|
Girth Comparaison of Animals
|
Pound-for-pound, among bears, only the giant panda has a stronger bite than the little sun bear.
 (03-28-2018, 04:06 PM)brotherbear Wrote:(03-28-2018, 03:33 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Ok @ Ok @ I watch grizlly is build more bulk pound per pound than polar Alaskan grizzly is king of grizzly in grizzly subspesies 
Ok... I just found out that Giant Pandas can have a Bite Force Quotient (animal's bite-force in Newtons divided by its body mass in kilograms) of 292!
To put that into perspective;
 *This image is copyright of its original author Thank you @ (03-24-2018, 05:12 AM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Tiger have more muscle than bear..so in same size tiger is more strong than brown/grizly bear? This topic was once dissected in the old ( now extinct ) Animal vs Animal forum. There is a lot more involved in strength than merely muscle-mass. The skeleton ( frame-work ) and the build also apply. It is known that generally, a short stocky man is stronger than a taller slender man even though the taller man may have greater muscle mass. I am not the right person to carry this topic any distance as I haven't the formal education, especially where it touches upon the "medical field."
So, in terms of bite-force, how does the giant panda compare with the jaguar? - curious.
 (03-28-2018, 02:19 PM)Rishi Wrote:(03-28-2018, 12:57 PM)P.T.Sondaica Wrote: Polar say to me @Rishi Pound-for-pound, tigers definitely have a stronger canine bite than almost all bears (except panda and maybe Agriotherium?). (03-28-2018, 04:28 PM)Rishi Wrote: Ok... I just found out that Giant Pandas can have a Bite Force Quotient (animal's bite-force in Newtons divided by its body mass in kilograms) of 292! This screenshot right here most certainly suggests that animals could not be biting as hard as they can. A 292 vs 151.4 BFQ, and the latter is heavier??? 
In regards to a stocky shorter man being stronger than a taller slender man, that assumption isn’t correct. Strength isn’t something you can determine cut and dry. There will be aspects of strength that will favor either example depending on the event a long with many other factors.
(03-29-2018, 06:22 AM)Pckts Wrote: In regards to a stocky shorter man being stronger than a taller slender man, that assumption isn’t correct. Strength isn’t something you can determine cut and dry. There will be aspects of strength that will favor either example depending on the event a long with many other factors. Generally speaking, meaning most often, the stocky man is stronger than the slender man. Obviously, I'm not referring to a short fat man but rather to that barrel-chested guy that a Hollywood scout would choose to portray a thug.
Again this isn’t the case if you’re comparing apples to apples. A stocky short man is not stronger than a slender tall man if their weight is the same. Strength is broken down into many categories, there are benefits and advantages to being short and stocky for some events and detriments for others.
Jon Jones fights at 205lbs and he is very slender and tall, he has manhandled many men who were stocky and shorter, even taking down and dominating arguably the strongest man in the division, Daniel Cormier, an Olympic medalist. I can find you examples like that in any field, strength isn’t cut and dry like you think.
And so were many fighters he’s beaten (Belfort and machida) off the top of my head. Depending on the steroid, your strength isn’t what increases, it’s your ability to recover which allow you to perform longer at a higher output. I don’t condone it but PEDs and combat sports have always gone hand and hand.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |