There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
Pckts says: ~~ once again we are talking about animals of the same size. No we're not. We're talking about grizzly bears and tigers. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but a tiger might weigh from 300 pounds to 700 pounds; a grizzly from 300 pounds to 1500 pounds.
Tigers, as are all pantherines, are specialized ambush predators, built for stealth, speed, and agility. Sure, a tiger is strong, but strength is secondary to a tiger's needs. The grizzly is built for brute strength, for digging into hard ground, for overturning heavy objects, and for tearing into trees and stumps for food.
You take a healthy male grizzly ( summer weight ) and compare him with a healthy male tiger at size parity in reference to height and length, and I would bet all I own down to my boxers that the bear is superior in over-all strength.
04-03-2015, 01:21 PM( This post was last modified: 04-03-2015, 02:13 PM by brotherbear )
Pckts says: ~~So you haven't seen the Raja video of him killing a Guar?
No offense but nothing you are saying has to do with strength. You are using examples of bears with out knowing any of their weights, weights of the objects they are moving etc. How am I going to see a Tiger push a dumpster?
It doesn't happen in the wild, they live in two different places where they will never run into these objects.
I have never seen a bear take down large prey with the ease of a tiger, I have seen a bear get in a long drawn out fight with a caribou and be pushed and pulled. I have seen a bear be pounded by domestic cattle and watch Raja kill 3 of them in seconds and they were larger than the cattle that attacked the bear, I have seen raja choke a much larger gaur that is larger than himself in 2 minutes with out being budged. These singular examples are pointless, they have no way of proving anything since the size of the bear or tiger or prey is unknown.
Tigers are notorious for dragging their kills for long periods of time. If you wan't me to find the many accounts of this, that is fine. They are not hard to find, but I know that you have already seen them. I have admitted from the beginning that the big cats are more capable hunters and killers than the grizzly. The tiger is a specialized ambush predator and has the tools of the trade. He has the stealth to sneak up on a gaur, the speed to launch an attack so quickly that the gaur is taken completely by surprise, the claws designed to hold onto his prey, the strength to pull it down, and the teeth and jaws perfectly designed for the slow kill.
When a grizzly kills a large herbivore, he must overpower it in a wrestling match without the use of "Velcro paws." More often than not, the grizzly meets his adversary head-on... face-to-face. He is very much dependant on brute strength and grappling ability.
04-04-2015, 01:10 AM( This post was last modified: 04-04-2015, 01:22 AM by Amnon242 )
Ofc in case of size parity (in reference to height and length) the bear is much heavier - much stronger. But I think that tiger still has a good chance to win on points. Another question is what are the chances of tiger to kill such a bear.
Sometimes when I see a fully grown male bear (in persona) I ask myself what would be the chances of a tiger to kill such an animal...and the answer is always the same: the bear is simply too big and strong. Thats it.
04-04-2015, 03:04 PM( This post was last modified: 04-04-2015, 03:04 PM by brotherbear )
Roflcopters asks: ~~Brotherbear, is there any source for that Mcdougal bear from Brooks? and is that Brooks fall from Katmai National Park? I don't have an answer for you. I really don't have any outlet to the latest finds or news concerning bears; wish I did. I simply read what books or material that I can locate. But, I am interested if anyone here can answer your question.
(04-03-2015, 03:20 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Pckts says: ~~ once again we are talking about animals of the same size. No we're not. We're talking about grizzly bears and tigers. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but a tiger might weigh from 300 pounds to 700 pounds; a grizzly from 300 pounds to 1500 pounds.
Tigers, as are all pantherines, are specialized ambush predators, built for stealth, speed, and agility. Sure, a tiger is strong, but strength is secondary to a tiger's needs. The grizzly is built for brute strength, for digging into hard ground, for overturning heavy objects, and for tearing into trees and stumps for food.
You take a healthy male grizzly ( summer weight ) and compare him with a healthy male tiger at size parity in reference to height and length, and I would bet all I own down to my boxers that the bear is superior in over-all strength.
