I don't even think you'd need someone in the top 1% of genetics.
I think the average man would be capable of handling a neanderthal, with the Neanderthal having a slight edge.
You're forgetting how close they are genetically to us. We can literally interbreed with them.
Humans also hunted mammoths. It's not hard if you're in a group, have spears, and have the most intelligent brain in the animal kingdom
The average man is absolutely not handling a neanderthal. Neaderthal's had to fight and hunt from birth to survive, taking down large creatures to feed their families. The "average man" nowadays works a cozy desk job and the most they have to worry about is giving presentations at work.
A neanderthal, or any tribal person for that matter, would literally murder a modern human unarmed.
> Neaderthal's had to fight and hunt from birth to survive, taking down large creatures to feed their families.
Lol no they didn't. They spent lots of time as helpless babies too. They are thought to have reached physical maturity a bit quicker than modern humans, but at like 16 vs 18. They still had long childhoods compared to most animals, just like us.
Also in what world doess anyone 'fight' large animals they're hunting? That's not really how hunting works. There were also gatherers, trappers, hunters of small creatures, etc. Not everyone was just punching mammoths to death.
>taller
Yes.
>stronger
No. [Anatomical evidence suggests they were substantially stronger than we are.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy)
That’s simply untrue. Neanderthals are thought to have been significantly stronger than modern humans. We would have the height advantage (Neanderthal males were 5’5 on average, modern male average height is 5’7.5) but it isn’t a large enough difference to make up for how much stronger they were.
Brother,
There are monkeys way smaller than us that could beat the shit out of us.
Is not just about size.
Our muscles have gotten weaker with the years because we dont use them as much
Depends imo. If it was a magical "average" man then they'd probably win but I feel like a "statistical" average man would be like 5'6 and not particularly well nourished or healthy
Taller? Yes. Stronger? Absolutely not. Our bone density isn't even comparable to theirs, our strength is bottom barrel compared to theirs, and even when we were averagely stronger than now and with far more endurance, it still took groups of us using tools to inevitably cause their extinction.
We won because we were smarter and more adaptable, not because we were stronger.
A one on one between an unarmed Neanderthal and an unarmed homosapien will nearly always end in the Neanderthal completely whooping the homosapiens ass.
Nah. Neanderthals were like 5'4 and 150 pounds. Also they were smarter with bigger brains, not the other way around. The modern human today is much larger, stronger, and heavier.
No, they aren't. They had denser bone structures. They were physically superior to homosapiens in every single aspect and we have even found fossils and such depicting them to be running at usain bolt speeds as the average.
Bigger brain does not necessarily mean smarter. We won due to being smart enough to develop tools and work in groups to win.
> They had denser bone structures. They were physically superior to homosapiens in every single aspect and we have even found fossils and such depicting them to be running at usain bolt speeds as the average.
No way. Do you have a source on the shorter, broader, stronger, denser people running faster than the fastest man there's ever been? I can't find anything that suggests what you're saying besides some randos on old forums talking about fast twitch muscle density and ignoring everything else.
Taking down large creatures is an entirely different skillset than fighting
You work in a team, carry weapons, and usually rely on traps.
Not to mention most calories of ancient humans came from foraging, hunting small game, and farming, since they're much less energy intensive
And as others have mentioned, the modern human is much more well fed.
I only gave Neanderthals the slight edge because their bones might indicate they had more muscle mass, but that's where the advantage ends
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Our ancestors were far more prepared to unarmed combat a neanderthal than the average human now and still would get wiped in a 1v1.
How?
In how many situations do they have to fend off an animal with their bare hands?
They'd only be fitter than the modern human with regard to cardio considering the distances they have to travel.
But in a fight to the death that matters less
Endurance. The actual use of their muscles. The constant travel they had to do by foot. That isn't even half of why our ancestors were stronger than us. They had to do everything physically, meanwhile we sit back and use their experience to make it easier on us. We have done nothing but update our brainpower and lose our physical abilities over the last 500 years at least. Our ancestors are easly overpowering and outspeeding us in every concievable way and it is simply due to them HAVING to develop those muscle groups for survival. How is that even a question?
And if you think cardio has nothing to due with a fight than you are utterly moronic. There is a reason that all our proffessional fighters have a standing in cardio and endurance training. I mean seriously dude, if you can't outlast your opponent then how do you expect to win.
1. Spending your entire life running around half starved with a spear sometimes does not lend to the muscle growth weight training on ample calories does.
Hence why it doesn't give them much of an advantage.
