|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 26, 2020 14:56:02 GMT -5
By the way, that pic at reply #43 is a disaster, they have the kodiak taller than the polar, it also looks like they have the kodiak and the grizzly as different species, and they are missing the Spectacled and Panda bears. (This assuming they meant to put all the species of bears in that pic).
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 27, 2020 2:43:19 GMT -5
By the way, that pic at reply #43 is a disaster, they have the kodiak taller than the polar, it also looks like they have the kodiak and the grizzly as different species, and they are missing the Spectacled and Panda bears. (This assuming they meant to put all the species of bears in that pic). I agree. My thoughts; perhaps the artist was using zoo bears as models for his "study" in which case the picture may be accurate. With captive bears, the Kodiaks are bigger than polar bears. I had noticed this at the Atlanta zoo back in the late '80s. Their Kodiak bear was enormous! I was awe-struck at the unbelievable sight of it. In the enclosure next to the Kodiak was a polar bear no where near as big. |
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Oct 28, 2020 2:40:46 GMT -5
A few important things we have to consider:
1. When determining the standing height of a bear, it's very important to look at the HB-length measured in a straight line; measurements over the curves are essentially useless as the shoulder hump of the brown bear distorts the linear measurement. The HB-length measured in a straight line is a vital component.
2. When the bear stands on his hindlegs, the length of the skull is essentially less important; the height of the skull becomes a significant measurement then assuming that the bear has his head in a straight position.
3. Additionally to his HB-length, the length of the hindlimbs (especially the lower part regarding the tibia) has to be taken into account as they'd be fully stretched out in a standing position.
So all in all, I can say that the real standing height would be somewhat of a mixture between the HB-length in a straight line, length of the hindlimbs and the height of the skull, however, you'd need a scientist to put those things together correctly and create a formula for determining the standing height of a bear.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 28, 2020 9:26:33 GMT -5
Taker: yes, the head and body length would definitely have to be measured in a straight line. But all in all, how much would you say the difference would be? Would the difference be the whole hind limbs?
|
|
|
|
Post by theundertaker45 on Oct 28, 2020 9:57:25 GMT -5
King Kodiak I can't precisely determine it; I'd have to measure it personally. We know that the largest brown bears are ~150cm at the shoulders and stand ~300cm on their hindlegs. Taking this proportion into account, the average Yellowstone grizzly would stand ~190cm tall whereas the average Ussuri brown bear would stand ~230cm tall. That's just a rough estimation.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 28, 2020 10:11:02 GMT -5
 Ok so, we know how head and body length is measured in a straight line, line (A), total length, distance from tip of tail to tip of nose along side of body.
Now this diagram does not show how a bear is measured to get the bipedal height. But wouldn't bipedal height be measured from the top of the head to the feet, exact same way as a human? This would mean that the difference would be the bear's hind limbs which in brown bears would be around 0.6 to 0.7 meters long (i just calculated that length from another diagram, could be a little different). |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Oct 29, 2020 8:56:28 GMT -5
The only weasel which overlaps in weight with a bear would be a megalitis ferox. The sun bear and the Auverngne bears are the candidates. I would really prefer to keep face-offs reasonable. There are no *living mustelids the size of a bear. So let's let it be.  *Edit and add: I really don't like these weight-parity face-offs unless it just happens to be within the natural order of things; such as a 420-pound Amur tiger vs 420-pound Himalayan black bear. In such a case as this, weight-parity fits. I prefer; 650-pound Ussuri brown bear vs 420-pound Amur tiger. This too is realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by King Kodiak on Oct 29, 2020 11:33:02 GMT -5
This is true, at averages is the most real way to analyze a fight. But i guess in animal debate forums we can debate what would happen at weight parity also.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 1, 2020 5:11:27 GMT -5
This is true, at averages is the most real way to analyze a fight. But i guess in animal debate forums we can debate what would happen at weight parity also. Funny thing to consider; tiger enthusiasts speak of the bigger tigers of historical times. They were bigger, this is true. Especially before the breech-load rifle was invented ( 1848 ) and then in 1914 after Henry Ford had invented the Assembly line for mass production. When wildlife was far more plentiful, tigers were larger. Average mature Amur tiger (contemporary) - 418.9 pounds. Average mature Amur tigress (contemporary) - 266.8 pounds. Average mature Amur tiger (historical) - 477.3 pounds. Average mature Amur tigress (historical) - 303.1 pounds. *However, I would dare to wager that, with more prey animals to be hunted, and with more predators around to have their kills scavenged or usurped, the brown bears were also of larger size. |
