Animal Face-Off Debates Anilized

[brobear]

Typical topics include, "Lion vs Grizzly" or "Tiger vs Grizzly" where a lion from one of the largest subspecies of lion or either an Amur or Bengal tiger challenges a Yellowstone grizzly. Few posters consider that the inland grizzly is among the smaller subspecies of brown bears. Is this a fair debate? 
 
domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/773/weight-collection?page=1
 
The average lion weighs less than 400 pounds. Only lions of the larger subspecies; Botswana lion, South African lion, and Namibian/Zimbabwe lion surpass the 400 pound mark. The average tiger weighs even less than the average lion, but tiger fans always choose either the Bengal or the Amur tiger in their face-off debates. 
 
To be fair, the biggest lions and tigers should be debated in a face-off debate against a Kodiak bear or an Alaskan peninsula brown bear. Biggest vs biggest. Or, Yellowstone grizzly vs Ethiopian lion, West African lion, or Asian lion as well as a Malayan tiger, South China tiger, or a Sumatran tiger. These would be honest debates. 
 
An easier method, as well as the fairest method of all would be Species vs Species at equal HBL. 
See: domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/1413/equal-head-length-weight-parity?page=4  
_________________________________________________________________________________  
 
Edit and add: a typical adult male Ussuri brown bear and an adult male Amur tiger are often coincidentally at equal HBL. 
 

[hardcastle]

Dec 20, 2022 3:07:15 GMT -5 brobear said:

Typical topics include, "Lion vs Grizzly" or "Tiger vs Grizzly" where a lion from one of the largest subspecies of lion or either an Amur or Bengal tiger challenges a Yellowstone grizzly. Few posters consider that the inland grizzly is among the smaller subspecies of brown bears. Is this a fair debate? 
 
domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/773/weight-collection?page=1
 
The average lion weighs less than 400 pounds. Only lions of the larger subspecies; Botswana lion, South African lion, and Namibian/Zimbabwe lion surpass the 400 pound mark. The average tiger weighs even less than the average lion, but tiger fans always choose either the Bengal or the Amur tiger in their face-off debates. 
 
To be fair, the biggest lions and tigers should be debated in a face-off debate against a Kodiak bear or an Alaskan peninsula brown bear. Biggest vs biggest. Or, Yellowstone grizzly vs Ethiopian lion, West African lion, or Asian lion as well as a Malayan tiger, South China tiger, or a Sumatran tiger. These would be honest debates. 
 
An easier method, as well as the fairest method of all would be Species vs Species at equal HBL. 
See: domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/1413/equal-head-length-weight-parity?page=4  
_________________________________________________________________________________  
 
Edit and add: a typical adult male Ussuri brown bear and an adult male Amur tiger are often coincidentally at equal HBL. 
 

I don't think bears even need a weight advantage though. Giant coastal brown bears from the pacific northwest should just be completely off the table for any big cat. As should polar bears. Maybe it gets SLIGHTLY interesting with a yellowstone grizzly, but not really for me. The way sloth bears school tigers that are quite literally twice their size says it all. Maybe a big pantherine cat can ambush and assassinate the odd bear, but a face to face encounter just isn't going to end well against the vast majority of bears, and that's for any cat. 

[brobear]

At weight-parity, I would wager on the bear also. However, it is debatable and there are probably more who would favor the big cat. But, that is not the point.

In a HBL comparison, which is completely fair, it becomes crystal clear just how overwhelmingly the bear is the heavier and stronger of these two Carnivoran species. Isn't this the whole purpose of a wild animal face-off; species vs species?

Some posters think that the idea is to match the animals evenly for an exciting contest. But, what does that prove?

[hardcastle]

I personally always want to assess a parity encounter, and also acknowledge the max weight reality. I like to remove the weight advantage to understand who is actually the better combatant just in combat purist terms. But yes also we need to acknowledge the weight difference as well and accept when it over-rides superior combative ability. In the case of cat vs bear, in general, I don't see the cat doing well in either. It doesn't look good for cats even when bears have a weight DISadvantage, so...

