|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 9, 2021 15:04:48 GMT -5
Discovery channel did a special on Shark week back in 2017 entitled Shark vs Croc showdown, but I'm only able to find trailers not the full episode. As seen on video, the shark begins with a taste test. In real life, the crocodile might attack the shark at this point because he will know the shark is swimming towards him. Also note that the shark has to make a wide swing around for another attack. He cannot whip around like a serpent. But, the crocodile loses because they are in deep water. During his notorious death-roll, the crocodile continues sinking. Being able to breath under water is a major advantage. I would wager on the crocodile; but in reality its probably a 50/50. Crocodile - maneuverability, strong jaws, intelligence, sensors to detect movement in the water. Shark - speed, weight, sharp slicing teeth, ability to breath under water. Tough hide - probably equal. My vote went to a 50/50.  |
|
|
|
Post by tom on Mar 9, 2021 16:54:16 GMT -5
Yeah I had forgotten about that. If the fight endures completely underwater for any length of time, even if the Croc has the upper hand as in the video, he has to release his grip and surface for air. In that case the Shark can regain some of his composure if not seriously injured and attack as the Croc is surfacing.
The more I ponder this face-off the more I can't help but admit to the lopsided weight difference being to some advantage even if length is the same. Overcoming that weight difference would prove to be challenging and a lot of things would likely have to go in favor of the Croc to make a kill. Not to say he couldn't inflict some nasty injuries though.
If this were strictly a weight parity face-off you likely would have a much longer Croc (total length) and at weight parity I would have a hard time not favoring the Croc in that scenario....
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 10, 2021 1:50:38 GMT -5
Reply #3 - The crocodile pictured has a length advantage of over a foot, but the shark has a weight advantage of well over 1,000 pounds. So yes, as Tom stated, at weight-parity, the crocodile should be much longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 13, 2021 7:09:14 GMT -5
What thoughts do we have in a saltie meets tiger shark face-off?
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Mar 13, 2021 16:05:59 GMT -5
Depends if were talking average weights and lengths or max size and weight. Tiger sharks can grow to almost 15 ft, Weight? I suspect if we have an exceptionally large Tiger Shark weighing in excess of a ton it would be an interesting face-off if we continue to use the 17 ft. Saltie.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Mar 13, 2021 16:08:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Mar 13, 2021 16:22:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 13, 2021 16:24:11 GMT -5
I haven't researched; but I would guess that the crocodile and the shark are fairly evenly matched in weight ( average sized animals ). Also ( IMO ) a tiger shark is simply a "meaner" shark than a great white. - KAMAKAI interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Mar 13, 2021 16:39:57 GMT -5
They haven't estimated her weight but I'd guess she's' well in excess of a ton.
|
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Mar 14, 2021 2:56:48 GMT -5
Yeah, a tiger shark with that length should definitely pass the 1000kg mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Mar 14, 2021 17:48:20 GMT -5
It seems that tiger sharks can pontentially reach the weight of croc bosses.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 15, 2021 2:57:04 GMT -5
Yeah, a tiger shark with that length should definitely pass the 1000kg mark. So, at average weights and at max weights, the tiger shark and the saltwater crocodile should be fairly evenly matched. If so, then this would be the more appropriate crocodile/shark face-off scenario.  |
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Mar 15, 2021 5:30:46 GMT -5
I am aware of a pregnant female that was caught off Australia weighing in excess of 3000lbs; she was also around 18ft long. Of course pregnancy increases the weight of the shark but I am sure such an animal would weigh above 1 ton even in its normal state. I'd therefore say that the largest extant crocodiles and the largest tiger sharks are roughly similar in terms of bodyweight.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 15, 2021 6:30:51 GMT -5
