+- 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 - Pckts - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 10:10 PM)brotherbear Wrote: 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.We don't use height/length Parity Brobear, we use weight parity when comparing muscular composition. It's the only way we can hope to compare muscular distribution amongst 2 similar but different species.
*Is this with both the tiger and the grizzly at height/length parity?
It's hard for me to put into simpler terms for you because I want you to understand what Polar and I are discussing but it's not easy to give you examples of what we're saying, just reread what has been stated and hopefully it will click. It just takes time but you'll get it.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
OK, while the head/body length would be pretty-much equal, let's just say bipedal height parity. Both standing seven feet tall at *bipedal height. This would be the only way to achieve a fair comparison of neck and chest girth. If you were to compare a seven-foot-tall tiger with a five-foot-tall grizzly; then you have accomplished nothing.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 10:17 PM)brotherbear Wrote:They absolutely do, but unlike trying to compare a Honey Badger to a Hyena, where we'd need to extrapolate the honey badgers measurements to create a "hyena sized badger," we don't need to do that with a Grizzly because Grizzlies are Tiger sized, at least some and those are the ones we must use. It's comparing apples to apples, a 200kg bear to a 200kg tiger, both adults and mature, if you want to use a 400kg Bear then you'd need to increase the Tigers measurements by 100% ''extrapolate" so you can equally compare body measurements of two similarly sized creatures.(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 - Polar - 04-02-2018
It is like a horizontal rectangle-shaped prism and square-shaped prism. A rectangle is always going to be more horizontally biased than the square in this way.
To compare at same height, the square is shorter in length. To compare at same length, the square is taller in height. Exact same thing with bear and tiger.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
Weight has absolutely nothing to do with comparing two species for chest and neck girth. With both being the same in bipedal height, naturally the one with the greater girth is going to be heavier. But, this is the ONLY way for a fair comparison. Either go with bipedal height or head and body length; as you said pckts, pretty much the same thing.
Polar - about squares and rectangles... the bear appears more square because of his greater girth.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-03-2018
(04-02-2018, 11:12 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Weight has absolutely nothing to do with comparing two species for chest and neck girth. With both being the same in bipedal height, naturally the one with the greater girth is going to be heavier. But, this is the ONLY way for a fair comparison. Either go with bipedal height or head and body length; as you said pckts, pretty much the same thing.
Polar - about squares and rectangles... the bear appears more square because of his greater girth.
Of course it does, how else can you determine girth without measuring at the same weight or calculating them accordingly.
That certainly isn't the "only" fair way, in fact, I think most would agree that the lb for lb measurement is much more fair.
It's the same as me saying "shoulder measurement" is the only fair way... They have different skeletal structures and thus their measurements will not be conducive to a fair measurement.
I'm going to try this one more time but after that I don't think it will matter.
Ok, here we go.
The Bear Weighs 200kg and is a full grown adult in his prime.
The Tiger Weighs 200kg and is a full grown adult in his prime.
@Polar said "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." Post #46
and you wrote in post #51 "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."
So how would we come to a conclusion for the statements above?
Now lets look at one of your bears you posted...
"The largest captured male (784) was 13 years and the
weight,
height at shoulder, 152 cm;
total
length, 264 cm;
chest girth, 159cm
body length, 140cm;
*Note: Grizzly boar: neck girth - 90 cm ( 35.43 inches ) - chest girth 159 cm ( 5 feet 3 inches )."
So let compare this Bear to the Largest tiger we can find with measurements available
*This image is copyright of its original author
The bear listed above is almost 100kg heavier or about 27% heavier, so if we're to increase the Tigers measurements 27% or so, to make him equal to the bear in weight, he'd actually have a larger chest and neck girth.
The body length would also be longer in the tiger but the shoulder height would be shorter and this is normal since that is how Big cats and Bears are built.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-03-2018
Pckts says: Of course it does, how else can you determine girth without measuring at the same weight or calculating them accordingly.
That's just plain freaking stupid pckts. So, you see it as fair to down-size the grizzly so as to compare his girth with a tiger?
