Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Pckts]

(10-07-2022, 11:49 AM)LonePredator Wrote:

(10-07-2022, 09:58 AM)Pckts Wrote:

(10-07-2022, 05:12 AM)LonePredator Wrote: A bodylength of 208cm with one of the bulkiest frames and yet a weight of just 250kg in his prime? No way. That's very unlikely.

We can do some simple isometric calculations with the 208cm bodylength to estimate his prime weight (I'm using bodylength because it has the best correlation with weight and also because Wagdoh's chest girth would have shrunk in old age)

The isometric calculation gives a weight of 288kg using a 190cm, 220kg Tiger as surrogate and 278kg using a 190cm, 212kg Tiger as surrogate. And even if I make the most strict calculation with a 190cm, 200kg Tiger (which should cause an underestimation), it still gives 262kg.

So logically speaking, from the body length given in this document, I don't think there's any way his prime weight could be as low as 250kg. That's just too low UNLESS THE LENGTH MENTIONED WAS TAKEN OVER THE CURVES (which is also very unlikely).

Your claim is extremely flawed.
You have numerous Tigers who are longer, taller and thicker with weights of 230kgs or less.

The most unbelievable thing about your claim is that you seem to be implying that a Tiger can be longer, taller and thicker than another Tiger but still weigh less. That’s what you are implying, aren’t you??

So basically you are implying that one Tiger can have wayy higher volume than another Tiger but still weigh less than the other Tiger? Then for your information, what you are implying is simply *impossible*.

You don’t even need any complex knowledge of physics or biology to realise this. All Tigers are made of flesh and blood and bones. It’s not like one Tiger is made of metal and the other is made of flesh. All Tigers are basically made up of the same matter.

Things such as Body composition and bone density (basically BMI) can make minimal differences but they are negligible and not nearly enough to make up for huge volume differences between the two specimens unless the Tiger is extremely fat or emaciated.

And even then BMI in Tigers probably doesn’t even vary as much as it does in humans. Do you think it’s possible for a man who is 6’3” and has the same physique as Brock Lesnar to weigh 70kg?? No, it’s not possible. It defies all science.

To conclude: What you are describing is simply impossible according to science.

And this is not the first time you are making unscientific claims. You have once previously claimed that Jaguars are ‘denser’ than Tigers just because they have shorter legs.

You should think about what you are speaking because your claims are just defying all proven science.

What are you talking about?

You claimed at his body length he’d be a minimum of 250kg or more. You have numerous cats who are longer than him who weighed 230kg or less. These cats  were also thicker in the chest and/or taller in the shoulder. Any additional weight for your interpretation of “girth” hold no water since that’s a personal opinion and nothing to do with verifiable proof.

Obviously you don’t understand how to correctly use your equation or likes been proven many times before, it’s not valid for determining big cat size. Reply