Subscribe to the blog

Your email:

Fish with the Best

Wild Animal Fights

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Lion vs American Black Bear


Lion fight, lion vs, lion attackblack bear fight, bear attack, bear fight

There have been many requests for more Lion fights. Lets see if the "King" can win this one.

An adult male Lion can grow to be 10 ft long and weigh over 500 lbs. Lions primarily prey on large animals such as Wildebeasts and Water Buffalo, however hunting is usually done in a pack. Lions have more stamina than most large cats and usually kills its prey with a targeted bite at or near the throat and then holding on until its victim dies. The lion's mane provides protection for its own neck.

American Black Bears are on average smaller and less aggressive than Grizzlies. They can reach a length of 7 ft and weight of 750 lbs. These animals are incredible strong and have been known to become enraged killing beasts when hungry or provoked.

This is one of the most evenly matched fights on this site. The lion's speed may help it to get an early advantage in this fight. However, a full sized black bear's superior strength will help it prevail in this fight. In short, as the lion attempts to get inside on the bear to deliver a fatal bite, the black bear will swat lion down with a crushing blow before pouncing on the lion to finish the job.

Black Bear Wins


How can you say the bear wins and then have a video of a lion winning? Are you special?
Posted @ Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:43 AM by unit flower
Well i seen a tiger kick the crap out of a black bear,i also seen videos of lions and tigers fighting.They are about an even fight,so i know the lion will win the fight.
Posted @ Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:48 AM by Michael Martinez
mr. Flower. That is a very small black bear in the video. There is a very cruel video of a black bear fighting a lion in a cage match on youtube that I did not want to post on this site.
Posted @ Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:13 PM by Al
How could a bear swat a lion down! 
Lions are faster, have more practice in hunting and fighting, and lions are the same size as the bear!  
For the bear its the same size, but that's all. Black bears barely even hunt!!!
Posted @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:54 PM by Bobcat
That wasn't a fair fight, they were both locked up in a fucking cage, they didn't have any room to run around and beat the shit out of each other in! My money's on the Lion.
Posted @ Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:13 PM by Bradson
Black bears are very elusive creatures, they are the cowards of the bear family, if a Black bear was to see a male lion ready to fight, he would try anything to get out of that situation! The Lion surely would win this one.
Posted @ Friday, May 15, 2009 8:28 PM by Kenny
fuck me are you stupit why post saying a bear would win then show a video of a lion winning dhhhh 
and this is just a biest opion as you don;t seem to lyk lion you cock !! 
Posted @ Friday, June 05, 2009 5:38 AM by jo
This fight could easily go either way, but I'll probably have to go with the Lion since black bears are known to shy away from a confrontation quite often, which everyone has already mentioned
Posted @ Sunday, June 07, 2009 4:59 PM by Dude
You idiot, the lion is way larger on avg, and would dominate this fight with the jackass coward blackie.
Posted @ Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:34 AM by Gianmario
people who says bear is the winner on that fight..he or she is so stupid...
Posted @ Wednesday, July 01, 2009 1:24 AM by arnnie
LOL, Replace the cubby black bear with a beastly grizzly brown bear that's over two times the size of that black bear and the lion and then see how you like it. Those poor kids would've been lunch. 
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:03 PM by kevin
Kevin, grizlies are no larger than one record, of a total of 65 adult males measured, they averaged 192 kg, about the same as a lion. a grizzly which is twice the size of a black bear would be an overlarge specimen.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:28 PM by damon
uhhhhhh Damon you're wrong like always! 
Grizzly Bears on average are bigger than lions, you are living in denial! And you're a liar and you're very deceptive! 
Get off of this forum and go to hell!! 
Lions are weak, that's why they hunt in packs. 
To Tell you the truth, this isn't af fair fight, the lion will kill the black bear easily, but Dipshit Damon here decides to show up and piss everybody off! 
Lions are smaller and are more cowardly than grizzly bears! 
P.S: Damon got fucked by a lion and is now the lion's bitch.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:42 PM by Kenny
Sorry for being ugly Damon. 
I guess in your own way, you're a pretty cool guy. 
But it is crazy to say that a lion and a grizzly bear are the same size (On average or on maximum proportions). 
The average weight of a grizzly (and many scientists say this) is around 650-700 lbs, there is nothing rare about that it is common. 
And lions (males) average 400-450 lbs, while lionesses average 250 lbs. 
And the guys that talk about the brown bears that can kill a lion with one blow, they're talking about bears that weigh more than 1000 lbs, trust me! A grizzly of 1000 pounds or more can defeat a lion easily, with no trouble at all!!
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 5:22 PM by kenny
...kenny, no need for apologies. i myself don`t like to get into arguments. it`s just a discussion. but, to prove my point on grizzly bears; 
...there you go. grizzlies of 650 - 700 lbs does happen, but, most usually, this is due to a greater proportion of food intake, not actual body size.  
even a grizzly of 1000 lbs would find it difficult to kill these most mighty of animals, the most combative of carnivora. here is one record where a lion defeated a polar bear of the same weight; 
Here is the text (I cut and pasted the text into a document but no longer have the original): 
Fierce Struggle between a Nubian 
Lion and a Polar Bear, In Which 
The Former Won. 
A furious right to a finish between a 
fierce Nubian Hon and a monster Polar 
bear took at -Mundy's An- 
.ritual Show, in. Jacksonville. Fla. The 
bear -was badly beaten. 'but everybody 
admitted. that he had made a 
splendid fight. "Both beasts were absolutely 
game all the way through. 
The lion carried on the fight under 
considerable difficulties, as toward the 
close the keepers were shooting him 
and jabbing him with redhot irons 
The bear owed his defeat to his weakness* 
in offensive tactics. In. strength, 
weight and endurance he was fully 
equal to his opponent. 
.The fight naturally divided itself 
Into rounds, ' although, of course, no 
time rule was observed. After a fierce 
bout the monsters would rest for a few 
moments and then go at It again. The 
fight lasted ten rounds. 
The Polar bear had angered the lion 
in some way. possibly by his color or 
his cold and reserved manner. The 
keepers were first aware of the. trouble 
when the lion smashed, the partition 
of iron bars that separated him from 
the bear. 
The lion is a magnificent beast, 6 
years old which Is the prime of life In 
his family. He has a very thick mane 
and a horrid roar. When- he roars he 
turns up his nose and his upper lip 
and displays two rows of glistening 
fangs. Ho weighs 600 pounds. The 
name Roosevelt was given him because 
he was so fierce and handsome. The 
Polar bear is an equally fine specimen 
of his family. Ho tramps around 
his cage all day in a restless manner, 
but rarely utters a sound. He weighs 
600 pounds. Ho Is called Peary, in honor 
of the Arctic explorer. 
Roosevelt started the fighting by 
landing with the -left part- on. Bruin's 
right shoulder. Owing to the enormously 
thick fur on the bear the blow 
did l i t t l e damage, although the fur 
flew. Peary showed a desire to get to 
close quarters. Roosevelt preferred to 
use his agile feet, delivering quick, vicious 
'blows and hopping aside; with 
lightning Quickness. the first round 
was principally open fighting of this 
kind. Peary losing much fur. 
In the second round Roosevelt landed 
heavily on Peary's nose-, knocking 
off a considerable portion of It. Peary 
seemed groggy, and Roosevelt seized 
the opportunity to throw in a dozen 
blows. Peary, however, had 
plenty of stamina. -He backed up 
against the bars and rose on his: hind 
legs. When Roosevelt leaped at his 
throat ho caught the lion a fearful 
on the side of his head, knocking him 
to the floor with a great thud 
both then needed a rest. 
In the third round Roosevelt went at 
once for Peary's Injured nose. The 
latter, however, dodged cleverly. While 
Roosevelt 'was rushing past Peary the 
l a t t e r squeezed him against the bars 
and began clawing,' and chewing at his 
relatively uncovered hind quarters. 
Roosevelt was unable to hit back effectively 
but finally succeeded In 
dragging himself away, uttering fearful 
howls and roars as he did so. 
Roosevelt opened the fourth round 
In a sensational' manner by leaping 
high into the air and landing- on 
Peary's back. This worried the rather 
Slow bear, and Roosevelt was left at 
liberty to dig into his back for some 
seconds. By a terrific effort Peary threw 
Roosevelt sideways off his back, so 
t h a t the lion- landed on the floor with 
a great crush. 
The -proprietor of the show and all 
the keepers were now around the cage 
doing what they could to separate the 
fighters. The owner realized, that every 
time the lion landed on the bear 
he knocked $50 worth, of value off him, 
not to speak of the possibility that 
both might be killed. Ac first the keepers 
tried long- poles and iron rods on 
the raging beasts, hut both were utterly 
disregarded. They smashed the 
poles like matches und knocked the 
iron rods back so that the men holding 
them were Injured. 
In the fifth round the lion appeared 
A little groggy as the result of his furious 
and breathless fighting. He panted 
heavily and trembled as he hit out 
at Peary. The latter pressed his opponent 
steadily. He tore large patches 
of skin from his body and seemed very 
nearly victor. .Suddenly the lion roused 
himself and gave the bear a fearful 
blow on his already much damaged 
nose. Peary stepped back. That was 
the signal 'for a brief return, to their 
The lion, began hostilities in the 
sixth* round by fixing his teeth In 
Peary's left hind leg. The bear tried to 
shake him off but the Lion held on like; 
Ono of the keepers here- intervened 
by jabbing a red hot iron against the 
lion's muzzle. A fearful stench of 
burning flesh and hair filled the air. 
The lion was at last compelled to let 
go of the bear. he jumped back snarl- 
ing horribly at the human intruder. 
The bear seized the opportunity to 
throw himself on the lion and bury his 
teeth in the latter's back. The keeper 
then turned the Iron on the bear and 
the fight was- stopped fop a few moments, 

Roosevelt quickly recovered from the 
weakness he had shown and began the 
seventh round -with a great rush. He 
tore Peary's coat until be was nothing 
but a shapeless mass of bloody tattered 
fur. "The unfortunate- bear tried 
to hug the lion. thinking no doubt, 
that would stop his Jabs, but the. lion 
did not care for this method of fighting. 
Peary rose up on his hind legs 
and Roosevelt dealt him a right paw 
smash that tore most of the fur off his 
chest. " - 
The two fighters danced around and 
rolled 'over one another so rapidly 
that the keepers were unable for the 
time to make any attempt to separate 
The ninth round began -with both 
fighters groggy, but still 1n the ring- 
The lion, had had his right paw bitten 
through. His mane was nearly all torn 
away. His back and hind quarters 
, were badly damaged. His left leg was 
nearly useless. He could not see out of 
his right eye 
The bear was much more badly off 
There was not a space on him as large as 
A man's hand that was not torn and 
Bloody His head was in such a 
deplorable condition that his nose and 
eyes were unrecognizable. All his paws 
were bitten through. His back was 
literally ploughed by the lion's claws. 
still, they kept on fighting. They 
growled, roared. shrieked, moaned and 
splattered as they did so. 
The bear now accomplished what he 
had been trying all along to do. He got 
a fair grip. But this move proved after 
all to be Peary's ruin The bear hugged 
the lion until the by-standers could 
hear the feline lighter's bones creak 
and groan. The lion- gasped almost 
breathless, but still he managed to get 
teeth into the under side of the 
bear's .throat, one of the most vulnerable 
parts of his body. 
In the death embrace the tenth 
round was fought out. The bear kept 
on squeezing the lion kept on. gripping 
with his teeth. The throat grip was 
more than the bear could stand. slowly 
he relaxed his grip an-d sank on his 
Back beaten and half dead. 
The lion stood over him snarling as 
if he meant to eat him. At this moment 
a courageous Keeper stepped up 
and smote Roosevelt between the eyes 
with-an iron bar. He then seemed to 
think he had had enough and dragged 
himself back to his cage quietly, where 
he was "barred In. 
The circus men secured the animals 
with ropes, and four veterinary surgeons 
set to work on their 
wounds. They bound them up with 
antiseptic dressings wherever they 
could and in other places used largo 
strips of plaster. 
The lion will probably recover, but 
The condition of the bear is desperate. 
......there you go.  
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:22 PM by damon
I think most of the injuries on the lion and bear were from those jackasses smoting them with those iron bars! That was a harsh, but yet interesting story Damon. 
But....That polar bear was the same size, and yes that is rare. 
That was a small polar bear. 
Polar Bears can reach maximum sizes of up to 1500 lbs, and I know this for a fact. They've also been spotted hunting and killing beluga whales, and even Walrus, which are huge animals! 
Now, a fight between the lion and the brown bear would be completely different in my opinion, because the polar bear may be bigger,but the brown bear is stronger and faster (up to 40 mph)! 
That would be the end for the lion 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:10 PM by Kenny
Kenny, we aren`t talking of maximum sizes of the polar bear....of course a polar bear may reach over 1000 lbs. however, such is based upon food consumption....if the food intake should be lower than what most may gather in the wild, their weight would likewise be lower. and also, grizzlies, which are a species of brown bear, actually can run 30 mph...there are no reliable documents of bears running 40 mph. (i do have sources for the speed of the bear); 
and, here`s a fight between a lion and a russian, or brown bear; 
also, here`s an account where a lion defeats a tiger, and, almost immediately afterwards, had to contend with a bear (was refered to as bruin, suggesting it was likely a brown bear); 
...even though the lion was like;y tired from fighting the tiger, he almost immediately took on the bear, and apparently defeated his opponent much sooner. this speaks volumes of the fighting prowess of the lion.
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:08 PM by damon
Damon, hey man, you don't have to get all upset I just want to set you straight on bear facts. You're wrong about that size difference, the Grizzly is more than twice the size of a male lion-its true, a lion is 450 lbs and a Grizzly is 900 lbs-both are average although they both can get larger with the lion only gaining 100 lbs more than its average(550 lbs max)and Grizzly's have made over 1200 lbs. Grizzly's are cited as running at 35 mph by national geographic and animal planet as well as different experts on bears-35 mph! Now Polar Bears are on average,1600 lbs and have gotten over 2400 lbs in captivity-these mightiest of beasts have killed baluga whales, 4000 lb bull walruses(no small feat)and polar bears can run 35 mph as well as has been documented. Sadly to say, I think the lion would win over a black bear-black bears are ave 350-450 lbs although larger ones have been recorded but not the norm.
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:42 PM by Attila
Attila, i was far from upset. but, i also mentioned actual records of the mass of the grizzly bear, which is about the same as the lion;  
and, most sites which state the grizzly can run 35 mph is quoting a long known figure in scientific literature, but one unsupported by actual data.....just look at the source in my last post. 
also, polar bears don`t average 1600`s...that would be an overlarge specimen. i have records upon these animals as well...if you want to see them?....they averaged roughly 1000 lbs, but, this was based upon a rich food consumption, and likewise excluding the mass they lost after spring. 
...and, in my previous post, i also showed records of a lion defeating a brown bear, and a polar bear......the one before my comment to you.  
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 8:11 AM by damon
also, here`s some data upon the average weight of lions;  
...there you go. as you can see, grizzlies are no larger than lions.
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 8:15 AM by damon
Damon, I really don't want to argue man, Grizzly's are about double the lions weight-they weigh more than tigers also-grizzlies av weight is 850-900 lbs for an av male although they have been several specimans over 1200 lbs. As for the polar bear-an african american biologist on polar bears said on av the polar bear is 1600 lbs-thats brand new data collected by this guy studying them in teh field, not old information which was innaccurate due to misnomers and lacking data. Thats the truth-and lions av weight for an adult is only 450-550 lbs although there have been some that have been larger, however Grizzly's are almost double-its true, don't get mad about animal facts-this is updated true and accurate data as collected by biologists in the field now. They can run 35 mph-thats how they catch there prey-and have been recorded doing so. No lion has even met a polar bear-the true king of carnivores. You don't have to get so fanatical about the animal you like best to get bits and peices of facts one from one page,one from another to peice together false statements about an already magnificent animal-they cannot and have not killed polar bears-and I really pity the fools who endangered both animals were they to try this foolishness. These are bear facts, nowyou don't have to believe them, but that doesn't alter the fact that that information is true and accurate. Thanks
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 5:29 PM by Attila
Damon, this is old, useless information which was innaccurate. New studies show the size of these grizzly's to be larger-maybe their diet is providing them with more mass now than before. Also, information from ppl such as timothy treadwell who lived amongst the kings of north america stated their size to be larger. I would only believe people who lived and worked exclusively, not a general biologist who's studies are prismed by a myriad of other species causing innaccurate data to be reported which is many times the case. In any event, no lion has ever reached the 100-1200 lbs that grizzlys have, that itself is more proof as them being exponentially larger.
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 5:43 PM by Attila
...Damon, is there an animal that you think COULD, in fact, kill the lion in a fight, with the lion having no shot at all? 
If you say no, then we all know you just love the shit out of lions, but if you say yes, please list them. 
Attila is right and he proves a much better point than you do! Every animal that we match up against the lion..You always say the lion beats it and then you go on to say that you have one or more records of a lion beating a bear or a tiger in a fight, and from what i've seen the animals were about the same size as the lion, and Damon...Bears are bigger! 
You cannot and will not convince me otherwise, it will not happen! 
The smallest average of a grizzly bear is 650-700 lbs, the highest average is 800-900 lbs. And if you're talking about any brown bear, like the coastal brown bears of alaska, their computed average is of 900-1000 lbs, but they can reach maximum proportions of up to 1800 lbs! 
And now you're probably gonna tell me that "we're not talking about maximum sizes of these animals kenny we're talking about the average" Well let me ask you this....What is so exciting about seeing average animals fighting? You see a lot more action and louder sound effects when the larger animals are fighting!! 
a 550 lb Lion vs a 1500 lb bear? 
Bear wins, hands down. 
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 10:47 PM by Kenny
oh, and Attila...When you said that bears are bigger than tigers, that's just gonna lead him to tell you that lions are bigger than tigers, trust me! I know this fool. 
He thinks that the lion's shit don't stink. 
And Damon, it does bad when you compare it to these other animals that we're mentioning.
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 10:52 PM by kenny
Attila, did you look at the actual studies i showed, upon the weight of male grizzly bears?....well, the adult specimens averaged 192 kg.....about the same as lions. 
and, the highest speed recorded from a grizzly was 30 mph...i already showed the source in proof of this. you have not shown a SHRED of evidence for ANY of your statements.  
and, lions average average 420 lbs, or 190 kg...i know this for a fact, as i have every modern document published upon the weight of these animals, and i assure no lion population averages up to 550 lbs.  
i`ve already shown the records of a lion defeating a polar bear, on two occasions, and two other records of a lion defeating a brown bear. that shows they can, and do defeat these animals in battle. and, i`m not are making statements which studies do not support.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:46 AM by damon
Attila, timothy treadwell never weighed bears, so, how can he conclude they are larger?...through observation?....that is not an accurate way of determining the weight of these animals. and, that study i showed was fairly recent.  
grizzlies don`t weigh any more than lions, and, where are your documents to prove this?.....
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:49 AM by damon
Kenny, weight aside, the actual body size of grizzlies is no more greater than that of lions. simply put, proportionately (i.e. length, height, bone mass) they are roughly equal. however, the size of bears, as i`ve stated many times, is related to food intake. so, they can, and do grow heavier...but, that is in populations where the food intake is greater than the corresponding lion populations. 
and yes, there are animals that can defeat the lion. elephants, even tigers can, on occasion, defeat these animals....bears as well. lions aren`t always victorious, nor have i ever stated such. and, i already showed a record of the average size of grizzly bears....did you even look at it?...they averaged 192 kg.....about the same as lions.  
and, of course a much larger bear will defeat a lion half his size. what kind of fight is that?.....not only is it unfair, but, you`d basically be comparing one of, if not the largest grizzly on record, with a lion of near normal proportions.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:00 AM by damon
also, Kenny, you don`t know me. i have NEVER stated lions were bigger than tigers. for as long as i can remember, and, trust me, my statements have never changed upon this, i have stated lions and tigers were of equal mass. i don`t relate my statements to what other posters say...i have the actual records to prove my points. 
i have every modern document published upon the mass of lions and tigers, and, if you give me your email, i could show them to you.....but, the list is rather long!
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:03 AM by damon
Damon, you seem determined to argue-yes the lion is magnificent animal, but a Grzzly is known throughout the scientific community to grow up to 1200 lbs-thats already known science, whereas no lion has ever reached this massive size, so how are grizzlys no larger when animal biologists in the world agree? This is old info, bears now are getting larger, but even old studies say these giants as being larger-oh, the 400 lb is a young adult before putting on fat and muscle to hibernate, they will put on 4-500 more lbs of muscle and fat from the protein rich salmon and other foods they kill. Lions never get this size, for you to say this either makes you a fanatic purposefully ignoring facts, or you don't know a darn thing about bears. I lived out in WA state w/my best friend and i've seen these guys-my best friends fishing buddy has a Grizzly thats 913 lbs-is that the same size as a lion? He is likely to get larger the guy says, also. This ppersons resources checked out fine-yes, they DO run at 35 mph except when running downhill because of the shoulder hump, then they run slower, but they still go 35 mph-a fact which they all agree on. Scientists come up with different weights for these giants, however all agree about the large number of ones tippping scales at 1000 lbs and over up to 1200 lbs. Timothy Treadwell did not weigh them, but he recorded how they live and what they do, watched them kill with one swipe as i and my best friend have seen eyewitness to a Grizzly killing a moose with a single blow while it was drinking in a stream. He does agree with the speed of th ebear at 35 mph though. 
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:08 PM by Attila
Damon, I forgot to add one thing: there are two averages-one while they're starving at or around 400-450 lbs before packing on the pounds, or you can average one after they pack on the pounds 800-900 lbs-they spend equal amounts of time at either weight, so therefore you cannot say this bear is only 400 lbs, because he will morph into a behemoth when he bulks up for the winter, do you understand what I'm getting at here?
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:16 PM by Attila
Attila, you obviously did not read the sources i showed. the source i showed was related to the average of the grizzly, throughout the year......and, it was 192 kg. an average of grizzlies based upon a specific time of the year, is limited, and biased, as there weight fluctuates much between the months. but, they were weighed throughout various months, not just the time in which they lose mass. 
and, i said the bear was 192 kg, which is about 422 lbs or so. grizzlies are no larger than lions.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:19 PM by damon
I read them, doesn't mean they were accurate though-that is the point, isn't it? The Grizzly does not have ONE SINGLE WEIGHT throughout the year, he is starving at or around 400-450 lbs, and that same weight after hibernation-the REST of the year(6 months ) is spent at the larger weight he puts on for winter bulking up, like I said, I lived in Grizz country, I know abou tthese kings of North America-yoiu have to if you want to remain safe and alive in Grizzly country as we call it. There is no average for a Grizzly at 422 lbs-they GAIN WEIGHT for winter! If you weigh them when they bulk up for 6 months, obviously you will have a different and higher weight. They are still stated as being larger(than lions, but not specific)because of their ability to grow to such enormous sizes-they have teh capacity whereas the lion does not. Also, on words I capped, I wasn't yellling, it was to stress the word on which I capped. No need to gtet bent out of shape here, its animal biology.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:43 PM by Attilla
Damon, even on Wildlife Documentary, when they show the bears, the bears are a hell of a lot bigger than 192 kg, the smallest male that I saw was well over 240 kg and he was fighting a bear that dwarfed him!! Even the female grizzlies are over 192 kg, it's barbaric to say that these animals are on average no bigger than lions! 
And to answer your question, No, I did not read what you posted because it would be a waste of time, like I said earlier, you cannot and will not convince me otherwise! I know this for a FACT, I'm not in denial, and I know what I'm talking about!
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:47 PM by Kenny
attila, that`s where your mistake lies. the study i mentioned, gave an average throughout the WHOLE year, rather than a figure based upon a single point of the year. simply including the weights when the bears are at their highest is biased, and, even then, the heaviest in that study was only a bit over 300 kg, dispite your statements to suggest they average roughly that amount. i have another source which gives an average of 490 lbs...and, that is generous, as it compare several studies. it seems the studies do not support your statements. instead of talking of the studies you know of, show them. if you weigh the bears when they bulk up, that is biased, and exactly my point that seem not to get. weighing the bears at their highets weights is not conclusive, as their weights vary between the years, but, if you weigh them THROUGHOUT the year, you can get a fair average of their weights.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:48 PM by damon
also, attila, having the capacity to grow larger has NOTHING to do with the average sizes of these specimens......the average grizzly, based upon the study, by EXPERTS, are no larger than lions. and, i`m far from being bent out of shape. but, you`re supporting a statement which you have yet to prove. many sources state the grizzly is large, but, most usually those are estimates or asymptotic figures. they aren`t reliable.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 1:51 PM by damon
Average weight for a male grizzly is 550 lbs or 247 kg! 
There you go, Damon!
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:22 PM by Kenny
..Kenny, you cannot judge the weight of a bear just by appearance alone. and, why don`t you show your studies, where the grizzlies apparently averaged over 192 kg....and, i`m referring to actual records, not a website merely reporting weight figures. i`m talking of actual data reported by scientists in the field, like i have shown, though you neglected to read them....which is likely the cause of your ignorance in this discussion. you simply don`t WANT to believe grizzlies are no smaller than lions. but, the study i mentioned was based upon 65 adult males, measured THROUGHOUT the year, rather than at one single point in time, which is rather biased, and the data gathered from such inconclusive. 
since you know what you`re talking about, show the data, from scientists, to prove your point.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:26 PM by damon
kenny, that wasn`t a scientific study you showed...but merely a website reporting a weight figure. i mentioned studies from scientists where the weight of these animals were verified, and based upon a large number of specimens measured.  
anyone, including me, can make a website. mention a document reported by known scientists, not some unknown website. my source was a scientific article, in pdf format, reported by a scientist in the field.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:29 PM by damon
Didn't you read what I posted? They CANNOT have JUST one average throughout the year as they bulk up-is it biased to count their size as merely their stariving weight of 400 lbs? That would be tantamount to me counting the low weight of the lion, then. This however, is different as bears have different physiologies than lions as bears double or more their weights, lions do not. 6 months out of th eyear, a bear weighs in at the larger wight, the otherh 6 months he is the smaller weight, therefore there are 2 averages. So if you take the small average when comparing, then you must do so for the lion as well, because a lion may NOT encounter a 450 lbs bear, but an 850 lb one-depending on when seasonally they meet. Here is a link, the only way these two will meet is through zoos, and in the link provided, under DESCRIPTION, you wil find they say in New Jersey tehre is a bear named Goliath weighs 2,200 lbs-he's not even the largest bear-that one is 2,400 lbs!! It further states they can run 40 mph! If they were teh same size as the lion, why do experts say " the bear is the largest land based predator on earth"? Think about it.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:45 PM by Attila
Haha, I forgot the link-here it is!
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:49 PM by Attila
Damon, you're just simply in denial! 
That's why you're so ignorant in the discussion. 
There's nothing wrong with that either, ignorant is the way to go! 
Siberian Tigers prey on bears that weigh 192 kg! But they tend to stay away from Bears that are much larger than that, which SHOULD prove to you that bears are far more superior animals than big cats.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:54 PM by Kenny
Damon, you just got caught in a lie! You said that Tigers can beat Lions in a fight, but before that, you were bragging about Lions winning because they're better fighters and blah blah blah. 
So, now it's safe to call you a LIAR, LIAR!! 
And by the way, a 550 lb Lion is a big lion, and a 1500 lb Bear is a big bear, so that would not be an unfair fight! Too bad for the lion he can't reach those maximum sizes that the bears can! 
Damon you're just so dumb, everything you say is the same shit we've been hearing for the past 3 months!! Nothing is new with you! 
a 550 lb Lion vs a 1500 lbs Bear? 
Bear wins, hands down.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:57 PM by Kenny
[edit] Hybrids 
Main article: Grizzly–polar bear hybrid 
A grizzly–polar bear hybrid (known as a Pizzly Bear or Grolar bear) is a rare ursid hybrid resulting from a union of a brown bear and a polar bear. It has occurred both in captivity and in the wild. In 2006, the occurrence of this hybrid in nature was confirmed by testing the DNA of a strange-looking bear that had been shot in the Canadian arctic;[7][8][9] Previously, the hybrid had been produced in zoos and was considered a "cryptid" (a hypothesized animal for which there is no scientific proof of existence in the wild). 
[edit] Description 
A Eurasian Brown Bear running. Brown bears can be fast runners despite their size, capable of speeds of up to 64 km/h (40 mph)Brown bears have furry coats in shades of blonde, brown, black, or a combination of those colors. The longer outer guard hairs are often tipped with white or silver, giving a "grizzled" appearance. Their tail is 4–5 inches (10–13 cm) long.[10] Like all bears, brown bears are plantigrades and can stand up on their hind legs for extended periods of time. Brown bears have a large hump of muscle over their shoulders which distinguishes them from other species.[11] Brown bears are very powerful, and can break the backs and necks of large prey. The forearms end in massive paws with claws up to 15 cm (5.9 in) in length which are mainly used for digging. The claws are not retractable, and have relatively blunt points. Their heads are large and round with a concave facial profile, a characteristic used to distinguish them from other bears. Males are 38–50% larger than females.[10] 
The normal range of physical dimensions for a brown bear is a head-and-body length of 1.7 to 2.8 meters (5.6 to 9.2 ft) and a shoulder height of 90 to 150 centimeters (35–60 in). The smallest subspecies is the Eurasian Brown Bear whose mature females weigh as little as 90 kg (200 lb).[12] Barely larger, Grizzly Bears from the Yukon region (which are a third smaller than most grizzlies) can weigh as little as 100 kg (220 lb) in the spring[13] and the Syrian Brown Bear, with mature females weighing as little as 150 kg (330 lb). The largest subspecies are the Kodiak bear, Siberian Brown Bear, and the bears from coastal Russia and Alaska. It is not unusual for large male Kodiak Bears to stand over 3 m (9.8 ft) while on their hind legs, and to weigh up to 680 kg (1,500 lb).[14] The largest wild Kodiak bear on record weighed over 1,100 kilograms (2,400 lb).[10] Bears raised in zoos are often heavier than wild bears because of regular feeding and limited movement. In zoos, bears may weigh up to 900 kilograms (2,000 lb), one example being "Goliath" from New Jersey's Space Farms Zoo and Museum. Another example is Kodiak brown bear "Barbucha" at the zoo in Duisburg, who weighs 1000 kilograms (2200 lb).[15] Size seems related to food availability, and subspecies distinctions is more related to nutrition than geographical location.[16] 
Despite their size, some brown bears have been clocked at speeds in excess of 64 km/h (40 mph).[17] 
One of the subspecies of the brown bear, the Kodiak bear, which is native to Kodiak Island, matches the polar bear as the largest member of the bear family,[2] and as the largest land predator.[3] The hides and skulls of the two species are comparable in size, thus making morphological comparisons difficult as it is often difficult to weigh wild specimens.[3] Do you see Damon, where it states they are the worlds largest carnivore?(lions are included-Grizzly's are not as they are omnivores eating everything)Here is another important link:  
Polar Bear Brown Bear  
Average Weight of Mature Male 900-1,500 pounds 500-900 pounds  
Heaviest Recorded 2,210 pounds 2,500+ pounds  
Average Length of Mature Male 8-8.4 feet >7-10 feet  
Source: The Great Bear Almanac by Gary Brown 
This should help you to understand the sizes of bears and that there are 2 averages, one in th espring and summer at the lean starving weight, and the larger one, from Sept-spring when they come out of hibernation. This should dispel any prior myths you may have had about the largest carnivores on earth, bears.(it says that repeatedly in scientific reports as well as the links I've provided you with. I love the big cats, but they are smaller. 
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 4:00 PM by Attila
And about those websites I've been getting my info on...I believe them more than I believe you, because Like you said, I don't know you, and I don't trust your credibility! 
The reason these websites are made is for people to put down their KNOWLEDGE of these animals, not just random shit like you would do! 
It's their knowledge of these animals. And a grizzly's average weight is more than or > 192 kg, it's barbaric to say otherwise! 
You're in simply in denial, and yes I know what that means, and I really believe you're in denial!! 
You cannot and will not convince me on your ignorant bullshit! 
You're not convincing anybody else either besides hard core lion fans!! 
And if you're fanatic over an animal, then you're just gonna keep repeating the same things over and over, and it gets extremely tiring and annoying to read! 
You're probably the only person who thinks Lions and Grizzly Bears are the same size. 
190 kg is not average for a lion, that is a pretty big lion, but not the biggest! 
And 192 kg is DEFINITELY NOT average for a grizzly bear, in fact that is just downright SMALL for a grizzly bear, that's average for a black bear!! 
Are you sure those aren't black bears they're talking about? 
A black bear is a good match for a lion, but the lion will win. 
A grizzly bear is just too much BEAR for the lion to handle, and the lion will surely die if he don't have his protective pride with him. That is why they hunt in packs, because they can't hold their ground in a one on one fight with a large animal, like a grizzly bear which averages 247 kg! 
But chances of a lion even beating a bear that small (even though it's the average) are very slim as well! Especially if it's a grizzly!!! 
When I think of a grizzly, I think of a huge, 1000 lbs monster, not a 400-500 lb little teddy bear, so.. up yours!
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 4:09 PM by Kenny
Actually Kenny, bears can weigh over 2500 lbs as I posted above, they have that bear at over 2400 lbs! they can keep growing as long as they live, and can live anywhere from 30-45 yrs old, sadly Bart the Bear, star of movies in hollywood such as The Bear and lots of other movies which I can't remember off th etop of my head died at around 20 yrs-he grew to be a big boy as well. Did you guys know that there used to be the largest carnivore(mammal)living right here in the US? THE short-face bear who hunted mammoths, even chasing away and sometimes killing the lions that used to be here also. Also, the largest black bear was recorded as being 880 lbs(north Carolina) and the largest in virginia was well over 700 lbs. All bears have the propensity to grow very large when compared with the "norm". Polar bears are teh largest, albeit the Kodiak is the same size and sometimes larger(depends on food, once again). All are marvelous creatures just the way they are, no need for people to make animals out to be more than what awesome capabilities they already display-that would be fanatical, and the world already has enough fanatics in them! Now the facts I posted here are true and correct, i have presented them honestly, provided updated links to articles and data provided by animal biologist working exclusively with the bear, not just a general animal biologist who do gereral incomplete or sometimes innaccurate data, so this sums it up! Thanks ppl! 
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:27 PM by Attila
Yeah, Bart the Bear was in "The Edge" with Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin, that was a huge bear! 
He weighed 1700 lbs in that movie. 
And the short faced bear was named Arctodus Simus, and he averaged 2000 lbs, and stood 13 feet tall, and yeah, he's the reason lions don't live in North America, he wiped them all out! 
I once told Damon of this, and he said "We are not talking of animals which are extinct." 
Who cares if they're extinct, sooner or later, the African lion and the grizzly are gonna be extinct too, that is living proof that bears are far superior animals than lions.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 6:55 PM by Kenny
Yeah, you're right. I wasn't for sure 100% if he was in that movie or not, so I didn't put that in my post. Here is a link to a Grizzly that was killed unfortunately-I really hate that it was shot, the story isn't entirely correct-teh guy didn't work for the park service but rather was an airmen in USAF. Have a look at the link and scroll down to where the paw is and look how its the width of a persons chest!! 
YES,thats the one-Arctodus Simus who could look a 6 ft tall man in the eyes while being on all 4's!! 
We need to all stick together since we're passionate about these predators/omnivores and try and do what we can to save tehm-I know that for myself, my wofe and I were going to volunteer to help the polar bear, but in order to do so from what we've researched last year and this, you have to be a native of Alaska, so there goes that. Teh only way they said was to donate money, and since we're not billionares, we opted to help in the field. You're right, kenny, pretty soon these animals Bears, Tigers and Lions will be extinct unless this generation bans together to save them-I know as for the bear, as long as the Asian market has the big and profitable bear gall bladder trade which has been responsible for Siberia's declining population as well as the Asiatic bear, then we will be stymied unless we move to make our voices heard in the form of wildlife conservation bills for each animal, I knoow Tigers are on the verge of extiction b/c of fear of the big cat and his killing of the woodsmen in places like the Sundabar regions in India and the mangrove swamps where I went while in the Marines. At the rate of those horrible african countries to fail in protecting their wildlife from game-hunting and taking bribes from poachers, lions won't last long either, so you guys should try and find out ways to save these animals and spread the word instead of saying "oh the lion can kick anybody's ass" and so forth-you'd actually be helping the animal/s you like best and would be their voice. Thats what croc hunter did.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:20 PM by ATTILA
ATTila, that source i showed did not give any starvaing weights of the grizzly....they measured the grizzlies at different times of the year....they did not merely report their lowest weights, they gave an average of these animals weights throughout the you know what that means?.... 
...simply put, they weighed males at different times of the year....they weighed both large and not-so large specimens....and, the average they came to was 192 kg. of course grizzlies can grow to enormous weights. no one doubt this....but, you`re doing the same thing you accuse me`re mentioning (though you`ve offered no records as proof) weights the grizzly may attain at the height of their mass....i`m mentioning an AVERAGE weight of these animals THROUGHOUT the year, not when they are starving, which would be at a specific time of the year. 
and, of course bears can get up to 1200 lbs. what does that mean?....besides that, you showed records from a website, and which was not reported by an expert. you are also mentioning the weights of captive grizzlies....even then, it may be an estimate. i mentioned records of specimens in the wild. 
..and, a grizzly has NEVER been measured at 40 mph.....just because a source says so, doesn`t mean anything. i have actual records of the speed of these animals being timed.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:36 PM by damon
Attila, wikipedia is not run by experts, and, frankly it can be edited by anyone. i did not mention any weights of starving grizzlies. i mentioned average weights of many animals, weighed at different times throughout the year...not merely when they are at their lowest weights. a total of 65 adult males were measured, and, based upon fat content, they were FAR from starving.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:42 PM by damon
Kenny, tigers have indeed been known to prey upon bears of roughly equal mass...and yes, they enerally avoid confrontation with bears larger than themselves.....but, this is due to the fact that they, much like the bears, do not want to risk injury. even if the tiger should win, he may still be mortally wounded, or at a point where is hunting ability may be hampered...he`d much rather avoid conflict, which is why only a small portion of bears constitute the diet of tigers. 
bears avoid confrontation as well....why get into a fight when they can find a meal elsewhere?...
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:45 PM by damon
Kenny, a 1500 lb grizzly would be an overlarge of the largest, if not the largest on record. a 550 lb lion, though large, is much more possible than with a bear over 1000, that would be far from a fair fight. 
also, you state i lied, i did not lie. tigers can, on occasion, defeat lions in battle. the lion is not always victorious. however, lions are the more CONSISTENT winner, which was my point before, but one you obviously failed to understand. 
and, lions live in groups because of the extreme competition they has nothing to do, specifically, with advantages incurred during the hunt. kenny, you obviously know very little about lions. read ACTUAL studies, not unreliable websites. all my documents come from mostly from experts, or else respected figures. 
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 8:01 PM by damon
and, again, Attila...i did not mention any weights of starving grizzlies. based upon the fat content of these bears, they were fit. the weights gathered from specimens weighed THROUGHOUT the year, not merely in the summer, or at times when their weights were lowest. 
likewise, you are following records reported by unreliable websites. i have actual records from scientists who has personally weighed these animals. 
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 8:06 PM by damon
I geve you more than wikipedia, however, scientists put there information on search engines which in turn, are collected by google. I also have many books on bears. Wikipedia site I gave you had reliable and accurate data gathered by scientists and biologists in their prospective field studies-its as accurate if you talked with a biologist, because it ends up there anyway. Look at the myriad of ref at the bottom and you will see. I know bears, you know lions, although i've studied them as well being an animal enthusiast. If measured throughout the year, their weights would be different, so I don't see how you can come up with an average for an animal who 6 months out of the year, doubles his weight. Its 6 months heavy, 6 months lean-so you cannot use merely his leanest weight and say "well thats his average i'll use in comparing him to a lion" because thats just innacurrate. They only-unlike big cats, have the propensity to double and sometimes more than double their weight. You use the heavy side of the ave weight on lions(450 lbs) then you handicap the Grizzly which is known to be an 800 lb animal and alot of them larger, and give him the low-end weight on the scale. I've been to that guys house in WA and his bear is always bigger than 900 lbs-he's an adult and is fed pigs, slaughtered cattle with his veggies and fruit they give him. 
To answer your above questions, They have been recorded as 40 mph by more than a few documents-previously they have been recorded at 35 mph, they should never be underestimated, because they CAN run that fast-we pwople who live with them know of their speed. 
Real scientists did put information on wikipedia and in resources such as books and manuscripts that wikipedia uses, so theres nothing wrong with that.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:17 PM by Attila
Bears such as brown polar and grizzly are quite larger than lions, they are always cited as being the largest land predator on earth, if lions are the same, why do they consistantly refer to them as being the largest predators on land? Anyway, you should just say that you are misinformed and leave it at that, beecause the information to which you're talking is simply unfair and untrue. Anyway, you should be putting your efforts into saving animals, here's the or call toll-free at 1-888-666-1198
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:25 PM by Attila
Well, Damon-you should take what I said above to heart, instead of useless argueing despite being shown lions are smaller by authorities on bears, you should try and put forth efforts to do what you can to make a difference to whatever animal you would like to save from extimction or poaching-the amount of time you spend on here, you could get alot done for the animal of your choice-btw, my favorite animals are the spotted Hyena(thats how i learn about lions)Rhinos, both white and black, and Polar bears. Pizzly's and Grolar bears are interesting raritys also. Here's info that is also accurate. They can run 35 mph and if they now say 40, maybe they weren't accurately recorded when they stated that. Heres another link:
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:56 PM by Attila
This information is from an author/expert biologist on bears; Gary Brown in "The Great Bear Almanac" 
Polar Bear Brown Bear  
Average Weight of Mature Male 900-1,500 pounds 500-900 pounds  
Heaviest Recorded 2,210 pounds 2,500+ pounds  
Average Length of Mature Male 8-8.4 feet >7-10 feet  
Brown bears can be fast runners despite their size, capable of speeds of up to 64 km/h (40 mph). The largest subspecies are the Kodiak bear, Siberian Brown Bear, and the bears from coastal Russia and Alaska. It is not unusual for large male Kodiak Bears to stand over 3 m (9.8 ft) while on their hind legs, and to weigh up to 680 kg (1,500 lb).[14] The largest wild Kodiak bear on record weighed over 1,100 kilograms (2,400 lb).[Despite their size, some brown bears have been clocked at speeds in excess of 64 km/h (40 mph).[17]  
Source: The Great Bear Almanac by Gary Brown  
There you go-40 mph. I studied bears and ALWAYS knew it was 35 mph as natgeo, animal planet, myriad of books I have read have all stated this, however, its 2009 and better measuring equiptment is readily available and past discrepancies are merely corrected, thats all. There is nothing wrong with these resources, so just relax and take in the information I worked to supply you with-its all about educating people!  
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:12 PM by Attila
Attila, i love all animals, but you too seems to be spending a great deal of time on this site. 
and, the great bear almanac states the grizzly averages 490 lbs, despite your many claims that it is heavier. and those weights of the polar bear was based off weights of these animals, before they lost mass, which occured after spring. a more reliable figure would be to give an average weight of these animals measured THROUGHOUT the year/years, rather than during a specific time of the year, such as when they are at their heaviest. 
and, male black bears average 90 - 145 kg, or less; 
..and, i`ve also shown a few records (either you did not see them, or else you ignore them) of lions defeating brown bears and polar bears as well. 
and, grizzlies have NEVER been clocked at 40 mph...those are merely unsubstantiated claims. the author did not himself measure the speed of bears....he merely heard of the figure. here is some actual records on the speed of grizzlies; 
...the most reliable record is 30 mph.
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:03 AM by damon
also, Attila, i don`t use the heavy side on the weight of lions. they average about 190 kg, according to most records, and indeed i have every modern document published upon the weights of these animals. 
...comparatively speaking, my data upon bears is lacking, but, i have a great deal more info than you do. 
...most of the sources you showed either gave note to estimates upon the weights of these animals, or upon studies on the weights of these animals, taken from specimens were they were apparently at their largest....which is inconclusive, as there weights fluctuates over the months, and, as such, an average should be given, based upon specimens weighed throughout the months/year.  
grizzlies are no larger than lions.
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:09 AM by damon
also, kenny, according to packer, lions are resilant, and they are able to survive even the toughest of times. one of their main purposes for group living is for defense against rivals, and longer survival rates. 
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:17 AM by damon
All the information I gave you were of there average weight. The aformentioned sizes above that I posted is of their sizes they can achieve, but they do state their average weight in that data, all you have to do is read-and they are much larger than lions. I've studied bears for so long, and most of that knowledge is in my head from reading, so I'm giving you links by bear experts who know the animals better than both of us and THEY say that the Grizzly is larger by the sizes they've provided to us and I posted here.
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:20 AM by Attla
Attila, you obviously know very little about bears. i too have spent years on this subject. and, the great bear almanac states the grizzly averages 490 lbs.....not those figures you mentioned. the weight of these animals depends upon food intake....which CAN be high in certain areas. 
here is another study upon the mass of grizzlies; the article...don`t just glaze over it. 
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:28 AM by damon
I'm sorry, but you were comploaining abou twilipedia and you are using brentlion as a scientific source for you!? He is not an authority on lions or bears, period-no more than you or I are, he looks up info on lions, thats what we all do with whatever we're interested in-so credibility is gone using that source.  
I gave you PROOF they go 40mph-they certainly ARE substantiated by animal biologists from different sources-why do you pick and choose what you believe whilst reading the data(accurate)that is provided by those whose profession it is to do so-if they get degrees on ursalines and graduate as a major in that degree, then proceed to compile data and conduct tests as they have done, then they KNOW more than you or I and who the hell can argue with them when they've studied in college then in the field with tests-THEY ARE THE PROFESSIONALS, and they gave you the data I provided to you-they say the bears go 40 mph, then the bears go 40 mph!! Its proof already since its been accepted as such by the scientific community-doesn't matter if you don't agree with it or not! I was always taught they go 35 mph, but apparently, these bears tested are faster!These same scientists also state the average size as being larger due to the weights they get. Also, the older the bear, the larger tehy become as well, so then you have to ask, at what age of bear will you use for an average. I know they have their pre-hibernation weight they sustain for 6 months and then the heavier spectrum of their weight-I'm not sure how to explain it any better-above it states the brown bear(a grizzly-look at the shoulder hump)is 500-900lbs. Thats their weight range, so 750 lbs would be in the middle of those weights if you want a yearly av. and that is larger than a lion or tiger-bear is larger. Every biologist agrees that the bear is the largest land carnivore on earth, so how can they be no larger than lions-because they are larger.
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:39 AM by Attila
also, Attila, look at this document, upon the mean body mass of many different grizzly bear populations; 
...notice how the majority were below 300 kg.
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:46 AM by damon
Here is an expert in the field of bears and author of a book on the same-which I provided above and you quoted, but rejected his expertise in regards to speed-i give you: 
This information is from an author/expert biologist on bears; Gary Brown in "The Great Bear Almanac"  
Polar Bear Brown Bear  
Average Weight of Mature Male 900-1,500 pounds 500-900 pounds  
Heaviest Recorded 2,210 pounds 2,500+ pounds  
Average Length of Mature Male 8-8.4 feet >7-10 feet  
Brown bears can be fast runners despite their size, capable of speeds of up to 64 km/h (40 mph). The largest subspecies are the Kodiak bear, Siberian Brown Bear, and the bears from coastal Russia and Alaska. It is not unusual for large male Kodiak Bears to stand over 3 m (9.8 ft) while on their hind legs, and to weigh up to 680 kg (1,500 lb).[14] The largest wild Kodiak bear on record weighed over 1,100 kilograms (2,400 lb).[Despite their size, some brown bears have been clocked at speeds in excess of 64 km/h (40 mph).[17]  
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:50 AM by Attila
I read the data from the link you provided as you spent the time to research it(taking time to research animals is never time wasted!)I thank you for your time,(there may be some things you find that I previously wasn't privvy to-I love to learn everything about them and other animals) I don't wish to seem like a know-it-all, but I already knew that different locations of Grizzlys vary in size, just as it is with brown bears inland are smaller on ave than those in the coastal regions due to their exposure to more readily acquired food supplies-thats exactly the point I was eluding to earlier-that the only way the 2 species will likely meet, is in zoos where bears will just be enormous-just look at the over 2,000 lb specimens that already have been produced in zoos! So if they meet, it will be each animal at their larger weight for sure, do you accept this?
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 2:01 AM by Attila
...also, Attila, i`m not using brentlion as a source, as I`M brentlion. and, i already seem your source from the great bera almanac...however, that very same book gave an average of 490 lbs, according many different ranges. 
...check this out; 
...the high weights of the brown bear (and, i do have sources upon those animals as well) is based either upon a limited sampling, measuring of specific-aged males at a certain time of the year, asymptotic figures, ect, which is not conclusive. 
and, you did not show me proof bears go more than 40 merely mentioned a source which reported those figures. scientists occasionally interject estimates into their figures, and, unless this was specifically stated, it is unlikely they actually measured the speed of those animals. 
...i have MUCH knowledge upon these animals, having spent many years rifling through several reliable, scientific documents concerning these animals. 
..i even have data upon the organ and gland weights of these animals...lions and tigers as well, and many other animals. i also have data upon the muscle mass of a lion as well. 
and, while all grizzlies are brown bears, all brown bears aren`t grizzlies, as the name relates to certain specimens of north america, which sport the famous 'grisled' look. grizzlies are no larger than lions...and, i can show many more documents than i showed you so far.
Posted @ Sunday, July 26, 2009 2:24 AM by damon
Damon, you are the only one who disagrees with the fact that grizzlies are bigger than lions..and like you said, you are no expert so what do you know? 
Now, you're saying the average is 490 lbs, instead of 422? How credible! 
1500 lbs is a large specimen, not overlarge! I do not know what documents you have on bears, but there's gotta be some kind of false info to it, because brown bears average well over 240 kg! 
You obviously know very little about bears, you know quite a bit about lions though. 
And you can keep repeating about how you have many documents about the mass of bears, anybody can say anything. 
I know bears and you cannot tell me that I don't, nor Attila, he's actually got a greater knowledge of these animals than I do. 
...And how does one call himself an amateur and go on saying that he's studied these animals for most of his life, that doesn't even make sense! If you've studied a great deal under these animals and for a long time, wouldn't you be classified as an expert? 
Did YOU even graduate High School? 
Your credibility is SO LOW!! 
And you're a liar for saying that you don't like getting into arguments, you're arguing right now! It is not just a discussion, a discussion is a calm manner, and I've seen some hateful comments towards you, I might've made a few myself as well. You are NOT convincing anybody! 
Now, for any Brown Bear...Like Attila said "900-1,500 lbs" seems more like an accurate estimate, don't you think? 
I think it's time for you to just go on with life as it is, with people who disagree with each other or agree with each other, NO BIG DEAL!! 
Don't take what I'm saying so harshly man, you don't have to be an asshole to someone who just puts down what they have learned! 
This information doesn't just come out of nowhere, you gain this information from books, computer, TV, and when I say computer I don't mean looking up a website like I've been doing, I mean discussing this topic with an expert, and he/she will tell you what you need to know. 
Now I came to this website to put down my opinions, and merely express them.. but people like you that just want to carry on, can't let that happen! It's pathetic.
Posted @ Monday, July 27, 2009 2:06 AM by Kenny
Kenny, i`m not trying to argue with you. it`s only a discussion. and, the great bear almanac, not me, gave an average of 490 lbs, for different grizzly populations, altogether. did you not see when i stated that?..... 
and, the documents i have were reported by credible scientists in the field. i can give you their names, credentials, ect. just because YOU say bears average 240 kg, doesn`t mean it is the case.  
and, i never said i studied bears for most of my life....i said, rather clearly, i`ve studied these animals for a long time. there`s always more to learn. however, your arguments are not good. and what does my level of education have to do with this discussion?... 
also, i never said i took what you said harsely.....when did i ever give you that idea?.... 
....most usually, i discuss topics with lion or tiger experts, but, the studies of which i quoted came from experts in the field, not some website that could have been created by anyone, or some inclusive data shown on a study which may not have mentioned any referrences.
Posted @ Monday, July 27, 2009 8:21 AM by damon
Damon..You are guilty of not reading through people's posts clearly....I said WELL OVER 240 kg, not about 240! 
And you didn't say that you took my comments so harshly, I just figured you do, because you always try to prove me wrong, ALL THE TIME!! It's really, really pathetic! 
Your arguments suck! Because you repeat the same thing! You robot!
Posted @ Monday, July 27, 2009 6:05 PM by Kenny
And I thought you said it was just a discussion, jackass!!
Posted @ Monday, July 27, 2009 6:09 PM by Kenny
LOL!!! You got that average from 65 bears in Yellowstone National Park! Damon, you're so dumb! 
65 Bears out of thousands is not enough to gather the accurate data to prove the mean weight of these animals. 
65 in Yellowstone, that is just hilarious!! 
The average WILD grizzly bear is larger than 192 kg, lol. And you obviously know very little about bears, the brown bear, not just the grizzly, is a large animal of an average 900-1500 lbs, not an overlarge specimen! An overlarge brown bear would be a ton or so, not an average 900-1500, and you'd have to be MAD to say that 750 lbs is an overlarge specimen, that is just outright stupid!! That is a small specimen there! 
And what does your level of education have to do, well...the the more educated one is, the more he knows, because that's what being educated is about Damon....good god you're dumb! 
How old are you exactly, and what is it that you do? I'm just curious, it's not part of the discussion.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:24 AM by Kenny
If those averages were taken from Yellowstone, they are going to be smaller bears-why not use teh bears in Alaska for an average? Yellowstone is among the smaller sizes of Grizzly's-even in Washington state they are bigger. They are smaller than average from other locations-depends on where yoiu want your average taken, but there are larger bears in WA and even larger in AK.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:37 AM by Attila
kenny, you too, repeat the same senetences several times. but, here is a record of a lion defeating a polar bear; 
...and, yes, i do try to prove you wrong, as i do not agree with most of what you are saying, as you actual studies mention an average of WELL OVER 240 kg for grizzlies. if so, show the study, and mention the expert involved in weighing these specimens.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:57 AM by damon
kenny, it is just a discussion. unlike you, i don`t curse at other posters i disagree with, nor do i take it too personally.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:58 AM by damon
Kenny, i know a great deal about bears, both brown and grizzlies. All grizzly bears are brown bears, but not all brown bears are grizzlies. grizzlies have that grayish, grizzled look, and are indigenoous to certain areas of northern america. 
here`s a document which gives an average of 389 kg, for 5 adult male brown bears; 
...however, the above mentioned figures are too limited (sampling too low, only certain age group measured, ect). but, also, note the other figures upon the weight of these animals.  
and, i know what being educated is. but, what does school have to do with my education? don`t need school to know you are smart. also, i know precisely where the weight of those 65 bears was mentioned at....and indeed, it was of yellowstone bears. but, unlike most other studies, the sampling is particularly high, and so conclusive. likewise, it is based upon specimens weighed THROUGHOUT the year, rather than at a specimen point in time. 
grizzlies are no larger than lions. 
and, i`m 23 (be 24 august 2nd) and i usually work with my step father, doing hauling/construction work.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:06 AM by damon
Attila, you want averages for bears of alaska? it is; fact, the above mentioned documents mention the weights of several different populations of brown bears, and the MAJORITY, except one population (and, even then, the figures were likely asymptotic, at best) were under 300 kg.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:11 AM by damon
The sampling of those species wasn't that high Damon, 65 bears is not even 1/8 of the population, in YELLOWSTONE! 
And that 389 kg was for brown bears, is that including the coastal brown bears of Alaska? Those are the largest subspecies of brown bears. 
And I think it's nice for everybody to know who they're talking to, my name is Kenneth Potter, I'm 20 and I do the same thing you do, I live in Texas so that probably explains my aggression towards other posters, sorry for that lol.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:20 PM by Kenny
Kenny, a sampling of 65 specimens is indeed a high figure, regardless of the amount of bears in that area, especially when considering an average weight, as majority are likely to be near the average.  
and, the 389 kg figure was for 5 male bears over 9 years of age, from alaska....hardly a conclusive figure, as they were not measured throughout the year, but at a specific time, as well as the fact they were all at an age in which they are nearly at their largest.  
the sampling is just too limited, and so the data inconclusive.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:30 PM by damon
also, my whole name is damon ransom, and i live in d.c. and, no need for apologies, it doesn`t bother me.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:32 PM by damon
This is for you Kenny and Damon on Bart the Grizzly Bear in his honor. 
Bart is a Grizzly bear(hump on shoulders)stood 9'6 and weighed 1,800 lbs. I didn't know this, but he also played in "the great outdoors" and that movie "the edge" Kenny you told me he was in-Bart brought home 1 million dollars for his part in the movie, and his handler and owner Doug Sues then started the Vital Ground Foundation with those proceeds plus his lifes-savings besides that to purchase Grizzly-safe land in Montana. If you have any questions regarding Grizzly's, here is a way to contact an expert(I would suggest NOT asking him about "what if" questions, like fighting lions and such)who can tell you about their sizes and lives throughout the year: or  
Doug Sues 
Phone: (435) 654.3176 
Fax: (435) 654.4747
Posted @ Friday, July 31, 2009 7:10 AM by Attila
Attila, i know all about bart. but, why mention it?.....he was an abnormally large specimen of large size doesn`t mean the occurrence of such large specimens us usual. most are usually smaller. for example, one bear on the program explorer, where they measured grizzly bear strength, weighed only 600 lbs, though he was an adult male.
Posted @ Friday, July 31, 2009 7:14 AM by damon
Yes, I know Bart was large for a Grizzly,this is to honor his memory. Yeah, I've seen that one and most on bears, like the one where this guy is in a reinforced clear epoxy cube and observes feeding behaviors unobstructed with polar and grizzly bears, then lions. The polar bear really has him worried for his life because he thought it just might be able to break it and it took extreme interest in him(there were holes about 3" in diameter drilled all away around for air)trying to rip into the small holes to get at the biologist. 
Here is a movie which you may not have seen with a lion named Major in it with Michael Douglas, Jodie foster as a youngster and a Danny partridge-looking kid, movie's called "Napolean and Samantha"
Posted @ Friday, July 31, 2009 8:08 AM by Attila
This is not an evenly matched fight. 
The lion is much tougher and more well-equipped to win a fight than the bear is.  
Tigers, which are of similar size to lions and tougher because they regularly fight for territory, often prey on brown bears, which are larger than blacks. 
