The bear has brute force, but the tiger has agility. It’s a tough call
You must log in or register to comment.
Tigers. people underestimate how big they are, they’re massive. could easily take down a bear. a lot of their bulk is just fat.
In real life bears and tigers don’t share much habitat BUT where they do bears are preyed on by tigers, but primarily juveniles and younger.
Tigers are one of the most successful predators in the world and a Siberian tiger isn’t far off in size from a Grizzly with claws and fangs that match it. With a top speed nearly twice that of the bear the tiger outclasses it in every way except for weight (150ish pounds at max for both) and bite force, but they both can bite through each others bones and skull so that’s irrelevant. A tiger can smash a bears skull with a swipe and so can a bear smash a tigers.
In a fair fight the bear would win, but tiger vs bear wouldn’t be a fair fight.
what would a fair fight look like does the bear get a sword?
I feel like “fair” in this instance involves the tiger not having stalked the bear for a day or two until it falls asleep and the tiger just chomps it.
But yes, the bear gets to choose first weapon OR if shields are allowed.
The bear. It’s not even close. They’re both apex predators, but only bears regularly fight OTHER apex predators (mostly other bears) and walk away without much damage to them. They can tank anything that tiger, which is used to hunting smaller animals than itself, can dish out.
Does Tiger get to use golf clubs, and is bear wearing leather?
Depends on the type of bear. A black bear would probably lose to a tiger. But a polar bear would absolutely defeat a tiger and consider it a lean snack.
These figures are from Wikipedia.
Grizzly bear, adult male, Alaska: 390kg
Grizzly bear, adult male, Canada: 140kg[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear#Appearance)
Bengal tiger, adult male, Chitwan: 260kg[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_tiger#Characteristics)There’s some variation in tiger size too, but much more in bear size, it seems. It could be a 2:1 ratio either way, so the question is if that size difference is enough to determine the outcome. Maybe we should compare fighting styles for these two animals.
Interesting points… we also need to consider how hungry and/or pissed off they are, and how that might affect their fighting style
Theres a wide variety of bears and tigers. Sun bears are a lot different then Kodiak. Similar though not as broad (IIRC) with tigers.
Could a Bengal tiger kill a Koala? Yeah absolutely. He’d have a bit more of a time with a grizzly, whos weight comparable.
A koala is not any sort of bear.
A slow and stupid sort :)
A koala is not any sort of bear.
except for a slow and dumb one.
Is that you Dwight Schrute?
The bigger one. Or the one that tends to not back down. Not sure about either animals behaviour. But I guess that the smaller one will back down.
Yep we need a zoologist to weigh in here
What kind of bear? I think a grizzly stands a better chance than a black bear against a tiger.
Pretty sure a sun bear is just a nice, light snack, but a polar bear is a whole fucking buffet!
Polar, or grizz, either would be a battle with a tiger!
However, most animal behavior is posturing, rather than engagement. Likely, after a second or two, one beat would beat a hasty retreat.
Engaging, even with a lesser foe could result in a blinded eye, or other lesser injury which could threaten long term survival for the clear/dominant animal.
As a result, most ‘battles’ are short, intense, and decisive. No beast wants to get hurt. As animals grow up, they will spar and fight together, but once mature RARELY engage in full combat due to the risks.
A lion (oh my).
