|
Post by brobear on Oct 9, 2018 16:25:12 GMT -5
IMO... a sword is too unfair to the beast. I would say a club. A heavy hard-wood club with no metal. ( Hercules style ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 0:34:59 GMT -5
Even if they had similar strength, the 4 inch claws of the Grizzly would inflict horrific damage to even a thick skinned Gorilla. I think so too. A grizzly is just equipped with too many weapons in it's arsenal. A grizzly would have 1, Superior strength 2. Thick fur 3. Deadly claws 2 to 4 inch claws 4. Size advantage 5. Aggression and Determination.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Oct 10, 2018 8:31:39 GMT -5
Remember, Gorillas rarely fight and usually only when they or their immediate family group feel threatenend. They're plant eaters,so they don't hunt. That said, they have a powerful grip and tremendous bite force. But that lack of fighting experience and lethal weapons puts the odds towards the Bear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 10, 2018 9:14:11 GMT -5
I still miss the old B-movie gorilla who could bend steel bars and crush a lion with a bear-hug. They were movie monsters from the silent film era up until about 1970. www.hollywoodgorillamen.com/
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 11, 2018 4:43:53 GMT -5
There are numerous lists of "world's strongest animals" online - usually the "top ten". I was just looking at several of them. They all place the tiger above the grizzly. ABSURD. So much trash on the internet. My List .... from no studies .... pure opinion here with starting with the strongest ( land-based mammals only ). 1 - Elephants. 2 - Rhinoceros and hippopotamus. 3 - Large Bovine including bison, gaur, and buffalo. 4 - Horse and moose. ( maybe giraffe ). 5 - Brown and polar bears. 6 - Lion, tiger, gorilla, and both black bears. 7 - Chimpanzee, Orangutan, jaguar, and sloth bear. 8 - leopard, cougar, and sun bear. 9 - grey wolf and spotted hyena. 10 - wolverine. Note: there are of course a huge number of animals that could be squeezed in, but this is my list.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 11, 2018 5:13:46 GMT -5
I completely agree with your list, exept that i dont know if a moose is stronger than a bear, at least the bears 1000 + lbs. but yeah, the top 10 lists are ridiculous, they all have the tiger before the bear, they think pound for pound its stronger. Its crazy.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 11, 2018 5:31:00 GMT -5
I completely agree with your list, exept that i dont know if a moose is stronger than a bear, at least the bears 1000 + lbs. but yeah, the top 10 lists are ridiculous, they all have the tiger before the bear, they think pound for pound its stronger. Its crazy. I am considering like a Montana or Wyoming grizzly which I consider basically average for Ursus arctos horribilis: 500 to 600 pounds. Perhaps sloth bear would fit in number #7 and sun bear in number #8. ( just did ).
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 11, 2018 5:36:01 GMT -5
Oh ok, yeah i see.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 14, 2018 4:12:05 GMT -5
wildfact.com/forum/attachment.php?aid=292 Muscular force analysis of youngaged brown bears A comprehensive laboratory study conducted by Vladimir PrevikniKoussoufsev Date Conducted:13 June 2003 EXPERIMENT In this analysis, two lone, male Ussuri brown bears of ages 3 and 5 were gathered and used within the study for 5 consecutive days, with weights of 83.7kilograms and 113.4kilograms, respectively. The bears were given triplelined sedatives as requested by the administrators of this project, and a sufficient amount of rest (> 6 hours) per day was provided for the bears, as well as food and other facilitative measures for the highest amount of fitness preconcluding this experiment. Upon awakening, the bears’ respective muscle masses were measured using BMI and body fat estimates, organ opacity estimates, bone density/size measurements, and muscle fiber graphs. For the younger of the two, the muscle mass approximated to 54.37% of his total body weight, or approximately 45.51kilograms. The older of the two approximated at 52.80% muscle mass, or approximately 59.88kilograms of muscle mass. Using muscle fiber graphology, the younger bear’s muscle fiber ratios equated to 41.2% typeIIx fibres and 58.8% typeIa/Ib fibres. Those of the older bear equated to 46.9% typeIIx fibres and 53.1% typeIa/Ib fibres; nearprime and prime bears tend to possess more fasttwitch fibre type than the younger bears, mostly due to physical maturity and highintensity movements as a result of greater testosterone. 