|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 27, 2014 6:28:18 GMT 5
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. Bears have more flexible forearms. Tigers have more flexible spines. Often it's not easy to distinguish which animal is more flexible or stronger going by visuals alone. For instance, you might think that a brown bear is exponentially more robust than any tiger of equal weight, when in reality, they there is very little to split the two animals in chest girth and bicep girth. |
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 27, 2014 7:07:02 GMT 5
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=9501811Tiger 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 "1. Bears have more flexible forearms than felines" Perhaps. They might use their arms for a wider variety of tasks "3. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that bears are stronger than felines" there is plenty of sufficient evidence. Even if bicep strength is the same. The fact that bears don't walk on their toes gives it a bit of an advantage "The primary advantages of a plantigrade foot are stability and weight-bearing ability; plantigrade feet have the largest surface area." Not only that but brown bears have a high shoulder hump "Brown bears have a bulky muscle mass located above the shoulders. This hump is designed to power the forelimbs and makes them exceptionally powerful diggers. This is one of the features that distinguishes them from the more common North American black bear which lacks such a shoulder hump" www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/bears-of-the-last-frontier/hour-one-city-of-bears/brown-bear-fact-sheet/6522/Bears obviously have stronger abdominal and back muscles, which gives it greater postural support and strength in the midsection. This all indicates a more robust and more heavily built animal. The bear's higher % of slow twitch muscle fibers would give it superior endurance, while the tiger's fast twitch muscles would make it more explosive in short bursts. |
|
guategojira
Junior Member
Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds!
Posts: 160 
|
Post by guategojira on Mar 27, 2014 7:48:57 GMT 5
The answer to this duel is pretty simple, the Tiger will WIN, most of the time.  Why? Well, there is right now an ecological duel in the Russian Far East and the evidence suggests that the tigers dominate. Scientists from the Siberian Tiger Project have been working since 1992 and had found that the male tigers and male bears avoid each other because they know that they are a real danger form them and there is no need to enter in a futile fight. Now, bears are known to follow young and female tigers and they steal them kills when they can. These are the “satellite” bears that specifically follow these relative small sized tigers, and in all cases, these are male bears. However, when a fight arises and if the bear wins, they are able to eat the dead tiger and there are several accounts of these situations in literature. However, the only true male killed in this fights was a 3 year old tiger, obviously not fully grown. On the other hand, tigers don’t follow bears to steall they kills, they follow them to KILL them as kills, but only when they natural prey is scarce. There are also several records of tigers killing bears, and these are not only females, but also male bears of up to 320 kg. There is a case recorded by Yankovsky (quoted by Mazák, 1983) where he hunted a huge tiger that was eating an enormous male bear, however the tiger was also very large, estimated at no less than 300 kg, so there was some parity on the size. The modern records presents some tigers, like the male P-20 (AKA “Dale”) that specialized in killing bears of slightly over its own size (ranging from 170 to 205 kg according with 3 captures). It seems that tigresses kill female bears and they cubs only, while male tigers can and do kill males and females (more biased to the second case, obviously). So, in conclusion, male tigers and male bears avoid each other (there is no reason to fight), but they attack females in both cases (bears steal prey, and if they can, kill and eat; tigers directly kill and eat). It seems that the evidence suggest that tigers directly predate on bears, while bears are specialized in steal tiger kills and predate on them indirectly. End of the discussion. If you have doubts, there is a complete chapter on the Amur tiger monograph of 2005, published (in Russian) by the Siberian Tiger Project.  |
|
guategojira
Junior Member
Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds!