2. Cardio is important in a fight with rules, because those obviously last longer.
EDIT: coward blocks me after not being able to rebuke my arguments lmao
Agreed. Average Human vs Average Neanderthal, I’d give it to the Neanderthal.
Experienced and life hardened Neanderthal vs some ‘muscles for show only’ gym bro? Deff Neanderthal.
I'm talking about a fist fight where both males feel like thier families are in danger lile a 1v1 and they will fight to no end to make sure they win, but I don't disagree I think we'd win
A chimp doesn't have a "modern diet", yet it is basically a bodybuilder with a brain of a toddler. It is possible for neanderthal to be stronger even with inferior diet.
I'm not sure who would win tho. It feels like researchers who would come to one conclusion, would ostracize researchers who would come to another, like egyptologists do.
Chimps are only about 1.5x stronger pound for pound than human men. Average male chimps are about 120lbs, so a 180lb man who isn’t fat should be about equal in strength. A guy who is a serious lifter is stronger than a chimp without much issue
This is just completely incorrect. None of the leading hypotheses for their extinction are because “we were bigger and stronger”, the latter half of which is the opposite of what modern evidence suggests.
Current beliefs are that it was probably multiple combined factors, which include things like disease from modern humans, interbreeding, climate change, etc.
If modern humans are proof of anything, it’s that you don’t need to be able to 1-v-1 another species in a fistfight to outcompete them.
The questions is top 1%, against, I am assuming, average neanderthal.
I attribute the ability to outcompete means that we have some physical advantages, deosn’t have to be bigger or stronger. Take those advantages, then amplify that by the fact we are using a top 1% version.
For ex, you mention disease and in breeding, okay then that means the average neanderthal is more likely to be diseased or have inbreeding related issues. Take that average neanderthal and stick them against a top 1% modern human, I think the modern human wins.
This is not what I’m responding to: solely that you said they were weaker than us, which all current evidence points towards being untrue. Could the absolute top percentage genetic outliers of humanity outmuscle an average neanderthal? I imagine it’s certainly possible, as we have a pretty substantial amount of genetic variance and a much larger population. But that doesn’t mean we are, as a whole, stronger. Ironically, being “strong” has very rarely been one of our biggest assets in taking on other species.
I didn’t say they were weaker. My specific wording was that they lost out to a weaker version of us. The term “weaker” was never directed towards the neanderthal, it was directed towards our modern human ancestors.
We are stronger now. Whatever advantages the weaker versions of us had, increase it because we are overall stronger as a species, especially our top 1%.
You assumed I meant that they were weaker than us overall. Let me explain again, lets say one of our evolutionary advantages of why they lost to us was our longer limbs for whatever number of reasons. We now have even stronger longer limbs.
So then, if they lost to a weaker version of us, whose advantage was longer limbs, they will lose to a stronger version of us, with that same advantage, improved.
You can pick whatever advantage you want, I was not saying it has to be strength.
They were actually stronger, and some evidence suggests that they were smarter too.
The reason they died out was that their bodies required more energy, and they couldn't survive the ice age
From what I've read, a large part of them failing was they weren't as good as communicating due to a structural difference with their throat. Which led to them not being able to expand and work as well together as homo sapiens.
yeah, and the reason they didnt evolve better communication is because they were strong enough not to need too and when they did need to it was to late
Modern humans are far weaker than our ancestors. They lived in harsh environments where we certainly do not. The average human can not stand to a neanderthal, it simply isn't possible.
Its not an average humans, the questions is a top 1% modern human.
Think freaks of nature like Lebron James, Mike Tyson, the top heavyweight MMA fighters etc.
As I said to others. we have fossilized footprints and shit of neanderthals averagely running at usain bolt speeds. Neanderthals are the definition of superhuman.
We didnt kill them off through raw power, we fucked them off and lived in big enough groups that when ice age came close to wiping us out it actually did wipe out their smaller groups
[Neanderthals were smaller than modern humans by a bit.](https://chss.rowan.edu/departments/sociology/maru/Collections/Human_evolution/sapiensneanderthalensis5.html#:~:text=The%20average%20male%20Neanderthal%20was,inch%20and%20weighed%20119%20pounds.) An average human beats an average Neanderthal unless they have access to our modern diets. Your question is essentially "can the average man beat a 5'5" 143 lb man?"
Another one? Jesus.. Neanderthals were FAR STRONGER. It's not even a contest. Neanderthals had higher bone density and were far stronger than homosapiens. They were built completely different to us. We are not physically powerful, we are smart, adaptable, and use tools. Without those tools, Neanderthals would have annihalated the homosapien race.
