|
Post by theundertaker45 on Apr 23, 2022 2:31:36 GMT -5
A little calculation from my side; based on the table on Siberian tigers which was created by Guate Gojira a modern Siberian tiger weighs about 189kg on average and has a HB-length of 195cm over the curves which will equate to roughly 185cm straight line. Based on Blanchard's work on Yellowstone grizzlies a modern interior grizzly weighs about 193kg and has a HB-length of roughly 164cm measured in a straight line.
189/1.85³ = 31.27 (Siberian tiger) 193/1.64³ = 43.76 (Yellowstone grizzly)
When putting the weight in relation to the body length we can clearly see that the grizzly would be the much heavier animal per length. How heavy would a grizzly be when reaching a HB-length of 185cm just like the Siberian tiger?
x/1.85³ = 43.76 x = 277kg
A grizzly bear the same length as a Siberian tiger would weigh roughly 277kg; that's a full 88kg (195lbs) heavier and pretty close to the 100kg I'd have estimated from scratch. It shows that even at equal body weight a grizzly bear would be built like a short powerlifter and the big cat more or less like a tall and rather lean athlete which for me is enough evidence that at even at equal body weights a brown bear would have a bigger maximum strength output than a big cat also considering his superior limb morphology in terms of dexterity and grappling. I think Teddy Roosevelt would be agreeing with me too.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 23, 2022 2:43:12 GMT -5
Teddy Roosevelt would absolutely agree and would be ready to fight any opposition.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Apr 29, 2022 6:40:16 GMT -5
Morphological forelimb comparison between Ursus arctos and Panthera tigris :
SAI:
Surface area of lateral aspect of scapula relative to scapula length (Scapula area/Scapula length). Higher score Indicates greater relative size of muscles involved in the transfer of forces from the trunk to the forelimbs and in stabilizing the shoulder joint.
P.Tigris : 80,40%
U.Arctos : 84,09%
Edge : U.Arctos
HRI :
It is humerus mediolateral diameter at mid-shaft/humerus length. Robust forelimb bones protect the animal from violent stresses during grappling.
P.Tigris : 9%
U.Arctos : 10,8%
Edge : U.Arctos
HRI2 :
It is humerus anteroposterior diameter at mid-shaft/humerus length. Robust forelimb bones protect the animal from violent stresses during grappling.
P.Tigris : 10,65%
U.Arctos : 11,33%
Edge : U.Arctos
HRI3:
It is the ratio of the sum of the anteroposterior and mediolateral external diameters to the maximum length. A low DF1 score would be expected in species with limb bones that are built to withstand relatively high stresses either during locomotion or prey capture.
P.Tigris(ambusher): exact value unknown
U.Arctos(ambulator) : exact value unknown
justpaste.it/img/1ebb99ad82c37b44fd2964b4f8bc6359.jpg
Edge : U.Arctos(ambulator)
HCMI :
It is Humeral circumference/articular length Often-used variable in analyses of bone strengths in locomotion. The higher the ratio is, the thicker the Humeral bone is.
P.Tigris : 30,3%
U.Arctos : 33,23%
Edge : U.Arctos
HEI:
The HEI index measures the relative size of wrist stabilizing muscles and well as several grasping muscles in area which facilitate prey grasping. These muscles also likely help stability, pushing, and agility when legs are on ground.
P.Tigris : 27,33%
U.Arctos : 29,51%
Edge : U.Arctos
Brachial index :
This measures radius length/humerus length. Lower scores in this ratio indicate greater forelimb muscle mechanical advantage and results in stronger muscles all else being equal.
P.Tigris : 86%
U.Arctos : 89,84%
Edge : P.Tigris
Brachial index 2 :
This measures ulna length/humerus length. Lower scores in this ratio indicate greater forelimb muscle mechanical advantage and results in stronger muscles all else being equal.
P.Tigris : 106,45%
U.Arctos : 95,75%
Edge : U.Arctos
Forelimb Proportion Index :
Length of proximal forelimb relative to length of distal forelimb ((Scapula length + Humerus length)/(Radius length + Metacarpal length)). Higher score Indicates greater degree of morphological specialization for producing large out-forces in the forelimb.
