For the moment let's discount mental attitude, mindset, etc. Everyone can point to cases of underdogs who pulled through due to true grit. Let's also discount specializing for wildly disparate environments, like 'arctic vs. desert'. We all know the difference between an Eskimo and a Masai but you can only pick 1 body type (Helen Parr excluded).

I have a friend who was an Army Ranger, then later was a Special Forces officer. These soldiers are subjected to extreme physical hardship in a wide variety of environments. During those times they are expected to do tons of physical work on minimal rations and minimal sleep. I asked him how the big guys did compared to the smaller, more wiry ones.

He said that overall the smaller (or at least average) guys held up better. The big guys had to lug their bulky weight everywhere and required lots of calories to get along. When the rations were restricted, the big guys had a harder time.

It is key to note the restricted rations and sleep. Everyone's a stud when they're well fed and rested.

A 175 pound man can develop a lot of a 250 pound man's functional strength but the performance improvements from the savings in body weight and bulk are enormous. 75 pounds of body mass is a huge albatross that drags you down 24 hours a day.

I would take a 175 pound dude who can run a 7 minute mile and bench press 150% of his weight over a 250 pound guy with the same stats, because the lighter guy will be able to do the work on less food. The heavier guy can exert more absolute force in a one-time lift, but I think that capability is less useful than ongoing functional endurance.