Poll: Who wins?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Smilodon populator
31.25%
5 31.25%
Polar Bear
68.75%
11 68.75%
Total 16 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Smilodon populator v Polar Bear
^ This thread is getting kinda muddled, esp' with odd misapprehensions & irrelevancies, such as attempting to
extrapolate 'average weights' from a small sample - which includes sub-adults, of a non-involved in the topic, animal.

Warsaw's posting of strange images, accompanied by vague ideas, as rationalisations don't help, either.
& that applies also to his failing to understand lack of variables control & causation of false experimental results.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Mondas's post:
  • onlyfaizy786
Reply
I’d back the Smilodon.
There are many types of people in this world; None of them are as smart as they think they are.
Reply
OK, I haven't denied that. Big cats also fight on bipedal.

They can for a dozen or so seconds at best.

The study posted by @Verdugo in post #8 was a bit more detailed.
Which says.
I understand the point here. But the only performances a plantigrade animal can use by putting maximal force is lateral striking and pushing/pulling~sumo wrestling.
In which bears won't do the first one. However they do the rest effectively in comparison with bigcats or other digitigrade animals.
https://unews.utah.edu/flat-footed-fighters/
I dons see any connection (as well as the  author above)to sumo wrestling style.


Anyways, I never claimed tigers wrestle more than bears while fighting.
I said they do, while hunting.
Witch much larger prey?Not really

But fighting is more closery related to "fighting abilities" than hunting scenario.Do you have any other video with relatively long battle between wild tigers?

From tiger canyons? Not a good example of wild tigers fight.
This is relatively long battle.Do you have any other video with relatively long battle between wild tigers?
Show me if you have.



Right. But it can't make a good damage on bone of a living animal of above 200kgs easily.

It just took a while to do that. And the other carnivores I mentioned may not effectively make damage on bones are grizzlies, but can make a good deal of damage on flesh in comparison with a brown bear.

[img]oi68.tinypic.com/2yv3ww6.jpg[/img]

[Image: 2yv3ww6.jpg]
Common attack zone (i.e spine ) is hard to penetrate .Thats why I said that "biting and shaking" style may increase damege(especially on bone).

And here is discussion
https://carnivora.net/showthread.php?tid=97


I mean, in comparison with bigcats. They rarely go to conflicts. And very rare mortalities(if any)..
If we speaking about "rare mortalities(if any)"
Its  closely related to: density and competition for resources


"Intraspecific competition is density dependent and may cause density-dependent mortality. At low densities no intraspecific competition exists and competition for resources does not play a role in survivorship. As densities increase, a threshold is reached where density begins to influence mortality through resource"

"...During drought years in the eastern portions of Russia,
low precipitation resulted in poor forage production and
increased bear-human conflicts. When these conditions
exist, bears in poor physical condition approach settlements
and prey on livestock and humans.During 1962, one of the worst bear food years on record,
767 brown bears were shot in Tuva (south-central Siberia)
and >200 died due to cannibalism by other bears.
Wildlife officials estimated about 67% of the population
was eliminated from this region in 1 year (Zyryanov and
Smimov 1992). A similar situation was observed in 1984
in Magadan Oblast (north-eastern Russia) and in other
regions of Russia (M.A. Krechmar, Institute of Biology
of the North, Magadan, Russia, pers. commun., 1991)."
https://www.bearbiology.org/fileadmin/tp...l_9_2_.pdf

But even bear cub with less developed motor abilities than adult ,clearly shows that "anatomical traits are beneficial to fighting success"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHAqTzwNXRk

The one, which is said to be more cursorial than lions? Which are more cursorial than tigers.
Someone argue that " most of the data on bone robusticity favours the lion over tiger"

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/animalsv...t4592.html
Anyway How much more curiosa than a tigers?
And at the same time more robust than any recent tiger or lion mostly because P.atrox captured much larger prey than the tiger.Simple as that.Thats why Sorkin state

"Sorkin [32] found similar results for external measurements of the humeri of both S. fatalis and P. atrox, with both of them having relatively robust humeri,"
The one, which is said to be more cursorial than lions? Which are more cursorial than tigers.