P.Tigris : 147,79%
U.Arctos : 162,84%
Edge : U.Arctos
OMA:
Length of olecranon process relative to length of distal forelimb (Olecranon length/(Radius length+ Metacarpal length)). Higher score Indicates greater anatomical mechanical advantage of triceps brachii, an elbow extensor.
P.Tigris : 21,67%
U.Arctos : 20,03%
Edge : P.Tigris
RRI :
This measures radius mediolateral diameter at midshaft divided by radius length. As mentioned above for humerus robusticity, a robust radius resists stresses on bones during fights and increases resistance to bites to the forelimb.
P.Tigris : 9%
U.Arctos : 9,8%
Edge : U.Arctos
RRI2 :
This measures radius anteroposterior diameter at midshaft divided by radius length. As mentioned above for humerus robusticity, a robust radius resists stresses on bones during fights and increases resistance to bites to the forelimb.
P.Tigris : 7,3%
U.Arctos : 6,09%
Edge : P.Tigris
Styloid width index :
Styloid width relative to radius length. Higher score indicates greater relative robusticity of
distal forelimb.
P.Tigris : 31,66%
U.Arctos : 32,97%
Edge : U.Arctos
URI:
This measures ulna anteroposterior diameter at midshaft divided by ulna length. As mentioned above for humerus and radius robusticity, a robust ulna resists stresses on bones during fights and increases resistance to bites to the forelimb.
P.Tigris : 9,6%
U.Arctos : 10,5%
Edge : U.Arctos
PMA:
Length of pisiform relative to length of manus. Higher score Indicates greater anatomical mechanical advantage of flexor carpi ulnaris, a wrist flexor.
P.Tigris : 35,52%
U.Arctos : 45,46%
Edge : U.Arctos
Foot Posture:
All else being equal, species that are able to adopt plantigrade foot posture, such as bears,badgers, wolverines, many rodents, spider monkeys, and great apes, should be able to apply greater free moments to the ground than species that are restricted to digitigrade or unguligrade foot posture. Relative to digitigrade foot posture, plantigrade posture improves performance in lateral striking, lateral pushing, downward striking,forward pushing and rearward pulling.
P.Tigris : Digitigrade
U.Arctos : Plantigrade
Edge : U.Arctos As can be seen, almost everything supported the brown Bear over the tiger. Additionally, the ursid has a shoulder Hump and wider paws, making it an overall stronger,more robust and better grappler than the felid. Studies used for the above comparison :-
1. The effect of foot posture on capacity to apply free moments to the ground: implications for fighting performance in great apes (David R. Carrier and Christopher Cunningham ; 2017) 2. Postcranial morphology and the locomotor habits of living and extinct carnivores ( Julie A Meachen , Joshua X Samuels , Stacey A Sakai ; 2013) 3. Sexual selection on skeletal shape in Carnivora (Jeremy S Morris , David Carrier ; 2016) 4. Forelimb Indicators of Prey-Size Preference in the Felidae ( Julie A Meachen , Blaire Van Valkenburgh ; 2009) 5. Morphological convergence of the prey-killing arsenal of sabertooth predators ( Julie A Meachen ; 2012) 6. Locomotor behaviour in Plio-Pleistocene sabre-tooth cats: A biomechanical analysis ( William Anyonge ; 2009) 7. Differential scaling of the long bones in the terrestrial carnivora and other mammals (John EA Bertram and Andrew A Biewner ; 1990) 8. Osteology and ecology of Megantereon cultridens SE311 (Mammalia; Felidae; Machairodontinae), a sabrecat from the Late Pliocene – Early Pleistocene of Senéze, France ( Per Christiansen and J.Adolfssen ; 2007) 9. What size were Arctodus simus and Ursus spelaeus (Carnivora: Ursidae)? ( Per Christiansen ; 1999) 10. Body size of Smilodon (Mammalia: Felidae) (Per Christiansen and John M Harris ; 2005)
Credits - Ghostface Killah .
