Girth Comparaison of Animals

[Polar]

(03-31-2018, 02:55 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(03-31-2018, 02:20 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar says: Point is that at weight parity, tigers are stronger in some aspects and bears too. Although bears seem to be stronger pound-for-pound in most aspects (thicker core, back, legs, arms, neck, etc...), tigers have a few strength tricks up their sleeve. 
 Not so sure about pound-for-pound. There is a big difference between size-parity and weight-parity. At weight-parity, a tiger has a significant height and length advantage. At height/length parity, the grizzly would have a huge weight advantage. For true size-parity, the tiger would have some advantage in height and length while the bear is some heavier. 
I agree with Pckts that comparing a tiger with a tall slender man is off base. But the tiger ( at weight-parity ) is longer and leaner than the grizzly. Point I was trying to make; there is much more involved in strength than merely muscle-mass. 

At weight parity wouldn't a Grizzly still be taller at the shoulder and fairly close in HBL?
250KG Tiger or Grizzly is full grown for some males.

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. Reply