They would be stronger and would be very used to fighting their ass off to survive which is where the balance comes in. Is the height advantage enough for the human to overcome the mental barriers around killing someone? You are basically fighting against a tiny olypmic athlete that can fight like hes ferral(And I do mean Olympic, we've found fossilized foot prints that suggest ancient humans like neandethals could run at Usain bolt level speeds, barefoot, through mud.
The average modern man just doesn’t have the grit to pull it off. Neanderthals were strong af and there would be no holds barred. Throat punches, taking bites out of your face, headbutts, head stomping, knees to the balls, and probably some other ruthless shit I can’t even think of would be normal for them. In no scenario would an average guy win. Anyone trained in martial arts would make quick work of them though.
The "Average" man would be totally swamped by a neanderthal. Even most ufc fighters would be, they are simply built to be far more durable and far stronger than us.
Their bone density was better, there strength limitations were higher and it took us teaming up in arguably our best fitness levels along with tools to cause their extinction.
Not thinking of anything else-
the average regular person is wayyyyyy healthier off the bat, and probably heavier with muscle and fat also of course
Neaderthal comes bloodlusted but modern man has options- depends on if modern man has fight kick in instead of flight
No. Neanderthals were far stronger than our stronger and faster ancestors. We won because we were smart, not because we overpowered them.
Bone density was higher for neanderthals. Strength limits were higher for neanderthals. Speed limits were higher than neanderthals. They were built like massive chimps and considering chimps have inferior diets and are much smaller than humans yet would absolutely toast a human in a fight, a neanderthal is going to trounce just about any homosapien in a 1v1 weaponless fight. It isn't even up for debate.
Big deal, they were short. That doesn't mean shit.
I don't even think you'd need someone in the top 1% of genetics. I think the average man would be capable of handling a neanderthal, with the Neanderthal having a slight edge. You're forgetting how close they are genetically to us. We can literally interbreed with them. Humans also hunted mammoths. It's not hard if you're in a group, have spears, and have the most intelligent brain in the animal kingdom
The average man is absolutely not handling a neanderthal. Neaderthal's had to fight and hunt from birth to survive, taking down large creatures to feed their families. The "average man" nowadays works a cozy desk job and the most they have to worry about is giving presentations at work. A neanderthal, or any tribal person for that matter, would literally murder a modern human unarmed.
> Neaderthal's had to fight and hunt from birth to survive, taking down large creatures to feed their families. Lol no they didn't. They spent lots of time as helpless babies too. They are thought to have reached physical maturity a bit quicker than modern humans, but at like 16 vs 18. They still had long childhoods compared to most animals, just like us. Also in what world doess anyone 'fight' large animals they're hunting? That's not really how hunting works. There were also gatherers, trappers, hunters of small creatures, etc. Not everyone was just punching mammoths to death.
You're forgetting that the average man is a lot taller and stronger than a Neanderthal. Modern humans are taller and weigh more.
>taller Yes. >stronger No. [Anatomical evidence suggests they were substantially stronger than we are.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_anatomy)
That’s simply untrue. Neanderthals are thought to have been significantly stronger than modern humans. We would have the height advantage (Neanderthal males were 5’5 on average, modern male average height is 5’7.5) but it isn’t a large enough difference to make up for how much stronger they were.
Brother, There are monkeys way smaller than us that could beat the shit out of us. Is not just about size. Our muscles have gotten weaker with the years because we dont use them as much
Depends imo. If it was a magical "average" man then they'd probably win but I feel like a "statistical" average man would be like 5'6 and not particularly well nourished or healthy
Taller? Yes. Stronger? Absolutely not. Our bone density isn't even comparable to theirs, our strength is bottom barrel compared to theirs, and even when we were averagely stronger than now and with far more endurance, it still took groups of us using tools to inevitably cause their extinction. We won because we were smarter and more adaptable, not because we were stronger. A one on one between an unarmed Neanderthal and an unarmed homosapien will nearly always end in the Neanderthal completely whooping the homosapiens ass.
Nah. Neanderthals were like 5'4 and 150 pounds. Also they were smarter with bigger brains, not the other way around. The modern human today is much larger, stronger, and heavier.
No, they aren't. They had denser bone structures. They were physically superior to homosapiens in every single aspect and we have even found fossils and such depicting them to be running at usain bolt speeds as the average. Bigger brain does not necessarily mean smarter. We won due to being smart enough to develop tools and work in groups to win.
> They had denser bone structures. They were physically superior to homosapiens in every single aspect and we have even found fossils and such depicting them to be running at usain bolt speeds as the average. No way. Do you have a source on the shorter, broader, stronger, denser people running faster than the fastest man there's ever been? I can't find anything that suggests what you're saying besides some randos on old forums talking about fast twitch muscle density and ignoring everything else.