Fantastic find horribilis.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on May 3, 2022 8:00:51 GMT -5
Question: "Who is stronger - a bear or a tiger? IF you're talking about a fair comparison ( equal HB length ) then this question is a stupid question. In overall physical strength, a bear is stronger than a cat. This is especially true when speaking of the brown bear. *Attention is now given to Dr. Blaire Van Valkenburgh's 1993 material entitled, "The Biology of Bears": "A vegetative diet alone is not a sufficient stimulus to produce large size, as is illustrated by several successful taxa of small mammals. Small animals are more vulnerable to predation than are large ones so they need to remain adjacent to escape habitat such as holes in the ground, trees, or thick vegetation. To survive in open habitat, a mammal must be able to defend itself from predators or be fast enough to escape them. Consequently, as the body size of some bear species increased, they probably occupied more open habitat for longer periods, and were able to increase the proportion of vegetation in the diet. Their larger size also made them better able to defend themselves from predators. As the diet became progressively more vegetative, there would have been continuing pressure for body size to increase so enough vegetation could be ingested and processed to substitute for a high quality diet of animal material. Larger body size also made it possible to travel more in search of patchy food resources and to store and carry more fat with which to survive during periods of seasonal or unpredictable food shortage. With increased body size and well-developed canines, some bears were able to kill ungulates and other mammals, defend carrion from competitors, and protect themselves from other predators. Through this unique combination of being able to be predators, scavengers, and herbivores, they were able to exploit several food bases." "Small predators are restricted to small prey, so that one benefit of being large is that an animal can kill both small and large prey (Gittleman 1985). For example, brown bears are capable of taking advantage of relatively small animals such as ground squirrels and salmon in circumstances where their abundance makes such behavior energetically or nutritionally worthwhile (e.g., Stonorov and Stokes 1972, Murie 1981). Even so, the ratio between the size of the bear and its prey may be misleading since the predator's large size may be necessary to move heavy stones or earth to catch ground squirrels or to stay warm while standing in cold water for protracted periods while fishing for salmon. In the case of the more carnivorous bear species, their maximum size may have been influenced by the maximum size of generally available prey.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on May 4, 2022 1:07:40 GMT -5
Blaire Van Valkenburgh Continued...
SPEED AND STRENGTH
All bears have a large head with small ears followed by massive shoulders and a short back and | tail, all of which are supported on thick limbs and broad paws. Compared with big cats, bears have longer snouts and shorter, stiffer backs. Relative to large dogs, bears have bulky legs and much more spreading feet. Unlike these other carnivores, and more like humans, bears walk on the soles of their hindfeet, with their ankle joint positioned just above the ground. This condition is called plantigrade, and differs from the digitigrade posture of cats and dogs, in which the “soles” of the feet are elevated, along with the ankle, and only the toes touch the ground. To understand why bears are built so differendy from cats and dogs, it is essential to explain the benefits of digitigrade feet.
Running around on your toes in a digitigrade posture is advantageous if speed is important. Speed is the product of stride length and stride frequency. Raising the ankle adds length to the part of the limb that determines stride length, that is from the shoulder or hip to the point of contact with the ground. Longer limbs take bigger strides, and digitigrade posture is therefore typical of mammals designed to run. Digitigrade animals also tend to have relatively long bones, or metapodials, making up the sole of the foot, adding further to total limb length. In addition, their limb muscles are much thicker close to the hip or shoulder joint, and taper towards the toes as long, elastic tendons. This construction reduces muscle mass near the ankles and feet, where the limb travels farthest during locomotion, and thus reduces inertial effects.
A The skeletons of a bear and a domestic dog illustrate the difference between plantigrade and digitigrade postures. The dog is digitigrade, standing on its toes with the soles of its feet (metapodials) off the ground. By contrast, the soles of the bear's hindfeet are flat to the ground, as in humans, giving it a plantigrade posture. The forepaws of the bear are sermi-digitigrade, with the metapodials in an intermediate position. Digitigrade animals tend to be faster than plantigrade animals, in part because their posture results in their limbs being relatively longer.