If a bear sees a lion, he had better run.
Posted @ Tuesday, August 04, 2009 11:40 PM by lion would win
i'll start with some facts. 
male grizzly bears weigh on average 650 - 800 pounds IN THE WILD. They can reach 9 foot but generally length wise they are usually 8 
male lions weigh on average 500 - 600 pounds. They are 4 foot high off the ground and can reach up to 12 feet long but generally tend to be 11 feet. 
The grizzly has thick skin, a huge muscle mass, a big weight advantage, and power on it's side. 
An african lion has a thick protective mane, sharp claws, a massive jaw power, and tons of fighting experience on it's side. 
a lion is faster and more agile than a bear. and a lion is more intimidating also (roars, and the mane). also a lion is much more agressive. 
in short i think a lion would win. They are much more quicker and agile than a bear... and with big opponents lions will always go for the throat... Bear fans argue than a bears protective skin will stop this from happening but what they don't realise is that when a lion is going for a throat grip when hunting to close off a bulls wind pipe they use 20% of the power their jaw is capable of. 
I actually think that the fight is 60/40 in the lions favour because they wil almost always dance around looking for a weak spot in their opponent and box with their paws a few times then go in for the kill... this is due to the big fighting experience they get from living in the savahna. and i don't think a bear (who usually stands on it's hind legs) will be able to stop a lion who's going for it's throat. 
yes a bear is extreamly powerful but i hate when people say something so stupid such as 'a bear can swat a lion away like a fly' you seriously underestimate a lion, it's a big powerful agressive cat NOTHING can SWAT a lion away.
Posted @ Friday, August 14, 2009 2:47 PM by Oliver
fucking NERDS! 
Everybody here is retarded! If you really want to know which animal would win, just match their strengths and weaknesses together! 
The Black Bear would lose. Now if you want to talk about a lion and a kodiak bear fight, the bear would own the lion anyday! 
Lions are very strong. I've seen them female lions tackle buffaloes before! And I've seen lions fight other predators, and they KNOW HOW TO FIGHT! 
But Kodiak Bears are fucking monsters, they are huge! And they've got the nastiest attitudes ever!! If you take a look at a bear's claws, they're over 4 inches long!! And they're pretty fast for their size too!! 
And oliver....Elephants swat the biggest lions away everyday. Make them their bitches. So you're dead ass wrong about "NOTHING can swat a lion away" This happens all the time.
Posted @ Saturday, August 15, 2009 12:56 AM by Frankie
Alright guys, I'm an expert. 
African Lions average 7 feet in length (You're all overestimating the size of these magnificent animals), males generally average 400 lbs in weight, and females generally average 275 lbs. Lions can run at a speed of over 35 mph. 
Now, Brown Bears (or to be more specific, Grizzlies) average 500-650 lbs, during the springtime, and they may even average 1000 lbs during the winter, Grizzlies measure up to 9 feet in length, but only average 6 or 7 feet. And they can run at speeds ranging from 25-30 mph. Though some smaller bears have been clocked at 35 mph. 
Now, I don't like to talk about animal fights, but If you all really want to know the answer, it would be the bear. 
Evolution took it's course after Arctodus Simus and Panthera Leo went extinct. Arctodus Simus was the Short-Faced Bear, and these animals generally won a confrontation with an American Lion! 
That's why there are Bears in America rather than Lions. This is the TRUTH!!!!! 
Now don't you DARE criticize me or I will come to your house and kill you! JK, I have a really sick sense of humour.
Posted @ Monday, August 17, 2009 6:22 PM by I'm an expert!!!!
That one stupid damon sombitch was here too huh? And I see that he was commenting on how Grizzly Bears are no bigger than lions.....damn, this guy really loves lions don't he? But no damon, they're not the same size, bears are bigger. Ok? You see more 800-1000 lb grizzly bears than you do 400 lb grizzlies! U see alot more black bears that size!
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:32 AM by Brad
Brad, quit bein' an ass! lol jk man how's it going? 
Who in the world puts down that bullshit, and calls themselves an expert? It's quite funny lol! 
"Now don't you DARE criticize me or I will come to your house and kill you! JK, I have a really sick sense of humour." shit! lol.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:44 AM by Frankie
that bear would be OWNED. ive seen videos of housecats chasing away black bears. seriously? a black bear agaisnt a lion? its no match. lion would rip the throat out. the bear would be done.
Posted @ Friday, August 21, 2009 1:34 PM by Kerrie
oh, and by the way. can people stop talking about Grizzlys? who cares about them. im an animal lover of almost all animals and i hate every bear except the black bear. and size doesnt matter over skill. where a bear would stand up and try to look big a lion will jump and tear out the throat.
Posted @ Friday, August 21, 2009 1:38 PM by Kerrie
Thats completely incorrect, Kerrie-if a lion would try that, they would get their head knocked off by the bear. BTW, lions used ot live in north America, but bears wiped them out thousands of years ago, so your theory is fantasy-reality shows bears killed them off and took over north America as the dominant predators. Who cares if you hate bears, it doesn't change a thing such as reality.
Posted @ Friday, August 21, 2009 8:01 PM by ATTILA
Attila, a bear isn`t capable of knocking a lion`s head off. And, lions never lived in north america (at least, there is no direct evidence) and bears certainly wouldn`t have driven them out, as theyb live in groups and bears would find it very difficult. Likewise, i have a few records of lions defeating/killing brown bears and polar bears.
Posted @ Friday, August 21, 2009 11:21 PM by damon
Actually damon, lions did in fact live in North America, this species was called Panthera, or American Lion during the pleistocene era, that's what Attila is talking about, so you're wrong. 
And it was just an exaggeration when he said the bear would knock the lion's head off, don't make a big deal about it dude!
Posted @ Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:36 PM by Kenny
BTW damon, why are you still arguing about this? Let us have our own opinions okay! And it is a FACT, that lions lived in North America, and this show called Jurassic Fight Club aired on the history channel, and it was a fight between an American Lion and a Short Faced Bear, and the bear won. Then the scientists on the show, during the aftermath of the fight, said that bears ARE the ultimate land carnivores on earth, you can not tell me another story, lions are cool yeah, but Bears are just the winners of this lion-bear competition, quit acting like a baby! Babies sit there and argue with their parents about stuff they think is true, when in fact they're wrong because they're babies! That is exactly how you act! END OF DISCUSSION!!! And I saw how you started losing your temper on that Lion vs Tiger forum hehehe..........I thought you said you didn't take comments too seriously!
Posted @ Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:44 PM by Kenny
Kenny, the american lion is not the same as todays african lion, nor have they evolved from these animals. They probably have a similar build/features, but, that`s as far as it goes. and, i wasn`t making a big deal out of that comment about the grizzly knocking a lion`s head off......just correcting it....though i think he was serious.
Posted @ Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:52 PM by damon
Kenny, when have i 'acted like a baby?'. Also, the american lion is not the same as the african lion....they just happen to be similar in build....kinda like hyenas are to dogs. 
and, i don`t argue with my parents. Why would i do that?.....and, what the hell does that have to do with this discussion?..... 
and, an american lion would probably defeat the short faced bear...though, as i know little about these animals, i wouldn`t bet on it. However, they are not the same as todays lions, nor are short faced bears the same as today`s bears, so, that is a poor comparison. Not to mention a 'simulation' of an actual fight is not proof that the outcome will happen in that manner. 
i have records of lion`s defeating both grizzly`s and polar bears.
Posted @ Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:56 PM by damon
actually, there are lions in North America. its the mountain lion. but mega lions once lived in North America with the short faced bear, i believe it was called. they both are gone.
Posted @ Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:47 PM by Kerrie
Kenny, you do realize that fight was virtual. and virtual is fake. i saw a virtual fight of a gorilla and leopard. and the gorilla karate chopped the leopard. you have to think skill and common sense for fights. like this: wolf vs. asian lion and the asian lion would win. its about three or four times the size of the wolf and has better skill. now i want no comments saying "oh well blah blah blah and the wolf would win because blah blah blah" because you know your wrong. and im not answering any negative comments to this because that just means you are mad because you are wrong.
Posted @ Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:53 PM by Danielle
Damon man! 
"Kenny, when have i 'acted like a baby?" 
And I didn't say you argue with your parents you ignorant fuck! I was comparing you to a baby, babies argue with their parents just like how YOU argue with US! 
And Danielle, was I talking to you? I didn't think so. And so what if it's fake, the scientists on the show said that the bear would own the lion, and in history, the short faced bear killed the american lion in every confrontation. I'm not mad, i'm just tired of repeating myself! This damon idiot doesn't know when he's wrong and likes to fuck with everybody. Get a NORMAL life damon! 
And danielle, I don't think a wolf could kill a lion.
Posted @ Monday, August 24, 2009 4:55 PM by Kenny
Kenny, i know you didn`t say i argued with my parents, but, you gave a poor excuse in response to that. I don`t argue, merely, on occassion, post my disagreement with some of the posters here. After all, that`s usually the point of a blog about this case, lion vs american black bear. 
And, the animal face-off website is scarcely the same as the actual show, as the conclusions one or more experts may come up with, which is most usually how they determine the results of some of the hypothetical confrontations, may not be how it comes to play in the show. 
And, i do indeed know when i`m wrong.....i have no problem admitting when i`m wrong.....just don`t think i`m wrong, in this case, and indeed i have the studies to support my arguments, not merely an opinion. 
And, most of the time, the points i argue may not be my personal opinion, but based upon the studies i`ve come across, instead.
Posted @ Monday, August 24, 2009 9:31 PM by damon
But why would you do that? Why would you totally ignore your own opinions for that BULLSHIT!! That doesn't make sense! That one source you stated, that a grizzly is of 192 kg made me laugh, those scientists must be retarded! 
And Damon...merely, on occasion my ass! It's all the time buddy. 
Why would you discuss something for a long time, when it is NOT even your personal opinion? makes little sense, why post here at all? 
I would get tired of doing what you're doing, if nobody buys my bullshit, I wouldn't try to convince them, I just flat out tell them they're wrong, and yes, I will answer to comments directed towards me, because they are TOWARDS ME!!!
Posted @ Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:56 PM by Kenny
Kenny, that study you are referring to, in which it was stated the grizzlies averaged 192 kg, was based upon actual studies in the field, where those grizzlies were actually weighed (throughout the year) and, the average weight was 192 kg. 
And, i said that sometimes when i quote a statement in which a particular study may conclude, may not be my personal opinion. I`d rather i have a conclusive study to confirm my statements, than to rely upon my opinion, an opinion is just that, an opinion, and i may be wrong.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:59 AM by damon
Black bears are very shy animals and wud most likely run from a lion, cuz these bears are likely to run from dogs too. but if the bear was not to run it mite put up a good fight and mite have a chance to win against the lion. i'll give it a 3/10-5/10 with a full grown male lion.but then again the bear is bigger and lions arent used to fighting any other cornivour thats bigger than it self so if the bear wud stand up for a fite it mite put up a gud one but most likely it wud run away.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:18 AM by Vic`re wrong. For starters, black bears aren`t bigger than the males average 90 - 145 kg. Lions average 190 kg. Evene grizzlies, according to actual studies in the field, average from 190 - 222 kg.....certainly within the range of the lion. I also have a few records of lions defeating brown bears, and even a polar bear.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:22 AM by damon
I know black bears arent bigger than lions i was jus refering to the size used by the the guy who post the figth. and i said the bear wud run away. also the only way a lion wud win a polar or a brown bear is unless the bear was really old or really young or was seriously wounded. and where do u get that crap about lion and grizzlies are the same size. wat r u retarded. the grizzlies mite be the same size in the summer but thats only the summer what about the winter wen it puts on more pounds?
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:50 AM by Vic
Vic, i have actual records of the body mass of grizzlies, measured, not merely during summer, but throughout the year; 
The weight of bears varies much during the months, and, studies of the weight of these animals, at a specific time of the year would give either inflated or decreased figures. Likewise, the weights of age specific bears is not reliable, as bears continue to gain weight even after adulthood......a much better comparison would be of bears measured throughout the year, aged from young adults to old specimens. 
And, here are those records of lions defeating those bears; 
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:24 AM by damon
K u answered my ques but how old were the bears and why wasn't there a specific wt for each animal, like i said the bears were either really old aged or they were just kids.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:44 AM by Vic
Vic....the document shows the bears were 5+ and up to at least 13 years of age. The study indicated that grizzlies reach approximately 95% of the adult mass after the age of 5 years, so, they used specimens above this age.  
And, in one of the documents, the age of the bears, as well as the corresponding weights is mentioned. The age was shown in one of the documents, on the left-hand side.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:04 AM by damon
Vix, did you seriously call Damon retarded when you spell like a three year old?
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:01 PM by Carly
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:02 PM by Carly
Well Carly I type every fast so the chances of me typing a wrong letter is high, but u are one to talk when my name is Vic and spell Vix you cant spell a 3 letter word you stupid shit head but then y wud i want to argue with a kid who needs to go outside and make real friends and stop playing with teddy bears.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:37 PM by Vic
Don't take it personal kid
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:38 PM by Vic
stupid child! your probably eleven! its called a typo. and i fixed it. you need to fix your whole paragraph. why dont you go giggle to your friends how you told off someone older, more mature, and more knowlegable than you. this is the last time im replying. stupid child....
Posted @ Friday, August 28, 2009 2:07 PM by Carly
What are you Carly, Damons bitch because as I recall I was calling Damon a retard and not you and then out of the blues you jump up and defend him when he didn't even pay attention to my Statement about him. Look if you want to become his lover and you can't don't put your anger towards me and like I said get some real friends and stop playing with those teddy bears of yours. By the way at least I have real friends to giggle with and not teddy bears.
Posted @ Saturday, August 29, 2009 6:26 PM by Vic
Vic, don't fucking talk to her like that bro, just because you probably don't have a gf doesn't mean you gotta act like a dick towards other posters, preferrably female ones! 
And Carly, you didn't have to stick up for Damon, if Damon doesn't answer it simply means he doesn't care, even though I will argue and cuss damon out, me and him, from what I believe, have no hard feelings between us, Damon is a cool guy, he just happens to piss me off every now and then. 
2 Damon: You can stop now dude, you've half-ass convinced me, believe it or not! can stop.
Posted @ Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:02 PM by Kenny
Kenny I didn't know Carly was a girl I have a young cousin who is a boy named Carly so I figured more of less Carly here was a boy too, my mistake and I don't have a gf I have a wife thank you every much.
Posted @ Saturday, August 29, 2009 7:25 PM by Vic
no Vic, im not his "bitch". and i dont play with teddy bears, can you get over that? -_- and i didnt know you all were friends here....
Posted @ Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:59 AM by Carly
Kenny no offense but that really is my business and Carly if I'd known you were a girl my reply would have been" this is a blog about animal fight and I didn't feel it was necessary to spell the words correctly " I'm apologizing for what I said early, It doesn't really matter if you forgive me or not scince we are strangers but that really was my bad.
Posted @ Sunday, August 30, 2009 11:34 PM by Vic
Vic i realy dont care anymore. but what does it matter if im male or female? i dont understand why everyone underestimates females... unless you live in places like Irag, Pakistan, ect.
Posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 3:20 PM by Carly
The lion would totally kill the the black bear but if it were a brown bear or a polar bear the lion doesn't stand a rats ass of a chance.
Posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 11:35 PM by Alu
well, alu, there are records of lions killing brown bears, and even polar, that rat`s ass of a chance must be running a little short.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 01, 2009 2:02 AM by damon
Damon no animal wins a fight all the time(unless it was a full grown elephant vs a full grown lion which is just cruel and the lion is a suicidal) 
Just a question out of a 100 fight how many times to you think a lion would win if it were to fight a polar/brown bear, and remember a bear can kill a moose with a perfect blow to the back you said so yourself. 
But a single lion cannot kill any healhty animal lager than a zebra, even though I have seen vedios on youtube where single lions attack adult buffalos but did not kill it, and if there was a kill the actual killing was not shown but in the end you always see other pride members. 
Not to mention a moose is bigger than both lions and zebras on average.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 01, 2009 1:11 PM by Alu
Alu, there are records of lions killing anmals much larger than fact, they regularly hunt buffalo, in some areas, and, they tackle these specimens whether alone, or in groups. Likewise, guggisberg mentions a case where a lion killed an adult giraffe with the greatest of ease. 
And, in the documentary, relentless enemies, a lioness was shown taking down an adult buffalo cow. I also never stated the lion would win all the time, nor was that my argument. Merely, i believe the lion, in a fight with either a grizzly, or polar bear, would be the more consistant winner. Not to mention, grizzlies are no larger than lions (according to most records) as well as the fact, proportionately (external measurements only) polar bears are no larger either. of course, polar bears can, and do grow larger than lions. But, this is based upon food intake, which in these bears is of a particularly rich diet. 
Out of 100 fights, the lion would defeat a grizzly about 80 - 90 times, perhaps lions have been shown to have the greater 'instantaneous' outburst of energy, of any animal of comparable size, including the grizzly. They also are the more combative of the two. the lion would, on most occasions, be the usual victor, unless the bear should outweigh the lion by a significant amount....then, the lion is most likely to lose.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 01, 2009 9:49 PM by damon
If the two animals were of the same size and weight, I think the lion may be able to defeat the black bear. The preferred fighting method of black bears is to rain swift and well-aimed blows at the opponent (preferably at the head), rather than to bite, as their jaws are not particularly formidable in comparison with grizzlies or big cats. They do bite, but this is not their most effective weapon. Their relative muscle mass is smaller than that of a grizzly, because they are tree-climbers, rather than diggers. For the same reason, their claws are not very long but very sharp. Still, they can use their paws in more ways than lions. Lions use their paws either to shock, stun and deter an opponent, or to grab and hold it, or to cause blood loss by their slashing claws. Black bears know all that (though they may do some of it less often), but their paws are also strong enough to lift and throw a weighty opponent, something that no lion would ever do. Both lions and black bears kick with their hind legs during wrestling to break the hold of the opponent. The lion's claws would probably cause more serious injuries than the bear's, but the bear's paws are stronger. The lion has an advantage in speed and maneuverability, it would be probably able to maneuver around the bear and inflicting multiple injuries on it without enabling the bear to get a hold, but the bear would be also able to swat it at least a few times. Still, the lion's jaws are more formidable and more specialized for killing big animals than a black bear's. The lion may also increase its chances by attacking one or other hind leg of the bear to reduce its maneuverability even further. This is what male lions sometimes do if they fight with each other. My two cats do a lot of play-fighting, and the more combative one devised a very effective method to overcome the other's defense. First, she launches an attack and rolls the other, whereupon the attacked one, laying on her back, starts furiously kicking and slashing with all her four feet to prevent the attacker from biting her neck, chest or belly. Then the aggressor:), instead of trying to attack her soft but well-protected underside, simply bites one of her hind legs, which the other, laying on her back, cannot easily prevent. When the leg is bitten, you hear an indignant shriek, and victory is pronounced for the aggressor.:)
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:33 AM by Balazs
Alu, i have seen a black panther take down two, i believe, wilderbeast or buffalo. somthing of that sort, i could not tell at the moment. but that was in a meer ten mintutes. if a black panther can do that, at about 200-250 pounds. what do you think an African Lion could do? im not starting a fight or backing up Damon, as i see some people who agree with him are accused of so. im just saying, your estimate is off.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 1:22 PM by Nina
Nina a leopard trying to take down an adult buffalo is very very suicidal. 
Buffalos have been known to kill lions without a second thought.Just Imaging what they could do to a leopard. 
I've seen a female leopard take down two wilderbease only seconds after she killed the first one but they were calves, and that same leopard a few days before was stalking the annual wilderbease herd but gave away her position when she noticed there were no calves to be found. 
Notice i said healhty meaning I do beleive single lions can take down buffalo if a tiger can take down a guar on its own why can't a lion do the same to a buffalo but not healhty ones. 
And Doman you are the only one I hear saying that lions,tigers Bengal/Siberian and Polar/brown bears are the same size but they are not and don't start talking about those documents you have, For I connot take what one person says and use it. Like you said if the bears are bigger which they are they would beat the lion most of the time. I'll give them 91 out of a 100 fights over the lion. 
And I've also seen giraffes run from leopards, a giraffe may have a kick than can crush a lion's skull but it also kicks backwards making it hard to see if it will hit the lion, so a giraffe cannot defend it self as well as buffalos can even though buffalos rely most of the time on its herd. 
And to those documents you have about the bear's size, how old are they?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:00 PM by Alu
I said Black Panther, NOT Leopard. there is a diffrence. Scientist say alot of things that doesnt mean you always have to believe them. like i dont believe when i die im going to rott into the ground and im sure you dont etheir. leopards are much smaller. even though i do admit there are black leopards, jaguars, tigers, ect. and do not accuse me of being stupid for thinking they are diffrent or call me "retarded" or anything. just because i dont believe what everyone tells me and do my own work doesnt mean im "stupid".
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:07 PM by Nina
Nina when did I ever call you stupid ro even mention it? 
When you said "wilderbeast or buffalo" I only thought you meant a black leopard since black jaguars don't live where wilderbeast and buffalos do. 
And why are you over reacting?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:20 PM by Alu
oh. and im not. i have been called stupid and retarded for it many times by people who think theyre the shit because they believe every word a scientist says. haha sorry if we're not allowed to say that.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 2:59 PM by Nina
Nina, i agree with your last post completely....i cannot tell you how many times i was called qstupid because of a particular statement i made, that most scientists do not agree with, regardless of the points i made in proof of such. 
Also, alu, i never said polar bears were the same size of lions and tigers, merely stated that, proportionately (size excluding weight, or the external measurements) is virtual;ly equal, meaning that, with similar levels of food intake, they may be of equal weight. But, in the wild, polar bears have a particularly rich diet, and this explains their larger mass. 
As for grizzlies, they are no larger than most studies, they average from 190 - 222 kg.....these are from accurate studies, and certainly within the range of the lion. 
Now, a bigger bear may very well be able to defeat a lion...but, how much bigger?....and, indeed, how fair would that be?.....i doubt the bear would win 91 fights out of 100....simply because the big cats can excute a more effective immediate attack....not to mention they are more agile, and i have a few records of lions defeating brown bears, and even polar bears.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:31 PM by damon
Well Damon in all my post here I have never once mention a grizzly bear I said brown bears in other words Russian bears and I know those two records you have but like I said the lion will only win 9/100 times when fighting a brown/polar bear. 
How much bigger you ask well a Brown bear can wt any where between 100-680kg and a lion 150-227kg and the polar bears 352-680kg. Now do the math. 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:17 PM by Alu
And I ask again how old are those docoments?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:18 PM by Alu
alu, grizzlies are brown bears, and, the average weight is between 192 - 200 kg. And, a lion can weigh upwards of 313 kg in the wild, and possibly much more, considering captive specimens have reached 826 lbs, and another 930 lbs. 
few brown bears get up to 680 kg...and, it so, that is/was likely the largest on record. But, i am commenting on average sized specimens, not overlarge individuals. A lion would win 9 out of 10 times.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:23 PM by damon
also, those studies are less than 20 years old. What studies do you possess in proof of your claims?.... 
and, i`m not talking about a source from some website.......unless actual records are being referenced. Most websites are not cnstructed by scientists, and most tend to revolve around estimates.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:25 PM by damon
lol i knw y they call u a retard danom its bcuz u are! did tht evr occur 2 u?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:28 PM by James
Seriously damon u r a fucked up retard to even believe your own coment cuz wat u said only comes out of a very gay ass stupid nerd shit head only a hard core lion fan boy wit teddy bears and dont have a gf will believ tht shit u jus post.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:33 PM by James
Yes Damon a gizzly is no more than a subspecies of brown bear but what do people usually call the Russian bears. Want an answer= Brown bears. 
What can I say Damon I agree with James even though I would never put that way and lions rearly ever reach that size of well over 400 bls.  
Lion vs brown/polar bear 91/100 goes to the bears.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:41 PM by Alu
I don't get you Damon you said that a bear can kill a moose with a good blow to the back. 
Now mooses are bigger and taller than lions and can also indure more pain than lion so how is it that you post the lion would win 9 out of 10 time against the bear. 
Surly if a bear can kill a mooose with a single blow it must can do the same thing with a lion. Now if it had been more than one lion the bear would have lost but not before dealing injures to the lions first.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:53 PM by Zeroman
Thank you Zeroman. I believe Rual Damon! you are a vey serious lion fan.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:56 PM by Alu
Alu, lions average 190 kg, or 420 lbs......i have several records of lions close to, or above 250 kg......and, even one of a 313 kg specimen. So, they can, and do, grow large. 
and james....don`t really care what you think of me.....this is just a discussion, after`re taking it too seriously. Do you think when i make a statement i`m just supporting an opinion?...i have the data to back it up.
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:26 AM by damon
Zeroman, i never said grizzly could kill a moose with a single blow to the back of the head....where did i say that?.....i may have made a response to another poster`s post, stating it would take a near perfect strike from a grizzly to shatter the skull of a moose.....but then again, those are few and far between. 
A grizzly is no more capable of killing an animal than a lion is.......a lion has been known to take a 2 year old cow in it`s mouth, to jump over an 8 ft high fence.  
i also have records of lions defeating both brown bears, and polar bears.....wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute!....bears are supposed to win though, right?.....
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:31 AM by damon
Grizzly's are twice the size of a lion. My best friend in Wa has a friend I met and he's got a grizzly over 900 lbs-lions are not and never will be that big-and thats half the size of Bart teh Bear who was a huge Grizzly who weighed 1,800 lbs. Thats not the norm, but that size CAN be attained with age and regular food source available, now there's never been any natural big cat(not ligers, tiglons, etc-those are man-caused started in Germany)to reach those huge proportions as a Grizzly, therefore they ARE larger, and Grizzly's HAVE killed moose(who are NO joke)with one blow, not to the head to bash its skull, but rather breaking the animal's neck. Bears are the kings of the land carnivores, plain and simple-big cats are very cool worthwhile and awesome creatures, but the bear really is king although all animals are great should be respected and treated as such and not made to fight for the amusement of mankind. The polar bear may already become extinct in your childrens lifetime or even yours, same with the tiger. I know some people on here really love their type of animal, and thats GREAT, but lets not make them into something they're not-there's no way you can HONESTLY believe a lion(not even the biggest of the big cats-the tiger has that distinction)is as big as a Grizzly when they regularly are 850-900 lbs in the wild and larger in captivity, although when they get done hibernating, they are around 600 lbs and starving and looking to put weight they lost during the hibernation back on. We've been over this before, Damon, and you cannot use their starving weight after hibernating as their average weight-to do so would be to handicap it and therefore you must do so for the lion as well. Lions are magnificent, but they do not match up size-wise to a Grizzly, or Polar bear. There is a Polar bear in a zoo who is 2,200 lbs and in New Jersey a Kodiak bear(subspecies of Brown bear found in the coastal region of Kodiak island AK)who weighs 2400 lbs. Both those are examples of over a ton of carnivore, a lion would not risk a fight with one, but would run away. It's also never seen this type animal and would trepeditious and be extremely cautious around a bear, watching it but keeping out of its range. I've also studied lion behavior because I really like Hyena's and they and lions are connected in a circle that by learning about one, you learn about the other, so closely are they connected, albeit by the hatred they have for each other, but respect is definately shared. Grizzly's are larger, stronger and are underestimated by you in their speed, both running(35-40 mph) and their striking speed. Lions are great, but they ARE smaller than are Grizzly's, and Polar bears-thats just animal biology and science facts-and common sense-when you go to the zoo, size comparison them and then you will see there is a big difference in size. 
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 2:06 PM by ATTILA
damon, those documents are 20 years old or less? What do the most recent ones say excluding the past 10 or so years? 
And not many people go around posting shit that has already been stated by some jackass scientist who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about! Grizzly Bears can kill lions at least 7 or 8 times out of 10, you're saying what that fucking game off of animal face off says, it states that a lion will win 9 out of 10 times, and that show is completely biased, not once did the tiger actually win a fight on that show! 
Damon, quit acting like a scumbag! Nobody cares about what you post you fucking freak!! Everybody in the whole, wide world knows for a fact that brown bears, on average, are larger than lions, and nobody is gonna believe you, what's the point of posting here when nobody believes what you have to say, and then out of the fucking blue you try to convince them on something they know is NOT correct, you piece of shit!!!! 
Go crawl off in a dark hole somewhere and die, I tried to be nice to you but you won't let that happen, so now i'm gonna fuck with you forever! 
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:26 PM by Kenny
You know what everybody......Fuck it! I don't understand why all of yall want to sit here and waste your precious lives away arguing with this denying-everything that is true freak! He thinks he knows everything about these animals, and when you write something to him that basically makes him look stupid, and I know it does, he responds back but twists the info that you put and turns it into something else, and he will snap at you if you do the same thing back to him, he is a back-stabbing immature little bitch! Damon, if you post something towards me that i've already read, I will track you down and murder you! AND I WILL!! Don't think i'm kidding! I can be real hateful, especially towards lying ass faggets that think they know everything, just like you :)
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:34 PM by Kenny
Hey Kenny, 
may you rather comment on what I wrote about lions and black bears? It is not because it is so particularly important but at least I did not insult anyone, and it may be better for all of us not to fight each other as viciously as an enraged lion and bear would do. But even they do not call each other gay:))
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 10:59 PM by Balazs
Thank you Attila, and to you Damon you take this more seriously than any one here. 
You are the only one that has something to say against anyone that say the lion will lose. 
If you had not taken it seriously then you wouldn't be posting a statement almost every day. 
How can an intelligent person such as yourself even say something like that? 
You are clearly just a bais lion fan and nothing more. 
You are clearly not worth having a discussion with because you will never learn. 
You might as well just say that a lion can kill any animal regardless of size with little efort. 
We get it Damon the lion is very precious to you but that does not make it the ultimate carnivore. 
I like tigers alot but even I can admit that Siberian tigers would lose most of the time if it was to fight a brown bear head on. 
I'm also a dog/canine person, but I can also admit that a lone wolf does not stand a chance when it is fighting a puma. 
You are just a very bias lion fan nothing more and certainly nothing less. 
In the land carnivore list the lion will always come third after the tiger and the bear. 
And where felines are concerned the lion is second place and will remain second place if hopefully tigers do not become extinct in the near or far future. 
Lion vs polar/brown bear 91/100 goes to the bears.
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:12 PM by Alu
Well said Alu.
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:18 PM by Ace
"You are clearly not worth having a discussion with because you will never learn."  
Nicely put Alu.
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:20 PM by Zeroman
"kenny, eve in wildlife documentaries....all of the action is not always shown. however, the discussion was that a grizzly could kill a MOOSE, not an elk, with one blow. no one has proved that....not that i doubt it can happen. it could....however, it`s so rare.....likewise, the strike must be nearly perfect to be pulled off." 
yes damon you wrote this on the lion vs tiger blog so you know what that makes you  
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:48 PM by Zeroman
Hey Alu, 
I am not exactly a lion fan, nor am I a black bear fan either. (BTW, my favorite big cats are leopards and jaguars.) This is why I tried to investigate the chances of both sides as objectively as possible. In a grizzly-lion fight, I consider the grizzly a somewhat more likely winner than the lion (even if its weight advantage is relatively inconsiderable), because grizzlies are much stronger built than black bears, but I do think that a lion may be able to defeat a black bear even in a frontal confrontation.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 1:47 AM by Balazs
Well Balazs 
It's just that in India Tigers whether male or female tend to prey on bear (Sloth or Black)though not frequently, there was a case of a young tigress chasing an adult male black bear into a river. 
But not becuase the tiger prey on the bears that means it can't win in an head on match, most of the frontal interaction I see between tigers and bears are usually a tigress and the bear gets chased away. 
The lion will see the bear as a challenger but the tiger might only consider it as prey. Even though I give the win to the lion it's mainly only because a tigress is smaller than a male lion and if she can do it a male lion might have the chance to win mostly over the black bear. Not to mention size can play a key role in the fight. 
3/10 I will give to the black bear 
I'm mostly love dogs, they tend to love thier masters more than themselves. 
And I like tiger because they always seem to have a love affair with water, which most cats tend to aviod.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 7:39 AM by Alu
Kenny, 20 years, and perhaps a little more, is not a significant time frame......that is fairly recent data. Here is one such document; 
And, it does not matter whether people believe me or not.....those bears were actually measured, and i supplied the data, and presented the results. They are reliable.  
and, i`m not a liar. stop calling me a liar... I could start insulting you, if you want?.......and trust me, i`ll bother you until you leave.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 8:02 AM by damon
But, kenny, since you asked for recent studies, here`s one; 
and, here`s another; 
They all agree with my statements.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 8:21 AM by damon
Kenny....did you say you`ll track me down, and murder me?....i`d like to see you try....i live in barry farms, in d.c....come on over here. i`m an expert in martial arts......even then, the neighborhood i live in, i doubt you`d want to start any trouble. 
enough of the insults.....nothing you say matters in the least.  
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 8:30 AM by damon
Alu, i assure you i`m not a biased lion fan....unlike you, i can produce the data to confirm my statements, and from reliable sources at that. 
I don`t answer every comment, merely the ones that stand out...i tend to stay away from the really unintelligent ones, though. 
I never said a lion could kill a bear with little effort, nor did i state they would always win. But, studies by george washington crile, on the organ and gland weights of many animals, including the grizzly and polar bear, as well as lions, indicate the lion, more than any other animal, can execute a more effective immediate attack than any animal of comparable size, and indeed they have the most complex celiac ganglia of any large mammal thus compared.  
and, i believe the siberian tiger would, on most occasions, defeat the brown bear. A lot of people seem to have a lot of wrong misconceptions about the weight of these animals.......well, i have the data, and reliable data, which confirms my points.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 8:35 AM by damon
also, Zeroman, i didn`t lie...i said it would take a nearly perfect shot for a grizzly to kill a moose with one blow, and, there are few reliable records in proof of this, though i don`t doubt it could happen. 
Though, i could mention a great many feats achieved by the lion, which is just as great. But, what will it prove?.....
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 8:41 AM by damon
Alu, im also a canine and feline lover. but NO wolf would stand a chance against a mountain lion. wolves are very small and people give them a little to much credit. this isnt anything against you. im just saying for all the crazy wolf fanatics that think "oh wolves could kill any old kitty" when realy most big-cats are bigger than them. 
Please wolf fanatics, realize wolves are very small and cannot take on alot of animals.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 9:20 AM by Carly
"however, it`s so rare.....likewise, the strike must be nearly perfect to be pulled off."  
realize that part? wow you were stupid to get into their fight. leave them alone. let them fight. you are not needed. i do not know why there are so many people in this fight when it is Alu's and Damon's. and both have good points. 
if this is not your fight, leave it alone.  
and do not come back at me with stupid crap you had to think of because you couldnt think of anything else to say. 
im sure Alu and Damon would appreciate not having 10 people breathing down their necks going "yeah yeah yeah! your going to win!"
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 9:28 AM by Maesha
Maesha I'm not fighting with Damon we are just having a discussion but not anymore like i said before 
Damon is clearly not worth having a discussion with because he will never learn. 
He is intelligent but he is just a bias lion fan boy and nothing more.  
In the land carnivore list the lion will always come third after the tiger and the bear.  
And where felines are concerned the lion is second place and will remain second place if hopefully tigers do not become extinct in the near or far future.  
Lion vs polar/brown bear 91/100 goes to the bears.  
And I'm only a fan of dogs but I was a zoologist thats why I posted here.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 10:17 AM by Alu
Alu...what do you mean, i will never learn?...i have the data, at hand, mind you, to prove my statements....and, from reliable sources. Do you?...tigers are not larger than lions, and neither are brown bears. Perhaps you will never learn....even when i show the data....people still state, i will never learn....2 + 2 will always be 4. 
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 10:44 AM by damon
2+2 will always be 4 and Grizzly's, polar, kodiak and other subspecies of brown bears will always be larger than lions, the 2nd largest cat after the tiger which also is bigger, albeit shorter-there are DOGS as tall as lions, for the gods sakes-bears are huge, gigantic omnivores which means anything they choose goes into there mouth-ANYTHING. Grizzly's ARE larger than lions who are around 400 lbs, some larger as in zoos where they become fat, and some lighter around the 350 lb range as in the wild, which occasionally they can get to 450 lbs or rarer cases more. Grizzy's on the other hand, all the time weigh in the wild 850 lbs and more (1,100 lbs) although there have been Grizzy's weighing 1,600 lbs in captivity. For the ability of the Grizzly to achieve massive sizes tripling the lions size makes them a larger animal, tigers are larger as well and are recognized in the scientific community as the largest feline on earth (ligers do not count as they are an abberration caused by genetic manipulation by German scientists)and polar bears are touted as the worlds largest carnivores as they ARE larger, stronger and eat exclusively meat unlike other bears who are omnivores. The case is an open and shut one for size comparisons bw Grizzly and lion-talk to any animal biologist of bears and lions and they will tell you the same thing I'm posting here. Bear is king, lions are amazing, tigers are the largest cat, and you better be glad as viscious as dogs are in a fight that they are not larger, they would dominate the earth's predators!
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 12:23 PM by ATTILA
ATTILA, i have every modern document published upon the weight of both lions and tigers, and, in terms of the external measurements of these animals, there is little, to no difference, and, as for weight, about equal as well. 
Some populations of grizzlies, ones which were not starving, averaged 143 =, with most grizzlies, usually only the females hibernate. and, grizzlies do not commonly weigh 850 lbs, and few exceed or even reach 1000 lbs. Polar bears are indeed larger than lions, but, this is due to their larger consumption of food, and not actual body size. and, a great many lions get over 450 lbs.....there is a great many records of specimens over 500 lbs.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 12:29 PM by damon
here is something on the size of bears; 
any more excuses?.....
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 12:34 PM by damon
Well then why are tigers and bears in published national geographic amongst a myriad of other wildlife books cited as being larger-are they all wrong and you are right?? I think not-they are the same ones putting the information for people like us to read about and they do cite tehm as being larger-its common knowledge, Damon, that tigerss and bears are larger. When you go to the zoo, do you tell the keeper there that is making announcements and stating animal facts on particular species that they are wrong as well? I know plenty about bears, thats why I came on here to post and pass on what I've learned to other posters-you and I disagree about this, and in this instance, you are wrong-I've given you so many sites to look up to show yoiu all about bears and you still are argueing foolishly about lions being as large as a Grizzly which is prepostorous! I admire yoiur admiration of lions, but in lue of the information I've given you disputing your "facts", it goes beyond admiration and crosses over to fanaticism. Its not good to be fanatical or a fanatic about anything-its just not heathly and it distortes your view on reality. The reality is, is that both Grizzly's ARE in fact larger than lions AS ARE tigers-who are continually touted as being the worlds largest feling-and those are the cold hard facts, period.  
Polar bears ARE indeed larger in body size as well-have you even ever seen a polar bears paw??? It would cover a lions head-they are that massive! I have seen one in the zoo as well as the anchorage airport where it says on the plaque before the behemoth stands is a 13 ft tall giant of a polar bear-their bodies ARE quite larger-the only thing that comes close are kodiak bears who average the same sizes and weights. They consume more, are larger in body size mass and strength, and remain the largest carnivore on planet earth-not some other planet you may have been visiting-please come back to it! 
Scientific name: Ursus maritimus  
Life span: 20-25 years  
Polar Bears are the worlds largest land predator.  
Polar bears have hollow fur, this works like a personal floatation device as they swim.  
Although their fur is creamy white their skin is black to soak up the 6 month Polar sun. Polar Bears actually often overheat and must rest when play wrestling.  
Polar bears eyes are blue  
Their footprint is approximately 13 inches long and 9 inches wide.  
Adults average between 2.4-2.6 meters (7.9-8.5 feet) in length and can stand 11 feet tall when upright, 3-4 foot at the shoulder.  
Males can weigh 400-600kgs (880-1320lbs) and can reach 800kgs  
Females are much smaller at 200-250kgs pregnant females can weigh 400 kgs  
Females now having singletons, used to have twins and stay with the cubs in the den for 3-4 months.  
Population 22,000 estimate 2003 stats  
60% of the Earths remaining Polar Bears live in Canada  
There are other populations in USA (Alaska) Russia Denmark (Greenland) Norway  
In 1973 these countries signed an agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. Canada is the only country to still allow hunting of the polar bear by non natives. A Polar Bear hunting license can be bought for as little as $50.00
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 1:23 PM by ATTILA
ATTILA, national geographic often quote long known estimates upon the mass of these animals, rather than actual, proven studies. Likewise, those records you mentioned are not stated by experts in the field, which constitutes most of the records i have. 
and, the paw size of the polar bear has nothing to do with it`s body....i have actual records of the body size of the polar you?.....if them. 
And it is certainly true that polar bears CAN grow larger than lions.....but, a 13 ft tall specimen is quite an overlarge individual, far from the average. 
and, you given me no info, other than your opinion of these matters, and so-called mention of 850 lb bears...where is the study for that? well as proof it was actually weighed, and not merely an estimated figure?.... 
and, the MANY sites you`ve shown me was not created by experts in the field...anyone can make a website...what i`m talking about is reliable sources made by the experts themselves....or someone known in the scientific world. 
I`ll be waiting for your records of the above mentioned cases...
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 3:02 PM by damon
hahaha!!! Damon, I will come over I don't give a fuck! 
And it seems like EVERYBODY on this piece of shit knows martial arts, oh my god, I'm the only one who doesn't! LOL. You're extremely pathetic, even if you did know martial arts, I'd still fuck you up! And a bunch of niggers in your neighborhood don't scare me neither, would you mind if I came to your house with a .45 that I carry around all the time, shoot you in the fucking knees? I love to get beat up anyways, it feels good to me for some strange reason, and I'll get back up and put a hurtin' on your ass!!!! This same thing goes for the rest of yall! I'll take Damon out in a fucking heartbeat, I'll bust a cap in Frankie's fucking ass and Billy Bob Joe will beg for his life! As you can see, I'm FUCKED in the head!! Give me your full address, Damon!!! I'd love to come visit you! :)
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 8:59 PM by Kenny
Hey......there's an idea, why don't all of us meet each other and fight! If you like to cuss at people and "TRY" to scare them with martial arts that everybody on here knows besides me, then you're willing to fight, right? 
Damon, you're getting yourself into some shit you don't want!! Besides, I don't believe you've ever been in a fight anyways, you little coward. "come on over here" something a gay ass nigger from d.c. would say!
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 9:04 PM by Kenny
WOW...are you on right now kenny? 
btw kenny, why are you acting like a badass towards these people, I gave you my address you COWARD. If you wanna fight, i'm free! 
Ignore him guys, he's probably been raped or something as a child (at least that's the feeling I get from him) because he cries and freaks out about everything, when somebody tells him off, he threatens them and you know damn well he aint gonna do it. Btw, kenny- are you and zeroman the same guy? because that would be just downright sad if you posted as two different people; that means you don't have a healthy lifestyle - and YOU get on to damon for this?
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 9:13 PM by frankie
And I will repeat: 
You are clearly not worth having a discussion with because you will never learn.  
You might as well just say that a lion can kill any animal regardless of size with little efort.  
We get it Damon the lion is very precious to you but that does not make it the ultimate carnivore.  
Damon go get a good job that doesn't let you slack off so much. 
I have nothing more to say to a bias. 
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 11:20 PM by Alu
Frankie don't you see that kenny as some thing against black people and just to let you know I am Black. 
You can't compare me to him because I have never once told anyone I will kill them not even that Liar damon 
And I beleive that most of you here live in the US I live in Landon.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 11:35 PM by Zeroman
This might be my last post here for my days of leave are almost over and I need to make the necessary preparation for the very busy months ahead. 
so later all of you
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 11:52 PM by Alu
kenny, in my neighborhood, there has been at least 5 deaths in the past you really think you can scare me?........ 
Not only do you probably don`t know what i look like.....but, also, in my neighborhood, where there`s cops on almost every`d find it difficult to carry any type of gun, conceled or otherwise.  
and yeah, you are fucked in the head.....and, even if you should come to my neighborhood, i seriously doubt you`d succeed in shooting you not think i won`t be prepared?.....
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:13 AM by damon
Kenny, i assure you i`ve gotten into plenty of fights......i doubt you`d be any match. But, come over here....and show me what you`re made of?......
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:15 AM by damon
A lu, also, i have a job, and i don`t slack off....i`m not online 24/7......only a couple of hours here and there.....before and after work. 
I never said a lion could kill any animal regardless of their size, nor have i ever stated this. But, how fair is a fight between a lion and another animal which is much larger?.......
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:19 AM by damon
Zeroman, where have i lied?.....i can offer evidence, and reliable ones at that, for every one of my statements.
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:21 AM by damon
ATTILA NationalGeographic is not the best source. they get their measurments quite wrong. alot of their other information is good though.
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 1:20 PM by Maesha
and by the way, who cares about Martial Arts?! how about some real fighting.
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 1:23 PM by Maesha
okay, this is getting annoying. every time i check my mail i have at LEAST 15 messages from this place!  
and you guys, please dont fight over somthing so silly. you both have opinions and strongly back up those opinions. it doesnt mean you have to kill each other. i hope its all talk because i do not wish to hear of people killing each other over a debate. T^T
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 1:33 PM by Maesha
Damon it is indeed true that the biggest brown bear from the wild vs the biggest lion from the wild is unfair to the lion, but brown bears are on average bigger than lions not to mention when it is close to the winter time when they have to pack on pounds, but a brown bear the size of a lion vs the lion is also unfair to the bear for it would be a young bear and it is less experienced and that would ultimately make the lion the winner. 
but all in all it is an unfair fight for both parties. 
While a black bear stands little chance against the lion. 
Largest Male lion in the wild: 690 pound(confirmed) 
Lardest male brown Bear(Kodiak): 1656 pounds 
As you can see the bear's almost 1000 pounds heavier. 
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:41 PM by Ace
Also when Alu said it MIGHT be his last post here, there is a high chance of him never coming back, the guy's a workaholic.
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:44 PM by Ace
I've already gave you that info-all you have to do is scroll up and read it. 
Bottom line is, Grizzly's ARE larger than lions as are polar bears which ARE the largest land carnivore on earth as they strictly eat meat unlike other bears which are omnivores-the largest carnivore on the planet-do you hear this Damon? This is reinforced by the entire world except for you being unable to cope with something being larger, stronger and more powerful than your lion-regardless whether you like it or not-its the true fact just as gravity-you may not enjoy the fall, but it doesn't change the fact it exists! 
Maesha, I've shown Damon multitude of times different scientific proof backing up my posts-he even used my reference to Kenny when argueing with him, so he knows, he just is in denial given the facts that I've shown him because he is in love with lions,regardless, the polar, brown and Grizzly will be able to maul a lion to death as they are the true kings of predators. Lions used to live in north America, but were wiped out by the short-face bear. Bears nowadays have sturdier bones than the short-face bear did and are dominators of their domains wherever they roam. Exceptions happen with them as in all nature, and all creatures are susceptable to exceptions, like warthogs killing lions and zebra's killing lions, tigers killing brown bears in Siberia, even a man killing a lion with his bare hands(and he wasn't even Jet Li) 
-these are exceptions and can happen although its not the norm. I've seen a 900 plus pound Grizzly-not an uncommon size at all-where in the world is a lion that size?? grizzly's ARE larger, period!
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 12:33 PM by ATTILA
ATTILA< you`ve shown me very few authetic records of the weight of grizzlies.....mostly from unreliable websites....i have data directly from scientists in the field....and it seems the grizzlies were not as large as you`d like to believe. 
and, i`ve already seen that account of the man killing that lion, in fact, i put it on my forum like 3 weeks ago........but, how old is that lion?...was it completely healthy?.....i doubt a man could take on a completely healthy adult lion and live to tell the tale.  
and, i`ve already told you the polar bear was larger than the lion....but, this is due to food intake, and not actual body size. I have actual data upon this, at hand. Do you?......
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 1:04 PM by damon
Ace, i have actual records upon the mass of both lions and brown bears, as reported by scientists in the field, and indeed there was no difference in weight. 
I have MANY studies upon this subject, from reliable sources. There was a record of a lion over 750 lbs, as mentioned by Charles pitman, a game warden. 
And, even adult brown bears may average only 143 kg....and, these are scarcely what you`d call starving populations, rather, there size is related to food intake.
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 1:10 PM by damon
That over 750 lbs lion was never confirmed, and in the guinness book of world records 1993 the Average for a Kodiak bear is 476-533 kg. Just like your records this one is less than 20 years old. 
You say the size of a brown bear is dependent upon food intake so in other words the records you have of the captive lions beating the captive bears is only saying those bears were simply not fed well.
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 5:48 PM by Ace
And even that over 750 lbs lion would still stand little chance against the 1656 lbs bear. The bear is still way to big for the lion.
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 5:54 PM by Ace
Ace, i`ve seen those records from the guinness book of records, and i disagree. No current records agree with those statistics, and they are simply false. Likewise, it also stated that amur tigers average a great deal more than their true weights......the info from guinness is far from reliable, when cpnsidering averages. 
and, lions beating captive bears have nothing to do with bears being fed well or not......if they are fed the same amount, than they would likely be of equal weight.
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 10:42 PM by damon
Also, i never stated the brown bear couldn`t grow larger than lions....they can...but, this is due to the fact they lack a certain substance called leptin, which effectively controls hungar, and which causes there great size, in some cases. Even then, a specimen over 1000 lbs is an overlarge animal, and, of current records which i possess, even the largest specimens were below even 1000 lbs. 
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 10:45 PM by damon
what's the deal here? i'm seeing some crazy fucked-up individuals threatening people with guns here and all of you are still commenting? 
My god will all of you quit! it's kind of pointless carrying on a debate on this childish, no-good website. My brother frankie told me about this and i thought it was sad, lions and bears will never meet each other in the first place, and if they did, there aint gonna be one true winner, either the bear would win or the lion would win, and thats a fact. 
now why dont you all just scurry somewhere else, i dont see why you would find this site much fun anyways. and if you comment negative to me then you must be a sad person.
Posted @ Monday, September 07, 2009 1:17 PM by doug ramsey
Actually, i take back my previous statement....the male polar bear is proportionately larger than the lion, 235.5 cm (body length) compared to 180 cm for the seems, in this case, i was wrong, though i was quoting the particular studies on memory.  
So, in this instance, i would have to agree they are larger, proportionately, and most certainly overall.
Posted @ Monday, September 07, 2009 4:39 PM by damon
Thanks Alu! 
I completely agree with what you say about tiger-bear interactions. Indian sloth bears have a mixed reputation, as old British colonial records describe many attacks on humans, but the sloth bear, being an anteater, is the least predatory of all bear species. Thus a sloth bear has no reason to confront a tiger unless in self-defense or in the defense of its cubs; conflict over prey, as it occasionally happened between tigers and brown bears or Himalayan black bears, is out of the question. American black bears are more predatory, but much less than grizzlies.  
PS: Jaguars also love water.:)
Posted @ Monday, September 07, 2009 8:59 PM by Balazs
Damon, I've been telling you this about polar bears-at least you're beginning to be big enough to recognize it now and admit when you've made a mistake. 
Balazs, I like jaguars as well and I've seen something like it in the Philippines while on patrol in the jungles there comming out of the water on to shore on the opposite bank. I've heard that pound-for-pound, jaguars are the strongest members of the big cat family-have yoiu heard this as well?
Posted @ Tuesday, September 08, 2009 3:23 PM by ATTILA
ATTILA, while you have been telling me polar bears are proportionately bigger, i of course did not come to this conclusion because of you.....rather, i was quoting the specific data on memory (at least, those of the polar bear, as i remember the lion info by heart)and i admit i made a mistake...albeit a small one.  
But, i would agree with your point that jaguar`s are, lb for lb, the strongest big cats.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:32 PM by damon
Hi Attila! 
Yes, I also heard that jaguars are proportionately the strongest of all big cats, and I can easily believe that. They do look incredibly massive, particularly in comparison with leopards, and their jaws are truly formidable. While other big cats go for the throat or the jugular, their long canines can pierce the skull of their victim as neatly as one drives in a chisel with a hammer. They are also good in both swimming and tree-climbing, whereas tigers excel only in the former and leopards only in the latter.  
Posted @ Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:57 PM by Balazs
BTW, would you give support to my initiate of suggesting a fight between a female lion and a big male jaguar of roughly the same size and weight? It would be a really interesting one, I think. If enough people support the idea, the moderators may add a jaguar-lion fight to the list.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 08, 2009 9:02 PM by Balazs
Big cats experts describe the jaguar as a leopard on steroids. 
I don't know about that lioness vs jaguar, both are strong cats and can hunt large prey on thier own. 
Some male jaguars have been known to reach the weights of both lionesses and tigresses, I even read this animal encyclopedia once saying that even though rear jaguars have been known to reach a weight of 400 bls, when I remember the name I'll post it. 
More research needs to be done on this fight though. 
I support this one alot.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:21 PM by Zeroman
Zeroman, there is no verification of a 400 lb jaguar......not to mention, one of that size would be less agile and responsize. I think a jaguar even as large as a lioness would be weaker, and so at a disadvantage.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 1:30 AM by damon
Thanks Zeroman and Damon. If you are interested, please write to "Suggest Fights." If enough people ask for it, the moderators will hopefully open a new topic for a jaguar-lion fight. 
PS: What I found also suggests that the biggest male jaguars may have a weight of about 160 kilograms (350 pounds). But it would be better to list all these data on a separate topic.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 1:57 AM by Balazs
Damon, of COURSE polar bears are larger-everyone knows that!! I even gave you save teh polar bear sites which have scientists and animal biologists exclusively dedicated to them and they actively research them, thus the information I passed on to you was from active field biologists, so if yoiu didn't come to conclusions from me, that means yoiu didn't read what I sent you because you think yiou are a know-it-all, or don't want to think something is bigger, more powerful than the lion. If somebody has a valid point, you should listen to whats being said-we can all learn something and nobody knows all. 
Balazs, yes indeed I would support that jaguar vs lion. Jaguars weight range puts them at 300 lbs, and would not be a pushover and real threat to a male lion as well. Would they fight if facing each other-or turn away at the prospect of risk of injury. My guess would be the jaguar MIGHT not fight as its a solitary hunter and the lion has the females doing ALL the work for him. I wonder if that cat I and other Marines saw was a jaguar in the Phillippines. I am not sure of thier range. 
I support this one,haha-I already know which one Damon thinks will win!
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:47 AM by ATTILA
ATTILA, i did indeed view the sites you gave you, but, not only do they not agree with the records i have, but, they are not based upon actual studies concerning the measurements of these animals......merely, you gave list to a site which mentioned some unverified data on weight and body measurements. 
also, male lions do NOT have the females doing all the work for them....that is a misconception. In fact, they hunt 2/3rd`s as much as the female, and, in some areas, gain more from their own killing, than what they may gather from the females. 
However, males do appropriate upon any carcass from the females that may be smaller than about 100 kg......this is because, as accomplished a hunter as they are, they still find it very difficult, as they are not only slower than the females, but that large mane of theirs make them conspicuous to prey items. If they didn`t get any food from the lionesses, they may very well find it difficult to get their daily requirement of about 6 - 14 kg a day or so.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:05 PM by damon
Damon, the sites i gave you supported my facts on polar bears on here, hence I showed you because tehy conflicted with your information on them as being the largest living carnivore on the planet. is a website to find out about polar bears in hopes that the people reading this on their site will donate to help save the polar bears and thus fund more research and other programs-they have field biologists on hand feeding that site information, so there's accurate data to be found on there as I've previously stated. They have to weigh them as do zoos in order to anestithise the animals, so they are very well aware of the animals weight and size. 
Well, you know more about lions, but as I've stated before, since I study the Hyena, I inevitably know things about lions when learning about them, too. Most all research I've seen states the lion(male) as being the lazy one and the females doing all the work-raising cubs, hunting for the pride and taking down prey, etc-this chauvanistic aura shed on the male lion is what gave him his standing with Britain and other countries where lions aren't native-it was their role in the pride that made them accepted as mascots if youi will to those countries-even india the name "Singh" means lion due to the standing and status of male lions structure in the pride and their lording it over the females making them carry out 98% of the duties. To these countries at that period in time, this trait was seen as admirable, however in today's society in this country, its deplorable-but hey, its only an animal doing what they've been doing for an eon. I do know lionesses bring down prey and hunt the majority of the time-just look at how those females are ripped with their muscles bulging out and the males have big fat bellies!
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:59 PM by ATTILA
Your welcome Balazs 
Damon its what I saw in a book I never said it had happen. The name of the book is Funk and Wagnalls Wild Life Encyclopedia, originally I only thought a jaguar could get as big as 300 lbs but now I'm sure they can grow larger. 
Just like a Tiger a jaguar would proberly aviod a fight with a male lion, because a jaguar can't afford to get seriouly injured, that will only mean one thing for the jaguar but an injured male lion can steal from the females and feed himself. 
But I think more research needs to be done.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:33 PM by Zeroman
ATTILA, that website you showed is far from reliable....rather than give any exact measurements, it mentions a range, and then states the polar bear can get up to 800 kgs....the only source i have which stated polar bears get that large, is one where a polar bear was too large to be weighed, but estimated at 800 kgs.  
and, it is a misconception that male lions are lazy...check this out; 
you should sign could learn a good deal more about animals, as most people post there sources and data, and also as new topics are made.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:47 PM by damon
Damon, that site is reliable, they deal with these giants of the grim and frostbitten kingdoms on a regular basis-I think they know what they're talking about. I myself know a great deal about bears, and most of it is committed to memory from reading books and listening to locals living in "bear country" to watching vids I've bought in the past to seeing new ones on tv programs-its all knowledge that I've retained-regardless, they all agree that the polar bear is the world's largest carnivore-just as I've stated(although kodiak Grizzly's are just as large sometimes. They give a range, bc they have a range just as male lions do-the zoo in Houston I went to had an adult male african lion and he weighed 315 lbs and he is done growing unless of course he eats alot more-interestingly enough, thats within range of a 300 lb jaguar they have/had. He didn't look lean, he looked like a regular lion. Most people DO think that about male lions and their inherent laziness, I will read the link above you posted and see what it says about them. 
I may sign up-everyone can always learn more about animals-noone knows all. There are other animals I'd like ot learn more about as well. 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:11 PM by ATTILA
ATTILA, studying these animals (polar bears) in the wild, doesn`t mean they actually weighed appears, at least to me, that they are merely quoting long known records, which are not based upon actual studies.  
That may be one of the reasons they did not report the average sizes of these they likely lacked the studies to give it. 
