[quote]MaximusB wrote:
These two are actually friends.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Polar bears don’t hibernate.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Polar bears don’t hibernate.[/quote]
Misuse of the word on my part. Pregnant females DO enter a deep hibernation, but the rest don’t enter a deep hibernation. More like a “shallow” hibernation in which they enter a state of extreme lethargy. Either way, they typically lose up to half their body weight during this stage, which makes them much more vulnerable to lions/tigers, should their paths cross.
I don’t remember if it was you or Edgy who said that the pair of polar bears who were chased off by a grizzly was just a female and her cub since they remain solitary otherwise, but this is not so.
In the southernmost areas of their habitats, where their habitats overlap with those of the grizzly, they will interact in small groups during the ice-free summer months. They also interact with each other in pairs during mating season or to feed on large whale carcasses.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]LTKO wrote:
tiger vs crocodile here. the video is worth watching. skip to 34s if youre the impatient sort.[/quote]
I LOVE that video! That tigress has balls and tenacity. [/quote]
Is it fair to say then that you love chicks with balls?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]LTKO wrote:
tiger vs crocodile here. the video is worth watching. skip to 34s if youre the impatient sort.[/quote]
I LOVE that video! That tigress has balls and tenacity. [/quote]
Is it fair to say then that you love chicks with balls?
[/quote]
Yes, but only the reptilian variety.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]LTKO wrote:
tiger vs crocodile here. the video is worth watching. skip to 34s if youre the impatient sort.[/quote]
I LOVE that video! That tigress has balls and tenacity. [/quote]
Is it fair to say then that you love chicks with balls?
[/quote]
Yes, but only the reptilian variety.
[/quote]
That reminds me, whatever happened to that poster that would talk about shapeshifting reptilians hiding among the human population?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Now I’m curious. Back on page 4 or so you say that a polar bear wouldn’t stand a chance against a lion or a tiger. Here you fully concede that a grizz would dominate either cat.
Why do you think the polar bear is so inferior to the grizz that this fight goes from one extreme to the other? Is it the relative aggression thing you allude to based on a video you recently saw?
The lion still has superior speed and agility as well as the sharper claws than the griz. He could still work to the bear’s back or “pull guard” and choke and eviscerate him from below as you suggest would be the certain outcome against the polar bear. A far as I can tell it’s basically the same match up, except with a bear whose size advantage is greatly reduced (grizz 4-800lbs/polar 750-1500lbs).
Admittedly, the grizz has a significantly faster ground speed, but this isn’t a footrace. I’d way rather fight Usain Bolt than George Foreman.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Polar bears don’t hibernate.[/quote]
Misuse of the word on my part. Pregnant females DO enter a deep hibernation, but the rest don’t enter a deep hibernation. More like a “shallow” hibernation in which they enter a state of extreme lethargy. Either way, they typically lose up to half their body weight during this stage, which makes them much more vulnerable to lions/tigers, should their paths cross.
I don’t remember if it was you or Edgy who said that the pair of polar bears who were chased off by a grizzly was just a female and her cub since they remain solitary otherwise, but this is not so.
In the southernmost areas of their habitats, where their habitats overlap with those of the grizzly, they will interact in small groups during the ice-free summer months. They also interact with each other in pairs during mating season or to feed on large whale carcasses. [/quote]
It was Edgy. That guy’s such a dumbass.
Seriously though, are those polar bears forming groups or just occupying the same area without getting territorial. I can’t say I know, but I think the later. I think if a Grizzly shows up at a whale carcass with two polar bears feeding, they are not feeding together they are simply eating at the same time and will not put up a unified effort to keep the Grizzly away.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Now I’m curious. Back on page 4 or so you say that a polar bear wouldn’t stand a chance against a lion or a tiger. Here you fully concede that a grizz would dominate either cat.
Why do you think the polar bear is so inferior to the grizz that this fight goes from one extreme to the other? Is it the relative aggression thing you allude to based on a video you recently saw?
The lion still has superior speed and agility as well as the sharper claws than the griz. He could still work to the bear’s back or “pull guard” and choke and eviscerate him from below as you suggest would be the certain outcome against the polar bear. A far as I can tell it’s basically the same match up, except with a bear whose size advantage is greatly reduced (grizz 4-800lbs/polar 750-1500lbs).
Admittedly, the grizz has a significantly faster ground speed, but this isn’t a footrace. I’d way rather fight Usain Bolt than George Foreman. [/quote]
It IS the aggressive nature that I like better about the grizzly than the polar bear. I’ll have to look around for the video a little. When I saw this grizzly charge out of nowhere toward a pair of polar bears and then the polar bears bounced the fuck out of there, I realized that they might be big as fuck, but they don’t have the same mindset as a grizzly.