If one imagines the additional energy required to walk or run with ankle weights or heavy shoes, then the drawbacks of heavy feet become clear. There are yet further benefits to runners in having long tendinous muscle attachments. Tendons are elastic and act as energy-saving springs when running. They are stretched as the limb is flexed under the weight of the animal and then rebound, propelling the body forward and upward. So, digitigrade posture, long metapodials, and compact muscles with stretchy tendons are typical of carnivores built for speed. 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.
|
|
horribilis
Parictis
“You have no idea how powerful the truth can be.” - Oliver Queen
Posts: 47
|
Post by horribilis on May 4, 2022 5:21:05 GMT -5
Blaire Van Valkenburgh Continued... SPEED AND STRENGTH All bears have a large head with small ears followed by massive shoulders and a short back and | tail, all of which are supported on thick limbs and broad paws. Compared with big cats, bears have longer snouts and shorter, stiffer backs. Relative to large dogs, bears have bulky legs and much more spreading feet. Unlike these other carnivores, and more like humans, bears walk on the soles of their hindfeet, with their ankle joint positioned just above the ground. This condition is called plantigrade, and differs from the digitigrade posture of cats and dogs, in which the “soles” of the feet are elevated, along with the ankle, and only the toes touch the ground. To understand why bears are built so differendy from cats and dogs, it is essential to explain the benefits of digitigrade feet. Running around on your toes in a digitigrade posture is advantageous if speed is important. Speed is the product of stride length and stride frequency. Raising the ankle adds length to the part of the limb that determines stride length, that is from the shoulder or hip to the point of contact with the ground. Longer limbs take bigger strides, and digitigrade posture is therefore typical of mammals designed to run. Digitigrade animals also tend to have relatively long bones, or metapodials, making up the sole of the foot, adding further to total limb length. In addition, their limb muscles are much thicker close to the hip or shoulder joint, and taper towards the toes as long, elastic tendons. This construction reduces muscle mass near the ankles and feet, where the limb travels farthest during locomotion, and thus reduces inertial effects. A The skeletons of a bear and a domestic dog illustrate the difference between plantigrade and digitigrade postures. The dog is digitigrade, standing on its toes with the soles of its feet (metapodials) off the ground. By contrast, the soles of the bear's hindfeet are flat to the ground, as in humans, giving it a plantigrade posture. The forepaws of the bear are sermi-digitigrade, with the metapodials in an intermediate position. Digitigrade animals tend to be faster than plantigrade animals, in part because their posture results in their limbs being relatively longer. If one imagines the additional energy required to walk or run with ankle weights or heavy shoes, then the drawbacks of heavy feet become clear. There are yet further benefits to runners in having long tendinous muscle attachments. Tendons are elastic and act as energy-saving springs when running. They are stretched as the limb is flexed under the weight of the animal and then rebound, propelling the body forward and upward. So, digitigrade posture, long metapodials, and compact muscles with stretchy tendons are typical of carnivores built for speed. 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. Brilliant stuff , brobear . This is exactly what I was explaining to some of the cat fanatics the other day , i.e , cats have sacrificed their strength for speed whereas for bears , it's the vice-versa. Ursids have sacrificed speed and arboreal lifestyle for strength to compete with ambush predators (canids and felids) for millions of years . But of course , how can they understand ? The moment any scientific study proves that bears are stronger than cats , they start calling it biased and claim that the scientists are bear fanatics . Seeing those statements make me feel sad for those kids but also at the same time , it kinda got me cracking up , not gonna lie .
|
|
|
Post by yz on May 7, 2022 12:51:32 GMT -5
Morphological forelimb comparison between Ursus arctos and Panthera tigris :
SAI:
Surface area of lateral aspect of scapula relative to scapula length (Scapula area/Scapula length). Higher score Indicates greater relative size of muscles involved in the transfer of forces from the trunk to the forelimbs and in stabilizing the shoulder joint.
