+- 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 - P.T.Sondaica - 04-11-2018
Wait for other opinion from @Pckts about tiger vs bear
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-11-2018
Nothing else to say PT, I’ve said my piece and will move on.
RE: JUST QUEST - P.T.Sondaica - 04-11-2018
If you have more data about chest girth of tiger vs bear show here....i still dont know who average more big bear or tiger
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-11-2018
(04-11-2018, 09:34 AM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: If you have more data about chest girth of tiger vs bear show here....i still dont know who average more big bear or tiger
It's all about method P.T.Sondaica. You just cannot compare the girth of two animals by comparing at equal weight. The reason is elementary; the animal with the greater girth is the heavier animal due to his greater girth. Simple as that. At equal weight, the tiger has a chest girth very near equal with the grizzly because the grizzly has been shrunk down to tiger-girth-size.
At equal head-and-body length, the ONLY proper way to compare girth, the grizzly proves to be have the superior girth.
RE: JUST QUEST - P.T.Sondaica - 04-11-2018
I think we compare chest girth in same weight thats is right because thats is same size
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-11-2018
(04-11-2018, 03:30 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: I think we compare chest girth in same weight thats is right because thats is same size
Only if you are dead-set on giving the tiger an unfair advantage. Comparing girth at weight-parity is nothing more than a "fan-boy" tactic.
I will NOT be posting here on this topic again. I know that "those in-the-know" have been watching and reading this topic. I know that they know I am correct in the point I'm making here. Yet, everyone stays quiet because pckts is a popular tiger fan and no one wishes to rock his boat. Wildfact is, after all, a site all about the big cats and primarily the tiger.
RE: JUST QUEST - P.T.Sondaica - 04-11-2018
165 cm man with weight 100 kg absoluty have more gith Chest with 175 cm man weight 60 kg
I quest in here not for ego i post here information with logic
RE: JUST QUEST - Spalea - 04-11-2018
(04-11-2018, 03:30 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: I think we compare chest girth in same weight thats is right because thats is same size
No, that's not the same size because bears and tigers don't have the same morphology.
A grizzly or a polar bear are in average bigger, heavier, than a tiger. If you want to decrease the bear's size (or the bear's weight) so that you will believe to fairly compare the bear's and the tiger's chest girths you will make your compiraison between an adult tiger and a subadult bear, thus a biased compiraison.
You cannot manipulate the morphologies in order to prove that finally, both animal have the same chest girth. If they don't belong to the same family (two ursids or two felids) it's biased.
While we are at it, we can also add the lion's case. After all the lion has a chest girth equal, even a bit larger, to the tiger's one.
But seriously, why don't we compare the horse's chest girth with the rhino's chest girth ? They are both Perissodactyls.
RE: JUST QUEST - P.T.Sondaica - 04-11-2018
@spalalea you mean we will compare from long and height animal body?
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-11-2018
(04-11-2018, 03:53 PM)brotherbear Wrote:There is no “fan-boy” tactic, once again, keep the name calling out of it. You need to act like a mod or you shouldn’t be one!(04-11-2018, 03:30 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: I think we compare chest girth in same weight thats is right because thats is same size
Only if you are dead-set on giving the tiger an unfair advantage. Comparing girth at weight-parity is nothing more than a "fan-boy" tactic.
I will NOT be posting here on this topic again. I know that "those in-the-know" have been watching and reading this topic. I know that they know I am correct in the point I'm making here. Yet, everyone stays quiet because pckts is a popular tiger fan and no one wishes to rock his boat. Wildfact is, after all, a site all about the big cats and primarily the tiger.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-11-2018
(04-11-2018, 04:10 PM)Spalea Wrote:(04-11-2018, 03:30 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: I think we compare chest girth in same weight thats is right because thats is same size
No, that's not the same size because bears and tigers don't have the same morphology.
A grizzly or a polar bear are in average bigger, heavier, than a tiger. If you want to decrease the bear's size (or the bear's weight) so that you will believe to fairly compare the bear's and the tiger's chest girths you will make your compiraison between an adult tiger and a subadult bear, thus a biased compiraison.
You cannot manipulate the morphologies in order to prove that finally, both animal have the same chest girth. If they don't belong to the same family (two ursids or two felids) it's biased.
While we are at it, we can also add the lion's case. After all the lion has a chest girth equal, even a bit larger, to the tiger's one.
But seriously, why don't we compare the horse's chest girth with the rhino's chest girth ? They are both Perissodactyls.
Remember @Spalea
The bears we are comparing at equal weights to the Tigers/Lions are both full grown, not sub adults.
You’re absolutely right that bears and tigers have different morphology so trying to compare equal body length is a higher factor for error when determining their lb for lb mass comparison.
Why do you think the argument against lb for lb comparison is body length and not shoulder height I wonder?
It’s seems to get lost in the fray but no one has ever said that bears aren’t larger than big cats, it started with a discussion on lb for lb between polar and my self that somehow turned into a lb for lb vs inch for inch discussion.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-11-2018
It’s seems to get lost in the fray but no one has ever said that bears aren’t larger than big cats, it started with a discussion on lb for lb between polar and my self that somehow turned into a lb for lb vs inch for inch discussion.
*No; a girth comparison discussion.
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-11-2018
(04-11-2018, 04:53 PM)brotherbear Wrote: It’s seems to get lost in the fray but no one has ever said that bears aren’t larger than big cats, it started with a discussion on lb for lb between polar and my self that somehow turned into a lb for lb vs inch for inch discussion.
*No; a girth comparison discussion.
*Between equal weighing individuals.*
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-11-2018
(04-11-2018, 04:56 PM)Pckts Wrote:(04-11-2018, 04:53 PM)brotherbear Wrote: It’s seems to get lost in the fray but no one has ever said that bears aren’t larger than big cats, it started with a discussion on lb for lb between polar and my self that somehow turned into a lb for lb vs inch for inch discussion.
*No; a girth comparison discussion.
*Between equal weighing individuals.*
*Which is a completely meaningless comparison. You are shrinking the bear down to tiger-girth-size. The reason that a grizzly is heavier at length parity is his superior girth.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-11-2018
You know what pckts; I'm going to end it and give it to you. A tiger measuring 7 feet in head-and-body-length has a greater girth than a grizzly with a 5 foot head-and-body-length which proves that the tiger has the greatest girth and is the strongest of all animals. Let's all give the tiger a cheer!