|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 7, 2020 2:09:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 7, 2020 2:14:41 GMT -5
Size does matter in the wild.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 7, 2020 2:24:51 GMT -5
Size does matter in the wild. Yeah, and whoever says size does not matter, that report proves them wrong. Anyhow, we can already see how much size matters by what happens in the wild.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 8, 2020 8:32:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 8, 2020 8:35:53 GMT -5
Another proof.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2020 2:11:26 GMT -5
Another argument coming from big cat fans are the retractable claws. Sure, the claws of a cat are like razor-sharp hooks. They make fighting with a cat an extremely painful experience. But, their main function is not their use as weapons in a fight. Their main function is to hold onto prey or adversary. If you have ever owned a house cat, then you have observed your cat getting hung-up on padded furniture such as a couch. This can also happen in a fight. The main function of a brown bear's claws is digging. ( for most other bears tree-climbing ). I will say that ( IMO ) a brown bear's claws make better weapons.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 27, 2020 7:41:35 GMT -5
I agree 100%.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 28, 2020 17:58:21 GMT -5
Even a polar bear’s claws are larger and stronger than the claws of big cats. The big cats claws are for holding prey and can rip skin off prey but the claws of the brown bear can dig deeper.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 30, 2020 4:41:16 GMT -5
Posters on both sides seem to think my estimations are a bit radical. But the facts are on my side. These are my estimations for full-grown male Amur tiger vs full-grown male Ussuri brown bear. 1- Face-Off: Bear wins 19 out of 20 ( I give the tiger 1 because there is always that chance of a quirk ( a fluke ) when the incredible happens ). 2- Ambush - Bear wins 9 out of 10. ( in an ambush there would be considerable damage done from teeth and claws even though no bones broken. Therefore, the tiger ends up fighting with a wounded bear. The outcome of this fight will depend on how badly wounded the bear is ). Top 5 advantages of the tiger: ( 1 ) Speed. ( 2 ) Agility. ( 3 ) Quick Reflexes. ( 4 ) Bite Force. ( 5 ) Long Canines. Top 5 advantages of the bear: ( 1 ) Weight - normally a 200+ pound weight advantage. ( 2 ) Strength and Leverage. ( 3 ) Durability - the thick musculature combined with a tough hide and thick fur and at certain times of the year a thick layer of fat, makes it near-impossible for a tiger to inflict a serious wound. ( 4 ) Stability and Bipedal Ability. The broad "square" build of a bear makes him far more difficult to knock over. ( 5 ) Grappling Ability. Despite the fact that a bear has stronger arms and shoulders than a big cat, he still has a greater range of motion. Add to this fact that from early cub-hood, bears wrestle and become proficient grapplers. *Merriam-Webster: ambush: to attack by surprise from a hidden place.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 30, 2020 7:05:53 GMT -5
About #4 bite force. Believe it or not, at average weights, the bear will have a very slight bite force advantage. Its all explained here:
- The bite force of a ~550lbs brown bear is equal to the bite force of a ~375lbs tiger (~1400N)
domainofthebears.proboards.com/post/26903/thread
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 30, 2020 7:52:46 GMT -5
About #4 bite force. Believe it or not, at average weights, the bear will have a very slight bite force advantage. Its all explained here:
- The bite force of a ~550lbs brown bear is equal to the bite force of a ~375lbs tiger (~1400N)
domainofthebears.proboards.com/post/26903/thread I believe a huge male kodiak and polar bear would have a stronger bite force than any big cat (not pound to pound but overall).
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 30, 2020 7:59:20 GMT -5
Yeah, but according to TheUndertaker's explanations, just with only an 175 lb difference, the bite force is already equal. Then it keeps going up as the bear gets larger.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Oct 30, 2020 8:01:57 GMT -5
Yeah, but according to TheUndertaker's explanations, just with only an 175 lb difference, the bite force is already basically equal. Then it keeps going up as the bear gets larger. Verdugo did a similar analysis. I posted his analysis somewhere on this forum - originally posted on Carnivora.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 30, 2020 11:38:11 GMT -5
So, a typical male Amur tiger weighing 420 pounds compared with a typical Ussuri brown bear weighing 650 pounds; their bite force should match-up fairly equally.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 30, 2020 11:43:10 GMT -5
So, a typical male Amur tiger weighing 420 pounds compared with a typical Ussuri brown bear weighing 650 pounds; their bite force should match-up fairly equally. With a 230 lb difference like that, its the bear who should have a higher bite force, but not by much. TheUndertaker explained that the bite force of a 375 lb tiger is the same as a 550 lb brown bear. That is only an 175 lb difference.
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Nov 3, 2020 10:13:12 GMT -5
Per Christiansen and Wroe, 2007:
Bite Force of a Tiger (177.8kg) at the canine tips (in Newton): 1472.1 Bite Force of a Brown Bear (251.2kg) at the canine tips (in Newton): 1409.7
According to this relation, the bite force of an average male Amur tiger would be slightly higher than the bite force of an average male Ussuri brown bear (the relative weight difference is a bit higher in the example above).
Also worth mentioning is that the real bite forces of all animals used in the study would probably be higher than the estimated values here according to the authors; the best they can do is approximation.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 3, 2020 10:19:40 GMT -5
Per Christiansen and Wroe, 2007: Bite Force of a Tiger (177.8kg) at the canine tips (in Newton): 1472.1 Bite Force of a Brown Bear (251.2kg) at the canine tips (in Newton): 1409.7
According to this relation, the bite force of an average male Amur tiger would be slightly higher than the bite force of an average male Ussuri brown bear (the relative weight difference is a bit higher in this case). Also worth mentioning is that the real bite forces of all animals used in the study would probably be higher than the estimated values here according to the authors; the best they can do is approximation. 554 pound bear vs 392 pound tiger / weight difference 162 pounds. Tiger here has slight bite-force advantage. There would not be enough of a bite-force difference between the Amur tiger and the Ussuri brown bear to even consider as an advantage to either adversary. ( IMO )
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Nov 3, 2020 10:24:01 GMT -5
brobearWell yes, the tiger would have a slight edge in this regard but I would also say that a difference of 50-150N wouldn't alter much of the damage output their jaws are able to produce.
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Nov 3, 2020 11:26:54 GMT -5
brobear Well yes, the tiger would have a slight edge in this regard but I would also say that a difference of 50-150N wouldn't alter much of the damage output their jaws are able to produce. Taker: but as you have explained here:
domainofthebears.proboards.com/post/26903/thread
That is only an 175 lb difference, and they are equal at 1400N. This would mean that bears with a 200+ lbs weight advantage would already have a higher bite force correct?
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Nov 3, 2020 11:42:54 GMT -5
King Kodiak A brown bear must have a weight advantage of ~40-45% in order to bite as hard as a tiger.
|
|