But, i have actual records from scientists in the field, after having weighed these animals, and there results reported. 
You can learn of the size of bears here; 
Also, a 315 lb lion is quite a small specimen....even in the wild, they usually average roughly 190 kg; 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:38 PM by damon
It seems that male jaguars do not fight for females or for territory as frequently as male lions do: 
Since territorial fights are definitely more common among male lions than among female ones, a male jaguar and a female lion may have roughly the same qualities in fighting another big cat of a similar size.
Posted @ Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:15 AM by Balazs
PS: There are no wild jaguars or leopards in the Phillipines. The local leopard cats also have a spotted fur, but they're rather small. I doubt if you could have mistaken a leopard cat for a jaguar, so it must have been something else. May you tell us a bit more about it?
Posted @ Thursday, September 10, 2009 2:19 AM by Balazs
Balazs, It was in 91' and I was on patrol with my unit, we were being very quit as there were enemy guerrillas in the area when we saw a large black cat(I've heard black panthers are actually leopards or jaguars)and not only did I not know they had large cats there, which we all saw it, but they also have cobras and we didn't know it till we saw one as well. Let me konw your thoughts on this-right before I went through JEST(jungle environment survival training), they showed us a variety of animals we might encounter to aviod-they didn't mention any big cats, so maybe one escaped from captivity?? It was in the boughs of a large tree horizontal lying there watching us with yellow-green eyes.
Posted @ Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:16 PM by ATTILA
Thanks Attila! This may have been an escaped black leopard (panther), for I doubt if any rich Filipino landowner would have imported a rare black jaguar from faraway South America if he could have obtained a black leopard from Thailand, Indonesia or Malaysia. 
There is something that I do not see clearly. Who did come out of the water, you or the cat? 
<<Balazs, I like jaguars as well and I've seen something like it in the Philippines while on patrol in the jungles there coming out of the water on to shore on the opposite bank.>> 
Posted @ Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:50 PM by Balazs
Szervusz Balazs, to answer your question-the cat was comming out of the water on the opposite bank and we were approaching from the opposite bank comming out into the clearing that was the water and the cat sensed or heard us, abeit we were very quiet. 
Posted @ Friday, September 11, 2009 6:23 PM by ATTILA
Vital Statistics: 
[There are a lot of variation in the figures found online. I tried to collect them from reputed instituion and/or govt sources] 
Largest Lion in captivity: 806 lbs (366 kg)  
Largest Lion found in the wild: 702 lbs (318 kg) and 11′ (3.35 m)  
Average size (mode) of African Lion: 410 lbs (186 kg) and 8′10″ (2.7 m)  
** Lions stand around 1.15m (including mane) at shoulder as opposed to 1m of a tiger **  
I just found this link online, after i read all the comments by Kenny, Atilla and Damon.
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:16 PM by Tigris
Tigris, you said you tried to find a reliable site, and instead, you bring up a blog, much like this one, in fact. 
There has been reports of lions over 750 lbs recorded, the average being 190 kg (i have many records for this). Also, the average lion is 9ft in length, the same as the tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:28 PM by damon
Tigris, the link you posted I've read and posted myself-its a very good one and provides quite correct data on size differences between lions and tigers-I've read teh entirity of the article and believe it to be true, unbiased and very accurate, after all, the tiger is acclaimed as being the largest big cat on earth by all experts-and thats true, this link backs up its facts with its sources which I've looked into as well as being equally reliable. Lions are around 400 lbs on average, while tigers are bigger, except females(don't underestimate females-one has killed male lion adults)which are closer to lions size than male tiger size.
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 8:32 PM by ATTILA
ATTILA, lions actually average 190 kg, not 400 lbs (180 kg). And, while the tiger is often claimed as being the largest, this is merely a well thought assumption based upon limited data.  
I should know....i have every modern document that has been published upon the subject.....not many can say that, even scientists. But, i can show you, if you disagree?..... 
The heaviest lion on record was over 750 lbs, while peter jackson mentions a lion of 930 lbs in captivity. 
Here are some records of the body mass of lions;
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:24 PM by damon
I really don't think you can dispute that a lion is heavier than a tiger because a tiger really does average a bigger weight than a lion, however it evens out because lions are taller and average a longer length. 
I really don't think that the question of a black bear is much of an issue when it comes to a lion... although black bears can fight, a lion is at least 3 times as agressive and even more explosive... 
black bears are more mild natured, i don't think they would choose to fight with a lion to begin with, and i don't think they have the means or agility to keep up. 
A better match up would be against a grizzly bear... I think a lion could even match up to a polar bear as most of their body weight is made up of fat.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 10:01 AM by Oliver
Also out of curiosity how can a lion stand 1.15 metres at the shoulder including it's mane? 
a lion can only stand 1.15 metres at the shoulder the mane can't be included. 
4 foot is average for an african lion 3 foot is average for a tiger.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 10:05 AM by Oliver
I doubt they'd even end up fighting really. Plus they dont live in the same areas so a fight would never naturally happen.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 6:05 PM by Dark_Wolfxoxo
Oliver, the tiger isn`t any heavier than lions, according to most reliable measurements. It`s true that lions are taller, but, the tiger has a proportionately longer spinal column, exclusive of the head and neck, which is longer in the lion, overall length being equal.  
Lions and tigers are of equal size.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 8:23 PM by damon
Actually lions often reach a greater length than tigers, lions have a greater body frame. 
And it is true that tigers are heavier, you can't honestly think that any lion (excluding an atlas lion) or any lion living in the wild is heavier than a siberian tiger which has to pack on a lot of fat to be able to live in siberia. 
Or a napalese bengal tiger averages a heavier weight. 
but that's not judging who would win in a fight my vote still stays with the lion.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:51 AM by Oliver
Oliver, you are quite wrong.....lions are no longer than fact, in terms of overall length, they are equal.  
And, while it is true that amurs have a bit of extra fat, lions have the larger organ and gland weights, according to studies by george washington crile. Also, the largest siberian weighed by the siberian tiger project was only 206 kg. here is some data of the siberians weighed by the project; 
Here is some data on lions; 
And, the nepal, or chitwan tigers, which included only 7 specimens, average 235 kg....however, they were baited and weights not adjusted for food content, though they ate a total of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills. 
So, there average weight, adjusted for food content, is 221 kg. $ lions weighed by the kenya wildlife service average 221.5 kg, and ranged in weight from 180 - 272 kg. Charles pitman mentions the weight of 5 male lions from transvaal, which averaged 217 kg. 
Tigers are no larger than lions.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:11 AM by damon
'The lion would totally kill the the black bear but if it were a brown bear or a polar bear the lion doesn't stand a rats ass of a chance. " 
This is such a true statement.
Posted @ Monday, September 21, 2009 7:16 PM by Admin.
You guys crack me up LOL! All I know is I have observed Coastal Brown Bears, Grizzly, and Kodiaks in mainland Alaska and Kodiak Island. These Brown Bears (males) are much bigger than any African Lion. The big male Brown Bears are between 800-1400 Lbs. They have a great diet of meat, fish, vegtables, fruit. The biggest Lion might reach 500-550Lbs at best. The subspecies of these three Brown Bears are too big, strong & plain mean for any Lion. The bears claws are larger, the paws/arms much more powerfull, the canines longer, and the jaws more powerfull. Also, these bears are well experienced in fighting one another.  
The bottom line: The Lion has no chance against either of these three subspecies of Brown Bear!
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:37 PM by Ted
Also, Polar Bears would give a Lion a real beating! 
As for Lions vs. Tigers: If we are going to be objective; then it is hard to pick a winner. Lion lovers will go with their beloved Lion just as the Tiger fan will do the same. I say it's 50/50! 
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 2:52 PM by Ted
ted, no population of grizzly bears or brown bears average 800 - 1400 lbs, the latter of which is very near, if not above the highest recorded figure...those would be massive specimens.....then again, very little data exists upon most, and, the ones that do are age biased, or else specimens were weighed during a specific time of the month, which is biased as well, as the weight of these animals fluctuates much throughout the months....and, a study of many specimens throughout all the months is a more reliable figure, starting from young adults to the very old.....
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:01 PM by damon
And, here`s an account where a lion defeated a polar bear;
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:05 PM by damon
Damon, I tried the site; it stated video removed. However, the subspecies Male Coastal Brown Bears & Kodiaks of ALASKA easily get to between 800-1200 Lbs. Kodiaks can get up to 1500Lbs. during the Salmon run. I know; I have studied them! 
If we are going to objectively discuss this subject then we must pick each animal at their best.  
Sure if a Male lion caught one of these bears coming out of it's den after hibernation then yes a Lion could kill the Bear. 
However, if you ever get to see Coastel Brown Bears, Grizzlies, or Kodiaks in Alaska between June-October you will see how huge these animals are. They can put on 200Lbs. after hibernation and during the Salmon run between late spring early winter. 
Inland Grizzlies don't get as big because of the lack of food source. Also, remember Grizzlies have almost been hunted to extinction in the lower 48 states. The big males are usually the first to go. I would say an inland MALE Grizzly goes between 600-800 Lbs. Still big enough to kill the African Lion.  
Look up "Interspecies Conflict" and go to the "Ultimate Carnivore" or the Grizzly. Historically when African Lions were brought to the U.S. and pitted against these bears the Lion never stood a chance.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:44 PM by Ted
ted, bears can, and do get up to those weights you mentioned...but, they are far from average....or even normal...... 
The heaviest population i`ve found of brown bears was those of alaska, which averaged 389 kg...but, that particular study was age specific (only those bears of a specific age were measured)and bears reach a peak weight at the age of about 13 years.....but, that`ll give high, as well as biased results. Another thing is that the study was limited (only 5 specimens weighed) and specimens measured during a specific time of the month, which is also biased, for reasons i gave before. 
Lions too, can get up to 600 lbs or more...but, the book, great bear almanac, gives an average weight of 200 kg for all groups of brown/grizzly bears, and, i`m inclined to agree....though other sources, onces reliable reported by scientists in the field, give an average of from 190 - 222 kg...certainly within the range of the lion, and indeed i have many scientifically published documents upon this. 
and, on lairwebs (interspecies conflict site) i do not agree the grizzlies killed those lions, and no accurate records least, none that i`ve come across, and i`ve seen that site many times. However, studies actually show that it`s the big cats which have the greater bone density, so the statement that they crushed the lion`as skull with one blow due to greater bone density is not accurate, as lions have particularly dense bones, and, i can show you the studies, if you want?.....
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:54 PM by damon
Damon, look up "The Grizzly Almanac" Pg. 109. Horace Bell a renowned Ranger documented a story of the Grizzly easily killing the African Lion. Also, another good book "California Grizzly." It was not uncommon 150-200 years ago for Californians & Mexicans to pit Bears against Bulls in the arena. The Grizzlies always won!  
Now back to size: As you know there are quite a few subspecies of Brown Bear. I specifically stated, "The Alaskan Coastal Brown Bear" "The Kodiak" and the "Inland Grizzly" which really is in my opinion the same species as Coastal Brown only smaller in size due to diet. 
Ok! Now Coastal Brown Bears which I have personally observed in the wild do vary in size. Adult Males can easily way between 800-1200 Lbs. DURING the SALMON run. There is no way to say exactly what the average Male Coastal Brown Bear wieghs; but 800Lbs. between late spring and early winter is close. The big ones get over 1,000Lbs.  
I have been to Kodiak Island and can tell you they are the biggest Brown Bear species in the world. Individually they have been recorded bigger than Polar Bears. The males can get up to 1,400 LBS.+++; that is not uncommon. I believe the famous bear Bart was actually a Kodiak. Look it up! 
I like MMA but I am not into watching animals fight.  
Take care, 
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:20 PM by Ted
ted, of course you don`t think one account of a bear killing a lion, particularly when i have two more of a lion killing a brown bear, would mean anything?.... 
and, what does pitting bears against bulls have to do with lions?..... 
and, kodiak bears are not the largest subspecies...polar bears quite frequently weigh over 400 kg....and, i have actual records of this, from experts in the field, not merely some unreliable website.....
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:17 PM by damon
Damon, did you even read my comments? LOL... 
First, you wrote, "I have two or more of a Lion killing a Brown Bear." What kind of Brown Bear; cubs or the sick & old??? 
Second, you wrote, "Kodiaks are NOT the Largest subspecies...Polar Bears" etc.. Pay attention! KODIAK BROWN BEARS ARE indeed the largest subspecies; POLAR BEARS are NOT a subspecies of Brown Bear! 
Kodiak Males go between 900-1500 Lbs. The biggest recorded individual bears were Kodiaks. However, on average Polar Bears are a little bigger. 
My earlier comments address Alaskan Coastal Browns & Grizzlies so I will not repeat myself. 
As for "records by experts in the field;" I have hiked, studied, photographed up close, sometimes within 30 feet, Alaskan Coastal Browns at Brooks Falls & other areas of Katmai National Park with the zoologists who write the information you read.  
During Salmon runs in July & Augest I have observed at close range Kodiak Bears with zoologists on Kodiak Island.  
I have seen an Alaskan inland Grizzly chase down and kill a Moose! 
The bottom line; I have been and studied at the places you only read about. 
I noted with citations Grizzlies vs. Bulls & Lions for historical reasons. Don't think for a minute these Bulls can't defeat a Lion. These bulls are as big, if not bigger than the Cape & Water Buffalo that run off Male African Lions in one on one confrontations. 
Lastly, my money is on: 1.Kodiak Bear 2.Alaskan Coastal Brown Bear 3.Grizzly 4.Polar Bear over the Lion 99.95 of the time. 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:45 AM by Ted
Ted, the brown bears that were killed by those lions were adult specimens..... 
and, a weight of 900 - 1500 lbs is large for ANy bear....i`ve seen a record of a brown bear in captivity, that only weighed but a bit mroe than 1500 lbs, and it was described as fact, it could hardly get around (it was old as well). 
and, what does a bear killing a moose have to do with a lion?...lions can kill cape buffalo and giraffe single handedly... 
and, studying places doesnt mean you know more than i do....but, enlighten was you able to get to those places you studied, and with what expert were you with?...and, name the place?....
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:26 AM by damon
damon, there is no records or proof of any lion killing giraffs single handed... the only time lions will take down giraffes is in a pride. 
and giraffes aren't exactly adept to fighting. 
ted... damon wrote kodiak bears are not the largest subspecies, when he said this i'm sure he was refering to the species of bears not brown bears. 
a grizzly, or polar bear vs a lion is a 50/50 fight, if not it could possibly be argued 60/40 in the lions favour 
why? well in this situation weight could never be a deciding factor, cape buffalos average a bigger weight than polar bearsand grizzlies and even lionesses bring them down 1 on 1. 
lions have more deadly weapons than bears, they are more explosive, quicker, more agile, and more intimidating. 
the bear simply put only has a strength advantage but it is a huge strength advantage. 
the fight would go probably 1 of 2 ways: 
1. the lion and bear cross paths, neither back down and the lion is first to attack, it circles around the bear and attacks the bears back, but the thick skin prevents the lion from causing too much damage, it will however cause quite a deal of pain. 
when the lion realises it isn't working or is thrown from the bears back, it will head straight for the bears throat closing it's air supply off in a matter of seconds and killing the bear. 
2. the lion and bear cross paths, neither back down and the lion is first to attack, it circles around the bear and attacks the bears back, but the thick skin prevents the lion from causing too much damage, it will however cause quite a deal of pain 
however the lion will soon release the bear and go for it's throat, if it is indeed thrown from the back it will surely attack from the front to get t the throat... the bear is slow compared to a lion but still not slow, if it catches the lion in time the bears blows will rain down on the lion, the mane offers protection but not against that vast ammount of strength, and the lions neck will be snapped. 
or perhaps if the lion survives the first set of attacks from the bear it will back off.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:04 AM by Oliver
Oliver, check this record out, of a lion killing a giraffe single handedly; 
"After searching the area for four days I finally tracked him down in the lower Ugab River, where he had killed a giraffe bull. " 
and, the bear isn`t stronger than the lion...... 
studies show the lion would be able to execute a more effective immediate attack, and likewise they are of greater bone density, aggression, and agility...the lion would be the usual winner..... 
Note: i have studies for the above mentioned statements. for more info, email me at, or visit my forum, at
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:27 AM by damon
Yes indeed ted, look up my citations. I assure you i know what i`m talking about...there are a lot of misconceptions about the size and strength of brown bears, perhaps these records will help you; 
and, listen to what i stated before; 
"The heaviest population i`ve found of brown bears was those of alaska, which averaged 389 kg...but, that particular study was age specific (only those bears of a specific age were measured)and bears reach a peak weight at the age of about 13 years.....but, that`ll give high, as well as biased results. Another thing is that the study was limited (only 5 specimens weighed) and specimens measured during a specific time of the month, which is also biased, for reasons i gave before." 
Likewise, you don`t have to bother looking up that info i stated, i`ll show them now; 
Bone density; 
Here`s even more on the bone density of lions; 
And, the kind of bear i was talking of was brown bears...all brown bears are basically the same animal, except grizzlies. And, here is more info which suggests the lion would be able to execute a more effective immediate attack; 
there you go.....
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 2:01 PM by damon
Damon, i'm not sure about the reliability of that, it doesn't say that they witnessed him killing the giraffe bull, perhaps he scavenged from another pride, and even on the off chance that he did... like i say giraffs aren't exactly adept for fighting like a bear is. 
no you misread what i said, lions have more DEADLY weapons, for starters... bears do not have a greater jaw power, and their jaw is quite narrow compared to a lions... they don't necsessarily have longer claws and lions know how to use their claws much more effectively than a bear... also lions use their whole bodies whilst fighting, wheras bears generally tend to only use their arms and jaws, they stand on their hind legs and either grab onto their opponent and bite, or swing their arms. 
lions on the other hand use their jaws, claws, hind legs and by using their hind legs they are foced to use the rest of the body... 
and you are quite mistaken, if faced with a bigger opponent, or more likely most opponents, lions go for the back first and try to bring it down and if that doesn't work they will go for the throat, lions only bite each others noses when fighting because the mane prevents them from getting a throat hold, but as witnessed in past fights with the tiger, and also whilst the lion is hunting (particularly buffalo) a lion will go for the throat if the back isn't working. 
and i'm not too sure about a bear being able to stop the lion, as i said earlier wheras bears tend to use only their arms and jaws in battle, lions use their whole body, would a bear be able to stop a lions explosive power is the question. 
oh and one last point to damon, you cannot deny that a bear has a huge strength advantage over a lion... even if you could prove a lions greater bone density the bear has pure raw muscle and is generally of far greater build.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 3:07 PM by Oliver
DAMON, I think you only read my last sentence LOL... 
Anyways, You stated, "All Brown Bears are basically the same animal, except Grizzlies"  
You could not be more mistaken!  
I am disapointed in your Brown Bear knowledge. I expected better from you! 
Experts/Zoologists are far from agreement on the scientific classification of "Brown Bears." There are many "subspecies;" some list as many as 80-90.  
The smallest Brown Bears are probably the MiddleEastern "Syrian Brown Bears" 250-400 Lbs. MAX. And yes a Lion could defeat it! On the other hand; the largest Brown Bear subspecies is of course the Kodiak Bear which can MAX out at 900-1500 Lbs. 
IMPORTANT: For this reason I have specifically used the terms "Alaskan Coastal Brown Bears" "Kodiak Bears" "Grizzlies." 
You probably don't read what I write but I'll write it regardless.  
In regard to classification Grizzlies are closer to a Alaskan Brown Bear then Kodiaks are. The reason: Kodiaks are isolated from the mainland and have no interaction with Coastal Browns or Grizzlies. Kodiaks are considered a DISTINCT subspecies of Brown Bear.  
In other words, Kodiaks are close to being a seperate species unto themself. However, Grizzlies and Coastal Browns do come into contact and mate.  
In my opinion; though some disagree, the only difference between Inland Grizzlies and Coastal Brown Bears is DIET. MALE Coastal Browns MAX. 800-1100 Lbs. Inland Grizzlies MAX. anywhere from 500-900 Lbs.??? 
The bottom line: You cannot lump ALL Brown Bears into one group! 
You, stated, "You are quite mistaken" in reference to the Lions attack. Oliver, I have watched enough National Geographic to see how Lions attack LOL...  
Yes, they do jump on the backs of larger pray in order to bring them down; especially when hunting with their pride. As for the throat or nose; I won't dispute it. Eitherway, suffacation is the cause of death. However, the Lion is not going to reach the throat of the FOUR BEARS I keep listing. 
Weapons: JAW POWER! I am sure you are familiar with Zoologist Brady and his Jaw power tests. However, in my opinion, jaw power is very hard to measure! The Lion measured a bite force of approximately 600-700 Lbs. Hyenas 1000 Lbs.  
The bite force of the BIG 4 BEARS I listed are believed to be much higher. The problem with this study is getting the bears to cooperate with the rod used to measure the force. If you have some sound info on bite force/jaw strength I would be happy to view it. I can only go by what experts display. 
As for your comment, "Bears generally tend to only use their arms" could not be more wrong. A bear like a BOXER uses its LOWER-BODY, BACK, SHOULDERS, & ARMS/Claws when delivering fatal blows. The power of swat from a 700Lb.+++ BEAR can crush the skulls of elk and even moose. I think the Lion would be in deep shit if it took a solid strike from one of the BIG 4 BEARS.  
Also, the Lion using it's "whole body" would only make it easier for the bear to knock it off balance. After that it's over! 
Bear vs. Lion according to Ted LOL.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:38 PM by Ted
DAMON, How funny! 
I folowed your advice and looked up bone density of the lion. I went onto "Who Would Win/Dear to share" Lion vs. Bear. It stated that the Lions bone density is quite weak LOL... 
The California Grizzlies of the (1800-1850s) that I mentioned earlier were the topic. The site described how during the Gold Rush Lions were brought over and easily destroyed by the Grizzlies.  
guess how? A swipe of the big bears paws. LOL.. 
It seems the Lions had no idea what kind of mess they were getting into. This is backed up by historical data I mentioned earlier in the Grizzly Almanac, Pg. 109. Lions are built as predatory animals; however, when they are the prey it is a different story. 
How funny is that! 
Damon, i'll still look for other data to support your view. In the meantime continue to take your courses in Zoology or whatever it is you do. i am anxious to read your book when it is published. Lord knows you spend enough time on the subject. 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:20 PM by Ted
Damon and Ted-Damon, 1500 lb bears move quite easily-arent you familiar with Bart the bear who was 1,600 lbs and moved very rapidly, was so strong he moved boulders and smashed logs? also the record is over 2,500 lbs both for polar and kodiak-not 1,500 lbs which is quite natural-yes it is! Bears are quite fast as well. My friend in Wa has a friend and his Grizzly is over 900 lbs-quite normal, because he hunts moose and elk and he sees plenty of bears as large and larger than his-and he can judge, because his bear he sees everyday, all day.  
Ted, I agree, bears have stronger jaws and are stronger animals in general, but I don't for a minute think a lion would tangle with a bear-thats my take on it-too much risk for the lion in the lions point of view.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:10 PM by ATTILA
Ted, did you read my post before last?...i showed records of the bone density of the lion, from actual, proven studies, as compared with the bear...those of the lion are rather dense...but, incase you missed it; 
Here it is, again; 
Bone density;  
Here`s even more on the bone density of lions;  
here is more info which suggests the lion would be able to execute a more effective immediate attack;  
there you go..... 
also, the california grizzlies never killed lions with one paw swipe.....that is bull.....for one thing, lions don`t just 'rush' into battle, they are calculation fighters, according to Beatty, and surely more than a match for many a brown bear. 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:02 PM by damon
I agree that in the wild the Lion would avoid the Grizzly. However, in the 1800s the Lions were placed into a pit or arena with the Bears so they probably had no choice but to fight and die.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:04 PM by Ted
yes i'm glad you've said you watch national geographic which shows lions fighting other lions, because it proves my point... lions only bite other lions noses to kill them, however they only bite the noses because the mane prevents a lion from grabbing the throat. 
when faced with other opponents such as buffalo which weigh in at about an average of 1400 pounds they will first go for the back and if that doesn't work they will grip the throat. 
gripping the nose of a larger prey is way too inefficient they will not 'fight' the bear in the same manner they fight lions, because they don't have a mane so gripping the throat will close off the bears air supply and kill it in a matter of seconds. 
how is it easy fr a bear to knock a lion off balance? are you suggesting that a bear will be able to stop a 450 - 500 pound lion in mid jump, and throw it off balance? 
as for jaw power, you've already told me you watch national geographic, and both national geographic and animal planet found a lions jaw power averages 1000 pounds, brady measured one lion and one hyena he didn't take an average... because there are some lions who even reach up to 1500 pounds. 
jaw power is found in how wide the jaw is a bears jaw is narrow which suggests a low power in bite. 
lower body? i don't think so, bears don't have particularly strong legs, that's why they don't walk on them and it's why it makes it's fighting style so inefficient against a lion if a lion was to jump at a bear it is more likely that the bear would lose it's balance. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:32 AM by Oliver
Common sense! Any land animal has it's balance compromised when airborne. If you ever played contact sports, boxed/martial arts you would know this.  
I know we are talking about cats; but even their balance is compromised when they are airborne as compared to standing on all fours. 
"The Bear will lose it's balance." Are you kidding me? The bear will slap the Lion silly and smother it LOL.. 
The bottom line: Any of the Big 4 subspecies/species of bear I listed will knock the Lion down and pounce on it. Their Lower Body (ass, Back, Shoulders, arms are just too powerfull. 
I have already cited witness in earlier comments; the Grizzly Almanac for starters. I also cited Gold Miners from 1800-1850s observing and documenting Grizzly vs. Lions in combat. The Grizzly always wins! 
If you think the Gold Miners and others were lying; so be it. 
Jaw pressure: Your measurments OR others are greatly exageratted! Tests do not state the Average bite force of a Lion is 1000Lbs. PSI. 
AVERAGE was about 650 Lbs. Brady, National Geo, Animal Planet & other experts have listed the Lions bite force at around 650 Lbs.PSI. The Hyena & Snapping Turtle reached 1000 Lbs. not the Lion. As I have mentioned before; bite force is very difficult to accurrately measure due to the circumstances in which they are taken. 
The Bears Lower Body: You think the Bears lower body is weak? You are kidding right?  
Bears stand & walk much better on their HIND legs than a Male Lion on it's HIND legs LOL.. 
I don't only watch National Geo on TV. In earlier comments Damon asked for my experiential resume LOL... You can look it up if you want.  
At Kodiak Island & Katmai National Park, I have seen IN PERSON 800-1200LB. Bears stand staight up on their HIND legs and brutally punish one another. While with Alaskan Dept. Fish & Game I have seen up close a 900Lb. bear (yes park rangers do keep track of individual bears) with 10 by 6 inch pieces of flesh ripped of his hide while fighting during a Salmon run. And these are not even fights to the death; they are for the best fishing spots. 
Do you know why two bears will stand while confronting one another? If to the death; one bear will try to use it's jaw to brake the other bears jaw. Tell me bears don't have strong jaws. Thease Bears have huge skulls which translates to powerfull jaws. 
OK! No more from me; I am done.  
However, I expect you will respond! So; if you are the Lion and I the bear; maybe Lions can out last bears LOL..
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM by Ted
I have studied bears for 23 years from reading books, talking to hunters in "bear country" and watched documentaries on them, and even talked to one bear specialist-you are incorrect in your assertions of what they can and cannot do-Ted is right about what happened when lions were brought over here in the 1st half of the 18th century when they were obliterated by Grizzly's. Oh they have their limits, but they will overcome all other predators, thats why they don't compete with any other North American predator-there used to be lions here, too, but the short-face bear wiped them out before modern bears appeared. 
Also, the bite force comparison you gave is wrong-Hyena's have stronger jaws than lions and you cite one as having more bite force at 1,500 lbs-very innaccurate-lions are around 600 psi-bite force is based on the skull and the bone, tissue and muscle mass around the jaw/skull hinge area-the bear has much more developement in that area. 
Another farce is the bear will somehow just surrender its back to the lion-bears encounter mountain lions and win if they choose to engage, shich sometimes they do and sometimes they don't-but that is ultimately up to the bear, as it is the top superpredator. 
In answer ot your question, yes-the bear could knock the lion off kilter if in air. Did I mention Grizzly's have 5-6 in long claws, and are super fast swipers? Ya. The power of the bear is tremendous, not knocking lions, but bears are more powerfully engineered and are the tanks of predatory animals. Grizzly almanac is a great source of information. Sometimes, not very often, they slowly lumber off due to a large pack of wolves (as if to say, "I'm the King, and only leave because it is my wish, not thorugh fear of any animal")but not if the bear is hungry-then it fights. 
Bears are extremely powerful on their hind legs-thats why they use them to look, scratch their backs on trees, and as fighting-thats one way they DO fight. Also, the Grizzly's shoulder hump is pure muscle giving them devastating power in their arms and swipes-thats why they break elk and moose necks with paw swipe blows. Its part of their arsenal. If you have questions about bears, perhaps I can help and answer your questions-but as far as a fight between the two its hypothetical, I'm positive either the bear would win or lion not engage because it knows when its met its match. Know this however, the two have faced off before with the bear being top predator in North America and running of lions and also when the lions were brought over in the early to mid 1800's, the bears won again-its reasonable to conclude the winner will again be the bear. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:11 PM by ATTILA
ATTILA, bite force is actually measured in lbs, not psi, as a bite force of 600 psi is rather extreme...easily greater than any living animal today. 
Also, Brady Barr measured the bite force of a young male lion, not yet full grown, that had a bite force of 691 lbs, to be exact. 
A study from Dr. Wroe indicates the bite force of a lion would be greater than that of a bear. Check it out, here; 
Even though the bite forces are derived from the skulls of these animals, and usually i don`t agree with estimates, but, in this case, i would agree as cats are designed for rather high bite forces. 
and, everyone get the idea that the california grizzlies killed african lions from the lairwebs site.....well, i find it hard to believe as it stated that the grizzlies killed the lions with a single blow, and that it was due to enormously strong bone density meeting a low density skull. Well, studies actually indicate the bone density of lions is rather extreme, more so than a brown bear, as well.  
And, even in terms of muscle mass, cats have been found to have the greatest of any mammals yet studied, especially the lion, who, in one study had the greatest muscle percentage of any mammal.
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:27 PM by damon
well ted before you say i'm exaggerating check this video i found on youtube: 
that states both national geographic and animal planet both saying that a lions bite force is about 1000 lbs 
and attilla here is the website: 
that was only taken from one male lion though and is not an average, the average as stated by both national geographic and animal planet is 1000 lbs, brady measured one lion and did not take an average. 
ted it's not that a bears lower body is weak, it's that the way a bear fights that makes it ineffective against a lion, if a 450 - 500 lbs lion were t pounce the bear would be knocked off balance from it's hind legs a bear only maintain proper balance on all 4's. 
as for the california pit fights, i don't doubt the bear won but i do doubt that they killed the lion quite as easily as is stated 
also there are quite a few records of lions killing polar bears and grizzly bears which i've looked up. 
also you are right that the bear has a large skull, but the size of the skull alone isn't enough to determine how powerful a bite an animal would have it's how wide the jaw is and bears have particularly narrow jaws which indicates a low bite force. 
no the bear would not 'surrender' it's back to the lion, but the lions superior agility and explosive speed will allow the lion to get fairly easily to the back, plus a lion spends a part first circling a bear, if the bear doesn't follow it's movements its weak points will be exposed to the lion. 
but i doubt the back would really work so i suppose they would try to clamp the bears throat. 
you are far overestimating a bears strength if you think they will be able to knock a lion off balance in mid jump. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 6:43 PM by Oliver
Thanks Oliver. 
I do agree with that a lion would try to attack the bear from behind, jump on its back and get a strong grip with its claws while mauling the bear with its canines. I can also believe that a lion may be able to knock a bear of comparable size off its feet. After all, this is how lions routinely attack animals which are considerably taller and heavier than they, such as buffaloes (often), hippos (occasionally) and elephants (very rarely). Against such big herbivores, this method works fairly effectively, but bears constitute a very different case in one crucial respect. Namely, a buffalo or hippo, let alone a giraffe, cannot fight effectively any more if the lion managed to knock it off its feet and pin it to the ground. In contrast, bears and big cats immediately roll on their back and start slashing furiously with all four legs, aiming at the head of the opponent. Figuratively, the weaponry of a herbivore is dramatically reduced if the animal is down, but that of a carnivore actually increases, since in a normal stance, a bear or big cat would use only its jaws and front paws.  
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:12 PM by Balazs
Just when I thought I was out; you guys pull me back in LOL... 
Oliver, As I stated earlier, I don't put much stock into the bite force tests. A Croc, Gator, Snapping Turtle; Yes! It is a natural response for those animals. 
However, the big cats, bears etc.. are hard to accuratly measure. One zoologist stated the Lion's bite force was 400Lbs. which I agree is way too low. 
However, such an encounter of these great animals would not be decided by jaw strength. 
Also, accounts of Lions killing Polar Bears are a bit misleading. If you want read below my response to Damon. 
DAMON, you crack me up! Lairweb sites? Never heard of it! I cited book, Pg.109 and the Park Rangers name.  
The site you gave me does mention "Brutus the Lion." However, the newspaper clipings never stated the age, gender, size of the Polar Bear. Also the two different clippings are a bit inconsistent.  
The other Lion killed a "Cinnamon Bear" LOL... they are much like the Black Bear. Not even close to the Big 4. 
Point: I have never seen or heard of a fully Adult TRAINED Male Polar Bear. They are the most unpredictable bears of all! The graet bear Bart (I believe Kodiak not Grizzly) was well trained. However, a Male Polar Bear would be much more dificult to trust. 
Your best argument would be the fact that Amur/Siberian Male Tigers 600++Lbs. have been documented killing large Kamchhatka Brown Bears. These bears can reach 1000Lbs. The method of attack would most likely be by stealth. 
In conclusion: I must admit the adult Male Lion is an awsome creature. I have not given the Big Cat it's due respect. I am quite certain this site is much too generous to the Black Bear with regards to size. 
However, I still believe with good reason the "Big 4 Bears" I list would win more often. Not 100% of the time; but a good majority of the time. 
Goodnight to all! 
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:21 PM by Ted
Ted, i posted another variation of that lion vs polar bear account, somewhere on this topic, and it was mentioned the bear was male...i`ll try to find it. 
Likewise, that article didn`t mention the age, gender, or condition of the lion so...... 
Lions are actually the most combative of the carnivora...... 
and, few, if any siberians have been measured at 600 lbs or more, and average weights by the siberian tiger project was 169 kg, for 11 secimens. 
I also have a record of a leopard killing a poar bear, as unlikely as it seems....i`ll show it if you`re interested....
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:38 PM by damon
I doubt if the relative muscle mass of a lion exceeds of that a bear unless the bear's more robust bones and its layers of fat are calculated as a disadvantage. But even if some mathematical calculation yields such a result, it would simply mean that lions outperform bears in sprinting, tree climbing and particularly jumping, because their body is relatively less heavy and far more flexible. But a lion would hardly able to lift and throw a heavy opponent in the same way as a bear would routinely do. Bears which were trained to wrestle humans had a standard tactic to deal with a strong opponent who got them in a headlock or some other strong grip: they simply lifted the guy from the ground and throw him a meter or two. Of course this trick is more devastating if applied to a human wrestler than to a big cat which knows much better how to fall and how to recover from being thrown, but it nevertheless reveals what the muscle mass of a bear can achieve. I doubt if lions would be able to move boulders with the same ease as bears routinely do.
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 9:36 PM by Balazs
Balazs, a lion, in comparison to a grizzly bear, anyway, would have the same percentage of muscle mass, given they are virtually equal in mass. Of course, grizzlies can, and do sometime grow much larger, but, in terms of average weights (and, i have many scientifically published documents upon this) they were rather similar. 
And, a lion is simply not built the way a bear is....but, i doubt they are of less strength...anyway, here is that study; 
There you go. 
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 7:00 AM by damon
whilst you are right lions fighting herbivores in such manners, you can't deny that a cape buffalo has far greater muscle mass than a lion and a bear, and is well equipped to kill (which has been documented before) 
don't think that just because they're herbivores buffalos don't get into fights they live in herds so when it comes to combat a buffalo doesn't tend to be an amateur... they have strong back legs which they use to kick and deadly horns. 
and a lion tends to use it's whole body in a fight not just it's front paws and jaws. 
bite force isn't just tested by biting on a stick, a more accurate test is taken by experts such as animal planet by using animal skulls or artificial copies. 
I do believe that the jaw power of a lion would be the deciding facter whether it wins or loses in this particular fight, lions only use 20% of their jaw power to close off a buffalos windpipe i don't think it would take much more to close off a bears. 
I don't think that the accounts of lions killing polar bears are misleading, they are just as reliable as the california pit fights (again i don't think that the lion kills the polar bear quite as easily as is stated) but it at least proves that bears are not able to ''swat a lion back to africa''. 
i also believe that in the california pit fights they were quite unfair, and more misleading, for example i know that before the lions were brought in there were many fights of bears vs bull, so the bear already had a lot of fighting experience (something that would not be usual in the wild for a bear)... also the bear had been there for a while in comparison to a lion who had just been taken out of his enviroment and shipped for days across the sea... it put the lion at quite a disadvantage in comparison to the bear. 
and you are quite entitled to your opinion that bears would win but i will remain at 60/40 in the lions favour or possibly 50/50.
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 9:31 AM by Oliver
Go to "Interspecies Conflict, Jhon Silva BIG CAT expert." Look at his recent answers to my question. 
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 2:53 PM by Ted
Sorry, John not Jhon! All this writing and I can't spell worth a damn. 
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 2:55 PM by Ted
If you can't find the post; it may not come up until tomorrow.  
However,my email: I would be glad to forward the Big Cat expert's answer. 
Rather Interesting!
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 3:38 PM by Ted
you forget to take into account that bears are explosive just as is the lion-thats how their attacks are carried out. As i stated before, they are quite used to standing up and fighting as well-superior advantage is gained from an elevated position, just like in military strategy-its part of the bears already impressive arsenal, its already played out though that Grizzly's killed all the lions brought over in the 1800's.  
I've also just read about bite force and watched a documentary last night and they stated the mastiff has a bite force of 550 lbs(a dog)close to that of a lion. Its due to their massive skulls and make-up of their jaws in relation to the skull-which bears have the most massive skulls of all carnivores. The program from which I derived that bit if information was on prehistoric predators; the wolf (Dire wolf)Also, the program following was of the largest predator since teh dinosaurs-the short-face bear, or bulldog bear, which was twice the size of a Grizzly almost, standing on all fours it was 6 ft tall at the shoulders and wiped out lions, fought off saber-tooth cats and dire wolves stealing thier kills from them-it was supreme in North America and that as well as disease brought over by mankind dangerous to animals is why there are no American lions anymore. I stated before that this is all quite hypothetical, but bears did win in the past, and in my opinion and people who work with bears agree, that the bear is the supreme land hyperpredator on earth and that IF the lion chose to engage(not really sure if they would even want to face such a massive fellow carnivore as a bear if given the option of retreating)then it would surely lose to the bears power which you are severely underestimating.
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 4:13 PM by ATTILA
i don't think you should go to that particular website for a conclusive answer for example i have another answer from another expert on the same website who says almost the exact same thing as i did on the subject (60/40 or possibly 50/50 depending on how the bear reacts). 
he, like myself believes a lion would be victorius most of the time depending on how the bear reacts.
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 4:15 PM by Oliver
I don't think any of us have a CONCLUSIVE answer. 
However, this guy describes himself as a "BIG CAT" expert! He has no reason other than objectivity for supporting my views. 
You should at least read what he says. If you disagree with him then I guess the two of you are BIG CAT guys who disagree.  
Again, I listed my email and would be more than happy to forward his comments. 
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 4:25 PM by Ted
I agree with that only in regards to the black bear-not the mighty Grizzly, king of the mountains. Teh Grizzly, like the lion, has an attitude that inequivically exudes "nothing can beat me, I am the biggest, the baddest" and that is an energy other animals can feel-just like wolves, mountain lions and even the badly tempered moose. I think in all probability, that the lion would choose NOT to fight if in the wild, it would merely avoid the Grizzly and probably the black bear as well, as it is another large predator which can injure or kill the lion and in the wild, you don't risk those things as your survival depends on the risks you take. I would say, Grizzly would win, but we all have our opinions. Prehistoric bears always did win.
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 4:29 PM by ATTILA
Good stuff! Did it mention what kind of Mastiff? I have a 95Lb. American Pit Bull; The Zoologist Barr??? (I think that is his name used a 60-65Lb. Pit Bull for his test.  
I would think A bigger Pit Bull is going to produce greater bite force especially when it is hanging onto something in mid air. 
Also individual dogs of the same breed may bite a bit different. Some Pit Bulls can hang in the air for an hour clamping down on a rope. This requires not only power but great stamina. Other Pit Bulls, like a human boxer, bite with jabs and tear. My dog was bred in Texas and used for hunting large boar. Pit Bulls make great hunters when trained properly. 
Sorry for getting off topic. You got me going with the Mastiff bite force LOL.. 
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 4:43 PM by Ted
ja, the mastiff was an English Mastiff, and they were trying to show examples of how the Dire Wolf attacked. In this, they used a Pitbull, an English Mastiff, a Belgian Shepherd and I believe a Rottweiler. They were showing how the Mastiff used its bulk and body mass to knock an opponant to the ground all the while savaging the prey with its jaws, when they gave it's biteforce, it was 550 lbs. 
A site you may like in regards to pitbulls, is; 
These guys are tanks! I've got a Red Heeler. 
I also apologize for getting off the subject, but others here if reading my posts know where I irreversably stand on the subject on bear vs lion, like I said, its hypothetical now as they do not meet in the wild, but that is due to past battles of bear winning over lion. I do like cats also, but they have their limitations, and those limitations can be seen when matching them up with the real king-the bear(only the polar bear is the true largest carnivore as other bears are omnivores, although it makes other bears no less dangerous as they will eat anything that will fit into its gullet)Bears have their limitations as well, but when matching them up against lions, unlike lions, you see really how much of a top-of-the-predator, king-of-the-mountain so to speak they really are and their prowess really shows when you start comparing. 
My favorite big cats are Tiger, Lion and Jaguar(strongest jaws in the big cats I've read in my Big Cats book) While on the subject of biteforce, Hyena IS the king (or queen, actually) of land mammals.
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 5:29 PM by ATTILA
Thanks much, Great Site! 
I also like all the amimals we have been discussing. However, my money is on the Big Bears when it comes to combat. 
Take care, 
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 6:19 PM by Ted
Bears are not as explosive as lions, it is quite physically impossible for hem to be so... i think you're confusing explosive with agression, bears CAN be just as agressive as lions but on average in a fight the lion would be the agressor. 
what i mean by explosivness is how fast, and agressively the lion reacts in a short space of time, when a lion pounces a bear simply would not be able to react fast enough to fend the lion away. 
and i notice you say 'all the lions' there are actually only 2 cases of bears killing a lion in such a manner in the california pit fights, the rest were recorded as bloody fights. 
if i'm not mistaken however the bears in the california pit fights had been there for quite some time already and had already gained combative experience (this is something which they would not have in the wild), they also had settled in another advantage of being there for that time as apose to the lion who had just been shipped out from africa and pitted against the bear almost as soon as they got there. 
and although these are instances of bears killing lions, you are forgetting the various other fights between lions and polar bears in which the lion won every time. 
you are quite mistaken about jaw power; both national geographic and animal planet have observed the lions jaw power being at an averag of 1000lbs, the key to working out jaw power is NOT in immediate relation to the size of the skull... it is the size of the JAWS that is the key to working it out, observe a bears jaw in comparison to a lions, the bears jaw is narrow and short, however a lions jaw is big and wide. 
conclusive to this it is highly unlikely a lion would back down from a fight with any bear in fact it is much more likely that a grizzly would back down from a lion, not only does the mane give a lion an intimidating appearance grizzly bears have been observed backing down to a mountain cat. 
i think you are seriously overestimating a bears power. 
i've already looked at his views i know that he backs a bear, however if you would take the time to look at the same website i provided you with a different expert answering the question you will see that there is much variation amongst these experts opinions so i'll ask you not to quote it as a conclusive 'expert' opinion. 
i gave you the site please take your time to read it.
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 7:36 PM by Oliver
oh and by the way if you want proof of what i say that 'grizzly bears have been observed backing down to mountain cats' 
watch this youtube video 
mountain cats are 2 times smaller than lions in regards to size and 3 times smaller in terms of weight. 
and in that video not only does the grizzly back down it runs away.
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 7:44 PM by Oliver
I never used the words "Conclusive expert opinion" to prove my point." In fact I said the opposite. Read my earlier comments! "I don't think any of us have a CONCLUSIVE answer." 
However, John Silva calls himself a Big Cat expert. He also says the Big Bears I mentioed would defeat the lion without much problem. 
The Lion does not stack up well against the Big Bear; as I said earlier the Tiger does better in Siberia. Have you read exactly what John Silva has written? He contradicts everything that you have written.  
Can you find a BEAR EXPERT to agree with you that the Male Lion will defeat the Male of 
the "BIG 4 BEARS" I have listed a majority of the time? I highly doubt it! 
From the posts I read, I think due to bias & passion Lion Lovers want to hold on to the falicy Lions are "King of the Jungle."  
However,in my opinion, those who choose the Big Bears do so more out of objective reasoning. Attila and I both have admitted we enjoy the Big Cats. I don't favor the Bear over the Lion or Tiger in regard to unconditional loyalty. Yet Lion lovers on this site seem hard pressed to give the Big Bears some love LOL..  
As far as I am concerned we are just going in circles. I am confident the Big Bears would win 8 times out of 10. 
Also, I find it hard to believe you actually believe Lions could defeat Mature Polar Bears everytime. I don't think you really believe that or do you? 
As for the Bears gaining experience fighting bulls; nonsense! First, Bears fight eachother all the time; they don't need such experience! Second, the bears would have suffered injuries from the powerfull Bulls so it would actually have worked against them in their fights with Lions. 
I also do agree the Lions would have suffered from their journey fron Africa to the U.S. 
Lastly, you are getting desperate with the Mountain Lion LOL... I have watched that video several times and enjoy the fact that the Mountain Lion/Cougar stood it's ground to protect it's cub.  
However, did you really watch the Bear. That was a good sized Grizzly; all he did was shake his head and back allowing the Cat to (as someone else has said) scratch his back LOL.. 
If that Grizzly wanted to kill that Mountain Lion; it easily could have. However, the Grizzly was not about to fight over the little cub. I believe you are smart enough to know that. 
Heck, I was rooting for the Mountain Lion to defend the cub. It was a great video! 
The bottom line: The Big Bears rule! Even some Big Cat experts admit that.
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 9:15 PM by Ted
ATTILA, there is no actual documentation of grizzlies having killed lions in the 1800`s. There is only second hand info, and, i find it hard tio believe, as most state the bears killed the lions with a single blow, due to their denser bone structure...but, it has actually been shown that the big cats have an immensely dense bone structure, and more so than those of the bears, and this is particularly the case with lions (i have records for this). 
And, the skulls of a bear is scarcely more massive than that of the lion`s......and, i do have records upon this as well....the figures were similar. 
I think the lion would usually win...there is even a case where a leopard has killed a polar bear..... 
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 9:33 PM by damon
Yes, I've seen that, there are also accounts to where when teh bear chooses to, its severely injured mountain lions, I say severely injured and not killed due to the fact of the mountain lion running for its life-in that vid, the lion was protecting its young which you don't see-this has been around. 
Lions probably would avoid at all costs the Grizzly, if not, the lion would be for the surprise of its life just as the 1800's lions, and the lions of the pliacean age when confronted by Bears. Actually, mountain lions can be 300 lbs, so they are not 2 times smaller, but are around similar size and weights as are lionesses, only cougars are reportedly more ferocious. Lions have been observed backing away from a jaguar in a zoo-the male lion could't scramble away fast enough!! He nearly jumped out of his skin! Grizzly's have also backed away from wolverines, even though they could easily kill it-its on the bears terms as it holds top standing as a predator-whatever it chooses to happen happens, if it wants to engage or go away, its the bears choice not the other way around-wolverines have also sent cougars away with their tails between their legs as well as taking on wolves, as they would tangle with a lion as wellAlso, bears skulls as well as jaws are more powerfully built than any of the big cats-even tigers which are credited with strongest biteforce of the big cats. Lions have NEVER been credited with 1000 lbs of biteforce, Hyena has and they are known throughout the world of science as having the strongest mammalian biteforce, period. No one's overestimating bears, but you are underestimating them-go see one in person as I have-I've seen this guy in WA 900 plus pound Grizzly, and it is just awesome to see such incredible power of these superpredators-you should see how truly giant they are when standing up, they're big enough on all fours!! Teh ppolar bear story has not been credited as being accurate and its only been reported as happening once. Bears in the wild continuously combat each other for mates, food and fishing spots-they have combat experience already in their impressive resume to answer your take on the california fights. Those bears were natural Grizzly's just taken from the wild-not taught fighting, so you are mistaken abou that as well besides jaw power. 
Bears are and especially Grizzly's agressive and are exposive-thats how they can run between 35-40 mph-only canids have stamina and are the marathoners of the animal kingdom chasing prey till prey dies or drops of exhaustion-packs of wild dogs have been seen doing this to mountain lions and killing the big cat in this way. Then, unlike cats, dogs don't kill before eating-they are far more brutal-they eat their victims while they are still alive starting with eating the stomach. 
Bears are quite fast with their paws, and would be ready for the lions assault and would overmatch the lion-a tiger even has a faster pawswioe than lions-look at those videos of lions and tigers in the same enclosure in korean zoos that you can see on youtube with the tiger out-swiping lions-the lions were not breaking any records, I'll tell you that. Its not physically impossible for bears to be explosive-thats what they are as described in documentaries, books and by biologists as well as by trainers-they're just quick like that-they all agree don't be fooled by their appeaarance of being slow-they're not!
Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 9:35 PM by ATTILA
Yep, bears are not slow at all. There are documented cases of grizzlies outrunning and killing bison calves, and even adult bisons, in the Yellowstone Park, and this is a feat that only a fast, strong and bold predator can accomplish. Here is a description of a largely successful bear attack on an adult bison bull -largely, I say, because the bear could not kill immediately the badly injured bull but the latter would have died anyway:
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 7:12 AM by Balazs
Thanks Oliver. It is absolutely true that Cape buffaloes are formidable opponents, and usually several lions are needed to kill a single adult bull. Still, they become quite vulnerable once the lions manage to knock them off their feet, and predators (both big cats and bears) apparently know this all too well. They routinely attack the prey's hind legs with well-aimed paw swipes, against which the buffalo may defend itself by kicking but it is definitely at a disadvantage, since its formidable horns are on the other side.:) In contrast, a bear is by no means defeated if it is down. On the contrary, this situation is likely to lead to close-up combat in which the bear has actually better chances than in mobile warfare.:)
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 7:41 AM by Balazs
you did not say it but it was certainly implied in your first post... you thought you had a good argument by getting a 'big cat expert' to agree with you, however if you take a look at the link i gave you, you'll see on the very same website a diffrent expert actually agrees 100% with myself. 
don't assume that someone is being bias just because they disagree with you, there is actually a much greater argument for why the lion would win over the bear. 
and you really need to read what i said more carefully, i said that a lions favour over the bear is 60/40 and possibly 50/50 depending on how the bear reacts. 
i'm fairly certain however that you consider the bear to be this monsterous beast-like creature when in fact the only advantage it has over a lion is it's considerable weight so therefore strength. 
and in turn by the way you're talking you consider a lion to be a defenceless kitty in comparison. 
yes, a bear does not gain a great ammount of fighting experience in the wild it is highly uncommon for it to come into conflict with other grizzlies, and black bears just tend to run away if they see one... wheras lions spend most of their life fighting and like to fight whenever they can, they are more practiced and more confident. 
and i don't think they'd put an injured bear in the pit to fight. 
and it isn't deperate, i wasn't showing it to tell you that a cougar is dominant in a fight i was replying to atillas 'lions will avoid a fight with a bear at all costs' point because this is very far from the truth... in reality it is bears who will avoid fights with lions because if they run away from a cougar who is 3 times smaller in terms of weight and 2 times smaller in terms of size then it will most certainly avoid conflict with a sub saharan lion. 
and not only will it avoid conflict because of the lions size, the lions mane also gives it a distinct psychological advantage not to mention his huge roar which can be heard up to 5 miles away.
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 3:27 PM by Oliver
lions would not avoid grizzlies at all costs, lions are well known for taking on any challenger and only backing down when it has already been beaten. 
however the point was if bears run away from mountain cats, then it is almost silly to think that they will not do the same with a sub saharan lion. 
there is no records of mountain cats ever weighing 300 lbs 
the average weight for a mountain cat is 137 lbs, the average size is 2 feet at the shoulder and typically around 5 - 6 feet long (without tail) 
the average weight for a subsaharan lion is somewhere between 450 - 500 lbs, they are 4 feet tall at the shoulder and typically 8 - 9 feet long (without tail). 
grizzly bears weigh in at around 500 - 750 lbs, they stand 3 foot high at the shoulder and are typically 6 - 8 foot standing on their hind legs 
and i've also seen the video you are refering to, the lion does not run away from the jaguar the lion runs away from the jaguars roar, there is a huge wall separating them and they could not see what was on the other side, however i'm sure that you don't even believe that a lion would run away from a jaguar if he saw what was on the other side of that wall. 
and before you say lions have never been credited with 1000 lbs of bite force please watch this video: 
just for a heads up that states that both national geographic and animal planet found the average lions bite force to be 1000 lbs. 
grizzlies do not often fight in the wild it is quite uncommon for them to do so, and quite obviously you don't know much about the california pit fights the bears had already been there for months fighting bulls and other bears. 
and i still don't think you're getting what i mean by explosiveness; bears can reach 35 mph at running, however when you are fighting you don't run, explosiveness refers to how quickly and agressively you can react. 
for example lions can reach 50 mph in a matter of seconds this means that when it comes to conflict the lion will react much more quickly than the bear and not only that lions are noted for their high ammounts of testosterone which means they will also react very agressivly giving the bear little time to react. 
and actually it was not just one polar bear that was killed various polar bears fought lions and were beaten almost every time... these fights are just as reliable as the california pit fights. 
bears are fast with their paws but compared with the speed of a lion it is not, and for your own education lions and tigers have the same speed in swipes. 
i did not say it was physically impossible for bears to be explosive, anything can be explosive, what i said was it's physically impossible for the bear to be as explosive as a lion.
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 3:47 PM by Oliver
by the way lions do also sometimes stand on their hind legs to fight, and if you add their 4 feet in the legs onto their 8 - 9 foot body length you will get a 12 - 13 foot lion.
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 3:49 PM by Oliver
Dream On! LOL..
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 4:42 PM by Ted
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 5:37 PM by Oliver
Oliver, You stated complete farces about mountain lions and bears-let me set you straight-that was one instance of a Grizzly with a cougar. "there is actually a much greater argument for why the lion would win over the bear"-WRONG-quite teh opposite is the truth-Bears wiped lions out in North America, and bears roar too, something lions have not contended with and that would work against the lion as they may be taken aback, if not, it would certainly give pause which also work against a lion-either way-in the bears favor. 
You severely overestimate lions-a skinny goddamn kenyan killed one with his bare hands for the gods sake-tehn was killed by Hyenas. 
Jaguars are scrappers, the lion might have met his match in that particular cat-that proves my point above about the bear's roar in effect to the lion, which obviously was scared of the new sound, case in point. 
Grizzly's and other bears are explosive from start til they reach their opponant-and Grizzly's and Brown and Kodiaks DO FIGHT all the time-I studied them for over 23 years-yes sir they combat continually-I don't know where you are getting these highly innacurate statements from but they are 100% wrong-I'm telling you. 
Back to the mountain lion thing; they are teh size of a lioness. Lions never stand vertically to fight, either, they are incappable of that because their hind legs design is like a dogs-they don't go straight like a bears-so you're wrong about that-if they stood up, it would be at a diagnal stance, not straight up-and no lion is 13 ft tall-thats preposterous! Tigers are faster swipers and use both because they use their haunches on which to sit so they have two free paws with which to swipe-I can send you the videos of this proof-there are plenty, but we are talking bears which have FAR more muscle with which to deliver fatal blows coupled with longer, stronger claws that are 5-6 inches long. 
The cali fights are documented and are as true as the gold rush. Polar bear happened once, and people back then handicapped bears by chaining them when fighting other species because other species cost so much money back then to import, that they wanted to make it last as an investment and didn't want the bear to immediately destroy it and cause them a loss-bears were handicappped almost everytime-called bearbaiting. 
That link you provided was wrong-lions do not have 1000 obs biteforce-thats the Hyena, just because some random clown gives a botched test doesn't confirm it as hard science! 
Here's some vids for everyone to watch!; 
and this is biteforce; 
this is tiger/jaguar/lin biteforce-if you are bored by teh pics, to to 3:05 on the video; 
This is paw-swipes; (its sad to see eh conditions the koreans have made these cats live in, the lions do not look happy, its sad, really, they should have a place to live in which they are happy. 
