|
Girth Comparaison of Animals
|
 (04-04-2018, 04:26 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Alright. I found a fair comparison. At head and body length parity. Of course, if you ( pckts ) would rather the tiger win this contest, you can always compare with a smaller bear. May I suggest a marsican brown bear or a Himalayan brown bear - measuring about five feet long. 'Nuff said.Heavier bear = Larger Chest girth... Bear at equal lengths and taller shoulder height will have a larger chest grith Bear at equal weight will have a smaller chest girth Example Below:  *This image is copyright of its original author Vs  *This image is copyright of its original author 264kg Bear averages 137cm Chest vs 261kg Tiger at 140cm chest Both are at equal body length 196 v 197 (depending on the means of measuring the bear could be shorter or the tiger could be, or both) But the bear will most likely have a higher shoulder height Using that same comparison with Bengal Tigers as well..  *This image is copyright of its original author Bengals average 190 HBL and 130 Chest girth and shoulder height of 100 at BW average of 204kg vs Bears Average 196 HBL and 137 Chest Girth and Shoulder height of 115 at BW average of 264kg Once again, lb for lb, the tiger is actually going to have the larger chest, neck and limbs most likely. inch for inch the bear is going to be the heavier individual, larger chest and taller shoulder. Bengals close the gap though and even at inch for inch they are near the same chest girth since their HBL average is actually less than the bears used which was surprising to me. You choosing to favor the Inch for Inch comparison is your choice, it slightly favors the bear but not much to be honest, While I prefer the lb for lb measuring option which favors the Tiger and in my opinion is a correct format when comparing two similar species with different skeletal structures and body morphology. Lastly I'll say this, all Cats and Bears come in many sizes, using averages and numerical data only shows an extremely small % and it's nice for comparisons like this but in the real world there is no such thing as an "average" Cat or Bear. They all come in many shapes and sizes, you can find outliers for either species that the other would not be able to meet. 
Post #105: Tiger weight 190 kg ( 418.88 lbs ) and chest girth 119 cm ( 46.85 inches ). / Grizzly weight 193.3 kg ( 426.15 lbs ) and chest girth 130.5 cm ( 51.38 inches ).
However, measuring chest girth at weight-parity is simply a waste of time accomplishing nothing.
Post #105 is the table With Amurs and bears, neither has individual weights, only averages with the bear averaging 30kg more in the early years, not just the later years and the larger tigers only number 10 individuals compared the 33 individuals of the larger bears.
Both count towards averages
Whatever. Weighing them at weight-parity for comparing chest girth proves nothing anyway. All you're doing is downsizing the bear to probably at least a foot shorter than the tiger. If you downsize enough, then you can claim that tigers have greater chest girth than grizzlies. As I advised in an earlier post; go with a marsican brown bear or a Himalayan brown bear. This way I can guarantee you success. Good luck.
Yes bear, I’m well aware of your feelings on weight parity compared to length parity, I certainly dont share your opionion and the discussion was based off two equal weighing creatures, between polar and myself.
Polar; at head/body length parity, the grizzly is heavier due to the fact that he has the greater girth. It makes no sense to remove the bear's girth advantage to compare girth. Ridiculous to the extreme. We could use polar bears but you would have to find yourself a nine or ten-foot-long tiger.
Comparing Bengal tiger ( head-and-body length 6 feet 3 inches ) to Yellowstone grizzly ( head-and-body length 5 feet 5 inches ).
Bengal tiger - Chest girth = 4 feet 3 inches / Shoulder height = 3 feet 3 inches / Weight = 489 pounds. Yellowstone grizzly - Chest girth = 4 feet 3 inches / Shoulder height = 3 feet 1 inch / Weight = 426 pounds. *Note: With a head-and-body length advantage of 10 inches, the tiger and the grizzly are equal in chest girth while the tiger has a weight advantage of 63 pounds.  (04-03-2018, 11:24 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Aku tidak menelepon siapa pun bodoh; hanya ide. The non-memahami akal sehat dan alasan daripadanya. (04-07-2018, 10:14 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Membandingkan harimau Bengal (panjang kepala-dan-tubuh 6 kaki 3 inci) ke Yellowstone grizzly (panjang kepala-dan-tubuh 5 kaki 5 inci). @Pckts i think tiger and bear have same girth chest size
..... i think tiger and bear have same girth chest size.
*Not at equal bipedal height...nor equal head-and-body length.  *This image is copyright of its original author
 (04-07-2018, 10:14 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Comparing Bengal tiger ( head-and-body length 6 feet 3 inches ) to Yellowstone grizzly ( head-and-body length 5 feet 5 inches ). With data given by both @ (04-05-2018, 07:14 PM)Pckts Wrote: Yes bear, I’m well aware of your feelings on weight parity compared to length parity, I certainly dont share your opionion and the discussion was based off two equal weighing creatures, between polar and myself. (04-09-2018, 01:19 AM)Polar Wrote:(04-07-2018, 10:14 PM)brotherbear Wrote: Comparing Bengal tiger ( head-and-body length 6 feet 3 inches ) to Yellowstone grizzly ( head-and-body length 5 feet 5 inches ). Yes Polar, the grizzly weighs less; its a bigger tiger... by nearly a foot. At equal bipedal height or head-and-body-length; the grizzly has the greater girth. Look at above posts with eyes open - examples shown.
Heavier bear = Larger Chest girth...
Bear at equal lengths and taller shoulder height will have a larger chest grith Bear at equal weight will have a smaller chest girth *Grizzly at equal length ( this from pckts ) will have a larger chest girth... and this is the ONLY fair comparison. The reason that the bear is heavier at length-parity is because he has the greater girth. To compare at weight-parity is simply removing the bear's girth advantage; and thus the comparison is void ( nullified ). It makes no sense what-so-ever to remove the bear's girth so as to compare girth. Ridiculous to the ultimate extreme.
Post #106 by pckts: Ussuri brown bear chest girth range: 121 cm to 154 cm.
One of the heaviest tigers: chest girth: 140 cm. Tiger chest girth: 140 cm ( 4 feet 7 inches ) ... Grizzly chest girth: 154 cm ( 5 feet ).
At head-and-body-length parity, the grizzly has a greater girth in neck and chest than tiger. Therefore, the grizzly has the tiger beat in the neck and chest girth comparison - period.
 *This image is copyright of its original author
Comparing Bengal tiger ( head-and-body length 6 feet 3 inches ) to Yellowstone grizzly ( head-and-body length 5 feet 5 inches ).
Bengal tiger - Chest girth = 4 feet 3 inches / Shoulder height = 3 feet 3 inches / Weight = 489 pounds. Yellowstone grizzly - Chest girth = 4 feet 3 inches / Shoulder height = 3 feet 1 inch / Weight = 426 pounds. *Note: With a head-and-body length advantage of 10 inches, the tiger and the grizzly are equal in chest girth while the tiger has a weight advantage of 63 pounds. So, even with the Bengal tiger a bit heavier, their chest girth is equal. Note also, the Bengal is the brawniest of the tigers while the Yellowstone grizzly is not the biggest or strongest brown bear. Note also, this is not conclusive as to have an accurate comparison of girth, the two animals should be of equal head-and-body-length. At equal length, the grizzly wins hands down. _'Nuff said, I'm done. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |