+- WildFact (https://wildfact.com/forum)
+-- Forum: General Section (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-general-section)
+--- Forum: Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals (https://wildfact.com/forum/forum-debate-and-discussion-about-wild-animals)
+--- Thread: Girth Comparaison of Animals (/topic-girth-comparaison-of-animals)
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 03-31-2018
(03-31-2018, 02:55 AM)Pckts Wrote:(03-31-2018, 02:20 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar says: Point is that at weight parity, tigers are stronger in some aspects and bears too. Although bears seem to be stronger pound-for-pound in most aspects (thicker core, back, legs, arms, neck, etc...), tigers have a few strength tricks up their sleeve.
Not so sure about pound-for-pound. There is a big difference between size-parity and weight-parity. At weight-parity, a tiger has a significant height and length advantage. At height/length parity, the grizzly would have a huge weight advantage. For true size-parity, the tiger would have some advantage in height and length while the bear is some heavier.
I agree with Pckts that comparing a tiger with a tall slender man is off base. But the tiger ( at weight-parity ) is longer and leaner than the grizzly. Point I was trying to make; there is much more involved in strength than merely muscle-mass.
At weight parity wouldn't a Grizzly still be taller at the shoulder and fairly close in HBL?
250KG Tiger or Grizzly is full grown for some males.
At 200-kilograms (about average for tiger and bear?), both would be similar at shoulder height (bear probably 1-2 inches taller on all fours, but insignificant), but the bear is a little shorter in head-body length, much more wider regarding shoulder-to-shoulder and neck circumference. Chest and arm circumference is bigger in bear too but not to the extent of its shoulders or neck.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 03-31-2018
(03-31-2018, 03:44 AM)Polar Wrote:(03-31-2018, 02:55 AM)Pckts Wrote:(03-31-2018, 02:20 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar says: Point is that at weight parity, tigers are stronger in some aspects and bears too. Although bears seem to be stronger pound-for-pound in most aspects (thicker core, back, legs, arms, neck, etc...), tigers have a few strength tricks up their sleeve.
Not so sure about pound-for-pound. There is a big difference between size-parity and weight-parity. At weight-parity, a tiger has a significant height and length advantage. At height/length parity, the grizzly would have a huge weight advantage. For true size-parity, the tiger would have some advantage in height and length while the bear is some heavier.
I agree with Pckts that comparing a tiger with a tall slender man is off base. But the tiger ( at weight-parity ) is longer and leaner than the grizzly. Point I was trying to make; there is much more involved in strength than merely muscle-mass.
At weight parity wouldn't a Grizzly still be taller at the shoulder and fairly close in HBL?
250KG Tiger or Grizzly is full grown for some males.
At 200-kilograms (about average for tiger and bear?), both would be similar at shoulder height (bear probably 1-2 inches taller on all fours, but insignificant), but the bear is a little shorter in head-body length, much more wider regarding shoulder-to-shoulder and neck circumference. Chest and arm circumference is bigger in bear too but not to the extent of its shoulders or neck.
I'd be curious about their neck girths, midsection for sure but I'd think limb girth and neck girth would be close in 2 200kg specimens.
I wonder about chest as well...
May as well post @GuateGojira comparison here
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 03-31-2018
No. First of all, by taller I am referring to bipedal height. Remember when there was all the hooplah about a tigress that killed a grizzly bigger than herself? As it turned out, the sub-adult bear was heavier than the tigress while she had a head-body length advantage of about 14 inches ( 35.56 cm ). A grizzly is broader, greater girth. Much thicker at the hips.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 03-31-2018
Quick Neck Girth Comparison
*This image is copyright of its original author
32'' = 81 cm on overage
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
This is a very quick search, I'd have to dig around for Limb girth on Grizzlies but their Neck girth and Chest girth have significant overlap.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 03-31-2018
(03-31-2018, 03:55 AM)brotherbear Wrote: No. First of all, by taller I am referring to bipedal height. Remember when there was all the hooplah about a tigress that killed a grizzly bigger than herself? As it turned out, the sub-adult bear was heavier than the tigress while she had a head-body length advantage of about 14 inches ( 35.56 cm ). A grizzly is broader, greater girth. Much thicker at the hips.