"Tigers, as are all pantherines, are specialized ambush predators, built for stealth, speed, and agility. Sure, a tiger is strong, but strength is secondary to a tiger's needs"
This statement is based off what exactly?
You obviously are not basing it off of anatomical structure, muscle distribution or lb for lb strength. Like I have already stated, weight of the combatants is the only true measure of their strength. Tigers are built for speed, sure, but they are built for power, agility comes from power. To be that agile while being 500lbs takes extreme muscle mass and power. To be explosive and leap requires extreme strength, to pull down prey double your size, drag it through snow or high grass all require power. You try and categorize one above the other, and that is wrong. You can't give me an example of a bear at the same weight downing anything a tiger at that weight couldn't do.
I can easily flip the script and say this, show me a bear jumping the height of a elephant at 350lbs out of tall grass like the tigress in Kaziranga.
Show me a Bear pulling down prey double its weight with ease. etc...
This debate is purely skeptical, especially if you are unwilling to compare body morphology at equal weights.
Pckts says: ~~This debate is purely skeptical, especially if you are unwilling to compare body morphology at equal weights.
At size parity in relation to height and length, the grizzly outweighs the tiger easily by 100+ pounds. This is because the grizzly is the more robust of the two - that is your fair comparison.
The tiger is faster and more agile because he is more flexable. He has to be flexable to make those astounding leaps. This flexibilty was achieved by the sacrifice of brute strength. The barren ground grizzly is known to hunt and kill musk ox better than double his own weight. A grizzly will not only drag a heavy carcass, but can dig a hole and bury it. I will always readily admit to those abilities where the tiger is superior to the grizzly. The tiger has a stronger bite and more impressive and deadlier teeth. The tiger is faster, quicker, and a much better jumper. The tiger is by far the better hunter and killer and is more feared by both man and beast than the grizzly. In fact, I believe that at weight parity, the tiger will most often defeat the grizzly in a face-off.
However, it appears that for you, the tiger absolutely has to be the best at everything. give it a rest.
04-05-2015, 10:05 PM( This post was last modified: 04-05-2015, 10:19 PM by Pckts )
Why do you continue to say "size parity" when they are physical built in completely different ways.
A bear and tiger at the same "size" would mean a tiger is shorter since bears are not as long. In turn meaning the tiger is not full grown. 2ndly, bears are larger animals, they have more fat and they are larger in general. But once again, at the same weight their is no way to know which is stronger.
"Flexibility"- if I am going to describe flexibility it has nothing to do with power, it allows a cat to stretch in different directions quickly or contort its body in awkward angles. Like a person doing the splits, but it has nothing to do with power. When a tiger leaps, its kinetic energy that begins with its powerful rear section. The explosion that starts there ends with the leap and is only capable because of the power generated to do so.
So, once again, I am in no way saying a tiger is stronger than a bear, but that is becasue a bear is larger. Point blank....
A tiger at 500lbs and a bear at 500lbs there is no way to say who is stronger. I would even lean towards a tiger/Big Cat because of their morphology & muscle distribution, but that is also speculative.
"It appears that for you the bear is stronger than anything, give it a rest." [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img]
(You see how that works, no need to go there bear. I am being respectful and giving you valid reasoning)
Offer up actual meaningful evidence and you wont need to say crap like that. ^^
04-05-2015, 11:38 PM( This post was last modified: 04-05-2015, 11:40 PM by brotherbear )
Two men stand face-to-face in the wrestling ring. Both men are athletes. Each of these men stands 6 feet tall. The man in the red trunks weighs 150 pounds. The man in the blue trunks weighs 250 pounds. The man in the blue trunks is obviously the more robust of the two, and very likely the stronger of these two men.
When you are comparing two different species of Carnivora, and wish to decide which is the stronger of the two, you should compare them at length and height parity ( length and height in union ) to determine which species is the more robust. If you compare them at weight parity, then you are proving nothing at all.