P.Tigris : 80,40%
U.Arctos : 84,09%
Edge : U.Arctos
HRI :
It is humerus mediolateral diameter at mid-shaft/humerus length. Robust forelimb bones protect the animal from violent stresses during grappling.
P.Tigris : 9%
U.Arctos : 10,8%
Edge : U.Arctos
HRI2 :
It is humerus anteroposterior diameter at mid-shaft/humerus length. Robust forelimb bones protect the animal from violent stresses during grappling.
P.Tigris : 10,65%
U.Arctos : 11,33%
Edge : U.Arctos
HRI3:
It is the ratio of the sum of the anteroposterior and mediolateral external diameters to the maximum length. A low DF1 score would be expected in species with limb bones that are built to withstand relatively high stresses either during locomotion or prey capture.
P.Tigris(ambusher): exact value unknown
U.Arctos(ambulator) : exact value unknown
justpaste.it/img/1ebb99ad82c37b44fd2964b4f8bc6359.jpg
Edge : U.Arctos(ambulator)
HCMI :
It is Humeral circumference/articular length Often-used variable in analyses of bone strengths in locomotion. The higher the ratio is, the thicker the Humeral bone is.
P.Tigris : 30,3%
U.Arctos : 33,23%
Edge : U.Arctos
HEI:
The HEI index measures the relative size of wrist stabilizing muscles and well as several grasping muscles in area which facilitate prey grasping. These muscles also likely help stability, pushing, and agility when legs are on ground.
P.Tigris : 27,33%
U.Arctos : 29,51%
Edge : U.Arctos
Brachial index :
This measures radius length/humerus length. Lower scores in this ratio indicate greater forelimb muscle mechanical advantage and results in stronger muscles all else being equal.
P.Tigris : 86%
U.Arctos : 89,84%
Edge : P.Tigris
Brachial index 2 :
This measures ulna length/humerus length. Lower scores in this ratio indicate greater forelimb muscle mechanical advantage and results in stronger muscles all else being equal.
P.Tigris : 106,45%
U.Arctos : 95,75%
Edge : U.Arctos
Forelimb Proportion Index :
Length of proximal forelimb relative to length of distal forelimb ((Scapula length + Humerus length)/(Radius length + Metacarpal length)). Higher score Indicates greater degree of morphological specialization for producing large out-forces in the forelimb.
P.Tigris : 147,79%
U.Arctos : 162,84%
Edge : U.Arctos
OMA:
Length of olecranon process relative to length of distal forelimb (Olecranon length/(Radius length+ Metacarpal length)). Higher score Indicates greater anatomical mechanical advantage of triceps brachii, an elbow extensor.
P.Tigris : 21,67%
U.Arctos : 20,03%
Edge : P.Tigris
RRI :
This measures radius mediolateral diameter at midshaft divided by radius length. As mentioned above for humerus robusticity, a robust radius resists stresses on bones during fights and increases resistance to bites to the forelimb.
P.Tigris : 9%
U.Arctos : 9,8%
Edge : U.Arctos
RRI2 :
This measures radius anteroposterior diameter at midshaft divided by radius length. As mentioned above for humerus robusticity, a robust radius resists stresses on bones during fights and increases resistance to bites to the forelimb.
P.Tigris : 7,3%
U.Arctos : 6,09%
Edge : P.Tigris
Styloid width index :
Styloid width relative to radius length. Higher score indicates greater relative robusticity of
distal forelimb.
P.Tigris : 31,66%
U.Arctos : 32,97%
Edge : U.Arctos
URI:
This measures ulna anteroposterior diameter at midshaft divided by ulna length. As mentioned above for humerus and radius robusticity, a robust ulna resists stresses on bones during fights and increases resistance to bites to the forelimb.
P.Tigris : 9,6%
U.Arctos : 10,5%
Edge : U.Arctos
PMA:
Length of pisiform relative to length of manus. Higher score Indicates greater anatomical mechanical advantage of flexor carpi ulnaris, a wrist flexor.