My whole thing is I want people to understand cats are WEIRDLY bad at fighting. As good as they are at assassinating, that's equally how bad they are at fighting. I think cats can be TWICE the size of bears and STILL probably come off worse in a real fair face to face scuffle (not killed, but beaten). Sloth bear vs tiger interactions say it all really, that's the reality the vast majority of the time. 

[brobear]

Dec 21, 2022 10:41:05 GMT -5 hardcastle said:

I personally always want to assess a parity encounter, and also acknowledge the max weight reality. I like to remove the weight advantage to understand who is actually the better combatant just in combat purist terms. But yes also we need to acknowledge the weight difference as well and accept when it over-rides superior combative ability. In the case of cat vs bear, in general, I don't see the cat doing well in either. It doesn't look good for cats even when bears have a weight DISadvantage, so...

My whole thing is I want people to understand cats are WEIRDLY bad at fighting. As good as they are at assassinating, that's equally how bad they are at fighting. I think cats can be TWICE the size of bears and STILL probably come off worse in a real fair face to face scuffle (not killed, but beaten). Sloth bear vs tiger interactions say it all really, that's the reality the vast majority of the time. 

I understand what you are saying; and agree. However, I don't believe that you are understanding my point. 
 
domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/1413/equal-head-length-weight-parity?page=4 
 
When we debate one species vs another so as to determine which species is superior to the other in terms of fighting; the objective is not to give them each an even chance. What would that prove? The objective is rather, at equal size, in a fair comparison, who is the bigger and stronger of the two; among other advantages.

To compare them at equal HB length, measured in a straight line, which is completely fair considering that they each have a similar skeleton consisting of an equal number of vertebrete, ribs, etc., how could it not be fair? This does not mean that they are evenly matched. The whole idea is discover which animal has what advantages. At equal HB length, the bear proves to be far superior in terms of girth, which provides greater weight, strength, and durability. On the other hand, the cat's more slender frame provides greater speed, agility, and his "dog legs" provide greater leaping ability.

Comparing the big cat to the bear at equal HB length clearly shines a light on which Carnivoran has the greater girth. Isn't this the whole idea of a wild animal face-off, to see which is superior and which is inferior? In a weight-parity contest, the weaker animal is merely upsized so as to give him a fighting chance. That goes against the purpose of the face-off.

*Equal head-and-body length is the only fair way for a completely fair face-off. The only other option for a completely fair face-off is a face-off between an average size individual of each species. Interestingly, the average full-grown male Amur tiger and the average full-grown male Ussuri brown bear are coincidentally at equal HB length. It must be remembered that nature rarely provides a fair fight. Either choice will usually leave one animal badly outmatched by the other. But then; that is the objective... to see which animal is the "top dog".

*Note: I will edit and add: At most wild animal face-off sites, their objective is to provide what they consider an evenly matched contest. This is why they usually choose weight-parity. But, this choice goes against discovering which species truly is the superior fighter or to what degree.

When we compare two animals at equal HB length, we are putting a spotlight on the truth. At HB length-parity, the animal with the greater girth becomes crystal clear. The differences become obvious. When comparing a bear with a cat, it becomes clear who is the stronger of the two. This type of comparison is completely fair and honest.

[Montezuma]

Dec 21, 2022 10:41:05 GMT -5 hardcastle said:

I personally always want to assess a parity encounter, and also acknowledge the max weight reality. I like to remove the weight advantage to understand who is actually the better combatant just in combat purist terms. But yes also we need to acknowledge the weight difference as well and accept when it over-rides superior combative ability. In the case of cat vs bear, in general, I don't see the cat doing well in either. It doesn't look good for cats even when bears have a weight DISadvantage, so...

My whole thing is I want people to understand cats are WEIRDLY bad at fighting. As good as they are at assassinating, that's equally how bad they are at fighting. I think cats can be TWICE the size of bears and STILL probably come off worse in a real fair face to face scuffle (not killed, but beaten). Sloth bear vs tiger interactions say it all really, that's the reality the vast majority of the time. 

