Question for Peter

[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.  
 

  Reply