smartclass4kids.com/tiger-shark-facts/ FACT 1. ➤ Tiger shark, also known as Sea Tigers is the fourth-largest type of shark after the whale shark, the basking shark and the great white shark. FACT 7. ➤ Tiger sharks are found abundantly in the Caribbean region, North American beaches and the Gulf of Mexico, and near New Zealand, Australia, India, Africa and China. FACT 8. ➤ They can grow up to 18 feet (5.5 m) long and weigh around 1,800 pounds or 800 kilograms.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Mar 15, 2021 14:05:19 GMT -5
FACT 6.. They have a reputation as man-eaters second only to Great Whites.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Mar 15, 2021 14:10:58 GMT -5
Yeah, a tiger shark with that length should definitely pass the 1000kg mark. So, at average weights and at max weights, the tiger shark and the saltwater crocodile should be fairly evenly matched. If so, then this would be the more appropriate crocodile/shark face-off scenario. I tend to agree. Who would be the aggressor? Lets say we have a 2000 lb Tiger Shark and a 2000 lb Saltie. Would it be the Saltie thinking his territory is being violated or the Shark looking for a big meal. Would it be an all out frontal attack or an ambush.... |
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Mar 16, 2021 4:12:43 GMT -5
tomI don't know why but I definitely think that (assuming weight parity) a crocodile would very likely be the aggressor against a similarly sized fish; to me the reptile radiates more confidence the way it approaches certain things.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 25, 2021 6:43:53 GMT -5
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210324094723.htm Older than expected: Teeth reveal the origin of the tiger shark. With a total length of up to 5.5m, ( 18 feet ) the tiger shark is one of the largest predatory sharks known today. This shark is a cosmopolitan species occurring in all oceans worldwide. It is characterized by a striped pattern on its back, which is well marked in juveniles but usually fades in adults. An international team of researchers led by Julia Türtscher from the University of Vienna examined the fossil record of these apex predators and found out that modern tiger sharks are older than previously thought and that several tiger shark species existed in past compared to the single species living today. The results of this study are published in the journal Paleobiology. The fossil history of modern sharks reaches back to the Permian, about 295 million years ago. Complete fossil shark skeletons are very rare -- the skeleton, which consists almost entirely of cartilage, is only preserved under very special circumstances during the fossilization processes. Due to the lifelong continuous tooth replacement, most extinct sharks are therefore only known by their well-mineralized teeth, which, nonetheless, can provide deep insights into their evolutionary history. The teeth of the modern tiger shark are unique: they have a broad, double-serrated cutting edge which even allows them to cut through sea turtle shells with ease. Tiger shark teeth are known in the fossil record since about 56 million years. Based on these fossil teeth, over 22 extinct tiger shark species have been described. An international team of researchers led by Julia Türtscher from the University of Vienna has now examined the fossil history of the tiger shark and its extinct relatives. With the help of geometric morphometrics, the scientists were able to show that only 5 of the 22 known fossil tiger sharks actually represent valid species. Nevertheless, tiger sharks were more diverse in the past and only a single species survived until today. Another intriguing detail in the tiger shark fossil record emerged during this study. Up to now, it was assumed that the modern tiger shark originated ca. 5.3 million years ago. The team, however, was able to identify several 13.8 million year old fossil teeth as belonging to this shark demonstrating that it originated much earlier than previously assumed.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Mar 27, 2021 7:39:46 GMT -5
FACT 6.. They have a reputation as man-eaters second only to Great Whites. Sharks surprisingly don’t like human flesh. The reason why humans are attacked as they are mistaken for being seals or sea turtles (on surfboard). |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 27, 2021 7:47:21 GMT -5
FACT 6.. They have a reputation as man-eaters second only to Great Whites. Sharks surprisingly don’t like human flesh. The reason why humans are attacked as they are mistaken for being seals or sea turtles (on surfboard). Or sometimes, the shark is taking a test-bite to check-out the flavor of this slow-moving strange creature. Remember all the trash found in the belly of 'Jaws'? Well, it is the tiger shark that is most notoriously known to have such objects in its belly - like an auto license plate. |
|
