mark@unix386.Convergent.COM (Mark Nudelman) (01/28/91)
For some time, Ted Holden has been making some rather controversial,
to put it mildly, assertions in talk.origins. One of the things
his argument seems to rest on is the relative strength of various
animals. To pick a specific example, Ted asserts that weightlifter
Bill Kazmeier is stronger than any other similarly-sized animal.
In particular, Ted asserts that Mr. Kazmeier is stronger than any
gorilla, and that no gorilla could ever lift (from a squat) a
weight of over 1000 pounds. Ted, is this a fair representation
of your view? If this assertion were proven incorrect, how much
of your theory would have to be revised?
For the rest of you, can anyone come up with a good reference to
the fact that a gorilla is far stronger than any human? I spent a
little time in my local library where I found several anecdotal
statements that a chimp is about 3 times as strong as a human,
and a gorilla about 16 times as strong as a human. Jane Goodall
noted that she had a difficult time securing a stash of bananas
from wild chimps, as they would keep tearing steel handles off
the boxes the bananas were kept in, and snapping "strong" steel
cables. A story is told of a chimp who was brought to England and
shown to a professional wrestler and animal trainer, who while the
chimp was distracted, attempted to leap on the chimp and throw him
to the ground. The wrestler was instead thrown over the chimp's
head; the wrestler said it was the first time in his career that
both shoulders touched the ground at the same time. Another story
told of a baby gorilla who someone tried to raise in an ordinary
house, but the experiment had to be modified as the gorilla found
it could easily pass through closed doors by pushing on the door
with its shoulder, which would dislodge the door from the doorframe.
While stories like this seem to be evidence against Ted's thesis,
I'd prefer better documented and more quantitative data. Does
anyone know of any scientific studies measuring the strength of
chimpanzees or gorillas?
Mark Nudelman
{uunet,sun,decwrl,hplabs}!pyramid!ctnews!unix386!markted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) (01/29/91)
In article <5704@unix386.Convergent.COM> mark@unix386.Convergent.COM (Mark Nudelman) writes: >Bill Kazmeier is stronger than any other similarly-sized animal. >In particular, Ted asserts that Mr. Kazmeier is stronger than any >gorilla, and that no gorilla could ever lift (from a squat) a >weight of over 1000 pounds. Ted, is this a fair representation >of your view? If this assertion were proven incorrect, how much >of your theory would have to be revised? Close, but not quite a fair representation. Kaz is past his prime at this point, number one. I do claim that Kaz and top power-lifters like him actually are going to be stronger than any similar-sized creatures; they work out many hours a day using anabolic steroids which animals do not have access to. Kaz was about 340 or 350 in top form; a really big gorilla goes around 400 or a slight tad more. If I HAD to bet, I would bet that even the 400 lb gorilla could not do anything with 1000 lbs on a bar other than injure himself, but I'm not TOTALLY certain of it. I would feel fairly certain that a 340 lb gorilla would not be able to equal Kaz's lifts. I once saw Kaz do about six dead lifts with 100 lbs on a bar in one of the world's strongest men competitions while several of the strongest men from other sports including the NFL couldn't do much morre than get it an inch or two off the ground. A max effort at a squat uses every muscle in the lifters body fully; lifters sometimes break blood veins in their faces and noses doing these lifts... you see burn marks on their shoulders from it. Further, we have it on good authority that there is no qualitative difference between muscle tissue amongst any two higher animals, and that only the amount of muscle (cross section) differentiates capabilities. I've never seen a gorilla which didn't have a goodly amount of fat on him, while Kaz in top form was almost entirely muscle, and that better trained than any animal might hope to possess. You figure it. >Jane Goodall >noted that she had a difficult time securing a stash of bananas >from wild chimps, as they would keep tearing steel handles off >the boxes the bananas were kept in, and snapping "strong" steel >cables. A story is told of a chimp who was brought to England and >shown to a professional wrestler and animal trainer, who while the >chimp was distracted, attempted to leap on the chimp and throw him >to the ground. The wrestler was instead thrown over the chimp's >head; the wrestler said it was the first time in his career that >both shoulders touched the ground at the same time. Another story >told of a baby gorilla who someone tried to raise in an ordinary >house, but the experiment had to be modified as the gorilla found >it could easily pass through closed doors by pushing on the door >with its shoulder, which would dislodge the door from the doorframe. Such stories may be explained as follows. Our major appendages are our legs, while the arms are the major appendage amongst apes and monkeys. Especially Americans tend to view arm and shoulder strength as end alls and be alls in every instance in which questions of strength are considered, and of course the great arm strength of the chimps and gorillas will impress us. What I am claiming is that a chimp or a normal sized gorilla doesn't have any more muscle than a guy like Kaz, that what muscle he does possess is not trained for lifting the way Kaz' muscles are, and that there's just no way that an ape the same size or smaller is going to do any kind of a lift which uses all available muscles (like the squat) any better than Kaz. If you're experiencing some kind of an inferiority complex type of problem from observing chimps, you might also have the chimp try to run a competitive 220 or 440. Ted Holden HTE