Pckts, try to soak this in and make an attempt at comprehending. One more thing, my guess is that at weight parity, the smaller bear is probably about equal in overall strength with the larger tiger.
04-06-2015, 04:02 AM( This post was last modified: 04-06-2015, 11:55 AM by peter )
And the winner is Miss Venezuela.
I assumed it was quite clear by now that the problem with most assessments on size is very limited sample size and, as a result, doubtful conclusions at best, but apparently I was wrong. For this reason, I propose to go over the details one more time.
1 - Is there a table that offers an overview of wild big cats size? Length, weight, skull and other dimensions? One based on large samples? After a few hundred years of research only? No.
2 - Is there a table on wild male Amur tigers then? Yes. There is the table published in 2005 by, amongst others, Kerley. Males averaged 294 cm. in total length, 195 cm. in head and body and 176 kg. Reliable? Yes regarding methods used and accuracy and no regarding sample size and selection. Meaning the table has 3-year old males and malnourished tigers. And no big male tigers. The reason is some of these apparently are able to destroy the Aldrich footsnare.
Anything known on these 'big' male tigers escaping the Aldrich footsnares? Yes. They weighed and measured about a dozen male tigers after the table was published. Most of them were close to 200 kg. The heaviest, a young adult, was 212 kg. I don't doubt some males are heavier, but it isn't likely these large tigers will be captured with the Aldrich footsnare.
So what to say in the end? My guess is mature males would be 195-200 cm. in head and body in a straight line and about 190-200 kg. Anything known on skull size? No. Zilch. Based on the captive skulls I measured, my guess for now would be just over 14 inches, maybe a bit longer. Let's settle for 360,00-370,00 mm. for now.
3 - Is there a table on wild male Ussuri brown bears? Yes. We have Kucerenko's table. His 10 males averaged 196 cm. in head and body and 264 kg. Was length measured in a straight line? No. So what would be the length of an average adult male 'between pegs'? Judging from a Yellowstone male brown bear table I saw, my guess is 196 cm. 'over curves' equals 160-165 cm. 'between pegs'. What about the weight? According to Kucerenko, the average was 264 kg. But the range was 260-320 kg. (...). A bit strange, many agreed. I'm one of them. The table probably is flawed.
So what would be the real weight? Last year, three adult males were captured and weighed. They averaged 193,3 kg. in autumn (range 165-235 kg.). Quite a difference. What would be the correct average, 264 or 193? I don't know, but my guess is 193 is more reliable, because the researchers also collected info on the age of the bears. Furthermore, we know they were weighed in autumn, when bears are heavier than in other seasons. I don't think 2014 was a bad year for bears. Should we dismiss 264 then? No. Kucerenko also was a biologist. Maybe his table had large brown bears weighed in autumn. I don't know.
My proposal is to take the average of both for now. This would result in 193,3 + 264 = 457,3 : 2 = 228,65 kg. in autumn. Assuming an average male would lose 25% in hibernation, the average minimum would be 171,45 kg. in early spring. If we take 228,65 + 171,45, we get to 400,10 or about 200 kg. for a year-round average (range 170-230).
The problem is there's no such thing as an 'average' for bears. You now know why. If we add individual variation is significant (some males apparently reach 700 pounds and over in autumn), we get to to a big question mark. As we want to get to a kind of comparison with male tigers, I propose to take 160-165 cm. for head and body in a straight line and 170-230 kg. for weight, with 200 kg. as a year-round average for an average adult male.
But 200 is way lower than 264, isn't? Yes. But Kucerenko also said brown bear females averaged 189 kg., whereas a more recent table said 145 kg. is the correct answer. Maybe Kucerenko's table, as I proposed, had large individuals weighed in autumn.
Anything on skull length? Yes. There is Baryshnikov's table and it says 19 adult males averaged 407,00-408,00 mm. in greatest total length. Male bears also have 10-15% larger chests than male Amur tigers and the also are (relatively) taller.