Body length is going to determine bipedal height, they are one and the same, especially when a Tiger will have a flexible spine which will be able to make it stand even taller. When comparing both you should use HBL and Shoulder height, even then it will depend on measurement technique, if between the pegs its one thing but over the curves will add length to a Grizzly since they have their larger shoulder hump and a more rounded rear.
In regards to "broader" if you look at chest girth, they are fairly close, correlation between body weight and chest girth seems to overlap significantly, I'd also venture to guess that limb girth will be close as well, I'd bet the Tiger could possibly be larger in that department, at least the forearms, the midsection *stomach area* and hindquarters I'd say the Bear for sure is thicker there but again, it's about comparing the overall weight distribution.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 03-31-2018
When you look at them from various angles, then you clearly see that a big cat cannot match a grizzly in girth of chest or neck.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 03-31-2018
(03-31-2018, 04:10 AM)brotherbear Wrote: When you look at them from various angles, then you clearly see that a big cat cannot match a grizzly in girth of chest or neck.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
I hope we're past single images to try and make a point.
I have seen Grizzlies (captive only) and Tigers/Lions (Wild and Captive)
Big Cats certainly outsize the Bears I have seen but I know better than to think large grizzlies don't outsize large cats, Bears get 500kg or more right, unless you are comparing the same sized cats and bears, it's a moot point. A large bear should absolutely have a larger girth than a large cat, they are the larger animal.
RE: JUST QUEST - P.T.Sondaica - 03-31-2018
Absoluty i not say tiger not strong in some parts than bear..tiger is very strong animal and cannot compare To cormier and JJ Thats very different tiger and bear not in same genus and jj,cormier still homo sapien
I love tiger from i child
Idk ome prts
RE: JUST QUEST - P.T.Sondaica - 03-31-2018
But because i have Warning about Jone jones vs cormier(OOT because not animal discussion) from admin in inbox i will just reading this discussion
For new information..thankyou
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 03-31-2018
(03-31-2018, 04:36 AM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: But because i have Warning about Jone jones vs cormier(OOT because not animal discussion) from admin in inbox i will just reading this discussion
For new information..thankyou
Here is a good thread to discuss Human Strength and other sporting feats.
https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-human-strength?highlight=human+strength
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 03-31-2018
If anyone remembers the Image posted by @Betty I believe where the large white Tiger and Bear were side by side, I'd love for it to be posted, I can't seem to find it atm.
Thanks
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 03-31-2018
Oh, I can remember so much hooblah and ranting about the size of the average mature grizzly boar. I have to agree with Big Bonns when he stated that there is no such animal. Each separate population of grizzlies are different because of different environments and food resources. The Canadian tundra, the Yukon, and the world-famous Yellowstone grizzlies are all comparatively small bears as grizzlies go. The grizzlies of Montana are larger than those of Yellowstone and those of British Columbia larger still. Perhaps the Russian black grizzly is the biggest of the inland variety,
RE: JUST QUEST - P.T.Sondaica - 03-31-2018
@
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 03-31-2018
Overall, bears have thicker upper arms, chests, maybe necks, and shoulders (and probably hind legs) than tigers. @Pckts data suggests otherwise for the neck, and I notice something strange in your second tableset; a 86.6cm x 50.9cm front paw for a cub??? Even a 1000-pound bear (any bear) doesn't have that paw size. Or am I misreading this?
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 03-31-2018
Yellowstone: http://shaggygod.proboards.com/
www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_7/Blanchard_Vol_7.pdf
The
largest adult male measured 241 cm long (measure-
ment A, Fig. 1), 117 cm at the shoulder ©, 95 cm
around the neck (D), and had a hind foot pad 170
mm wide (K) and 216 mm long (L). The largest
female was 193 cm long (A), 103 cm at the shoulder
©, 74 cm around the neck (D), and had a hind foot
135 mm wide (K) and 190 mm long (L).
241 cm = 7 feet 11 inches.
117 cm = 3 feet 10 inches.
95 cm = 37.4 inches.