Easy question to answer, huh? Well, it should be, but unfortunately it isn't always so cut and dry for some people. So in a brief "An Interesting Thought," I'll try to break it down as easily as possible...

"Strength" is walking down the road, seeing a big heavy rock off in the dirt, and being able to pick it up. THAT is strength.

"Strength" is NOT seeing a smaller rock and lifting it to failure. THAT is endurance.

"Strength" is NOT seeing an even smaller rock and lifting it in an extremely slow manner, all the while counting how long it takes you to lift it up and how long it takes you to put it down. THAT is nonsense.

See how easy it is to define? Like it or not, sports fans, this is how it is; not because some 63 year-old nobody says so, but because this is how it has ALWAYS been. Would the Kazmaiers and Hepburns of this world lean toward this definition or toward that of those who define strength by what coincides with their own methods of training?

To quote the Good Book: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine,...but shall heap to themselves taechers...an they shall turn away their ears to the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Look, I know this applies to religion, but I think the words fit here. As with religion, in strength training the hearers of the truth don't make the rules; they just follow them.

Just some useless thoughts from a nearly 64 year-old man!