4 - So what do we have for wild male Amur tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears? Adult animals only (6 years and over). We have a 195-200 cm. big cat of 190-200 kg. and a 162,5 cm. male brown bear just over 200 kg. most of the year. Let's say the bear is about 210-220 kg. as a working hypothesis. If we add individual and seasonal variation is much more pronounced in bears, the conclusion is brown bears are much more robust. In any season. If we add brown bears have longer skulls, body robustness becomes even more pronounced. Finally, there is no question extra-large male bears are heavier than extra-large male tigers. They're also relatively more numerous.
5 - What about the outcome of confrontations between wild male tigers and wild male Ussuri brown bears? My guess is extra-large brown bears are immune. In average animals, the statistics favour the bear as well. Finally, we have to add season, individuality and age (experience) as factors.
The statistics, therefore, clearly point towards an advantage of male bears. But male tigers are faster and more athletic and, as experienced hunters, also have the edge in killing. That's apart from extra-large and thick canines. Bears can take a lot of damage, but I wouldn't be prepared to test the amount of it in a bout with a male tiger if I was a bear. I also wouldn't want to risk a serious limb injury. Tigers are quite experienced with hamstrings. My conclusion would be a few rounds of sparring in some cases, but no all-out's.
Any confirmation regarding this hypothesis? Yes. Male tigers do not hunt male bears and male bears do not rob male tigers. There will no doubt be exceptions, but my guess is the general rule would hold. In difficult times, however, all-out's have occured. The usual victims are the desperate, the angry and the incapacitated. I know of two male Schatuns killed in winter. My guess is they were emaciated and desperate. The large old male killed in July 1943 met the largest male tiger I know of. Of the two adult male tigers killed, one was described as average or a bit below. The two young adult male tigers killed fought a significantly larger male bear and it apparently took quite a bit of time.
6 - Although brown bears, compared to other subspecies, seem to be in a different league, my guess is the pattern described will hold for all bears anywhere. Himalayan black bears can be large, especially in northern India. I've yet to read a report about a male killed by a male tiger. Sun bears have been killed in southeast Asia and Sumatra, but there are not that many reliable reports and my guess is it would take an experienced tiger to do it without injuries. Same for peninsular India. Most sloth bears killed were killed by specialists.
Amur tigers are the only ones who hunt bears (Himalayan and Ussuri bears) on a more or less regular basis. As a result of the skill needed and the risks involved, specialists developed. Most of these are males. There's no question they improve statistics, resulting in a slightly biased impression.
7 - I once took my time to get to a kind of table on the outcome of bouts between Amur tigers and Ussuri brown bears. Predation wasn't included and there also was not enough on gender and age to get to conclusions. Tigers won most fights, but the downgrading of brown bears that followed (referring to debates on different forums) was a result of incorrect assumptions and a clever use of conclusions. One should always remember that a tiger not interested in a fight, because he's faster and more athletic, can leave a fight at any time, whereas a bear can't. If a fight goes all the way, it means the tiger thinks he has a decent chance. In spite of that advantage, bears got quite close in the classified results. What I measured, therefore, was the outcome of fights fancied by tigers. The tigers were right, but the margins were limited. This means brown bears are great critters.
I've seen both in captivity and think it would take quite a tiger to beat a healthy male bear of similar weight in a fair scrap. There's plenty of evidence saying that significantly bigger bears, ambush or no ambush, are out of the equasion, but there's also some evidence suggesting a tiger is able to surprise a larger bear at times. But 'larger', in adult animals, wouldn't exceed 100-150 pounds.
Same for remarks of bear fans about tigers. Most of it is close to crap. In the end, the outcome of a serious fight between a tiger and a bear of similar weight is just as inpredictable as the outcome of a fight between a lion and a tiger of similar weight. One could say one species is larger than the other, but that would be a superfluous remark as it was about the outcome of a bout in the similar weight division.
