|
Girth Comparaison of Animals
|
 (03-31-2018, 02:55 AM)Pckts Wrote:(03-31-2018, 02:20 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar says: Point is that at weight parity, tigers are stronger in some aspects and bears too. Although bears seem to be stronger pound-for-pound in most aspects (thicker core, back, legs, arms, neck, etc...), tigers have a few strength tricks up their sleeve. At 200-kilograms (about average for tiger and bear?), both would be similar at shoulder height (bear probably 1-2 inches taller on all fours, but insignificant), but the bear is a little shorter in head-body length, much more wider regarding shoulder-to-shoulder and neck circumference. Chest and arm circumference is bigger in bear too but not to the extent of its shoulders or neck.  (03-31-2018, 03:44 AM)Polar Wrote:(03-31-2018, 02:55 AM)Pckts Wrote:(03-31-2018, 02:20 AM)brotherbear Wrote: Polar says: Point is that at weight parity, tigers are stronger in some aspects and bears too. Although bears seem to be stronger pound-for-pound in most aspects (thicker core, back, legs, arms, neck, etc...), tigers have a few strength tricks up their sleeve. I'd be curious about their neck girths, midsection for sure but I'd think limb girth and neck girth would be close in 2 200kg specimens. I wonder about chest as well... May as well post @GuateGojira comparison here  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
No. First of all, by taller I am referring to bipedal height. Remember when there was all the hooplah about a tigress that killed a grizzly bigger than herself? As it turned out, the sub-adult bear was heavier than the tigress while she had a head-body length advantage of about 14 inches ( 35.56 cm ). A grizzly is broader, greater girth. Much thicker at the hips.
Quick Neck Girth Comparison
 *This image is copyright of its original author 32'' = 81 cm on overage  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author This is a very quick search, I'd have to dig around for Limb girth on Grizzlies but their Neck girth and Chest girth have significant overlap. (03-31-2018, 03:55 AM)brotherbear Wrote: No. First of all, by taller I am referring to bipedal height. Remember when there was all the hooplah about a tigress that killed a grizzly bigger than herself? As it turned out, the sub-adult bear was heavier than the tigress while she had a head-body length advantage of about 14 inches ( 35.56 cm ). A grizzly is broader, greater girth. Much thicker at the hips. Body length is going to determine bipedal height, they are one and the same, especially when a Tiger will have a flexible spine which will be able to make it stand even taller. When comparing both you should use HBL and Shoulder height, even then it will depend on measurement technique, if between the pegs its one thing but over the curves will add length to a Grizzly since they have their larger shoulder hump and a more rounded rear. In regards to "broader" if you look at chest girth, they are fairly close, correlation between body weight and chest girth seems to overlap significantly, I'd also venture to guess that limb girth will be close as well, I'd bet the Tiger could possibly be larger in that department, at least the forearms, the midsection *stomach area* and hindquarters I'd say the Bear for sure is thicker there but again, it's about comparing the overall weight distribution.
When you look at them from various angles, then you clearly see that a big cat cannot match a grizzly in girth of chest or neck.
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(03-31-2018, 04:10 AM)brotherbear Wrote: When you look at them from various angles, then you clearly see that a big cat cannot match a grizzly in girth of chest or neck. I hope we're past single images to try and make a point. I have seen Grizzlies (captive only) and Tigers/Lions (Wild and Captive) Big Cats certainly outsize the Bears I have seen but I know better than to think large grizzlies don't outsize large cats, Bears get 500kg or more right, unless you are comparing the same sized cats and bears, it's a moot point. A large bear should absolutely have a larger girth than a large cat, they are the larger animal. 
Absoluty i not say tiger not strong in some parts than bear..tiger is very strong animal and cannot compare To cormier and JJ Thats very different tiger and bear not in same genus and jj,cormier still homo sapien
I love tiger from i child Idk ome prts
But because i have Warning about Jone jones vs cormier(OOT because not animal discussion) from admin in inbox i will just reading this discussion
For new information..thankyou (03-31-2018, 04:36 AM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: But because i have Warning about Jone jones vs cormier(OOT because not animal discussion) from admin in inbox i will just reading this discussion Here is a good thread to discuss Human Strength and other sporting feats. https://wildfact.com/forum/topic-human-s...n+strength
Oh, I can remember so much hooblah and ranting about the size of the average mature grizzly boar. I have to agree with Big Bonns when he stated that there is no such animal. Each separate population of grizzlies are different because of different environments and food resources. The Canadian tundra, the Yukon, and the world-famous Yellowstone grizzlies are all comparatively small bears as grizzlies go. The grizzlies of Montana are larger than those of Yellowstone and those of British Columbia larger still. Perhaps the Russian black grizzly is the biggest of the inland variety,
Overall, bears have thicker upper arms, chests, maybe necks, and shoulders (and probably hind legs) than tigers. @Pckts data suggests otherwise for the neck, and I notice something strange in your second tableset; a 86.6cm x 50.9cm front paw for a cub??? Even a 1000-pound bear (any bear) doesn't have that paw size. Or am I misreading this?
Yellowstone: http://shaggygod.proboards.com/
www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_7/Blanchard_Vol_7.pdf The largest adult male measured 241 cm long (measure- ment A, Fig. 1), 117 cm at the shoulder ©, 95 cm around the neck (D), and had a hind foot pad 170 mm wide (K) and 216 mm long (L). The largest female was 193 cm long (A), 103 cm at the shoulder ©, 74 cm around the neck (D), and had a hind foot 135 mm wide (K) and 190 mm long (L). 241 cm = 7 feet 11 inches. 117 cm = 3 feet 10 inches. 95 cm = 37.4 inches. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 40 Guest(s) |