Posts: 160
|
Post by guategojira on Mar 27, 2014 7:51:33 GMT 5
Size of tigers and bears in the Sikhote Alin region:This is an actualization of the morphological data on the Ussuri bears captured in the Sikhote Alin Mountains by Dr Kucherenko (2003); the data on tigers is from my last document on them sizes, actualized at 2013, which include all available scientific data about Amur tigers captured by scientists. Amur tigers:   Amur bears:  Greetings to all. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 27, 2014 9:55:54 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 27, 2014 10:18:11 GMT 5
mechafireThe chest girth of a lion and grizzly bear was measured as being only 1.8 inches apart, and the lion population was a few kg lighter than the bear population. There is no sufficient evidence to suggest that bears have more powerful upper bodies than lions or tigers. I'd love to see a single grizzly in the 400 pound range with more impressive shoulders and biceps than this!      The size of a bear somewhat flatters their actual physique, felines of equal size are at least equally impressive.  Did you even read the majority of my reply? "Even if bicep strength is the same. The bear is still stronger. The fact that bears don't walk on their toes gives it a bit of an advantage "The primary advantages of a plantigrade foot are stability and weight-bearing ability; plantigrade feet have the largest surface area." Not only that but brown bears have a high shoulder hump "Brown bears have a bulky muscle mass located above the shoulders. This hump is designed to power the forelimbs and makes them exceptionally powerful diggers. This is one of the features that distinguishes them from the more common North American black bear which lacks such a shoulder hump" www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/bears-of-the-last-frontier/hour-one-city-of-bears/brown-bear-fact-sheet/6522/Bears obviously have stronger abdominal and back muscles, which gives it greater postural support and strength in the midsection. This all indicates a more robust and more heavily built animal. " Shoulder hump, stiff rigid backbone, its shorter (length on all fours) build makes it the stronger animal at parity. Plantigrade feet, stronger more rotund midsection due to abdominal and back muscles, and more stable lower body (for standing upright) give it more stability which is important in a wrestling or grappling match (as one is trying to throw off the other's balance). Now the tiger can be said to be more powerful (strength+speed) at parity, but you are arguing about strength. Even in usage, the bear can be said to be stronger. Since you said you would like to see some pictures. Well, here you go. By the way I like how you mentioned " impressive shoulders and biceps" when the bear has a large hump on its. These bears have more impressive biceps.   Keep in mind, the muscles look less defined thanks to their thick loose skin, longer fur, and fat. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Mar 28, 2014 0:00:13 GMT 5
The answer to this duel is pretty simple, the Tiger will WIN, most of the time. Why? Well, there is right now an ecological duel in the Russian Far East and the evidence suggests that the tigers dominate. Scientists from the Siberian Tiger Project have been working since 1992 and had found that the male tigers and male bears avoid each other because they know that they are a real danger form them and there is no need to enter in a futile fight. Now, bears are known to follow young and female tigers and they steal them kills when they can. These are the “satellite” bears that specifically follow these relative small sized tigers, and in all cases, these are male bears. However, when a fight arises and if the bear wins, they are able to eat the dead tiger and there are several accounts of these situations in literature. However, the only true male killed in this fights was a 3 year old tiger, obviously not fully grown. On the other hand, tigers don’t follow bears to steall they kills, they follow them to KILL them as kills, but only when they natural prey is scarce. There are also several records of tigers killing bears, and these are not only females, but also male bears of up to 320 kg. There is a case recorded by Yankovsky (quoted by Mazák, 1983) where he hunted a huge tiger that was eating an enormous male bear, however the tiger was also very large, estimated at no less than 300 kg, so there was some parity on the size. The modern records presents some tigers, like the male P-20 (AKA “Dale”) that specialized in killing bears of slightly over its own size (ranging from 170 to 205 kg according with 3 captures). It seems that tigresses kill female bears and they cubs only, while male tigers can and do kill males and females (more biased to the second case, obviously). So, in conclusion, male tigers and male bears avoid each other (there is no reason to fight), but they attack females in both cases (bears steal prey, and if they can, kill and eat; tigers directly kill and eat). It seems that the evidence suggest that tigers directly predate on bears, while bears are specialized in steal tiger kills and predate on them indirectly. End of the discussion. If you have doubts, there is a complete chapter on the Amur tiger monograph of 2005, published (in Russian) by the Siberian Tiger Project. This is flawed. Bears don't follow tigers to kill them because they don't have any reason to kill them. They just want the carcass. Likewise tiger only hunt bears (from ambush obviously) because unlike bears they are hypercarnivorous thus when prey is little they can't just sit down and eat berries or nuts. Bears however can. To say a tiger will win just because they are known to hunt brown bears when food is scarce is foolish. Bears don't need to kill a tiger unless the latter decides to fight for its kill. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 28, 2014 0:08:23 GMT 5
RunicYou do realize that there has never been a record of a bear usurping a kill from a healthy male tiger, right? Every single time any bear has ever stolen the kill off a tiger, the tiger was either a female or juvenile. On one occasion a brown bear was even observed running from tiger tracks (which isn't even the tiger itself). Brown bears generally avoid alpha Siberian tigers at all costs. Even when in conflict with females, bears need to be careful. When attempting to steal a kill, one tigress was able to severely injure an adult brown bear (who was probably close to twice her weight) before going down. For a bear, there is too much risk is involved in trying to challenge a tiger of near equal size for a carcass.
|
|
guategojira
Junior Member
Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds!
Posts: 160
|
Post by guategojira on Mar 28, 2014 0:13:07 GMT 5
The answer to this duel is pretty simple, the Tiger will WIN, most of the time. Why? Well, there is right now an ecological duel in the Russian Far East and the evidence suggests that the tigers dominate. Scientists from the Siberian Tiger Project have been working since 1992 and had found that the male tigers and male bears avoid each other because they know that they are a real danger form them and there is no need to enter in a futile fight. Now, bears are known to follow young and female tigers and they steal them kills when they can. These are the “satellite” bears that specifically follow these relative small sized tigers, and in all cases, these are male bears. However, when a fight arises and if the bear wins, they are able to eat the dead tiger and there are several accounts of these situations in literature. However, the only true male killed in this fights was a 3 year old tiger, obviously not fully grown. On the other hand, tigers don’t follow bears to steall they kills, they follow them to KILL them as kills, but only when they natural prey is scarce. There are also several records of tigers killing bears, and these are not only females, but also male bears of up to 320 kg. There is a case recorded by Yankovsky (quoted by Mazák, 1983) where he hunted a huge tiger that was eating an enormous male bear, however the tiger was also very large, estimated at no less than 300 kg, so there was some parity on the size. The modern records presents some tigers, like the male P-20 (AKA “Dale”) that specialized in killing bears of slightly over its own size (ranging from 170 to 205 kg according with 3 captures). It seems that tigresses kill female bears and they cubs only, while male tigers can and do kill males and females (more biased to the second case, obviously). So, in conclusion, male tigers and male bears avoid each other (there is no reason to fight), but they attack females in both cases (bears steal prey, and if they can, kill and eat; tigers directly kill and eat). It seems that the evidence suggest that tigers directly predate on bears, while bears are specialized in steal tiger kills and predate on them indirectly. End of the discussion. If you have doubts, there is a complete chapter on the Amur tiger monograph of 2005, published (in Russian) by the Siberian Tiger Project. This is flawed. Bears don't follow tigers to kill them because they don't have any reason to kill them. They just want the carcass. Likewise tiger only hunt bears (from ambush obviously) because unlike bears they are hypercarnivorous thus when prey is little they can't just sit down and eat berries or nuts. Bears however can. To say a tiger will win just because they are known to hunt brown bears when food is scarce is foolish. Bears don't need to kill a tiger unless the latter decides to fight for its kill. You misunderstood my words. I never said that bears "hunted" tigers. No, they follow tigers to steal its prey and if a fight arise, and IF the bear win, they could eat the tiger carcass, this is pretty well explained in my post. And it is not foolish to say that a tiger will win, for the contrary, statistics show that this is the normal case at the fights in the wild. The topic is " Ussuri Brown Bear vs Siberian Tiger", right? So, evidence, REAL evidence from the Siberian Tiger Project (Monograph of 2005, in Russian) prove that tigers win most of the fights, so 2 + 2 = 4, no? The tiger will normally win in those encounters, even better, the only fight recorded among two full grow adult males resulted in the victory of the tiger (Mazák, 1983). |
|
guategojira
Junior Member
Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds!
Posts: 160
|
Post by guategojira on Mar 28, 2014 0:15:02 GMT 5
RunicYou do realize that there has never been a record of a bear usurping a kill from a healthy male tiger, right? Every single time any bear has ever stolen the kill off a tiger, the tiger was either a female or juvenile. On one occasion a brown bear was even observed running from tiger tracks (which isn't even the tiger itself). Brown bears generally avoid alpha Siberian tigers at all costs. Even when in conflict with females, bears need to be careful. When attempting to steal a kill, one tigress was able to severely injure an adult brown bear (who was probably close to twice her weight) before going down. For a bear, there is too much risk is involved in trying to challenge a tiger of near equal size for a carcass. The simple truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Mar 28, 2014 0:36:19 GMT 5
All this quoting blowing up my notifications
Who needs it when there's reports of them killing healthy male tigers?
And every single hunting instance is just that, a hunt. Which is what gfherbvty whatevers "source" was based off. Tigers don't attack bears head on.
And on another a brown bear boldy slept in the same den with a male tiger. Your point?
The reverse is also true.
I remember 221extra bringing that same argument up against Ursus on CF. Ursus disproved the whole thing. I'll find it and post it probably in an hour. Then again, a female brown bear once killed a 500lb male tiger and a emaciated and severely underweight and heat exhausted polar bear managed to wreck a healthy male lion before finally dying. Says a lot doesn't it? Now I know these are circus accounts but the general point still stands.
When do tigers take bear kills then? Or walk right up to them and engage in a scrap? Exactly, rarely if ever. This goes both ways.
This whole thing is stupid. Vodmeister one day you say you're so sick of the debate and quitting, other days you'll settle for 50/50, and other days you'll recycle old arguments you have used from CF or earlier and then state a tiger will beat a bear. What is it? Make up your mind. Are you sick of the debate, settling for 50/50 or do you just think the tigers gonna win?
