African lion vs Yellowstone grizzly

[0ldgrizz]

I agree. I am just saying that, in all that I have thus far discovered, there is only this single incident of a lion killing a grizzly, and that in an ambush attack. And you are correct that weights are never given, or are estimated.
In all honesty, at weight parity, and this match-up is near enough, I would give them each a 50-50 chance of a victory or a defeat, and bet on the bear simply out of favoritism. When weight becomes an advantage ( perhaps 50 pounds or so ) then the odds would tend to favor the heavier opponent. 

I will add, in face-off events concerning tiger and grizzly in captivity, the bear defeated the tiger every time - in all that I have thus-far found.  

[Vodmeister]

This population of grizzly is fairly small, about 400-500 pounds (lion-sized) so I'm inclined to call it a 50-50. If we used a coastal population (which average 900-1000 lbs), it would large be a mismatch.

[blaze]

But, the weight of the grizzly includes, according to Blaze, juvenile 5 year old bears, hardly more than cubs.

Cubs are bears less than a year old, 5 year olds are adults.
I actually favor the lion at parity and at ~50lbs disadvantage, 50lbs of fat can't make up for smaller body and smaller head but that's just me, your opinion is different and that is perfectly fine.

[malikc6]

In this instance, I'm gonna give it to the bear being 100 lbs heavier 60/40. On the other hand, I don't think the weights of these animals are accurate.

[0ldgrizz]

Dec 4, 2014 2:54:17 GMT 5 blaze said:

But, the weight of the grizzly includes, according to Blaze, juvenile 5 year old bears, hardly more than cubs.

Cubs are bears less than a year old, 5 year olds are adults.
I actually favor the lion at parity and at ~50lbs disadvantage, 50lbs of fat can't make up for smaller body and smaller head but that's just me, your opinion is different and that is perfectly fine.

On page #2 of this topic I posted a grizzly growth chart which proves that a 5 year old grizzly is hardly more than a cub with a lot of growing to do. A grizzly is not fully mature until he is 9 years old - a fact. Even after that, he continues to grow until he is about 15 years old; but he is a mature bear at the age of 9.

[blaze]

You posted a chart that shows the earliest and latest age in which fusion of certain bones is achieved, and even then in 15 of the 19 bones the bones have already fused or have started fusing by 5 years old.

Stop making up your own definitions of what a cub is. A cub is an individual in its first year of life. The growth from 5 to 9 and beyond is mostly greater muscle mass and greater fat reserves owed to the better nutrition of more dominant older males, apart from that and a wider head there's very little difference in actual body dimensions.

If you read Blanchard data you will see this measurements:

Shoulder height@
Cub: 54cm
1 years old: 72cm
2 years old: 80cm
3 years old: 89cm
4 years old: 94cm
5 years old: 92cm
6 years old: 96cm
7 years old: 92cm
8 years old: 97cm
9 years old: 94cm

From 4 years onward shoulder height pretty much flat-lines and becomes more of a question of individual variability than any actual growth trend.

Head-body length in straight line@
Cub: 88cm
1 years old: 128cm
2 years old: 129cm
3 years old: 152cm
4 years old: 159cm
5 years old: 153cm
6 years old: 167cm
7 years old: 160cm
8 years old: 163cm
9 years old: 160cm

Again it starts to flat-line at 4 years, lingering at around 160cm give or take a couple of centimeters.

Head length (including soft tissue so not skull length)
Cub: 27cm
1 years old: 33cm
2 years old: 35cm
3 years old: 39cm
4 years old: 40cm
5 years old: 40cm
6 years old: 42cm
7 years old: 42cm
8 years old: 38cm
9 years old: 43cm

Again starts to flat-line at 4 years old, the growth trend is gone and only keeps swinging at 40cm give or take a couple of centimeters.

Of course if you only look at the weight part of the table you will be left with the impression that they keep getting bigger and bigger, no, they only get both more robust and fatter.

We find a similar trend in coastal Brown bears from the Alaska Peninsula, according to Glen (1980) by 6 years of age, 95% of all adult males have stopped growing in "height at shoulder, total body length, body length, hind-foot length, skull length, chest girth, and neck circumference", after that, only getting bigger in weight (up until 8 years old) and head width (up to 10 years old) just like the Yellowstone grizzlies from Blanchard (1987).

