If you had to pick just one, and the opposite of the other, which would it be?
What I mean is, would you rather be incredibly strong at a puny body weight and size, or would you rather be huge (the size of your all time favorite body builder), but weak as hell?
I know these extremes aren't going to happen, as anyone who gets extremely strong or extremely huge will get some effects of the other.
My question stems around my own personal problem. 3 years ago I was 148lbs and my strength numbers were fairly impressive for being raw at my weight (335lb bench, 415 squat, 425 dead).
Now I'm 15-20lbs heavier and feel and look more muscular overall, but I'm obviously a little fatter (around 12%) and my strength numbers are actually a little lower in squat and deads, about the same with bench.
I got hooked on Chad Waterbury's programs with the extra mass and strength I've put on in a fairly short period of time (I lost a lot of the strength I had about 2 years ago and have gotten most of it back recently).
The problem is, as I get ready to compete again for the first time in 3 years, I don't know if I should try to go for the strongest I can be, lb for lb, or gain much needed mass with strength, but sacrifice lb for lb strength.
I'm just curious as to what you all would choose given the above situation. I know ultimately it will come down to my own personal goals, but I'd like to see what the average T-Nation member would choose.