Here is two male lions fighting in slow-motion so you can analyze their movements; 
Here are Grizzly's fighting-notice how they use thier massive strength and weight to their advantage! 
here are a couple different others; 

Male lion jumps out of his skin from jaguar; 
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 7:31 PM by ATTILA
I'm not sure how you can deny how a bear would most probably run away from a sub saharan lion if they have been ocumented running away from cougars, it isn't just one instance there are many documented cases of grizzly bears avoiding conflict with cougars who are always ready to fight... 
bears can roar, but it's not nearly as loud or as intimidating as a lion, and you say a roar isn't something lions contend with? are you forgetting that lions fight other lions almost daily... 
it doesn't prove your point, the lions weren't expecting a jaguar to roar and they were suprised and scared, however you should know if they saw what it was making that noise they wouldn't have been scared in the slightest. 
you're suggesting that a human can take on a lion? now that's just delusional... 
and you still do not seem to get what i mean by explosive, whilst bears can be explosive it is physically impossible for them to be as explosive as a lion, a bear simply cannot react quickly enough to stop a lion from attacking first and most agressively. 
no, grizzly bears are agressive but they do not fight all the time, the only fight practice they get is coming into conflict with wolves it is highly uncommon for a bear to fight another bear. 
cougars are nowhere near the size of a lioness, even a fully grown male jaguar does not average the same size as a lioness... and just by you so unwisely stating so it shows me that you know nothing of the cougar. 
cougars average 137 lbs... lionesses averages 350 lbs, cougars stand 2 feet from the ground lionesses stand 3 - 4 feet off the ground... cougars average 6 feet long whilst lionesses average 7 - 8 feet long. 
please check this out for more information on cougars: 
they are nowhere near the size of a lioness so i have no idea where you are getting your information wrong but it is quite false. 
you think lions don't stand on their hind legs to fight? check this out please: 
how is it false? if an 8 or 9 foot long male lion stands on it's 4 foot hind legs, even at a diagonal stance the lion will reach 12 feet tall. 
and tigers being able to easily stand on their hind legs does not make them faster swipers, when tigers stand on their hind legs they do not 'swipe' they 'box' animal planet has already documented that a lion and tigers sped in swiping is the same. 
you seem to be under the delusion that because grizzly bears weigh more it is 'pure muscle' nothing could be further from the truth, for starters they mainly reside in canada which they have to have a lot of fat to survive on that's a scientific fact, and not only that in the canadian winter time the bears have to pack on 100's of kilograms of fat just to stay alive, granted grizzly bears are not weak but they are certainly not all muscle... if you have studied bears for 23 years you need a booster session. 
the californian fights only documented 2 cases of bears killing the lion in such a manner there are many documented fights of lion killing polar bears that are just as reliable...  
the links are wrong you say? so you are saying that both national geographic and animal planet has provided the world with false information, which are 2 of the most credited groups of zoologists in the world and you are saying that you know better than them? 
both animal planet and national geographic state the lions bite force is at 1000 lbs... the hyena might have a higher bite force QUOTIENT, but the raw power is to the lion. 
and you seem to like that clip of the jaguar and the lions but you should be aware that they are simply frightened of the roar if they saw the jaguar behind the wall it would be quite the opposite way around.
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:23 PM by Oliver
You are full of misinformation! 
You say "it is highly uncommon for bears to fight one another."  
First, I have written numerous times on this site that these bears fight often and sometimes savagely with one another. They fight over fishing spots, mating, & a mother Sow will protect her cubs unto the death against Male Bears unlike Female Lions who watch their cubs devoured by rogue Male Lions taking over the pride. 
HOW DO I KNOW? I already wrote about it! GO to Kodiak, Katmai, Denali like I HAVE and see for yourself.  
I HAVE SEEN up close a good number of serious bear fights! 
Second, since when is Canada the home of the largest number of Grizzlies? Unless you think Alaska is part of Canada LOL.. 
Point: There are a lot more Grizzlies in Alaska then Canada. Alaska estimates approximately 30,000+++ Grizzlies!!! 
Lastly, you sound so rediculous writing about Male Lion's standing on their hind legs and reaching 12-13 feet in height. Grizzlies can stand, walk, and fight on their hing legs; A Lion can only look up and wish. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:41 PM by Ted
Oliver-Grizzly's are not fat any more so than is a lion, obviously you don't know abou ttheir physiology makeup and the power they have displayed, or you could not have said such erroneous information which is the case-bears are very thickly muscled, yes, they do store fat, but they are for from the blobs you are insinuating! grizzly's and other bears fight and combat each other for fishing spots, mates, or just out of agressiveness, which they continually display. 
TED-you are 100% correct and by what you've written, I've no doubt you've seen bears in real life in the wild as I have(I didn't see one in the wild, but in the backwoods of WA state from a guy who has one over 900 lbs up close and in person!)Grizzzly's perform alot on their hindlegs as they are not only made for it physically, but are quite inclined to do it regularly as it is very comfortable in that position-it also scares off wolves and cougars standing up on its hind legs and roaring. 
The sites you provided about lion biteforce say the Hyena is the king of biteforce-the power goes to the Hyena-you are disproving your own point-they are teh ones rallying behind the Hyena, touting it as king of bite-they crush lion and elephant skulls and even eat lions teeth! They are teh only ones on earth capable of eating teeth and bone so completely that the calcium deposits in their feces makes their feces pure white and the birds even eat Hyena droppings to get calcium out of them-not lion droppings, they are incapable of eating bone like a Hyena-also, it shows the tiger has a stronger jaw than the lion-fact! 
What the jaguar video shows, is that the male lion was a big chicken and only the female had the balls to go and check it out after the roar-the jaguar certainly wasn't afraid, and they both had each other's scents to know the other was there-the male lion knew he was there, but ran almost out of his skin from the roar of th ejaguar-bears roar too, and are more intimidating when doing so! Animal planet is your source? That proves you don't fully watch and comprehend what they are telling you-the Hyena they say has the highest biteforce of mammals-king of bite-national geographic says this and also has put a video about this as well, stating they have a far higher bite force power than a lion which is more than double its weight! 
I've studied them(bears for 23 years and still learn because more info is still forthcomming from the pros in the field-no one knows everything and is constantly learning, no matter about what animal)no animal is pure muscle-I've seen fat dogs and fat lions and I've seen dogs which look like gymn freaks which no cat on earth has that much muscle in relation to size! is where you can see some. 
Actually you are wrong abou ttiger swiping speed as well-I've a vid of tigers that were transported to africa to learn to hunt as cubs til adults and its called" living with tigers" and it says they are faster than lions and better at killing as well on there own-faster boxers-the vids i sent you showed a lions face getting absolutely pummeled by the tiger, his face skin was flapping all over as the tiger swatted his face all over and out-boxed, out-swiped the lion all over that zoo enclosure! 
What do you mean"they maily reside in Canada"? Wyoming, northern cali, montana, north dakota and Alaska all have great populations of Grizzly's!! Yeah, you better hit the books on bears before comming on here and saying what they can and cannot do, when you don't know that much abou tthem and clearly are another lion fan biased being like a brick wall to engage in intelligent conversation with-we're just going in circles here-Ted, Balazs and I have all shown you the evidence, and we're still getting nowhere. There are facts backing up what we say-you have bias only for your lions-even lion trainer beatty thought Grizzly's would overcome lions-not that hes the supreme authority on lions or their behavior either-he's not. 
Lionesses do NOT average 350 lbs! 
"Facts about the Size of Lions 
Fully grown males reach the height of 4 feet 
An adult male weighs between 330-530 pounds" 
You were wrong abou tthe size of males in their length as well-length is INCLUDING th etail which is 3 feet!! "SIZES  
Head & Body Length: 9 ft. Tail 3ft.(included).""On average, males weigh 420 lb and females 275 lb.[4]" See-females are approximately the same size as cougars can get(male cougars)" Head and body length is 170–250 cm (5 ft 7 in – 8 ft 2 in) in males and 140–175 cm (4 ft 7 in – 5 ft 9 in) in females; shoulder height is about 123 cm (4 ft) in males and 107 cm (3 ft 6 in) in females. The tail length is 90-105 cm (2 ft 11 in - 3 ft 5 in) in males and 70–100 cm in females (2 ft 4 in – 3 ft 3 in).[4] " TAILS ARE INCLUDED IN LENGTH!! Cougars average approx. 200 lbs and have had one weighed at 264 lbs, so they are smaller than the lioness, but comparable,nontheless.  
Its false, Oliver, because lions CANNOT STAND ON THEIR TAILS, SO THEY WILL NOT BE 12 FT TALL!! Also, diagnal measurements are not as high as vertical measurements-look into some geometry books before refuting this fact. 
A bears roar is more intimidating than a lions-they can hold a roar for longer period of time due to its being larger and having larger lungs. grizzly's DO fight alot. 
A human has taken on a lion and killed it with his bare hands-not delusional-fact! Here's teh link for that! 
A Grizzly is too much predator for a lion in my opinion and in past dramas as played out in history here in North America and other circumstances. King Bear! 
Posted @ Saturday, October 03, 2009 11:52 PM by ATTILA
As i've said before it is highly uncommon for bears to fight one another, that doesn't mean that conflict doesn't sometimes arise, but grizzly bears do not come into conflict 'often' therefore when it comes to conflict bears are easily intimidated and always back off before one is seriously injured. 
okay, fair enough i messed up my information on canada/alaska, however whichever way you look at it alaska is still a harsh winter enviroment and in the winter bears have to pack on 100's of kilgrams of fat just to stay alive... so bears don't have as much muscle as you think. 
you think that male lions can't stand on their hind legs? check these out please: 
actually yes grizzlies have far more fat than a lion does, grizzlies live in a harsh winter enviroment so unless they have a lot of fat they will die... and in the winter they pack on even more fat because if they don't they will die. 
lions on the other hand live in a sub saharan setting in africa, so they don't need a lot of fat for a start... prides hunt only 2 or 3 times a week and lions fight daily, and can walk up to 100's of km's a day. 
i'm not insinuating that they are blobs, if you read what i said again i said 'grizzlies are by no means weak' which they are not but they are far from the huge pure muscle beast-like animal which you are insinuating. 
and it's practically unheard of for bears to fight other grizzlies out of agression. 
are you even watching the link i gave you? originally i wasn't even talking about hyenas i gave you the link which shows that national geographic and animal planet state a lion has an average bite force of 1000 lbs... nothing to do with a hyena... it also states that a lion and tigers biteforce is the SAME. 
tigers box exactly you've just said it yourself, the swipe speed is the exact same as a lions 'as found by animal planet'. 
the video which you are refering to shows a tiger hitting an asiatic lion which gets up immediately after being hit, 'everland' is the zoo which you are refering to and it is well documented that lions more often than not win the fights. 
and like i said to ted whichever way you look at it bears still live in a harsh winter enviroment in which they have to pack on 100s of kgs of fat to survive... i saw the pictures of bears and snow and assumed canada easy mistake no? 
but alaskas still a fine example because bears still have to be more fat than muscle. 
yep lioness's do average 350 lbs, and i wasn't wrong about lions, lions are 8 - 9 feet long fully grown without tail... with their tail however they are measured over 12 feet. 
cougars are not comparable to a lioness first you said cougars average 300 lbs and now you're changing it to 200 lbs. 
whichever way you're wrong because cougars average 137 lbs... going over 200 lbs would be jaguar size and you wouldn't be dumb enough to say cougars are just as heavy as a male jaguar right? 
not standing on their tails... standing on their legs... if you imagine a bear when it stands on it's hind legs large grizzly bears become about 8 foot tall... however on all 4's a bears length from nose to tail is about 5 foot. 
the same story with a lion, large male lions are 8 - 9 foot long on all fours, but when they stand on their hind legs even at a diagonal stance they will reach heights of 12 foot. 
you can try that link with people but don't expect anyone to believe that a human could kill a healthy male lion you would be foolish to think such a thing. 
in past dramas played out between the bear and the lion, the lion has also killed the bear and bears bigger than grizzlies... 
you seem to think that a bear is huge in comparison to a lion... but actually compared to a lion the bear only has weight on his side, and that weight contains 100's of pounds of fat to stay alive.
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:36 AM by Oliver
Oliver-and as I've said and experts such as the Grizzly almanac and people who live in bear or "Grizzly" country see and back up-Grizzly's and other bears fight alot-its not uncommon as you've erroneously stated-they fight each other all the time,just aa much as lions fight each other, sometimes less, sometimes more-they fight and fight alot! Now youve been corrected on that point, we'll move to another; 
You stated lions would be 12 tall when standing up-diagnal measuremanets are not as tall as a vertical one, so even though you are suggesting their height is 12 ft, that would mean they are bouncing on their tail like tigger from winnie the pooh or something! Standing up, a lion would be about 7 feet, because he can't get the full height because they can't stand as a bear can, period. "the same story with a lion, large male lions are 8 - 9 foot long on all fours, but when they stand on their hind legs even at a diagonal stance they will reach heights of 12 foot"`Oliver. 
What, is the lion tigger, able to stand or bounce on his tail for the height of 12 ft?! How do you get 12 ft when that includes tail length?! 
I never stated cougars are 300 lbs! Male jaguars have reached this weight, and male cougars have come close at 264 lbs or something like that-I've already posted the link and the size verifying that. 
"The largest cougars are found in southwestern Canada which is their most Northenly habitat (animals are nearly always larger the further north they are)." "3. A grizzly would be very likely to beat a lion but much less likely to beat a Bengal tiger. This is because tigers are somewhat stronger and more agile than lions which is an advantage when fighting more powerful but slower animals like bears. Still the bear's massive strength would give it very good chances against both animals" Daniel Moellic Expertise 
I can answer a variety of questions on interspecies conflict including hypothetical questions. I can go into detail if necessary. I would also like to mention that I prefer questions on reptiles vs mammals or reptiles in general however my best topic is theropod dinosaurs. I have a good understanding of the physiology of most species but cannot answer questions on things such as bite force as statistics on these vary a lot. 
Experience in the area 
I have studied animals both living and extinct since I was a child and was particularly fascinated by theropods and big cats. I am famous at college for knowing everything about various animals and how they behave. 
I have an A* in biology (GCSE level) 
Male cougars are not uncommonly around 200 lbs "Males typically weigh 53 to 90 kilograms (115 to 198 pounds)" Female lions average 275 lbs-NOT 350 lbs! Their have been females attaining these weights, however, it is not average, so once again you stand corrected. If you do not beleive me, ask Damon-he knows more abou tlions than you do. 
You are wrong abou tbiteforce as well-the Hyena is king of bite omonst mammalians, and tigers have higher biteforce than lions-I've already sent you the link on that as well, but I see you've ignored that as all lion fans do and you are like talking to a brick wall repeating yourself despite me sending you links showing your data incorrect and proving my data.  
and this is biteforce;  
There is biteforce AGAIN-lion has 690 lbs-thats all-not 1000!!  
Bears have muscle and bone mass greater than a lion as well-they are much more massive-thats why they are touted as the world's LARGEST CARNIVORE. Also, tigers are recognized as being the largest of the big cats-another fact you lion fans refuse to face despite EXPERT animal biologists stating this in books, programs and documentaries and info on the web. 
12 ft is teh size of a tiger, not a lion which is 8-9 ft. 
BTW-the human did kill a lion with bare hands and it was not old and crippled either! 
Yes they have far more fat than a lion(Grizzly's) because its a larger animal, and they need fat store to live through the winter in hibernation, but to say they are fat blobs as you are insinuating is preposterous-they have more muscle than the big cats because they are bigger animals, their shoulder humps are pure muscle which from which they derive fighting power-also, fat protects them in fighting as well, but remember-they have so much muscle to move that fat to be able to run 35 mph!!  
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:04 PM by ATTILA
ATTILA.. both lions and tigers average 9ft. 
Likewise, only but a few populations of brown bears can be considered larger than lions, and this is due food intake, rather than body size, which is basically equal. 
But yes, the lionesses don`t average 350...generally, they are 275 - 330 lbs on average, according to actual proven records. That lion with a bite force of 691 lbs was not yet grown....other studies, though they consist of estimates, indicate higher ranges in bite force. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:16 PM by damon
this is a forum in which just to state your opinion in this hypothetical fight-I'm not being mean, just trying to understand about the height misnomer, which I do, but disagree about the height due to it being diagnal. 
We disagree, and thats great-thats what the whole thing is about, but the other things such as biteforce and lions/tigers-thats just not so, the tiger is bigger, has more speed and agility, faster swipes as shown in the video I sent you in the korean zoo(which the poor lions looked miserable)and are stronger. Lions are magnificent, but not king-that was romanticized in the past eras where chauvanistic imperialists adopted the "male lion" way of lording it over the female making her do all the work while he lays around doing nothing but getting his "lions share" of the food they killed, and fighting-males have about 12 fights in their life`Big Cats and so they were adopted for those reasons as mascots.  
Anyhow, yoiiu think the lion would win, I think bears would-you had some good points, but I remain with my pick-the bear. 
In a new fight-I would like to propose to pick your brain on a fight between a cougar and a jaguar, already some experts agree the cougar would win over a leopard, so who would you pick and why? 
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:24 PM by ATTILA
it is uncommon for bears to fight one another, they may have seen bears fight but noone who has studied grizzly bears will tell you they fight 'often', and absolutely noone will tell you that grizzlies fight as often as lions do, that is a silly notion. 
i wasn't talking about vertical measurements, if you give way for about a foot or 2 a lion will still stand at 11 - 12 foot on it's hind legs... far taller than a 7 - 8 foot grizzly bear. 
listen again, lions do not need to stand on their tail to reach lengths of 12 foot, standing on their tails will be far more effective don't you agree? 
and yes you did say cougars can be 300 lbs check above ''Posted @ Friday, October 02, 2009 9:35 PM by ATTILA - actually cougars can be 300 lbs so they are not 2 times smaller than a lioness'' 
again, not once has a cougar ever been given a weight of 300 lbs, they average 137 lbs, it is exceedingly rare to find a cougar over 200 lbs. 
tigers are more agile due to a more flexable spine however they are no more stronger than a lion, in fact a lion is most probably the strongest of the 2, and a tigers agility doesn't matter in a fight between a lion and a bear because in comparison to the bear the lion is still highly agile 
don't say stupid things... you gave me a link to a video by a tiger fan who is constantly trying to prove the tiger superiority I GAVE YOU LINKS TO NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AND ANIMAL PLANET WHICH BOTH FOUND THE AVERAGE LIONS BITE FORCE TO BE 1000 LBS 
now let's compare our sources shall we? you gave me a link to a tiger fans video, whilst i gave you links to 2 of the most credited wildlife expert groups in the world. 
i think i win this one... 
no, bears are credited as being the HEAVIEST land carnivores, both a lion and a tiger are taller and longer than any bear. 
and siberian tigers are credited as being the heaviest feline... lions average the same length and a greater height with the longest lions being longer than the longest tigers and the smallest lion being smaller than the smallest tigers. 
if you believe that a human is fully capable of killing a lion with his bare hands then that'syour own misguided opinion, however i advise you not to spread that around it will only get you laughed at. 
they have far more fat... they have 100's of pounds more fat than a lion which means their muscle mass isn't that much greater either although i agree it is quite a bit stronger but not to the degree which you think. 
in a fight it isn't about how fast you can run, it's about how explosive you can be which matters in regards to speed. 
and all felines in fact are known for reaching high speeds extreamly quickly lions go from 0 - 50 in 5 seconds and this will matter in a fight, bears take time to get over ever 25 mph... so his explosive speed will be no match for a lions. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:08 PM by Oliver
Oliver, a lion actually stands about 7 feet tall.....likewise, a cougar can average upwards of 154 lbs or more.... 
and actually, polar bears are longer than lions, but brown bears, if you exclude the tail, as just as long as either lions or tigers. Likewise, there is little, if any difference in the weight of these animals. 
and, bears can get to top speed rather quickly....there is much more to winning a fight than just speed...such as the fact the lion and tiger can execute a more effective immediate attack then the bear, in consequence to their more complex celiac ganglia and other factors which lead to explosive power, according to studies by george washington crile. 
and, lions actually run up about 30 - 35 mph...the 50 mph figure was merely a long standing estimate........the tiger can run about 35 - 40 mph.
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:26 PM by damon
i've tried to explain to you about the height but if you don't get it from what i've wrote above i'm not sure what else i can say. 
on regards to biteforce - i have given you links to both national geographic and animal planet which found both animals biteforce to average 1000 lbs 
on regards to paw swipes - i have given you links to animal planet which finds the lions and tigers swipe to b around the same speed. 
on regards to size - both myself and damon have given you numerous links which state lions on average are taller and average the same length as a tiger and also the same weight as an amur tiger (apart from in the siberian winter when amur tigers have to pack on a lot of fat to survive). 
in regards to the korean zoo called everland, the zookeepers say that the lions win more often than not, and not only that those lions are asiatic lions not african lions, and if on the off chance they are african lions they are very unhealthy african lions... 
lions spend the first few years of their lives learning how to fight and the rest of their lives either fighting the male lion to get into a pride, or defending their pride, or fighting the other lioness's over food, or the other male lions in the pride. 
i think due to much propaganda from bias tiger fans or from people who seem to think that the lion isn't 'dangerous' there has been a lot of confusion over how powerful the lion is some people just don't like to think that their favourite animal can fall to something they consider to be weak. 
as for the cougar vs jaguar fight, the cougar would fall without question and i don't believe for a second that a cougar stands a chance against a leopard either 
a cougar gets by, by making a lot of noise until the opponent backs down, it is highly agressive but not a particularly powerful feline in comparison to some others. 
both the jaguar and the leopard are pound for pound stronger than the cougar (especially the jaguar which is the 2nd strongest animal pound for pound).  
not only that as i've said earlier the cougar gets by, by making a lot of noise to indimidate it's opponent however; a leopard and a jaguar are part of the genus panthera and have a much more intimidating demenour and can make far more noise with their roars. 
both a jaguar and a leopard have stronger hind legs which is another advantage, cougars have bigger back paws and proportionally larger legs but not the adapted muscle which a jaguar and leopard have as they climb trees much more often. 
also cougars are quite slender in comparison to the bulk of a leopard and jaguar, the leopard lives in a much harsher enviroment and competes with lions and hyenas to survive, far more than a cougar competes with bears and lynx's so a leopard will be far less intimidated by a cougar. 
not to mention both leopards and jaguars have much greater biteforce. 
sorry that's a lot to read all in one but recently i was wondering the same thing.
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:37 PM by Oliver
damon i believe that the 50 mph figure was given to the lioness 
however i have numerous links which state a male lion reaches speeds of 35 - 40 miles in a matter of seconds.
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:40 PM by Oliver
Oliver, even for a lioness, a speed of 50 mph is rather high....that is even close to the usual speed a cheetah can run........schaller has stated, through observation of his own, and guggisberg supports this statement as well, that lions, males and females respectively, can run about 30 - 35 mph....and, i`ll be inclined to agree. 
50 mph would be rather extreme.
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 6:54 PM by damon
I think 50 mph is quite high but i also think that a lioness is quite capable of reaching this speed. 
50 mph isn't 'usual' cheetah speed, 60 mph is the usual, with some of the fastest reaching over 70 mph and i think the top speed ever recorded was 75 mph. 
source - BBC, a highly credited tv station with reports from various experts in the field of wildlife.
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 7:03 PM by Oliver
It's Football Sunday; take a brake! LOL... 
You guys really are passionate about this subject!  
Attila, I believe you're from the U.S. becaue you mentioned a friend in WA.  
How about Oliver, Damon? 
The reason I ask; in this debate Geography is important. 
"All Grizzlies ARE "Brown Bears" however, NOT ALL Brown Bears around the world ARE GRIZZLIES. I think someone on this site also wrote this. 
Point: When I say Grizzly I am referring to North American "Alaskan Coastal Brown" the "Kodiak" and the "Inland Grizzly."  
Some zoologists would take me to task for using the term "Inland Grizzly." Anyways, "Inland Gizzlies" fight less often because they are further away from the action. However, they still do fight. Google "Rogue Grizzly(s) kill Black Bears in Yellowstone Nat. PK." You may even have seen the documentary. 
When Grizzly/Coastal/Kodiak Bears fight it can be vicious! Are the experts you cite writing about these bears or bears in general?  
If the experts studied the same subspecies of Bears I observed they would never have concluded it is "uncommen for bears to fight." 
It all depends on the Geography & Circumstances! 
Obviously Lions nor Bears could exist if they always fought to the death. 
As I stated earlier, a Sow Bear will always 99.9% fight to the death in order to protect her cubs. 
As for the Cougar video; it was cool. I liked the Female Cougar protecting her cub. 
However, don't think for a minute that the Grizzly on the video could not have easily killed both the mother & cub.  
In the video; the Bear got a good back rub and went on it's way. No harm/ no foul! 
The Reason: That Bear was big & healthy. It did not need to take any risks of injury. There is plenty of food for that individual Bear. 
African Lions don't have the same luxery. They need to constintly hunt & eat to survive. For this reason Lions will not tolirate competition from other predators in their territory. 
Time to go watch the Steelers & Chargers! 
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 7:54 PM by Ted
Oliver, Never before have I heard a lion runs 50 mph-Damon was right about that, otherwise they would be catching far more prey and would have a higher success ratio in their kills. 
Ted, I am now living in Texas but used to live in cali, AZ, the dakotas, michigan and several east coast states before living here in Galveston, Texas. I believe Damon is from or living in DC area-not sure about Oliver. My best friend and Marine Corps buddy lives in upper WA and is the reason for my meeting the guy with the Grizzly over 900 lbs. I am not a hunter, and especially not one to condone trophy hunting of animals anyway. 
Ted, you are absoltely correct in your assertions about bears and fighting-especially that of sows. You are also right about animals in general not fighting to the death most of the time-they don't, it happens not so much, someone gets either injured, or more often than not-the rival learns its place before real harm can be done and it lives to fight another day-this is especially how wolves deal with each other in their hierarchy. 
Oliver, i scrolled up and I didn't see anywhere where I stated a cougar was 300 lbs, I did say they weren't 3 times smaller than a lioness, which you claimed. Also, that fact is a direct report from a Kenyan newspaper about the man killing the lion bare-handed-if you beleive it to be false, yoiu are misguided-I'm not the one who's going to be laughed at-its a fact. 
Polar bears are the largest living carnivore on earth-they are taller than lions or tigers "The height og adult polar bears(Ursus Maritimus) varies from 130-160cm.(4ft.3-5ft2')(DeMaster & Stirling 1981) They also swim 60 miles and "The polar bear is the largest living land carnivore"-Arkive2004 
As for the video's, I wouldn't say they are any more biased than those made by lion fans, would you? you guys get so fanatical, so as to make these videos and want to kill each other over which cat is superior. Tigers are cited as being the largest natural cat(ligers are unnatural)and lions are second largest. Tigers have larger canines. Lions are taller than tigers. Tigers are longer than lions-these are all facts. I'm unbiased and like both the same or close. 
Bears are fast to get to their top speed, and believe it or not-they have caught deer in a chase! Survivors of bear attacks-usually Grizzly's, say that the animal was a ways off, then all of a sudden, it was upon them in an instant. A Grizzly's rush is explosive, thats a fact.  
As for the cougar/jaguar fight, I'd call it close, maybe a cougar as they have viscious dispositions and have been cited by one cat expert as being capable of defeating a leopard. Jaguars are tough and larger, have a stronger bite(strongest per size)of the big cats,'d be something! 
You have a good one Ted, Damon and Oliver, I have Dark Funeral codes to post. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 04, 2009 9:28 PM by ATTILA
Oliver, i know 50 mph isn`t the usual speed of a cheetah, i merely said it was close. In one case, the fastest cheetah in timed races (at least, for captive specimens) was about 54 mph.  
Here is more info upon the speed of a cheetah;
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 4:14 AM by damon
Ted, i`m actually from d.c. 
But, you are wrong about something....lions do not have to constantly eat. They have enough prey items to sustain the whole pride with a particularly large animal killed. Most of the time, lions spend there time sleeping.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 4:18 AM by damon
I'm from England. 
a grizzly vs black bear does not often happen, black bears usually run at the sight of one and they are no match for the grizzly. 
but grizzlies fighting black bears happens more often that other grizzlies, but the simpe truth is grizzlies do not get much action at all, and most certainly not the type of action a sub saharan lion gets. 
yes i know when bears fight it can be vicious, but that's not to say they fight all that often... you were quite right when you said bears have a great luxary than a lion, bears don't fight all that often because there is plenty of food for them and they don't need to risk injury unlike a sub saharan lion. 
and, it would be foolish not to say that the bear could have killed that cougar, i don't think 'easily' because cougars literally tend to run rings around bears and attack the back, but of course the bear would have won. 
but like i said before, i wasn't showing you that video to show a felines domination in a fight, i was showing it so you could see that if bears back down and run away from cougars, then they will most certaily act the same way with a sub saharan male lion who is 3 times heavier and 2 times bigger, not to mention it's intimidating appearence and louder roar. 
well now you can reliably hear of a lion reaching speeds of 50 mph if you'd care to take a look at this: 
the source is BBC which is a highly credited TV station with many experts in the field. 
a lions average running speed however would be 40 mph. 
I gave you the date in my previous post and i'll give it again... Friday, October 2nd 9:35... scroll up and check that post. 
no i said they were 3 times lighter than a sub saharan lion and 2 times smaller, with a lioness they would be aprox 2.1 times lighter, 3 feet smaller in length, and a foot smaller in height. 
oh wow... i can se you're not understand this properly so i'll give you the video to the bite force again, but before i do you need to understand that it isn't 'quoted' by a lion fan it is simply shown, the sources are N A T I O N A L G E O G R A P H I C, and A N I M A L P L A N E T... and they both state that lions and tigers have an average biteforce of 1000 lbs which you will learn if you watch this video  
as for polar bears they are indeed the largest, but they are only a lot bigger in weight. 
they are about 5 foot from the ground standing on all fours and 9 foot standing on it's hind legs. 
lions are still longer than a polar bear and only a foot smaller on all fours... and a lion is more than a match for a polar bear as recorded by the pit fights they had. 
polar bears cannot swim 60 mph, if they could they wouldn't get eaten by the orcas, who can only swim 26 mph. 
bears are quick, but like i say their explosive speed is nothing in comparison to a lions, and in a fight it is explosive speed that matters not how fast you can run, it's about how fast you can reach that speed. 
i don't think it's close with the cougar and jaguar at all, i'd give the jaguar 9/10 fights and the leopard 7/10 fights. 
actually the snow leopard has the strongest bite force pound for pound of the felines and actually the strongest out of all land animals. 
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 6:38 AM by Oliver
Oliver, neither lions or tigers have a bite force of 1000 lbs....those figures were estimates. A tiger`s bite force has never been measured, though it would be less than that of the lion, with a smaller head and lower sagittal crest. 
and orca`s can actually swim about 34 - 35 mph, according to the most accurate records. Polar bears can swim about 5 mph. 
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 6:58 AM by damon
I know Lions sleep most of the time LOL..  
I was just stressing the point that African Lions are usually more agressive towards other predators because of the harsh African Plains. They can't afford to have competition scavaging their food. Hyenas often take the kill from a pride of Female Lions! If the Male Lions are around it is a different story! 
You are wrong when you wrote "Grizzlies fight Black Bears more often than other Grizzlies." As you wrote, Black Bears try to run from Grizzlies; they want nothing to do with Grizzlies. 
This is exactly why I mentioned Geography! 
The Alaskan Gizzlies fight often in Coastal areas due to fishing spots, mating rights, Sows protecting cubs etc... 
Inland Grizzlies not as much because of location. 
As far as the video, I already explained the Grizzly CHOSE to avoid the Mountain Lion just as it would CHOOSE to avoid the African Lion depending on the situation.  
However, As ATILLA already mentioned, Grizzlies CHOOSE when to fight! If the Grizzly really wants something it will always stand it's ground. It just has to be worth it!  
BOTTOM LINE: If "1" Male African Lion were to push a fight with a Grizzly over food, territory, or a Sow with cubs; there would in most cases be "1" less Male Lion on this planet. My opinion, 7/8 times out of 10 The Grizzly wins. 
Either way it would be a shame! I enjoy & respect both great animals.  
Enjoy England! 
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 11:34 AM by Ted
Some of you guts are underestimating the Mountain Lion vs. the Jaguar. In the studies I read years ago mentioned the Cougar/Mountain Lion winning battles more often.  
Although it is rare they have been known to come into contact in the wild. Mexico/Central America/South America. 
True the Jaguar is bigger & has stronger jaws but the Cougars ability to leap and it's quickness probably is what gives them the edge. 
However, I would not be placing bets on this one!
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 11:48 AM by Ted
I meant "Guys" not "Guts!"
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 11:51 AM by Ted
Actually, ted, grizzlies won`t usually fight another grizzly which they know would pose a rather great threat. It is usually only the adult males which fight, and this is usually during the time of the salmon. During other portions of the year, there is relatively little aggression between these specimens, though, like lions they fight aggressively over resources, and about 16% of males die due to fights with rivals. 
And, i doubt a male lion would lose to a grizzly sow....lions are rather aggressive, in fact arguably the most aggressive of the carnivora...even confronting potential challengers (based upon a study by packer) when they are outnumbered 3 to one..... 
Lions also have a much higher testosterone than brown bears, and are likewise the most combative of the carnivora.....for example, 23% of male lions die due to fights with rivals, however, only 10% of tigers die from intra-specific fights. 
male lions are also willing to confront lionesses with cubs (which are every bit as dangerous as a protective mother bear) and usually come out the winners. I don`t think a grizzly sow would be able to defeat a male lion, as they also have a more complex celiac fact, the most complex of ANY large mammal compared, and the most fulminating form of that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size.....the lion would most certainly win this struggle. 
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 1:19 PM by damon
That's what I have been saying all along. "Adult Grizzlis fighting over FISHING SPOTS, MATING, & Sows protecting cubs. Most serious fights witnessed are at the fishing spots. 
As for Feamle Grizzly Bears vs. the Male Lions; I don't know.  
No animal is as protective as a Sow Grizzly.  
Female Lions do back down from Male Lions who kill their cubs and then mate with the Females.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 1:35 PM by Ted
Earlier you asked where I was and with who.  
If you want; look up 1993 November Issue of National Geographic: Kodiak Island. 
I was at there! The exact spots pictured with Alaskan Fish & Game experts. O'malley Creek is a Federal protection site for Kodiak Bears. I was in law enforcement; nothing more to tell about that. 
The dominant Females were called Lacy and Gloria. I only got close to lacy. During Salmon runs in July-August her wieght was around 600+++Lbs. 
In Katmai N.P. on mainland Alaska I observed Big Males at Brooks Falls. The biggest during the Salmon run was easily, 1000-1100Lbs. The Adult Bears there were 600-1100 Lbs. 
I have a lot of photos; and yes they did fight one another.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 1:50 PM by Ted
I do not hunt! I especially could never hunt animals that allowed me to get up close and observe it. 
When you get the time I would like to read about the Grizzly your friend has. Is he a trainer/handler? Did he have the bears when it was a cub?
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 1:54 PM by Ted
Ted, lionesses occasionally take on males which try to kill their cubs, according to studies by fact, packer asserts that is one of the reasons the females are group oriented, as they are able to team together to stop invading males...usually they are successful, though this isn`t always documented.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 3:17 PM by damon
Ted, i believe you went there. However, you stated the bears there were "600-1100 Lbs."...i don`t agree with estimates. And, it is very rare for a grizzly sow to reach 600 fact, in one study, the heaviest, i believe, was less than that weight, if `im not mistaken, though i`m merely quoting on memory. In fact, due to this very discussion blog, i now have quite a bit of data upon grizzlies as well as other brown bears. 
In other words, a grizzly sow of 600 lbs would be rather exceptional......for ANY species of bear.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 3:41 PM by damon
Oliver, an estimate from a skull is still just an estimate....i much rather rely upon actual bite force measurements. Likewise, it should be noted that those skulls of the lion and tiger was scaled to the largest recorded measurements of both, which would indicate such bite forces may be extreme for average sized lions and tigers. 
and, hyenas have indeed stole many a kill from fact, they do so on a near regular basis in certain parts of africa, though hyenas hunt more then they scavenge. 
Check this vid out; 
And, lionesses are every bit as maternal as sows....however, a male lion would most certainly injure or even kill a female lion which tried to intervene in his takeover of the pride, though females have been known, and according to packer this is rather frequent, to displace male lions which tried to take over the pride. Even single lionesses have been known to repel male lions trying to kill their cubs, though this is rarely documented.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 4:01 PM by damon
I was tlking about COASTAL MALES at KATMAI N.P. weighing 600-1100 Lbs. NOT Females. Also, I said only ONE MALE actually reached the 1000 Lb. weight. 
On Kodiak there were TWO dominant Sows that reached 600 Lbs. during the Salmon run. If you researched Kodiak it should support my comments. 
Yes, Female Lions with cubs have a pride to rely on; sometimes the pride of females will run off a Male Lion(s).  
However, a female Lion would not generally take on a Male Lion 1 on 1 unto death to protect her cubs. As soon as the Male kills the cubs the female will go into heat and mate with him. 
This is not the case with Grizzly Sows. They will fight to the death if need be to defend their cubs. Sometimes the Male Grizzly will get the message and moves on; sometimes it kills the Sow.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 4:04 PM by Ted
Do a quick search on the Kodiak Bear and you will see Sows are between 500-700 Lbs. It is mostly due to DIET.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 4:07 PM by Ted
I was agreeing to Damon's comment about Lions sleeping most of the time. And I do agree with him! Grizzlies sleep a lot as well LOl.. 
As for Hyenas: It is well documented that a PACK of Hyenas steal kills from Female Lions. I have seen several videos on this. The best is "Eternal Enemies." Sometimes a PACK of Hyenas also kill Female Lions during battle. 
However, I also wrote that a PACK of Hyenas have no chance when adult Male Lions are present. 
Enough with the Mountain Lion! If the Grizzly wants to fight the Cougar there is no doubt who the winner will be. Could you imagine if a Cougar showed up at Brooks Falls to fish; the smallest Grizzly would be all over that cat. 
I said "Fishing Spots" are where the Bears fight most often.  
I also said Bears will fight over mating rights but it is less witnessed and if their is a clear inferrior bear it will back off. Whats your point? 
Also, I am not sure what you mean when you state in regard to Lion & Bear hypothetical encounters 
"With most Big Bears perhaps even more with the Grizzly Bear & Kodiak."  
I doubt that you are saying Male Lions would defeat Grizzlies and Kodiaks easier than they would other bears. You seem more knowledgable then that! 
Oliver, 8 out of 10 for the Kodiak/Coastal/Grizzly.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 4:57 PM by Ted
Ted, i know you were talking of coastal males when you stated they weighed 600 - 1100 lbs...however, i stated that those were estimates, and therefore unreliable.  
And, i also know that you were talking about one female when you stated she weighed 600 lbs...however, i doubt that was her actual was, i presume, an estimate?..... 
And, i already know that sows can reach 600 lbs...i stated that it wasn`t a usual occurrence. And indeed, i believe you previous statement that that female was 600 lbs was an estimate....unless, you can show proof it was weighed?.... 
and, the lionesses do not go into heat immediately after the male takes over the pride. It takes about 3 weeks, maybe a little more, according to studies from the joubert couple, as well as packer. Also, it takes time for the females to actually except the new much as a week or 2, in fact.  
and, lionesses have been known, and in fact from what packer has documented it is rather frequent, that lionesses defend their cubs from males, and most usually succeeds, though as i stated before it is scarcely documented. 
And, while sows are very protective of her cubs, most usually, she`ll try to avoid the males, most usually opting to fight when the male should press his advance upon her.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 5:00 PM by damon
Yes you are correct! I am giving you an estimate from experts who were with me. The weight is in the ball park; using your logic, it could be lower as well as higher. 
However, if you do a quick lookup of Kodiak Bears you will see the weight I quoted is excepted by most/all experts on this subject.
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 5:09 PM by Ted
no, again it is not 'JUST an estimate'is is a highly RELIABLE estimate, and what makes you think that those estimates were taken from the largest species? i take it you have evidence for this? and it was not just animal planet that estimated this number it was also national geographic... unless you're saying that they're both unreliable? 
and i do not put much emphasis on actual bite stick measurements because animal planet already proved that lions only use 20% of their jaw power to crush the throat of a cape buffalo, so for me that's evidence to also say a lion would never bite hard on a stick either... 
and yes as i'll reply to ted soon i didn't notice he said a pack of hyenas, in that video where the hyenas are scavenging it even says 'the numbers are too great' compared to the 4 or 5 lioness's in that video. 
however 4 or 5 hyenas would never even think of scavenging from those lioness's who still fought back despite the extreame number disadvantage... but they simply are not as agressive as males. 
and i've never read a source that suggest lioness's are 'very maternal', obviously they care for their young but i doubt it's anywhere near the degree a bear does. 
lions sleep a lot but they do not spend 'most of their time sleeping' as damon said, please watch this video i'll give it again: 
look, like i've said what feels like a million times now i was NOT showing that video to show how a feline would be dominant in a fight i was showing it to show how easily intimidated a bear is by even a cougar and how unwilling it is to fight even given the ammount of blatent disrespect. 
well, seeing as though it is practically unheard of for lions to fish, there will be no conflict there. 
and my point was that because salmon season is really the only time grizzlies actually come into the most ammount of conflict with each other, the only grizzlies that will have a great ammount of experience fighting will be bears of the age of 20... generally grizzly bears are very immature when it comes to conflict. 
i was simply saying that a lion would defeat a polar bear with far greater difficulty than say any brown bear because they are more agressive than other bears, bigger, and face the harsh enviroment of the other extreame compared to the sub saharan lions who lives in the burning heat at all times, polar bears are at the opposite end of the harsh enviroment and they live in a constant freezing enviroment. 
although i am aware kodiak bears are around the same size and weight they have an omnivorous diet, which tells you 2 things about them 
1. they will on average not be as strong as any other bear 
2. they will not be as agressive or 'fierce'
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 6:30 PM by Oliver
You seem hung up on Bite force!  
Your measurements just don't add up. 
Also, Bear experts agree it is inacurate that Polar Bears are stronger than Big Browns,Kodiak,Grizzlies. The big hump on the back and shoulder of those Browns is all muscle. 
Either way from the beginning I have included Polar Bears. I listed the Big 4; Kodiak,Coastal,Grizzly,Polar Bear. 
Age 20! More misinformation.  
A Grizzly enjoys a lot more prime years in regard to fighting than a Male Lion. Male Lions rule a pride for 2-3 years and then their reign comes to an end. 
As for Grizzly Bears being Omnivours; that does not support either of your two assumptions. Grizzlies still kill and eat Big game. They have a more complete diet than Male Lions or Polar Bears. That works to their advantage; they never starve. 
Time to close shop!  
Bears 8 
Lions 2 
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 6:59 PM by Ted
Oliver, most usually, animal face off or nat geo quote well known estimates.....while other estimates were taken, the highest were from those studies done on animal face off....from model skulls scaled to the largest recorded skull sizes for both, which they stated. That is the ONLY study in which lions and tigers were estimated to have a bite force of 1000 lbs, most other quotations being different. 
and yes, a lion indeed uses only a portion of his bite force to crushing the throat of a buffalo....however that has NOTHING to do with biting upon a bite meter. When any animal grabs onto an object, which which is connected to something else, they`ll use there greatest jaw strength to maintain their grip...... 
and, lions usually spend up to 19 hours a day, sleeping. Indeed, both scahller, and packer stated based upon their observations upon these animals, that they sleep rather frequently....and they`d often have to wait hours on end before a lion decides to move.....but, that has nothing to do with being they aren`t lazy. being lazy refers to when an animal is awake, and does little...but, that is not the case, as lions usually travel, on a daily basis, farther than tigers.  
and actually, studies show that brown bears are actually the most aggressive species of bear, and even they are not quite as aggressive as male lions, who often confront challengers even when they are outnumbered 3 to one, according to studies by packer. 
Posted @ Monday, October 05, 2009 7:13 PM by damon
my bite force replies were not to you who previously i don't think hadn't debated it much. 
they are not my measurements i think i will take the word of national geographic and animal planet, in this particular spat. 
i do believe that polar bears are quite a ways stronger than probably all land carnivores, you forget that the walrus they hunt weigh sometimes twice as much as themselves which they have to drag out of water onto the ice. 
somehow i just don't see a grizzly, coastal or kodiak bear doing that. 
male lions don't fight just because they're in a pride... they spend their childhood learning how to fight and not only that when they leave the pride they don't always join another nomadic males or nomadic coalitions are common and they fight with hyenas, sometimes amongst themselves, and perhaps the pride male they want to take over or if they're in a prides terretory they will most likely be attacked so even out of the pride they face much conflict. 
i wasn't really saying much about grizzlies inparticular i doubt they're stronger than the average polar bear just based on sheer size and hunting styles. 
i was refering mainly to the kodiaks omnivourous diet, if there is other food sources they will not hunt, it would suggest that they're quite a bit less agressive than a polar bear and lack the strength which a polar bear would have. 
and like i said before you're entitled to believe that but i'll still remain at a 6/10 for the lion. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:51 AM by Oliver
Actually, Oliver, it is documented rather frequently that the lion sleeps rather often, even in the wild, or captivity. At the d.c. zoo, for instance, you can hardly see the lions move about, as they are usually asleep, except when it gets is the same for lions in the african plains, and this has been documented. 
Lions sleep through the worst of the day, and spend most of their time awake at night. scientists have had to wait hours for lions to move about, because, they sleep frequently. 
And, there are no other records which give an average bite force of 1000 lbs for lions, except those gathered from animal face off.....any other quotations are mere opinions....nat geo and animal planet is merely a channel, it`s the people on them which makes the statements.  
When brady barr measured the bite force of that young lion, he (the lion) immediately tried to pull the meter from the hands of the guy holding the line to which the meter was attached...the lion had such a strong grip, in fact, that he pulled that guy over, and also pulled the line out of the guys hand...though the end of the line was attached to their vehicle, so that the lion could not run off with it. 
and yes, lions also walk their territories rather frequently, but, this is during the times when they are actually most active. Like all cats, they have hours of inactivity, and periods where they expend rather a lot of energy. I do have records upon this, if you want to see them?....i also have bite force records, from respectable sources, and, though these particular measurements are estimates derived from skulls, most seem reliable. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:06 PM by damon
Actually, Oliver, it is documented rather frequently that the lion sleeps rather often, even in the wild, or captivity. At the d.c. zoo, for instance, you can hardly see the lions move about, as they are usually asleep, except when it gets is the same for lions in the african plains, and this has been documented. 
Lions sleep through the worst of the day, and spend most of their time awake at night. scientists have had to wait hours for lions to move about, because, they sleep frequently. 
And, there are no other records which give an average bite force of 1000 lbs for lions, except those gathered from animal face off.....any other quotations are mere opinions....nat geo and animal planet is merely a channel, it`s the people on them which makes the statements.  
When brady barr measured the bite force of that young lion, he (the lion) immediately tried to pull the meter from the hands of the guy holding the line to which the meter was attached...the lion had such a strong grip, in fact, that he pulled that guy over, and also pulled the line out of the guys hand...though the end of the line was attached to their vehicle, so that the lion could not run off with it. 
and yes, lions also walk their territories rather frequently, but, this is during the times when they are actually most active. Like all cats, they have hours of inactivity, and periods where they expend rather a lot of energy. I do have records upon this, if you want to see them?....i also have bite force records, from respectable sources, and, though these particular measurements are estimates derived from skulls, most seem reliable. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:07 PM by damon
I briefly touched on bite force in earlier comments. However,you keep writing about Bite Force and I keep recieving your comments.  
Comments on Bite Force & Cougars intimidating Grizzlies has become silly & pointless!  
Next: You stated, Bears do not mature into fighters until 20 years of age.  
That is pure nonsense!  
Browns/Grizzlies/Kodiaks begin their prime years at around 9-10 years of age. By this age they have reached optimal size!  
This also means they have 10+++ years for fighting in their prime since they average a life span of 
25 years in the wild. That is as long as many Male Lions live let alone fight in their prime.  
However, these bears fight seasonaly while Male Lions fight all year around. Yet, as you know a Male Lion riegns an average of 2-3 years over his pride. Just like Bears; Lions will at times submit to other dominant Males in order to live another day. 
Polar Bear vs. Brown/Kodiak/Grizzly 
The Polar Bear and above "Browns" have different body structures and are stronger than the other in different ways. 
A Polar Bear has a long enourmously strong Neck that can pull Sea Lions out of the ice/water. A "Brown" probably could not do that. Also, Polar Bears do hunt and kill large Walrus. 
The ABOVE "Browns" on the other hand have amazingly strong Shoulders a Backs for Hunting, Fighting & Digging. This would probably give them the advantage in an encounter between the two.  
Also the latest "Bear experts" I have read stated that Grizzlies are more aggressive than Polar Bears when the two have been observed encountering eachother. I have never seen such an encounter so I cannot give a first hand account. 
Final Score: 
Male Big Bears 7/8 
Male Big Lions 2/3 
I gave you a .5 increase; thats as low as I can go! LOL... 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 12:36 PM by Ted
I never said that lions don't sleep often, like every other feline lions like to rest during the day time. 
but like every other feline lions also like to pace around their home; if you were to compare them to a domestic housecat (i have 2), they sleep frequently during the day but hardly ever deeply, for perhaps an hour or 2 then they'll pace around the house and the garden if the door is open, then come back in and find another place to rest or they might eat. 
and this will happen a few times during the day until the night time when they go out and i lose track but i assume they don't sleep at all. 
a lions behaviour is quite similar, although they do this in their 'house' which can be up to 100 square miles in total, and once or twice a week instead of just eating they go and hunt... if a lion has slept for 19 hours it is exceedingly uncommon, lions would not be able to bring down their prey if they only came alive for 5 hours a day. 
and again, you cannot say that national geographic gives out 'mere opinions' they are highly reliable opinions just the same as animal planet i have not seen national geographics experiments but it is highly unlikely they would just give a 'mere opinion', animal planet on the other hand carried out experiments based on the lion and tigers skull: 
that video shows both national geographics and animal planets estimates. 
perhaps you can provide me with a link or video that shows the manner in which brady barr took the bite force? but either ways 690 lbs is a young lion... 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:05 PM by Oliver
Oliver, the people from animal planet and nat geo are human just like you and me, and apt for mistakes. That`s why i`d much rather rely upon actual measurements of the bite force of these animals, though frank mendell has told me (via email) that he is trying to measure the bite force of a tiger (all his previous attempts failed). 
And, lions actually do rest for quite some time. House cats sleep less often than lions.....which sleep throughout most of the day, and are in fact most active at night.  
In fact, in africa, you`d be hard pressed to find a lion moving about....don`t get me wrong, this is not too suggest they are lazy...they are far from lazy.  
And, i`ll try and find the vid in which brady barr measured the bite force of that lion....though yes, the lion was a young specimen, perhaps nearly 4 years in age....and, i stated this. an adult lion, in my opinion, would have a bite force of about 750 lbs. And, here is a reliable figure giving estimated bite forces of many animals based upon measurements using the skulls of these animals;
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:18 PM by damon
yes but the bite force comments were towards atilla and damon, you will recieve the emails regardless sorry if it annoys you. 
whilst i am aware bears reach optimum size at 10 years old, what i said was they will not have gathered enough fighting experience until they reach that age, they simply don't come into much conflict at most times during the year. 
nono, you're mixing up your facts there whilst bears will usually submit straight away before one is hurt it usually takes lions fighting before one submits, and lions submit a lot less than bears they will sometimes fight even if the numbers are 4 to 1, somehow i don't see a bear doing that. 
and polar bears don't just use their neck it isn't that strong to pull a bull walrus out of the water lol, they use their necks and their claws so in essence their backs and shoulders too. 
even with their considerable strength i don't think they would be able to do much to a polar bear, their fighting styles are too similar they don't have much speed and agility on their side in comparison. 
although i would never claim to be an expert i am a well informed person, but i disagree with any bear expert that has said that, polar bears hunt much more than grizzlies who are also herbivorous so they have to be particularly agressive to be able to survive unlike the grizzly who in comparison to a polar bear has a fairly easy life. 
here is 2 grizzly bears fighting: 
and here are 2 polar bears fighting: 
although you'll have to skip ahead to 1:17 to watch the polar bears fighting personally i think they're more agressive but you decide for yourself. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:24 PM by Oliver
Slow down and read what I write! Go back and reread my last comment 
I never said a Polar Bear pulled a Walrus out of the water using just its neck. I NEVER even said a Polar Bear PULLED a WALRUS out of the water LOL... 
I said a Polar Bear pulled SEA LIONS (much smaller) out of the water. Polar Bears have long enormously strong NECKS. Yes their Shoulder and Back are attached to their Neck LOL..  
A Polar Bear attacks the Walrus on Ice/land; rarely in the water. In the water I would put my money on the Walrus. 
My point was that Browns/Grizzlies vs. Polar Bears are built with different physical structual frames. Grizzlies/Browns have the famous "Hump" = muscle on top of their Back/Neck. That is absent on the Polar Bear. 
Either way both are extremely powerful animals. 
As far as agression; I am talking about Bear on Bear aggression.  
I will try to watch the videos if I can pull them up. However, I have seen a lot of Brown/Grizzly fights; quite a few in person. I have seen Polar Bears fight only on video.  
I don't know anyone who has seen a Kodiak, Coastal Brown, or Grizly fight a Polar Bear. If you know someone who has or a video of those two different Bears fighting I would be more than happy to watch it. 
The only site I read was this one LOL..  
It has a Grizzly/Brown vs. Polar Bear match up which I find funny. By the way this site picks the Brown Bear; not that it means a dam thing.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:45 PM by Ted
Yes I have seen a lone Male Lion stand it's ground against several Male Lions. Quite impressive! 
However, since Bears are solitary animals it would be rare for them to team up on a individual Adult Male Bear.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 4:52 PM by Ted
oh yeah slight misreading on my part because polar bears are famous for killing them i immediately thought you had said that. 
no, it is uncommon for a polar bear to attack a walrus on land or ice, they prey on walrus in the point between water ice and air, which means the walrus will have part of it's body out of the water in the gap between ice and the polar bear will be on ice and will pull the walrus out using it's jaws, neck, and claws (so shoulders and back as well). 
only the kodiak bear with the muscle hump on it's back could present any kind of a challenge towards the polar bear, the other bears, by sheer average mass and size do not present any kind of a challenge as their fighting styles and the way they attack are too similar. 
but the kodiak i still think would lose because of it's omnivourous diet and lack of agression, plus the fact that polar bears are bigger on average and even though the kodiak may have that hump of muscle the polar bears highly carnivorous diet will allow the polar bear to develop bigger and stronger muscles. 
also there's the fact that polar bears killing technique is to crush the skull and can crush the skull of a bull walrus. 
and i think some observations show polar bears fight more often than any brown or grizzly bear. 
i think if the polar bear were of similar size to a grizzly, the grizzlies agression and powerful forequarters would win, but the simple fact is they are hardly ever of similar size and on average the polar bear far outweighs the grizzly. 
alaska would be your only bet to look for grizzly vs polar bears, i've never heard of any pit fights but i've heard of one source saying a grizzly sow (with her cubs) drove off 4 male polar bears from their kill in alaska, however she did not beat them in a fight they simply left their kill for her and her cubs to eat, apparently the polar bears dd not fight back and showed amazing tolerance. I'm not sur about the reliablility of the source but either ways in a fight i think everyone could agree a sow stands not a chance polar bears are far more tolerant of other bears around them and a female with her cubs is twice as agressive as usual, and what i doubt even more so is that polar bears would be tolerant of any male bears, especially any male bears of a different species. 
apart from that it seems quite hypothetical to me, all i know is usually it's been documented that when male bears have show agression to another it is far more unlikely for a polar bear to back down from the fight than it is for a grizzly or any brown bear to.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:14 PM by Oliver
i think this is where the cliche phrase of 'the heart of a lion' comes in, although lions often calculate the odds, a lot of the time they are simply too agressive, or better yet too PROUD to back down from any fight even if the ods are severely against them (5 to 1)... bears on the other hand are much more mild mannered and avoid fighting wherever possible, but lions it has been observed that they don't try to avoid fights unless they are in another prides terretory, on the contrary lions seem to love to fight and will practice agressive situations wherever possible be it with other male lions, hyenas, leopards, or even african wild dogs, they have this high level of testosterone which dictates them to tell everyone around them at all times who's in charge. 
lol that kinda sounded like a speech, a bad one but informative.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:25 PM by Oliver
I'm laughing hard now at the misunderstanding! I said polar bears SWIM 60 miles-not swim 60 mph!! Thats faster than the fastest shark-the Mako and faster than swordfish!! You can't really believe I meant that, could you?! They do NOOT get eaten by orcas anyway, orca's have a diet which doesn't include people OR polar bears. There has never been one documented case of an orca in the wild predating on a human or polar bear. 
"and my point was that because salmon season is really the only time grizzlies actually come into the most ammount of conflict with each other, the only grizzlies that will have a great ammount of experience fighting will be bears of the age of 20... generally grizzly bears are very immature when it comes to conflict."``Oliver 
Grizzlys fight as often as do lions-as Ted stated, a male lion only stays in charge about 2 years-and they DO sleep about 20 hrs per day-thats an established fact! Grizzly's DO fight often. Thier range is expansive, and they roam over a great many miles they require, thats what they do and were made as an animal requiring a vast expanse to roam-thats why we have intra-species conflict with them comming into human populations when originally the bear was many miles away from any humans. Bears have vast territories, so they will come into conflict with anything they see if they choose to-which again, is up to the Grizzly, not what its comming into contact with. 
Good one, Ted-I have that video "Eternal Enemies"-great vid! I never meant you to think I was saying you were a hunter. I think its more fun and more challenging/fullfilling to photograph these animals in the wild, although I've not had that opportunity-perhaps one day though, as I'm an avid photographer on my own time away from work and its drudgery. 
"However, As ATTILA already mentioned, Grizzlies CHOOSE when to fight! If the Grizzly really wants something it will always stand it's ground. It just has to be worth it!"``Ted  
Thats correct Ted, you are right, as I was trying to explain also as were you, its the bears choosing-THATS how things will be! If the Grizzly however chooses the other way around-nothing will stand in his way! Grizzlys also DO fight EVERY mating season constantly battling others for the chance at the best sow/s. 
The Hyena, once again, Oliver is quoted by eperts as having the STRONGEST biteforce in mammalians period-not the snow leopard. The Hyena is king of bite (actually queen, the largest and strongest of the species is Spotted Hyena females). "Oliver, neither lions or tigers have a bite force of 1000 lbs....those figures were estimates."``Damon 
Damon is right about this-it was an ESTIMATE-NOT viable proof! As for Hyenas stealing lions food, Hyenas are also very good hunters and lions also scavange off of Hyena kills-as shown in my video Ted was referring to! "also hyenas have never been known to steal from adult female lions, especially prides of them, hyenas are often killed by leopards let alone being a match for a lioness... "``Oliver 
Oliver, you are quite wrong about this as well-there are many cases of Hyena clans stealing or taking over kills and running off adult female lions-on my video by NATGEO, the Hyenas kill a lioness over food! They've killed lionesses over food a number of times documented, and who knows how many times undocumented as there aren't film crews and cameras rolling constantly! The only times when the clan scatters or choose not to attack, is a male lions presence, and sometimes due to hunger only, they press it then, often with terrible results for the Hyena matriarch. 
"as for polar bears they are indeed the largest, but they are only a lot bigger in weight.  
they are about 5 foot from the ground standing on all fours and 9 foot standing on it's hind legs.  
lions are still longer than a polar bear and only a foot smaller on all fours..."``Oliver 
Oliver-you contradicted yourself in your own point stating that a polar bear is only larger due to weight, then right after, you show what I posted that they are up to a foot taller, and as Damon stated, they are also longer than a lion. 
