|
Question for Peter
|
Two men stand face-to-face in the wrestling ring. Both men stand six feet tall. Both men are powerfully-built athletes. One man weighs 200 pounds. The other weighs 300 pounds. Which wrestler would you place a bet on? [img]images/smilies/cool.gif[/img]
But, you are correct Pockts when you say they are built different; the grizzly is built more robust.
OK, the 6 foot tall 200 pound wrestler is seeking a shorter adversary - I'm finished now pockets. You can now twist the truth and explain how the tiger is the best and greatest in every respect with any living creature. If I had chosen the eagle as my champion, then I'm sure that the tiger could fly higher and faster. Have fun.
 (04-07-2015, 04:13 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Two men stand face-to-face in the wrestling ring. Both men stand six feet tall. Both men are powerfully-built athletes. One man weighs 200 pounds. The other weighs 300 pounds. Which wrestler would you place a bet on? [img]images/smilies/cool.gif[/img]And yet you still don't get it. Its pretty sad that you resort to this and the non sense above. I love how you resort to my "love for the tiger, and tiger is unbeatable" and blah blah blah, yet I am speaking about anatomy and morphology and you are comparing wrestlers with out even using a correct comparision. So once again, using your nonsensical logic, Two men stand in the ring, One man is 5'10'' tall (The Bear) one man is 6'6'' tall (The Tiger)" the bear" is 220lbs and the "tiger" is 220lbs which is stronger? That is how you present the question, hence Morphological differences [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img] Now Muscle Distribution A "bear" aka "5'10'' man" that is 220 lbs who carries more fat vs a 6'6'' Tall 220lb man that carries relatively no fat how will we determine their strength? So how do you determine it? LB for LB What does that mean? It means if both weighed the same weight, what would their maximum strength be? Considering I have seen both bears and tigers at the similar size use their strength, I think a bear is not as strong at similar weights. A bear with a significant weight advantage will be stronger. Tigers are not as large as bears, so overall, they are not as strong. Which of course, I have said a million times. What you are saying is "a bear is fatter aka robust, so hes stronger" lb for lb. Which of course is false, its like saying a 400lb man is stronger than a 360lb silver back. So like I stated from the beginning, lb for lb there is no way to know, max weights the bear. 
Hold, Hold.... This debate is not maintaining all the rules. Respect to the opponent is fading away. I suggest to stop if you can not control your wordings.
(04-07-2015, 09:52 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: Hold, Hold.... This debate is not maintaining all the rules. Respect to the opponent is fading away. I suggest to stop if you can not control your wordings. I'm not the one saying this nonsense over and over again Bear- "OK, the 6 foot tall 200 pound wrestler is seeking a shorter adversary - I'm finished now pockets. You can now twist the truth and explain how the tiger is the best and greatest in every respect with any living creature. If I had chosen the eagle as my champion, then I'm sure that the tiger could fly higher and faster. Have fun. " But either way Sanjay, you're correct. I'm done with this "debate" any way. It's beating a dead horse at this point, on to a more productive discussion. 
Here is my opinion. I realize it was not requested.
Tigers aren't all that interested on fighting.... unless of course it is for mating rights with another tiger etc. Like Peter said, if an interaction (attempt at predation or usurping a food source) goes bad... the tiger might just take off and look for something easier. If that is losing, then I would imagine the tiger often times loses. With that being said, I also suspect that with the proper element of surprise... a tiger can predate a pretty good sized bear.
Siegfried, I was not talking about fighting or predation. I was trying to explain to pckts that if you compare a tiger with a grizzly, both being healthy mature males, at height and length parity ( height and length in union ) then the grizzly will prove to be the more robust of the two. The Amur tiger and the Ussuri brown bear are very near size parity in this respect.
To compare them at weight parity, then you have a smaller bear compared to a larger tiger, proving nothing. It is about species vs species; the more robust of the two is the heavier of the two. Quite simple, is it not?
This might only make things worse.
http://the-difference-between.com/robust/strength  (04-07-2015, 09:52 PM)'sanjay' Wrote: Hold, Hold.... This debate is not maintaining all the rules. Respect to the opponent is fading away. I suggest to stop if you can not control your wordings.Somehow, this "debate" of tiger-vs-bear and the incesant comparison with the "human-fighters" remember me this meme:  *This image is copyright of its original author Or even this:  *This image is copyright of its original author This is how a simple "conversation" can became in to a fantastic loose of time. Just to cut the tension, take a break and laugh a little. Have a nice day.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Well then, perhaps robust is the wrong word; stocky ( heavy build; short and thickest).