P.Tigris : 35,52%
U.Arctos : 45,46%
Edge : U.Arctos
Foot Posture:
All else being equal, species that are able to adopt plantigrade foot posture, such as bears,badgers, wolverines, many rodents, spider monkeys, and great apes, should be able to apply greater free moments to the ground than species that are restricted to digitigrade or unguligrade foot posture. Relative to digitigrade foot posture, plantigrade posture improves performance in lateral striking, lateral pushing, downward striking,forward pushing and rearward pulling.
P.Tigris : Digitigrade
U.Arctos : Plantigrade
Edge : U.Arctos As can be seen, almost everything supported the brown Bear over the tiger. Additionally, the ursid has a shoulder Hump and wider paws, making it an overall stronger,more robust and better grappler than the felid. Studies used for the above comparison :-
1. The effect of foot posture on capacity to apply free moments to the ground: implications for fighting performance in great apes (David R. Carrier and Christopher Cunningham ; 2017) 2. Postcranial morphology and the locomotor habits of living and extinct carnivores ( Julie A Meachen , Joshua X Samuels , Stacey A Sakai ; 2013) 3. Sexual selection on skeletal shape in Carnivora (Jeremy S Morris , David Carrier ; 2016) 4. Forelimb Indicators of Prey-Size Preference in the Felidae ( Julie A Meachen , Blaire Van Valkenburgh ; 2009) 5. Morphological convergence of the prey-killing arsenal of sabertooth predators ( Julie A Meachen ; 2012) 6. Locomotor behaviour in Plio-Pleistocene sabre-tooth cats: A biomechanical analysis ( William Anyonge ; 2009) 7. Differential scaling of the long bones in the terrestrial carnivora and other mammals (John EA Bertram and Andrew A Biewner ; 1990) 8. Osteology and ecology of Megantereon cultridens SE311 (Mammalia; Felidae; Machairodontinae), a sabrecat from the Late Pliocene – Early Pleistocene of Senéze, France ( Per Christiansen and J.Adolfssen ; 2007) 9. What size were Arctodus simus and Ursus spelaeus (Carnivora: Ursidae)? ( Per Christiansen ; 1999) 10. Body size of Smilodon (Mammalia: Felidae) (Per Christiansen and John M Harris ; 2005)
Credits - Ghostface Killah .
Fantastic find horribilis. Here's more : Additional source : www.researchgate.net/publication/247494638_Ecomorphology_of_the_giant_short-faced_bears_Agriotherium_and_Arctodus
|
|
|
Post by brobear on May 7, 2022 13:04:04 GMT -5
Good stuff yz. Of course, the 'tiger fanclub' community turns a blind eye to any and all scientific comparisons. But, it's much appreciated here.
|
|
|
Post by yz on May 7, 2022 13:08:02 GMT -5
Good stuff yz. Of course, the 'tiger fanclub' community turns a blind eye to any and all scientific comparisons. But, it's much appreciated here. Can't blame them. Less than a year ago, I used to be a huge tiger fanboy myself. But after looking through these studies, I accepted that bears are stronger.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on May 7, 2022 14:40:12 GMT -5
Good stuff yz. Of course, the 'tiger fanclub' community turns a blind eye to any and all scientific comparisons. But, it's much appreciated here. Can't blame them. Less than a year ago, I used to be a huge tiger fanboy myself. But after looking through these studies, I accepted that bears are stronger. That's the difference between an enthusiast and a fanboy. I have known a good number of tiger enthusiasts, whose favorite animal remained the tiger, who were willing and able to accept the truth. When I first started ( 2000 or possibly late 1999 ), I blundered upon an animal face-off forum. I was really surprised that the vast majority of posters vied for either the lion or the tiger against a brown bear. I had decided, as a young child playing with toy plastic animals, ( 1950s ), that a bear is stronger than a big cat. However, I had a rough time on those forums. I took a lot of abuse from fanboys. What I had learned in school about animals was ( to say the least ) inaccurate. So I began reading and learning some facts. If I had been wrong, I would have accepted the truth. One more thing; I still admire both the lion and the tiger - the greatest land-based predators on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by yz on May 7, 2022 14:42:23 GMT -5