Want to discuss bouts between large animals? There's no debate. Wild male brown bears can be as heavy as a decent freight train and even at that weight they are anything but clumsy. Some Kamsjatka adult males, anything but smallish, habitually hunt 1-4 year old youngsters of their own kind. Their rates are not that bad.
If bears would be as clumsy as many propose, why is it the ultimate hunter able to dig the horns of a big male wild buffalo in the ground when he breaks their neck (referring to Berg's observations in northeast India) isn't prepared to take on a nice juicy big male brown bear in Wild Russia in lean times?
In order to get to a conclusion, I propose to just take the word of those in the know in Russia. They agree brown bears win 'on points'. But a point is different from life or death and tigers and bears know it would take a lot of desperation or rage to find out what a point really means. A great topic for a forum, wouldn't you say?
04-06-2015, 01:13 PM( This post was last modified: 04-06-2015, 02:31 PM by brotherbear )
~~In order to get to a conclusion, I propose to just take the word of those in the know in Russia. They agree brown bears win 'on points'. But a point is different from life or death and tigers and bears know it would take a lot of desperation or rage to find out what a point really means. A great topic for a forum, wouldn't you say? So, most fights do not last until one or the other is killed. As you mentioned earlier, it is most often easier for the tiger than for the bear to pull out of a scrap and leave when he sees that the fight can have an uncertain ending. Therefore the bear wins in points. Very informative; thank you Peter.
...I decided to return and add; according to a chart on Grraahh's shaggygod forum, a male grizzly is not fully mature until age 9, and after this age continues growing. The big cats mature faster. Therefore, it seems reasonable that there is a larger percentage of juveniles and sub-adults among the brown bears than within a population of tigers. Also, when determining the "average size" of adult male brown bears, just what age is considered adult varies from person to person.
04-06-2015, 09:57 PM( This post was last modified: 04-06-2015, 10:08 PM by Pckts )
(04-05-2015, 11:38 PM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Two men stand face-to-face in the wrestling ring. Both men are athletes. Each of these men stands 6 feet tall. The man in the red trunks weighs 150 pounds. The man in the blue trunks weighs 250 pounds. The man in the blue trunks is obviously the more robust of the two, and very likely the stronger of these two men.
When you are comparing two different species of Carnivora, and wish to decide which is the stronger of the two, you should compare them at length and height parity ( length and height in union ) to determine which species is the more robust. If you compare them at weight parity, then you are proving nothing at all.
Pckts, try to soak this in and make an attempt at comprehending. One more thing, my guess is that at weight parity, the smaller bear is probably about equal in overall strength with the larger tiger.
Once again, this is not what we are talking about.
A bear is heavier at a smaller body length, but once again that is not apples to apples. Bears carry far more fat. Which of course effects weight, Tigers are once again, Longer and reach their maximum size with length.
So your pointless example of a 6' man at 150lbs and the other at 250lbs is not correct. Try to comprehend this, I will use your example to make it easier on you.
A tiger would be a 6'6'' man at 250lbs and a bear would be a 6' man at 250lbs, since of course we are speaking about weight parity!
Which would be stronger?
Impossible to say, and since you are trying to say a bear is stronger than a tiger you have no way to prove it. If you want to say a Heavier bear is stronger than a Lighter Tiger/Big Cat, that is completely different from what we are talking about. The only way to compare animals at different weights for lb for lb strength is to use their body weight against the weight they can lift, etc.
A bear being more compact and heavier at a smaller body size has nothing to do with strength compared to a tiger being longer and not quite as heavy. Another example is this, 5'10'' 600lb obese man is far weaker than a 5'10'' 180lb power lifter. That example you try to use over and over again is meaningless. The only way to compare strength is Lb for Lb when talking about different sized animals. And Lb for Lb aka 500lb Tiger or 500lb bear [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img] you have no clue which is stronger.
