Question for Peter

[Pckts]

@tigerluver
Like you said, Birds of prey are extremely strong lb for lb, its wonder what makes them so strong compared to other bird species.
In terms of Flesh Robusticity, I'm not sure exactly what you mean?
Are you strictly determining width on the limb?
I think muscle % should be one factor and fat % should be another. Then combined as well, since one is a insulating purpose and the other is a physical activity purpose.

Bears for instance, I would be interested to know the difference between Polar bears v. Grizzlies? In terms of fat % to muscle %.

When using your boxing reference, knock out power of fighters of the same weight has tons of factors to try and say why or why not somebody is a more profficient knockout artist. Technique, timing, accuracy and the opponent are all going to play huge roles in what makes somebody a more proficient KO artist.
Thats why I liked the Jon Jones reference compared to Daniel Cormier, both weighed in the same, cormier was an Olympic medalists in Freestyle Wrestling and a power house stocky guy, but jon was able to nullify what was thought by many to be a strength advantage and even appeared to be the stronger of the two. He has about 8'' of height on cormier and was able to create leverage by separating his hips from cormier and forcing his will a bit more.
The reason I used this is because I thought it would be very similar to a Bear vs Tiger lb for lb discussion. Tigers being the same weight as a bear would be able to create this distance (apparently) with their longer body type and use the leverage factor to help even out a more bulky animal. Leverage increases the force gained by certain levers and I think there is a benefit to being longer when tackling large prey that may allow big cats to tackle large prey with relative ease compared to a benefit to being stocky when needing to put on mass.
But oddly enough when looking at the yellowstone bear weights, the longest bear was 241cm and 300kg and 113cm shoulder height (I believe) which is actually much longer than most tigers and not to much heavier. Madla would actually probably be the same weight as the bear if using that length, but for the most part the bear is the shorter animal with the higher weight. Shoulder height seems to be similar but with a more curved spine they give two different lengths to the bear, TL body length and Curved body length.
The last thing that would come into play would be fat compared to muscle mass, but I was unable to find anything on what % of BF a bear carries compared to a big cat. But it would obviously be more with a bear (for certain reasons) , but my guess is bone density needs to be higher to carry the combined weight of muscle and fat.

Its very interesting to think about, is there a difference in bone density or muscle distribution between a 500lb Cape buffalo and lion? Or Gaur and Tiger?




'@brotherbear' Wrote:
" 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. "







"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 )."

You would compare their Body weight to the amount they are capable of lifting, length and height are different because of morphology.

"The term "strongest animal" can be misleading, but most often it refers to how much an animal can lift relative to its own weight. It was thought that the rhinoceros beetle was the world's strongest by this standard, capable of lifting 850 times its own weight. This is comparable to a 150 lb (68 kg) human lifting a 67 ton (about 60.78 metric tons) Abrams tank. Some of the largest rhinoceros beetles weigh 4.23 ounces (120 grams), making them capable of carrying about 220 lbs (100 kg). This means that a strong rhinoceros beetle would be capable of carrying a heavy man.In 2007, Michael Heethoff and Lars Koerner measured the strength of a tropical mite, Archegozetes longisetosus, finding it has a pull force equal to 1,150 times its own weight, five times more than expected for an organism of its size (1 mm, 100 µg). As this study was the first to measure microarthropod claw forces, there are probably many other mites who might compete for the title of strongest. To put this strength in human terms, this would be like a 150 lb (68 kg) human lifting an 86 ton (78 metric ton) tank, or an elephant with a tower of 1,150 elephants on its"

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-stro...youknowout

  Reply