I was reading Mr. Fox' post about looking or a smaller dog. It comes up all the time, in my opinion, about both dogs and human combat athletes. The prominent attitude is that smaller dogs are gamer and smaller fighters are always "pound for pound" better fighters than larger, human fighters.

I don't know if I buy it or not. Are smaller dogs ABLE to be gamer b/c their bodies don't require as much caloric intake, oxygen intake and that, combined with the fact that their larger opponent "hits" so much harder and causes so much more damage, in comparison, is this why they are seemingly gamer?

Take a large fighter. His ability to do damage is greater. The UFC has never had a HW fighter get past 3 title defenses. Is it b/c the fighters in that division are less game, or is it b/c they face people who could end the fight in one strike, at any time?

Smaller fighters can go all day. Why? Some reason are obvious. Less oxygen required. The ability to stay "less hot" is greater b/c of physical factors. Their opponents cannot do the equivalent damage of larger fighters (we all know exceptions but that doesn't apply to the "rule")

I don't think in general, smaller fighters, canine or human, are any more game than larger fighters. It's just my opinion and I'm only throwing this out there for convo sake. So what are some of your thoughts?