Predators rarely eat other predators. When a lion kills a hyena it rarely eats it, when a Wolf kills a coyote it rarely eats it, when a bear kills a tiger it rarely eats it.
Please cut the childish crap. I ncan read. Your source didn't prove anything except tigers kill Brown Bears through hunts, even then 2 lone accounts don't help your general case. I posted a couple accounts of Brown Bear killing male tigers on CF and i'll post them again soon as I find them.
Anyways reply cut short as I gtg
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 31, 2014 5:52:50 GMT 5
RunicThere are very few reports of brown bears killing adult male tigers. Still, usually brown bears are larger than tigers. Hence, brown bears killing tigers isn't anywhere near as impressive as the reverse, where the feline is usually smaller. Also, there's an account of a cougar killing an adult black bear, but never the reverse. So what? That doesn't prove anything. Have you ever seen the shoulders and loose fur of a bear? There's no way a tiger could kill a bear with one throat bite. Most hunts, even if including ambush, eventually turn into fights. I never denied it. It's usually bear fans who try to deny the fact that brownies avoid adult male tigers at all costs. Again, I never denied this. I believe that tiger vs brown bear at parity is 50/50, maybe a slight edge to the feline due its jaws. I'm merely correcting your false assumptions on the historical data of tiger vs brown bear conflicts.
|
|
guategojira
Junior Member
Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds!
Posts: 160
|
Post by guategojira on Mar 31, 2014 22:41:07 GMT 5
That is completely false. Although lions don’t eat hyenas, hyenas DO eat lions. In the other case, tiger hunt and eat bears directly and bears will surely eat the dead tigers. There are several cases of jaguars eating ocelots or pumas eating bobcats. You can’t generalize in base of the behavior of a single case (lion vs hyenas). Ok, let’s clear this up. These words (crap, foolish, etc…) from you are really annoying and disturbing. I have NOT used this type of language against you, so cut YOUR crap here, cool off and latter, you can return to discuss. You mention cases of bears killing male tigers, I DARE you to post them, and you will see that there is not A SINGLE case of a bear killing a full grow male tiger. The only case mentioned by Heptner & Sludskii (1992) was a larger cub (3 years old) STILL with its mother!!! Probably the age of that tiger was even less, based in the fact that the mother was still hunting for him. The truth is simple and I will put it here again: “ Scientists from the Siberian Tiger Project have been working since 1992 and had found that the male tigers and male bears avoid each other because they know that they are a real danger form them and there is no need to enter in a futile fight.
Now, bears are known to follow young and female tigers and they steal them kills when they can. These are the “satellite” bears that specifically follow these relative small sized tigers, and in all cases, these are male bears. However, when a fight arises and if the bear wins, they are able to eat the dead tiger and there are several accounts of these situations in literature. However, the only true male killed in this fights was a 3 year old tiger, obviously not fully grown.
On the other hand, tigers don’t follow bears to steal they kills, they follow them to KILL them as kills, but only when they natural prey is scarce. There are also several records of tigers killing bears, and these are not only females, but also male bears of up to 320 kg. There is a case recorded by Yankovsky (quoted by Mazák, 1983) where he hunted a huge tiger that had killed and eaten an enormous male bear, however the tiger was also very large, estimated at no less than 300 kg, so there was some parity on the size. The modern records presents some tigers, like the male P-20 (AKA “Dale”) that specialized in killing bears of slightly over its own size (ranging from 170 to 205 kg according with 3 captures). It seems that tigresses kill female bears and they cubs only, while male tigers can and do kill males and females (more biased to the second case, obviously).
So, in conclusion, male tigers and male bears avoid each other (there is no reason to fight), but they attack females in both cases (bears steal prey, and if they can, kill and eat; tigers directly kill and eat). It seems that the evidence suggest that tigers directly predate on bears, while bears are specialized in steal tiger kills and predate on them indirectly.
End of the discussion. If you have doubts, there is a complete chapter on the Amur tiger monograph of 2005, published (in Russian) by the Siberian Tiger Project.” I can put the monograph and the translated summary if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by 221extra on Apr 1, 2014 3:22:23 GMT 5
Black Ice, Ursus never disproved my argument in regards to the Tigress vs large Brown Bear, the fact remains the Bear got severe wounds as a result of the tussle with the Tigress, what was being shown by Ursus is that felines can defend themselves quite well, even when faced with larger opponents; the Leopard vs Lionesses being his counter example. The fight that the Tigress put up against the large Brown Bear was quite impressive, nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by 221extra on Apr 1, 2014 3:24:38 GMT 5
Guategojira, I'd love to see this monograph & translated summary you're speaking of!
|
|
