okay, so apparently this debate has finally gained a lot of traction: Siberian tiger versus grizzly bear. At this point, it's almost on par with tiger versus lion or T-rex versus Triceratops. And unlike the other two topics, which are pretty evenly matched, but we all know who wins, right? Well, the tiger versus grizzly debate is logically one-sided. So, to establish the premise, the fight will be between an angry male Siberian tiger and an angry male grizzly bear. No backing out, no running away, just a simple good old-fashioned brawl. This will be a head-on fight, so no cheap shots like ambushing, and one other thing: this fight will take place on an open field, so no claiming that a tiger or bear can hide between trees or anything to that extent. All right, so now that we got some ground rules established, let's begin the analysis. Size: a Siberian tiger, or also called air tiger, lives in the Far East Forest of Siberia, hence the name, and due to its

cold environments. The Tiger has thicker fur than its warmer region counterparts for obvious reasons. It gets pretty cold up in the Far East last time I checked. However, they pack a lot of muscle under their fur. I mean seriously, look at the shoulder and tricep muscles on this cat. And given that information, how much do you think a wild male Siberian tiger weighs? 600 lb? 700 lb? Nah, it's actually more around the 400 lb range. This may be a shocker to some of you since you've probably been hearing that tigers can grow up to 660 lb. The key phrase is up to 660 lb. This does not mean the average weight. Those that reach close to the max weight are captive tigers that are fed constantly, thus making them obese. In fact, the historical average weight of a wild male Siberian tiger was around 475 lbs. However, due to habitat destruction and poaching, currently, the average weight is between 350 to 418 lb, with the average weight being around

386 lb. Now, regarding the size of the North American grizzly bear, it really depends on the location and season. A good concentration of these bears inhabits Alaska, and it also gets pretty cold up there too. Because of this, they have coarse fur and thick layers of fat, which make them living tanks. After all, grizzlies are the reason why the term bear mode exists, and I don't think people truly realize how big these bears really are until they've seen them in real life. The average coastal grizzly clocks in between 600 to 900 lb. Along with that, it's not uncommon for males to reach around 1,000 lb in weight, especially during the winter. But interior grizzlies, for example, the ones in Yellowstone National Park, average between 400 to 600 lb, with the number being closer to 600. So, we are already looking at a big size difference between these two beasts. The average grizzly is significantly larger than the average Siberian tiger. Even if we take the largest recorded wild Siberian tiger, that being the 770

lb anomaly. It would only be comparable to the size of the average Coastal Grizzly. And for all those people who are keen and highballing the Siberian tiger's weight to 700 lb, it's only fair that we do the same for the grizzly, with the largest wild grizzly weighing 1,200 lb. Yeah, so the tiger is not winning the size game right now, but perhaps speed is another factor we have to consider. After all, what can't catch you can't kill you, and having less mass will ultimately be a benefit in this category. The fed build is designed for very intense explosive power. This is due to their high amount of fast-twitch muscle fibers, hence the reason why Big Cat are some of the fastest animals alive. Siberian tigers, with their muscle-dense build, can sprint much faster than bears. They are capable of running up to 50 mph, but top speed is actually hardly a factor in this fight scenario. You know, tigers and bears don't really collide into each other when they brawl. However, the tiger is generally

quicker with its paws and is more agile than the bulky Grizzly. It comes to no surprise since they are very muscular after all, with their muscle density being around 55 to 65%. Consequently, that also means they have pretty low stamina. Tigers are ambush carnivores, meaning that they rely on stealth and their explosive power to leap onto prey, given that hardly any tiger fights actually last longer than a minute or two, and even then, it's very sporadic and not continuous. The grizzly bear, on the other hand, can fight for a lot longer since their body enables them to do so. They have more slow-twitch muscle fibers than a tiger, meaning what they lack in explosive power, they more than make up for with endurance. Just for reference, some of their fights have even lasted longer than 10 minutes. That sure beats the minute and a half the tiger can fight. Also, I'm not even kidding when I say this, there have been recorded cases of grizzlies outrunning horses, and I'm

not talking about outsprinting them. I'm talking about the bear chasing the horse until the horse becomes exhausted. Yeah, I would sure love to see a tiger do that to even further justify on why Grizzlies have more stamina. They have a lot more fat, with their muscle density being between 45 to 50%. That means pound-for-pound, the bear carries more fat than the tiger. This is surprisingly a perk since it helps increase their endurance by offering more energy to use. Now, I'm not claiming that an obese bear has more stamina since that's not the case at all. Having more than a healthy amount of fat would exhaust any animal due to its increased heat and weight. I'm simply saying that fat is a necessary thing to have and can help maintain and extract more power over longer periods of time. This is just one of many reasons on why Grizzlies have more stamina. Now, even though the Tiger's body is more muscle dense, that does not mean they are stronger. Bears and felids have two different body

layouts so you cannot compare their muscle densities as a percentage ratio. However, what you can compare is how their muscles are used and the amount of force put behind them. For example, the hind limbs of a Grizzly are built for upright stabilization, allowing them to stand up and grapple for long periods of time. This makes sense since a Grizzly's paws and femur are larger and more robust than any living felids. On the other hand, the Tiger's hind limbs are used for more abrupt movements, such as leaping onto their prey's back. And speaking of tigers hunting, we should probably address the big elephant in the room, that being the statistics for Iberian tiger versus AI bear conflicts. Many of you have probably heard about tigers hunting brown bears, and while that's not exactly false, it does lead to some misconstrued beliefs. Siberian tigers go after juvenile brown bears or hibernating mothers, essentially just like any other big cat. They hunt the smaller and weaker individuals when their guard is down, like when the bears

