+- 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 - 03-31-2018
Ok thanks so back to topic about tiger compare to bear i want info about total strenght bear and tiger who is more..because i watch pro contra
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 03-31-2018
Post #60 shows the measurements of a Yellowstone grizzly which are not among the largest bears of the various grizzly populations.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 03-31-2018
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-20-big-bear_N.htm
750-pound bear is captured in Montana
GREAT FALLS, Mont. (AP) — State bear managers seeking to capture and collar female grizzly bears as part of a population count recently trapped a 7 foot, 6 inch male grizzly that weighed 750 pounds after a winter of hibernation.
Mike Madel, bear management specialist with the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said it took two scales and a hydraulic crane to weigh the 8-year-old bruin that had 3 1/2-inch claws and a neck circumference of 4 feet.
"This bear was just a beautiful bear," Madel said.
Madel said the big male with the bronze head, golden back and dark chocolate legs could weigh as much as 900 pounds by the fall.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 03-31-2018
Size of boar grizzly of the Alaskan peninsula
http://www.bearbiology.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Glenn_Vol_4.pdf
For purposes of comparison, skull dimensions were
considered ultimate by 15 years of age and body measurements
were considered ultimate by 10 years of age.
The value for percentage of each ultimate body dimension
was determined by dividing the mean size of each
age-class by the mean value of the ultimate body size.
For example, mean body length of 6-month-old
females, 46.9 cm, divided by 123.4 cm, the mean size of
the 10+-year-old (ultimate size) females, is 38 percent.
The largest captured male (784) was 13 years and the
largest captured female (825) was 15 years old. Differences
in their respective sizes were as follows: weight,
390-275 kg; height at shoulder, 152-130 cm; total
length, 264-228 cm; hind-foot length, 44-38 cm;
neck circumference, 90-80 cm; chest girth, 159-157 cm;
body length, 140-127 cm; skull length, 473-403 mm;
and zygomatic width, 311-251 mm. When all measurements
were combined, mean total body size of 5 males
over 9 years of age was 19 percent larger and their mean
body weight was 88 percent heavier than the sizes and
weights of 25 females of comparable age.
*Note: Grizzly boar: neck girth - 90 cm ( 35.43 inches ) - chest girth 159 cm ( 5 feet 3 inches ).
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-01-2018
https://www.bearbiology.com/wp-content/u..._Vol_4.pdf
For purposes of comparison, skull dimensions were considered ultimate by 15 years of age and body measurements were considered ultimate by 10 years of age.
*As I have been arguing for years. Biologists/park rangers measure and weigh grizzlies and put forth size averages which include bears as young as five years old which, though sexually mature, are sub-adult animals. That is why I view size averages given as false information. For the average-sized grizzly boar of any location, only bears 10+ years old should be included.
Consider that this chart is of Yellowstone; not your biggest grizzlies. Now, look at those bears 10+ years old; even the 9 year old. Average weight roughly 227 kg ( 500 pounds ).
RE: JUST QUEST - Betty - 04-02-2018
(03-31-2018, 04:38 AM)Pckts Wrote: 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
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
Pckts says: I hope we're past single images to try and make a point.
I figured you already know what a tiger looks like. Compare them on post #66. A tiger appears nearly as thick and heavy as a grizzly when in profile, but when facing you things change. You then clearly see the lack of girth. At true size parity, the tiger should be taller and longer while the bear retains a weight advantage.
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 08:49 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Pckts says: I hope we're past single images to try and make a point.
I figured you already know what a tiger looks like. Compare them on post #66. A tiger appears nearly as thick and heavy as a grizzly when in profile, but when facing you things change. You then clearly see the lack of girth. At true size parity, the tiger should be taller and longer while the bear retains a weight advantage.
*This image is copyright of its original author
You are quite right that the bear is robust and more rotund than the tiger, but pictures don't do justice as much as data does. But pretty true that the tiger is much less robust from the front.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
If you were to compare a big mature male Bengal tiger with a big mature grizzly boar, each the king of his own domain, each standing seven feet high bipedal, I would bet the farm on the bear having the greater girth around the chest and around the neck.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 08:49 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Pckts says: I hope we're past single images to try and make a point.What is "True Size?"
I figured you already know what a tiger looks like. Compare them on post #66. A tiger appears nearly as thick and heavy as a grizzly when in profile, but when facing you things change. You then clearly see the lack of girth. At true size parity, the tiger should be taller and longer while the bear retains a weight advantage.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Both come in an array of sizes and a Bear will be slightly Taller at the shoulder while a Tiger will be slightly longer in the body but both of these can change depending on the specific individual.
Again... single images?
So you post one to back your point but not others which don't?