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Dec 10, 2020 7:15:34 GMT -5
The only male brown bear subspecies which overlaps in weights with a tiger or lion will be the male barren ground grizzly.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 10, 2020 7:22:51 GMT -5
The only male brown bear subspecies which overlaps in weights with a tiger or lion will be the male barren ground grizzly. Average mature Amur tiger (contemporary) - 418.9 pounds. Average mature Bengal tiger - 463 pounds. Average Panthera leo (species, extant, concluded out of the two present subspecies) - 371.3 pounds for males. Average fully grown male Yellowstone grizzly (9 years+) - 469.56 pounds. *For a weight-parity face-off ( which is simply -IMO- a stupid idea ) Yellowstone grizzly vs Benagal tiger. / Barren ground grizzly vs Amur tiger or lion. |
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Dec 10, 2020 7:25:53 GMT -5
Even an average male interior grizzly bear has a weight advantage over an average tiger or lion. We don’t live in a weight parity world.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 22, 2020 1:58:24 GMT -5
The only male brown bear subspecies which overlaps in weights with a tiger or lion will be the male barren ground grizzly. Average mature Amur tiger (contemporary) - 418.9 pounds. Average mature Bengal tiger - 463 pounds. Average Panthera leo (species, extant, concluded out of the two present subspecies) - 371.3 pounds for males. Average fully grown male Yellowstone grizzly (9 years+) - 469.56 pounds. *For a weight-parity face-off ( which is simply -IMO- a stupid idea ) Yellowstone grizzly vs Benagal tiger. / Barren ground grizzly vs Amur tiger or lion.
No small wonder that the big cat fanboys insist on weight-parity which deprives the bear of his natural girth and weight advantage. This is the only way to give the big cat a "fighting chance" against a bear. For this reason, I prefer a face-off debate with each animal according to his typical size in the wild.
*Yellowstone grizzly vs Bengal tiger ( weight-parity by nature ) - 50/50.
*Barren ground grizzly vs Amur tiger or lion - 50/50. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 27, 2021 2:17:42 GMT -5
In the past, I have been accused of changing my mind on my own thoughts from topic-to-topic. I believe the term is "wishy washy". NO. The truth is, as we learn, we grow. As we learn new facts or take the time to better scrutinize those facts, we must sometimes readjust our own thoughts and opinions. I have known a great many big cat fans who, no matter what data is shown to them, their conclusions never change. ( a learning disability? ).
Since there is not one single confirmed case of a tiger ever killing a bear equal in weight to himself, in considering a lion or a tiger vs a full-grown male brown bear at weight-parity ( IMO ) brown bear wins this fight 6 out of 10 - regardless of the fact that at weight-parity, in reality, the cat is bigger than the bear.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 27, 2021 3:08:38 GMT -5
Equal head-and-body length:
Of all the methods we can come up with to compare one species to another for the purpose of comparing girth or strength fairly, this is ( IMO ) without a doubt the best.
However, it is not fool-proof. Example, when we compare a brown bear with a tiger in this method, we are actually giving the big cat a slight advantage. The cat, having a shorter neck and a shorter muzzle, thus has several inches advantage - which is too little for any complaints.
Even a snake is not ( as some people claim ) just a head with a tail. There is a point where torso ends and tail begins. The bear has been called, by some bear experts of the past, "the strongest animal of his size". I'm not at all certain that this hold true, but a bear compared with any animal at equal head-and-body length is certainly debatable. Especially a brown bear.
On the animal face-off topics, the best and most honest contest is pitting each hypothetical animal according to its realistic typical size at equal maturity and same sex - accordingly with each specific species. The alternatives are either a weight-parity contest ( self-explanatory ) or size-parity ( equal head-and-body length ). |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 27, 2021 4:27:15 GMT -5
I will add to this; Big Cat fans nearly always balk at the idea of a size-parity ( equal head-and-body length ) face-off - big cat vs bear. Their complaint; "its an unfair contest."
Actually, it is the most fair animal face-off contest possible. Like two men in the ring ( boxing, wrestling, etc. ) each standing 6 feet tall. But, we must remember that this is species vs species. We must also remember that the objective of the contest is to determine which animal species has the greater advantages to defeat the other in a face-to-face confrontation. At equal head-and-body length, one will have greater girth, providing greater weight and ( most often ) greater strength than the other.
We must also remember that the objective of an animal face-off is NOT to manipulate their size to produce two animals of an equal chance of a victory, but rather an honest assessment of each species. In doing this, when comparing two very different animals, in nearly every contest, one will greatly overshadow the other. In this case; big cat vs brown bear, the bear greatly overshadows the lion or tiger.
