|
Post by Vodmeister on Feb 16, 2014 6:38:30 GMT 5
No way Polar Bears average less than 1 m shoulder height. Siberian Tigers average 93 cm at the shoulder, and Polar Bears are most certainly a larger animal.
Anyway, on average the Raptor would win, though a >750 kg Polar Bear could take down a normal Raptor.
|
|
fish
Junior Member Rank 1
Spaced-out Hatchetfish
Posts: 45
|
Post by fish on Feb 16, 2014 6:40:48 GMT 5
So many size comparisons on this thread and I'm not sure which is right. The most recent one that fragillimimus posted makes the polar bear look like a kitten next to the dinosaur. But if that comparison is correct, or any other one that shows the Utahraptor dwarfing the bear, wouldnt the dino weigh a lot more then "somewhat less then 1100 lbs", as given by the opening description? If utahraptor truly was such weight it would have been a stick figure compared to the bear, and I cannot see a dimensional advantage alone being much help in what would likely be a grappling contest. Fish, this is exactly what I meant by being visually bigger is an advantage. I think it's more along the lines of polar bears aren't exactly as big as people say, or that Utahraptor just has more volume, the latter of which I find more likely. Or maybe Utahraptor is heavier. In any case, it doesn't matter who is more robust or not, as a good height and volume advantage nullifies and even overcomes all of the problems with robusticity. A much larger gracile animal (or at least one that looks visually bigger) will dominate over a smaller (or at least visually smaller) robust one. Why do I think that? Just look at it! Anyone with perception should be able to pick a winner right off the bat judging from some of these size comparisons. I'm sorry if I sound angry and come off as rude. No apology needed. I recall we've been here befor on the animalia enthusiasts kodiak bear vs utahraptor thread, before the idiot troll came along and ruined the forum. I do imagine the dromaeosaur would be quite heavier then 1100 lbs if the more extreme comparisons are correct anyways. But I dont agree with dimensions being a bigger advantage over robustness, build or whatever you want to call it. I mean giraffes are visually much bigger than black rhinos and the two weigh about the same, but who would you favor? A leopard would be shorter than a cheetah of equal weight, but leopards dominate cheetahs at kills and would be at an advantage in combat. I know that cheetahs and giraffes are not a good comparison to Utahraptor, but I just used the points to show why I dont think a dimensional advantage is a primary reason to favor an animal. I think Utahraptors weaponry and agility could be more of the deciding factor here as to who would win.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 16, 2014 6:57:01 GMT 5
Cheetah's are dimensionally larger than leopards? Nonetheless, the latter would have far superior weapons. Same in the other case. A giraffe is visually bigger (or more like taller) than a black rhino, yes, but hooves aren't exactly the best weapons to be honest, whereas Utahraptor is well armed enough to match the bear. Though, if you're twice (depending on the situation) or more times heavier than your opponent, armament becomes irrelevant.
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Feb 16, 2014 15:13:22 GMT 5
VodmeisterFully grown male Siberian tigers, even 200kg tigers can be less than 1m at the shoulder, anyway the average of 98cm for polar bears include females, young adults and juveniles, fully grown male polar bears can certainly reach 1.2m at the shoulder without problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 22:49:40 GMT 5
I back the Utahraptor due to size and better weaponry
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 24, 2014 6:46:07 GMT 5
Oh, one last thing. Brolyeuphyfusion in the giant theropods thread posted a link to a new silhouette that shows what Utahraptor is now believed to have been built like. Let's just say the "bulkier build" argument for the bear is definitely moot at this point.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 24, 2014 22:20:14 GMT 5
^I agree. However, we have to wait until we can judge a weight advantage of Utahraptor (you didn't do so, I'm just saying) because it could be possible that it was bulkier, but shorter or so.
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on May 15, 2014 4:37:15 GMT 5
So, we now have new material on Utahraptor. Image by Scott Hartman. We can see that this really was a bulky beast as rumors had it in previous years. Just look at it; the body's bulky, the metatarsals are freakin' stocky, the femur's as long as the tibia, the ilium looks to be about as long as the femur, and that head is huge. This thing could definitely hold its own against an equal sized polar bear. That ~71 cm skull with a mouthful of serrated teeth mounted on a mobile, fast-striking neck, coupled with the powerful forelimbs each with hooked, blade-like claws, could provide an excellent counter towards the bear's grappling arms and jaws and buy itself some time to implement its signature sickle claws. That is, I don't expect the dromaeosaur to try to get into or win a grappling match with the bear. But with the Utahraptor "out-gaping" the smaller-headed bear and biting its face, as well as pummeling it with bladed claws, I think it may be rather hard for the bear to actually get a good grasp on the dromaeosaur and subsequently outwrestle it. This also means that Utahraptor has an opportunity to land a fatal blow with its >24 cm long sickle claws. In less time than it takes the bear to get past the jaws and forelimbs of Utahraptor, overpower it, and land a bite (assuming the bear will get past them), the dromaeosaur could have fatally sunken its foot claws somewhere.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on May 15, 2014 22:35:08 GMT 5
Utahraptor wins even against a "trophy" bear. The mammal is probably ~1000lbs
|
|
|
Post by Runic on May 16, 2014 4:28:28 GMT 5
Utahraptor is going to be one ugly mofo after the paper -_-
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 1:16:28 GMT 5
At parity Utah can win.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 12, 2019 3:41:43 GMT 5
Utahraptor wins easily. It's larger, better armed, more robust, and has better stamina. Also, polar bears aren't very impressive. I see Utah biting and clawing the bear to death
|
|
|
Post by DonaldCengXiongAzuma on Mar 16, 2019 11:37:59 GMT 5
Utahraptor wins easily. It's larger, better armed, more robust, and has better stamina. Also, polar bears aren't very impressive. I see Utah biting and clawing the bear to death I support the utahraptor at average weights. However, the polar bear is still a good grappler and has jaws that can bite through the skin of beluga and walrus. At parity, the polar bear does have a good chance but it would probably die before the dinasaur does.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Mar 16, 2019 16:27:37 GMT 5
That it does. However, we have to remember that Utahraptor is rather durable, being a reptile, and polar bears have very unimpressive bite forces for their size.
|
|
|
Post by DonaldCengXiongAzuma on Mar 16, 2019 17:19:02 GMT 5
The polar bear might have a relatively weak crushing bite for its size but it has the sharpest teeth among all bears. Teeth that can slice through thick hide and blubber easily. That being said, I am sure the utah raptor can open its mouth wider and deal a greater area of damage and not only that its sharp sickle claws can rip open a polar bear faster than the polar bear can rip it apart plus the dinasaur is way more agile.
|
|