[Centurion2000]

Wrong again. Using your logic we would be significantly stronger than chimpanzees (average male weight 90 - 115 pounds). Not even close! Location of muscle attachments is part of it, but chimpanzees are significantly stronger than humans in spite of their smaller weight.

Not really actually. Show me a chimpanzee that can run a marathon.

Almost all of a human's strength is in its legs and a lot of that is wrapped up in endurance as well.

Sure animals are stronger. No land animal is faster over long distance.

[Coyoteman]

Wrong again. Using your logic we would be significantly stronger than chimpanzees (average male weight 90 - 115 pounds). Not even close! Location of muscle attachments is part of it, but chimpanzees are significantly stronger than humans in spite of their smaller weight.

Not really actually. Show me a chimpanzee that can run a marathon.

Almost all of a human's strength is in its legs and a lot of that is wrapped up in endurance as well.

Sure animals are stronger. No land animal is faster over long distance.

I was watching a lecture last night on anthropogeny, a newly emerging field of study.

The lecturer mentioned that it takes three grown men to hold down a small chimp.

Note: they are not chasing him down, they are holding him down. I think my comment above is not contradicted by early humans' adaptations to grasslands, and probably persistence hunting, leading to the capability for long distance running.