+- 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 - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
Polar, if this is a comparison of chest and neck girth, the only fair way to compare is at equal height and head-body length. Like two men each standing at the same height. If you were to compare a full-grown male tiger with a full-grown male grizzly, each standing seven feet tall ( a normal size for each ), I feel certain that the bear will win this contest.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
Rishi, this bear isn't fat.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 09:37 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar, if this is a comparison of chest and neck girth, the only fair way to compare is at equal height and head-body length. Like two men each standing at the same height. If you were to compare a full-grown male tiger with a full-grown male grizzly, each standing seven feet tall ( a normal size for each ), I feel certain that the bear will win this contest.
Then that grizzly would be at about or near size parity relative to height. That is another thing. Size parity can be relative to any measurement, relative to length, height, limb girth, etc. Weight parity is not, weight is a defined measurement independent of size or length or whatever. This is why I compare at equal weights.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
You are causing me to to curse out loud Polar. You are NOT getting my point. It's about who has the greater chest and neck girth. You can NOT come up with a fair answer unless both animals are of equal height. What is so difficult about this that only I can understand it?
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 04-02-2018
Even a skinny bear would be slightly more robust than a Waghdoh-type tiger from the front. From the front it is all a different look, regardless of weight or size parity.
RE: JUST QUEST - Rishi - 04-02-2018
Yeah...What's the use?
Nature doesn't play fair.
A large Ussuri could have atleast 100-150 kgd over the largest Amur!
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 09:43 PM)Polar Wrote:(04-02-2018, 09:37 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar, if this is a comparison of chest and neck girth, the only fair way to compare is at equal height and head-body length. Like two men each standing at the same height. If you were to compare a full-grown male tiger with a full-grown male grizzly, each standing seven feet tall ( a normal size for each ), I feel certain that the bear will win this contest.
Then that grizzly would be at about or near size parity relative to height. That is another thing. Size parity can be relative to any measurement, relative to length, height, limb girth, etc. Weight parity is not, weight is a defined measurement independent of size or length or whatever. This is why I compare at equal weights.
That is the assumption from my end as well, we are comparing Lb for Lb not Inch to Inch.
It's generally the only way to compare BMI of different species since weight distribution is always different amongst them, it's even different in subspecies.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 09:47 PM)Rishi Wrote: Yeah...What's the use?
Nature doesn't play fair.
The large Ussuri could have atleast 100-150 kgs over the large Amur!
Exactly Rishi, and that tiger is very likely at height/length parity with the grizzly.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
I've had enough if this... arguing with bricks.
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 09:43 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You are causing me to to curse out loud Polar. You are NOT getting my point. It's about who has the greater chest and neck girth. You can NOT come up with a fair answer unless both animals are of equal height. What is so difficult about this that only I can understand it?
Yes, at weight and site parity relative to height (again "relative" is key word here), the bear will have a thicker chest than the tiger. But still, I question this way of comparing the two animals.
At weight parity, both are comparable in height but the tiger is longer in body length, at size parity relative to height, the bear is less longer than the tiger.
You can't really have size parity relative to both height and length at the same time, because it just isn't possible given the biological differences between the two animals. At size parity relative to height, the bear would be shorter in body length than the tiger. At size parity relative to length, the bear would be much taller on all fours at the shoulder. Size parity due to both isn't possible much.
This is why I do weight parity.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 10:02 PM)Polar Wrote:I think you're mistaken in your chest assumption, looking at measurements of both, their chest circumference is very similar, the Bengal could actually has a slight advantage in that department, I think you might be focused on their midsection which technically wouldn't be their chest girth and that will be much larger than a Tiger since cats tend to taper in their midsection while bears largest measurement would be there I bet.(04-02-2018, 09:43 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You are causing me to to curse out loud Polar. You are NOT getting my point. It's about who has the greater chest and neck girth. You can NOT come up with a fair answer unless both animals are of equal height. What is so difficult about this that only I can understand it?
Yes, at weight and site parity relative to height (again "relative" is key word here), the bear will have a thicker chest than the tiger. But still, I question this way of comparing the two animals.
