Bear Size ~

[Pckts]

(01-10-2016, 06:36 AM)brotherbear Wrote:

(01-10-2016, 06:08 AM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not trying to start a vs debate, the info you provided makes great sense to me @Polar. 
It's always good to look at things from a morphological perspective and reason as to why they are how they are.

That being said, the reason why I may lean a bit towards the polar bear is due to its 100% predatory nature. He seems to be more equipped to kill compared to the grizzly which is also equipped for the job but not quite as much as the polar bear in terms of claws and canines.

Just my opinion of course

The claws of a grizzly are strong for digging and do considerable damage in a fight. The shorter claws of the polar bear are more deeply hooked so that it can grasp prey cat-like. Therefore, in the claw department, imo equal. As for the jaws, the polar bear has longer canines and teeth better suited for tearing flesh. However, his diet is well over 90% soft blubber and as bears go his bite force is not so great. The grizzly has a powerful bite; according to Casey Anderson, producing enough force to crush a bowling ball. However, his molars are designed for crushing vegetation. Therefore imo their jaws rank equal. 
So, who might win in a face-off between a Kodiak bear and a polar bear? I don't care. As I stated, each is the ruler of his own realm.   

blubber may be "soft" but it is jam packed. It takes extremely sharp and powerful claws and teeth to rip through. The hide of walrus are notoriously tough.

Like I stated, polar bears weapons are designed for one thing only.... Killing

Compared to a grizzly or Kodiak which have multiple uses. Digging, chewing and yes.. Killing as well. Just not as adapted to the trait as a polar. So when I compare two similarly sized animals, I lean towards the one with the better adaption for killing if that is what we're talking about of course.

But all that being said, Nothing is set in stone and I wouldn't be surprised if one or the other won or lost in a fight. Reply