There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
04-13-2015, 02:59 PM( This post was last modified: 04-13-2015, 03:58 PM by brotherbear )
I strongly believe that my point is valid. If I wanted to discuss a face-off against a grizzly and a tiger so as to discuss the one who is the more capable fighter, then I might suggest comparing them considering height, length, girth, weight etc, and thus talk about a fight at relatively equal size. In this respect, the tiger would have a small advantage in length and bipedal height, while the grizzly would have a small weight advantage. I would give them each a 50% here ( opinion ).
But, when comparing two animals of different species in a contest of strength, then they should be compared in relatively body length and shoulder height parity. I agree with pckts that the bear is built differently; my point exactly. The grizzly is built *stockier than the tiger. The tiger is strong, I have never dinied this. But, he is a stealth hunter and designed in that direction. At size parity in regards to height and length, the grizzly is the stronger of the two in over-all physical strength. Of course, one can easily down-size the bear until the tiger is the stronger of the two.
Also ( a silly arguement ) if I were to compare an elepant with a ant in a debate about strength, ( as suggested by pckts ) I would compare them at equal length and height ( in union ).
Just making my point clear. Should pcks wish to futher argue, I will simply let it go.