Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[LonePredator]

(10-07-2022, 09:58 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-07-2022, 05:12 AM)LonePredator Wrote: A bodylength of 208cm with one of the bulkiest frames and yet a weight of just 250kg in his prime? No way. That's very unlikely.

We can do some simple isometric calculations with the 208cm bodylength to estimate his prime weight (I'm using bodylength because it has the best correlation with weight and also because Wagdoh's chest girth would have shrunk in old age)

The isometric calculation gives a weight of 288kg using a 190cm, 220kg Tiger as surrogate and 278kg using a 190cm, 212kg Tiger as surrogate. And even if I make the most strict calculation with a 190cm, 200kg Tiger (which should cause an underestimation), it still gives 262kg.

So logically speaking, from the body length given in this document, I don't think there's any way his prime weight could be as low as 250kg. That's just too low UNLESS THE LENGTH MENTIONED WAS TAKEN OVER THE CURVES (which is also very unlikely).

Your claim is extremely flawed.
You have numerous Tigers who are longer, taller and thicker with weights of 230kgs or less.

And your claim is not? From what I remember you once claimed that Wagdoh is just an average Tiger with an average frame and you even started arguing with someone about it.

And in this case we can say with simple common sense that he was over 270kg in his prime. His dying, unhealthy body weighed 270kg and you are saying he was only 250kg in his prime?

And now coming to your other claim. Any healthy, non-emaciated male Bengal Tiger that measures 208cm in body length in straight line, 101cm tall and 140cm+ chest girth in its prime, measured normally will never weigh ‘less than 230kg’.

The only exceptions are some faulty numbers about the weights and measurements from old records which don’t add up. Guate and others even pointed out some of those old records where the numbers didn’t add up. Even in modern records the numbers sometimes don’t add up or are not taken by the standard method.

You remember MB2 who was ‘127cm’ in shoulder height?? Do you really think he was 127cm in shoulder height? You must have the common sense to understand that the measurement might have been taken differently or have flaws (in case of some old records) when the numbers don’t add up.

Have you ever seen the regression graph that was made by TigerLuver which showed the correlation between body length and body mass?? I bet you’ve never seen it because if you did, you wouldn’t say such things.

You should educate yourself more on this topic before calling my ‘claims’ ‘extremely flawed’. Reply