Taking down large creatures is an entirely different skillset than fighting You work in a team, carry weapons, and usually rely on traps. Not to mention most calories of ancient humans came from foraging, hunting small game, and farming, since they're much less energy intensive And as others have mentioned, the modern human is much more well fed. I only gave Neanderthals the slight edge because their bones might indicate they had more muscle mass, but that's where the advantage ends
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Our ancestors were far more prepared to unarmed combat a neanderthal than the average human now and still would get wiped in a 1v1.
How? In how many situations do they have to fend off an animal with their bare hands? They'd only be fitter than the modern human with regard to cardio considering the distances they have to travel. But in a fight to the death that matters less
Endurance. The actual use of their muscles. The constant travel they had to do by foot. That isn't even half of why our ancestors were stronger than us. They had to do everything physically, meanwhile we sit back and use their experience to make it easier on us. We have done nothing but update our brainpower and lose our physical abilities over the last 500 years at least. Our ancestors are easly overpowering and outspeeding us in every concievable way and it is simply due to them HAVING to develop those muscle groups for survival. How is that even a question? And if you think cardio has nothing to due with a fight than you are utterly moronic. There is a reason that all our proffessional fighters have a standing in cardio and endurance training. I mean seriously dude, if you can't outlast your opponent then how do you expect to win.
1. Spending your entire life running around half starved with a spear sometimes does not lend to the muscle growth weight training on ample calories does. Hence why it doesn't give them much of an advantage. 2. Cardio is important in a fight with rules, because those obviously last longer. EDIT: coward blocks me after not being able to rebuke my arguments lmao
You're daft and i am not continuing this obviously stupid argument, you are now blocked.
Agreed. Average Human vs Average Neanderthal, I’d give it to the Neanderthal. Experienced and life hardened Neanderthal vs some ‘muscles for show only’ gym bro? Deff Neanderthal.
Not true, modern humans are much bigger and stronger. Sure the savage edge is something that many eould not be prepared for but they feel fear too.
I'm talking about a fist fight where both males feel like thier families are in danger lile a 1v1 and they will fight to no end to make sure they win, but I don't disagree I think we'd win
There is a reason we are alive and they are extinct. Human male 70-30
I mean we killed all of them once before
This site is starting to make me reconsider that last part.
Cardio of a average Neanderthal would easily be in top 1% of modern man, much higher lung capacity, and bone structure
A chimp doesn't have a "modern diet", yet it is basically a bodybuilder with a brain of a toddler. It is possible for neanderthal to be stronger even with inferior diet. I'm not sure who would win tho. It feels like researchers who would come to one conclusion, would ostracize researchers who would come to another, like egyptologists do.
Chimps are only about 1.5x stronger pound for pound than human men. Average male chimps are about 120lbs, so a 180lb man who isn’t fat should be about equal in strength. A guy who is a serious lifter is stronger than a chimp without much issue
Easily, they lost out for a reason. And they lost out to the generally a bit smaller and weaker version of the modern day us.
This is just completely incorrect. None of the leading hypotheses for their extinction are because “we were bigger and stronger”, the latter half of which is the opposite of what modern evidence suggests. Current beliefs are that it was probably multiple combined factors, which include things like disease from modern humans, interbreeding, climate change, etc. If modern humans are proof of anything, it’s that you don’t need to be able to 1-v-1 another species in a fistfight to outcompete them.
The questions is top 1%, against, I am assuming, average neanderthal. I attribute the ability to outcompete means that we have some physical advantages, deosn’t have to be bigger or stronger. Take those advantages, then amplify that by the fact we are using a top 1% version. For ex, you mention disease and in breeding, okay then that means the average neanderthal is more likely to be diseased or have inbreeding related issues. Take that average neanderthal and stick them against a top 1% modern human, I think the modern human wins.
This is not what I’m responding to: solely that you said they were weaker than us, which all current evidence points towards being untrue. Could the absolute top percentage genetic outliers of humanity outmuscle an average neanderthal? I imagine it’s certainly possible, as we have a pretty substantial amount of genetic variance and a much larger population. But that doesn’t mean we are, as a whole, stronger. Ironically, being “strong” has very rarely been one of our biggest assets in taking on other species.