I agree with you bro and with brobear too. 

It is true, that cats are basically 'ambushers' not 'fighters'. I have seen some videos of zoo, that when a man has his back at the cat, the feline slowly sneakes towards the target to attack, but when the target has his eyes on the cat, the animal isn't anymore interested. Thats the basic, cat behavior. 

Moving to weight parity, to i basically agree with all your points. Bears don't need a weight or size advantage over a cat to win. Bears are still more enduring, stronger and better fighters than cats which is enough. Morphological studies clearly show that the grappling ability, plantigrade structute (better for fighting since it makes movements easier), thicker limbs and bones, more stamina, stronger body, thicker layer of skin and fat and more robustness is far superior than that of cat's features.

Cats awkwardness of fighting is also well know. The V-shaped mark of sloth, asian black and sun bear's chest are the best indicators that these body signs are used to scaring away a cat in a face-on encounter. The multiple videos of sloth bears fending off tigers, male tigers having tough time in defeating smaller female brown bears, tigers relenquishing their kills to bears, cougars being dominated by bears, leopards being chased away by bears are some of the best examples to proof that bears are great fighters while cats arn't. Even the tiger avoid to take a much smaller sun bear in face-on fight (by Gary Brown). Cat-fans almost always try to paint a cat's ambush as a fight which we alreadily know. 

So if any type of 500 pound bear fights a 500 pound cat, i bet my life 90% on the bear. Yeah, thats true. My life!

[brobear]

(sigh)... Yeah, I would wager on the (changing the number) 400 pound bear over the 400 pound lion or tiger. However; this fight is not a sure bet as sometimes the big cat will win. He (the cat) is at least a foot taller and longer. In other words, the big cat has the size advantage.

Big cat fans prefer a weight-parity fight so as to give their "champion" as unfair advantage. A weight-parity face-off simply removes the major natural advantages of the stronger species. They want to see the lion or tiger in an evenly matched fight against a bear. But, what is the point of that? A bear and a big cat are NOT evenly matched. Isn't the whole idea of a face-off the discover who is the more powerful species?

*In a fair contest; a HBL parity fight, the bear is overwhelmingly the most likely to be victorious. He (bear) retains his natural advantage of superior girth. And why shouldn't he? The big cat still has his natural advantages of quickness, agility, retractable claws, and long canines.

So, how is a HBL parity comparison fair? Both the bear and the big cat have the same number of back-bones, ribs, etc. In fact, if this HBL comparison gives either Carnivoran a slight unfair advantage, it is to the big cat. The bear has a longer neck and a longer muzzle.

[hardcastle]

Brobear

When we debate one species vs another so as to determine which species is superior to the other in terms of fighting; the objective is not to give them each an even chance. What would that prove? The objective is rather, at equal size, in a fair comparison, who is the bigger and stronger of the two; among other advantages.

Hmm... not sure I've even thought of things in this way before. It just goes without saying of course bears are burlier than other carnivores for their height and length (besides perhaps badgers and wolverines maybe?), there's nothing really to discuss. In fighting in general they like to match combatants at equal weights to remove the weight advantage, and then we are left with the question of not "who is bigger?" (which we can determine just using a set of scales and skip the fight), but rather who is better at fighting. Who is more skilful and determined with more lbs for lbs strength in a fight?

It would behoove me to subscribe to your line of thought when I debate the dogs I support against wolves. At equal heights to wolves boarhounds are 40 % heavier, so I have to give up 20-33% of height with dogs against wolves to keep things at equal height, and as a result the wolf will typically be "larger"- at equal weight it will have a way bigger skull and way bigger teeth and way bigger anus and etc, because it's bigger, but just weirdly light.
On the other hand, I think this is an advantage for the dog.
Think of it like this, a Manute Bol vs Brian Dawkins comparison-


They weigh the same, and Manute is 20% taller (the lower end of gripping dog vs wolf difference at equal weight)
I'm not instilled with confidence by Manute's superior height, he seems just very fragile, and I think Brian would obliterate him like a bowling ball smashing into a bundle of twigs. So I'm quite ok with backing Brian Dawkins in a weight parity matchup against Manute Bol, despite the dramatic "size advantage" that Manute enjoys at that weight.