But what has really convinced me that a lion or tiger would stand a good chance at the least and could beat the polar bear is the metabolism of the bear. Someone on here said that this fight would be over with in seconds and I don’t think that’s the case at all. ANY fight could end quickly, sure. But the polar bear is absolutely fucked if he has to exert himself for more than a couple of minutes. I think that is partly why adult polar bears prefer seals for their high fat/calorie content over animals with more protein and muscle like they do in their younger days. They need the protein to grow, but once they hit maturity they prefer the high caloric content so that they can go longer without food since each hunt takes so much out of them. That’s also why they are “still” hunters for the most part.
Video of polar bears going after walruses is actually quite rare since they typically hunt through holes in ice where they wait for their prey to come to them, rather than chase them down. The lion and tiger both stalk their prey and as such, are used to long bouts of exertion and energy expenditure. The polar bear’s massive size is a drain on its energy system, so it’s biggest strength in a way is also it’s biggest weakness.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Polar bears don’t hibernate.[/quote]
Misuse of the word on my part. Pregnant females DO enter a deep hibernation, but the rest don’t enter a deep hibernation. More like a “shallow” hibernation in which they enter a state of extreme lethargy. Either way, they typically lose up to half their body weight during this stage, which makes them much more vulnerable to lions/tigers, should their paths cross.
I don’t remember if it was you or Edgy who said that the pair of polar bears who were chased off by a grizzly was just a female and her cub since they remain solitary otherwise, but this is not so.
In the southernmost areas of their habitats, where their habitats overlap with those of the grizzly, they will interact in small groups during the ice-free summer months. They also interact with each other in pairs during mating season or to feed on large whale carcasses. [/quote]
It was Edgy. That guy’s such a dumbass.
Seriously though, are those polar bears forming groups or just occupying the same area without getting territorial. I can’t say I know, but I think the later. I think if a Grizzly shows up at a whale carcass with two polar bears feeding, they are not feeding together they are simply eating at the same time and will not put up a unified effort to keep the Grizzly away.[/quote]
I don’t know about that, but I would assume that even if they weren’t operating together, one of them would have the balls to fight off a potential threat to its food. After all, polar bears are up around a thousand pounds and I think grizzlies are less than half that size.
Here is the video.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Polar bears don’t hibernate.[/quote]
Misuse of the word on my part. Pregnant females DO enter a deep hibernation, but the rest don’t enter a deep hibernation. More like a “shallow” hibernation in which they enter a state of extreme lethargy. Either way, they typically lose up to half their body weight during this stage, which makes them much more vulnerable to lions/tigers, should their paths cross.
I don’t remember if it was you or Edgy who said that the pair of polar bears who were chased off by a grizzly was just a female and her cub since they remain solitary otherwise, but this is not so.
In the southernmost areas of their habitats, where their habitats overlap with those of the grizzly, they will interact in small groups during the ice-free summer months. They also interact with each other in pairs during mating season or to feed on large whale carcasses. [/quote]
It was Edgy. That guy’s such a dumbass.
Seriously though, are those polar bears forming groups or just occupying the same area without getting territorial. I can’t say I know, but I think the later. I think if a Grizzly shows up at a whale carcass with two polar bears feeding, they are not feeding together they are simply eating at the same time and will not put up a unified effort to keep the Grizzly away.[/quote]
I don’t know about that, but I would assume that even if they weren’t operating together, one of them would have the balls to fight off a potential threat to its food. After all, polar bears are up around a thousand pounds and I think grizzlies are less than half that size.
Here is the video.
They looked close to the same size in the video. Would not be that rare for a large grizzly and a medium polar bear to be around the same size. I agree Brown bears (Grizzlies) probably have more attitude. I also think either one would mess up a big cat.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Now I’m curious. Back on page 4 or so you say that a polar bear wouldn’t stand a chance against a lion or a tiger. Here you fully concede that a grizz would dominate either cat.
Why do you think the polar bear is so inferior to the grizz that this fight goes from one extreme to the other? Is it the relative aggression thing you allude to based on a video you recently saw?
The lion still has superior speed and agility as well as the sharper claws than the griz. He could still work to the bear’s back or “pull guard” and choke and eviscerate him from below as you suggest would be the certain outcome against the polar bear. A far as I can tell it’s basically the same match up, except with a bear whose size advantage is greatly reduced (grizz 4-800lbs/polar 750-1500lbs).
