Let's start by clarifying: Herbivores are not weak by virtue of being herbivores. In fact, a healthy prey animal will almost always be able to either outrun or outfight the predator species that typically preys on it. Predators survive because they target the vulnerable members of a herd: the weak, sick, injured, or children. In other words, predators regularly kill prey not because of some inherent combat superiority of predators in general, but because they choose which prey animal they will try to fight. Some predators and prey are built for speed, others for fighting. If we remove size from the equation and throw a random anthro-predator and anthro-prey into a fight, the factors that decide which will come out on top will depend on how that species hunts or avoids being hunted. Which one is a predator species and which one is a prey species is more or less irrelevant.
This question is somewhat unique, in that we are not simply scaling animals up or down, but altering their shape as well. The human body is good at doing human things, so anthro creatures will likely have some of their natural abilities reduced, and others increased simply by virtue of having a human body shape. In order to answer this properly, we have to establish exactly how anthropomorphized they will be. Will a mouse still have short stubby legs and a round body, even though this will make it hard to walk scaled up? Will a human-sized elephant man have the stiff, pillar-like legs that are so completely dedicated to supporting a full-sized elephant's weight that they are incapable of jumping?
Let us assume that they have whatever shapes are needed to carry over their naturally outstanding physical capabilities. An anthro animal that would be strong for its size in its natural state will still be strong for its size. An anthro animal that would be fast for its size will still be fast; probably not as fast because the human shape isn't really optimized for speed, but still quick-footed.
Popular lists of "world's strongest animals" are often inappropriately dominated by both very large and very small animals; big animals are often only strong by virtue of being big and small ones are typically only strong "for their size" due to the square-cube law. To establish which animals will retain their strength when anthropomorphized, you have to compare them to similarly-sized animals.
Small animals like rabbits and hares are built for speed rather than combat, and anthropomorphized, that will still likely be the case. However, a wolf may not be the best choice of example for comparison when it comes to quick-action physical capabilities. This is because, for their size, wolves are not especially remarkable in either strength or speed. What they specialize in is, like humans, cooperation and endurance. So I would expect a human-sized anthro hare - a fast animal that also packs a literal kick - to win out over an anthro wolf in a one-on-one competition, whether it was a race or a fight. On the other hand, a wolf person will probably not try to tackle a hare person alone - they'll get their pack to back them up. And they will be able to hound the hare until it's out of breath.
If you want an example of a creature built for fighting, the traditional King of Beasts is actually not a bad place to start. Lions, as well as jaguars, are extremely strong animals, even factoring in their size. There are some herbivores that might be able to tangle with the big cats, though, like zebras, which often opt to fight similarly-sized predators instead of fleeing. And of course, nobody messes with the badger man.
Teeth, claws, hooves and horns can be good weapons for an animal, although they're pretty much irrelevant for a humanoid that can use hand-held weapons.