2 1 Note: This study was published and translated into English on 08 Aug 2006. 2 Muscle mass and muscular force analysis in brown bears of varying ages Document II. Other determinants of muscle force include: capillary action, crosssectional shape of muscle, muscle density, neuron density per length unit of muscle, and many other factors. Few animal clades and groupings have these advantages over bears, thus effectively ruling a bear’s ability to gradually, or even instantly, achieve and maintain maximum muscle force as the greatest. 3 For the majority of the experiment, a moveable wall consisted of microcarbon material and carbon handles was implemented according to the directions of the administrators. The wall used a computerized weightpressurizing system which supported both horizontal pulling and pushing directions. The administrators, over a period of two hours, taught the bears to clasp both handles with their paws. Respectively, the administrators of the experiment issued the following weights in order: a 250kilogram pull, a 500kilogram push, a 1000kilogram push, and a 1720kilogram pull. Over a period of five days, the bears were ensured sufficient and frequent food for their experimental efforts, and a subsequent phase of cardiovascular activity was implemented upon the bears to increase maximum experimental production; all together with a sleeping schedule typical of a foraging bear. For the first two consecutive days, the 250kilogram pull and the 500kilogram push were both implemented upon the bears. The bears moved both weights, over a distance of 10 meters, as directed, with extreme ease. The administrators then directed the scientists to record their findings as a graphical representation. On day three, the bears woke up with a 1hour cardiovascular training program which consisted of a 40minute “lightinterval” run among the various park fields around the administrators’ facilities, a 15minute “highinterval” run in the Predaznyoski Trainway, an abandoned railroad since 1976, and a 5minute pulling exercise which required a tetherball and a chain connected into a stationary wall opposite that of the moveable wall. 3 Muscle analysis of various animal clades and species within clades (Adams et al., 2001)
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 14, 2018 4:13:38 GMT -5
CONTINUED: Within the fourth day, the 1000kilogram push was initiated upon both bears, and the results conclusively pointed to a higher exertion of maximal strength as the bears pushed the weight. The weighted wall was moved with relative ease, with the younger bear exerting more of his maximal force than the older bear. Both were directed to push the wall 5 meters, as directed by the administrators. The younger bear took 2.91 seconds to push the wall 5 meters, while that of the older bear elapsed to 2.34 seconds. Five hours later, a cardiovascular workout consisting of a 50minute “lightinterval” run was implemented and the rest of the day was sectioned into the prescribed feeding and rest schedule. The fifth and final day arrived, and the bears were given a generous supply of food, most notably wild moose rump meat and lingonberries. The wall, weighted up to 1720kilograms, was to be pulled a distance of 3 meters. At the conclusion of this experiment, the scientists results’ proved the younger bear to exert maximal force, whilst the older bear exerted nearmaximum force, as proven by its pulling past the 3meter mark. The younger bear pulled the wall at the given distance in 3.97 seconds, whilst the older bear pulled the object in 3.66 seconds. After the tests, one scientist recommended testing the vertical pulling force of the younger bear, in which the rest of the group agreed upon. A barbell, weighted at 35kilograms, with specificallydesigned “claw handles” was created using a heavyset barbell from a local gym, and carbonfiber material for the handles. The bear was to be in an upright position with both paws grasping the claw handles as tightly as possible. The administrators then supplied 16 additional 22kg barbell plates to the barbell, which totaled the load weight of the barbell to 387kilograms. To quantify the experiment as a successful one, the bear needed to bend down and lift the weight, in any way, to hiplevel. The results proved incredibly fascinating to the scientists; the bear easily pulled the barbell at a 20degree tilt; however, the lower part rested at kneelevel and the higher part rested at the waist. The bear then released the weight and fell upon his side as a result of his unpredictable bipedal stance.
387 kilograms is equal to 853.19 pounds (avoirdupois)
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 14, 2018 4:14:53 GMT -5
CONTINUED: Approximately 0.83 seconds elapsed from the time the bear forcefully lifted the barbell to the barbell’s release. The scientists graphed a linear representation of the bear’s force/time ratio. It should be known that the bear lifted this weight with impressive ease; the younger bear’s maximal vertical pulling force is still unknown, and might even be twice or thrice the weight given in this experiment. CONCLUSION Bears are noted to be extremely strong by both literature and firsthand accounts, and this approach is also true for very young bears. The ratio of the vertical pulling weight to the young bear’s weight approximated at 4.624x, and the ratio of the horizontal pulling weight to the young bear’s weight approximated at 20.550x, slightly more than 20 times his own body weight. Powerlifters and other humans, who lift according to their body’s maximum loads, will usually verticallypull 2.5 to 3.5 times their body weight. The power of the young bear in this experiment was astonishing, and this finding could provide more light into the muscle function of not only brown bears, but all bear species in general.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 14, 2018 4:21:17 GMT -5
wildfact.com/forum/attachment.php?aid=293 Muscle mass and muscular force analysis in brown bears of varying ages Dr. MartinAndrews of Michigan State University (Prof. of Zoology, M.Sc. in Zoology, 1989) In this study, four brown bears of the male sex, each from the Yellowstone National Park and respectively aged 3, 6, 11, and 17, were acquired to determine the rate of muscular growth, or possible muscular deterioration, and to analyze the amount of muscle fibers (IIa/x, IIb, Ia, Ib) that produce force. All bears were sedated and weighed with an electronic weight scale. The youngest of them all, the threeyear old specimen, weighed 124.8 kilograms, the sixyear old subadult weighed in at 213.9 kilograms, the elevenyear old adult weighed 228.3 kilograms, and the last specimen, the seventeenyear old elderly bear, weighed in at 212.7 kilograms. All four bears were measured a month after their hibernation ended, resulting in all specimens displaying body mass indexes ranging from 4.7% to 11.6%. The initial hypothesis provided that the two eldest bears possessed significantly more muscle deterioration per body weight and significant reduction of muscular force. ERL levels are a great indication in the slowtwitch fibre buildup and deterioration rate of muscle mass. As the rate of enzyme reproduction, or protein substrate reproduction, increases, the rate of Type I muscle fibre buildup increases and the rate of muscular deterioration decreases proportionally. In the younger bears, ERL levels were moderate between the threeyear and 1 sixyear old specimens. As expected, the elevenyear adult possessed ERL levels averaging 6.94% lower than those of the younger and older specimens. However, the ERL levels of the eldest bear were significantly surprising: 13.22% greater than the average ERL levels of the elevenyear old specimen. In this case, right after hibernation , ERL levels seem to increase 2 drastically in postprime adult bears, and young bears seem to have greater ERL levels than prime adult bears. Thus, it should logically follow that slowtwitch fibres, Type Ia and Ib fibres, are greater percentagewise in the three, six, and seventeenyear old bears than in the prime elevenyear old. By analyzing the bears’ muscles with a muscle density scanner, the amount of fasttwitch and slowtwitch muscle fibres can be differentiated due to different muscle densities (Figure 1). 1 Enzyme reproduction levels 2 After hibernation, bears are at a minimal percentage for BMI% and display higher ERL levels than in the fall months.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 14, 2018 4:22:58 GMT -5
CONTINUED: As expected, the two youngest bears had just as much, if not slightly more, slowtwitch Type I fibre percentages than the elevenyear old bear. Conclusively, the oldest bear possessed the highest percentage of Type Ib per body weight, yet experienced a major reduction in Type IIa/x and IIb fibres unlike all other bears. This specimen also had the lowest body mass index of the four bears in comparison. Since, at equal masses, Ib fibres achieve a greater maximal force output than all other fibres, the oldest grizzly can conclusively provide the greatest muscular force out of the other bears. The elevenyear old bear, due to its overaccumulation of powerful IIb fibres, can output a force at the fastest rate possible out of the other bears: the two young specimens are somewhere between the powerstrength range of the two older specimens. Though, muscle volume doesn’t universally reflect maximum muscular force. The muscle volume of the oldest specimen seemed to be slightly depleted among its shoulder, forequarter, neck, and calf regions. However, most of the muscles that comprise this specimen’s muscle mass are greater in maximal force production than in other bears; assuming a great ratio between Type Ib fibres and the rest of its muscle composition. The prime elevenyear old had a considerable muscle volume in the aforementioned areas due to the accumulation of fasttwitch IIb fibers; younger bears possessed a more even distribution of IIa and IIb fibres rather than a