[0ldgrizz]

So, you are saying that at 6 years old, a grizzly has a shoulder height of 96 cm then at age 7 he shrinks down to only 92 cm. He has a head and body length of 167 cm at age 6 then shrinks down to 160 cm at age 7. His head measures 42 cm at age 7 then shrinks down to 38 cm at age 8.

 

The chart I posted on page #2 shows that a 5 year old grizzly is lacking in his Humerus dist, Metapodials, Ulna prox, Calcaneus, Tibla dist, Femur prox, Fibula prox, Ulna dist, Fibula dist, Femur dist, Tibia prox, Radius dist, and his Humerus prox. The grizzly is not fully mature until age 9.  

[blaze]

Those are averages of each age class not the growth of a single individual. It is easy, however, to see that the animals have stopped growing at any consistent rate hence the variance of several centimeters observed between several each classes past 4 years of age.

The chart you posted previously shows bone fusion, not body size not sexual maturity nor physical dimensions, besides is exclusive of limb bones, ignoring cranial and vertebral fusion.

Also, you are reading it wrong, according to the text below, the lines represent the earliest age in which a bone is fused and the latest age in which all individuals are known to have said bone fused, it does not show when the process starts, thus at 5 years old there are individuals that already have fused "Humerus dist, Metapodials, Ulna prox, Calcaneus, Tibla dist, Femur prox, Fibula prox, Ulna dist, Fibula dist"

The above leaves only 4 fusions "Femur dist, Tibia prox, Radius dist, and his Humerus prox" not known to occur in 5 year olds, occurring at 6 years old at the earliest though as the range shows there are laggards that take another 2-3 years for those bones to fuse, probably individuals with poorer nutrition.

[0ldgrizz]

The most famous historical wild animal fight ever, at least in the U.S.A. was fought in 1865 in Monterrey, Mexico. Now, if you seek information online concerning this monumental event, you might discover several versions. Unfortunately, ever sense animal face-off blog sites have become popular online, big cat enthusiasts have "reconstructed" the actual information by creating bogus stories.
The actual article printed in The Sacramento Tribune can be seen on the wall of the California State Capital - yes; the actual original news article in the original newspaper. "Grand California event of the Golden Grizzly vs Parnell the man-eating African Lion." The article reads,"The grizzly bear handled the African king as a cat would a rat. The conflict was over so quickly that the spectators hardly realized how it was accomplished."

This fight is detailed in the history of the California Golden Grizzly Bear flag, as perhaps Ramadam greatly influenced the creation of the golden bear flag.

California Grizzly by Tracy I. Storer and Lloyd P. Tevis, Jr. - copyright, 1955.

Before I copy from this wonderful book, understand that home computers did not hit the market until 1977 and were not common until the 1980s. Online animal face-off sites became very popular soon after. Sometime between 1980 and the year 2000, some big cat fanboy created false information regarding the famous fight between Parnell the lion and Ramadam the grizzly. These falsified documents or news clippings are nothing more than trash and lies created by one or several big cat fanatics who cannot handle the truth. Here is the truth, from this book which predates the computer-era animal face-off debates:

Bell ( 1930 : 106 ) mentioned a fight staged in Mexico between a grizzly and a lion that had been imported from Africa: "When, a few years ago, a Los Angeles County grizzly was sent to Monterrey, Mexico, to be pitted against the man-killing African lion 'Parnell' the great Californian handled the African king as a cat would a rat. He killed him so quickly that the big audience hardly knew how it was done."

Here is a sight spreading the fabricated story which is nothing more than an elaborate lie: www.historybanter.com/animal-cage-fighting-in-mexico/

For those who are so foolish as to believe this twisted fantasy, show me this version of the Parnell-Ramadam fight in a history book which predates the computer age - copyrights earlier than 1977. Another matter which needs to be clarified; drawings of Parnell the lion and Ramadam the grizzly were sketched by newspaper artists who were witness to the actual event. What I am seeing here are two mighty predators of near size parity. However, I do agree that Ramadam was likely heavier due to the fact that a grizzly bear is more robust than a lion.

                                                                              

[Deleted]

Again, this seems pretty even.

[dinosauria101]

I favor the bear, it's larger, stronger, and has more stamina, plus it's just as well armed, if not better. I can see it overpowering and mauling the lion more often than not.

[rock]

although lions are my favriote animal , i think the grizzly bear would win , he is heavier , has more stamina and is more durable , a lion can fight for 30 minutes without getting tired while a grizzly bear can fight 2 hours without getting tired . so i think the grizzly bear would win here