Let's say we wish to compare the girth of a reticulated python with that of a green anaconda. The only fair way to compare is with both snakes at length-parity, then measure their circumference at the thickest point of each. No different with tiger and grizzly. At either same bipedal height or head and body length ( pretty much the same ) then you measure the girth; in which case the grizzly wins hands down - and you don't like that.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-03-2018
(04-03-2018, 11:02 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Pckts says: Of course it does, how else can you determine girth without measuring at the same weight or calculating them accordingly.
That's just plain freaking stupid pckts. So, you see it as fair to down-size the grizzly so as to compare his girth with a tiger?
Let's say we wish to compare the girth of a reticulated python with that of a green anaconda. The only fair way to compare is with both snakes at length-parity, then measure their circumference at the thickest point of each. No different with tiger and grizzly. At either same bipedal height or head and body length ( pretty much the same ) then you measure the girth; in which case the grizzly wins hands down - and you don't like that.
Why don't you tone it down with the name calling, do you see Polar or myself calling you stupid because you don't understand lb for lb?
You're comparing snakes not mammals so their measuring is different. We are comparing Neck girth and chest girth, how exactly do you plan on comparing neck and chest girth with snakes?
If you wanted to compare girth at the widest point that would be a different debate, wouldn't it?
Since you're unable to have a mature discussion, I'm going to move on.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-03-2018
I didn't call anyone stupid; just the idea. The non-comprehending of common sense and the reason thereof.
Pckts says: If you wanted to compare girth at the widest point than that would be a different debate, wouldn't it?
OMG! I'm not talking about measuring the tiger and the bear at thickest point. They're not snakes!!!! Comparing the snake's girth you compare two snakes of equal length. Same with bear and tiger. Too complicated?
I'm sorry; but nothing irritates me more than arguing with a brick.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-03-2018
(04-03-2018, 11:24 PM)brotherbear Wrote: I didn't call anyone stupid; just the idea. The non-comprehending of common sense and the reason thereof.
Pckts says: If you wanted to compare girth at the widest point than that would be a different debate, wouldn't it?
OMG! I'm not talking about measuring the tiger and the bear at thickest point. They're not snakes!!!! Comparing the snake's girth you compare two snakes of equal length. Same with bear and tiger. Too complicated?
I'm sorry; but nothing irritates me more than arguing with a brick.
Once again, you need to learn to have a mature discussion and stop name calling.
You're an older man, act like it!
I'm done, it can't be explained any clearer.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-04-2018
You right pckts, it can't be explained any clearer. At height or body-length parity, the animal with the greater girth will naturally be heavier. Common sense.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-04-2018
At weight parity wouldn't a Grizzly still be taller at the shoulder and fairly close in HBL? = NO.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-04-2018
http://shaggygod.proboards.com/thread/674
www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications/documents/NMBearStudy.pdf
Of 55 adult males and 55 adult females from Yellowstone National Park (YNP), average body
measurements and weights were: total length 1.643 m, 1.511 m; height 95.2 cm, 87.4 cm; girth
130.5 cm, 114.6 cm; neck circumference 78.6 cm, 65.4 cm; length of head 41.7 cm, 37.8 cm;
length of hind foot 189 mm, 163 mm; and width of hind foot 136 mm, 118 mm; mean adult mass
193 kg, 135 kg (Pasitschniak-Arts 1993). The largest grizzly bear weighed in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) registered 509 kg (Craighead 1979).
Source:
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).
...weight - 1,122 pounds.
...length - 7 feet 11 inches.
...sh. height - 3 feet 10 inches.
...neck girth - 37.4 inches.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-04-2018
Alright. I found a fair comparison. At head and body length parity. Of course, if you ( pckts ) would rather the tiger win this contest, you can always compare with a smaller bear. May I suggest a marsican brown bear or a Himalayan brown bear - measuring about five feet long. 'Nuff said.
Tiger chest girth - 119 cm or 47 inches.
Grizzly chest girth - 137 cm or 54 inches.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-04-2018
Another, although this comparison gives the tiger an edge. The grizzly is over a foot shorter than the tiger. The grizzly has a chest girth of about five inches greater than the tiger.
*This image is copyright of its original author