At weight parity, both are comparable in height but the tiger is longer in body length, at size parity relative to length, the bear is higher at the shoulder and as long as the tiger.
You can't really have size parity relative to both height and length at the same time, because it just isn't possible given the biological differences between the two animals. At size parity relative to height, the bear would be shorter in body length than the tiger. At size parity relative to length, the bear would be much taller on all fours at the shoulder. Size parity due to both isn't possible much.
This is why I do weight parity.
I would think their large fur would play a role or even their skeletal structure, Tigers have very small clavicles and thinner bones than bears while bears seem to have the opposite, but when either is relaxed, only the muscle will really factor in measuring so a Big Cat is most likely more densely packed with muscle in those sections which could be why Bears seem to look thicker from the head on view but that may not be the case when comparing both.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
Pckts says: I think you're mistaken in your chest assumption, looking at measurements of both, their chest circumference is very similar, the Bengal could actually has a slight advantage in that department, I think you might be focused on their midsection which technically wouldn't be their chest girth and that will be much larger than a Tiger since cats tend to taper in their midsection while bears largest measurement would be there I bet.
*Is this with both the tiger and the grizzly at height/length parity?
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 10:02 PM)Polar Wrote:(04-02-2018, 09:43 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You are causing me to to curse out loud Polar. You are NOT getting my point. It's about who has the greater chest and neck girth. You can NOT come up with a fair answer unless both animals are of equal height. What is so difficult about this that only I can understand it?
Yes, at weight and site parity relative to height (again "relative" is key word here), the bear will have a thicker chest than the tiger. But still, I question this way of comparing the two animals.
At weight parity, both are comparable in height but the tiger is longer in body length, at size parity relative to height, the bear is less longer than the tiger.
You can't really have size parity relative to both height and length at the same time, because it just isn't possible given the biological differences between the two animals. At size parity relative to height, the bear would be shorter in body length than the tiger. At size parity relative to length, the bear would be much taller on all fours at the shoulder. Size parity due to both isn't possible much.
This is why I do weight parity.
Polar; I KNOW this! But this is NOT about size parity. It's about which species has the greater girth of chest and neck. Grizzlies come in all sizes. Therefore there is no reason why not to compare then at height/length parity. How in the HELL do you think that you will have a fair contest if the tiger is two-feet taller than the grizzly?
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
Why is everyone here is determined not to have a fair contest? When two football teams go onto the field, both teams generally have the same number of players. Am I right? Well then, let's compare tiger with grizzly with the same number of centimeters in height and length.
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 10:17 PM)brotherbear Wrote:(04-02-2018, 10:02 PM)Polar Wrote:(04-02-2018, 09:43 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You are causing me to to curse out loud Polar. You are NOT getting my point. It's about who has the greater chest and neck girth. You can NOT come up with a fair answer unless both animals are of equal height. What is so difficult about this that only I can understand it?
Yes, at weight and site parity relative to height (again "relative" is key word here), the bear will have a thicker chest than the tiger. But still, I question this way of comparing the two animals.
At weight parity, both are comparable in height but the tiger is longer in body length, at size parity relative to height, the bear is less longer than the tiger.
You can't really have size parity relative to both height and length at the same time, because it just isn't possible given the biological differences between the two animals. At size parity relative to height, the bear would be shorter in body length than the tiger. At size parity relative to length, the bear would be much taller on all fours at the shoulder. Size parity due to both isn't possible much.
This is why I do weight parity.
Polar; I KNOW this! But this is NOT about size parity. It's about which species has the greater girth of chest and neck. Grizzlies come in all sizes. Therefore there is no reason why not to compare then at height/length parity. How in the HELL do you think that you will have a fair contest if the tiger is two-feet taller than the grizzly?
Your last sentence is a great point. But it is literally impossible to have height and length parity simultaneously like you suggest when you format the two together (like "height/length" parity), you can have either (and it still wouldn't be an accurate comparison, btw) but not both.
And by height I am talking about shoulder height, not bipedal height.