I totally agree with Marcus. It is an interesting observation.
A parallel observation is that all particles that couple to the weak force have rest mass (fermions, W and Z bosons and the Higgs boson), while all particles that do not couple to the weak force do not have rest mass (photons and gluons), which is suggestive of the possibility that rest mass arises out of weak force interactions generally and not so much the Higgs boson in particular.
Another observation is that the sets of things that are involved in different fundamental forces are not nested sets. Gravity couples to everything, weak force couples to everything but photons and gluons. But, while fundamental particles with electrical charge are a subset of fundamental particles that interact with the weak force, the photon, which lacks electrical charge and does not interact via the weak force, is obviously a key part of electromagnetic interactions. Likewise, gluons, which do not interact via either the weak force or the electromagnetic force, do interact via the strong force. The lack of nesting is suggestive of the notion that the link between the number of particle that interact via a force and its strength is not a very direct one.
I also have issues with the conventional language that describes one force as "weaker" or "stonger" than another when they aren't really apples to apples comparisons: mass is not color charge is not electromagnetic charge is not weak isospin.
In top quarks, the "weak" force always overcomes the "strong" force. At the scale of a hundred angstroms or more, the electromagnetic force (and probably gravity as well), are going to swamp the short range weak and strong nuclear forces. At terrestrial and astronomy scales, electromagnetic forces are typically much weaker than gravity. The "strong" force is asymptotically free at small scales, and even at it strongest is no stronger than gravity near the event horizon of a black hole. The nuclear binding force which is derivative of the strong force is excellent at holding together elements like iron, but isn't so successful at holding plutonium together. Comparing force strengths only at the scale of atomic nuclei and in units associated with fundamental particles is more of a bias of perspective on the part of the kind of people asking the questions than it is fundamental truth, particularly in light of the face that the three Standard Model force coupling constants are themselves energy scale dependent quantities that "run" and it isn't self-evident that any particular energy scale is the most fundamental one at which to measure a coupling constant.