I don't think you can read abou tthis guy, he has no internet, whether by choice or location, but its my best friend and Marine buddy's friend in uppper WA. The guy said he got him as a cub, the mother was killed and he decided to take on the cub. I'd like to go see my friend Jim and have him take me up there to see that guy and his bear again-I'd love to get photos of that bear!! 
Here is a polar bearkilling and dragging a walrus of 2 tons! 
Also, Ted, have you heard of the pizzly or grolar bear which is a hybrid of the crossing of a Grizzly with a polar bear due to the Grizzly moving far north? Its an interesting animal, not too much about it is known yet. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:22 PM by attila
hm? swimming 60 miles doesn't indicate that the polar bear has a lot of stamina in fact quite the contrary, polar bears are much more known for overheating very quickly. 
and you are quite wrong orcas do prey on polar bears as is stated in these links: 
( says that the orca preys on polar bears in water. says that polar bears have been found in the stomachs of orcas.  
George ( says that the orca may come onto land by breaking through the ice or moving onto the ice, which is very dangerous for it 
when polar bears are swimming to follow their prey most likely orcas will prey on them and polar bears have to swim very fast in order to stand a chance. 
grizzlies fight no where near as often as male lions do, the only time grizzlies come into any real conflict is during the salmon season when choosing the best fishing spot and even then most back down quite quickly as they do not want to risk injury. 
the rest of the year the only conflicts they come into contact with are hardly even conflicts (wolves, cougars etc). 
and again just because a male lion may stay in charge of a pride for 3 years on average not 2, they spend most of their lives fighting. 
***and they DO sleep about 20 hrs per day-thats an established fact!*** 
no, it is not an established fact, a lions territory can be up to 100 square miles, when you have a lazy day in the house you might go play some games, eat some things, go to the toilet, check your post etc but you do this all in the comfort of your home. 
a lions territory or 'house' can fit up to 60,000 of your average house in it, and a lion spends time walking around to defend over it's territory, they might eat something from the previous kill they've made, they might mark their territory, and they might go someplace to roar to scare away potential intruders doing this all in a territory of up to 100 square miles, now do you really think a lion who can bring down buffalo up to 3 times it's own body weight, can spend 20 hours a day sleeping? if so you're deluded. 
an expert on lions explains what i've just said in this video which is probably easier to understand although i've quoted him in all of that: 
ermmm yes grizzlies do choose when to fight but how is that even a point? ALL animal CHOOSE when to fight, the simple fact was that the grizzly in the video was so intimidated by the cougar it backed away (and even ran)... now imagine the same situation with a male lion, who is 3 times the cougars weight, twice it's size in height and about 3 - 4 foot longer on average... do you think the bear would CHOOSE to fight there? 
actually, pound for pound snow leopards have the strongest jaws, and the jaguar comes in a second. 
the view that hyenas have the strongest jaws is a myth and a number of other animals including the tasmanian devil have a proportionally stronger bite as quoted from ''Ancient Worlds News - Marsupial has the deadliest bite - 04/04/2005'' 
and the source and quote can be found on this link: 
jaguars on average outweigh hyenas by perhaps 100 pounds maybe, in a series made by national geographic they stated that jaguars have the strongest bite force pound for pound and actually are the strongest animal pound for pound, later on they corrected themselves however by saying the snow leopard holds this title but the jaguar comes in second place. 
although, i have no idea why you started talking about that in the first place... as much as i liked proving you wrong it has nothing t do with this particular debate lions have stronger bites than bears full stop... 
those figures, like i said to damon weren't 'just estimates' they were estimates taken by 2 of the most credited animal expert companies in the world today (national geographic and animal planet)... they make estimates based on much evidence and observation animal planet imparticular examined in detail the skulls of lions and tigers and found on average they both have about a 1000 pound bite force here is the link again in case you didn't visit it: 
yes, yes i already knew packs of hyenas stole from lioness's however as i've already stated to ted i thought he was refering to single hyenas; in the video damon provided me it took numerous hyenas to scavenge from 4 lioness's however 4 hyenas wouldn't even attempt it. 
the documented cases of hyenas killing lioness's are in cases where the lioness is severely outnumbered, and more often than not malnourished. 
no, i didn't contradict myself at all you need to read it again i said polar bears are only a LOT bigger due to their weight i never said that that was the only reason they were bigger. 
lions are longer than polar bears on average, polar bears can reach the same lengths but on everage lions are a foot to a foot and a half longer. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:12 PM by Oliver
oh, and sorry what i actually meant about the polar bears were that they are a foot to a foot and a half shorter WHEN STANDING, 
however on all fours lions can outlength a polar bear by as much as 4 foot.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:15 PM by Oliver
I wonder where the info about the snow leopard's bite force comes from. To my knowledge, snow leopards and clouded leopards are known for having proportionately the longest canines, rather than the greatest bite force. In bite force, jaguars are certainly superior to snow leopards. I very much doubt if a snow leopard would be able to puncture the skull of its victim as easily as jaguars usually do. 
In fact, it is a very interesting fact, which I cannot really explain, that leopards are much more combative than either cougars or snow leopards, though their physical capabilities are not very different. Man-eating leopards are even more formidable than tigers or lions, and wounded leopards killed or mauled a number of well-armed hunters. In contrast, there have been very few credible records of cougar attacks on humans, and I never heard a single case of a wild or captive snow leopard killing a human. Of course, snow leopards are rare and they live in sparsely populated areas, whereas the most notorious man-eating leopards were found in densely populated regions of India.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:50 PM by Balazs
You are severely mistaken and making erroneous claims about bears fighting, biteforce and Hyenas. About Hyena's bite and jaw-strength here is REAL information;" the upper and lower third premolars are conical bone-crushers, with a third bone-holding cone jutting from the lower fourth premolar. Spotted hyenas also have carnassials behind their bone-crushing premolars, the position of which allowing hyenas to crush bone with their premolars without blunting their carnassials.[9] The carnassials themselves are proportionately larger than those of other carnivorous mammals.[20] Combined with large jaw muscles and a special vaulting to protect the skull against large forces, these characteristics give spotted hyenas a powerful bite which can exert a pressure of 800 kg per square cm (11,400 lbf/in²),[9] which is 40% more force than a leopard can generate.[21] Although they possess disproportionately large teeth to counteract wear, three year old spotted hyenas have teeth as worn as those of six year old lions.[9] An experiment conducted by Savage (1955) demonstrated how the jaws of spotted hyenas outmatch those of brown bears in bonecrushing ability.[" 
HYENA: says the Hyena’s bite force is 1,000 pounds, while says the spotted Hyena’s bite force is 4,500 pounds. The same thing with the lion, different sources quote different results-either way, the Hyena has a stronger bite, period-you don't have to like it, Oliver, but that certainly doesn't alter that fact. says the canine bite force is 773 and the bite force quotient, while the corresponding figures for the striped hyena are 545 and 113.  
National Geographic took the bite force of a few domestic dogs and wild ones.  
Here they are: Pitbull pressure bite was 238 lbs  
German Shepherd bite was 240 lbs  
Wild Dogs bite force was 317 lbs  
Rottweiler bite force was 328 lbs  
Wolf bite force was 406 lbs 
National Geographic is also the same ones that put the lion at 697 lbs to 750 lbs variation-NOT the 1000 lbs you have been quoting. 
The only way the lion out lenghts as you say, the polar bear is due to the lion having a tail approx. 3 ft-lions are about 8-9 ft long without tail-polar bears are abou t 8-10 ft long-besides-this is a moot point as lions do not stand erect and fight as does a bear-they at most fight a few feet off the ground in a diagnal stance putting their paws on the opponant, but they're NOT that high off the ground when doing this.  
"ermmm yes grizzlies do choose when to fight but how is that even a point? ALL animal CHOOSE when to fight"``Oliver 
The point is what the GRIZZLY chooses to happen will happen, not what the opposing animal, since the Grizzly has the power to MAKE happen its will-it was merely weighing the options and deemed it not worth it, just as lions do-they have been made to change thier minds by warthogs. The Grizzly is master of his environment and THAT is why its HIS choice whether the happless victim will be engaged, live or die-the cougar certaily has no choice-it merely has to deal with the situation in which the Grizzly makes the determination, and that is what Ted and I have already told you about-th ecougar was defending its young, if it was for food, ie. a kill, the bear would have taken it whether teh cougar liked it or not as is commonplace here in North America. Bears have fought off not only cougars from their kills, but taken kills and ran off entire wolfpacks. 
"although, i have no idea why you started talking about that in the first place... as much as i liked proving you wrong it has nothing t do with this particular debate lions have stronger bites than bears full stop... "``Oliver 
IIRC, in an Animal Planet series called "Animal Face-Off", they estimated the bite force of a 1,500 pound Siberian brown bear to be about 1,800lbs-you talkn about estimates-I agree with DAMON, estimates aren't concrete, hard scientific data on which to derrive a cut-and-dry conclusion. Its called an "educated guess", which remains a guess nonetheless. 
What were you talking about? I was merely laughing that you thought I meant the polar bear could swim 60 mph instead of the 60 miles distance that I was talking about-ski-boats don't even go that fast! I was laughing that you thought thats what I meant, picturing a polar bear going so fast, that it would make a great big wake behind it-its still funny!! 
Also, IT IS A FACT lions sleep approximately 20 hrs per day, the fact you don't know this, tells me you don't know much about the animal to which you are arguing about, which makes you uninformed or deliberately obtuse-either way, you're wrong; "Male lions sleep an average 20 hours per day. The females on the other hand do all of the really hard workâ€"killing the majority of prey, which the males then appropriate for themselves"`LIONS: AFRICA'S MAGNIFICENT PREDATORS [8.1.07]A male lion may have to defend his turf maybe ten times over the course of a lifetime. With two or more males in a lion pride, their fight ratio goes down even more. Grizzly's fight more than this by far. 
Actually, cougars have been documented as killing and maulling people especially in Cal. when riding or walking on trails, there was an instance on Animal Planet on a program where it reported about a cougar killing 2 people and maulling a third. It's bad enough to where I will be watching out if I go ther and just keep it in mind for safety's sake. 
"however on all fours lions can outlength a polar bear by as much as 4 foot.  
Posted @ Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:15 PM by Oliver"-Yeah, Oliver, thats due to the length of their tails!!!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 2:33 AM by ATTILA
Yes, there were a few cougar attacks, even fatal ones, but I never heard of any cougar that killed over a hundred people as several leopards or tigers did.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 2:47 AM by Balazs
Oliver, if you include the tail, than yes, the lion would be longer than a polar bear....but, without the tail, they are rather shorter. 
And, overheating has NOTHING to do with has to do with the fact the polar bear is rather very much designed for cold whether, with thick fur covering most of it`s body, and a layer of lubber, meaning that even semi hot whether may cause them to overheat, with so much insulation. 
However, the organ and gland sizes directly related to stamina are bigger in bears than in lions, meaning they would have the greater stamina. 
And, lions do indeed sleep about 19 hours a fact, as i said, you would be hard pressed to get a lion to move, unless the whether was cooler, which it is at night, the time in which they are most active. 
Ad, wikipedia is not a reliable source, as it can be edited by anyone.... 
Well, i have even more reliable estimates from the most reliable source concerning the bite force of a lion or tiger, and, neither indicated an average bite force of 1000 lbs....that would be to great a number. No matter who makes the estimate, it is still just estimate, and, like everyone else, they are liable for mistake.  
Scientists also can, fairly accurately, estimate the age of a polar bear...yet, in many studies, they sometimes get it wrong on quite a number of times. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:29 AM by damon
ATTILA, bite force is actually measured in lbs, not a hyena with a bite force of 800 kg psi would have the strongest bite force of any animal that has ever lived. 
and, the german shepherd`s bite force waqsn`t 240 lbs, it was 238 lbs, that of the pitbull being 235 lbs.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:34 AM by damon
I would say that canines and hyenas may have relatively the greatest stamina, since they are the only land mammal predators which pursue their prey for a substantial distance at great speed with remarkable persistence. Bears spend much more time per day actively than big cats, but mostly they move slowly in search of food.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:38 AM by Balazs 
that one indicates the snow leopard being the strongest feline pound for pound 
and there are other sources which say snow leopards have considerably larger bite force quotients but i won't quote them because they seem to be unreliable. 
as for the leopards i'm not so sure about them being far more combative, cougars do seem to be far more agressive than leopards but leopards have become far more dangerous man eaters than any other animal... this is probably because they're capable of killing a human in under 20 seconds but are still far more stealthy than most other cats and can get around quicker (climbing trees etc). 
that wikipedia page on hyenas, does not support your claims that hyenas have the strongest bite force which is a myth. 
hyenas have the strongest teeth, which doesn't mean the strongest bite, which allows them to crush bones so they can become fairly digestable. 
Actually, national geographic gave the lions an average of 1000 lbs here is the link once again as you keep missing it: 
you can't really argue with video evidence of them saying it. 
polar bears only reach heights of 8 - 9 foot (on average) on their hind legs the hind legs can be 4 - 5 feet tall from the ground... so like i said on all fours lions far outlength it and if lions were to stand on their hind legs would match it, and even be taller... polar bears are only 8 - 9 ft long on their hind legs. 
bears are unwilling to fight even cougars the video proves this, the bear was easily intimidated by the cougar... obviously the bear wanted to get past but the cougar stopped him, the cougar may have taken her cub and ran but she didn't... it shows the bear was mild mannered, and was not desperate to eat so it proves grizzly bears will not fight due to sheer agression as the sub saharan lion does which also proves they fight less... 
as for the bite force 'bite force is linked to size' so whilst a 1500 lb bear may generate that kind of power a 500 - 750 pound grizzly bear presents no challenge to a 450 - 550 lb sub saharan lion. 
it is not a fact lions sleep 20 hours a day, please do not think this, lions have been known to sleep up to 19 hours a day... but on average they sleep much less than this doing all the activities i have described in my previous post watch this please this lion expert explains everything: 
you seem to think that a male lion defending his pride is the only time a lion fights... a lion spends the first few years of his life learning how to fight, and from then on is constantly in agressive situations fighting the other male lions in the pride, fighting the female lions over who gets first dibs on the kill, defending the pride from nomadic male lions (not nessesarily looking to take over the pride), defending his pride from hyenas, and wild dogs etc... 
grizzlies on the other hand only come into any real conflict during the salmon season of the year when they fight over the best fishing spots apart from that grizzly conflicts are highly uncommon. 
yes it is true what you say that polar bears have largers organs etc, however stamina really means how long you can endure, and polar bears with their high levels of fat cannot endure long periods of running, or fighting etc. 
as i've said to attilla lions have only been known to sleep up to 19 hours a day it is not usual, lions have only been given this estimate, and this reputation of being lazy because they are only usually observed during the afternoon which is the time they are taking a nap from the african afternoon sun. 
the biteforce i can only assume is fairly factual, everyone is liable for mistake and these 2 companies of experts are the most credited in the world so you cannot just simply call them both unreliable about the same thing. 
here is some more information about the biteforce of animals:
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:47 AM by Oliver
Oliver, neither animal planet, or nat geo made any actual studies upon the bite force of a lion and tiger, other than from animal face-off, and those were from skulls scaled to the largest recorded sizes of both, as they said. 
Likewise, Oliver, in that link you showed (which i already have) of the bite force (which is also estimates, based upon the skulls of these animals) indicate a bite force much less than 1000 fact, it was 2023.7 newtons, which is 455.5 lbs, which, in my opinion, is an underestimate, and smaller than that of the bite force of that young lion, which is further reasons why i do not agree with estimated figures. as they are liable for mistake. 
and, polar bears can indeed fight for a long time, in fact much longer than lions....and they certainly have great stamina in running.....
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:58 AM by damon
Yes I saw the Polar Bear/Brown hybrid on a documentary. You are correct about the Polar Bears/ & Browns/Grizzly coming into contact more often and mating. I suspect we will see more of it do to their habitat reduction. 
Enjoy the Big Grizzly! 
Also Polar Bears that swim 60 miles do have great stamina. Experts agree that Polar/Kodiak/Grizzly/Alaskan Coastal Brown Bears all have great stamina so I don't know why some people here are in denial.  
Damon is right about Wiki! If you are going to cite "Wiki" then you had better up the Big Bears weight buy a lot. Also it will tell you Grizzlies always defeat Mountian Lions/Cougars. That part would be accurate LOL... 
Your Bite Force arguemets are dead in the water. I stated that much earlir: 
Every Bite Force test I have seen or read has the Hyena way ahead of the Lion. 
In most cases I don't give Bite Force tests much credability due to a controlled enviornment and machines used to imitate the animal.  
Tests on Crocs,Gators,Large Snapping Turtles; Yes! Other animals are unreliable. 
Also Oliver,  
You yourself must be tired of the Cougar intimidating the Grizzly skit!  
Watch the video again and see how the Bear just leaned on the Cougar with it's shoulder and the Cat fell back about 5 feet LOL..... 
That is what Atilla and I mean about choosing battles. That Cougar was well in range for the Bear to unload a mighty swat but CHOSE not to. That Bear knew he was the KING of HIS domain and did not have to prove it. That is the true sign of power; when you have it but don't need to prove it. 
You also wrote, "a 500-750 Lb. Grizzly presents no challenge to a 450-550 Sub-Saharan Lion."  
Now I know you are off your rocker! Many experts agree a Grizzly of the same weight vs. such a Lion would hold its own. In your scenario; in the end there would be 1 less great African Lion. 
Oliver, for continual use of misimformation I have to penalize you. I am deducting 0.5 from the Lions LOL... 
Big Male Bears 8 
Big Male Lions 2 
When I am done writing, I will go watch the Cougar/Bear video for a good laugh. 
Attila is right; Cougars would kill a lot more people if they lived in more populated areas. I already mentioned that Cougars were documented as having defeated Jaguars more often in encounters. Yes Jaguars are said to have stronger jaws and are larger in size. However, the Cougar I believe used it's agility and quickness to overcome the Jaguar. The locations were Mexico,Central America, South America. If you have info that suggests otherwise please share it.  
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:12 PM by Ted
One last question: 
Are we really going to count the tail in regard to lenght? Especially when it comes to standing up straight? 
Now we are well pass the point of rediculous!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 1:18 PM by Ted
Oliver; you're correct about cougars seeming to be more agressive than leopards, from what I recollect from watching Big Cat Diary's and other docs, the leopard is not as given to fighting as the other big cats, however, it is best known for being the stealthy ninja of the big cats so much as to make them sound noisy and clumsy in comparison-thats how good they are at stealth. 
Now Oliver, polar bears must have plenty of stamina, because in the Marines, they droppped us 2 miles out by helo and we swam to shore-I was in the best shape of my life and it was tiring with our gear-thats only 2 miles! Water(and I've done PLENTY of water training!)wears you out and saps your strength after awhile-so polar bears DO have to have stamina-60 miles! There's an athelete under that white fur! I agree with you TED, bears DO have stamina! Here Oliver; "Males can reach 11 feet in length, but normally are 8-10 feet" 
Polar bears are carnivores, feeding primarily on Arctic ringed seals. Their partially webbed paws allow them to swim, at a pace of six miles per hour, for up to 60 miles without rest.  
That cougar vid was only that-one video! Do you think it has not gone the other way?  
Grizzly's are certainly NOT unwilling to fight period, let alone a cougar. They have come into conflicts with cougars, most of the time running them off. You seem to think Grizzly's hardly fight in their long lives at all!! Are you aware how long they live? They can live about 25-30 years in the wild-longer in captivity-Bart the Bear was an exception as he had cancer, I believe, so he passed away at around 23 years old-now HE didn't have alot of fights in his life, but he's an exception as a captive Grizzly.  
Ted, I completely agree with you, thats what I've been trying to tell Oliver; "Every Bite Force test I have seen or read has the Hyena way ahead of the Lion."`Ted 
If you notice one thing, all of you; is that information collected often varies or sometimes conflicts with other sources, so you have to be careful where you get them from. What DAMON was saying is you have to get it from the actual scientists which then in turn give it to NatGeo or Animal Planet-those are the people feediing them with information and some of them don't always agree and sometimes mistakes are made, they are only human, then on the other hand newer more correct info is at hand when the other is already airing, hence discrepancies can be made. All those other links I gave you on biteforce indicates lions are below 1000 lbs, approx. 697-750 lbs.  
Oliver, you stated this, however you can always retract this statement if you like; 
"You also wrote, "a 500-750 Lb. Grizzly presents no challenge to a 450-550 Sub-Saharan Lion."  
Certainly a Grizzly presents a challenge for anything!! People have shot them numerous times only to have the enraged Grizzly maul them! We're talking about big guns here, also. Any bear is a challenge, except perhaps the giant panda when comming into interspecies conflicts! Even a black bear is no pushover, and while the lion may prevail, its still challenging! 
"as for the leopards i'm not so sure about them being far more combative, cougars do seem to be far more agressive than leopards but leopards have become far more dangerous man eaters than any other animal... this is probably because they're capable of killing a human in under 20 seconds but are still far more stealthy than most other cats and can get around quicker (climbing trees etc)."`Oliver 
Damon-I completely agree with you in what you've stated regarding biteforce and lions sleeping-i only stated to Oliver they sleep APPROX 20 hours-I believe 19 hrs would clearly fall under that category as cited by lion biologists!  
"hyenas have the strongest teeth, which doesn't mean the strongest bite, which allows them to crush bones so they can become fairly digestable."``Oliver 
Oliver-they hav to have the jaw power to get behind those massive teeth to be able to use it all together-the teeth have tto have power in order to eat teeth! They have already been cited as having powerful jaws! 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:32 PM by ATTILA
Damon & Oliver & others, 
I don't have the time to look this up! 
In a Lion pride with TWO or MORE ADULT MALES; in general, do all, some, only the dominant, only the lovers (LOL...) get to mate? 
It seemed as if the director of 1 video protrayed the dominant Male a killer of prey, but it took a back seat to the other adult Male who got to enjoy the females.  
Perhaps he was not interested? Maybe they decided who was the dominant male before the video was shot?  
It seems as if experts give various reasons. Which one of you can give the best answer?
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:55 PM by Ted
Ted, with lions, as long as the pride males do not number more than 3 specimens, then most usually, all the males get to is only when their numbers are larger that all the males might not get a chance to mate frequently, especially the most subordinant male, according to a study by packer. Most usually, any group of males larger than about 3 specimens are almost always all related....because, as i said, with a group of males larger than about 3 might mean the most subordinant males might have only a few chances to mate, as there is usually not more than 3 females at a time which are in season. 
It would be hard for a larger group of non-related lions to maintain their bond if the cons outweigh the benefits gained by group living. 
and of course any of the males may hunt......
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 5:15 PM by damon
national geographic also made studies of the bite force based upon the skull, and animal planet never indicated that they were skulls of the largest specimens, they simply stated that they were skulls of a lion and of a tiger, i have watched the whole thing. 
polar bears are well documented for being known to overheat quickly... which indicates low stamina... their organs and glands may be very large, however the ammount of fat they store in their body prevents them from gaining much stamina. 
most bears have great stamina, but the polar bear which is known to overheat quite quickly can not last doing hard excercise for very long this is due to the huge layer of blubber they have just underneath their fur, it isn't the fur itself which makes him this way. 
and nope wikipedia does not state grizzlies often beat cougars, they say conflict between the 2 doesn't happen often and the grizzlies competition consists more of coyotes, grey wolves, and other bears... however the source is missing from this particular wikipedia quote so as to it's reliability i'm not so sure. 
generally wikipedia gives a source in regards to it's information, not 'just anyone' can post on wikipedia, their sites are reviewed daily by their experts and if false information is posted it will be readily deleted. 
however the weights in the grizzly are stated from the source ** 
1.^ Brown, Gary (1996). Great Bear Almanac. pp. 340. ISBN 1558214747.** 
no, that's a stupid thought you can't possibly think that the thoughts running through a grizzlies mind when it was running away from the cougar was 'well i'm the king but i don't need to prove it so i'll just back up and run now'... 
the grizzly did not want to fight it's that simple, it did not like the risk of fighting and backed away. 
and no i didn't write ''a 500-750 Lb. Grizzly presents no challenge to a 450-550 Sub-Saharan Lion." what i wrote was ''a 500-750 Lb. Grizzly presents no challenge to a 450-550 Sub-Saharan Lion in regards to bite force."  
theres a big difference in those 2 statements. 
for the last time ted, noone has been counting the tail... you fail to realise that when a 8 - 9 foot lion stands up on his 4 foot hind legs, he reaches a height of over 10 foot... 
and by the way in regards to your question; yes pride males do fight over the best lioness's in the pride, and they have been known to seriously injure each other when this happens, i've never heard of a death but i've no doubt there are some. 
leopards, i believe are less agressive but they still fight often enough with mainly hyenas which they've also been known to kill. 
polar bears in the ice cold water should have much stamina... however it is also well documented that polar bears overheat quite quickly, and by the way polar bears do not maintain a 6mph speed for 60 miles they stop for rests at points, but they move fairly quickly because of the orcas that want to eat them. 
i'm more than certain it has gone the other way, but like i've always been saying the cougar video proves how easily intimidated grizzly bears are. 
and yes grizzlies do not fight as often as you like to think; the only real conflict they have is during the salmon season, and most of the fights one of them backs down before anyone is hurt (usually the smaller one). 
i wasn't particularly debating lions and hyenas i have no idea why it was brought up, but all i was responding to from you was that you kept saying hyenas have the strongest bite force of all land animals (which i have no idea why you said this as we're debating lions and bears), but the observation that they do is actually a myth, as national geographic did a show on bite force and gave the strongest to the jaguar, also proportionally a variety of animals have stronger biteforces than the spotted hyena including the tasmanian devil. 
and no, scientists don't 'give' national geographic or animal planet the results both companies have their own individual team of animal experts and scientists which conduct their own experiements and present them accordingly. 
***"You also wrote, "a 500-750 Lb. Grizzly presents no challenge to a 450-550 Sub-Saharan Lion."***  
no what i wrote was ''as for bite force blah blah blah a grizzly bear presents no challenge to a sub saharan lion'' 
yeah i was talking about bite force but i can see how you confused it.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 5:32 PM by Oliver
Thanks for the comprehensive answer!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:01 PM by Ted
Yes I misquoted you! For that I penalize myself and give back the 0.5 that I deducted. 
Big Bears 7/8 
Big Lions 2/3 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:11 PM by Ted
Oliver, was animal planet the show you watched?..because, they specifically stated they scaled the skulls to the largest size; 
And, overheating, again, has nothing to do with stamina, but insulation. They have such extreme insulation that they cannot stand temperatures much above 10 degrees. 
Also, the head and body length of the lion is not 8 or 9 ft....where`d you get that info?`s rather is some data upon the length of lions (average length including tail: 9ft, 2 in); 
And, those were adult specimens....i have other records which indicate a similar length. as a note (the ones with the upward pointing arrows, under where it says sex, are males...the ones with the opposite, females). 
And, check out the height of this lion, next to a man (nowhere near 10 ft); 
And, a hyena would usually defeat a leopard...most records claiming leopards to have killed hyenas were false..... 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:50 PM by damon
damon, since when do sub saharan lioness's have a 'season' for mating? 
that was not the instance i was talking about as in that particular episode they state the tigers bite force being 4000 psi, which cannot really be converted into pounds. 
however in this link: 
there are 2 instances in which animal planet and national geographic state an average 1000 lbs or 'half a ton' of bite force. 
and also i can quote various online sources (which admittedly will be less reliable) who quote a lions bite force inparticular being measured at 940 lbs. 
actually the overheating due to insulation does have much to do with stamina, stamina simply means how long you can ENDURE, it is not always a question of how big your lungs are 
for example a fat man with particularly big organs and glands, will have less stamina than a muscular man who has smaller organs and glands. 
if polar bears stored less blubber then their stamina would raise by a vast ammount, however living in that enviroment forces them to store it. 
9 foot is over doing it a bit, but 8 foot is average for a healthy adult. 
most likely the picture was a 7 foot specimen on hind legs giving way for the diagonal stance looks to be 8.5 foot perhaps. 
i have different sources to be quoted if you'd like them? i've only ever heard records of hyenas killing leopards in groups of 2 or 3.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 8:30 PM by Oliver
Oliver, indeed, i already know that lionesses don`t have a season for mating...i was using it in a general sense to indicate the lionesses readiness, or not, to mating. 
And, i have that very source (the original) of the lion`s bite force as being 940 lbs...however, that too, was just an estimate based upon the skulls of these animals. 
And, stamina does not merely mean how long you can no animal can endure extreme heat for too long, even the african going lion, who must sometimes go into the shade the escape the worst of the heat, though it should be noted that lions, unlike polar bears, are built for the african savannah. 
Stamina is measured in many ways, and, heat tolerance is not one of them...stamina can be measured based upon how long an animal can run, or how long they may last in a fight...... 
And, i have every modern document published upon the sizes of both lions and tigers, and i assure you the head and body length of the lion is not 8 or 9ft, it is 6 ft on average...i showed you a record upon this...the average body length of the lion was 180 cm, in that instance...and, that is about 6ft. I also have records from a hunter who measured well over 25 lions, and they averaged about 9ft, tail included.  
Any source that states that the body length of the lion is 8 or 9 ft is not there is not a reliable source on then planet in proof of this, and that is an impossible size for these animals. 
And, lions cannot stand completely straight up......and certainly you know this?...even then, they could not be much more than 7 ft if they did. For comparison, check out this polar bear (largest on record, which was over 11 ft in height); 
That bear TOWERED over that guy, and it was over 11 ft in height. 
And, i`ve only heard one record of a leopard killing a hyena, and even that one is questionable. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 8:52 PM by damon
1. Cougars give Grizzlies a WIDE berth! 
2. Cougars are less competition for Grizzlies than other predators. 
3. Grizzlies will steal kills from Cougars usually without a problem. However, the Cougar might stand it's ground to harrass the Grizzly but will also stay out of the Grizzlies reach. 
Dr. Steve French, observed in Glacier & Yellowstone, "113 cougar kills" & "Grizzlies visited about a quarter of the Cougar kills, robbing Cougars of up to 26 percent of their food" (Grizzly Almanac, 2000, pp.84-85). 
I know of No reports of Cougars stealing a Grizzly kill! 
And these are smaller Grizzlies of the Lower 48 states. 
Point: The Grizzly is NOT intimidated by the Cougar! 
Also, Dr. French in 1996, "Watched ONE 350Lb. Grizzly chase NINE wolfs off an elk carcus and take possession of the prize" (Grizzly Almanac, 2000, pp.85). Nice! 
Grizzly vs. 5 or 6 Bull Buffalos: 
"A veteran hunter in Dakota once watched a huge male Grizzly attack a small herd of Buffalo cows protected by five or six bulls," related Wayne Gard in (The Great Buffalo Hunt). "As the Bear approached, the bulls closed ranks and lowered their horns. When the bulls charged, the bear struck one of them so hard with his paws that he broke the back of the bull, killing him instantly. But the other bulls used their horns so effectively that soon the bear crawled off with mortal wounds" (Great Bear Almanac, 1993, pp.111). 
So much for a Grizzly not standing it's ground against a much superrior force! Also one strike; one dead Buffalo Bull. Awsome!  
I own the "Great Bear Almanac" 1993 Edition. There is no page 340. 
Perhaps the 1996, Edition has more pages! 
I also own "The Grizzly Almanac" 2000, Edition. 
As I said repeatedly; Geography is key! 
Alaskan Coastal Grizzlies/Browns average 725 Lbs. (Great Bear Almanac, pp.60).  
Inland Grizzlies especially in the lower 48 states are smaller; average is 490 Lbs.  
The reason DIET! Sound familiar? 
Largest recorded Coastal Brown 2,500+++ WOW! 
Largest recorded Inland Grizzly 1,496, WOW! 
Polar Bear Average 1,150Lbs. (Great Bear Almanac pp.60). 
"Grizzly Almanac" is around the same with it's measurements; no need to repeat. 
Fights: Grizzly vs. African Lion: 
Large California Grizzly vs. man-eating African Lion, in Mexico, according to Storer and Tevis, described by Ranger fame Horace Bell, "The Grizzly Bear handeled the African King as a cat would a rat. The conflict was over so quickly that spectators hardly realized how it was actually accomplished" (Great Bear Almanac, 1993, pp.215); (California Grizzly, pp. 109).  
"There is also a vague account of a circus African Lion that jumped an American Black Bear during an act. The fight was fierce and both combatants were injured, but the Lion's injuries where (should be 'were') of the extent that it had to be destroyed" (Great Bear Almanac, pp.110). 
I am just quoting the book you cited. For the record I do not believe every Grizzly vs. African Lion would end so quickly. Nor do I believe the Grizzly wins everytime. However, it also seems the Black Bear gained a victory as well. 
Big Bears 8  
Big Lions 2  
Other Info: 
"Though the Polar Bear swims six miles per hour, their major enemy, the Killer Whale, is capable of swimming thirty miles per hour" (Great Bear Almanac, 1993, pp.112).  
Orca's rule the oceans; they prey on Great Whites. 
Good night to all!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:16 PM by Ted
I would be very interested in any reliable information about jaguar-cougar interactions. The most careful study I found about interspecies killings among predators ("Diet, Morphology and Interspecies Killing in Carnivora") did not mention any concrete case of a cougar or a jaguar killed by the other species, though it cited a single work on jaguar-cougar interactions. I find it somewhat hard to believe that a cougar could get the upper paw over a jaguar in a serious fight.  
Similarly, I doubt if the cougar is really more combative than the leopard. Male cougars do fight each other to the death in area where cougar population density is high and prey is relatively scarce, but human population density may not shape cougar behavior to a decisive extent. I read many descriptions about cougar behavior in as different regions as Amazonia in Brazil, Florida in the U.S., and the American West, and in none of the regions did that cat show any particular inclination to kill humans, either in the 19th century or nowadays. In areas populated by cougars, black bears and grizzlies alike, the latter were in general much more combative toward humans than the other two species.
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:30 AM by Balazs
Hi Balazs, 
I just watched a doc on Jaguars last night on animal planet's "champions of the wild" where they are in Belize and they were saying that jaguars do not fight very much at all and aviod each other as much as possible to ensure there is no combat. I heard them say that its due to even a slight injury in that environment could lead to death via infectuous diseases and bacteria of all kinds. They also stated that there are no records of jaguars preying or stalking humans as tigers have and possibly leopards and certainly like cougars do in california's trails. I still think this would be interesting nonetheless as they seem evenly matched. 
I think cougars are almost gone from florida, louisianna and Texas although some are still there, they have all but disappeared unfortunately. People here in the US don't know how to live by apex predators without wanting to exterminate them, unfortunately-just look at yellowstone national park's wolves for another example. Ranchers use excuse of their livestock, however some people claiming this weren't even ranchers at all. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:10 PM by ATTILA
the only reliable measurement i've heard of on the actual bite force test was by the young male lion, apart from that skulls from adult specimens are always seemingly indicating a lion and tigers bite forces are both at about 1000 lbs. 
indeed that is what stamina means, stamina is used in all sorts of senses it means how long you can endure something however the 'something' changes on whichever thing you are refering to so some people have a high level of stamina in running, however in swimming their stamina could be low. 
and as i've said polar bears are known to overheat very quickly which indicates low stamina, so whilst they have that thick layer of blubber they will not be able to realise their potential in regards to stamina. 
i have both records, and emails from animal expert sources such as bigcatrescue etc that indicate the average healthy male lion rounds up to 8 foot give or take a few inches 230 - 240 cms, whilst 250 cms the largest specimens will reach. 
yes whilst i am aware lions cannot stand straight up you have to give way for about a foot and a half when they're on the hind legs, the picture you gave me shows most likely not one of the biggest lions you could find whilst the polar bear picture indicates the largest specimen, not to mention the man is not standing on the same platform as the bear, however if you were to take pictures next to the largest lions you would find a far bigger comparison to a polar bear. 
i've heard of a few instances and also one of a safari which they were eye witness to the account of the leopard killing the hyena... although i've never heard of a hyenas killing a leopard in a 1 on 1 fight.
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:18 PM by Oliver
also ted those particular wikipedia quotes are fairly unreliable as the source is not given, or mentioned as it says 'ciatation needed'. 
and your point is invalid because video evidence disagrees with you that grizzlies are infact intimidated by cougars. 
the largest populations of grizzly bears are found in coastal areas where the weight is typically 500 - 750 lbs 
orcas do not particularly rule the oceans they will not attack things such as the blue whale for example or in a general sense dolphins.
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:26 PM by Oliver
I guess you play by double standards! 
You mentioned "Wiki" as a cite so I wrote what was actually written on the "Wiki" cite. 
You and that video are a joke LOL.. 
I think the video was spliced!  
Watch after the Grizzly shoved the Cougar about 5-6 feet; the video then cuts to the Cougar growling. Look behind the Cougar and you will see a river/stream on flat terrain. That is inconsistent with the first part of the video LOL... 
I guess you also know more than Dr. Steve French who observed Grizzlies in the Lower 48 states for years and gives the accounts I cited, NOT from "Wiki" but from "Grizzly Almanac." 
As for Orcas; is there a predator above them in the food chain of the worlds oceans??????????? 
For writing more misinformation you just lost another Lion LOL... 
Big Bears 9 
Big Lions 1 
Any more infractions and you will be suspended! :)
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 12:46 PM by Ted
Not to rub it in, but do some research on the Cougar/Grizzly video. Reasearch MARTY STOUFFER! 
You can hear the voice of MARTY STOUFFER in the background narrating. He directed quite a few of WILD AMERICA videos. 
Stouffer was exposed in the early 1990s by some of his filming crew & staff as staging animal confrontations. For all we know the Bear could have been somewhat trained; it sure looked like it. The Cougar was probaly part of the staging; we never did see the cub with the mother. 
My brother's friend had a friend who owned/handled a Cougar. I would not trust that Cat but they can be trained to a DEGREE. I have pictures with Cougar playing and climbing on my brother. He never did attack my brother or owner.  
Also, as I stated earlier, you can see a river/stream in the background as the Cougar gave a loud growl. That was much different terrain from that of the beginning of the video. I did learn something in Law enforcement LOL... 
However, as I said sometimes Cougars will defend their kill at times and they will always defend their cubs. Bottom line: The Cougar is NO match for a Big Grizzly Bear. Especially an Alaskan Grizzly! 
As for Blue SPERM whales, they will become aggresive when threatened by Killer Whales but Blue sperm whales are not "Predators."  
In regard to Dolphines; Orcas are in the same family. No dolphin can handle a Killer Whale 1 on 1.
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 7:41 PM by Ted
There is some confusion here. Blue whales are baleen whales, i.e., they eat mostly krill. Sperm whales are toothed whales, that is, they are formidable predators, but their main prey is squids. They would never be able to outswim an orca, and thus sperm whale predation on orcas is out of the question (just as you said). But there are no "blue sperm whales", only blue whales and grey (or occasionally white) sperm whales.:)
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:03 PM by Balazs
Apart from sperm whales, the only animal that may be occasionally able to defeat or deter an orca in the sea is a big and enraged bull walrus. There are a few (confirmed or unconfirmed) reports about orcas acting threateningly toward walruses and receiving some serious thrusts from the tusks of the walrus in return. I would never doubt the walrus' willingness to defy even an orca, and they can maneuver underwater surprisingly well, but the orca's superior speed and its tendency to hunt in pods would be advantages difficult to overcome.
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:10 PM by Balazs
balazs, most large whales are rather fast creatures, some traveling upwards of 23 mph, a few reaching a speed of 30, such as the sei whale, the fastest baleen whale, and indeed the fastest whale in the seas. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:11 PM by damon
The quick research I did referred to the "Blue Sperm Whale." However, I won't dispute your comments. Orcas and Blue Whales are way off topic. My point was that Killer Whales are Apex predators; I can't see a Polar Bear defeating an adult Killer Whale in the ocean. However, if you know of such events please get back to me.  
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:39 PM by Ted
The mistake I made was using "Blue" when I should have used "Bull" Perm Whale. I misread the article.
Posted @ Thursday, October 08, 2009 8:48 PM by Ted
The fastest whales are the so-called rorquals, particularly the fin and sei whales. Right whales and sperm whales are considerably slower. This is why the latter species were nearly wiped out as early as the era of rowed catcher boats. 
Yes, it is a good point to mention that you referred to a bull sperm whale, since female ones are much smaller and considerably less aggressive.  
Of course a polar bear would have no chance against an adult and healthy orca in the open sea. Walruses are good in diving and underwater maneuvering, but the bear prefers to attack its prey on the seacoast, rather than in the water.
Posted @ Friday, October 09, 2009 2:02 AM by Balazs
Here is a documented story about a walrus-orca fight, whose outcome shows well the fighting capabilities of a bull walrus: 
Posted @ Friday, October 09, 2009 6:08 AM by Balazs
I could not pull up the video; however, it sounds like the Walrus did well in the encounter. 
The only video that came up was a large Female Killer whale destroying a Great White Shark. 
Give me a little play by play on the action if you can LOL.. 
I'll try to pull it up later. 
Do you think a Walrus Bull can actually defeat the bigger subspecies of Mature Male Killer Whales? I would highly doubt it; however, I admit I have no real evidence to support my opinion. 
I commented earlier that I would put my money on the Walrus against the Polar Bear IN the WATER. I guess I'll stand by that after reading some of your comments. 
I've seen a pod of smaller subspecies of Killer Whales off Alaska but I don't remember ever seeing a Large Orca except at Sea World LOL...
Posted @ Friday, October 09, 2009 11:15 AM by Ted
Well, I doubt if the walrus would be actually able to kill the orca, because if the situation turned out to be unfavorable for the whale, the latter would simply flee, and the walrus would never be able to outswim it. But walrus bulls are very aggressive, and the mere combativeness of the walrus, particularly if reinforced by a lucky tusk hit, would probably keep a single orca at bay. Orcas are after all not very accustomed to killing prey that fights back effectively. Neither big baleen whales nor smaller animals like seals are really dangerous opponents, and confrontations between orcas and sperm whale bulls are probably quite rare. 
The Russian story (picture, not video) I referred to described how a big walrus bull survived an encounter with orcas. It was seriously injured on its muzzle and one of its tusks was broken, but it later recovered from its wounds. I guess that there was probably some kind of frontal confrontation between the walrus and the orca, and when the whale bit the walrus, the walrus managed to hit it with its tusks, with the impact breaking one of the tusks. Then the orca may have decided to break off the encounter. 
Of course a polar bear could not kill an adult walrus in deep water. It is not without reason that bears seek to attack walruses on land, whereas the latter do their best to move to the water as soon as they're attacked.
Posted @ Monday, October 12, 2009 9:35 PM by Balazs
Good description! 
I think you and I are pretty much in agreement on these issues. 
I have already commented that my money would be on the Walrus in WATER; the Polar Bear on ice/land. I think most of us have seen the Polar Bear kill the Walrus on soild ground. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:00 AM by Ted
Thanks, Ted. 
We may also agree on that a walrus would be quite able to defeat even the biggest male killer whale on land.:))
Posted @ Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:18 AM by Balazs
After seeing the votes being so low on the black bear, I would like to say, what the Hell are these people thinking? Lions are powerful hunters; believe me, but bears have been proven to be the strongest carnvivoran, pound for pound. Black bears are more aggressive than other bear species, despite their smaller size compared to all of the Brown bear subspecies and the Polar bear. However, black bears are still very powerful. They are at least as strong as a male lion. A large male black bear has the same potential to kill what a male lion can. Also, they have stronger paws. They can crush a human skull if their hit is placed correctly. Black bears have been known to easily over-take cougars and in Florida, alligators. Black bears have powerful jaws, like all bears do. This fight could go both ways. The lion is physically stronger than the bear, however, it is more agile, but an enraged black bear can do some serious damage to a lion. Just because bears look also, doesn’t mean they are. Bears can run up to 35 miles per hour. Also, people have not considered that felines have limited stamina. They have some of the lowest stamina out of all of the Carnivorans. Bears have a lot of stamina, and can fight for long periods of time, like canids. A bear's claws are also longer than that of a male lion’s, no matter what species of bear. Siberian brown bears, which aren't even the largest brown bear subspecies (that title belongs to the Kodiak bear), can still kill the world's largest cat in a battle to the death, the Siberian tiger. The win percentage for the bear is higher than that of the tiger's. A slash from the bear’s sharp claws to the lion’s underbelly, can seriously injure him. People think, just because black bears aren’t among “one of the great bear” species, that they don’t have the gift to kill. That’s not true at all………
Posted @ Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:44 PM by MrLAien123456
The result will be a 50/50 chance of the two animals.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 14, 2009 10:58 PM by MrLAien123456
I just noticed. I meant to say  
"The lion is **NOT** physically stronger than a **MALE** bear, however, it is more agile, but an enraged black bear can do some serious damage to a lion. 
Also, I noticed the two other things say MrLAien123456, when it is suppossed to be MrAlien123456 . I made a typo on my uswername. LOLZ.....
Posted @ Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:02 PM by MrAlien123456
MrLAien123456, you are quite wrong on some parts. There is a scientific document which indicates that grizzlies are the most aggressive species of bear. And, likewise, claw length doesn`t make the slightest difference in a fight, as that is the least damaging of their weapons (the teeth is the more damaging weapon) and, unless they should land a penetrating blow, which is difficult, it is unlikely the bear will do the lion, particularly seeing as the maned cat is more agile, any damage. 
I have records of lions killing both brown bears, and polar bears, and most brown bears average about 200 kg or so, according to most accurate data (and, i have much) and grizzlies average about 190 - 222 kg, certainly within the range of the lion. Of course brown bears can grow larger, but, this is due to a greater food consumption, rather than actual body size, which is no greater in the brown bear. Only the polar bear among bears is actually physically (excluding weight) larger than the lion, and i have evidence, from scientific documents, in proof of this. 
Lions also have the most complex celiac ganglia of any large mammal compared, including the bears, and likewise has the most fulminating form of that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size, again including bears, based upon studies by George Washington Crile. 
I would put my money on the lion. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:04 PM by damon
Damon, I have never seen or heard of a document of a lion killing a brown bear before do you have a link handy? 
Grizzlies average 220 - 340 kgs, as stated in Brown, Gary (1996). Great Bear Almanac. pp. 340. ISBN 1558214747. 
So they are more in the range of the larger specimens of lions, however like you say it is due to a greater food intake and a higher percentage of fat which they need to survive in the alaskan conditions. 
My money would be on the lion depending on how he viewed the bear for example, if he viewed the bear as prey then the lion will use his superior agility and explosive speed to gain the advantage bringing him down from behind and executing a neck bite... however if the lion was to view a bear as a rival he might attempt to fend him off with blows in which case he would most surely lose.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:50 PM by Oliver
Oliver, the great bear almanac gave an average of 490 lbs for all grizzly bear populations.....i don`t remember any mention of 340 kg, unless it was for limited records of other brown bear species. But, here are some reliable documents as to the weights of these bears; 
Also, here are some records of lions killing brown bears and polar bears;
Posted @ Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:55 PM by damon
And there he goes off again with the complete bullshit about lions killing brown bears and Polar bears........... I read off the comments. Don't give me that crap, damon. Everyone knows you are a lion fanboy........... One swat from a Kodiak bear's massive paw can crush a lion's skull.........
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:00 AM by MrAlien123456
I think that claws do matter a lot in such fights. Let me mention a credible story about a fight between a wolverine and a trained Siberian hunting dog (possibly a laika). They locked in combat, the dog managed to get a grip on the neck skin of the wolverine, and sought to reach its throat. Thereupon the wolverine rolled on its back and made a swipe with its long-clawed paw. A second later, the fight was over, as the dog flew like a cannonball over the head of the wolverine, with its entrails hanging out. It died within minutes.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:17 AM by Balazs
hm well damon it stated 'the largest populations of grizzly bears are found in coastal reigons where the weights are typically 500 - 750 lbs, 750 lbs is roughly 340 kgs. 
Here is a reliable foundation website on grizzly bears which states the average weight is 550 lbs, the same size as a large male lion. 
Although I'm not too sure about the reliability of the sources you gave me especially the first one and the last one, there is no book reference or newspaper
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:13 AM by Oliver
I don't particularly think it is the length of the claws that matter, because animals don't ever 'stab' with their claws, they just swipe, so it is more to do with how fast and hard they swipe... oh and plus how sharp the claws are which is quite relative compared to the other factors.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:17 AM by Oliver
MrAlien123456, i`m not a lion fanboy...i love all animals. However, did you not see the records?... 
and, those so-called records of grizzlies cracking the skull of a lion witrh one swat is lions have enourmously powerful bones, and in fact in one study it was greater than that of the bear.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:55 AM by damon
This Black Bear Vs. Lion confrontation on "this site" is a bit tainted. Black Bears rarely reach 600++Lbs. unless they have a convienent dumpster to eat from on a regular basis. 
They are not as aggressive as Grizzlies; in fact Inland Grizzlis will hunt them down and kill them if the Black Bear is in their territory. Look up "Rogue Grizzlie(s) in Yellowstone killing Black Bears." 
However, don't let Damon & Oliver "Kings of Lion lovers" fool you with misinformation LOL.. 
Black Bears can be a very furocious foe. I think the Male Lion wins a hard fought victory 6/7 times out of ten. 
The North American Grizzly/Brown: 
First, what type of Brown Bear is IMPORTANT: There seems to be 80-90 subspecies? All ranging from small populations of "Eurasia, Yukon, Syrian Brown Bears"(350-400Lbs.) to much larger Brown Bears.  
However, when we really discuss the Big Browns of North America it is an entirely different story. 
"The Great Bear Almanac 1993, pp. 60)"  
Average Weights of Mature Males: 
Alaskan Coastal Brown//Grizzlies 725 LBs. (500-900) Heaviest recorded 2,500Lbs. It is not uncommon for Coastals to reach 1,000 Lbs. no matter what Damon says. 
Male Kodiak Brown Bears 800-1400 Lbs. 
There is an estimated 30,000 Coastal/Grizzly Bears in Alsaka; far greater than anywhere else on earth! Russia claims the largest population of "Brown Bears" in general. 
Inland Grizzlies of 490 Lbs. is misleading! This includes MUCH smaller Grizzly populations of the lower 48 states which have been hunted to near extinction. Anyone with real objective knowledge will tell you the BIG MALES are the first to be taken as trophies. Also, inland Grizzlis don't have the food supply that Coastal Grizzlies do. 
If you get the chance, read some of my above comments; no need to bore everyone with recycled info. However, I have read, watched video, and more importantly studied and worked with experts IN THE FIELD observing Alaskan Kodiak/Coastal Brown/Grizzly Bears. 
Resoureces on North American Brown Bears: 
If interested, 2 great books on Grizzlies are "The Great Bear Almanac" & "Grizzly Almanac". 
Google - National Geographic, November, 1993, Kodiak Island Edition. I was with that group and there are great articles on the Kodiak/Coastal Bears. 
Also, do a search of Kodiak Island Grizzlies, Katmai N.P. Grizzlies and you will enjoy a good amount of information. 
You can also look up Biologist Steve French, Roger Smith, & Vic Barnes. They are REAL experts on these great Big Bears. 
Sorry Damon & Oliver: :) 
Final Score: 
Big Bears 8 
Big Lions 2 
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 12:57 PM by Ted
If you do google Steve French, Roger Smith, & Vic Barnes make sure to put BIOLOGIST before their names or else you will be searching forever. 
Read especially Vic Barnes who I was with at Kodiak; read the size of the great Bears he mentions.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:14 PM by ted
I'm not the one saying a lion can kill a bear. That is Damon and Oliver. Your estimations seem much more accurate than Damon’s. I know that the information on this site is misleading. An average black bear usually is about the size of a lion. In weight and in length, however, it's been proven that bears are the strongest, pound for pound, of any land carnivore. The only way the lion can win is from his agility, but a determined black bear can kill a male lion. And Damon, a lion has thicker bones that a bear? OMFGROFL 
Bears have thicker bones than those of a tiger. Tigers have thicker bones than lions, especially the Siberian tiger, which may require thicker bones for the harsh climates it lives in. What makes you say a lion has thicker bones than a bear? 
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:03 PM by MrAlien123456
If you have read my comments you will find I was in agreement with you for the most part.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:34 PM by Ted
I agree-bears are king of beasts! For those of you who like to watch and learn about animals, and since lions are one of the animals of this topic, this sat on animal planet there's a show called "I'm Alive" in which the subject is surviving a lion attack. There may be interesting facts on there as well.  
Ted, you mentioned Katmai Nat park, I've watched shows and other documentaries of the bears there-great stuff! It must have been great to have been there and seen those bears! Also, I think the name Grizzly's have been given is pretty funny as far as there genus goes`"Ursus Horriblus" guess they got a bad rap!
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:04 PM by ATTILA
A Bad Rap for a Bad-ass Bear! :) 
Ya, when you make it out to WA. to visit your friend you should also check into flights to Anchorage connecting to Homer or King Salmon and then to Katmai & Kodiak.  
However, you also have two other options: Put your vehicle on a ferry out of WA. I think Bellingham??? and sail to Skagway, Alaska and then drive to Anchorage; or drive the Alcan HWY across Canada to Alaska. We only live once so go for it LOL... 
You can camp at Katmai and save money; Kodiak is a little more involved.  
If you ever have any questions feel free to ask! I'll probably head back to Katmai & maybe Kodiak in about 2-3 years to do some backpacking photography. 
Take Care!
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:34 PM by Ted
Ted, Have you been to Anchorage airport? I've only been there once but it was a layover as our flight was delayed for a whole day, so they fed us and we just stayed in the airport where stands a huge polar bear said to be 13 ft tall or so I remember-did you happen to see that? 
I had thought abou tliving on kodiak, but its a very small community and people there would probably not like metal-heads moving there, even though we mind our own business. Also, its very expensive there, another place we looked at is Barrow Alaska. 
Backpacking photography-I love that stuff! Can't wait to go to the grim and frostbitten kingdoms of the North!!
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:08 PM by ATTILA
Ya, LOL.. Some nice animals on display at the airport; too bad their stuffed. I forgot to mention the delays!!!! 
Due to fog, white outs, Kodiak can be hard to reach. The float plane from the town of Kodiak to Bear habitat is even more challenging. Those Bush pilots are something else. There is a U.S. Airforce base on Kodiak. You can get there by vehicle. Being a Marine might help if you ever moved there. 
However, I would not advise anyone to move to Kodiak; tough town to live in unless you are a comercial fisherman or Bush Pilot. I would stay closer to the Palmer area if I was going back to live for any length of time. 
Katmai is easier to get to since it is technically part of the mainland coast. Still takes some doing by float plane.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:28 PM by Ted
Ja, my best friend and Marine buddy advised me against it(the move to Kodiak) he said its a small community and if you move there and they don't like you, its giong to be hell, plus he said they have to fly produce and such in and its expensive.  
That polar bear in the airport was HUGE! I was thinking at the time, "how terrible, this bear should be out running or swimming around or something, maybe reproducing more polar bears, too bad it was shot". 
My wife has Maine set in her mind, so I guess no Grizzly's there to see. They have black bears though. 
The pacific northwest is in my opinion the best looking country in the US. 
Thanks for the info, Ted! 
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:01 PM by ATTILA
At 11:00pm Eastern time tonight Animal Planet has a show on Grizzlies in the Nortwest with Salmon runs. Starts in 10 minutes and might be informative.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:51 PM by Ted
If you have never been to Maine enjoy the kyacking on the Penobscot River, Kennebec River, and Dead River. Also Mt. Katahdin and Acadia Park are great places to explore & hike. 
At present I live in Connecticut so Maine is a great get away for some great nature & wilderness. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:05 PM by Ted
Haha! Damon said the claws didn't matter in a battle, but you saw the bear just rip that clam into a soup with it claws. They even said that the bear's claws make excellent clam rigs. Thanks for informing me on the documentary Ted. I usually do watch Animal Planet, but I was caught up in other things at the moment, I didn’t bother to change the channel. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:13 PM by MrAlien123456
Oliver, most of those records i showed were presented directly from experts in the field....they are rather reliable. Most usually, records of grizzlies or brown bears where specimens have been extremely large, are those where only a limited number of specimens weighed, or in which age specific groups were measured, which would give biased results..... 
But generally, the grizzly averages 190 - 222 kg.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:12 PM by damon
ted, i disagree with you here. I gave no i wasn`t merely giving an opinion....i have the data to prove my statements. The black bear is less aggressive than brown bears, and i have a study directly relating to this.  
Likewise, the lion has a higher testosterone level than any bear species, and is likewise the most aggressive of the carnivora, as well as the more combative. 
The lion would most probably win (and, i have other reasons for this as well) 9/10 times in a fight with a black bear.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:16 PM by damon
Hm damon, I wasn't talking about misinformation of the weights of bears, I thought that the records you have of brown bears dying seem a little flawed especially the top and bottom one on the forum you gave me. 
I'm not so sure about that 9/10 estimate you gave for a lion killing a bear, I'm still more convinced it's more of a 6/10 win for the lion possibly 7/10, I think it all depends on how the lion views the bear, if it see's the bear as prey then it has the means and agression to overpower and kill the bear, however if the lion was to view a bear as a rival he would attempt to fend the bear off with blows and this drop the win ratio down considerably.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:24 PM by Oliver
There is an updated version of the great bear almanac to what you have presented I notice you give the 1993 version which is useful. I'm glad you use the great bear almanacs for reference because it makes it easier... 
The great bear almanac (1996) - The largest populations of grizzly bears are found in coastal reigons where the weights are typically 500 - 750 lbs. 
I'm not giving misinformation, it is information from reliable sources... If you think it is wrong present your own evidence.
Posted @ Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:38 PM by Oliver
I agreed with you on the Black Bear discussion LOL.. Go reread my comments! 
However, I think a Big Black bear will win 2/3 out of 10.
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 12:17 AM by Ted
Oliver, i was talking of the lion getting the best of a black bear 9 out of 10 times, though the grizzly, being no larger than the lion, would not fair a great deal better. Don`t get me wrong, i think a grizzly would impose a serious threat to a male lion.....but, that does not mean he`ll win. 
And, Ted, you stated that i presented misinformation....but, i assure you most of what i stated can be supported with scientific documents.  
The lion knows a bear is not prey....and, indeed, that has nothing to do with his fighting ability, at which he is expert. 
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 12:41 AM by damon
You guys are confussing your bears. You both need to pay attention to the bears you are discussing. 
Damon says 9/10 for Lions over Black Bears; Oliver you are saying 6/7 out of 10 regarding Bears in general! You guys are in disarray! LOL... 