I strongly believe that my point is valid. If I wanted to discuss a face-off against a grizzly and a tiger so as to discuss the one who is the more capable fighter, then I might suggest comparing them considering height, length, girth, weight etc, and thus talk about a fight at relatively equal size. In this respect, the tiger would have a small advantage in length and bipedal height, while the grizzly would have a small weight advantage. I would give them each a 50% here ( opinion ).
But, when comparing two animals of different species in a contest of strength, then they should be compared in relatively body length and shoulder height parity. I agree with pckts that the bear is built differently; my point exactly. The grizzly is built *stockier than the tiger. The tiger is strong, I have never dinied this. But, he is a stealth hunter and designed in that direction. At size parity in regards to height and length, the grizzly is the stronger of the two in over-all physical strength. Of course, one can easily down-size the bear until the tiger is the stronger of the two. Also ( a silly arguement ) if I were to compare an elepant with a ant in a debate about strength, ( as suggested by pckts ) I would compare them at equal length and height ( in union ). Just making my point clear. Should pcks wish to futher argue, I will simply let it go. 
Robusticity taken as a factor related to dimensions (length, height, etc) is much easier to assess and apply. Bones for example, a 400 mm bear bone is thicker than a cat bone of similar length. From that, the bear bone can take more stress, thus it can hold more muscle, thus it is heavier, in which it'd be stronger per unit length of the limb.
Pound for pound strength is beyond bone dimensions or density in my opinion. Maybe we could look at very detailed sections, such as intercondylar notches and the like, but even then, we're limited. Normally, an difference in a bone, say density or width, will translate as extra mass, so pound for pound assessment is impossible. Maybe looking at muscle themselves could give a better pound for pound comparison, but bones won't give those detailed hints. Pound for pound comparison is thus ignored in biology more often than not, as there is not a sure-fire method to measure that. Pound for pound strength disparities do exist in a way, as for example, 175 lb Sergey Kovalev vs. 175 lbs Nathan Cleverly, the former has sledgehammers for hands while the latter is relatively light fisted. Maybe some individuals have the mass focused on the certain areas, making that aspect stronger, but others weaker, such as the boxer analogy. As a whole, working off the laws of physics, if one were to sum up the strength processes of each and every sector of anatomy (near impossible to actually do), pound for pound differences would be nil. Mass is power, and its hard to find a situation where more strength in a sector of the body is not linked to more mass in some way. (04-13-2015, 11:11 PM)'tigerluver' Wrote: Robusticity taken as a factor related to dimensions (length, height, etc) is much easier to assess and apply. Bones for example, a 400 mm bear bone is thicker than a cat bone of similar length. From that, the bear bone can take more stress, thus it can hold more muscle, thus it is heavier, in which it'd be stronger per unit length of the limb. Leverage created off angles of the body is also going to be a determining factor of Lb for Lb strength, Depending on the action of course. Example: A shorter limbed man will bench press more than a longer limb person on average since the weight travels a shorter distance. This of course can change of the longer liimbed man has a compact limb proportion and a taller man will be able to sled push or drag more weight at a higher speed since their steps are further apart and their able to leverage their body and angle it to create more distance from the weight and get it moving faster. But reverse examples can be given, so its always impossible to try and create a rule off of morphology. In regards to Bone Density, some examples can be given to disagree with that assessment as well. For Example, Birds, their bones are extremely light, the construction of their bones is actually crossed on the inside but they can withstand for more weight per square inch than bones that are completely filled. Another example is a smaller bone creates room for agility with muscle mass. Example here is a Collar bone on a tiger, even compared to a Lion, its extremely small but their chest is very massive but also they are able to generate flexibility and speed with large muscles that would normally be big and bulky if they had large bones attached as well. Morphology is an interesting thing to look into, even on human beings who live in similar settings, their body morphology can be extremely different.
The former examples are of components, and like I said earlier, there are indeed differences in component pound for pound ability.
For birds, they may be more densely boned than bats of similar morphology. http://www.asknature.org/strategy/472817...S1hzxz3-iw Bird bones are hollower, but the material itself denser, compensating for strength. Of course, birds are still quite weak compared to mammals. Most of your insectivores and herbivore species, parrots for example, are very weak. From personal experience, they can't lift more than 15% of their weight with their beak/neck. I'd guess birds of prey would be the exception though. The best predictor of strength is bone mineral density from my findings, it's just been ignored for the most part. Tiger bones are denser than other cats, and thus we see the odd bone width - in flesh diameters. From the skull bone densities I have gathered, bears outdo the big cats, and the tigers (especially island forms) outdo other big cats. In flesh robusticity seems to correlate well with skull bone density.