considerable IIb/IIa fibre ratio found in the prime and postprime specimens; their muscle volume was similar to that of the postprime specimen. Muscle mass is similar between the prime bear and the sixyear subadult bear, with average muscle mass percentage levels differing at a rate of 1.38±0.24%. The muscle mass of the three year old bear was relatively low due to its low total weight, and the muscle mass of the oldest specimen concurred with the relatively high amounts of Ib fibres: the densest muscle fibres discovered in mammalian and reptilian bodies so far. Thus, the expected muscle weight of the postprime aged bear should exceed that of the prime bear, even though the muscle volume is slightly higher in the prime aged bear. The maximum percentage of Ib fibres in the postprime bear slightly, by 0.9%, exceeds the maximum percentage of IIa/x and IIb fibres in the prime bear, thus producing this result. Muscle density is farexceeding within the oldest specimen also due to the overaccumulation of dense Ib fibers. In conclusion, no significant evidence provided any leads towards increased muscle strength deterioration or muscle mass deterioration in postprime brown bears, yet evidence had been found of increased muscle volume deterioration in postprime brown bears as. The brown bears who were experimented on were shortly released back into their respective locations within Yellowstone National Park after the study commenced. These findings suggest that brown bears, if not all bear species as a whole, are able to retain their muscle mass and maximum muscle strength well past their prime years, unlike most other animals.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 14, 2018 4:26:23 GMT -5
Quote from the study on Muscle mass and muscular force analysis in brown bears of varying ages: The muscle mass of the three year old bear was relatively low due to its low total weight, and the muscle mass of the oldest specimen concurred with the relatively high amounts of Ib fibres: the densest muscle fibres discovered in mammalian and reptilian bodies so far.
|
|
|
Post by tom on Oct 14, 2018 12:04:26 GMT -5
There are numerous lists of "world's strongest animals" online - usually the "top ten". I was just looking at several of them. They all place the tiger above the grizzly. ABSURD. So much trash on the internet. My List .... from no studies .... pure opinion here with starting with the strongest ( land-based mammals only ). 1 - Elephants. 2 - Rhinoceros and hippopotamus. 3 - Large Bovine including bison, gaur, and buffalo. 4 - Horse and moose. ( maybe giraffe ). 5 - Brown and polar bears. 6 - Lion, tiger, gorilla, and both black bears. 7 - Chimpanzee, Orangutan, jaguar, and sloth bear. 8 - leopard, cougar, and sun bear. 9 - grey wolf and spotted hyena. 10 - wolverine. Note: there are of course a huge number of animals that could be squeezed in, but this is my list. Curious, did they explain why they picked the Tiger over the Grizzly? Are they using pound for pound as their measurement?
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 14, 2018 13:25:31 GMT -5
TOM....yes, every top 10 strongest animals lists online and in youtube are pound for pound. They have ants always as #1. Anyways those are just fanboys made lists and videos. The bear still stronger pound for pound. Huge shoulder hump, just raw strength.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 14, 2018 15:43:00 GMT -5
Tom asks: Are they using pound for pound as their measurement? Pretty-much as Kodiak is saying: how much weight the animal can lift or drag per-body-pounds. Consider that at equal head-and-body length, a bear is much heavier than a tiger which leaves this contest grossly unfair. A grizzly at weight-parity with a tiger is a foot or more shorter in length ( or bipedal height ). Again... grizzly = greater girth.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 14, 2018 17:12:43 GMT -5
Brobear...i have a question, maybe its stupid, maybe its not, i saw that you had a long debate on Wildfact with Pckts about who has greater girth on parity, bear or tiger. My question is, why is that even a debate? Is that so important? I mean you might as well have a debate on who has greater feet girth right? Lol. Is everything debatible?
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 14, 2018 17:22:19 GMT -5
Brobear...i have a question, maybe its stupid, maybe its not, i saw that you had a long debate on Wildfact with Pckts about who has greater girth on parity, bear or tiger. My question is, why is that even a debate? Is that so important? I mean you might as well have a debate on who has greater feet girth right? Lol. Is everything debatible? To say that a tiger has greater girth than a grizzly is like says that a mustang has greater girth than a Great Indian Rhinoceros - ridiculous. Never-the-less, when someone posts something like this, there are those gullible enough to believe it. We were basically talking bout torso-girth and also neck girth - both of which the grizzly far exceeds the tiger... at equal head-and-body length as is the only fair method of comparison - which pckts knows but refuses to acknowledge. ...pckts was among the multitude of AVA fan-boys that will debate without any strong desire for truth... wanting only to win. Polar disagrees with this but has not known him for the years I have.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 14, 2018 17:41:19 GMT -5
|
|