For this infraction I have to penalize you Lion Lovers. However, Oliver I will not call for a suspension LOL... 
Big Browns 8/9 
Big Lions 1/2
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 12:44 AM by Ted
Don't think for a minute the mighty Grizzly would not fair much better than that of the Black Bear! 
You should be suspended for such a implication LOL...
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 12:48 AM by Ted
Ted, the grizzly would indeed fair better than a black bear, but not much better. There are many reasons why i believe the lion would win, such as a more effective immediate attack by the lion, higher aggression and combative techniques, as well as the greater agility.
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 1:14 AM by damon
As for the role of claws in fighting: yes, it is true that claw length is probably less important than the power of the blow. For instance, a well-aimed kick by the hind foot of a leopard can neatly disembowel an unlucky human being, though the claws on that foot are most probably much shorter than those on the paw of a grizzly. Still, longer claws simply go deeper if a swipe goes along the soft underbelly of the opponent, and it does matter a lot whether only the skin and the underlying muscle layer is torn or the entrails are also ripped out. It is not without reason that even jaguars think twice before messing with an alert and angry giant anteater.:)
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 1:29 AM by Balazs
Hm, okay the black bear damon, yes I'll have to agree with you there, but disagree that the grizzly wouldn't do much better... The grizzly is more like a greater version of the black bear, it is stronger and more agressive. 
And nnahh, if a lion doesn't view a bear as prey or at least go about taking the bear down in the same manner as his prey, i think the win rate would go down to 50/50, it's not about fighting ability, if a lion tries to fend a bear off with blows and the bear fights back the lion better switch to his agility and bring the bear down, because otherwise the grizzlys superior upper body strength will be the deciding factor.
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 8:40 AM by Oliver
It seems to me that now you're only believing what you want to believe... Why do I say this? Well because you quoted me something from 'The Great Bear Almanac (1993)' that stated bears average 750 lbs... However when I gave you a quote from an updated version of the book (1996) which stated only the biggest bears are 750 lbs, you're denying it. 
And no, when i say 6/7 out of 10 I'm refering to the bigger bears; grizzlies, polar, kodiak, siberian brown bear... 6 out of 10 for the polar bear perhaps 7 for the others. 
However I have to agree with Damon about the black bear... 9/10, the only reason I don't give it 10/10 is because anything can happen in a fight.
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 8:41 AM by Oliver
You wrote, "The Grizzly would indeed fair better than a Black Bear, but no much better." 
You have been in England too long; it's time to come home. 
I'll ignore your comment due to an extended case of serious jet lag LOL...
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 12:26 PM by Ted
I'll make it easy for you! 
Choose Bear Facts: 
These are reliable sources because the material is taken from the Katmai N.P. & Preserve areas. 
POINT: Range in Brown Bear size (400-1200Lbs.)  
That is consistent with what I have been writing all along. 
They even refer to Grizzlies as Inland Browns! 
It's Friday, I am in a good mood, so I am not going to deduct a Lion from your pride LOL...
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 1:25 PM by Ted
no you misunderstood ted, 
the actual quote was 'the largest populations of grizzly bear are found in coastal areas where the weights are typically 500 - 750 lbs' 
so when I say only the biggest bears reach 750 lbs, I'm just using that quote from above... there are indeed some specimens that have been weighed at 1000 lbs, however very few have been weighed at this and the rest are estimates. 
much like the kodiak bear in which most are estimated weights and not actual weights. 
yes I watched the show with dave salmoni, the pride of lions were typically safari lions, so they were used to watching and being observed by humans. 
Dave Salmoni stated 'if a lion is used to your presence and does not see you as a rival, or food, then you can get a lion to stop attacking you more easily that way'. 
but if you were to consider if another lion was to enter his territory, or even several the lion will rush in to protect his pride.
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 7:34 PM by Oliver
Oliver, actually, lions fight predators differently than they would prey...and, that`s a good thing, as the experiences involved, and the tactics used are often very different. The lion is not only every bit as large as a grizzly, but they have the more superior fighting technique, and are also quite able to launch a more effective immediate attack, according to studies by george washington crile. 
Lions are also more agile.
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 8:57 PM by damon
I have no jet lag Ted..and, why the sarcastic remark?.... 
The lion not only has a superior fighting technique, and indeed, they do, they can also execute a more effective immediate attack, due to their more complex sympathetic system (celiac ganglia). the lion also has the much higher level of testosterone, and is likewise more aggressive as well.....
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 9:05 PM by damon
Yes damon that is exactly my point, a lion would not be able to fight the grizzly in the same manner he fights a rival, or a predator because of the grizzlies superior upper body strength (the shoulder hump of muscle more specifically). 
but if the lion were to fight the bear in the same manner that he takes down a bull, or even a hyena i suppose, then the lion will most surely win. 
And I'm more than certain that the lion would fight the bear in this way, they only fight other lions in such a manner of constant blows and gripping the nose, because the mane prevents a fatal hold of the throat or neck.
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 9:44 PM by Oliver
oliver, grizzlies don`t have superior upper body strength. The hump of muscle upon a grizzly really does allow them great leverage for digging, however, the opposing muscles in the grizzlies arm will be proportionately smaller. Likewise, in one study (which sady did not include bears) the lion had the highest percentage of muscle mass (58.8%). Lions also have a superior fighting tactic as compared with grizzlies, and are more aggressive as well.  
Strength of the upper body is more than just shoulder relates to strength in the triceps, and, most importantly, the biceps.
Posted @ Friday, October 16, 2009 10:06 PM by damon
Not just in digging damon, brown bears are able to pick up heavy logs and huge boulders. 
there was one document of which a lion and a grizzly bear had a huge fight, the lions explosive action and agression helped him tear at the bear for quite a while, then the tired bear picked the lion up and threw him across the ring, momentarily stunning the lion after that neither animal was willing to fight and the fight was declared a draw.
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:14 AM by Oliver
Oliver & Damon: 
I read that story about the grizzly-lion fight. The lion was definitely more interested in fighting the bear than vice versa, but the bear eventually managed to discourage it. Indeed, the lion would never have been able to pick up and throw the bear in the same way. Concerning the different tactics which big cats use in fighting large herbivores and rival carnivores, I may say that the "bull-killing" technique would work against a bear if applied in the context of a successful surprise attack. This is how Siberian tigers kill bears. They do not want to face a bear, of any large prey, in open, frontal combat, because the prey would either escape or would be difficult and tiresome to kill. If attacked by surprise and brought down, even the biggest bull or bear would find it difficult to prevent the tiger or lion from puncturing its throat, jugular or vertebrae with its long canines, but if it has a chance to get prepared for the attack, the situation will change. In frontal combat, big cats usually attack the bear's sensitive nose with a quick series of slashing blows, and this is indeed quite effective but of course not sufficient to kill. In fact, lions, if they have a chance, seek to attack a rival from behind and try to immobilize it by biting and breaking its hind leg, but this can be accomplished only if the victim is attacked by two male lions simultaneously. My point is that what matters is not whether the lion regards the bear as prey or as a rival; what matters is whether the bear has time to get prepared for the attack and adopt a defensive stance, or not. If the bear is well-prepared, the "bull-killing technique" is difficult to apply, because the lion cannot easily attack the bear from behind.
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:43 AM by Balazs
I do not want to be mean, but it may be interesting to investigate whether the male lion's high testosterone level, which was repeatedly highlighted by Damon, has more to do with the lion's fighting capabilities or with the fact that male lions are the invincible sex champions of the mammalian world.:)
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:58 AM by Balazs
Lions aren't the sex champions of the wild, they mate up to 15 times per day when mating, however they only last seconds each time(not even a minute-man). 
Also, Bears have good noses and will know when a big cat is there to get ready for battle. Also, Bears have MUCH bigger limbs than the big cats and more muscle. For those interested, tommorrow (Sat night at 8 or 9 pm,) a show called "I'm Alive will be aired on Animal Planet on how person/s survived a lion attack. 
For those interested, the most viscious beastly battle-tanks to have ever walked the earth were all right here in America-the "Hell Pig"-Entelodonts(Entelodont means "perfect toothed" and could open their jaws 90 degrees) Dinohyus and Bear Dog(Amphicyon). There have never been more agressive animals to have walked the earth than these. BTW, the Bear dog caused hell pigs extinction because they were even more ferocious and more evolved as a killing machine-more equiped to get more prey.  
I was off track there, but thougt to give some people things to read. In this forum, I'm picking the bear as the winner 8 out of 10 times, I'm talking about the big 4 of bears, to the black bear, I give 4 or 5 times out of 10. The black bear is not as agressive as a lion and even a large one isn't the fighter teh lion is, however it should be noted that it isn't goingt to lie down and die, but rather fight for its life with eveything its got, making it VERY dangerous to the lion. Don't forget about the show tommorrow night guys! Goodnite.
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:19 AM by ATTILA
Do you really think that an Amphicyon would have had the slightest chance against an enraged Mephitis mephitis? I doubt so.:)
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:45 AM by Balazs
Well, BBC and other network discovery channels charge that teh Entelodont and Amphicyon were the most terrible, ferocious and brutal creatures willing to combat any other animal that walked the earth past or present, so that being said, I think they would not like to get a "face full of stuff" from the smelly one, Mephitis mephitis-I know I sure wouldn't! 
Amphicyon longiramus. In the Early Miocene of Florida, no animal was more deadly. This mammal was the apex predator of its time and had no equal. Made famous in the BBC digital television presentation "Walking with Prehistoric Beasts", the bear-dogs were ferocious carnivores that ranged from the size of a medium dog to the size of a bear. These predators known as Amphicyonids were neither dogs nor bears but were more closely related to bears. They emerged and subsequently went extinct during the Miocene, once inhabiting regions of Eurasia and North America.  
Amphicyonidae were a diverse group with species resembling all or part of modern dogs, hyenas and bears. Leaner built species had cheek teeth designed for shearing meat whereas the stouter and larger species had teeth designed to crush bone. Males were larger than females. They lived in dens and had the ability to dig large burrows.  
Amphicyon longiramus was the largest of the Florida species at the size of a full-grown bear. This species evolved in Eurasia and migrated to North America. A. longiramus was the top predatory land mammal of its time in Florida during the Early Miocene. Its skull was long in comparison to its body size but brain size was lacking. Its posture and structure were similar to a bear and it is theorized that it must have hunted using ambush techniques that are used today by modern grizzlies. Most likely, this giant bear-dog burst upon its unfortunate victim at close range and dealt its prey a single deadly blow with its massive forepaw. This theory of attack is also based on its relative the bear as it was incapable of sustaining long runs in pursuit of prey. Compared to lighter species of Amphicyonids, Amphicyon longiramus had heavy posterior dentition allowing it to crush bone in its jaws.  
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 4:59 AM by ATTILA
no balazs I definately have to disagree with you there, I am quite sure a lion won't have a problem getting to a bears back. 
a bears typical defensive or offensive stance is on his hind legs, and whilst this is good it does not allow much agility for the bear to deal with the lions explosive action and agility I think in this manner the lion won't have much trouble getting to the bears back especially as lions often calculate and circle their opponent... and I don't think that simply a bear will have much time to react in an effective manner. 
although you make a good point about how lions attack rival males, they typically try to fend them off with blows, only unless the lion is particularly bloodthirsty will he attack the lions back as he runs away, and this is unlike if they are killing bulls or giraffe in which they will immediately go for the back or throat... That's why it matters whether the bear is prey or a rival, because the question, is how effective and quick will the lions first attack be? does this attack put him in range of the grizzlies big forearms? And does his attacks give the bear time to fight back in an effective manner? 
Although, I do suppose you could make an argument that lions only attack other rival males in this manner because the mane prevents much throat action and a lions agility prevents much back action. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:43 PM by Oliver
You guys are killing me; can't stop laughing! 
Sorry Damon if you did not like my "jet lag" comment. 
Oliver, the estimates of 1000+++ Lb. Kodiak/Alaskan Coastal Brown Grizzies tell you some are close and some are above that weight. 750Lb. is ABOUT average; 500Lbs. is small but quite healthy depending on age, season, gender. 
It is not rare for Kodiak/Alaskan Brown sows to reach 500-600LBS. during Salmon runs. 
Now the disscussion is "can the lion ambush the bear" LOL... 
Oliver, you state, "I am quite sure a lion won't have a problem getting to the bear's back."  
If they face eachother the bear would slap the lion silly; the Lion would get the message and retreat if it could. However, a pissed off Kodiak, Brown/Grizzly would not allow the Lion to escape. A Big pissed off Grizzly destroys wounded & dazed lion LOL... 
If the bear was blind, old, & toothless; the Male Lion still could not sneak up on it.  
A Tiger is much better than the Male Lion at ambush! 
Balazs was more accurate in his version of the Bear tossing the Lion. The Lion was said to have hit it's head on a bar and neither engaged after that. However, I believe the Lion was put down afterwards. Who of us really knows????? 
The prehistoric encounters have now become more challenging LOL...
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:27 PM by Ted
Well, about the Short Faced bear: Despite it begin a fairly large animal, the giant short faced bear could be considered the "cheetah" of the bear world. It had long legs, and a small body in comparison to those legs. It was fairly light built for it's size and probably never reached over the weight of a large modern day polar bear. I would estimate it to be the size of a large grizzly, if you were to shorten it's legs to those of a brown bear. Here's a more intimidating foe I have researched. Ursus maritimus tyrannus; the giant Polar bear, which became extinct during the Pleistocene Ice Age. Some experts believe it could've been a massive hybrid between the brown bear and the modern day Polar bear, considering that it had features which showed the relations to both species of bear. For all we know, this could’ve been the “Liger” of the bear world. Two large bear species breeding and making a monstrous offspring that looks like a giant white brown bear, with short legs, in comparison to its body. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 17, 2009 7:00 PM by mrAlien123456
Ted it is useless to make comments on the kodiak bears weight, as most are merely estimates, very few kodiak bears have ever been weighed in the wild. 
there were similar stories with hunters in siberia claiming that tigers found there were estimated to be 800 lbs, but the siberian tiger project only found the largest specimens to be just below 500 lbs, and this is the difference between estimates and the actual weight. 
now, as for alaskan grizzlies, I've already stated to you that the great bear almanac (1996) which is an updated version of the book you claim to have states only large grizzlies reach 750 lbs, anything above that is abnormal. 
If a lion and bear face each other what makes you think a bear could 'slap a lion silly'? You seem to think that a bear will raise up and bash down on the lion like a great big sledgehammer... no bear fights like that just watch the video near the top of this page. 
and I can give you a video of 2 grizzly bears fighting they prefer to grip and toss the opponent, the chances of them being able to do this to a lion is very slim... the question really is, does 
and if you don't like to take that seriously damon gave some records of lions killing bears ask him again I'm sure he'll be happy to give them back out. 
and it's not really about ambush, lions really only ambush prey that will immediately run like antelope, and zebra, however they may face straight off with buffalo and wildebeest...
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 2:43 AM by Oliver
ew sorry I didn't finish that sentence what I meant to say was; the question is does a lion give the bear time to fight back.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 2:45 AM by Oliver
Oliver, and balazs, according to well-renouned lion expert Craig packer, lions, even single lions, normally attack the lower back/hindquarters of their rivals.  
And, when fighting bears, they can use their superior fighting ability.....they do not need to view the bear as prey.....attacking the neck in fighting is instinctual, and has nothing to do with how he views the animal. The lion would know he`s facing a dangerous opponent, and one which is not prey. However, the lion is such a fighter that that does not matter. Of course the bear would offer much resistance, but, in the end, he`ll sucuumb to the lion.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 4:00 AM by damon
Ted, tigers aren`t better than lions at ambushing. Both cats display this behavior, and there is no study in existence to indicate anything of the sort. Just wanted to point that out.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 4:25 AM by damon
I already told you I looked up Damons records! One was a Cinnamon Bear which = Black Bear for the most part. It was a caged fight! 
Next I showed you how it is easy to use misinformation.  
Does Marty Stouffer ring a bell? 
Did you at least research Marty Stouffer? He is the guy that staged that false wild encounter video between Bear/Cougar that you kept using as bougas evidence. 
"ONLY Large Grizzlies reach 750Lbs." again what are you talking about? Does this include "Alaskan Coastal Brown Bears" & "Kodiaks" or just "Inland Grizzlies?" If the Brown/Kodiak are included then your statement is very much flawed.  
The "Great Bear Almanac" makes a distinction between Grizzly & Alaskan Brown/Kodiaks.  
Oliver, you state, "It is useless to make comments on the Kodiak Bears weight!"  
What are you talking about??? 
I am almost sure you realize Kodiak Island is a small Island off Alaska; don't think I need to give you a Geography lesson!  
People live there, HUNT there, EXPERTS RESEARCH KODIAKS there.  
For the umpteen time BIOLOGIST VIC BARNES has tagged & collared Kodiaks. LOOK HIM UP! 
It is common to weigh a dead Kodiak which has been killed by hunters. Also estimating the weight of tagged & collared bears is very much reliable.  
If someone can't tell the difference between a 500Lb. Bear & a 800Lb. Bear than they need to stay out of bear country. 
If you want to play that game then I guess I'll list the AVERAGE Male Lion at around 350Lbs. & 400Lbs.  
That would be an accurate estimate by your logic. 
As for the bears ability to swat a Lion: 
Your own book "The Great Bear Almanac" details how a witness observed a Grizzly in Wyoming or Montana land 1 blow to a charging Bull Bison and kill it. If the Grizzly can do that to a Bull Bison it can do it to a lion.  
Checkmate! Time to close shop and watch NFL. 
I should penalize you by deducting your entire Lion pride LOL... 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:47 AM by Ted
Yah, but it also said 'a fine specimen of the cinnamon' blah blah blah, so I'm guessing a very large one 550 - 600 lbs, about in the range of a smallish - medium grizzly bear, plus you seem to be disregarding all the other records because that one doesn't seem to be a fight you like 
yes I already knew about marty stouffer, he was never prosecuted for staging animal wild fights those were only allegations he was prosecuted for something completely different but i do like how you're quite ready to believe those rumours. 
Oh and also no cougar and bear scene were reported to be fake, I would also be interested to know what makes you think that scene was from 'wild america'... I've watched quite a few of those programs and there's usually some sort of stupid gay music which isn't there plus the quality of the camera is different. 
Oh yeah and you can't train a bear to run away from a cougar. 
No, I've already told you I'm not including kodiak bears in my weights, especially as they're considered to be a different subspecies. 
Few kodiaks have ever been weighed and that is a fact they are mostly just estimates, and you say people who mistake a 500 lb bear for an 800 lb bear need to 'get the hell out of bear country' but estimates on weights are nearly always flawed I've already given you a prime example of how people used to estimate siberian tigers at 700 - 800 lbs, then the siberian tiger project went in and found the largest to be just under 500 lbs... Estimates, especially from hunters are nearly always flawed. 
And no, that wouldn't be very accurate for a lion, unless you're refering to an asiatic lion because sub saharan lions have been weighed far more frequently, they seem to average 400 - 550 lbs. 
So I don't understand where you are using 'my logic' there as i've said weight estimates are nearly always flawed. 
lions have a greater bone density, so I don't see your logic when you say 'if a bear can do that to a bison it can do it to a lion'... but a bear usually pins his opponent down before striking any finishing or heavy blows, otherwise a grizzlies fighting style is to grip and throw the opponent not heave down like a sledgehammer as you seem to be thinking... 
here is a video of 2 grizzlies fighting: 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 12:53 PM by Oliver
Oliver, takikng to you is like talking to a brick wall-Grizzly's commonly are found at 800 lbs its not rare as you say-I meet a speciman well over 900 lbs and the guy who owns him goes out in Grizzly country and has seen quite a few the same size as his that he see's and can judge its size every day.  
Also, it can deliver a swatting blow that would devastate the lion. You are quite illogical to surmise otherwise, that just says to me you are a lion fanboy and no matter all the evidence in the world and you will hold on to your erroneous claims despite hard evidence concluding otherwise and therefore its a waste of time debating with you. If you think the lion will win, fine,thats what this is for-to put your choice or pick of animal who'd you think to win-but you cannot prove a lion would win-especially how they have been run out of North America with tails between their legs defeated by the short-face bear. Also, I suggest those fights in cali should be re-read if you doubt the veracity of their eye witness accounts and the Grizzly's ability and potential to win fights against any animal on earth. One connecting blow form a Grizzly to the head or body (which can break bones)if it doesn't kill or mortally injure the lion, it will want no more of the great bear. 
Grizzly 8 or 9 
Lion 1 or 2 out of 10
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 2:43 PM by ATTILA
Damon, perhaps you do not understand how little stamina cats have compared to other animals, including bears. Bears have a lot of stamina, in comparison to lions. Despite lions have the most stamina of all of the big cats, it has low stamina in comparison to other animals. Also, it's proven that bears are the strongest land carnivores, pound for pound. Out-topping cats,. Cats would be tied with the wolverine..... if not, slightly weaker, pound for pound. Bears also have stronger bites than lions. One swipe fro ma grizzly bear's paw at the lions skull WILL be devastating to the lion. You say lions have stronger bones than bears, which is not true. AA Grizzly swiping a paw at you is like a 200 pound sledgehammer going at your head. Even a lion cannot sustain much resistance against that. Also, you failed to acknowledge how much thicker the skin and the coat of the bear is, in comparison to a lion’s. Paw swipes from the lion will do shit to the bear. The bear will come victorious 8/10 times. And if it were against a Kodiak, the lion will be slaughtered... They used to fight bulls with bears all of the time. The bear usually always won, so they decided to use a lion against the bear. The lion used its explosive speed; yet, the bear killed the lion, almost as easily as it killed the bull. They always used to pit the two together, and the bear always won against the lion. If a Bengal tiger can kill a lion, then why can't a grizzly kill a lion? Siberian brown bears, which are the same size as grizzly kill the larger Siberian tiger, more than the tiger kills them. What are you going to say next? A single male lion can kill a fully grown male Cape buffalo? Lol, even a lion pride struggles against a cape buffalo cow, so I don't think it's plausible to think so. Don’t think lions are invincible. Even on land, a 5+ meter salt water crocodile can kill a lion. I could understand if the lion stalked the croc, but in a head on battle, all the croc has to do is lunge (yes, crocodiles can lunge fairly far, even on land) and grasp the lion's neck, then do the death role. A lion only has a bite force equivalent to that of a wolf (700PSI). A grizzly bear has a bite force as much has a gorilla (1300PSI) One bite to the lion's neck can kill it and a bite to the limb can cripple it, not allowing it to use it's agility any longer. I could see that you think lions the most invincible animals, when there are many animals, including bears, who can out-top them in strength and kill capacity. Tigers have a bite much stronger than that of a lion. Bengal tigers have a bite of about 1200PSI, which allows the tiger to take down mid-size crocs, by biting through the thick plating on the crocodile. A lion’s bite is 500lbs less than that of a Bengal tiger. So the croc case is pretty much covered there, however, a mid sized croc, against a Bengal tiger is a still a 50/50 chance.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 3:58 PM by MrAlien123456
Ted, the bear wasn`t a cinnamon bear...that was merely a description of his was actually a brown bear, not black. Besides, i don`t ever remember black bears being called cinnamon bears, as no bear is actually called that. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:27 PM by damon
ATTIAL, i agree with Oliver on this one....grizzly bears do not commonly reach 800 some studies, even the largest individuals have not reached such masses. I`m not doubting that they can reach such weights, but, it is not 'normal'. 
Likewise, Ted, you cannot merely compare the weight of bears during the salmon there weight fluctuates through the months....i better weight figure, or more appropriately, an 'unbiased' average, should be taken from a large number of bears, weighed throughout the year, rather than at a specific time of the year, as well as the fact both young adult, as well as old specimens are weighed. Most documents where bears have reached large average suizes are usually age-specific, in that bears at a specific age, such as 13, when they are at their largest mass, was recorded, which gives biased results.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:32 PM by damon
MrAlien123456, i have actual, scientific documents to prove my statements....studies indicate the bone density of the lion is particularly great, and more so than that of the lion. Actually, the thickness of the bones of the lion and brown bear is about equal, however, the lion, due to low bone marrow and numerous hard matter, has denser bones than that of the bear. 
And, do you not think the strike from a lion is not just as devastating as that of a bear`s?....a lion has the strength of roughly 10 adult men.....there are records of lions killing dogs with but a small movement of their paws, a consequence of their immensely dense bone structure. Likewise, there bones are so hard, it has been known to strike fire with steel, literally.  
and, i have records of lions killing crocs, in fact, in some areas, it is a regular occurence, There is not a single document of lions being killed on land by crocs....However, lions have killed crocs. 
Also, bite force is measured in lbs, not PSI, which is significantly different. The wolf`s bite, as measured by Brady barr, was 406 lbs, not lbs per square in. And, if you don`t know the difference between lbs, and PSI, i`ll explain it. Basically, lbs is measured by the amount of mass, or weight, an object exerts. PSI is measured by the force, or pressure an object makes, over a small plane of area, such as Lbs per square in. In other words, it is measuring lbs, for every square inch of measurement. A bear does not have a more powerful bite than that of the lion....studies by Steven Wore indicate the bite force of the big cats would be greater, and he is the more respected source on this subject. 
Also, i did not state that cats have great stamina....they don`t. What i was referring to, was that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy which they can administer, in such a short span of time, and vigorously, and there is a study, by george washington crile, that directly relates to this, and it shows the lion, of all other large mammals compared, can execute a more effective immediate attack. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 5:46 PM by damon
A lion's arm isn't as strong as a bear's A bear has more strength in their arms than a lion. That is why a bear cub managed to move a 70kg boulder that a human adult male couldn't. Big cat's has stronger legs than those of a bear, however, bears have stronger forelimbs than those of big cats. And Damon, there are different color varieties of black bear. Ranging from pure black on the east coast, to almost blue on the west coast. There is such thing as a cinnamon colored black bear. Look them up....... They are not subspecies of the black bear; just merely different color morphs of the American black bear.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 6:29 PM by MrAlien123456 
Talks about how lions and bears always were cage fought during the California gold rush and how bears always killed the lions with their forelimbs before the fight even got serious. 
Here's another site that talks about the advantages of a grizzly bear over a lion and/or tiger. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 6:51 PM by MrAlien123456 
This story shows how a lone crocodile on land, died, yet managed put up a fight against a whole lion pride. This whole thing took place on land, while a lion pride and a crocodile both had the same goal in mind: try to steal al leopard kill. The crocodile managed to fend off the whole lion pride and escape, succumbing to his wounds 100m away from the battle.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 7:04 PM by MrAlien123456  
Here's a picture if you can't take the thruth, Damon. The body and face look quite different from an actual Brown bear.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 7:51 PM by Mralien123456 
Looks quite different from the picture I posted, besides the color.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 7:54 PM by MrAlien123456
"Lions have been weighed more frequently." You Lion apologists are full of shit! There are hardly enough Lions in the wild to weigh.  
Lions: 400-550Lbs. FLAWED! This is an estimate and you do not accept estimates. The Big Bears will destroy them! 
Oliver, Stouffer was exposed by his own camera crew & saff. He made a plea Bargain and the end result was the cancelation of his shows. His videos are bogus! 
As for your video; you can hear Stouffer narrating the event. What a joke! 
The Kodiak,Alaskan Brown,Grizzly,Polar Bears dominate any lion, any time. 
Even a Grizzly of the same weight will kill a Lion in a fight to the death. 
Oliver & Damon, your bone density and bite force ESTIMATES are more bullshit. 
Your comments are no longer worth responding to! 
Big Bears 8/9 
Big Lions 1/2 with a lot of luck. 
Enough with the misinformation! 
Deal with it; Big Bears rule! 
I gave you real experts; real answers! 
Next: My money is on the T-Rex LOL... 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:08 PM by Ted
Ted, i did not mention any bone density estimates....they are based upon actual studies of the density of the bones of these animals...and, i can show you, if you want? 
Likewise, many documents exist of the body mass of lions, from Smithers and wilson, from G.L smuts, Brain Bertram, Hu berry, and many fact, i have every modern document published upon the subject......and, i can show you those records as well. 
And, did you actually read my post when i stated that the 'comment' cinnamon bear, in that lion vs bear account, was talking of his color, and not the species, as no bear is called a cinnamon bear.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:15 PM by damon
Also, MrAlien, i already know what a grizzly and black bear looks was the point in showing me that pic?.....just to show me something i already knew?..
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:17 PM by damon
Because you said there was no such thing as a Cinamon black bear, which isn't true, so I just wanted to point out your flaw.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:24 PM by MrAlien123456
Cinnamon bear is indeed a subspecies of Black bear. 
Grizzlies only got their name due to their fur; Kodiaks,Alaskan Browns, Inland Grizzlies for the most part have the same grizzeled fur. 
I don't have a problem with documentation, but it seems every expert I put forth Oliver discounts. 
If we are going to use experts it must be equal across the board. No double standards!
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:28 PM by Ted
Ted, the cinnamon bear term was an old name given for black bears, but, it was not a scientific one. Likewise, it is no longer used, and the account i called did not state that bear was a cinnamon this case, it was referring to the bear`s color. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:42 PM by damon
Now you are on tricky ground! For instance, when we talk scientific classification that adds a whole new dimenssion with regards to Bear species/subspecies. Cinnamon Bears are still considered by many to be part of the Black Bear species; not seperate. 
With that train of thought we could use the same for "Grizzly" due to color and more importantly fur. 
If you ever saw a Kodiak, Alaskan Coastal Brown or Grizzly you would not be able to tell the difference except for size and minor differences. Grizzlies can be Silver tipped, and very often Brown Bear tipped. 
The account you gave was from the early 1900s so I doubt biologistis had made such a seperation.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:03 PM by Ted
Ursus americanus cinnamomum is the cinnamon bear's scientific name. Ursus americanus is the scientific name for American black bears. It lives in the western parts of the US.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 9:15 PM by Mralien123456
Thanks for your willingness to research Cinnamon bears; as you can see there is a lot of misimformation going on here.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:19 PM by Ted
Ted, clearly, you misunderstood my last post. The account i showed, when it mentioned the word 'cinnamon', was referring to the color of the bear, and not the species, whether it was used during that time, or not. Even though black bears usually come in a variety of colors, it`s few that`ll be cinnamon in color. 
Also, name one scientific source which quotes a specific bear species as being a cinnamon bear...and, i`m not talking about some website, but an actual published document, from a scholarly journal, or some other type of publishing company. 
And yes, indeed, the fur of certain brown bears can indeed be similar, and indeed they are so much alike i doubt they are actually a separate subgroup....color of the fur is not enough to determine this. But, according to most, there are other differences, and, i personally have been able to tell certain groups of bears apart.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:22 PM by damon
It's considered a true black bear subspecies that lives in the Western parts of North America. It's on the list of current black bear subspecies. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:43 PM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, those sources merely referenced an old term, but, i doubt they actually use the figure. It was discarded long ago.
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 10:46 PM by damon
If it was a term discarded long ago, then tell me, why do I see it all over the web? So, I'm also guessing you'll list the Spirit bear (U. a. kermodei) as a mere color morph too? Because it's considered a whole subspecies of black bear on the IUCN Red List Organization. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:30 PM by MrAlien123456
First, just because you "DOUBT" has little significance to the research MrAlien and I have done regarding the Cinnamon Bear. 
Second, as for source: The site you asked me to look up in regard to a Lion killing a Grizzly bear is the one that stated Cinnamon Bear LOL.. 
A Cinnamon bear is no match for a Kodiak/Alaskan Brown/Grizzly. For starters they lack the giant muscular hump on their shoulders. 
Damon, You state, "I personally have been able to tell certain groups of bear apart." 
Damon, do you mean groups or species? Big difference between the two.  
Also, with your comment I assume you have been either to Alaska, Canada or the Lower 48 states to observe these animals in the wild. If so you would know a Cinnamon Bear does not have the giant muscle (hump) on it's shoulder/back. However, Kodiaks/Alaskan Coastal Brown & Grizzlies do. 
So Damon, where were you when you differentiated these distinct species of bear? 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:39 PM by Ted
Ted, whatever do you mean there are about 20, 000 - 40, 000 sub saharan lions left in the world you aren't thinking of the asiatic lion by any chance are you? Because that lion only has a population of roughly 300 in the wild left. 
Of course lions have been weighed more frequently, they were hunted and studied for centuries until new laws were put in to protect them, and far more frequently than any bear especially the kodiak bear whos weights are mainly estimates. 
400 - 550 lbs is an average range, not an estimate given by many sources. 
Again, allegations were made by his staff, but no reports were made of any cougar and bear shots, plus he was prosecuted for something completely different. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:42 PM by Oliver
Hm damon as far as I know I have only been able to find a very limited source number on cinnamon bears it stated they were a subspecies of black bear. 
Would you mind giving me those accounts again?
Posted @ Sunday, October 18, 2009 11:47 PM by Oliver
Mralien, most sites mentioning the name 'cinnamon bear' is most likely not made by an expert, particularly one in the field, as the cinnamon bear is not really a separate subspecies of black bear...merely pigmentation is different, and also not enough to determine if they are a separate subspecies or not, as that is far too small a difference. 
And, the IUCN mentioning the cinnamon bear doesn`t mean it`s a common phrase, or even that it is used. Merely, for scientific purposes. I`ve seen a great MANY scientific documents upon bears, and not one distinguishing between the american black bear, and the cinnamon bear. merely, both, being basically the same animal, are most preferably called the black bear. 
And, i didn`t mention anything about any color morph...i merely stated that that account i showed, of the lion killing the bear was not talking of the species of bear when it said 'cinnamon', but merely the color of the animal in question.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 12:03 AM by damon
Ted, for one thing, the account i showed you did say cinnamon, but AGAIN, it was referring to the COLOR of the bear, in that instance, and not the species. It was saying the bear was cinnamon colored, in other words. 
And, i meant groups, not species, as it is relatively easy to tell different species of bears apart.... 
and yes, i do indeed know the cinnamon bear, being a species of the black subgroup, does not have a hump. And no, i have not been to those places you mentioned....don`t need to. i`ve seen enough pics and documentaries, as well as accurate studies upon this subject, to trust my judgement in determining a specific subgroup of bears, or species. 
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 12:08 AM by damon
Oliver, sure, here is the accounts;
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 12:12 AM by damon
Can anyone tell me how much does this lion and bear weigh?...and also, which one is bigger?;
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 12:20 AM by damon
And, as for more proof that bear in the account i showed wasn`t a 'cinnamon bear', it described the bear as being a 'russian' bear, which are brown bears, as it states 'The lion baltimore and a valueable russian bear had a fight to the death'.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 12:34 AM by damon
I'm pretty sure this is you posting this information, Damon....... LOL! I cannot believe this either. A lion cannot instantly kill a bear. Unless it were a young, inexperienced cub. And also, it doesn't say ANYWHERE that this was a mature, OR A MALE Polar bear. Please give me a reason to believe that it was a mature, male Polar bear? Otherwise, it's just as valid as any of the other commenter statements..... A mature male polar bear would’ve smacked the lion silly, as stated a couple of comments ago……
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 12:36 AM by MrAlien123456
There was another variation of that same fight, Mralien, posted by this guy named apollyon from the AVA forums, and, the bear was claimed as being a male....i`ll try and find it...found it, even though the name of the lion is different, it appears, at least, that is what apollyon suggested, that this may be the same fight, though i may be wrong. Likewise, it should be known that most usually, only adult specimens are used to perform in a circus. But, here is the account; 
Fierce Struggle between a Nubian Lion and a Polar Bear, In Which The Former Won. A furious right to a finish between a  
fierce Nubian lion and a monster Polar bear took at -Mundy's An-  
.ritual Show, in. Jacksonville. Fla. The  
bear -was badly beaten. 'but everybody  
admitted. that he had made a  
splendid fight. "Both beasts were absolutely  
game all the way through.  
The lion carried on the fight under  
considerable difficulties, as toward the  
close the keepers were shooting him  
and jabbing him with redhot irons  
The bear owed his defeat to his weakness*  
in offensive tactics. In. strength,  
weight and endurance he was fully  
equal to his opponent.  
.The fight naturally divided itself  
Into rounds, ' although, of course, no  
time rule was observed. After a fierce  
bout the monsters would rest for a few  
moments and then go at It again. The  
fight lasted ten rounds.  
The Polar bear had angered the lion  
in some way. possibly by his color or  
his cold and reserved manner. The  
keepers were first aware of the. trouble  
when the lion smashed, the partition  
of iron bars that separated him from  
the bear.  
The lion is a magnificent beast, 6  
years old which Is the prime of life In  
his family. He has a very thick mane  
and a horrid roar. When- he roars he  
turns up his nose and his upper lip  
and displays two rows of glistening  
fangs. Ho weighs 600 pounds. The  
name Roosevelt was given him because  
he was so fierce and handsome. The  
Polar bear is an equally fine specimen  
of his family. Ho tramps around  
his cage all day in a restless manner,  
but rarely utters a sound. He weighs  
600 pounds. Ho Is called Peary, in honor  
of the Arctic explorer.  
Roosevelt started the fighting by  
landing with the -left part- on. Bruin's  
right shoulder. Owing to the enormously  
thick fur on the bear the blow  
did l i t t l e damage, although the fur  
flew. Peary showed a desire to get to  
close quarters. Roosevelt preferred to  
use his agile feet, delivering quick, vicious  
'blows and hopping aside; with  
lightning Quickness. the first round  
was principally open fighting of this  
kind. Peary losing much fur.  
In the second round Roosevelt landed  
heavily on Peary's nose-, knocking  
off a considerable portion of It. Peary  
seemed groggy, and Roosevelt seized  
the opportunity to throw in a dozen  
blows. Peary, however, had  
plenty of stamina. -He backed up  
against the bars and rose on his: hind  
legs. When Roosevelt leaped at his  
throat ho caught the lion a fearful  
on the side of his head, knocking him  
to the floor with a great thud  
both then needed a rest.  
In the third round Roosevelt went at  
once for Peary's Injured nose. The  
latter, however, dodged cleverly. While  
Roosevelt 'was rushing past Peary the  
l a t t e r squeezed him against the bars  
and began clawing,' and chewing at his  
relatively uncovered hind quarters.  
Roosevelt was unable to hit back effectively  
but finally succeeded In  
dragging himself away, uttering fearful  
howls and roars as he did so.  
Roosevelt opened the fourth round  
In a sensational' manner by leaping  
high into the air and landing- on  
Peary's back. This worried the rather  
Slow bear, and Roosevelt was left at  
liberty to dig into his back for some  
seconds. By a terrific effort Peary threw  
Roosevelt sideways off his back, so  
t h a t the lion- landed on the floor with  
a great crush.  
The -proprietor of the show and all  
the keepers were now around the cage  
doing what they could to separate the  
fighters. The owner realized, that every  
time the lion landed on the bear  
he knocked $50 worth, of value off him,  
not to speak of the possibility that  
both might be killed. Ac first the keepers  
tried long- poles and iron rods on  
the raging beasts, hut both were utterly  
disregarded. They smashed the  
poles like matches und knocked the  
iron rods back so that the men holding  
them were Injured.  
In the fifth round the lion appeared  
A little groggy as the result of his furious  
and breathless fighting. He panted  
heavily and trembled as he hit out  
at Peary. The latter pressed his opponent  
steadily. He tore large patches  
of skin from his body and seemed very  
nearly victor. .Suddenly the lion roused  
himself and gave the bear a fearful  
blow on his already much damaged  
nose. Peary stepped back. That was  
the signal 'for a brief return, to their  
The lion, began hostilities in the  
sixth* round by fixing his teeth In  
Peary's left hind leg. The bear tried to  
shake him off but the Lion held on like;  
Ono of the keepers here- intervened  
by jabbing a red hot iron against the  
lion's muzzle. A fearful stench of  
burning flesh and hair filled the air.  
The lion was at last compelled to let  
go of the bear. he jumped back snarl-  
ing horribly at the human intruder.  
The bear seized the opportunity to  
throw himself on the lion and bury his  
teeth in the latter's back. The keeper  
then turned the Iron on the bear and  
the fight was- stopped fop a few moments,  
Roosevelt quickly recovered from the  
weakness he had shown and began the  
seventh round -with a great rush. He  
tore Peary's coat until be was nothing  
but a shapeless mass of bloody tattered  
fur. "The unfortunate- bear tried  
to hug the lion. thinking no doubt,  
that would stop his Jabs, but the. lion  
did not care for this method of fighting.  
Peary rose up on his hind legs  
and Roosevelt dealt him a right paw  
smash that tore most of the fur off his  
chest. " -  
The two fighters danced around and  
rolled 'over one another so rapidly  
that the keepers were unable for the  
time to make any attempt to separate  
The ninth round began -with both  
fighters groggy, but still 1n the ring-  
The lion, had had his right paw bitten  
through. His mane was nearly all torn  
away. His back and hind quarters  
, were badly damaged. His left leg was  
nearly useless. He could not see out of  
his right eye  
The bear was much more badly off  
There was not a space on him as large as  
A man's hand that was not torn and  
Bloody His head was in such a  
deplorable condition that his nose and  
eyes were unrecognizable. All his paws  
were bitten through. His back was  
literally ploughed by the lion's claws.  
still, they kept on fighting. They  
growled, roared. shrieked, moaned and  
splattered as they did so.  
The bear now accomplished what he  
had been trying all along to do. He got  
a fair grip. But this move proved after  
all to be Peary's ruin The bear hugged  
the lion until the by-standers could  
hear the feline lighter's bones creak  
and groan. The lion- gasped almost  
breathless, but still he managed to get  
teeth into the under side of the  
bear's .throat, one of the most vulnerable  
parts of his body.  
In the death embrace the tenth  
round was fought out. The bear kept  
on squeezing the lion kept on. gripping  
with his teeth. The throat grip was  
more than the bear could stand. slowly  
he relaxed his grip an-d sank on his  
Back beaten and half dead.  
The lion stood over him snarling as  
if he meant to eat him. At this moment  
a courageous Keeper stepped up  
and smote Roosevelt between the eyes  
with-an iron bar. He then seemed to  
think he had had enough and dragged  
himself back to his cage quietly, where  
he was "barred In.  
The circus men secured the animals  
with ropes, and four veterinary surgeons  
set to work on their  
wounds. They bound them up with  
antiseptic dressings wherever they  
could and in other places used largo  
strips of plaster.  
The lion will probably recover, but  
The condition of the bear is desperate.  
......there you go.  
And, if you don`t believe i had gotten the fight from apollyon, you can ask him here; 
He`s the admin at AVA. 
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 12:49 AM by damon
Have you ever considered that the bear was near overheating, in a fight like that? The Polar bear's coat already keeps the Polar bear's body temperature almost 100 degrees. Fighting in a war room like that can cause the bear to overheat, so I don't think it's fair at all, to the bear. A Polar bear can overheat in room temperature as well. Considering that there were "10 rounds" to this fight, I wouldn't be surprised if the bear started to go grow desperate in the fight BECAUSE, of the environmental condition inside the room. A bear that's overheated will start to lose coordination and start to not be able to put its full strength to use. That's why the bear got the upper-hand first, and later on, he started to lose it. Keepers usually keep Polar bears under air conditioning and speci8al ventilation so the bears won’t overheat. For Pete’s sake, they have almost 4” of blubber on them. How do expect them not to overheat in a fight? Laos, you have to acknowledge that Polar bears DO NOT, shed their coats in the summer, so there’s no difference between a winter and summer coat. Due to the bear possibly being impaired from overheating during the fight, and the lion being more agile, he couldn’t keep up as much with the lion. Otherwise, the bear out-powers the lion in body strength. A lion wouldn’t be able to make a Polar bears bones crack by death gripping him. This shows that a Polar bear is stronger than the lion. The reason the lion won is because he was more agile than the bear, and also, that the bear had so much layering on him, he got overheated, later into the fight. He couldn’t fight well anymore. Considering that the average temperature in the Arctic, is like room temperature to a Polar bear, because of so much insulation. An overheated bear is just as good as an uncoordinated, tired one. And considering bears don’t have functioning sweat glands all around their body, you can’t prove that the bear WASN’T overheating during the fight.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 1:40 AM by MrAlien123456
mralien, on one of the records given it says 'in the winter quarters of the hagenbeck and wallace shows yesterday afternoon, brutus, a large lion killed a polar bear'.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 1:57 AM by Oliver
Yes, but it never said how old and the sex of the Polar bear, so there you go. In this fight, with Roosevelt and Peary it did, yet it was in a room, not in a "winter quarters". For all we know, the fight with Brutus could've have been a small, or young and inexperienced Polar bear, or it was just old, and unable to fight as well as it did when it was younger.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 2:02 AM by MrAlien123456
wow, no offence mralien, but it seems you're just finding any excuse not to believe it now... But it doesn't matter personally I think you, like many people on this forum are either seriously overestimating the strength of a bear, or seriously underestimating the strength of a lion. 
Oh also damon, I don't like apollyons account, 'black maned' doesn't seem like a nubian lion, it seems to be describing a cape lion.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 8:35 AM by Oliver
I don't blame you for NOT believing this nonsense. 
A 600Lb. Lion vs. A 600LB. Polar Bear! What crap! Male Polar Bears average 1100-1200Lbs. 
YUKU.COM is no more reliable then the site we are on. More Misinformation! 
We have covered "Brutus the Lion" who supposedly snuck into the Polar Bear's cage and killed it. The bear was young & probably asleep LOL.. 
Even "Big Cat Expert" John Silva stated the Bears we have discussed Kodiak/Alaskan Brown/Grizzly/Polar Bear would defeat the lion. Oliver did not like Silva's response so he discounted the EXPERT'S answer. 
I guess the info on Bears killing Lions in arranged fights in Mexico & California are to be disbelieved while stories of Brutus the Lion are to be taken as gospel. What a joke! 
Cinnamon Bear: Just more misinformation! One thing is for sure; that Cinnamon bear was no Kodiak/Alaskan Brown/Grizzly. 
Marty Stouffer: A PROVEN FRAUD! 
As for Weight: You are deperate! 
You continue to argue that a Lion & Kodiak/Alaskan Brown/Grizzly are close in size and weight. PURE NONSENSE! As I said before, the Lion can only look up and wish! 
EXPERTS disagree with you 100% of the time in regard to weight. 
Also all the experts I have read and contacted say the Bear would win all the time.  
I have posted more than enough of my sorces that any of you can google. No need to repost! 
Big Bears 10 
Big Lions 0 :) 
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 12:56 PM by Ted
More of your information: 
African Population in the wild! 
ESTIMATE: 16,500 - 30,000 
Average: 23,000 
Study:(2004-2005, Bauer) 
That is 50% lower than your estimates.  
Heck there are more wild Alaskan Brown/Grizzlies just in Alaska then wild Lions in the entire world. 
Also: Another double standard! 
Why is it fair to trust Lion hunters but not Bear hunters in regard to weight of the kill???? 
Grizzly Bears have been hunted more than Lions throughout the centuries. Almost to near extinction in the Lower 48 states. Imagine the GIANT MALE GRIZZLIES roaming the land if they had not been taken as trophies! 
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 1:24 PM by Ted
I think you guys met your match, or rather the lion has in a Grizzly encounter. Grizzly's have much larger skulls, Kodiaks and polar bears even larger as well as brown bears, all are too much for a lion-way too much. In fact, bears and canids ruled the earth in thier day, not felines. Everyone thinks the sabertooth tiger was the baddest-it wasn't and its 2 big teeth were susceptable to breaking quite easily-bear dogs, hyenadon,short-face bear and the entelodon(Hell pig who later evolved to be the larger terminator pig)were the baddest things to have walked the planet-more viscious than t-rex(although different time period)and they walked the earth unchallenged stealing kills from sabertooth and the ancient lions or killing them mercilessly. Although this has nought to do with present animals it does show that bears dominate wherever they live-if they lived in africa, they would dominate that continent as well, I have no doubt about that. 
I'm with you Ted, bears rule this battle as they have in the past-and that fight that was posted of the lion vs the polar bear-600 lbs?! Are you kidding me? Thats a small polar bear, but still, thats one in ten chance of victory for the lion, and that was the one! There are also credible accounts of Grizzly's just mauling the hell out of lions and killing them or mortally wounding them. Even a black bear is capable of killing a lion-don't ever underestimate the black bear, they are smarter as well than a feline. 
You're right Ted, they are hunted and I wish Bears lions wolves and tigers would just be allowed to multiply without human interference or persecution-it all amounts to fear of them is why trophy hunting or just plain shooting them has taken place, a real shame and a loss for us everywhere. Another reason is due to the chinese belief of the bears liver being phenomenal for medicinal purposes which has never been proven correct-same as some tiger parts as well. This hunting of bears (and wolves)in America is probably directly responsible for the explosion in the deer population-I have hit a couple so far!! 
Anyways, I think the Bear would win, nothing will change my mind since I've studied them, seen them and met one, talked with key people and nothing I've learned tells me the big bears(4 species) will lose to a lion. A black bear is an even match for a lion in my opinion-they are far more dangerous than you think! 
Final score: 
Bears 8 or 9 
Lion: 1 or 2 
Thank you all for your inputs and opinions, we all know where we stand.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 5:20 PM by ATTILA
Exactly Attila. Bears are the STRONGEST land Carnivorans (order which the animal is in) pound for pound. Some people don't get that bears overpower felines in arm strength, bone durability, and upper-body strength. Cats have stronger legs than bears, but that and their agility is pretty much the advantages they have over a bear. Also, the thing what Ted said about the bear in the enclosure that got killed easily? I cannot imagine a lion being apt to even mortally wounding a Polar bear. So it was most definitely sleeping in the enclosure that the lion SNUCK into. So I agree with Ted on this one as well. I cannot imagine a lion killing a Polar bear that quickly, even at a small weight like that. Because bears, once again, have been proven, to be the strongest LAND CARNIVORE POUND FOR POUND. And all of the experts will agree, like John Silva as stated before, who is an EXPERT on big cats. And, you’re telling me that a Polar bear, that has been known to solo-kill Bull Walruses and Narwhals, cannot kill a lion, which has trouble killing prey items twice it’s size? And Atilla is correct about bears always being put up against lions and slaughtering them. This was during the California Gold Rush. They shipped in lions from Africa, and pitted them with GRIZZLY BEARS. The bears would always kill the lions, as easily as the bears killed the bulls. The pitted both, lions and bulls against grizzly bears. Guess who won? The bears, always…. However, I do not believe in these inhumane practices. I don’t like the thought of fighting animals in the first place, unless it’s actually in the wild, where the hunt them for food, or territorial disputes. Those are interesting. The cage fighting isn’t, though.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 7:09 PM by MrAlien123456
Oliver & Damon, 
As Lion Lovers I bet you can do a lot more to help ensure their survival in the wild then continuing this game of Big Bear vs. Big Lion. 
I am not trying to be a wise ass! Have you two looked into the efforts for preservation of the great African Lion? 
I only ask because for months you two have been on this site explaining how Lions can defeat Bears. 
I have put a lot more effort into petitioning the Federal Government & Alaskan Wildlife for stronger restrictions against Bear hunting, and heavier penalties in regard to illegal poaching, then arguing over Bears vs. Lions.  
It would be nice for our children/grandchildren or just humans in general to enjoy these great animals for generations to come. 
Well you all know where I stand: 
Big Bears 0 
Big Lions 0 
Take care to all you guys who made it interesting! Time for me to move on and look for T-Rex arguments LOL...
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 8:19 PM by Ted
LoL, yeah. I actually donated to BCR (Big Cat Rescue) before ($1000 from my Bar Mitzvah that I had over two years ago). And I will donate again; however, I don't have the largest amount of money, as I'm only middle class, so I could only donate so much at one time. I also donated some of my Bar Mitzvah money to other animal rescue organizations, making the total amount of donation money $4000. Unfortunately, my parents still have control over my bank account, since I’m only 15, and they want the rest to help out my college fund a bit. It’s not a lot of money for college; however, it still can make a difference. I have an extra $15,000 dollars, untouchable for my use, in my bank account. My parents are willing to send me to a good school.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 9:22 PM by MrAlien123456
15 and I have calling you Mr. LOL... Good one!
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 9:52 PM by Ted
LOL yea. The reason I keep using this name is because I used to have a YouTube account named MrAlien123456 that was almost a partner, but got banned. >.<
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 9:56 PM by MrAlien123456
I do agree with the emphasis on the polar bear's overheating, but poor Peary lost the fight mainly because he did not manage to prevent the lion from getting a throat grip; otherwise, he could have broken the lion's ribs, which would have probably ended the fight. I think this may have been incidental, since bears usually know very well how to counter an opponent's jaws with their own. Nevertheless, the description of the fight does show that the lion's agility and aggressive spirit was a definite advantage. The bear probably would not have started a fight with the lion without some really important reason. This is why I doubt if bears and/or bear-dogs were really responsible for the extinction of any big cat.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 11:36 PM by Balazs
Oliver, any subgroup of lions can have a black mane, especially in captivity. Likewise, all lion subgroups are basically the same animal....even most experts state this.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 11:37 PM by damon
Mralien, you are wrong, bears are not lb for lb stronger than lions, and there is no data in proof of this. In fact, in actual records, the felines have been shown to have the greatest percentage of muscle mass, and, in one study, the lion had the largest muscle mass of all, in a study concerning the muscle percentage of 40 other species of mammals.
Posted @ Monday, October 19, 2009 11:52 PM by damon
To MrAlien: 
Let me point out that killing a bull walrus on land would be incomparably easier for a polar bear than killing a lion. Even a hippo looks quite clumsy if the lions attack it on land and leap on its back, though hippos can move very fast, and they can kill a lion with a single bite. But hippos are still much more mobile on land than walruses.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:19 AM by Balazs
Are you kidding me, Damon? Every expert I asked on AllExperts pointed out that bears are the strongest land Carnivore, pound for pound. Lions have agility and stronger back limbs on their side, but that's it. Even John Silva, who studies big cats more than anything, else, said that bears are stronger pound for pound. I know you're making up shit now. That's how a lion can kil a male black bear; not with strength alone, but with agility. Otherwise, if the lion had the same reflexes as a bear, it would be the other way around.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:43 AM by MrAlien123456
Also, I would like to point out that mustelids can be compared to cats in similar strength/body ratios. Wolverines have been known to kill lynxes larger than them a lot more than lynxes kill wolverines. If a wolverine were the size of a lion, it would be like a bear, with much faster reflexes, considering that wolverines are built like bears in the first place, but can also use their dagger sharp claws more effectively. They also have been PROVEN to have enough jaw strength to crush frozen flesh and bone up, off frozen carcasses, which makes it very efficient scavenger during the winter months. These advantages can also be used in battle, if the wolverine were the size of a lion.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:24 AM by MrAlien123456
There were more than one account of brutus killing a polar bear, one where he charged into the cage not 'snuck in', and the other when a polar bear and brutus were doing a show together and the polar bear brushed past the lion, so I'm not sure how you can say the polar bear was asleep again it sounds like you're doing everything you can not to believe it. 
Plus, you're still disregarding all the other accounts of the lions killing bears, one account states the lion took on the tiger and then the bear straight after. 
And read the account again ted, the bear was a russian brown bear, it even says at the beggining 'bear of the russian species'... 
Marty stouffer? They were allegations, but as I've repeatedly told you no cougar and bear scene were ever reported as being set up, you cannot train a bear to run away from a cougar. 
And don't be silly, lions are longer and taller than any brown bear, and very close to the grizzly bear in weight. 
As i've repeatedly told you I do not comment on the kodiaks weight so i'm not sure why you keep including kodiaks in your comparison, as most kodiaks weights are estimates. 
not really, I have quoted you a different expert from the same website that backs up almost everything i say.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:37 AM by Oliver
Also ted, estimates vary widely for the sub saharan lion but they tend to range inbetween 20 000 and 40 000, so your range would be 7000 lower not 50% lol. 
well, lions were actually weighed unlike the kodiaks who are estimated weights. 
Do you see the difference there? 
No, lions have been hunted far more than bears, a century or 2 ago lions had the largest population in the world besides humans, until they were repeatedly hunted for their manes and heads...  
well ted they were hunted because they were the most recognised animal in the world as they had gained the title of 'king amongst animals'
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:42 AM by Oliver
Bears are not pound for pound the strongest animal, actually I think that title goes to the clouded leopard. 
What you have to know is that a large bulk of the bears weight is due to fat and blubber, not muscle, and although I'm not denying their strength due to the conditions they live in they HAVE to pack on 100's of kgs of fat to survive, lions on the other hand have very little need for fat in the desert - like conditions which they live in.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:51 AM by Oliver
LOL, reading your last comment about lion populations........ How could you say they had the largest population in the world, besides humans? LOLZ! There were so many other species that had so much larger populations. Also, you never gave evidence of the other times Brutus killed Polar bears. Also, what are you talking about lions being taller than brown bears? LOLZ! Grizzly bears average 43 inches at the shoulder, and can get anywhere from 4-8 feet long. And I don’t just get these off the web. These "estimates" you say are from actual ANIMAL encyclopedia books. Not just one, but quite a few. They aren't very old either, so they're not off this time period. Male lions average at 37". Male lions average at 5-7 feet long, excluding the tail. Kodiak bears, on the other hand average 5-9 feet long. Polar bears average the same as Kodiaks, but are slightly lighter, in build.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:01 AM by MrAlien123456
Also, a bear's body mass is made up of 50-55% muscle, (slightly less than a lions, but they also require thicker bones, to carry all of their weight and to help them survive in the cold weather of the North) depending on the species. You think JUST because they look like fat lazy animals, that they are. I even got these off different TV documentaries over the years of watching Animal Planet and Discovery Channel. That’s how they can easily push over a boulder with ease. Do you think a lion can push over the boulders a bear can? No, because it lacks the upper body strength of a bear. Big cats are noted for their strong leg muscles. They have a strong upper body, but bears have a stronger upper body. I know a male lion or tiger can shatter an average man's ribcage, but a bear can do worse, because they have more upper-body strength. They need it when they spar and fight with other rival bears.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:08 AM by Mralien123456
Is this the bloody Polar bear named Peary, that was mentioend in the fight, because I Google searched it and I came up with this: 
I'm pretty sure a lion can kill that Polar bear, but not a fully grown male one.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:16 AM by MrAlien123456
Oh yes a mistake on my part what I meant to say was the lion had the largest population of large land mammals besides humans. 
male lions average 4 feet high at the shoulder and 7 - 8 feet long (excluding the tail)... bears may only reach 7 - 8 feet standing on their hind legs. 
apart from that brown bears are 3 - 4 ft at the shoulder and 5 - 6 feet long on all fours, however on their hind legs they can reach heights of 7 - 8 ft. 
listen... very-few-kodiak-bears-have-ever-been-actually-weighed-in-the-wild... therefore most weights are simply estimates.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:45 AM by Oliver
A lion and bears bone density are quite similar. 