[brobear]

Still; noone really gets my point: domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/1413/equal-head-length-weight-parity?page=1

Quote: "It just goes without saying of course bears are burlier than other carnivores for their height and length (besides perhaps badgers and wolverines maybe?), there's nothing really to discuss."

*Yes; exactly. This is my point. A fair comparison at equal HBL shines a spotlight on the bear. This shows us that the bear is physically superior in terms of girth, weight, strength, and durability.

Quote: "In fighting in general they like to match combatants at equal weights to remove the weight advantage, and then we are left with the question of not "who is bigger?" (which we can determine just using a set of scales and skip the fight), but rather who is better at fighting."

*Exactly. They downsize the bear so as to give the big cat a "fighting chance." Imo. this destroys the true purpose of the contest. Isn't the real point to prove which species is superior to the other in a fair fight?

Quote: "Who is more skilful and determined with more lbs for lbs strength in a fight?"

*Sorry Charley. In a fair HBL face-off between a bear and a big cat, the bear has his natural advantage of weight. Is it fair to rob him of his natural advantages?

And; one more time, bears and cats each have similar skeletons in terms of the number of back bones, ribs, etc. Yes, the bear has a more voluminous build. The cat is built for greater speed, agility, and leaping ability. A face-off at equal HBL is completely fair.
What posters fail to understand is; this does not mean that the fight will not be one-sided. Bears are superior fighters over the big cats, as this completely fair comparison proves.
 
Question: Is the purpose of a face-off between two separate species to provide an exciting fight where either adversary might win, or is the purpose to determine which species is truly superior over the other? 
_______________________________________________ 
 
I will add to this; Advantages and Disadvantages in a face-off. 
domainofthebears.proboards.com/thread/1152/advantages-disadvantages-face-off?page=13 
 
In a face-off between a bear and a big cat at weight-parity, the big cat retains all of his natural advantages. These include speed/quickness and agility. Also, a weight-parity contest gives the big cat a new advantage; a huge advantage in height and length. 0
   
However, the bear is robbed of his primary advantages which girth provides: weight, strength, and durability. Also, the bear gains a new disadvantage; he is now much shorter than the big cat in both bipedal height and body length. It's now like a man 5 feet tall in the boxing ring against a man standing 6 feet tall. 

[hardcastle]

I'd just say the bear wins at max and average weights. The cat is just waving the white flag and there's nothing to talk about (maybe some cat fans could come in and change that, and you could have a field day mopping the floor with them easily because the bear is so superior.

A separate contest then emerges, that may be of interest to some, which is imagining a sub-par bear, equal in weight to the optimal max-size big cat. Yes the bear is disadvantaged. It needs to be for us to even begin having a contest of any sporting merit. There do exist individual adult bears that weigh as little as all the max size big cats. So "how would a fight between those bears and those cats, at equal weights, play out?" is it's own new question. One we address after establishing that yes the bear definitely wins at both average and max sizes. How about at equal size, sub-par handicapped bear vs big cat? That's a new question. And btw the answer is still bear, so...

[brobear]

hardcastle, you just hit on my point exactly. When pitting a tiger and a grizzly in a face-off, the tiger fans always opt for a weight-parity match-up. A Yellowstone grizzly and a Bengal tiger are fairly close to that.
Yes, I would wager on the grizzly, even though this is a handi-capped match. So yes, if it is a sporting match you are looking for, then a weight-parity match is the way to go. But, if we wish to compare the brown bear (Ursus arctos) to the tiger (Panthera tigris), is an honest contest to discover which apex predator is superior, then we go with HBL-parity.
We seem to be on agreement here.

[OldGreenGrolar]

Leopard vs Spotted hyena is one of the topics most debated to death as well. I remember that topic was once very popular in the late AVA.