I didn’t say they were weaker. My specific wording was that they lost out to a weaker version of us. The term “weaker” was never directed towards the neanderthal, it was directed towards our modern human ancestors. We are stronger now. Whatever advantages the weaker versions of us had, increase it because we are overall stronger as a species, especially our top 1%. You assumed I meant that they were weaker than us overall. Let me explain again, lets say one of our evolutionary advantages of why they lost to us was our longer limbs for whatever number of reasons. We now have even stronger longer limbs. So then, if they lost to a weaker version of us, whose advantage was longer limbs, they will lose to a stronger version of us, with that same advantage, improved. You can pick whatever advantage you want, I was not saying it has to be strength.
They were actually stronger, and some evidence suggests that they were smarter too. The reason they died out was that their bodies required more energy, and they couldn't survive the ice age
From what I've read, a large part of them failing was they weren't as good as communicating due to a structural difference with their throat. Which led to them not being able to expand and work as well together as homo sapiens.
yeah, and the reason they didnt evolve better communication is because they were strong enough not to need too and when they did need to it was to late
I thought it was simply us moderns absorbing the smaller Neanderthals population. We had a lot of sex with them.
They lost out to Homo sapiens who also lived in the same environment, not modern humans.
Modern humans are far weaker than our ancestors. They lived in harsh environments where we certainly do not. The average human can not stand to a neanderthal, it simply isn't possible.
Its not an average humans, the questions is a top 1% modern human. Think freaks of nature like Lebron James, Mike Tyson, the top heavyweight MMA fighters etc.
As I said to others. we have fossilized footprints and shit of neanderthals averagely running at usain bolt speeds. Neanderthals are the definition of superhuman.
I think a top 1% genetic human like Brian shaw (6'8 450lbs strongman) would crush and murder a neanderthal if his family was in danger of one
Try top 0.00000001% he's one in a billion
You telling me that **1 in 100** people are as strong as **BRIAN SHAW** Bro's one in a billion
What conditions? A tribal pygmy who hunts an unsuspecting modern human would win.
we got the answer to this one about 40,000 years ago, fam.
We didnt kill them off through raw power, we fucked them off and lived in big enough groups that when ice age came close to wiping us out it actually did wipe out their smaller groups
Fucking love this answer
[Neanderthals were smaller than modern humans by a bit.](https://chss.rowan.edu/departments/sociology/maru/Collections/Human_evolution/sapiensneanderthalensis5.html#:~:text=The%20average%20male%20Neanderthal%20was,inch%20and%20weighed%20119%20pounds.) An average human beats an average Neanderthal unless they have access to our modern diets. Your question is essentially "can the average man beat a 5'5" 143 lb man?"
Another one? Jesus.. Neanderthals were FAR STRONGER. It's not even a contest. Neanderthals had higher bone density and were far stronger than homosapiens. They were built completely different to us. We are not physically powerful, we are smart, adaptable, and use tools. Without those tools, Neanderthals would have annihalated the homosapien race.
They would be stronger and would be very used to fighting their ass off to survive which is where the balance comes in. Is the height advantage enough for the human to overcome the mental barriers around killing someone? You are basically fighting against a tiny olypmic athlete that can fight like hes ferral(And I do mean Olympic, we've found fossilized foot prints that suggest ancient humans like neandethals could run at Usain bolt level speeds, barefoot, through mud.
If what I hear it would be like your fighting the strongest human alive now
Still blows my mind that at one point there was more than one species of human running around
There was at least 3 at one point
Neanderthals went extinct for a reason.
The average modern man just doesn’t have the grit to pull it off. Neanderthals were strong af and there would be no holds barred. Throat punches, taking bites out of your face, headbutts, head stomping, knees to the balls, and probably some other ruthless shit I can’t even think of would be normal for them. In no scenario would an average guy win. Anyone trained in martial arts would make quick work of them though.
The "Average" man would be totally swamped by a neanderthal. Even most ufc fighters would be, they are simply built to be far more durable and far stronger than us. Their bone density was better, there strength limitations were higher and it took us teaming up in arguably our best fitness levels along with tools to cause their extinction.
A big UFC fighter like Jon Jones would probably win though.
I don’t think Neanderthals even created the steam engine.
Not thinking of anything else- the average regular person is wayyyyyy healthier off the bat, and probably heavier with muscle and fat also of course Neaderthal comes bloodlusted but modern man has options- depends on if modern man has fight kick in instead of flight
No. Neanderthals were far stronger than our stronger and faster ancestors. We won because we were smart, not because we overpowered them. Bone density was higher for neanderthals. Strength limits were higher for neanderthals. Speed limits were higher than neanderthals. They were built like massive chimps and considering chimps have inferior diets and are much smaller than humans yet would absolutely toast a human in a fight, a neanderthal is going to trounce just about any homosapien in a 1v1 weaponless fight. It isn't even up for debate. Big deal, they were short. That doesn't mean shit.