Admittedly, the grizz has a significantly faster ground speed, but this isn’t a footrace. I’d way rather fight Usain Bolt than George Foreman. [/quote]
It IS the aggressive nature that I like better about the grizzly than the polar bear. I’ll have to look around for the video a little. When I saw this grizzly charge out of nowhere toward a pair of polar bears and then the polar bears bounced the fuck out of there, I realized that they might be big as fuck, but they don’t have the same mindset as a grizzly.
But what has really convinced me that a lion or tiger would stand a good chance at the least and could beat the polar bear is the metabolism of the bear. Someone on here said that this fight would be over with in seconds and I don’t think that’s the case at all. ANY fight could end quickly, sure. But the polar bear is absolutely fucked if he has to exert himself for more than a couple of minutes. I think that is partly why adult polar bears prefer seals for their high fat/calorie content over animals with more protein and muscle like they do in their younger days. They need the protein to grow, but once they hit maturity they prefer the high caloric content so that they can go longer without food since each hunt takes so much out of them. That’s also why they are “still” hunters for the most part.
Video of polar bears going after walruses is actually quite rare since they typically hunt through holes in ice where they wait for their prey to come to them, rather than chase them down. The lion and tiger both stalk their prey and as such, are used to long bouts of exertion and energy expenditure. The polar bear’s massive size is a drain on its energy system, so it’s biggest strength in a way is also it’s biggest weakness.
[/quote]
Interesting points. If the Grizz legitimately is much more aggressive than the polar, I bet on aggression over size as well. Not sure if one video proves this though.
Lions and tigers do stalk their prey. However stalking is a relatively low exertion activity where they seek to very gradually close the distance on their prey until they are within their effective striking range. In the end they are ambush predators and their kills either succeed on fail in a few violent seconds of extreme exertion. Neither can keep up with their prey for any length of time.
It was me who said the fight would be over in seconds. I said this because fights usually ARE over in seconds. The knockdown drag-out donnybrook that goes on and on is the exception, not the rule. This is true for both people and animals. After a few seconds’ measuring, distancing etc both parties go balls to the walls at near maximal exertion until one side scores a telling blow which they either capitalize on and press the advantage home or they allow the other to retreat having ended the threat. This more often than not happens very shortly after the first real engagement.
The dynamic is different if we are talking about a pit fight where the animals are forced to fight until one is killed/incapacitated and retreat is not an option.
[quote]timbofirstblood wrote:
[/quote]
Lame. They were actors.
Didn’t you see the lion’s SAG card fall out of his pocket during the fight?
That lion must have been on something, dude was jacked.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]timbofirstblood wrote:
[/quote]
Lame. They were actors.
Didn’t you see the lion’s SAG card fall out of his pocket during the fight?[/quote]
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Hmmm? Polar bears don’t hibernate. Female polar bears lay out the coldest seasons in caves only when they’re taking care of cubs, but they don’t spend long periods in dens like temperate climate bears tend to do during the winter.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/essentials/hibernating-and-denning
[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
BTW, I think the lion is a better pound for pound fighter and if you eliminate the bear’s size advantage my answer changes. However in an “open class” event where each is in his species’ upper size/strength range and in his own prime… yep, the lion is screwed.[/quote]
Well, are we talking pre- or post-hibernation? Because a polar bear coming out of hibernation is only about half its normal weight, although it might be more likely to fight if it thinks a tiger/lion represents a meal. Post-hibernation it definitely has a much bigger size advantage but it might be so engorged on seal blubber that it’s willingness to fight is severely diminished.
I fully concede that a grizzly would dominate a tiger/lion, but that isn’t the argument here.
I recently saw a video where a polar bear was feeding on a seal in a rare instance where they were feeding in the same environment that grizzlies lived in. The grizzly was considerably smaller and if I remember correctly, it was by itself whereas the polar bear was with a mate or a buddy or whatever. The polar got one whiff of that grizzly and took the fuck off. So I wonder about the aggressiveness of a polar bear. It was much larger than the grizzly but it put up no fight and left, while the grizzly ate the seal.[/quote]
Hmmm? Polar bears don’t hibernate. Female polar bears lay out the coldest seasons in caves only when they’re taking care of cubs, but they don’t spend long periods in dens like temperate climate bears tend to do during the winter.
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/essentials/hibernating-and-denning[/quote]
I already clarified what I meant by “hibernation”.
Sorry, I was skipping about.
I mean, I was skipping through the posts, not frolicking.
Crap do I have to go through the whole thread again just to make a meaningful contribution?!? I was going to make a comment about how the scenario of a lion vs. bear is a LOT different than a tiger vs. bear, even though they’re both big cats…they hunt and kill in very different fashions…ah screw it I’m not motivated enough to check if anyone made that post.