Still P.atrox>recent lion&tiger

"Claw and tooth marks
left on a Pleistocene steppe bison mummy (Bison priscus;
M. L. Guthrie, 1988; R. D. Guthrie, 1990) suggest that
Panthera atrox adopted killing techniques similar to
those used by modern lions. However, Anyonge (1996)
has shown that the cross-sectional geometric properties
(i.e. bending strength) of the limbs of Panthera atrox,
particularly of the humerus, were much greater than
those of the extant lion, being closer to those of the
brown bear, Ursus arctos. In other words, the extinct
lion had much stronger forelimbs than an extant lion
of similar body size. Therefore, large prey could have
been primarily subdued and restrained by the extremely
powerful forelimbs of Panthera atrox, which would have
greatly reduced stresses on the mandible during the
canine bite. Furthermore,"


https://carnivora.net/showthread.php?tid=385

Why so large?
I don't know about those estimates, but the study I posted previously gave 251kgs average.
Substantial underestimation

Are you seriously saying the young tiger holds a size advantage there?
Yes ,young tiger was bigger than the wild boar based on what I see.

"This thread is getting kinda muddled, esp' with odd misapprehensions & irrelevancies, such as attempting to
extrapolate 'average weights' from a small sample - which includes sub-adults, of a non-involved in the topic, animal"

So you dont know what "large" not average coastal/alaskan bears mean?


Warsaw's posting of strange images, accompanied by vague ideas, as rationalisations don't help, either

These "strange "images&videos are closely related to your BS about "overwintering, a fat-gain of ~40% by weight"
and muscle mass distribution .

that applies also to his failing to understand lack of variables control & causation of false experimental results. "

"Untrained 'human volunteers' ( presumably academic students) were compare  with "Untrained 'human volunteers' ( presumably academic students)".The results of the two tests were compared to see if they were in agreement.So the methodology is correct
In other words, you must compare "athletes, gymnast/acrobats/dancers & etc " with "athletes, gymnast/acrobats/dancers & etc"
Reply
(05-19-2019, 11:40 PM)Warsaw Wrote: They can for a dozen or so seconds at best.
Doesn't really change the fact they can. 

Quote:https://unews.utah.edu/flat-footed-fighters/
I dons see any connection (as well as the  author above)to sumo wrestling style.
It's a bit detailed study for the same topic.
Like I mentioned above, lateral striking like a human is not possible for a ursid.

As for sumo wrestling. Yes, bears fighting style of (pushing and pulling) is similar to sumo wrestling. Which needs a good balance too.

Quote:With much larger prey?Not really

But fighting is more closery related to "fighting abilities" than hunting scenario.
Yes with much larger prey. They do better in comparison with bears. 

Right. But when talking about individual fore arm strengths, it's a best way to take what they do more often. Like on regular basis.

Quote:This is relatively long battle.Do you have any other video with relatively long battle between wild tigers?
Show me if you have.
Hard to find more videos, since they are rare. And lives in dense forests, unlike tiger canyons. 
But it doesn't change the fact they have higher mortality rates in comparison with any other felines.
And tigers from canyons are captive.

I'm not saying, tiger fighting style in wild is very different. But it is different for some extent. Like not this many roll-overs. 

Quote:[Image: 2yv3ww6.jpg]
Common attack zone (i.e spine ) is hard to penetrate .Thats why I said that "biting and shaking" style may increase damege(especially on bone).
Common attack zone for tigers is also spine/nape.

Of course it increases damage of what grizzly jaws can actually give. 
But still makes less damage on flesh in comparison with carnivores with better carnassials.

Quote:If we speaking about "rare mortalities(if any)"
Its  closely related to: density and competition for resources


"Intraspecific competition is density dependent and may cause density-dependent mortality. At low densities no intraspecific competition exists and competition for resources does not play a role in survivorship. As densities increase, a threshold is reached where density begins to influence mortality through resource"

"...During drought years in the eastern portions of Russia,
low precipitation resulted in poor forage production and
increased bear-human conflicts. When these conditions
exist, bears in poor physical condition approach settlements
and prey on livestock and humans.During 1962, one of the worst bear food years on record,
767 brown bears were shot in Tuva (south-central Siberia)
and >200 died due to cannibalism by other bears.
Wildlife officials estimated about 67% of the population
was eliminated from this region in 1 year (Zyryanov and
Smimov 1992). A similar situation was observed in 1984
in Magadan Oblast (north-eastern Russia) and in other
regions of Russia (M.A. Krechmar, Institute of Biology
of the North, Magadan, Russia, pers. commun., 1991)."
https://www.bearbiology.org/fileadmin/tp...l_9_2_.pdf

And that is at one point(1962). We're not sure based on how many populations they were talking about.
We also don't know the details of 200 bears. Most likely cubs or females killed by males.