Can't blame them. Less than a year ago, I used to be a huge tiger fanboy myself. But after looking through these studies, I accepted that bears are stronger. That's the difference between an enthusiast and a fanboy. I have known a good number of tiger enthusiasts, whose favorite animal remained the tiger, who were willing and able to accept the truth. When I first started ( 2000 or possibly late 1999 ), I blundered upon an animal face-off forum. I was really surprised that the vast majority of posters vied for either the lion or the tiger against a brown bear. I had decided, as a young child playing with toy plastic animals, ( 1950s ), that a bear is stronger than a big cat. However, I had a rough time on those forums. I took a lot of abuse from fanboys. What I had learned in school about animals was ( to say the least ) inaccurate. So I began reading and learning some facts. If I had been wrong, I would have accepted the truth. One more thing; I still admire both the lion and the tiger - the greatest land-based predators on Earth. 👍👌👏
|
|
|
Post by yz on May 7, 2022 14:44:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by yz on May 7, 2022 18:05:27 GMT -5
Here are some quotes : Basically having more negative DF1 and DF2 scores means having relatively thicker limbs. This is interesting because bears generally have more negative scores than felids as can be seen : Obviously, we can conclude that bears have more robust limbs than the felidae even at similar size. Source : pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22972188/
|
|
horribilis
Parictis
“You have no idea how powerful the truth can be.” - Oliver Queen
Posts: 47
|
Post by horribilis on May 8, 2022 0:46:30 GMT -5
Now , I've included the new indices too pointed by you and you can see the edited comparison in Amur Tiger vs Ussuri Brown Bear-Old Accounts thread . Thanks for making me aware.
|
|
horribilis
Parictis
“You have no idea how powerful the truth can be.” - Oliver Queen
Posts: 47
|
Post by horribilis on May 8, 2022 1:02:49 GMT -5
Here are some quotes : Basically having more negative DF1 and DF2 scores means having relatively thicker limbs. This is interesting because bears generally have more negative scores than felids as can be seen : Obviously, we can conclude that bears have more robust limbs than the felidae even at similar size. Source : pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22972188/Great info , yz . I think the only feline that could compete with ursids in terms of anterior body strength on a pound per pound basis would be smilodon . But even smilodon lacked the torso width of ursids and when viewed from back , they had a narrower built like any other feline.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Jun 6, 2022 10:26:09 GMT -5
Girth of the Tiger. Can we find a camera shot of a brown bear taken from straight-up-above for a comparison picture?
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 4, 2022 6:12:55 GMT -5
RedMatter made this comparison between a male grizzly bear and a male lion: Girth is a huge advantage in a face-to-face confrontation. Girth is a game-changer. At equal HB length, a bear has much greater girth which provides greater weight, greater strength, and superior durability. There is this guy over at WF that used to argue with me that a big cat has a greater girth of neck, limbs, and torso over a brown bear at equal HB length.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 24, 2022 9:34:31 GMT -5
Credits to RedMatter. Humerus comparison between polar bear (left) and Amur tiger (right), edited to be next to each other from Verdugo's great humerus comparison.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Nov 24, 2022 9:37:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Dec 29, 2022 13:57:21 GMT -5
As simple as ABC, 2+3 equals 5. It's 2nd grade math. When you compare an Ussuri brown bear to an Amur tiger at equal HBL (which is typical size for each) you discover that the bear has roughly a 200 pound weight advantage due to his bigger heavier bones, his greater girth in neck, limbs, and torso. So what might we conclude from this? Conclusion: At size-parity, a bear is stronger than a big cat. His overall strength level is significantly superior. Due to his musculature, and that shoulder hump, the brown bear is pound-for-pound the strongest of living bears. Therefore, when comparing the overall strength of an Amur tiger and an Ussuri brown bear, there really is no contest at all. The bear is far superior in terms of brute strength. Those who argue that there is little difference in the strength level of a big cat and a bear are delusional.
|
|