Ussuri Brown Bear vs Siberian Tiger

[Vodmeister]

Probably; Siberian Tigers once reached up to 850 lbs. Nowadays, you'd be lucky to find a 600 lbs specimen.

STATUS OF BROWN BEARS IN KAMCHATKA, RUSSIAN FAR EAST

www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_10/Revenko_Vol_10.pdf

Kamchatka Brown Bear, which are typically the size of Kodiak Bears, were once merely the size of Lions. Excessive hunting can have huge effects on animal size.

[creature386]

Did I get your last line right when saying Kamchtka Brown Bears increased in size due to excessive hunting (once lion sized, now bear sized)?

[Vodmeister]

Feb 25, 2014 22:09:00 GMT 5 creature386 said:

Did I get your last line right when saying Kamchtka Brown Bears increased in size due to excessive hunting (once lion sized, now bear sized)?

No, you have it backwards.

Kamchatka Bears were almost hunted to extinction in the early 1900's. As a result, they decreased from Kodiak sized to mere Lion sized.

Now they have been protected for the past 50 years, the species attain much greater sizes.

[creature386]

Could you please fix your last sentence then (you said these bears were once bear sized)?

[Runic]

Bear wins at parity and max

/thread for me at least.

[Vodmeister]

Bears always come out 2nd best at parity, at least from most historical data.

Dale, the Amur Tiger who weighed about 375 lbs, even killed a 440 lbs female Brown Bear in a head-on fight. There are plenty of other examples of Tigers overcoming a weight deficient.

[Runic]

Bears always come out 2nd best at parity, at least from most historical data.

I'm not about to go through this repeat of everything from CF on this ^. Most of that historical data was rendered useless.

Dale, the Amur Tiger who weighed about 375 lbs, even killed a 440 lbs female Brown Bear in a head-on fight. There are plenty of other examples of Tigers overcoming a weight deficient.

I remember firefly showing that bear was fat with a small skull. Nothing impressive. But since we're using old accounts there's always the female brown bear killing a 500lb male tiger.

In any case, whatever. Last I checked you kept saying you were done with this type of debate. 

[Vodmeister]

Alright alright.

Although there is an account (and a confirmed + reliable one) of a 140 kg Tigress killing a 170 kg female Bear. And scientific data suggests that Tigers win over 50% of encounters against Bears.

Even if Tigers don't always prevail against Bears of equal size, which I would be happy to admit, I have never been convinced by the claim that Bears are superior at parity.

[Runic]

Although there is an account (and a confirmed + reliable one) of a 140 kg Tigress killing a 170 kg female Bear. And scientific data suggests that Tigers win over 50% of encounters against Bears.

To the bold - Yes I know of that one.

To the underlined - Most scientific studies that say that are based on the numbers of bears killed in multiple scenarios (most of the time running away or ambushed) not head on fights.

[Vodmeister]

mechafire
I decided to move my post here where it is more appropriate.

Pound for pound, there is very little to no evidence which suggests that bears actually have larger biceps or shoulders than felines at parity. A grizzly bear has very similar bicep girth and chest girth to a tiger or lion of equal weight.

The grizzly bear averages roughly 193 kg, has an average chest girth of 130.5 cm. An African lions, which averaged 187 kg, has a chest girth average of 125.9 cm. The difference was 4.6 cm, or 1.8 inches (and keep in mind, the bear is 6 kg heavier on average).

An interior grizzly bear has an average bicep of 28 inches. Bengal tigers, which weigh roughly equal to mountain grizzlies, normally have biceps from 27.5-29.0 inches. Again, very little to split the two.

My educated guess would be that a 500 lb tiger or lion is roughly equal in strength to a 500 lb grizzly, slightly less flexible, but with better reflexes. There's not much to choose between the two animals.

[Vodmeister]

Although in all fairness to bears, they generally do have a fair share of other advantages in size-parity face-offs with tigers;

1. Flexibility
2. Balance
3. Stamina
4. Longer claws
5. Grappling

Tigers also have some inarguable advantages against similar sized bears;

1. Reflexes
2. Maneuverability
3. Retractile claws
4. Superior bite
5. Power (not the same as strength)
6. Testastorone

[mechafire]

Mar 27, 2014 6:02:10 GMT 5 Vodmeister said:

Although in all fairness to bears, they generally do have a fair share of other advantages in size-parity face-offs with tigers;

1. Flexibility
2. Balance
3. Stamina
4. Longer claws
5. Grappling

Tigers also have some inarguable advantages against similar sized bears;

1. Reflexes
2. Maneuverability
3. Retractile claws
4. Superior bite
5. Power (not the same as strength)
6. Testastorone

Flexibility?


"My educated guess would be that a 500 lb tiger or lion is roughly equal in strength to a 500 lb grizzly, slightly less flexible, but with better reflexes."

Cats are more flexible. Lions and tigers have much more flexible spines for speed and agility. Animals with higher upper body strength need a more rigid spine and an overall more heay build. Cats like lions and tigers rely on explosiveness, speed, and agility (which means a lighter more supple body) for hunting and combat. Bears rely much more heavily on power and stability in combat and hunting (more heavy set).

I'll delete my other reply on the tiger vs postosuchus thread

[malikc6]

I have to vote on the bear on this one. Unless it was at parity in which I case favor the tiger.

[Vodmeister]

Mar 27, 2014 6:08:37 GMT 5 mechafire said:

Mar 27, 2014 6:02:10 GMT 5 Vodmeister said:

Although in all fairness to bears, they generally do have a fair share of other advantages in size-parity face-offs with tigers;

1. Flexibility
2. Balance
3. Stamina
4. Longer claws
5. Grappling

Tigers also have some inarguable advantages against similar sized bears;

1. Reflexes
2. Maneuverability
3. Retractile claws
4. Superior bite
5. Power (not the same as strength)
6. Testastorone

Flexibility?


"My educated guess would be that a 500 lb tiger or lion is roughly equal in strength to a 500 lb grizzly, slightly less flexible, but with better reflexes."

Cats are more flexible. Lions and tigers have much more flexible spines for speed and agility. Animals with higher upper body strength need a more rigid spine and an overall more heay build. Cats like lions and tigers rely on flexibility, speed, and agility (which mean a lighter more supple body) for hunting and combat. Bears really much more heavily on power and stability in combat and hunting (more heavy set).

I'll delete my other reply on the tiger vs postosuchus thread

Now, I have not seen any such detailed info on the muscles of pantherines or ursids, however, joints suggest that overall brown bears have a significant flexibility advantage over pantherines.

It is likely that while they appear to have larger muscles on the limbs, they are nonetheless not stronger and instead only more flexible (and faster, given muscles with identical myofibrils).

The muscle fibers of brown bears themselves are however likely slower-the greatest % of slow twitch I've yet seen info for (but a sample size of only 1 adult male) while lions had a very low percent of slow twitch (and tigers were moderate). Planning on reading into this, and how large of an impact it can have, over the summer.


From Ursus; carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8274673&t=9501811

Tiger vs Brown Bear at weight parity;

1. Bears have more flexible forearms than felines
2. Felines have more flexible spines than bears
3. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that bears are stronger than felines
4. Nor is there sufficient evidence to believe that felines are stronger than bears
5. The chest girth and biceps of a feline are equally robust to a bear

[malikc6]

I thought the tiger was more flexible due to being faster and more agile and the way they're built. It seemed like common sense.