Board Thread:Legitimate Canon Questions/@comment-85.180.143.168-20150702014633/@comment-13895380-20150718001553

T Angelus Ballack wrote: I think you misunderstood my original statement. I said becoming an alpha in like a year, not being an alpha for a year. I meant the person had only been a werewolf for a year. But even though we still considered the alpha for a year angle, I would think the strength gained of 25 years of constant and meticulous training, would surpass that of the leap one gets from being an alpha.

The only scenario I can see where an alpha wouls still win, is if there is a maximum strength a Beta can achieve, for explanations' sake, lets take 60. If this was the maximum a Beta could reach no matter how much they train, and say becoming an alpha automatically made you 70 in strength. Then its safe to say an alpha is always stronger.

To me, it sounds like the classic argument of hardwork over talent. where the training beta represents strength obtained through hardwork, and the new alpha represents strength obtained through talent. Okay, I agree then, in the case of the Alpha not being an Alpha for a year. However, if the Alpha does have experience, though not nearly as much, I'd still give the Alpha the benefit of the doubt. For example, Peter is waaaayyy more experienced and controlled than Scott, but Scott beat him pretty easily when he was focused (at the end).