@tigerluver
Like you said, Birds of prey are extremely strong lb for lb, its wonder what makes them so strong compared to other bird species. In terms of Flesh Robusticity, I'm not sure exactly what you mean? Are you strictly determining width on the limb? I think muscle % should be one factor and fat % should be another. Then combined as well, since one is a insulating purpose and the other is a physical activity purpose. Bears for instance, I would be interested to know the difference between Polar bears v. Grizzlies? In terms of fat % to muscle %. When using your boxing reference, knock out power of fighters of the same weight has tons of factors to try and say why or why not somebody is a more profficient knockout artist. Technique, timing, accuracy and the opponent are all going to play huge roles in what makes somebody a more proficient KO artist. Thats why I liked the Jon Jones reference compared to Daniel Cormier, both weighed in the same, cormier was an Olympic medalists in Freestyle Wrestling and a power house stocky guy, but jon was able to nullify what was thought by many to be a strength advantage and even appeared to be the stronger of the two. He has about 8'' of height on cormier and was able to create leverage by separating his hips from cormier and forcing his will a bit more. The reason I used this is because I thought it would be very similar to a Bear vs Tiger lb for lb discussion. Tigers being the same weight as a bear would be able to create this distance (apparently) with their longer body type and use the leverage factor to help even out a more bulky animal. Leverage increases the force gained by certain levers and I think there is a benefit to being longer when tackling large prey that may allow big cats to tackle large prey with relative ease compared to a benefit to being stocky when needing to put on mass. But oddly enough when looking at the yellowstone bear weights, the longest bear was 241cm and 300kg and 113cm shoulder height (I believe) which is actually much longer than most tigers and not to much heavier. Madla would actually probably be the same weight as the bear if using that length, but for the most part the bear is the shorter animal with the higher weight. Shoulder height seems to be similar but with a more curved spine they give two different lengths to the bear, TL body length and Curved body length. The last thing that would come into play would be fat compared to muscle mass, but I was unable to find anything on what % of BF a bear carries compared to a big cat. But it would obviously be more with a bear (for certain reasons) , but my guess is bone density needs to be higher to carry the combined weight of muscle and fat. Its very interesting to think about, is there a difference in bone density or muscle distribution between a 500lb Cape buffalo and lion? Or Gaur and Tiger? '@ " I strongly believe that my point is valid. If I wanted to discuss a face-off against a grizzly and a tiger so as to discuss the one who is the more capable fighter, then I might suggest comparing them considering height, length, girth, weight etc, and thus talk about a fight at relatively equal size. In this respect, the tiger would have a small advantage in length and bipedal height, while the grizzly would have a small weight advantage. I would give them each a 50% here ( opinion ). But, when comparing two animals of different species in a contest of strength, then they should be compared in relatively body length and shoulder height parity. I agree with pckts that the bear is built differently; my point exactly. The grizzly is built *stockier than the tiger. The tiger is strong, I have never dinied this. But, he is a stealth hunter and designed in that direction. At size parity in regards to height and length, the grizzly is the stronger of the two in over-all physical strength. Of course, one can easily down-size the bear until the tiger is the stronger of the two. Also ( a silly arguement ) if I were to compare an elepant with a ant in a debate about strength, ( as suggested by pckts ) I would compare them at equal length and height ( in union ). Just making my point clear. Should pcks wish to futher argue, I will simply let it go. " "Also ( a silly arguement ) if I were to compare an elepant with a ant in a debate about strength, ( as suggested by pckts ) I would compare them at equal length and height ( in union )." You would compare their Body weight to the amount they are capable of lifting, length and height are different because of morphology. "The term "strongest animal" can be misleading, but most often it refers to how much an animal can lift relative to its own weight. It was thought that the rhinoceros beetle was the world's strongest by this standard, capable of lifting 850 times its own weight. This is comparable to a 150 lb (68 kg) human lifting a 67 ton (about 60.78 metric tons) Abrams tank. Some of the largest rhinoceros beetles weigh 4.23 ounces (120 grams), making them capable of carrying about 220 lbs (100 kg). This means that a strong rhinoceros beetle would be capable of carrying a heavy man.In 2007, Michael Heethoff and Lars Koerner measured the strength of a tropical mite, Archegozetes longisetosus, finding it has a pull force equal to 1,150 times its own weight, five times more than expected for an organism of its size (1 mm, 100 µg). As this study was the first to measure microarthropod claw forces, there are probably many other mites who might compete for the title of strongest. To put this strength in human terms, this would be like a 150 lb (68 kg) human lifting an 86 ton (78 metric ton) tank, or an elephant with a tower of 1,150 elephants on its" http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-stro...youknowout |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |