have no knowledge of whatsoever and be loud about it. Which means that you're not only a nigger, but a nigger woman.
So, shaniqua, if there's anyone butthurt, that is OP. And perhaps you, now that you have your goal posts inserted up your ass. We are making fun of him universally across this thread, because his premise is unrealistic, his reasoning stupid and the product of søycel cope. And I am writing this as a dude with long arms who outbenches heavier people, shorter people (obviously) and longer people in the commercial gyms that he has been to.

>>76270993
I accept your concession

>>76270966
>t. retard who can't even understand his own arguments let alone being able to reason through others' and formulate coherent thoughts. And gets mogged by midgets

>>76271001
>>76271001
>retard who can't even understand his own arguments
but enough about you

>>76270996
>refutation is concession
The only thing you have accepted is that your goal posts were inserted into your ass.

>>76271007
Refutation requires you actually refute an argument
Try again next year ESL, maybe you'll be able to read English by then

>>76271003
>double quote
>no u
Didnt take too much to break you. Cry more about it. You fit the description I've provided, but whats worse is you are delusional and fixated on your illogical reasoning. For this reason you are a failure and always will be.

>>76271020
>but whats worse is you are delusional and fixated on your illogical reasoning.
but enough about you

>>76271024
>no u x2
Pathetic. It is ok, you have no comebacks and I take your repeated replies as *your* concession.

>>76270993
Do reply to me again you butthurt little manlet I like seeing your walls of text that I barely read

>>76271036
It's always ESLs who have to insist this hard that they "won"
It's like they have to remind themself and everyone else that they definitely didn't get destroyed as if it wasn't obvious to anyone with a grade school understanding of the language that they did

>>76271103
Gladly
>barely read
You can barely read, that is well established

>>76271134
I mean, you've been weeping and posting the same reply because you have nothing better to say. You indeed are broken. Case in point:
>remind themself
You were broken so hard you forgot how to speak proper English. Which, if you're not ESL, looks even worse for you. You simply started squealing when it was pointed out that muscle density (lmao) having nothing to do with leverage, so if there were anything destroyed that was you. Retard.

K shut up you two. No one cares

>>76271216
>>76271134

>>76271234
>>76270996

>>76271240
>>76271134

>>76271252
>>76271240

>>76265588
Are you retarded?

>>76265507
World Bench Press record (1401lbs) holder Jimmy Kolb is 5'9" and built like meatball

>>76271634
That's literally average

>>76271634
Short guys can also drive forklifts, what's your point? Anyone can lift heavy with multiply shirts. It's retarded which is why you should do it by raw bench, which was already done itt