That is called "cherrypicking" bud.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
......And we can go back and forth but you seem to be missing the point.
Bears are larger than Tigers, that isn't the debate, the point is when they are at equal weights "parity" there is significant overlap in muscle composition and thus trying to determine one being stronger than the other isn't cut and dry. Compare a 200kg Bear to a 200kg Tiger, both can be full grown individuals and both will show very similar muscular measurements.
Outside of that, I have no other dog in this fight.
RE: JUST QUEST - brotherbear - 04-02-2018
You are the one missing the point here pckts. If you really want to compare girth, then compare them at equal height/length. And no, I wasn't cherry picking. I just posted the first tiger I found facing forward. Besides, your "robust" choices are little better; not in the same league as a grizzly.
You want to compare the girth of a seven-foot-tall tiger with that of a six-foot-tall grizzly. What's the point? Have you ever heard of fair play?
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 04-02-2018
Regardless, even at weight parity, the bear (even less robust European brown bears) would still have a significant robusticity advantage over the tiger when looking from the front. Looking from the side, it is a different thing; both look similar. But pictures aren't as accurate as data; agree with both @Pckts and @
Regardless of muscle %, the bear would have a strength advantage in most areas (neck, shoulders, arms, core) while the tiger has an advantage in jaw power and pulling strength (maybe even grip strength).
I might have to shut this thread down because I don't see it going in a very good way...
RE: JUST QUEST - Polar - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 09:17 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You are the one missing the point here pckts. If you really want to compare girth, then compare them at equal height/length. And no, I wasn't cherry picking. I just posted the first tiger I found facing forward. Besides, your "robust" choices are little better; not in the same league as a grizzly.
You want to compare the girth of a seven-foot-tall tiger with that of a six-foot-tall grizzly. What's the point? Have you ever heard of fair play?
But a 6-ft tall grizzly is as heavy as a 7-ft tall tiger, latter with a slightly longer HBL and flexible spine. Aren't we comparing at weight parity here (at least I am)?
At equal weight, tiger would have a higher muscle %, longer body, comparable in height, thicker lower arm, similar hindleg thickness, greater bite force and probably pulling strength. Bear would have greater strength in upper arm, neck, core, shoulders, and thicker in those areas too, pushing/shoving strength. That is at weight parity.
At size parity, the bear would equal the tiger in HBL measurement (idk about height) and would be greater in most measurements. I normally go by weight in all of my comparisons instead of size.
To each their own, though.
RE: JUST QUEST - Rishi - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 09:17 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You are the one missing the point here pckts. If you really want to compare girth, then compare them at equal height/length. And no, I wasn't cherry picking. I just posted the first tiger I found facing forward. Besides, your "robust" choices are little better; not in the same league as a grizzly.
You want to compare the girth of a seven-foot-tall tiger with that of a six-foot-tall grizzly. What's the point? Have you ever heard of fair play?
I can't call comparing this...
*This image is copyright of its original author
...with this a fair play either!
*This image is copyright of its original author
Although the bear would definitely score more in both girth & weight, all of it need not be muscle mass. A bear in what looks like beginning of winter, has a LOT of fat & fur to account for.
IMO a wet grizzly, in the spring, would be a good candidate...
RE: JUST QUEST - Pckts - 04-02-2018
(04-02-2018, 09:17 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You are the one missing the point here pckts. If you really want to compare girth, then compare them at equal height/length. And no, I wasn't cherry picking. I just posted the first tiger I found facing forward. Besides, your "robust" choices are little better; not in the same league as a grizzly.
You want to compare the girth of a seven-foot-tall tiger with that of a six-foot-tall grizzly. What's the point? Have you ever heard of fair play?
No, I'd like to compare two adult individuals at equal weights... Since Tigers don't get to 500kg it's a little hard to compare them, isn't?
In regards to @Polar assumption...
Lets take a look and see.
*This image is copyright of its original author
*This image is copyright of its original author
The Bears used average 264kg w/an average chest girth of 137
The Tigers used average 216kg and 204kg w/an average chest girth of 119 and 130
We cannot compare forelimb girth since I've been unable to find much data for bears limb girth, but to go a long with chest girth and neck girth, I'd venture to guess their Limb girth would have the same similarities as anything else.
So brobear, I hope you understand what I'm saying. You must take into account body morphology, Tigers are generally longer in HBL while Bears are generally taller at the shoulder, it's "fair play" to compare them since their composition is different, weights is the only way we can compare muscle mass unless you are willing to extrapolate a 250kg Tiger to match up with a 400kg bear which I don't have the capabilities to do but I'm sure a few on here could do it if they were interested in our silly discussion.