What realistic chance would a trained human fighter have against a grown chimpanzee?

[Snerk]

Fair.

Anyway the knife wielder wins.

 

[shadowplay]

The crucial question we're not asking here is, does this chimpanzee know martial arts too?

I wish we could still rate threads so I could give this one 5 stars btw.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This fight would only be fair if the chimp knows his life is in danger and that the man is his enemy. I don't know how that can be instilled in the chimp prior to being stabbed at least once. Now if a chimp was trained from youth to hate humans and to kill them on command, then we'd have a challenging fight.

 

[Chose]

I'm not really a big fan of the scenario.

Why not just drop the chimp and the athletic human fighter in the cage, completely naked. No knives, no weapons, and no getting the chimp worked up before the fight. Just a completely fair fight to the death. You don't open the cage until one of them dies. If no one dies after 8 hours, you kill them both.

So basically the human has to attack the chimp, is the chimp going to sense what is going on? Maybe, maybe not. Would the Human be able to put it in a hold, probably not if he was average sized, but the human might actually be stronger if he is 2 or 3 times the weight. For an average sized human maybe land a solid blow with a knee or elbow hit. Chimps are smaller than humans, so he would have the weight advantage almost certainly. IDK this would be more interesting to me than giving the human a knife.

 

[bernie14]

The crucial question we're not asking here is, does this chimpanzee know martial arts too?

 

[brennan]

Oh my, now I have to post this:

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That chimp has natural talent. If he had any genuine interest in martial arts instead of doing it for some bananas, he would be the next Bruce.

 

[Akka]

A trained fighter in good shape with a combat knife ?
I bet on him, yeah.
I don't say he'll get out unscathed, but he's much more likely to be the one doing the kill.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That chimp lacks ambition and is lazier than a sloth. That way he will never get into the Navy Seals.

 

[Berzerker]

the chimp standing up at the end was funny, he looked tuckered trying to get some air in his lungs

 

[bernie14]

That chimp lacks ambition and is lazier than a sloth. That way he will never get into the Navy Seals.

Pure propagada...they edited out the interview of the chimp

 

[yung.carl.jung]

That chimp lacks ambition and is lazier than a sloth. That way he will never get into the Navy Seals.

*flexes d*ck* come at me, bro

 

[caketastydelish]

Die. That's what I'd do.

There are stronger humans, but there are humans that are stronger than bears. They are far from the norm. Your offensive lineman is going to have all that muscle and fat bitten to shreds by an angry chimp. In fact, one of the original tests to gauge chimp strength was to put a chimp against an American football team.


Incidentally, that particular chimp was a stronger than usual alpha male. But if we allow for outliers in human strength, we must also allow for outliers in chimp strength. Bauman also pissed off the chimps to make them pull the weight, making them stronger than usual. Since a chimp in a fight is already pissed off, I don't see that it affects the point here.

Chimps have denser musculature than humans, meaning a chimp is between 1.5-2 times as strong as a human with exactly the same muscle mass. They are considerably more athletic, with a grip strength around 8 times that of a human. They have built-in knives in their mouths that can bite through bone, and can spring faster than Usain Bolt, and over a greater distance. They can also climb far faster than any human, so you can't get away by climbing a tree.

This very same study was later proven to be factually incorrect.

 

[HoloDoc]

This very same study was later proven to be factually incorrect.

From what I've read, it wasn't, it was just proven to be an outlier. No one is saying Bauman faked his results, so it can't be factually incorrect.

 

[brennan]

Science:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/20/1619071114

Since at least the 1920s, it has been reported that common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) differ from humans in being capable of exceptional feats of “super strength,” both in the wild and in captive environments. A mix of anecdotal and more controlled studies provides some support for this view; however, a critical review of available data suggests that chimpanzee mass-specific muscular performance is a more modest 1.5 times greater than humans on average. Hypotheses for the muscular basis of this performance differential have included greater isometric force-generating capabilities, faster maximum shortening velocities, and/or a difference in myosin heavy chain (MHC) isoform content in chimpanzee relative to human skeletal muscle. Here, we show that chimpanzee muscle is similar to human muscle in its single-fiber contractile properties, but exhibits a much higher fraction of MHC II isoforms. Unlike humans, chimpanzee muscle is composed of ∼67% fast-twitch fibers (MHC IIa+IId). Computer simulations of species-specific whole-muscle models indicate that maximum dynamic force and power output is 1.35 times higher in a chimpanzee muscle than a human muscle of similar size. Thus, the superior mass-specific muscular performance of chimpanzees does not stem from differences in isometric force-generating capabilities or maximum shortening velocities—as has long been suggested—but rather is due in part to differences in MHC isoform content and fiber length. We propose that the hominin lineage experienced a decline in maximum dynamic force and power output during the past 7–8 million years in response to selection for repetitive, low-cost contractile behavior.

Humans are adapted for endurance.

 

[caketastydelish]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/science/why-are-chimps-stronger-than-humans.html

edit: x post

 

[HoloDoc]

I read the same study. I quoted it when I stated that chimps are 1.5-2 times stronger than humans. I repeat: no one is saying Bauman faked his results.

 

[Berzerker]

if we can extrapolate, a 120 lb chimp will be about as strong as a 180 lb man. And a 180 lb trained fighter will be quite a bit stronger than both.

 

[HoloDoc]

if we can extrapolate, a 120 lb chimp will be about as strong as a 180 lb man. And a 180 lb trained fighter will be quite a bit stronger than both.

But you're not taking into count the grip strength, the speed differential, or the overdeveloped upper body on a chimp. Those are all force multipliers.

 

[Chose]

if we can extrapolate, a 120 lb chimp will be about as strong as a 180 lb man. And a 180 lb trained fighter will be quite a bit stronger than both.

Well the 1.5 figure is about the strength of the same amount of muscle mass. How much muscle mass does a 180 lb man have compared to a 120 lb chimp? I wouldn't be surprised if the chimp had more. Probably not more than 180 lb trained/lean fighter, but I'm not sure, chimps are ripped under that hair:

Spoiler :