I've never said they're fat lazy animals lol, they certainly aren't lazy... but they have to be fat to be able to survive, didn't you ever notice that the biggest bears only live in the coldest reigons of earth? 
well a bear has much concentrated muscle in his shoulders that's how he moves boulders, the arms muscle (apart from that of a polar bear), isn't as heafty as a lions whose muscle mass is spread out more evenly. 
also bears do not spar with rival bears very often only during salmon season, and even then they usually back down before any serious damage is caused. 
usually a lions claws are sharper too than the bears which are usually blunt.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:51 AM by Oliver
Oliver, Bears claws are more blunted than lions, but also much thicker and with that much stronger force (more powerful arms)behind them, they rip and rend flesh causing damage-even if it didn't penetrate, it would be like being slashed by a peice of rebar with a hydraulic arm swinging it-blunt incapacitates as well as sharpness, can cause severe damage. As the Grizzly almanac states, and countless biologists including Timothy Treadwell state, Grizzly's fight quite often, and since they live longer than lions, they fight far more often during their lives. They also fight over territory same as other animals do. There has been a kodiak weighed at over 2,500 lbs-thats a fact, and a polar bear at 2,200 lbs. A large polar bear killed was 11 ft tall when standing upright, not 7 or 8 ft-even brown bears are about 9 or 10 feet when standing upright. Grizzly's are 8-9 ft tall standing up.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:37 AM by ATTILA
grizzlies rip through flesh with their teeth, claws is a very unlikely thing. 
grizzly bears only fight during the salmon run and even then whenever possible they tend to avoid fighting, so in general the smaller bear will back down before any blows happen. 
lions on the other hand spend the first 2 years of their lives fighting and learning to fight, they are better practiced at it than bears and like to fight more wheras a bear does not generally like to fight. 
that does not make sense 'because they live longer they fight more', that isn't true at all, grizzlies only really come into any sort of conflict during the salmon run and even then don't fight much, a very old grizzly may have the same experience as a lion in his prime but they still generally tend to avoid fighting. 
lol... you're talking about record breaking brown bears and polar bears, the biggest sub saharan lion has also been lengthed at 11ft, I'm talking on average, and it's a fact that very few kodiaks have been weighed in the wild, and it's also a fact a lion is bigger in size than any bear apart from the polar bear. 
on average grizzlies are 7 ft standing on their hind legs and large males reach 8ft, polar bears range between 8 - 9ft standing on their hind legs.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:01 AM by Oliver
Mralien, the people of the allexperts website are far from experts in this matter....some are still in high school, and in fact, anyone could become a member. And, the site even states the info you get is not professional. 
And, here is the study i was referring to, and, it is from a scientific document, not merely some words, and it is from an actual study; 
There you go. 
And, you cannot merely estimate the strength of a bear`s or big cats arms, and say one is stronger than the other...especially if you have no data to support this view. I doubt bears, except those which are larger, are any stronger than lions or tigers. And indeed, i have found that most bears, excepting polar bears, are rather equal in size when compared with the biggest of the big cats, the lion and tiger.  
But, as you can see....i showed proof for what i stated...i also have data upon the muscle mass of a gorilla, an orangutan, and many other animals as well....and, no other mammals thus far have exceeded the muscle mass of the lion in scientific documents.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:13 AM by damon
Also, Mralien, when animals are scaled to a larger size, they are proportionately weaker, as, when you double the size of an animal or object, it`s weight increases 4 times greater than before, as it is now 2 as long, and twice as thick.  
A wolverine the size of a lion would be rather fact, i doubt it would even be able to move much at all....
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:17 AM by damon
Also, Oliver, lions average 9 - 9ft, 2 inches in total length including the tail, according to scientifically published documents on the sizes of these animals. The head and body length of the lion averages 6ft in length, not 8 or 9. That`s a myth, reported by someone who knows little about these animals...i have been in contact with many experts, as well as the fact i have every modern document published upon this subject, and even the longest lion on record did not have a body length of 8ft.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:20 AM by damon
Also, mralien, grizzly bears average 83 - 105 cm.....the upper limit of which is the average height of the african lion. Here is a document concerning the measurements of grizzly bears, including height; 
So, no, they do not average 43 inches.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 6:27 AM by damon
I didn't say 8 or 9, 7 - 8 ft is the average for a male sub saharan lion... the tail adds another 2 - 3ft so 9 - 10 foot in all is average. 
Of all the various documents I've read and a couple of emails from experts, this seems to indicate the average.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:06 AM by Oliver
Oliver & Damon, 
You two live in a "World according to Oliver & Damon." 
I think you two have watched the "Wizard of OZ" one time too many. Your parents need to restrict your TV privliages.  
Get out and enjoy life. Before you know it; all you will have is a head full of empty non-facts. 
Are you by any chance related to Marty Stouffer???? LOL...
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:53 AM by Ted
Now I know you are cluless! 
You state, Grizzlies rip through flesh with their teeth, claws is a very unliky thing." 
WHAT!!!!! LOL.... 
You have proven yourself to be quite ignorant as to the capability of Bear claws.  
I suggest you go pitch a tent in the "Bear Maze" at Katmai. October is a great month for this; get back to us with your dicovery. That is if you come back!
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:04 PM by Ted
I should not have taken such a harsh tone with you; for all I know you may be no more than 15 years of age LOL.. 
However, as I stated before, the difference between you and I is that I have actually seen Grizzly/Brown Bears fight in the wild. BIG DIFFERENCE! 
I wrote earlier on this crazy site that I witnessed at Katmai a bear with a 6-10 inch gash on it's side. The bear's flesh was RIPPED off by another bear's powerful paw with CLAWS attached LOL...  
Oliver, You don't know BEARS but you do know BULL! 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:27 PM by Ted
Lol, Damon, so you're telling me a grizzly bear has a shoulder height of 2.7 ft (83cm)? Maybe a small female grizzly, but that's not an average height, considering that female lions have a shoulder height similar to that. Brown bears have longer legs, in comparison to their body, than cats do. Cats have a long, slender body, while brown bears have longer legs. Polar bears have small legs in comparison to their body length, which is an exception.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:53 PM by MrAlien123456
Oliver, lion experts state each male lion has only about 12 fights in their lifetime-they don't fight more than bears who live longer do. While growing up, they also learn the skills to survive such as fighting, catching their own food, etc. Bears DO use tehir claws to rend flesh asunder AS WELL as their teeth. 
Well said, Ted! 
Dears are teh TRUE kings and polar bears are touted as "King of Carnivores"-at least on land in this planet! 
Oliver, Damon is correct on the lions length, I don't know where you're getting your "facts" from , but its not right-lions are around 6 ft long without the tail-NOT 8-9 ft without tail!
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:35 PM by ATTILA
Oliver, the body of the longest lion on record was but slightly longer (in head and body length) than 7ft, excluding the tail. The length of the lion`s tail, on average, is about ft, his head and body length being 6ft. Note i`m not guessing, as i have every modern document upon this subject. 
And site claiming 7 to 8 ft for the lion is an average length without the tail, obviously knows very little about the lion, to have come up with such a conclusion. and of course, estimates are not accurate.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:02 PM by damon
Ted, i don`t need any Tv privilages or mine taken, as i`m an adult. Likewise, i mentioned actual studies to prove my case..... 
also, Mralien, i said the height of the grizzly, and, i was talking of males, was 83 - 105 cm, on average......while the average height of lions is at the upper end of that range. And, here is the actual records of the measurements of grizzlies, including height; 
Do you see?..i have the records to prove my statements. 
And, attilla, which experts state that lions only fight 12 times in their lifetime?....that is completely untrue...throughout his life, a lion will have been through many a fight....23% of specimens die in fights with rivals, compared to 16% for grizzly bears, and it is common, according to schaller, for lions to have wounds suggestive of frequent fights between these animals. In fact, lions are the most combative of the big cats, sometimes willing to confront challengers even when they are outnumbered, 3 to one, according to studies by packer. 
And, Mralien, you also know nothing of the measurements of bears, as grizzlies actually have proportionately shorter legs, as compared with the big cats. Indeed, this is characteristic of all bears.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:10 PM by damon
Attila, brown bears have been shown to often get the best of polar bears, from actual studies, and indeed are the most aggressive of the bear species. So, brown bears are the king of bears....but, not of carnivores...that title belongs to the lion. 
Of course, a bear much larger would win, but then, that would be an oversized bear, with an unfair advantage.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:16 PM by damon
So you're telling me that bears have shorter legs, in comparison to their bodies? Then look at the skeletal structure of a lion and a cave bear and compare the two: 
This is a skeleton of a Cave Bear: 
This is a skeleton of a Lion:,skeleton-85c4989128ca49aa408d95aa5dd7ebe8_m.jpg 
So, you're telling me that bears have shorter legs, in comparison to their bodies than cats do? I don't see it...... A cheetah, serval, or lynx may have long legs, in comparison to their bodies, but not a lion. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:28 PM by MrAlien123456
Maybe the back limbs are shorter, but the shoulder height definitely is taller than a lion's even if I were to replace a cave bear with a brown bear. Only the Polar bear shows the characteristic of having short legs (both forelimbs and hind limbs), compared to their bodies.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:30 PM by Mralien123456
Mralien, we are not comparing skeletons, particularly of extinct bears, or sketches of a lion`s skeleton. here`s some real skeletons; 
Those are REAL skeletons, of existing animals.  
But, i showed ACTUAL records of the height of the grizzly bear, as AVERAGING 83 - 105 cm, the upper limit of which is the usual height of lions. Lions are normally taller.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:49 PM by damon
The relative muscle mass of a lion is indeed greater than that of a bear, but only because a substantial part of the lion's muscles are concentrated in their highly movable tail, whereas bears have only short and mostly inmmovable tails.:) Just kidding.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:59 PM by Balazs
Can I just show you some sights that are all about North American WILDLIFE Conservation, and their reports on Grizzlies?  
Look at page 3 and tell me what you see. 
The mean for all of the averages recorded from around the US was 487lbs, when I calculated all of those weights together, from different areas of North America. The heavier ones of Kodiak Island (312kg or 688lbs) and the Alaska Peninsula (357kg or 787lbs), which were their averages. The whole chart contains averages taken fro mall over the US. Not just in a single location. So I just got the mean of all of them. It came out to be 487lbs. Now, if we were to compare Sub-Saharan lions to the Alaskan Peninsula Grizzlies, the grizzlies would outweigh the lions by a lot. 
And READ "these bears lost about 32% (▒IO%) of their body weight. These resultsa 220-day period in four grizzly bears in the southern Yukon. Theseare comparable to those in a study of captive nonlactating (335 g/day)animals lost 28-43% of their fall mass during the denning period.and lactating (490 g/day) brown bears of similar mass (Farley and RobнDepending on availability and quality of spring forage, bears canbins 1995)." 
There you go. Averages taken from everywhere in North America show that grizzlies weigh more than male lions, even after their fat reserves are used up. That shows they have thicker bones, and more muscle mass. And keep in mind that they all were recorded losing 32% of their body weight, during the winter months. These weren't done on Kodiaks, just specifically grizzlies, as it was titled at the begginning of this whole field study. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:38 PM by MrAlien123456
Ah, shit, the last link got cut off. You'll have to click on it on your email inbox to get to the site.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:41 PM by MrAlien123456
Let's see if it gets cut off this time:  
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:43 PM by MrAlien123456
Oh, that's great. Well, just deal with going to your inbox and clicking it, instead of c/p onto the web browser.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 20, 2009 11:45 PM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, i already have those records of the weights of the grizzly bear. And, some are inconclusive, as some only gave records of the measurements of bears weighed only in the spring time, such as those records of alaska and nelchina bears, which would give biased results. 
Still others are limited (in some studies, only 10 specimens were weighed)or age specific......however, most of the reliable data i`ve come across, where specimens are weighed 'throughout' the year, rather than at a specific time of the month, and both young adults and old specimens are weighed as well, a more normal figure is given, and most weights varied from 190 222 kg...even then, some lion populations average 221.5, such as the lions measured by the kenya wildlife service, which is basically equal....don`t you think?...they are no larger.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:05 AM by damon
If the New York Times article about the fight between the lion Brutus and the polar bear is reliable (it appears so), the lion won because it managed to get a throat grip, at least for some time. Apparently the lion's canines reached the jugular or the windpipe, otherwise the bear would not have died so quickly. This is valuable information, because it shows that in a close-up fight, a big cat might manage to inflict such injuries on a bear that cause death in a shorter time than the combined effect of blood loss, mechanical trauma, etc. resulting from the bites and blows given to the cat by the bear. That is, a bear might win if (a) it manages to deliver a few really incapacitating blows before the start of close-up fighting, or (b) it manages to crush its opponent's ribcage during the close-up fighting before the cat gets a throat hold. Bears generally do better in a prolonged fight than big cats, but their bites usually do not kill as quickly and effectively as the latter. Only polar bears are primarily predators, and while their main prey, the seals, are killed mainly by a bite crushing their head, a seal's skull is quite fragile and easy to puncture or break.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:16 AM by Balazs
Just like you said, some lion populations averaged 221.5kg. The Alaskan and Kodiak Island grizzlies averaged more in weight. So in total, if you were to make an average of lions from all over both continents, you will get a higher average for grizzlies than for lions. Sure there were SOME populations that got to the mass of certain grizzly populations, but all in all, the results of every animal (Grizzly and lion) population of each continent, calculated to a mean, and showed that Grizzlies have a higher average mass. And don’t you think the calculations of the lions were just as accurate as the ones on the site I gave out? I’m pretty sure so.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:23 AM by MrAlien123456
Sorry, I meant to say: 
"So in total, if you were to make an average of lions **AND GRIZZLIES** from all over both continents, you will get a higher average for grizzlies than for lions."
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:31 AM by MrAlien123456
And still, you are comparing every lion subspecies to just populations of one subspecies of Brown Bear, which isn't even the largest one. That title belongs to the Kodiak. That's like comparing every subspecies of tiger to one lion subspecies.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:35 AM by MrAlien123456
I am trying to follow your logic! 
When addressing Atilla, (I am paraphraising), due to agression and conflicts you stated, Brown Bears are the king of bears, but not carnivors; that title belongs to Lions. 
What are you basing your conclusion on? 
Which Brown Bears? Kodiak/Alaskan Brown/Grizzly? As I have already mentioned Biologists/Zoologists have listed 80-90 subspecies of Brown Bear. I doubt a Grizzly from the lower 48 states, would in general, have the size to match a full grown Polar Bear. 
Conflicts? Yes the Kodiak/Alaskan Brown /Grizzly have reportedly gotten the better of Polar Bears. However, you mentioned (Often); your comment is flawed because there has only been RARE instances when these different Bears actually came into conflict with one another.  
No conclusive samples of evidence are reliable on encounters between these Bears. I have no clue who would dominate if "Big Browns" & "Polar Bears" encountered eachother on a more regular basis. However, the future will give us the answer due to changes in their habitates. 
Damon, Are you saying the Lion is KING of CARNIVORS because it is as LARGE as the BIG 4 BEARS;  
Kodiak/Alaskan Brown/Grizzly/Polar Bear? 
I don't think you're saying that but if you are; nonsense! 
The Lion probably gives up a minimal of 250Lbs. on average to Alaskan Coastal Browns; even more to Kodiaks & Polar Bears.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:51 AM by Ted
Also, the claws of Grizzly bears are quite useful in a fight, considering that a male has 4 inch long claws, while lion's have claws half that size. And it doesn't matter if the bear's claws are blunter. That didn’t stop them from ripping apart their human victims.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:02 AM by MrAlien123456
What was the date; 1909-1920s)? I saw it on the that Damon posted. The accounts I read differed! 
Brutus I believe caught the Polar Bear off guard while the bear was in it's cage, or being trained at the circus. I don't know that for a fact; does the N.Y. Times specify? 
I never heard of a trained Adult Male Polar Bear; they are too unpredictable to work with. 
Also is this the one where the Polar Bear weighed 600Lbs.; the same as the Lion? If so that was not a TRUE ADULT MALE POLAR BEAR! 
Also, there are accounts I've listed of a Kodiak/Alaskan Brown/Grizzly crushing the scull or spine of large prey such as Moose, Bull Bison, Elk & Spanish Bulls.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:07 AM by Ted 
Here's a report of a grizzly bear, named Samson, who killed a man-eating lion, named Parnell, during the California Gold Rush. The fight was so quick that the audience couldn't believe their eyes. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:19 AM by MrAlien123456
Yes MrAlien LOL... 
Some of us have been posting that for the past couple of months. 
Aslo, LOL... I just checked Lions Vs. Polar Bear and Interspecies conflict came up and the questioned was asked by none other than DAMON :). 
The expert basically told Damon the Polar Bear would kick the Lions ass & shit it out in the morning!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:28 AM by Ted
LOL. That sounds a little harsh, towards the lion's part. I have no grudge against big cats; however, Damon doesn't understand how capable bears are of killing big cats. It happens many times in Siberia, when Siberian tigers and Siberian brown bears face off. The win rate for the bear is 65-70%, if it's a male.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:37 AM by MrAlien123456 
I found the preview of the 2000 Grizzly Almanac, online. It's not the whole thing, but it's still useful, in some respect.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:44 AM by MrAlien123456
And I saw Damon's question as the first link, when I typed in Lion vs. Polar Bear. I think he really has it in for Polar bears. I mean, like they don't have it bad enough from Global Warming?
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:56 AM by MrAlien123456
the New York Times article is dated March 26, 1909. It can be found by Google, as many NYT articles are archived there. The polar bear weighting 600 pounds was the opponent of the lion Roosevelt, not Brutus. 
Brutus did attack the bear at least partly by surprise. Moreover, the article points out that the bear was a "newcomer" in the animal group, which means that it felt less confident than the lion whose attack may have been motivated not only by predatory but also by territorial instincts. On home ground, an animal would usually fight more boldly than on the territory of its opponent. I think this simple rule determined the outcome of many bull vs. bear fights. If the bear was waiting in the arena for the bull to come in, it often killed several bulls in succession, but when the bear Ramadan (the same one that fought the lion Parnell to a draw) entered the cage to fight the bull Panthera, the bull attacked first, which made the bear so surprised and disoriented that the bull gored it to death without too much difficulty.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:58 AM by Balazs
That Samson vs. Parnell story is fake. The bear that fought against Parnell was named Ramadan, and the battle was a draw. There is also a story about Samson that alleges that the bear dug a huge hole in the ground, then picked up the bull and threw it into the hole. No bear would ever do that, neither would have the spectators waited patiently until the bear finishes the earthwork job.:)
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:12 AM by Balazs
Mralien, you must did not read my post on those grizzly bear records, concerning eh body mass of these animals. All were not conclusive, for reasons i gave before. 
Grizzlies are no larger than lions.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:46 AM by damon
Balazs, that account of the lion vs polar bear is indeed real....there was a screen shot of that account, though i do not have it...i had gotten the account from a poster named apollyon, on the AVA forums. (he`s the admin).
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:02 AM by damon
As for the paw strength of big bears: I think it is definitely greater than that of lions, though it may be sometimes overestimated. For instance, bears do not necessarily kill bulls by breaking their skull, neck or spine by a single shattering blow. Some of the reliable accounts about bear-bull cage fights show that the bear's method was to grab the bull's head and twist its neck. I doubt if a lion can do that with a bull, though lions do occasionally break the neck of smaller animals in this manner.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:26 AM by Balazs
Ted and Atilla, 
It is not a bears fighting style to swipe and rip through flesh here is grizzly bears fighting, the bears hugs and throws: 
And so a bear will not usually rip through any flesh with his claws until he starts eating. 
Also Atilla, I don't know where you got that information from but like Damon said it is quite false... Perhaps you're confusing it with how many times a lion may defend his pride? 
And Ted I think balaz said it already but Roosevelt was the lion that killed the 600 lb polar bear, the 2 polar bears brutus killed, their weights were never specified.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:27 AM by Oliver
Damon that is untrue, I can show you a video of an average sized lion that is 7 foot, lions on average are 7 - 8 ft as a nose and body length... You want the video? 
Also a few experts from bigcatrescue have specified the lions head and body length being 7 - 8 foot.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:31 AM by Oliver
Yeah and damon, polar bears are the king amongst bears, The only records I've heard of is a grizzly sow chasing away 3 male polar bears who apparently showed extreme tolerance. 
but that aside, polar bears are simply too big for the brown bear, and seeing as though their fighting styles are somewhat similar I do doubt very much a grizzly would be able to get the better.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:35 AM by Oliver
Well, bear do tear with their claws, as many people who had their scalp ripped off could testify. True, some of the scalping was done by the bear's teeth, but the claws were also quite effective for that purpose. While bears can deliver a bigger blow than big cats, the latter's claws cause more extensive skin and muscle wounds.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:38 AM by Balazs
Oliver, unless that lion was actually measured within the video, then, it is not proof. Someone merely 'stating' the lion averages 7ft, without his tail, is giving an 'uneducated' guesstimate, as there is no studies in existence which indicates any such average. Trust me...a lion of that size would easy top 600 lbs on average. But, that is not the case.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 4:20 AM by damon
well damon the source actually comes from Nowak, Ronald M. (1999). Walker's Mammals of the World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 
It states the biggest lions are over 8 foot (8ft 2 inches to be precise). 
Here are some websites you may like to check out:
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:22 AM by Oliver
Damon and Oliver: 
I do not really understand what you are arguing about. It is a proven fact that the maximum size and weight of male polar bears or Kodiak bears considerably surpasses that of any lion or Siberian tiger. No lion would have a weight of 1.000 pounds, which is by no means impossible for a male polar or Kodiak. Instead of trying to find a brown bear subspecies whose average size would be comparable to that of the biggest lions, it would be far easier to agree, as I did in the very beginning, that "if the two animals were of roughly the same size and weight, then blah.. blah... blah, the bear would swing around that lion by the tail, etc."
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:34 AM by Balazs
Oliver, i`ve seen those records from Nowak, Ronald M, but, he did not state 7ft was an average body length, and indeed, as he used measurements from different sources, some of which were reliable, others dodgy, it is hard to find the greater of those records conclusive, as they seem extreme. TRust me when i tell you that a lion with a head and body length of 8ft would be massive....and certainly the biggest land carnivora, as even bears do not reach such sizes, and indeed, i have the documents to prove it. 
But, the record of the lion with the longest reliable body measurements, was one with a head and body length slightly over 7ft....and, i can show you the link, if you want? 
And, those websites you showed me are not very professional, and not reliable concerning the measurements of these animals, as it mentions a rather extreme figure as to the average head and body length of the lion.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:47 AM by damon
Balazs, i said nothing of polar bears in my comparison of lion and BROWN bear sizes.....likewise, most records of brown bears are merely asymptotic figures.....meaning there is a mixture of reliable data, as well as those other data which were not termed absolutely proven. Others are age specific, in which a specific age group of bears are measured, which would give biased results. 
Brown bears can, and do often grow larger than lions....but, i am referring to an average weight, and, most reliable studies, where a large number of specimens are weighed throughout the year, rather than during a specific time of the month, the average weights is rather equal to those as reported for lions.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:51 AM by damon
It is true that grizzlies in the lower 48 are quite smaller than Kodiaks or the exterminated California grizzly, but I still do not see the point of debate. African lions also greatly vary in size, mane formation, temperament and so on. For instance, Panthera leo somaliensis had a reputation of being smaller and less heavily maned than Panthera leo massaicus, but again, the famous Tsavo lions are often maneless but very aggressive, at least toward humans. Instead of trying to find some hypothetical average, it would be far simpler to agree that our two selected combattants belonged to the same weight category, period.  
The bear would win anyway, because the lion would find it far more difficult to swing the bear around by the tail than vice versa.:)
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:02 AM by Balazs
hm balazs what damon and myself are talking about doesn't have anything to do with bears. 
damon what the source 'walkers mammals of the world' says is lions range from 5, 7 to 8, 2 foot finding the middle average is 7 foot. 
And sure I'll see your recordbut before you give it I'd like to know where it comes from and when it was taken please? 
Oh and also Balazs, since when does a bear swing anything around by it's tail lol.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:50 AM by Oliver
Ted, a bears claws are in the range of 2 - 4 inches on average and they are usually blunt so a grizzly will not be able to cause any serious damage with his claws until he's already killed his prey. 
Plus a bear doesn't really use his claws for fighting he uses his arms and paws and sometimes his jaws too... 
here are videos of grizzly bears fighting as proof: 
Also when taking down prey a grizzly does not use his arms as a CLUB... that's a ridiculous notion, I really think you need to rethink the idealistic version you have of a grizzly... 
here is a video of a grizzly sow taking down a large caribou, as you can see using the arms as a club is not an option: 
Like I've been saying all along, the prefered method for fighting and killing by grizzly bears is to hold onto the opponent and throw.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:21 PM by Oliver
Also, I'm doubting the reliability of that account of the bear breaking the buffalos back, yes the citation is from the great bear almanac which in itself is reliable information, however what you did not mention was that this was just an observation that was probably exagerated. 
I mean, let's do simple calculations here if a buffalo charges a bear from the front, the bear cannot reach his back to break it, unless the bear jumped out of the way with amazing speed and agility then slammed onto the buffalos back, that's just not realistic.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 1:30 PM by Oliver
Yes, but Balazas, that story is also included in the Grizzly Bear Almanac of 2000. It's in the preview on the web as well. I don't think they would include a fake story in the book. I mean, it's a book dedicated to Grizzlies, so I don't know if it will lie like that. Also, from a number of sources, it stated that bears and lions were pitted together during the California Gold Rush, and the bear always won.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:38 PM by MrAlien123456
So, Oliver, you're telling me bears don’t use their claws in battle? Because I see plenty of claw use by the bear in this video......
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:03 PM by MrAlien123456
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 3:04 PM by MrAlien123456
I don't think a lion would fair well with a Polar bear like that...........
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 6:15 PM by MrAlien123456
Hm, mralien does that really look like claws to you? the polar bear is using mainly his jaws in that fight with the walrus. 
Although admittedly polar bears do use their claws a swipes more than brown bears which is mainly why i say they stand a better chance 
here is a better video of 2 polar bears fighting: 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 7:37 PM by Oliver
You can see how every word must be examined. "Oliver Twist" LOL... stories to support his views.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:47 PM by Ted
Oliver, here are my records; 
And ted, i find it hard to believe a grizzly was stated as handling a lion as he would a cat...that account was also menmtioned in the book 'animal life and lure' as well, and the account very dodgy. Who recorded this encounter?.... 
Unless that bear was substantially larger, which it probably was, then, i find it difficult to believe it would handle a lion as a cat would a rat, or whatever.  
And, as for the species of brown bears i was comparing to the was those from yellowstone (average weight: 193 kg, for a total of 43 specimens weighed, throughout the year). Also, those from mackenzie, their spring and fall weights being 190.6 and 258.3 kg, for 41 and 10 specimens, respectively. 
And, i was also comparing those from yukon, spring and fall weights being 190.4 and 222.4 kg, for 24 and 19 specimens, respectively. Those are the most accurate figures, as they are not age specific (a specific age group captured) which is biased, as the weight of bears increases with age, finally stopping at about 13 years of age, which is old for these animals. Other sources are also limited in the number of specimens weighed, and of course, bears merely weighed during a specific time of the year is not average should be taken for both young adults, and old adults, with specimens measured throughout the year, rather than during a specific time of the month, as the weight of bears fluctuates between the years, and an average should be taken based upon that. So, while the upper limit of bears may result in specimens averaging over 300 kg....a most usual figure is between 190 - 222 kg. This makes sense, as the body size of the bears is no larger than that of lions. In fact, most of the bears had a shorter body than those of lions.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:58 PM by damon
Bears do not use their claws against other bears, because they are not intentional in mortally wounding them, like they would with a predator or prey item. Bears rather spar than actually have intent to kill one another. Lions do something similar`, as usually they don’t want to exert their energy on other opponents. Once an opposing male lion shows the first signs of submission, the lead fighter backs down and moves on to claim the crown of the pride. Bears are very intelligent animals, and the myth about bears having horrible vision and hearing is wrong. Their vision and hearing is just as a cute as that of a human's. It may not be the best, compared to that of other predators’, but it certainly is more than those myths going around about them having bad vision. People also think of bears as big and dumb behemoth animals that don't know the difference from might and wrong. However, recent studies show that bears are very intelligent animals. The same for hyenas, as more zoologists are looking in other behaviors of bears and hyenas. They found out that hyenas are probably the most intelligent animal in the order Carnivora. And I know how Damon will probably say that lions are roe intelligent, but I know this for a fact, as I've researched this topic. They are intelligent animals, having intellect outweighing that of big cats and canids. Bears may be stubborn, but stubborn and stupid are two different things.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:58 PM by MrAlien123456
LOL, Damon, if you find it hard to believe that account, then I guess we have no more reason to believe yours. This was A CALIFORNIA GRIZZLY BEAR. That whole population contained large sized specimens on average. They were like the Alaskan and Kodiak Island grizzlies, And BTW Damon; you are comparing EVERY subspecies of lion to a single subspecies of Brown Bear. So, of course the largest specimens will average the size of a mid sized subspecies of Brown Bear. How would you feel if I compared every Tiger subspecies to a single lion subspecies? Exactly. It's also funny how you seem to have such passion for lions, yet what have you done for them? Make rants about how they can kill bears? I have donated $1000 (I received $19000 in total) of my Bar Mitzvah money, from two years ago, to BCR, which includes lions in as some of their rescues, which now make their homes there. What have you accomplished for big cats? I also donated $3000 to other animal rescue organizations from my money. That shows I actually have respect for big cats. Looking at your comments, it seems you hardly have a passion for bears. How long did it take you to find all of those documents? A month? I bet if I spent a month looking for documented cases of bears killing lions, I’d find tons of them……..
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:15 PM by MrAlien123456
You are correct; Bears are very intelligent! 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:18 PM by Ted
Getting a true expert to comment on weight of an animal is a lot easier than getting them to comment on Interspecies conflicts.  
Especially hypothetical ones!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:23 PM by Ted
Very true, Ted. It's like comparing one race of humans that averages taller than another. Different bear populations, of even the same SUBSPECIES, can be larger than others. Humans all are the same species, yet some of our races average taller than others, and yet Damon just looks for the smallest sized populations of Grizzly bears to compare to the largest subspecies of lions. And yet again, he's comparing every subspecies of lion to a single subspecies of brown bear.....
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:27 PM by MrAlien123456
I tried to tell Damon weeks ago about subspecies; heck some Zooloigists list between 80-90 subspecies of Brown Bear.  
As far as these silly conflicts; I enjoy a Lion, Tiger etc... as much as a bear. They are all great animals. 
I have a feeling some people look at certain animals as their personal symbol or mascot; I don't know! 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:57 PM by Ted
Yes; the same with me. I love all animals (including the outcast animals, like snakes, rats, mice, all invertebrates, and etc.), except certain humans, who actually intend to cause harm to the environment or other animals. I actually find it awesome, how rodents and lagomorphs (rabbits, hares and pikas), are more closely related to primates than we think. We are all in the Superorder of mammals known as the Supraprimates. In fact, the closest living relative to primates is no longer the elephant shrew, like it sued to be thought, but the colugo, or the flying lemur, which uses a skin membrane to glide from tree to tree, in manner like a flying squirrel or a sugar glider. In the matter of fact, my favorite feline species of all time was the American lion (Panthera leo atrox). It approached the size of a liger, and still managed through the Ice Age wilderness. My favorite modern day big cats are the Siberian Tiger and the Jaguar. I really do like Ligers. I think they are cool, and that female ligers are fertile, however, I hear that ligers have some bad health issues, due to them being hybridized from two different species of animal. I mean, I think hybrids are cool, but I hear the majority of them have health issues, and if that’s the case, I wouldn’t want hybrids to be produced on the planet anymore. Too much suffering for the animal to endure.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:35 PM by MrAlien123456
My friend you have way too much knowledge than I LOL... 
You are right about Ligers & poor health issues. Their un-natural size works agaist them. 
I can see Zoology & Biology in your future. 
Good luck!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:44 PM by Ted
Mralien, for starters, i love bears...indeed, i love all animals, but clearly, you either did not fully read my post, or you chose to ignore certain points that i brought up. I did not merely compare one subspecies of brown bears, i compared figures from the most reliable ones, and, most concerning the mass of brown bears (not merely grizzly bears) as those of specimens averaging large sizes are most usually inaccurate, in that some are age specific (specific age group weighed), or else of specimens measured during a specific time of the year, or a limited sampling.  
And ted, indeed, i know all about the different groups of brown bear....most weight given for brown bears are asumptotic figures, which is not reliable. And, as the body size of the brown bear, grizzly or otherwise, is not any different than that of the lion, i`m inclined to think they are rather equal in mass, and indeed most reliable documents indicate this. 
Also, when i was referring to brown bears, although this applies to other subgroups of brown bears as well, i was referring specifically to grizzly bears, as that was the discussion. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:48 PM by damon
LOL, so you're saying every brown bear subspecies is the size of an average male lion? I cannot believe this. This is great! Siberian brown bears have been known to kill Siberian tigers, (the largest of the wild big cats of the modern day) 60-70% of the time, so I don't see where you're getting at, Damon......
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:54 PM by MrAlien123456
Also, Ted, just because a few experts stated the grizzly would defeat a lion of equal size, doesn`t actually make it the case, as they are merely expressing an opinion. And, what do you mean, you tried to tell me weeks ago about subspecies?...there is no need to tell me about something i already know about. And, if you fully read my previou posts, you would not have made any such statement, as i explained why certain studies where brown bears may have averaged a great deal may not be reliable.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:55 PM by damon
And how do we know that the lion averages that you stated were reliable, Damon? They are just as reliable as the bear's. Again, you are making a biased statement, stating that the lion's results were more reliable than that of a bear's. An African lion of any of the subspecies reaches his prime at 5-6 years old, and then goes downhill from there..... 
Just because I found a source that showed a chart of bear weights after losing 32% of there body weight, you said it was inaccurate…. So how do we know that the size charts of African lions are anymore accurate? 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:59 PM by MrAlien123456
If you have all the answers then don't act ignorant by asking me to repeat what I wrote weeks ago!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:04 PM by Ted
Good night!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:06 PM by Ted
Ted, It's not about believing what I want to believe you need to be logical for a second strange concept that may be; A grizzly bears arm length... what averages 3 foot? the length of a bison is about 9 foot average, how is a bear possibly going to reach over that charging bulls head and break the back? 
I'm not saying things like, well the bear caught the buffalo off guard or, it was an old buffalo or a sick buffalo! That's just making excuses but if you think about it it's just not logical. 
lol a resume get real, you're taking this too seriously i do NOT get personal over the internet and you may take that any way you like.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:19 PM by Oliver
damon, that record was taken in 1979, I think walkers mammals of the world and hopkins university press 20 years later and more updated are a little more reliable.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:21 PM by Oliver
mralien that is untrue watch this video of a grizzly sow taking down a large caribou: 
she hardly uses her claws at all to kill him she grips and throws, which is a standard bear fighting technique.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:25 PM by Oliver
Oliver, the book 'walker`s mammals of the world was published well after 1979, but, those records of the length of the lions were old (from the 70`s as well, or earlier) ....and from different sources. 
So, i wouldn`t think they were any more reliable 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:41 PM by damon
SO, you're saying the only marks on a person from a bear attack are from their jaws? The majority of the victims have slashes and gashes that can only come from a bear's claws. It doesn’t matter that a bear's claws are blunter than a feline’s. They're still sharp, and they can still gut an animal dry, especially a human.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:43 PM by MrAlien1`23456
As for the cage fight between the lion Parnell and the bear: there is a very detailed description of a fight between Parnell and a bear named Ramadam, which ended as a draw: 
The fight between the lion Parnell and a grizzly bear in Mexico near the Texas border took place on April 1, and many readers, noting the date, took the account of the contest for an April fool story. Now, however, the Sun Francisco Examiner publishes photographs of the combat, with the following description by Mr. Zercombe, the newspaper man who took the pictures: The bear secured as the lion's antagonist is called Ramadam. He is a California silver tipped grizzly and one of the largest of his kind. He has the record of having killed two of his keepers in one day, and his fighting qualities are undeniable. Within the ring was erected a large circular steel cage, 15 feet high and 20 feet in diameter. The crowd was composed largely of officials, soldiers and prominent business men from both sides of the Rio Grande.  
"When all was In readiness the canvas covering was withdrawn from the large cage, disclosing the grizzly impatiently encircling the interior of the cage. The smaller portable cage containing Parnell was backed up to the large one, and while Ramadan retired to the farther side of the ring to watch what was going on the trapdoor was opened, and with a spring Parnell grappled with his antagonist. After a short struggle In an upright position they fell to the ground. Ramadam had received his antagonist upright attitude, and though baffling Parnell's grab at his throat his slower neck and paw action were clearly indicated by his allowing the lion for the moment to get him in a position where he could not do effective work, except with his claws. "The bear, though lacking in the power, size and suppleness of his jaws, was protected by heavy covering of thick, hair, and with the additional advantage of his powerful back was enabled to throw his opponent heavily whenever it came to what might be termed a hand to hand conflict.  
"Though in the third fall, as in most of those that followed, Ramadam was on top, the lion was getting the most effective work by a style of infighting that must have been uncomfortable in the extreme. After the first onslaught they fought without snarl growl or whine. Once, enraged by the punishment he was receiving, the bear turned his body completely over, and rising again to an upright position hurled Parnell through the air with such force that the beast turned a complete somersault, landing on his back in the center of the ring. Rising again as if made of rubber, Parnell rushed upon his antagonist, who, now fully aroused, received him on equal terms, and with jaws extended they clinched, in which position a splendid snapshot view was taken. At this point the excitement was intense. The position of the combatants shifted rapidly. Several times they fell to the ground, all the time fighting, only to get up again and continue the struggle. Their heads, necks and jaws were covered with blood.  
"For 33 minutes they fought continuously. After an unusually vicious attack made by Parnell from the rear Ramadam suddenly turned, and with terrible ferocity seized the lion between the shoulders, and shaking him as though ho had been a cat he raised him into the air and hurled the lion to the ground. Parnell's head struck the side of the cage, and he was momentarily stunned and unable to arise for more than a minute. Once the lion was floored, the bear turned and walked to the other side of the cage. After this the fighting was tame and the contest was declared a draw.”  
See here: 
A "videoized" version of the story adds that later both surviving animals were forced to fight a bull named Panthera, which killed both:  
For me, these detailed descriptions look incomparably more credible than a single sentence claiming that "the bear handled the lion like a rat."  
In fact, this sentence may have been based on a distorted and misleading quotation from the aforesaid account. In the text that I copypasted, you can find the following sentence: "After an unusually vicious attack made by Parnell from the rear, Ramadam suddenly turned, and with terrible ferocity seized the lion between the shoulders, and SHAKING HIM AS THOUGH HE HAD BEEN A CAT, he raised him into the air and hurled the lion to the ground."  
I do not care whether the editors of the Great Bear Almanac included the "rat version" or not; for me, the aforesaid detailed description, with date and source (1895, "Weekly Tribune"), is much more reliable evidence than a single sentence. Just as one's experiences in law enforcement may be useful in finding inconsistencies in a cougar-bear video, my experiences in historical research taught me to look carefully at written sources.:)
Posted @ Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:54 PM by Balazs
Mralien, i`ve shown those records of the weight of lions (in fact, every document upon the subject), but, in case you would like to see them, here they are; 
Now, here are more records; 
Convinced now?....
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:13 AM by damon
<<Oh and also Balazs, since when does a bear swing anything around by it's tail lol.>>  
Bears do that quite routinely, as tens of millions of kids can testify. You will also see it with your very eyes. 
Just watch a Walt Disney cartoon.:)
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:14 AM by Balazs
Also, here is another record of a lion killing a polar bear; 
MY LIFE WITH THE BIG CATS 1955 By Alfred Court.Pages 131-132,in August as soon as they were delivered,I started training the 6 polar bears at the first mixing one was killed by a lion.HE immediately was replaced,as was the aggressor,who gave up his place to a less vicious lion. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:23 AM by damon
And you are not convinced that the mean of the entire subspecies of Grizzly bear is 487 pounds, so why should I be convinced about all of the lion records on yours. You said the ones I posted were inconclusive, so I can say yours are the same. And considering you are comparing the whole lion species to a subspecies of brown bear; the subspecies that contains the largest lions average the size of an Inland grizzly (smallest grizzly bear populations). Yet comparing the grizzly populations to the lions with the highest weight averages shows that the male Coastal and Kodiak grizzly are much larger than a lion, and that the Kodiak bear averages even higher than Coastal and Kodiak grizzlies. And you stating that every brown bear subspecies is the same size of a lion? LOL, then they wouldn't say Kodiaks would be the largest brown bear subspecies then, would they? 
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:41 AM by MrAlien123456
You didn't show the text of this record, either. I looked it up online and haven’t come across this record. Only the title of the book, but nothing of the record. It looks like also, the pages you refer to are mostly form the books, for grizzly bear weight averages. Why not refer to the updated ones on the net, from field studies, because the one I posted you didn’t seem to buy………..
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:51 AM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, actually, all of those records i showed of the lions was from measurements taken in the field, and verified. However, some of the data as presented for the brown bears were asymptotic. Asymptotic simply means that a combination of reliable data, and that from unconfirmed data was mixed, giving an approximate average. 
Likewise, some of the records of the grizzlies (not so with the lions) were of age specific specimens (specific age group weighed) or else specimens weighed during a specific time of the month, which would give biased results, as the weight of these animals fluctuates between the months, unlike that of lions. 
And, other data is purely limited.  
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:44 AM by damon
Mralien, also, if you would notice, on one of the links you showed me, the records that i mentioned were showed as well. But, if you want an actual link to those records, then here they are; 
There you go.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:07 AM by damon
Thaks for makining my point LOL... 
So you believe the "1895, Weekly Tribune!" account? Newspapers are a very unreliable source; they are in buisness to sell.  
I don't think your "relaible source" is anymore reliable then the rest of OUR crap flung on this site LOL... 
However, thanks for the long dramatic details and reading mine :).
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:19 PM by Ted
So you are experienced in "Historical Research"!  
I am sure you learned to critically evaluate various historical facts & evidence from the Walt Disney Cartoons as well :) 
Too much! This site is great for laughs :) :)
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:27 PM by Ted
On a more serious note LOL... 
If you want REAL facts, Look up: 
"Biologist Vic Barns Kodiak Island." 
He is retired, but has studied the big Kodiaks/Alaskan Brown Grizzly/ perhaps more than anyone else. 
A quick google of "November, 1993 National Geographic Kodiak Island" should show him tagging/collaring a Kodiak Bear. I know I was there!  
Biologists Vic Barnes & Roger Smith are very good sources on ALASKAN BIG BEARS. 
Dr. Steve French is great with Grizzlies in the Lower 48 states. All 3 are good reads! 
Good Day Mr.Alien, LOL..........
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:43 PM by Ted
Damon, information given in 1999 may have used records for comparison and mean estimation but 20 years of more updatable records were given, it's not very reliable to say a book published in 1990 only used records from 1979.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:52 PM by Oliver
If you do google 1993, November Nat. Geo. Click the first site, it should say "Photos."  
Scroll down to the 14th picture and you should see a Giant Kodiak head & Vic Barns collaring it. 
This is your mission; can you carry it out? :).
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 12:53 PM by Ted
Mralien, human skin is relatively thin in comparison, like I say bears don't tend to swipe with their claws so injuries caused by the grizzlies claws are relatively minor especially in comparison to a lions. 
check out this video of a bear attacking a woman: 
Just for laughs check out this advertisement with a bear.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:01 PM by Oliver
Oliver, those were not updated measurements that walker mentioned...indeed, i already had those records, from the original source, as he mentions references for those very records, and one was stated as being from 1975 or so.  
I`ve seen modern documents quote records from over 100 years ago, as well. But, i don`t think those records are entirely reliable...they are exceptional, to say the least. But, did you not look at my records?....lions were the same 20 years ago, as they are now, and a great number of specimens were measured, and none in the records i have shown, ever exceeded 7 ft in head and body length, as that would be rather exceptional.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:40 PM by damon
Oliver thinks they can't. He thinks bear claws are only well equipped enough to rip human skin. He seems to want to ignore how much larger bear claws are than those of big cats, no matter if they are from sloth bears, black bears or other small bear species. They will almost always be larger than those of big cats.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:48 PM by MrAlien123456
Well personally Ted I didn't really want to argue that point as I've never thought the claw length was important in terms of fighting, but if you'd like here are some sources on the grizzlies claw length: 
This link states that the average grizzly bears claws length would average 3.5 inches long: 
I did say injuries ted but i'm saying they can't because of the way they attack, not simply that they 'just can't' that's why i keep saying only after the grizzly has killed and is eating that's when his claws do damage, but by the way a grizzly attacks only his jaws will do serious flesh damage. 
look at this brown bear attacking a woman, the jaws are covered up:
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:25 PM by Oliver
Damon, and where are the other records from, records from earlier times may have been used in comparison does not change that it is stated the largest lions reach 8 ft 2 inches. 
'walkers mammals of the world' 'john hopkins university press'.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:29 PM by Oliver
Oliver, i already showed where my records came from, in the link i gave. 
I doubt very seriously that any lions have reached 8ft, 2 in. in body length, as that is they would then be the largest land animals, but, they aren`t. A lion with a head and body length of over 8ft, is like a human that is 9ft tall, without his head.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:51 PM by damon
I agrre that Brown Bears fighting eachother and taking down pray don't usually rely on their claws. 
However, I disagree with your point that the Brown/Grizzly Bear can't use it's claws in a effective manner during battle and even hunting. 
Bears can and do at times cause a great deal of damage in regard to ripping the flesh of animals including other Bears. 
Your argument is basically telling me to disbelieve what I have witnessed in the wild on more than one occassion. That I cannot do!  
The 6 by 10 inch wound I witnessed in one fight was to the Big Bear's mid side. The Brown Bear was on a receiving end of a nasty swipe from a equally large Brown Bear. Even if I had not seen it; location of the  
wound and it's visual description could not have been caused by a bite. 
As usual we will have to agree to disagree.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:59 PM by Ted
I would like an objective view! 
If you get a chance check out the Kodiak info I sent you on National Geo. Tell me if the article is relible or not. People who don't want to believe the size of Kodiaks and Coastal Grizzlies won't spend time reading the article. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:09 PM by Ted
Don't worry. :P I will. I don't belive this shit about grizzlies averaging the size of a lion. When I come back in about 2 hours or so, I'll go look at it.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:45 PM by MrAlien123456
Well Ted, if you have witnessed grizzly bears fighting in the wild then you know you're right and there was never much point in arguing with me. 
However, I've never had the experience in the wilderness to see bear fights so all I may rely on is video evidence, and documented sources. 
So agreeing to disagree seems to be the best thing.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:09 PM by Oliver
damon, you cannot simply write off lions reaching this length because you don't believe it. 
if the sources were unreliable the book would not have been published and this is not to mention the university press it was mentioned in. 
if you want I can show you an average 7 foot male lion the video is on youtube, plus in terms of length it would be the largest the bears would still outweigh the lion.
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:12 PM by Oliver
Quote from you: 
<<So you believe the "1895, Weekly Tribune!" account? Newspapers are a very unreliable source; they are in buisness to sell.  
I don't think your "relaible source" is anymore reliable then the rest of OUR crap flung on this site LOL...>> 
Of course newspaper articles are less reliable than, say, archival documents. Still, it is worth subjecting our two sources to some comparative analysis. They seem to be largely in agreement in three crucial issues: (a) the location of the fight (Monterrey is indeed in northeastern Mexico, close to the Texan border); (b) the name of the lion (Parnell, with the epitheton ornans "man-killer"); and (c) the type of the bear (a big Californian grizzly). This seems to indicate that both sources refer to the same fight, rather than two different ones.  
The possibility of two different fights, both involving Parnell, may be ruled out, because a third source states that Parnell was maimed and almost fatally injured by the bull Panthera two weeks after his fight with the bear Ramadam. Thus it is unlikely that Parnell had a draw with Ramadam, and later another bear killed him. Theoretically, it is possible that there were two lion-bear fights, of which only one involved Parnell, and there was another lion that was quickly killed by a bear, but in this case, your source is wrong with regard to the lion's name. Anyway, three overlaps between the two sources make it quite probable that they refer to the same fight. 
Once we accept that the two sources cover the same event, how can we decide which is more reliable? Your source is "On the old west coast; being further reminiscences of a ranger, Major Horace Bell" (edited by Lanier Bartlett, published posthumously in 1930). 
For a brief summary of Bell's life, see the following data: 
Horace Bell (1830-1918) left Indiana to seek gold in California. In 1852, he moved to Los Angeles and later became involved in American filibustering in Latin America and saw service in the Union Army before returning to Los Angeles after the Civil War to become a lawyer and newspaper publisher. Reminiscences of a ranger (1881) includes anecdotes of Bell's experiences as a Los Angeles Ranger pursuing Joaquín Murietta in 1853, a soldier of fortune in Latin America, a Union officer in the Civil War, and a Los Angeles newspaper editor. He provides lively anecdotes of Los Angeles and its residents under Mexican and American rule, emphasizing cowboys and criminals and native Americans. Throughout, Bell gives special attention to the fate of Hispanic Californians and Native Americans under the United States regime. For another collection of Bell's reminiscences, see On the old west coast (1930). 
On the basis of that information, Bell as a person is not necessarily an unreliable source in general. On the contrary, he was probably quite familiar with grizzlies. Nevertheless, there is nothing to indicate that he was personally present at the fight. In fact, he makes no claim that he had seen it personally, just notes laconically that "a few years ago, a Los Angeles County grizzly was sent to Monterrey, Mexico." NB, he makes it clear that his account postdates the actual event by several years. 
In contrast, the newspaper article I cited was published in the immediate aftermath of the fight. We know that a person associated with the "San Francisco Examiner" was personally present at the fight, and he even took pictures. Since the "Weekly Tribune"'s account was based on that person's report, it would be advisable to read the related article in the "Examiner."  
For me, a source which is (a) very detailed, (b) based on direct personal observation and (c) postdates the actual event only by a short time period is more reliable than another that is (a) very brief and lacks details, (b) probably not based on personal observation, and (c) postdates the actual event by several years. This is not to say anything bad about the general reliability of Bell as a source. It merely means that for rather understandable reasons, he paid much less attention to that particular event than the newspaperman Zercombe.  
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:43 PM by Balazs
When we are talking about an event covered in or around 1895; I doubt it will be completely accurrate; especially a newspaper account. 
Your account sounds more like Ali vs. Frazier at Madison Square Garden. Round by round; "Ali the Lion" comes out and throws two quick jabs & "Smokin Joe Grizzly" ducks & slips one while countering with a vicious left hook solidly connecting to "Ali's" jaw knocking the "Lion" to the canvas. However, Ali manages to beat the count & gets back to his feet punishing Frazier with lightning quick jabs that sends "Smoken Joe Grizzly" reeling backwards into the ropes etc... Not bad; maybe I'll go work as a sports writer for a newspaper LOL.. 
If you used the newspaper clips in a thesis or dissertation the professor would laugh & then rip your paper to shreds. "Historical Research!" You mean Folklore; which is a major LOL... 
I have said several times; I don't believe any of us knows what FACTUALLY happened to "Parnell the Lion" because of various questionable accounts given so long ago. If you choose to believe your source(s) so be it. 
A. "Very detailed" does not mean factual. I can write a very deatailed account of a fictional event, or a much exaggerrated event. 
B. "Direct Personal Observation" There are multiple & different versions; We don't know that there is conclusive proof of any "DPO" for sure. as for the photo; you believe it is "Parnell" because the Newspaper says so? Come on!  
If you feel you have a strong argument for good old Parnell then run with it; I just disagree! :).
Posted @ Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:31 PM by Ted
Actually, Oliver, I agree with you in some respect on the average length of a male lion's body. Despite our little argument on the debate of whether bears use their claws or battle, or not, you are pretty straight on with this one. Their average range is from 5-7 feet long. The largest lion in the wild on record was a male that weighed 313 kg, and was killed because of his habitat for being a "man-eater". The largest lion in captivity was a male lion named "Simba" and he weighed about 375kg, and died in 1973. He was 10.5 feet in total length, which concluded that his body length was probably about 8ft long. 
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 12:07 AM by MrAlien123456
You want to know how crazy this animal shit has become? 
Just read the news! "Ice-Skating Bear" in Russia kills trainer and seriously injures a second trainer. Then of course they shoot the Bear! 
How crazy & Manipulative is that?  
Ice-Skating Bears playing hockey! 
One thing it does show is that bears are quite athletic.  
No joke; do you think a Lion can skate and learn to play Hockey? 
It sounds funny; but this shit in Russia is real! 
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 1:34 AM by Ted
<<Your account sounds more like Ali vs. Frazier at Madison Square Garden. Round by round; "Ali the Lion" comes out and throws two quick jabs & "Smokin Joe Grizzly" ducks & slips one while countering with a vicious left hook solidly connecting to "Ali's" jaw knocking the "Lion" to the canvas. However, Ali manages to beat the count & gets back to his feet punishing Frazier with lightning quick jabs that sends "Smoken Joe Grizzly" reeling backwards into the ropes etc..." 
You actually said something very important, but not about the Parnell-Ramadam fight but about the Roosevelt-Peary fight. I will soon get back to that.  
<<If you used the newspaper clips in a thesis or dissertation the professor would laugh & then rip your paper to shreds.>> 
Wrong. They are widely used, depending on the topic. Careful use is not identical with no use. See, for example, your own source, the Great Bear Almanac. They got the Parnell story from the reminiscences of Major Bell. And Bell freely admits in the very same text in which he mentions Parnell that he also used newspaper clips as a source: 
"In the great fiestas of times past at the Missions and Presidios there was always a bull and bear fight for the entertainment of the crowd. The last one on record that I know of took place at Pala, a branch or asistencia of the once great Mission San Luis Rey, in the mountains of San Diego County, nearly fifty years ago. One of the American newspapers in California published an account of it written by a correspondent who was present. I have the clipping of that and as it is a better-written description than I could produce myself, I give it herewith."  
Here you go.  
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 1:37 AM by Balazs
I don't think I am wrong about legitimate citations.  
I never said "The Great Bear Almanac" qualifies as an authentic book for citation. I don't know enough about the author or his sources. I used it to merely make a point of various accounts. 
I don't know any University or college that would accept news clippings in regard to a paper, let alone a thesis or dissertation. 
Where I received my 3 year Masters degree, a student would have flunked out for using newspaper clips to defend or argue their position. 
However, I still can't get over this Ice-Skating Bear incident. It is as if the world is quickly going down the path of lunacy. 
Write what ever you want! 
I gave my 3 experts: 
Biologists Vic Barnes & Roger Smith 
Biologist Steve French 
Biologist Steve French
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 1:56 AM by Ted
As I said, you said something very important when you made a comparison with boxing matches. Namely, the account about the fight between the lion Roosevelt and the polar bear Peary, divided into ten rounds as it is, is suspiciously detailed. No one could have described the whole fight so accurately unless he was personally present as an observer: 
"The fight naturally divided itself into rounds, although, of course, no time rule was observed. After a fierce bout the monsters would rest for a few moments and then go at it again. The fight lasted ten rounds."  
The author's emphasis on the accurate chronological order of events is very different from the description of the fight between Brutus and another polar bear, which is largely a summary of what happened. But the keepers who tried to separate the two animals were too busy with poking and jabbing them to remember precisely which beast did what and when.  
Thus it appears likely that there was someone present specifically with the purpose of recording the whole fight as accurately as possible, someone who was not involved in the keepers' frantic efforts to separate the animals. To make the charge a bit more pointed: the fight may have been pre-arranged by someone who also took care to entrust a person with the task of recording the bloody spectacle.  
But, you may say, if the article is so detailed, this may simply mean that some events were invented or at least arbitrarily organized into a coherent structure for the sake of the readers. "If reality is not entertaining enough, we will improve it." Yes, but there is another suspicious element in the story. This is how the account describes the start of the fight: 
<<The keepers were first aware of the trouble when the lion smashed the partition of iron bars that separated him from the bear.>>  
In general, lions or other big cats are not very capable of "smashing iron bars." Had it been the bear, I would be more willing to believe the story, because bears are experts in breaking out of their cages, but such a feat would have been quite difficult for the lion. They do not use their paws to grip bars and push them apart, nor are they able to break a strong bar with an immense blow, nor are their jaws so enormously strong as to bend an iron bar. Besides, it is somewhat strange that those cages which were strong enough to prevent both a lion and a bear from escaping were not strong enough to prevent the lion from entering the bear's cage.  
Thus I am inclined to think that some unscrupulous individual associated with the show (note that it was a show, rather than a circus or zoo which are supposedly more interested in keeping their animals alive as long as possible), probably with the aim of creating publicity, somehow enabled the lion to enter the bear's cage, and made it sure that the fight was recorded as accurately as possible. Obviously, most of the keepers were not involved in this foul game, if there was indeed one, since they did their best to separate the animals, but a single one could have arranged the thing quite easily. Of course, we do not know the precise type and structure of the cages, and thus we cannot say whether anyone could have easily performed such a feat, but at least we have some reason for suspicion. 
This is to say that I do read newspaper accounts with a critical eye.:)  
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 2:16 AM by Balazs
<<I don't know any University or college that would accept news clippings in regard to a paper, let alone a thesis or dissertation. Where I received my 3 year Masters degree, a student would have flunked out for using newspaper clips to defend or argue their position.>> 
Depends on what you studied. In the natural sciences, this is absolutely true to the letter. In political science or history, newspaper articles may be used, but only with caution, and they are by no means sufficient unless backed up by more serious evidence. But I wonder how you would like to reconstruct a pre-television soccer or basketball match if you are completely prohibited from reading newspapers.
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 2:26 AM by Balazs
Oliver, an 'average' length, is a length taken from many animals, to get a mean. I don`t doubt one lion can reach 7ft in head and body length, and indeed that is possible, as i have a record of this, but, it is exceptional. In fact, that is the only record i have of a lion who`s head and body length exceeded 7ft.  
And actually, Mralien, the largest lion in the wild was over 750 lbs, according to charles pitman. 
But, Oliver, go ahead, show me that vieo...i`ve probably already seen it, though. But, i assure you, lions do not average 7ft in head and body length.