Coincidentally, in the Russian taiga, a typical adult male Amur tiger and a typical adult male Ussuri brown bear are similar in head-and-body length. Therefore, a fight between an Amur tiger and an Ussuri brown bear is typically a fair fight, each equal in body-length and in bipedal height. They each are equipped with the advantages provided to his particular species. The tiger retains his speed, his agility, his sharp deeply-hooked claws, and his long canine teeth. The bear retains the advantages of girth, weight, and strength.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 6, 2022 17:42:34 GMT -5
1- If you were to compare a brown bear with a tiger at weight-parity, you are simply down-sizing the bear so as to give to the tiger an unfair advantage. 2- At equal HB length, a brown bear is heavier because he has greater girth, heavier bones, and thus carrying more muscle and fat. 3- At equal HB length, the tiger is actually given some advantage, because he has a shorter neck and a shorter muzzle. 4- Equal HB length is completely fair because both the tiger and the bear have the same number of vertebrae. 5- Comparing the girth or strength of a lion or a tiger to that of a brown bear at weight-parity is a cop-out. Big cat fans prefer weight-parity because in an honest contest - HB length-parity - a big cat doesn't stand a chance. Go to any wild animal face-off forum and offer a brown bear vs lion or tiger at equal HB length, and the big cat fanboys start crying ( shedding real tears ). They will pout and make excuses as to why such a contest is unfair - even though it is a completely fair contest. It just so happens that a typical male Amur tiger is roughly at HB length-parity with a typical male Ussuri brown bear. Because the bear has greater girth and is substantially stronger than the tiger ( of equal size ), the bear outweighs the tiger by roughly 200 pounds. *Blaire Van Valkenburgh Continued... shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/954/general-evolution?page=2 Quote: Bears are clearly not built for speed. Although their forefeet are semi-digitigrade, their hind-feet are plantigrade. Moreover, their metapodials are short and their muscles thick throughout the length of the limb. In many ways, bears are built more like badgers than other similar-sized carnivores, such as tigers, and it shows in their speed. The top speed recorded for both black and brown bears is 50 kilometers (30 miles) per hour, whereas the range for the fully digitigrade lion and wolf is 55 to 65 kilometers (35 to 40 miles) per hour. If bears are not built for speed, then what does the combination of massive limbs, plantigrade hindfeet, cumbersome paws, and a short back provide? Strength and mobility of limb movement are the answers. The stout limbs of bears are capable of producing large forces over a much greater range of motion than those of dogs or even cats. Bears use these capabilities when digging for food or shelter, fishing for salmon, climbing to escape danger, and battling with members of their own species as well as other predators. Imagine a wolf trying to perform a bear hug or climb a tree. Dogs have forfeited these abilities in favor of speed. Cats are more like bears in their range of possible movements, but lack strength. Bears may not be able to outrun danger, but can successfully defend themselves through brute force. |
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 7, 2022 9:45:17 GMT -5
To compare two quadruped animals at equal weights to determine girth value is simply retarded. It is girth which provides weight.
To compare two quadrupeds at equal shoulder height is simply ridiculous. Length of legs vary greatly among animals.
The best method of a fair comparison between two quadruped mammals is equal head and body length (HB length), measured from nose to rump (excluding the tail).
At equal HB length, a brown bear has as a substantial weight advantage over a tiger.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 13, 2022 14:09:11 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jan 30, 2023 13:44:35 GMT -5
HBL-parity vs Weight-parity......... It's not about tiger or bear fanboys arguing over who wins and proving their superiority; it's about the actual truth. No matter you win or lose the argument, you are not going to be able to change the truth. Truth...... To compare them at equal head and body length is the fair way to compare a big cat to a bear. Consider that their skeletons are pretty-much the same in their structure. When we compare them at equal HBL, we discover just how overwhelmingly the bear is superior in girth. But yes; the big cat fanboys hate this. Sometimes, the truth hurts. Weight, durability, and brute strength are the bears' major advantages over a big cat. HBL-parity, which is completely fair, shows us the truth. When we match a big cat vs bear face-off at weight-parity, while the big cat retains his major advantages, which are speed and agility, the bear is robbed of his natural advantages. This is completely unfair. Also, at weight-parity, the big cat is actually much bigger that the bear. Its like arranging a fight between a man who stands 6 feet 6 inches tall against a man who stands 5 feet 6 inches tall. Because the big cat (lion or tiger) is given this tremendous size advantage, he now has a huge bite-force advantage. This is completely unfair. HBL is the most fair method of comparing similar-sized animals. The one who has the greater girth and musculature will naturally have some weight advantage.   |
|