are sleeping. These situations make up the bulk, if not all, the bio statistics when regarding the interactions with the asseri brown bears, and this makes sense since cats are ambush carnivores that stay away from fighting healthy, rageful adults in a head-on fight. In addition to that, Amir Tigers most certainly do not face off against mature male brown bears in a head-to-head fight. There have been zero recorded cases of that happening. The fact of the matter is that a lot of these supposed statistics are literal hearsay nonsense that have no solid documentation other than someone writing the journal equivalent of trust me bro. Tiger fans may even pull up the infamous 22 to 2 win ratio favoring the Tiger in interactions; however, the ratio is deliberately ambiguous on the age and gender of the brown bears being used. That statistic is questionable at best, and it almost kind of seems like it was made up. On a related note, the best evidence we have of tigers killing brown bears is Tiger showing brown bear fur. Again, you cannot tell the age or gender.

of the brown bear when looking at the undigested fur. In fact, the only logical inference you can make is that the tiger ate a brown bear. For example, a juvenile brown bear could have died prematurely, and the tiger stumbled across its remains and gobbled it down. Furthermore, I would like to reverse the situation, and you tell me if it seems fair. Let's say a mother tiger and her cubs were sleeping one night, and a big 700 lb brown bear mauled the mother and her cubs to death and ate the remains. Would you say that was a fair fight and should be added to the loss ratio of the tiger? No. Well, if that's not fair, then why even consider it a feat? That's essentially what's happening with these obscure statistics. Some people even try using the faulty claim that tigers hunt brown bears as vindication on how the tiger would win. That statement, as proven earlier on, is founded on ambiguity and made-up statistics. Trust me, I could do a whole video on the interactions between

tigers and brown bears, but let's save that for a different time. I want to continue on with the arguably more important factor, which is weaponry and fighting style. Claws and biting are obviously going to be on tap in a tiger versus grizzly fight scenario. They both have them, so they're both getting used, but there is a pretty significant difference between their weaponry. A tiger has curved, retractable claws that are a decent bit sharper than the bears. They protrude out of the socket about 1 and 1/2 in. They are mainly used to capture fleeting prey and rip through their flesh. Now, even though the tiger's claws are sharper than the grizzlies, they are a decent bit smaller. A grizzly bear's claws can grow around 3 to 4 in, and they are used for gripping the ground, digging, and, of course, for brawling purposes. But perhaps claws aren't the only factor when considering strike effectiveness. What they're attached to, that being paws, are another thing we have to consider. Brown

bear paws, in particular Grizzlies, are huge. They measure around 8 in in diameter. Just for reference, that's as large as a human's head. On the other hand, a Siberian tiger's paws measure about 4 to 5 in in diameter. That's just only a little larger than a human hand. Not only does this mean that a Grizzly's paws are nearly twice the size, but it also indicates that it would have a stronger strike. It would just simply have more force put behind it, given the size advantage, the weight gap between the bear and tiger, and the muscle distribution of the bear having a more concentrated shoulder region. However, paws are only half the battle. Biting is obviously going to be another hot favorite in this theoretical fight. They both have insanely powerful jaws, with them being able to produce over 1,000 PSI. Now, it should be noted that the grizzly has a slightly stronger bite, with it being around 1200 PSI. However, the force output of each individual is close enough to where it doesn't really

matter. We should also consider an important aspect in biting, which is density and skull shape. As seen from the presented image, which is scaled according to the average specimen, the bear has an overall larger skull and brain casing. This not only infers that the bear is possibly more intelligent, but also has a bite reach advantage. However, the canines tell a different story. The tiger skull is strictly crafted for a carnivorous diet, with its canines being slightly longer and more robust. The skull of the tiger is also more compact and built denser. This implies that at equal weight, the tiger would have a stronger bite. But the grizzly is nearly double the size, so it dismisses that inherent advantage. And speaking of advantages, who fights better, a tiger or a grizzly? This question has an obvious answer, so let's just get straight down to business. The grizzly is a brawler. It favors grappling, pinning, and throwing around its weight. It doesn't really go for the neck as often as it just bites whatever area it can reach. This in turn leaves wounds across

the body rather than a concentrated area. Their huge paws are also used as manipulation tools, assisting them in off-balancing and pinning their opponents down. The tiger, however, fights uniquely among the big cats. They too like to fight standing up on their hind legs; however, they tend to favor striking with their paws and batting at their opponents rather than wrestling. In addition to that, they like to almost immediately go for the neck when their opponent is on the ground. This is different than the brawling and brute force method of the grizzly. The bear likes to dive in and pin its opponent to the ground, while the tiger favors striking and leaping into action. All right, we have our stats, so who wins in a fight between a Siberian tiger and a grizzly? If not made obvious already, the logical answer is the bear. Now, I'm not saying it's a total stomp, but the bear wins with pretty moderate difficulty. Something tells me that a tiger standing up to fight a bear nearly double its size would not end well for

the field if by some miracle the tiger manages to ground the grizzly and B it. It would just get a mouth full of fur and fat. Also, the tiger kind of has like a solid minute or two before it runs out of energy. The grizzly, on the other hand, is a living tank. Its paws are a lot larger, its fighting style is better in this scenario, and it has a lot more endurance. So, there you have it. Can't wait to see all the salty tiger fans in the comments.

GRIZZLY BEAR vs TIGER - The Honest Truth

GRIZZLY BEAR vs TIGER - The Honest Truth