Girth Comparaison of Animals

[Polar]

(04-02-2018, 10:17 PM)brotherbear Wrote:

(04-02-2018, 10:02 PM)Polar Wrote:

(04-02-2018, 09:43 PM)brotherbear Wrote: You are causing me to to curse out loud Polar. You are NOT getting my point. It's about who has the greater chest and neck girth. You can NOT come up with a fair answer unless both animals are of equal height. What is so difficult about this that only I can understand it?

Yes, at weight and site parity relative to height (again "relative" is key word here), the bear will have a thicker chest than the tiger. But still, I question this way of comparing the two animals.

At weight parity, both are comparable in height but the tiger is longer in body length, at size parity relative to height, the bear is less longer than the tiger. 

You can't really have size parity relative to both height and length at the same time, because it just isn't possible given the biological differences between the two animals. At size parity relative to height, the bear would be shorter in body length than the tiger. At size parity relative to length, the bear would be much taller on all fours at the shoulder. Size parity due to both isn't possible much.

This is why I do weight parity.

Polar; I KNOW this! But this is NOT about size parity. It's about which species has the greater girth of chest and neck. Grizzlies come in all sizes. Therefore there is no reason why not to compare then at height/length parity. How in the HELL do you think that you will have a fair contest if the tiger is two-feet taller than the grizzly?

Your last sentence is a great point. But it is literally impossible to have height and length parity simultaneously like you suggest when you format the two together (like "height/length" parity), you can have either (and it still wouldn't be an accurate comparison, btw) but not both.

And by height I am talking about shoulder height, not bipedal height. Reply