Show me something, that says male bears often kill other male bears in territorial battles. 

Quote:But even bear cub with less developed motor abilities than adult ,clearly shows that "anatomical traits are beneficial to fighting success"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHAqTzwNXRk
Of course bears and bigcats(grapplers) hold advantage over canids (non grapplers) even with size disparity. 

Quote:Someone argue that " most of the data on bone robusticity favours the lion over tiger"

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/animalsv...t4592.html
I was already aware of it, LOL.
The ones that are used in that study used, lions with longer humerus than tigers. 
Even if lions got a slightly robust humerus, it doesn't change the fact tigers got denser/heavier bones.
The average weight of Sumatran tiger skeleton is heavier than average weight of African lion skeleton (check out my previous posts). 


Quote:And at the same time more robust than any recent tiger or lion mostly because P.atrox captured much larger prey than the tiger.Simple as that.Thats why Sorkin state

"Sorkin [32] found similar results for external measurements of the humeri of both S. fatalis and P. atrox, with both of them having relatively robust humeri,"
The image showed a very large humerus of p.atrox and not that large but just as robust humerus of smilodon.
A scaled down version would be similar to lion or a little robust.

Quote:Still P.atrox>recent lion&tiger

"Claw and tooth marks
left on a Pleistocene steppe bison mummy (Bison priscus;
M. L. Guthrie, 1988; R. D. Guthrie, 1990) suggest that
Panthera atrox adopted killing techniques similar to
those used by modern lions. However, Anyonge (1996)
has shown that the cross-sectional geometric properties
(i.e. bending strength) of the limbs of Panthera atrox,
particularly of the humerus, were much greater than
those of the extant lion, being closer to those of the
brown bear, Ursus arctos. In other words, the extinct
lion had much stronger forelimbs than an extant lion
of similar body size. Therefore, large prey could have
been primarily subdued and restrained by the extremely
powerful forelimbs of Panthera atrox, which would have
greatly reduced stresses on the mandible during the
canine bite. Furthermore,"

https://carnivora.net/showthread.php?tid=385
It may surely have stronger forelimbs than extant lion of similar size. But not extant tiger of similar size. 
Like I said, it had a cursorial life style. Which means, less impressive in musculature.
Why's it that hard to understand? 

Quote:Substantial underestimation
So, what is the most likely average of p.atrox according to you?

Quote:Yes ,young tiger was bigger than the wild boar based on what I see.

Not really. The tiger is just longer, the boar is stocky.
Would be better, if we use image comparison..
[Image: 16675.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Venom's post:
  • onlyfaizy786
Reply
Quote: Warsaw

"This thread is getting kinda muddled, esp' with odd misapprehensions & irrelevancies, such as attempting to
extrapolate 'average weights' from a small sample - which includes sub-adults, of a non-involved in the topic, animal"

So you dont know what "large" not average coastal/alaskan bears mean?


Warsaw's posting of strange images, accompanied by vague ideas, as rationalisations don't help, either

These "strange "images&videos are closely related to your BS about "overwintering, a fat-gain of ~40% by weight"
and muscle mass distribution .

that applies also to his failing to understand lack of variables control & causation of false experimental results. "

"Untrained 'human volunteers' ( presumably academic students) were compare  with "Untrained 'human volunteers' ( presumably academic students)".The results of the two tests were compared to see if they were in agreement.So the methodology is correct
In other words, you must compare "athletes, gymnast/acrobats/dancers & etc " with "athletes, gymnast/acrobats/dancers & etc"



No.

You are still "muddled" about matters.

1, Your gifs gave zero reliable weight/measure figures.

2, A ~ 40% seasonal weight gain, with resultant impairment in athletic/combat capability is a natural fact, not "BS".

3, Wrong about "methodology" too, using unskilled humans in an attempt to make valid findings in a specialised
    area is akin to your posting vids of inept captive-kept tigers being set upon hapless domestic cattle beasts...
    Neither example provides a realistic appraisal of what actually occurs in proper settings/applications.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)