Using my Power lifter vs Obese man example a step further,
A power lifter is stronger because of the lifestyle he leads. He is continually pushing himself to grow stronger and increase his PR (personal record) constantly and the obese person who is the far heavier person could never come close to hitting the PL's "deadlift, Bench or Squat"
So looking at their Lifestyles, the bear spends an entire season sleeping, which gives the tiger an extra 2-4 months of "training time" a year as well as the harsher lifestyle of being a predator where they are fighting for a meals every other day while a bear is able to be omnivorous and pack on fat eating a far easier diet. A tiger can't survive and be obese, a bear needs to be fat to survive.
Pokcts... since you cannot comprehend... to compare two different species of the order Carnivora so as to determine which species is the strongest predator at equal size, you compare them at size parity in terms of height and length in union. The more robust of the two species will most likely be the heaviest. You will probably find that, at size parity as descibed, the tiger will weigh about two thirds the weight of the grizzly... ( yawn ).
04-07-2015, 02:00 AM( This post was last modified: 04-07-2015, 02:35 AM by Pckts )
(04-07-2015, 01:22 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: Pokcts... since you cannot comprehend... to compare two different species of the order Carnivora so as to determine which species is the strongest predator at equal size, you compare them at size parity in terms of height and length in union. The more robust of the two species will most likely be the heaviest. You will probably find that, at size parity as descibed, the tiger will weigh about two thirds the weight of the grizzly... ( yawn ).
Ya, " I can't comprehend" [img]images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]
I'll leave it at this:
"The expression describing an athlete as “pound-for-pound” the strongest, refers to the relative strength of that athlete. This tool allows coaches to compare strength levels for athletes of varying body weights. For example, a large athlete may be able to lift a much larger amount of weight than a smaller athlete. However, the smaller athlete may be lifting more weight relative to his or her body weight than the larger athlete. To help a coach figure this out, this tool divides the lifting total by the athlete’s body weight, resulting in a number that is easily comparable to other athletes regardless of their size.
To illustrate this further, consider an athlete weighing 250 lbs squatting 525 lbs compared to an athlete weighing 160 lbs squatting 400 lbs. The heavier athlete’s relative strength would calculate at 2.1, while the lighter athlete’s relative strength would equal 2.5. In this case, the lighter athlete is lifting more weight relative to his or her body weight than the larger athlete, even though he or she is able to lift 125 more pounds. In order for the larger athlete to achieve a relative strength total equal to that of the lighter athlete, he or she would have to lift 625 lbs!
Simply enter in the athlete’s body weight and the maximum amount lifted in any exercise you choose and click ‘Calculate!’ "
Since anatomically Big Cats and Bears are completely different, this is the only way to compare Lb for Lb strength, which is how you would compare a ant to a gorilla, Elephant to a Bison, Tiger to a Bear etc.
If the animals are the same weight, then you compare their strength capabilities. If they are not the same weight, then you use lb for lb not Size Parity since anatomical structure and weight distribution, muscle and fat distribution in particular can and will be different from species to species.
04-07-2015, 03:04 AM( This post was last modified: 04-07-2015, 03:05 AM by brotherbear )
In other words, you are saying that the tiger must be considerably taller and longer to compare equally with a grizzly... because at height and length parity, the bear is too robust for the tiger. The grizzly is without a doubt the more robust of the two. Thank you Pockts for proving my point. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
04-07-2015, 03:16 AM( This post was last modified: 04-07-2015, 03:28 AM by Pckts )
(04-07-2015, 03:04 AM)'brotherbear' Wrote: In other words, you are saying that the tiger must be considerably taller and longer to compare equally with a grizzly... because at height and length parity, the bear is too robust for the tiger. The grizzly is without a doubt the more robust of the two. Thank you Pockts for proving my point. [img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
Wow, that is pretty sad if you think that is what was said.
The best thing is, that after explaining what lb for lb strength means, explaining what anatomical differences are, muscle and fat distribution, you still think this. So if you want to switch the debate to "robust" and not "strength" then go ahead. A sumo wrestler is far more "robust" than a power lifter but the sumo wrestler is far weaker as well. Hence why you compare Lb for Lb, also why the entire world uses this method to compare strength.