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 5:44 AM by damon
okay so I lost the video, it's there I just can't find it. 
however if you'll settle for second best here's some documentry one on a bengal and siberian tigers body length from head to tip of tail it states a top length of 13 feet for a siberien tiger who reach similar, if not smaller sizes: 
so if you chop off the 2 - 3 foot tail you'll get the average of about 8 foot, with some going to 10 foot. 
By the way if your measurements were taken from a pride of lions that is not a reliable indicator, I'd check them out again but i lost the link.
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 8:54 AM by Oliver
Oliver, that video is wrong. Not only do tigers average much less than 600 lbs, but the longest on record was under 12 ft, tail included. In fact, the heaviest tiger on record shared this record length, with a total length, between pegs (tail included) of 10ft, 7 inches. That is the longest tiger on record.  
No amur tiger has ever reached 13 ft in length, and indeed i have every modern document published upon the subject, and 11 adult male amurs weighed by the siberian tiger project, averaged a trifle over 169 kg.
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 10:57 AM by damon
A "Critical Eye" yes I like that!  
The problem with my boxing scenario that I was trying to make is as follows: 
1. In boxing we have judges who score the fights. Often if the fight goes the distance judges score-cards usually reflect some disagreement. Thus this leads one to believe each judge saw something different. 
As with these old animal "Pit Fights;" due to the multiple versions recorded I personally would not rely on one conclusive outcome. 
2. As I have repeatedly said; I don't believe any of us know for certain or can prove what really took place in ANY of the fights.  
Since a fight between a Grizzly & African Lion is unnatural; a unnatural controlled enviornment was needed. One can easily assume that there was also bias/gambling taking place during these matches. It is not far fetched to imagine (for a lack of better term), a "Bear fan" who was present being biased in favor of the Bear, just as I can see the same bias in a "Lion fan."  
Now if the fight is said to have not gone the distance & ALL parties present agree; I would still research the people, purpose of event, location, etc... 
Your sources may be the best; I honestly don't know. The Great Bear Almanac quoted from reliable people such as the Park Ranger H. Bell. However, you are correct in stating that his statement was second hand. How accurrate was the source of the initial report given to Bell?  
3. Yes that is true! Depending on certain courses, perhaps such as Folklore, Creative Writing, Sporting events etc... Newspaper clips may NOT always be thoroughly challenged by a professor.  
As for Political Science/History I would not use Newspapers in a B.A. or Masters Degree program unless supported with a plethra of expert opinions/statistics. The Newspaper should only be used to first set up the experts who are supporting one's argument.  
My point: All this to say; I don't believe the 1895 reports are sufficient to conclusively determine a final outcome. The fact that there are conflicting versions leads me to doubt what actually took place between Bears, Bulls, Lions as a whole.  
And yes the Spaniards/Mexicans take great pride in their Bull :). 
As for my citations in regard to the Grizzly Bear killing a Bull Bufalo with one blow to the spine; I can only go by the one witness account given in the Great bear Almanac. If you have expert/quality sources that dispute such an event then I will have to re-think my opinion. 
Also, I have little reason not to believe Biologist Steve French's 1996, account that I posted on Oct. 7th, of Grizzlies stealing 26% of the kills made by 113 Cougars he observed and documented in Glacier. French also witnessed a 350Lb. Grizzly chase off 9 wolves from an Elk carcus, (Grizzly, Almanac, 2000, pp. 84-85). 
Dr. French is the head of Grizzly conservation in Yellowstone N.P. 
As for me; I am researching this report of "Ice-Skating Bears" in Russia who killed and mauled two trainers. 
I can't believe they actually want to place helmets on these bears and teach them to play hockey. For such stupidity; the trainers death & injuries seem logical. 
It is like the poor Bears that dance as a sideshow on the streets of India and other Asian countries.
Posted @ Friday, October 23, 2009 2:41 PM by Ted
Related to the whole trainer dying to animal thing: 
I hate it when some asshole comes and shoots the animal that kills the person, when the person was the bastard who was abusing, annoying, and/or threatening the animal in the first place. Those gator attacks.... The people were swimming in fricken GATOR infested lakes. What the hell do they expect? Then they gators are hunted down and shot. What if a gator was in someone's house and the person beat the gator? The person won’t get any penalty. I hate it how all of these fuckers get away with this. It's not fair. I mean I understand about sick animals, like that hyena that wondered into an African village and killed 9 people and injured fifteen of them. That's an animal that acquired a taste for human flesh, which isn't healthy and had to be put out of its misery, before the situation gets worse. I mean read this about fucking idiot children, who wondered into a Polar bear enclosure: 
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:50 AM by Mralien123456
And the bears get the fricken penalty for their fucking faults. I mean, even as a kid younger than them, I would have much more common sense not to go into a zoo that is closed, let alone going into a FUCKING POLAR BEAR ENCLOSURE. I probably got that common sense, when let’s see, after finding out what a Polar bear can do to a walrus, let alone a person, which was when I was 5 years old…….. I don’t know. I think these kids were fucking idiots. They were pretty much asking for death. And also, considering a Polar bear’s night vision is as good as ours, and the kids startled the bears in the first place, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT…. Yeah, death sentence right there…. I may sound like I’m overacting, but come on, the bears get blamed for the kid’s stupidity, and I bet, when all of you were about 5-6, you could completely understand that a bear can kill you, especially if it’s in the middle of the night, and it was startled like that……
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:51 AM by MrAlien123456
And about rodeos and bull fighting…….. WTF is up with that?!? I don’t give a crap if it was a tradition for hundreds of years. It has to be STOPPED. The fricken animal gets stabbed with like 12 giant needles on it’s back and the poor animal still suffers, before it finally gives in and lets the fucking asshole sever the spine of the bull. Then, once in a while (I get happy when I hear this) a bull impales a Matador on one of its horns or tramples a couple of people, I feel so happy when the animal gets some kills in before it dies…. It shows that these bastards shouldn’t fuck with a bull in the first place. But lol, I love seeing men in tights that are teasing and stabbing the poor animal with swords, get crushed and/or impaled. Again, some of you think I’m crazy, but that’s what stupid people ask for, without even knowing. That’s how ignorant these people are……..  
Take a gander at these horrible pictures of Matador fights:  
 (fucking coward abandons his poor horse after being gored by a bull) 
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:52 AM by MrAlien123456
Now, for the more amusing (and humorous) pictures: 
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:58 AM by MrAlien123456
And also, these idiots breed small bulls to make the fights easier. I’d like to see what happens when a matador tries to jab giant pins into a Belgium Blue. (These are all real, and they take the meaning “I’m plastic”, to a new level.) 
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:00 AM by MrAlien123456
damon, they did not say average 600 lbs, they stated siberian tigers can reach this weight. 
and can reach 13 foot, no offence but documents from 1979 couldn't be put as reliable or modern as a university press published in 1999
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:16 AM by Oliver
Oliver, my records of the siberian tiger is from recent years, after the year 2000, from studies by the siberian tiger project, and the largest specimen weighed was 206 kg, which is far under 600 lbs. They haven`t yet measured a specimen of 13 ft. And, in recent, or old documents, no specimen has reached 13ft in length. Only my records upon the zimbabwe lions was from 1979, the rest were of records from recent years...even then, 1979 is not a heck of a long time, from now.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:35 AM by damon
Not to rehash old debates, but here is a good shot of a Grizzly using it's claws as it lands a powerful blow to another bear. 
Go to "Youtube Untamed/Uncut Grizzly battle."  
You will see a Grizzly Sow deliver a blow WITH CLAWS to the other Bear. The other bear turns and looks (as to say WTF) as the claws dig into his side/neck.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:41 PM by Ted
That Sow was one experienced fighting Bear. Towards the end she used some wrestling/Judo techniques to set up the "Hammer Claw" LOL... 
The other bear was about the same size; eitheranothe Sow are younger Male. 
For those of you who enjoy MMA there is a great fight tonight. Machida vs. Rua!
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:58 PM by Ted
Sorry for mispelling! "either another Sow or younger male."
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:00 PM by Ted 
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 1:50 PM by MrAlien123456
I could not pull up your video! 
However, if you just type "Youtube Untamed & Uncut Grizzly Battle;" You will see some serious claws at the end of that video.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:45 PM by Ted
Yeah. Sometimes that happens on this site. >.< I tried to give out a video that was next on that play list on yours. It demonstrated how a Polar bear can use their claws, to ply prey items out of the water. It stated that they can pull a 3,000 lb Orca out of the water. Zit said that they were almost like hooks. But yea. A bear would demolish any other animal in a "slashing" contest.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:16 PM by MrAlien123456
And Oliver, I recall you stated that the majority of a bear's body is made up of body fat? I'm sorry, but that's kind of over exaggerating their fat ratios. A bear’s body mass is made up of 45-55% muscle, depending on the species and the time of year.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:19 PM by MrAlien123456
The amount of pulling a bear does with it's forearms suggests that they have more muscle mass in their forearms than a big cat and demonstrates how easily they can shatter a human skull with a single blow. And Damon, of course says that lions have stronger forearms than bears. That makes me ROFLMFAO. Typically, the back legs of a lion or tiger are stronger than those of a bear, because they require them for high powered lunges and jumps. However, a bear overpowers other animals in upper body strength.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:23 PM by MrAlien123456
damon the siberian tiger project was only open to a limited number of specimens. 
There have been many documentries some of which have been posted on youtube of a total body length of 13 foot.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:27 PM by Oliver
Ted, you could have just saved me the time and posted the youtube link, but yes I saw it however you must agree that 90% of the fight show was wrestling and tussling, that was a sweet right swipe though. 
And mralien, I never said that, what I said was that much of the grizzlies weight or any of the large bears weight is made up of fat because of the harsh winter conditions they live in, they have to pack on 100's of kgs of fat. 
That is not to say I was calling the bear 'fat' this fat is essential and of course they have a lot of muscle but an average 600 - 700 lb grizzly bear will most likely possess the same amount of muscle as a 400 - 500 lb sub saharan lion, simply because of the conditions they live in.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:32 PM by Oliver
Did you get a chance to see the size of the Kodiaks & Alaskan Coastal Browns in regard to the info I sent you?  
Vic Barnes Stated, it is not UNCOMMEN to see 1000Lb. Bears & some as large as 1500Lbs on Kodiak & Katmi in Alaska. That speaks volume as to the size of these giants. 
It's hard to argue with a guy who tagged and collared them.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 4:43 PM by Ted
LOL, yes I did. And even without the fat on them, they are at least 700lbs on average. They can kill a lion by just sitting on them. :P But trust me, I know these bears aren't fat. I mean. Many humans on the planet, especially in Texas, are fat, but a bear’s total body mass is made up of 45-55% muscle. And also, include the denser bones of the bears. Many bears need thick bones to help them cope with their environment. Just like Northern Europeans and their descendants, like me, have more pronounced eye ridges and thicker bones to cope with the cold climate.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 5:21 PM by MrAlien123456
Fat! Fat Bears are only found in the zoo LOL... 
They can run 30-35 MPH within seconds; that kind of fat Kills! :) 
Biologist Dave Salmoni was on TV last night; "Rougue Bears." Great show; one of those fat Bears climbed 30 feet up a tree to grab a hiker and unfortunately kill her. 
Salmoni went to Katmai's "Grizzly Maze." That is where Timothy "The Grizzly Man" got himself & his poor girlfriend killed by a Grizzly. Of course two Grizzlies had to be shot & killed for being bears. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 6:31 PM by Ted
Mralien, where did i say that lions had stronger forearms than bears?....i`ve never stated that...though i don`t doubt they have stronger forearms than black bears, which are smaller, and certainly of less muscle mass. 
And actually, it is the front legs of lions which tigers which are enormously strong...any scientist will tell you the legs of these animals are rather scrawny in comparison to the forelegs, the girth of which can be over 21 inches in large specimens. 
The leg`s of the lion or tiger is not stronger than that of the bear`s. Simply, they are more designed for jumping, with a longer spinal column, for more spring, and, also because they jump from their 'toes', rather than their whole feet, as bears must do. The muscles of the bear`s legs is also thick the whole way done, which makes him 'heavy handed' is like the bear is carrying a heavy weight. The legs of the lion or tiger, however, tapers towards the toes of the animal, so that their is less mass, concerning the lower limbs of these specimens when jumping, to overcome.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:49 PM by damon
Oliver, i have every modern document ever published upon lions or tigers...siberians included, and i assure you no specimen has ever reached 13 ft in length. And, the siberian tiger project weighed 11 adult male tigers, which is significant enough. I have even more records than that, and yet, none of specimens 13 ft in length.  
A video merely stating a tiger has reached that length is not a study.....and, in fact, there is no document alive which shows any such measurements, as it is false. I could show you at least 10 different documents concerning the measurements of MANY amurs, and yet, none of 13 ft.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:52 PM by damon
LOL, exactly. Yea. I hate it when people go bounty hunt an animal that kills one person or a couple, because the people were in THEIR territory, and yet, when the animal is in a human populated area, the people are allowed to shoot him/her. Look at my posts above about the two Polar bears in the zoo who killed a stupid eleven year old boy because that kid jumped a spike fence, to go swimming in a mote, which led to the Polar bear enclosure. And this was in the middle of night too. Also, the posts about the Matador fights are up there.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:11 PM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, you cannot blame that 11 year old kid for what happened to him at that zoo....i could personally never poke fun of someone who had been killed, by an animal, regardless of the reason or circumstances.  
Trust me...i`d be the first one to be against killing an animal just for protecting it`s space.... 
But, you cannot blame people for making a few mistakes (everyone is apt to do this, sometime), some of which, in this case, may lead to their deaths.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:32 PM by damon
You're acting like he's a goo-goo baby? I knew what a Polar bear was capable of when I was five. Because I always had Nat Geo books around me and made an album of different animals, with their pictures and facts. But even a fricken 6 year old wouldn't be so stupid to wander into an enclosure like that. First of all, he wandered into the zoo with a couple of friends in the middle of the night. My fricken little brother is eleven, and he's no animal fanatic, yet he knows what animals are capable of. I don't know WTF this kid was thinking. Again, you're treating their state of mind as if they were a three year old child or an invilid. Let’s put it this way: An eleven year old is already in middle school in some parts of the US. You’d expect that behavior from a 3 year old kid. So, think about it.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:39 PM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, who says that kid didn`t know what a polar bear was capable of?....Going by what you wrote, it seems the kid merely wanted to swim in the moat....he probably had no idea where the bear was, at the time, or even if that was the bear exhibit. At least, that would seem to be the case. But, that was not my point was that, he lost his life, and it is disrespect to talk of some mistake he made, that caused him his shows you do not care.  
...i could jump in that enclosure, just t prove i could do it, and get killed?...would that mean i don`t know the potential dangers from the polar bear?...of course, you cannot use that excuse. The kid likely wasn`t expecting the bear to be there, for him to get into that enclosure. that would seem to be the only reason...which of course could happen to any kid. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:04 PM by damon
So, you would say that the fucking Matadors didn’t deserve to be gored to death, even though they wish death to the bull? Because, the kids were asking for it. The zoo closed at 5:00pm, so the kids obviously sneaked in or stayed, hidden, until the zoo closed. They obviously knew what they were getting into. A 3 person gang of kids, in middle school, probably trying to make a cool story to tell to their class mates, which ended up in a disaster...... kind of typical. These things have happened before……. They climbed a SPIKED FENCE. It’s so obvious that there was something dangerous on the other side of the fence. And also, if a Polar bear wandered into a person’s home, they would have the right to shoot them, yet when a person, illegally goes into the territory of another animal, the animal isn’t allowed to attack them, if they feel threatened. Oh, nice world we live in, huh?
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:25 PM by MrAlein123456
Like, I said before. I understand if the animal goes into human territory and actually starts going on a killing spree like that rapid spotted hyena that killed 9 people and injured fifteen of them, in a village, in Dedza, Africa. However, an animal in it's own territory, minding it's own business, is a different story. Why should animals be blamed for other people's stupidity? They could’ve at least sedated the bears, instead of using firearm force. That’s their instincts and the kids were the ones that broke in or hid in the zoo, in the first place. They were obviously up to no good. They were not little kids. You make it like they were. They were pre-teens; probably almost 12 years old, and probably the kid standing outside might’ve wanted to come swimming with the other’s but they wanted him to film them, in swimming in a Polar bear enclosure, to probably show their friends at school, to look “cool”. It’s common sense to not go into an enclosure like that. I mean, I could understand if the kid fell into the enclosure on accident, but this was all on purpose. And this was a tall SPIEKD FENCE separated them. 
Here’s the first paragraph of the article: 
“Two polar bears mauled and killed an 11-year-old boy who climbed a fence at the Prospect Park Zoo in Brooklyn with two friends last night and then sneaked into the polar bear enclosure.”  
It says climbed, as in “intended” to do a stupid stunt. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:39 PM by MrAlien123456
Who said anything about the metadors?....and, who am i to judge whether they should have died, or not? Of course it is wrong and such to try to kill bulls for sport, but, all the same, we are a higher power than non-sentient creatures. In other words, we are more important to the survival of this planet, and it`s rightful least, according to the bible. Our purpose, or the purpose of our creation, was to populate, as well as preserve the earth. Lesser animals, though equally important, does not hold as high a court in most people`s eyes. I`m not saying it`s right or wrong, because frankly, i don`t know....but, i do know that people should be preserved first, lesser animals second.  
And, i climbed a spiked fence before.....and, guess what happened?...nothing, because i was careful, though i did get part of my shirt snagged. and, a person does not have the right to shoot an animal that comes into his home....that may be the law, but, that doesn`t make it right. 
and indeed, animals aren`t allowed to attack people in certain areas. But, by the same token, the people aren`t either.
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 11:55 PM by damon
As for the child jumping into the Polar Bear's enclosure; I would blame the guardians of that child. Some adult(s) was/were awfully neglectful.
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:58 AM by Ted
LOL. You said we are important to the ecosystem? I think I just choked up my balls..........  
Without us ever coming into existence, the planet would be much happier. We have no ecological niche. Even flies and mosquitoes have niches. Male mosquitoes are nectar feeders, and help pollinate flowers. Flies help decompose carcasses and break down fecal matter, for it to be more able compost for bacteria can break it down and send it back to the ground, to give nutrients to the basis of the food chain, the plants. Humans only help animals because we caused them to go extinct and endangered in the first place. And also, about the Matador fights; since I mentioned the Polar bear attack and Matador fights on posts right underneath one another, I thought you would've seen them, if you saw the article about the Polar bears attacking the kids. So, also considering you believe in the bible, you probably don’t believe in the Theory of evolution? Because there's much more proof of evolutionary relationships than a bible, and you seem to be saying that humans have more of a purpose than other organisms, which isn’t true at all. I believe in some omniscient force that SPURRED the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, however, I don't believe in miracles like the opening of the red Sea, or Jesus walking on water. I believe both, Moses and Jesus were real people, but they were only the prophets and creators of religions; not supernatural........ 
Us, modern humans, were probably one of the last animals on the planet, besides domesticated subspecies, and yet were screwed up the planet the most, out of every fricken organism here.......... 
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:07 AM by Mralien123456
Now, I don’t know if you believe in Global Warming (since you think humans have an importance in nature), caused by US but there's some evidence that points to us as the culprits. Considering that the planet is heating up too quickly, producing more hurricanes (warmer waters) and not allowing Polar Bears to adapt to evolving lifestyle. 
This Polar bear is not painted. This is algae, that formed on his coat, from the water waters, which allow the organism to grow on the animal: 
Here's the site to which this is linked to: 
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:31 AM by MrAlien123456
Sorry, I meant to say: This Polar bear is not painted. This is algae, that formed on his coat, from the **WARMER** waters, which allow the organism to grow on the animal:  
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:33 AM by MrAlien1233456
Mralien, we are the only beings that can react purely upon thought, rather than instinct alone. By that token, we can make a great impact upon this earth, and we have, some good, and some not so good. WE are the only creatures which can make any such impact, good or bad, upon the earth, so yes, we are essential.  
And yes, i do indeed believe in evolution, as i do in the bible. It is my belief that god causes evolution. But, i also have no problems believing in the opening of the red sea, or jesus walking on water......why?....well, it is something we are all capable of, if we have enough faith/belief. 
Jesus never sinned, and he also had an unwavering faith/belief. When he wanted to heal someone, for instance, he fully believed he could do so, and indeed, it came to pass. The mind, believe it or not, is a powerful tool....many just do not know how to use it.  
Why do you think there are so many people that have physic abilities?....that is because it is a part of our nature......however, in some people it must be developed, more than others. Ar e all those stories of people claiming to have this or that power real?...of course not...but, i also do not believe all people are lying, when they state they have some sort of ability which others seemingly do not have.  
and yeah, i did see your info about the metador fights...i just never talked of them. 
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:54 AM by damon
And yes, i do believe in global warming, as there is proof it is happening. In fact, i`ve never encountered a god fearing being which doesn`t believe in it....yet. And yes, we did indeed play a role in that....which was part of my point. We can have an impact on this planet, good or bad......but, we are also trying to remedy the problems we have caused. For example, in the near future, people we`ll exclusively use 'solor energy; rather than fuel, which is better for the environment, and limitless.
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:58 AM by damon
I don't care what any of you say if one of MY loved ones wandered into a deadly animals encloser or even into their wild territory and they were killed i would have revenge and i'd shoot it myself. 
unless of course they were trying to kill the animal first like madetors or hunters which i am completely against. 
but apart from that i wouldn't care what the circumstances were that animal would die. 
the 11 year old kid was dumb that much is true but if i was his father the circumstances would be irrelevant
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 1:49 PM by Oliver
You would have revenge if a wild animal killed one of your loved ones in wild territory; (the animals home habitate)? 
This is not the "Hood" we are writing about. 
You yourself said you have never been in the wild. Stay out of the forest & jungles LOL.. 
If you were his father! How in hell did the kid get into the animal cage. Who was supervising your child? Sounds like you might be one poor father!
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 3:52 PM by Ted
Well, Oliver, I don’t know....... 
In my will, when I get older, I will write something like "If I were to be killed by a wild animal, let him/her be, and live on." Meaning that I will not hold a grudge against an animal that kills my loved one or me. I may hold anger towards that particular animal, however, I will not go bounty hunt the animal. I have been bitten by many, non-lethal animals before; however, I took it up like a man. I never told my parents about the bites. I never wanted them to make a big deal about it because I didn’t want the animal to ever be put in jeopardy or in the middle of an argument.  
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:18 PM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, this is one of the few things i agree with you on....i too, would not hold a grudge against an animal that, by chance, happened to kill me or a family member. I wouldn`t want anyone to hurt any animal on my behalf....if i was killed by an animal, there`s a 99.99% of the chance, that it was my fault. When you invade another creature`s space, you have to be prepared for the worst.
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 8:10 PM by damon
Yep, even if they went into the animals territory I'd go out and shoot them myself, I would not hold a grudge against an animal for injuring me but it's a different story say if it killed my mother. 
Hm? What's that got to do with anything? I've seen many great animals in their natural habbitat like lions and bears, all I said was that I've never studied them or their behaviour in the wilderness. 
You can't keep an eye on an 11 year old child who is old enough to wander around a little bit in a zoo, they're just entering secondary school at this age. it would be different if it was a 5 year old but it wouldn't happen anyway because I would never take any child of mine to the zoo to begin with. 
Even if one of my loved ones stupidly wandered into the territory it would not bother me in the slightest to go kill the animal myself, unless of course they went out to intentionally hurt the animal i.e. hunt... The simple truth is putting morality or whatever else aside I would want revenge I'm glad you gave the example of 'the hood' because it's a great argument if someone shot my friend just because they were in a place they proclaimed to be their 'territory' it doesn't give them the right to kill my friend. 
eye for an eye.
Posted @ Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:03 PM by Oliver
Ted, you should not associate a place with the way certain people handles different situations. While i don`t agree with what Oliver stated, i can understand him. He loves his family, and, he`d want to get revenge on the animal that killed them, regardless of the circumstances. Some of my family members think in the exact same way......In fact, i`m from the ghetto....people are killed here almost regularly.
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 7:10 AM by damon
ted, either you haven't experienced death of a loved one or you've become so immersed in the sudy of animals you started to care about them more. 
damon not completely regardless for example if they went out to injure the animal in the first place it wouldn't spark that nerve but apart from that i'd shoot it myself.
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 8:32 AM by Oliver
Oliver, I have experienced deaths from loved ones. Yes, they are sad, but that doesn’t mean I'll take revenge on an animal that was being territorial. Nor would I want someone to do the same for me...... If it was a human, yes, I would love to salvage that moment, but an animal doesn't mean to kill the person the way another human would. They just want the person out of their territory. If someone was swimming in alligator infested waters, you have to understand that if they get killed by one, it's more of their fault, rather than the gator’s and the people shouldn't have the right to hunt down the gator because that particular person would’ve probably shot or beaten a gator that wandered into their backyard.
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 2:17 PM by MrAlien123456
Oliver, again you are wrong about a few things, bears claws-(the big 4)are from 4-6 inches long, NOT 2-4 inches long-they start at 4 inches to 6 inches long-I've seen them, and its also a bear fact than can be looked up in a book like I have and also on the web, so you're quite mistaken. Also, they do use their claws to inflict damage-just ask park rangers about the animals found dead by bear before the bear finishes eating them, or humans who've been attacked by them-their claws certainly did immense damage to them!! One person didn't resemble a human any longer after surviving a Grizzly attack, they had no nose, their eye socket drooped down a couple inches lower than the other and had no ears and their whole head was mishappen as a result of the brutal attack-its no wonder the California Grizzly's defeated lions so fast the spectators couldn't tell what happend it happened so fast! 
Also the polar bear is king of carnivores being the largest and baddest living carnivore on the planet. 
"Bears do not use their claws against other bears, because they are not intentional in mortally wounding them, like they would with a predator or prey item. Bears rather spar than actually have intent to kill one another. Lions do something similar`, as usually they don’t want to exert their energy on other opponents. Once an opposing male lion shows the first signs of submission, the lead fighter backs down and moves on to claim the crown of the pride. Bears are very intelligent animals, and the myth about bears having horrible vision and hearing is wrong. Their vision and hearing is just as a cute as that of a human's. It may not be the best, compared to that of other predators’, but it certainly is more than those myths going around about them having bad vision. People also think of bears as big and dumb behemoth animals that don't know the difference from might and wrong. However, recent studies show that bears are very intelligent animals. The same for hyenas, as more zoologists are looking in other behaviors of bears and hyenas. They found out that hyenas are probably the most intelligent animal in the order Carnivora."`MrAlien123456 
Absolutely right mr. alien, however, bears have better vision than people and their hearing is extraordinary, just like their noses which are multiple times better than peoples and have been compared to being better than the best noses on dogs.Hyenas also are misjudged, yes, they are some of africa's best predators and are actually(factually) africa's most abundant predator on land numbering more than any other predator-its a fact. 
Back to bears, the bear is actually "King of the jungle" as it were or so to speak as they are on the very top of the food chain and are apex predators with only humans as being their only dangerous threat, albeit that doesn't always work out that way and people are put in their place upon encountering them in the wild. 
I would also like ot expound upon what MrAlien123456 said above about the alligator, its the same as people on bike trails who get killed by cougars or people getting mauled and killed by bears or surfers and divers who get killed by Great White sharks off californias coast, you are in the animals environment-thats where THEY live, you have the option of leaving them in peace where they can only live, but when people ignore that and go outside an already encroached animals habitat-its a "wilderness experience" and the offending person has to take that responsibility-shark and gator can't live on land-they live in the water, people know the risks-we have gators and sharks where I live, and I take a risk every time I do what I love and thats being in the water, but you have to have perspective and realize you're not alone in the water and realize the consequenses of those actions. Sorry for your loss, but its an animal doing what nature intended and has done so for millions of years. Alligators and Crocs are some of the oldest things on earth-even snakes came way later after fur-bearing creatures that they preyed upon not appearing until far later. 
I'm sorry you're from the ghetto, Damon, I got out as fast as I could-I HATE the ghetto and the people in it-I only hope you get out-it represents the worst in people and the fact that people die there every day gives me hope they won't contaminate the rest of the world with their garbage views and lifestyles. Hope you get out, because you cannot change the place, the place ruins people. You are right though, people handle grief differently, however revenge on an animal driven purely by instinct as reptiles are wont to do is silly at best. Think about it for ten minutes. "The simple truth is putting morality or whatever else aside I would want revenge I'm glad you gave the example of 'the hood' because it's a great argument if someone shot my friend just because they were in a place they proclaimed to be their 'territory' it doesn't give them the right to kill my friend."``Oliver 
Difference is Oliver, that the person would know right from wrong and had a choice and wasn't going to EAT your relative or friend-the gator kills for food and is driven by instinct-FAR different. You're comparing a swamp-dwelling dinosaur to a being that makes nuclear power and builds computers and has developed an entire planet, c'mon!  
" When you invade another creature`s space, you have to be prepared for the worst."``Damon 
Absolute correct, Damon. 
"Biologist Dave Salmoni was on TV last night; "Rougue Bears." Great show; one of those fat Bears climbed 30 feet up a tree to grab a hiker and unfortunately kill her."`Ted 
Hey I Saw that show!! She thought she was safe because it was a Grizzly and it wouldn't be able to climb trees-WRONG! 
"Typically, the back legs of a lion or tiger are stronger than those of a bear, because they require them for high powered lunges and jumps. However, a bear overpowers other animals in upper body strength."  
Posted @ Saturday, October 24, 2009 3:23 PM by MrAlien123456  
I don't agree with you on this one instance-the bears hind legs are absolutely ENORMOUS!! Tigers and lions just have more spring as it were in their step and are different of design, thats why their back legs are different, the big cats are just like a canine in design-for speed, the emphasis is not power-derived as is a bears, which you can see the muscle in them protruding. Bear is just a more all around powerful predator. 
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 5:06 PM by ATTILA
Hey! I'm living in Texas and I'm not fats! Actually, Indiana had the national high in morbidly obese people than in any other state.  
Have a good night guys!
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 5:10 PM by ATTILA
atilla, i would honestly spend time answering those points but they're already been answered plus i've lost interest so i'll move swiftly on to mralien 
mralien, as i've said before i couldn't care less about the circumstances unless the person in question went out to specifically hurt the animal, like I said if i had an 11 year old son that was killed by a bear, i'd shoot the bear, simple... why? because i would want revenge, it does not matter to me, like it does to you about respecting an animals proclaimed territory when it kills a loved one of mine all the respect goes with it all reason, and all logic, the fact is the animals going to die.
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 8:27 PM by Oliver
Sorry. Attila. I didn't mean to actually offend you. But I heard it had the highest population of obesity in the US. But, you know, I guess they keep updating it every time.
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 9:04 PM by MrAlien123456
Oliver, let me put it this way......... 
If you had a baby that another person's baby killed, would you kill that baby, in revenge? Or if a toddler killed your baby with no intent, (happened before; I remember it on the News) would you have revenge on the toddler? Think about it...... 
The animal that would have killed your child would probably know no better than a toddler (considering that a toddler would normally know better than a wild animal in the first place), and even so...... 
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 9:43 PM by MrAlien123456
<<As with these old animal "Pit Fights;" due to the multiple versions recorded I personally would not rely on one conclusive outcome. Since a fight between a Grizzly & African Lion is unnatural; a unnatural controlled enviornment was needed. One can easily assume that there was also bias/gambling taking place during these matches. It is not far fetched to imagine (for a lack of better term), a "Bear fan" who was present being biased in favor of the Bear, just as I can see the same bias in a "Lion fan.">>  
Oh yes, this is quite likely, but I doubt if any sensible journalist would try to depict an obvious draw as a clear victory for one side, or vice versa. After all, these were very public events, usually covered by more than one journalist, and if readers find out that a newspaper blatantly tried to deceive them, that paper will probably go out of business in a short time. In contrast, I am highly reluctant to believe what a newspaper, let alone a 19th-century one, might write about the behavior of wild animals if the paper's source is only a single witness, such as a hunter or trapper. After all, who can check and find it out whether the guy lied or not? 
Besides, the quoted newspaper accounts about the Roosevelt-Peary, Parnell-Ramadam, and Parnell-Panthera fights are largely compatible with what we know about the usual fighting techniques of these animals. For instance, the outcome of the lion-bull fight is relatively easy to explain. The lion used the throat hold technique as usual, and it might have worked, but one crucial factor was missing: the lion could not knock the bull off its feet before applying the throat hold. While it managed to render the bull's horns temporarily useless, it was still exposed to the bull's thrashing hooves, and could not easily reach the jugular or the windpipe.  
Once again, it is rather understandable why the lion did not manage to knock the bull off its feet. Under natural conditions, the bull would have been attacked by several lions, or at least the lion could have more easily attack it from behind and target its hind legs. In contrast, in the arena it was probably the bull that attacked first, and the lion had no chance for a surprise attack, and relatively little chance for an attack from the rear. Please note that Siberian tigers also kill bears by the method of surprise attack from the side or the rear.  
<<As for my citations in regard to the Grizzly Bear killing a Bull Buffalo with one blow to the spine; I can only go by the one witness account given in the Great bear Almanac. If you have expert/quality sources that dispute such an event then I will have to re-think my opinion.>> 
Well, the newspaper article quoted by Horace Bell makes that story look less mysterious than some posters believed. There was no need for the bear to reach over the head of an attacking bison bull from the front. Apart from the problem that its paw could not have reached the bison's back, it should have had to deliver the blow with supersonic speed to counter the full speed of the galloping bison. Even a bullet would not kill quickly enough to stop the bull so instantly within the distance of one foot or two. Instead, the bear may have simply dodged the attack, let the bison rush past, and then dealt it a crushing blow: 
"the runway to the bullpen was opened once more and a second bull, a big black one with tail up as if to switch the moon, charged into the arena. On his head glistened horns so long and sharp that it seemed impossible for the bear ever to reach the head with his death-dealing paws before being impaled. But this problem did not seem to worry the grizzly . He had not been living on cattle for so many years without knowing a lot about their movements. When this new antagonist came at him he dodged as easily as a trained human bullfighter, and as the bull shot past him down came one big paw on the bovine's neck with a whack that sounded all over the adobe corral." 
Concerning the issue whether a single blow by the bear's paw could have broken the bison's back, I am more skeptical. After all, the aforesaid bull was not killed by that blow, even though it hit it in such a sensitive area as the neck. On the contrary, it remained capable of fighting. Still, a blow landing on the backbone's spinuous processes is likely to stun or temporarily paralyze an animal, even though its effect is by no means fatal. I doubt if that old hunter ventured close enough to check the precise medical conditions of the injured bull.:)  
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 10:19 PM by Balazs
Oliver, MrAlien and others: 
I think it is unfair to blame an animal for attacking a stranger who enters its cage. Not because that person should be an expert in animal behavior and territorial instincts and WTF. Simply because there are those fricking guard rails and fricking big warning signs which make it absolutely clear that one SHOULD NOT enter that fricking cage, period. If a person is not old enough to understand that, s/he needs constant supervision; and if s/he is, then it is his/her responsibility. If someone ventures into an airfield and gets sucked up into a turbine of a Boeing, would you shoot down the plane?  
On the other hand, some people go a bit too far in displaying patience and tolerance toward the not-so-cute instincts of certain animals. For instance, when a wild male chimpanzee named Frodo killed and partially ate a human baby, the park authorities decided not to euthanize him on the grounds that he was just driven by his natural predatory instincts, the poor critter. Well, that Frodo was a bully in every respect, to quote Jane Goodall herself whom Frodo also roughed up several times. Becoming an alpha male, he mistreated his fellow chimps in every possible way. Yet when he fell sick, Goodall's team carefully cured him on the grounds that he had caught some human disease. At least they should have allowed him to die. After all, if such an aggressive wild animal feels that he could easily get away with killing a human being, he is quite likely to repeat the feat. Then what to do? Prohibit every human being from entering any area for which that fricking chimp lays claim?
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 10:38 PM by Balazs
Yes, Balazs, but I'm the individual that thinks killing animals because they killed someone who was invading their territory was wrong. Also, I talked about the rapid hyena that killed 9 people and injured fifteen of them, in an African village. An animal like that must be put out of it's misery (rabies), however, a normal animal that's defending their cubs, food or territory should not be killed, just because it killed another person. Since, if an animal were to enter your house, according to the law, the person would have all of the rights in the world to beat and/or shoot the animal, which I find unfair.
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 10:52 PM by MrAlien123456
Also, about trophy hunting.........  
Another stupid, insensible "sport". I understand if someone hunted an animal like a deer or rabbit HUMANLY, for food and resources, but just to trophy hunt an animal for it's hide, tusks, and head for luxury instead of necessity is out of line. 
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 10:57 PM by Mralien123456
>>Since, if an animal were to enter your house, according to the law, the person would have all of the rights in the world to beat and/or shoot the animal, which I find unfair.>> 
I do not feel that it is unfair if I beat an animal to death if it invades my home and if that animal happens to be a mosquito, fly or flea:)
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 11:05 PM by Balazs
Would you beat an alligator, if it entered your home, or a spider, snake, or a mouse? Or would you be the nice person and set them free, or call animal control to set them back into the wild? 
I actually decide to set mosquitoes free. Males are pollinators. I just lightly spray one with a water bottle, and then set it outside. Flies help decompose dead animal matter and fecal matter, so the same case with the mosquito. If the fly is small enough though, like a midge or something, I just leave it alone.
Posted @ Monday, October 26, 2009 11:31 PM by MrAlien123456
Oliver, Damon & whoever! 
I was born and raised in the "Ghetto!" Bridgeport, Connecticut where I live now is like the Bronx without Yankee Stadium. So don't think I am some suburb punkass taking a cheap shot! 
Damon - I have known a lot of people who have died, including my mother and one brother. I have carried enough coffins and it is not pleasent 
My point: If my mother was alive & hiked into the Alaskan Wilderness or Afican Plaines (which she would not have done), and was killed by a wild beats; I would NOT pick up my Mack-10 or AK-47 and go hunting for the animal responsible. That is just unrealistic! 
However, if I was there, the animal would never have made it to my loved one or anyone; I would have no problem dropping a charging animal or human attacker. 
As for the crazy Chimp that bit off the ladies face; it was 30 minutes down I95 from where I live. The owner should never have kept that crazy Chimp as a pet or treated it as if it were her child.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:01 AM by Ted
I do apologize for one of my remarks. It was out of line!
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:06 AM by Ted
<<As for the crazy chimp that bit off the ladies face; it was 30 minutes down I95 from where I live. The owner should never have kept that crazy Chimp as a pet or treated it as if it were her child.>> 
Exactly. The tragedy happened when the animal, which was already an adult male, started to behave in a rather unruly way, and the owner called her friend, whom the animal knew, to come over and help her in controlling the chimp. This was probably the biggest mistake she could make. If an adult male chimp is no longer willing to accept unquestionably the authority of his alpha mate, then it will be even less willing to submit to someone who is definitely lower in the pecking order than the alpha individual. As soon as the chimp was no longer fully under her control, she should have realized that her time as alpha individual is over, and the chimp must be transferred to a zoo. 
I also wondered why the chimp wounded that woman so seriously if this was only a minor incident, and I think the reason is simply that human females (but even human males) are not built so massively and are not capable of running so fast as adult male chimps. That is, another male chimp would have simply escaped before suffering some really serious injury, but that poor woman had no chance of running away once it was grabbed by the chimp.  
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:35 AM by Balazs
<<Would you beat an alligator, if it entered your home, or a spider, snake, or a mouse?>> 
If the snake were a non-venomous one, I would admire it, take a photo, and bring it to a place where no idiot is likely to find and kill it. If it were a gator or a venomous snake, I would call some experts to release it to the wild. Spiders I do not mind. It happened only once that a mouse entered our house. I chased it out, but unfortunately it promptly came back. I must admit that when I caught it the second time, I killed it. In any case, it would have been likely to be caught by our cats.  
<<I actually decide to set mosquitoes free. Males are pollinators. I just lightly spray one with a water bottle, and then set it outside. Flies help decompose dead animal matter and fecal matter, so the same case with the mosquito.>> 
Most of the mosquitos I have to deal with are females, and unfortunately they bite. The problem with them and flies is that they carry diseases. Precisely because flies feed on dung and carcasses. I would rather educate people to clean up after their dogs than to leave it to the flies to do the job.:)
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:53 AM by Balazs
You know what's funny? People complain about mice and rat problems, yet they only got so diverse over the globe because of people bringing them out of their natural habitats in the first place. And the only reason they multiplied so much is because were are doing the same, and they feed ff us, as well. I mean, even if we weren’t' around, they would surely be around, because of course they were here long before humans were, however, they would be in their native habitats; somewhere in Asia and Europe, instead of all over the globe. We are a dirty animal species compared to other animals. Don’t take offense to this people, but we are. We produce the most waste; not just defecation or bodily excretions, but garbage, and pollution. Essentially, world wide, we are one of the dirtiest species……. 
People contradict pigs as being a clean animal, but they have no sweat glands, so they need to roll in the mud to cool off. I hate it when people think certain animal behaviors are disgusting when look at the people on the planet…….. Rats only carried diseases that affected us the most. Other animals were fine living with rats, snakes, spiders, and etc. However, people on our planet all of the sudden decide they are creeps and don’t belong on this planet…. It’s really obnoxious. I feel like screaming in those people’s ears…… 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:13 AM by Mralien123456
I remember, some kid in my Middle School said he wish there was this giant pit that could fit every bug in there, and then he would take a giant boot and smash all of them. Then, I was like "How about if I curb stomped your fucking face, with metal cleats, instead, dickhead?”  
People these days....... They have no fucking clue how valuable arthropods are to the ecosystem....
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:18 AM by MrAlien123456
Actually, ATTILA, for the most part, living in the ghetto is not so harsh. Aside from the occasional murders, i am quite content, and most of the people i`ve come by, were at least half way decent. For the time being, anyway, i`m quite content.  
It`s usually only when people are beefing, that stuff usually happens. But, i never try to get mixed up in that.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:20 AM by damon
You know what? I lived a couple of years in Mongolia, and I never saw a single rat. Then I spent five months in Washington, DC, and I saw rats running on the prestigious Pennsylvania Avenue in the evening. The reason? People in Mongolia are usually too poor to throw away anything that is edible.:)
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:28 AM by Balazs
Mongolia! And I thought I got around. You're quite an interesting guy LOL..
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:32 AM by Ted
Actually, there are some interesting rare animals in Mongolia, such as Gobi bears, snow leopards, kulans, Przewalski horses and wild camels, but they are very gravely endangered. This is a beautiful country in the process of being thoroughly screwed up by the fricking mining companies like Ivanhoe Mines from Canada.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:49 AM by Balazs
As for trophy hunting: I would suggest reading the short story titled "The Most Dangerous Game". See here:
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:03 AM by Balazs
Coincidently, Balazs, I read that story last year, in 9th grade English. Ha-ha. Yeah; the guy that thought animals had no emotions at the beginning of the book figured out that they experienced fear, like any other human would, when being hunted. He had to figure out how to escape from the guy who was coming for him. It was pretty much like a game of man hunt, except, of course, deadlier. Eventually, at the end of the story, the main character manages to kill the guy who was hunting for him all night, considering that the island man said whoever wins gets to sleep well that night, and the man who was stranded on the island manages to sleep in the bed, showing that he was the victor. The man who lived on the island, trained shipwreck victims in some kind of jail area and gave them proper food, nutrients, and exercise, to make them tougher, so his “game” would be more of a challenge to him. I have to say though, that guy could've just shot the main character at beginning of the book, when he figures out his strategy of trying to confuse him, by going up a tree. He knew he was in the tree, but wanted there to be a better challenge, so he just left him there, to start hiding again.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:11 PM by MrAlien123456
lol ted, i'm not from any tramp ghetto so any comment you made there i laughed at myself, and you really don't need to explain yourself 
honestly though, any animal that injured or killed one of my family members i would shoot it's not about compassion, what do you think that i actually care about if the animal was defending his or her proclaimed territory? i couldn't care less it's not like with a toddler who you can send to a rehabilitation center prosecute their parents what do you really think i'd care even a little bit about an animal that didn't think twice about killing my loved one? 
what amazes me though is how many people would let the animal live who'd killed one of your family members, i love wildlife and hate the mistreatment of it, but as soon as it turns on me i wouldn't think twice about turning on it either.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:24 PM by Oliver
Oliver, yes, those points were posted and as usual, you reply with incorrect "facts" and misinformation-you have 5 people on here constantly correcting you, yet you remain ignorant-thats on you-our points are correct and quite valid and relevent to this forum and discussion. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Bottom line, lion isn't king of the jungle, Bears are-and herbivores even have more muscle mass-take the spanish fighting bull for instance-other bovines have a genetic occurance called "double muscle" as is seen in dogs sometimes, it happened with a whippet dog, so you saying lions are the most muscular, can beat anything is pure complete rubbish as people say in England! 
You didn't offend me at all mr. Alien! I was being facetious! 
Also Ted-didn't you say you were in law enforcement at one time? Last night I made a citizens arrest on a mugger on our block attacking an old woman, myself and 2 others(neighbors) chased him down and I took him down Grizzly style and drug him to the next block when 4 police units arrived-they said since he had mugged the old lady it was a robbery and if she is 65 or older, the penelty would go higher than the 5 years he is expected to serve now! This isn't relative to this forum, but I thought I'd share it with you. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:07 PM by ATTILA
Again you miss the point. I don't care where you come from but Damon was compassionate enough to defend you. Personnally I don't think you know where your from. 
However, DAMON ststed he lives in the ghetto without "Tramp" attached to it. Damon also stated he understands you LOL..  
DAMON, Boy did that clown Oliver play you! LOL... 
You sound quite young! If a wild animal harmed one of your family members you stated you would get REVENGE! EYE for an EYE! ??? 
All of us reading your comments realized the ignorance of such remarks. 
Since you have never been in the wild we know you would never find the animal responsible for killing your "loved one." Thus I guess you would randomlly kill any wild animal you found. However, I would put my money on the animal; even if it was a rat :). 
As for the zoo; getting there on your bike and carrying a weapon to finish the job. Na I don't see it. You would not fair any better than the 11 year old. 
What do you mean the rest of us would let the animal live? If we knew which animal it was I think most agreed we would drop it. Especially if we were there. However, if a Bear killed one of my brothers in the woods; I would not go on a shooting rampage killing every bear I saw. 
This debate has gone way off topic; considering we started with Black Bear vs. African Lion LOL.. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:14 PM by Ted
Oliver punked you LOL... 
If you live in the Ghetto then you should have some street smarts. Oliver played you like a fiddle! 
You stated, you understand Oliver LOL.. 
Your empathy convinced me to even apologize to the little snot nosed brat LOL.. 
What do you think of the little punkass now? :) :) :) 
DAMON, Do you still understand him? LOL...
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:21 PM by Ted
Nice job! I hope you got some good punches and kicks in on the way. Police love when citizens like you get some good shots in on the mugger since we can't; at least while someone is watching LOL... 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:29 PM by Ted
Exactly, Ted. If the animal was right in front of me and was going for a family member, then yes, I would shoot it for protection, but if I were to hear, about my family member dying to an animal, who wandered into their territory, I won't go bounty hunt the animal. Oliver; you stated that an animal that's defending their territory deserves to die more than a toddler stuffing your baby’s face with a pillow? If a toddler were attacking my son/daughter, I would do all I can do to get the little fucker off my kid. And you say that you would want him to go to a rehabilitation center, yet you would kill an animal that had more of a reason to attack someone than a toddler would to your baby?
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:44 PM by MrAlien123456
Thanks Ted, ja-the police gave me great lattitude on my citizens arrest-the guy was even flagging down the cops to get away from me. I just wanted the perpetrator for once to pay for his crime-we're sick of crack-heads stealing our things and getting away with things-there was noo way I was going to let him get away with it, yeah, police thanked us alot and took our statements and video statement as well. 
Black bear vs Lion-not such a pushover for the lion as people might suspect, I think black bears would hold up rather well against the lion as shown in a youtube video albeit they can be tampered with, so I don't put all my stock in those videos, you know. In that fight, I'm going to say it depends on the particular animal, either black bear or lion as to whom the victor in the battle would be-each individual might produce a different result instead of lumping them into a whole species category-I don't especially think that would work practically in this fight.
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:51 PM by ATTILA
Hm Ted I do like how you took that remark quite personally damon said he understands my thought process, not in regards to any place I may or may not be from, you seem to be under the stereotype that people from the ghetto 'understand each other', his comment was about the way I was thinking. 
Also as I've said wilderness I've been in, I just have never studied animals there. 
I really don't like discussing how I would go about killing the animal but the most logical place seems to be the place where the family member in question was killed, animals more often than not stick to their territory, that does not really qualify as a shooting rampage. 
Oh and also ted so we're in agreement now about the polar bear in the zoo because you said 'i think we agreed if we knew which animal it was we would drop it'. 
Yes mralien I did say that, I've never known any toddler to think ''oh hey i'll kill this kid'' that's unrealistic, but the animal in question would be thinking like that; ask yourself why would I ever think twice about killing an animal who didn't think twice when they killed one of my loved ones?
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:27 PM by Oliver
Also Atilla, 99.9% of everything I have said on here is backed up by evidence, sources and facts... Otherwise I wouldn't say it simply because the lion is my favourite animal (which coincidentally by the way it is not). 
Also people in england don't really say things like that what a terrible stereotype =O lol. 
For me with bears and lions: 
black bear vs lion - lion 9/10 
polar bear - lion 6/10 
The big brown bears - lion 7/10
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:32 PM by Oliver
Concerning the strength of the blows delivered by a grizzly's paw, see the folllowing quotations from Th. Roosevelt's "Hunting the Grisly": 
"In one or two instances the bear had apparently grappled with his victim [a cow] by seizing it near the loins and striking a disabling blow over the small of the back; in at least one instance he had jumped on the animal's head, grasping it with his fore-paws, while with his fangs he tore open the throat or crunched the neck bone."  
"Mr. Clarence King informs me that he was once eye-witness to a bear's killing a steer, in California. The steer was in a small pasture, and the bear climbed over, partly breaking down, the rails which barred the gateway. The steer started to run, but the grisly overtook it in four or five bounds, and struck it a tremendous blow on the flank with one paw, knocking several ribs clear away from the spine, and killing the animal outright by the shock." 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:33 PM by Balazs
Thanks for the visiual description. Well done!
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:21 PM by Ted
ATTILA, in one study, and indeed, i have already shown it, the lion had the highest percentage of muscle, compared with 40 other different types of mammals, and in fact, it is the cats which have been found to have the highest percentage of muscle, as compared with any other mammal. 
And yes, the spanish bull probably does have an overall greater amount of muscle, compared to the is, after all, MUCH larger.....however, it does not have a proportionately higher amount. 
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:59 PM by damon
Let me get this straight; Damon & Oliver are both in England? Something does not smell right; I think they are one in the same. It is like the movie Psycho LOL... 
Come on Oliver/Damon, Damon/Oliver; fess up! :) :) :) 
"No Soup for you" LOL....
Posted @ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:14 PM by Ted
This could be a whole set-up. Just like a play, except, on the computer, and not on a stage........ 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:13 AM by MrAlien123456
Damon and Oliver are both pretty great actors, but it seems that Oliver got to his breaking point. 
Oh, yes, and Damon, who do you think has a higher percentage of muscle mass, proportionally, now? 
LOL, the outcome wouldn't be so great for the lion, anymore...... 
That's a whole breed with a whole line of myostatin.... 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:19 AM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, that image does not prove the bull has a higher percentage of muscle....what it proves, is that he has a high definition of muscle, which is due to low body fat, though he likely does indeed have a very high level of muscle mass.....though certainly not within that of the lion, which had, in one study, the highest percentage of any other mammal compared, as i have showed.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:25 AM by damon
Ted, what the HELL are you talking about? for starters, i do indeed have street smarts, and yes, i did/do understand Oliver....i didn`t state i agreed with him, though.....which you would have known if you read my comment completely. 
I wasn`t defending anyone, i merely stated that i understood. I`m sure you know what that means, right?....
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:41 AM by damon
Damon, do you know what myostatin deficiency is? There is a whippet named Wendy who has it. Look at her. She has much more than a six pack on her abdominals. This is a whole breed of bulls known as Belgium Blues, who have a line of myostatin deficiency, producing more muscle growth than usual. This disease is known as “double muscle”, which means that the animal receives double the amount of muscle it normally would. It does not mean two of the same muscle, but just double the amount of muscle the animal grows. This bull has a skeletal structure, the same as those of other bull breeds his size, but almost every bull/cow in the Belgium Blue breed inherits this gene. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:00 AM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, even twice the bull`s normal amount of muscle may not exceed that of lions, which was roughly 60%, and animals cannot have much more muscle than that, as a great percentage of their mass has to contributed to the bones and organs, as well as fat, which takes up a certain percentage of body mass.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:16 AM by damon
Also, i just looked up the word 'myostatin deficiency', and, no definition indicates the muscles grow twice as large as before. They may grow several times stronger.....made all the more visual due to the fact that with myostatin deficiency, fat cannot grow, which is what i suspected of that bull.....which was that he had little fat.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:20 AM by damon
I just saw that video about Ms. Cougar (married with children) vs. Mr. Grizzly. I am inclined to believe that it is really fake. The bear acted so passively that it was, in all probability, a trained animal. Another video, depicting a conflict between a cougar and a black bear, looks much more credible, because both animals act realistically, in accordance with their actual capabilities:
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:40 AM by Balazs
and Ted, i`m from D.C., not england. Where`d you get england from?....
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:11 AM by damon
lol Ted you sound more angry in every post. 
Yep, that's what damon meant he understands the thought process not that he understands me lol that's silly. 
No you said if you knew which animal it was you'd 'drop it', so we're in agreement if that was your son in the zoo you'd also shoot or have the polar bear shot? 
Like I've said a few times now, why would I ever think twice about killing an animal who didn't think twice about killing a loved one?
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:29 AM by Oliver
concerning the lion vs spanish bull, if muscle mass was the deciding factor then single lions would never have been observed taking down buffalo much larger than themselves 
here is a video of such an event for you to ponder:
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:32 AM by Oliver
I wonder how a Kodiak bear with myostatin deficiency would look like.:)
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:11 AM by Balazs
Here`s an account where a lone lioness kills a buffalo;
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:33 AM by damon
Wow damon, that video was even better than mine lol i've heard of accounts but never seen a lioness take down an adult buffalo and kill before.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:33 PM by Oliver
Oh and balazs it would probably look dead.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:35 PM by Oliver
"I sound more angry in every post"  
If you match my words with my voice you would hear laughter! 
Angry with you? No; my 7 & 9 year old boys are much more of a challenge than your silly comments of shooting a bear in the zoo LOL.. 
I am just cracking up picturing you and Damon with those "Safari Hats" and Elephant Rifles strapped over your shoulders as you hunt the African Plaines for the Lion that killed your love one LOL..  
Too Much! You & Damon could star in a good comedy skit with me directing. The title "Bear scat in Alaska!" :) 
Trust me; no anger here LOL... 
However, following one of Damon;s sites called Yuku. ???? I had to post an image. Go there and look up the member "Kodiak Bear" that is me. You will find one mean looking bear. Perhaps the one that ate your loved one :) :) 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:58 PM by Ted
LOL, Damon, if you didn't notice, the buffalo had no movement what so ever. If it was on land, the story would be different...... 
You could clearly see how stuck that buffalo was in the water which allowed the lion to give a throat bite, but that doesn’t prove strength. That proves how immobile the buffalo was, and how well equipped the lion was with weaponry. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:53 PM by MrALien123456
It would probably look dead."  
Oliver, do you have any idea what myostatin deficiency is? Because you seem to think it's a fatal disease that will kill you..... 
Myostatin is the hormone in your body that crops your muscle growth, so you wont' look like the fucking Hulk. Animals with this disease don't have it or produce very little fit. And, Oliver, if you were to fire a rifle at a charging Kodiak with myostatin. That will only make it madder., considering that you never hunted before and have shitty aim with a rifle. Theodore Roosevelt experienced bears that kept charging at him after being shot nu8merous times with rifles. So yeah., firing one round at a Kodiak on it’s shoulder wouldn’t do much shit. Just make it angrier. So good luck with that…. And since Brown bears have been recorded at speeds at 35mph, you’ll be rounding up a second rifle round while the bear is right at your face. Ha-ha……. Also Oliver, if I knew the animal which killed my relative, I wouldn’t kill that animal if the “deed” is done…..I would only harm/kill that animal if it were in attack mode and going after my relative. 
LOL, Ted, yes! Oliver and Damon going on a safari with their kaki pants, knapsacks, rifles and explorer hats. LOL. In a camouflage painted jeep. So hilarious. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:07 PM by MrAlien123456
i said it would look dead because animals with myostatin deficiency have very little body fat and kodiak bears need a very large amount of fat to survive on kodiak island, so... without fat it would be dead. 
and i suppose that is where you and i differ because you wouldn't kill the animal, wheras i would for revenge. 
well that would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact damon had already said he wouldn't shoot the animal so i'm afraid you'll just have to imagine myself but try not to make me look too ugly. 
also the buffalo was struggling in damonds video, but why not watch this video if you have doubts about the water watch this one:
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:05 PM by Oliver
You state, "Try not to make me look too ugly" Too funny! 
If you are white I'll give you the "Rambo" look! 
If Black I'll give a "Scat Man Crothers" look :). 
If Hispanic I'll give you the Poncho V. look LOL.. 
As for Damon; don't worry! I can write Damon into the script. Damon can be your driver, carry your toys, cook your meals, sing/hum you to sleep etc...  
Also, Damon can be the one always complaining as you drag him around Africa & Alaska in search of the beasts that killed your loved ones.  
Damon, do you have any preference as to looks?  
I'm thinking maybe Fred Samford or Mike Tyson; just don't bite Oliver in the ear :). 
The first episodes will take place in Africa; exact location not yet determined. Feel free to make suggestions in regard to location. 
The second season episodes; Alaska! This will be where the two of you meet your Grizzly fate. 
Damn I'm good! 
This has real potential; Right now I have my 9 year old son working on the pilot. 
I'm thinking Oscar!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:56 PM by Ted
Sorry I spelled your name wrong. It is Fred Sanford (Redd Fox).
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:04 PM by Ted
LOL, and yet Oliver, both videos showed cows, which are much smaller than the bulls......... 
So, Oliver, I guess you haven't seen these videos, of lions going after bull buffalos? 
All of those lions were males, not females. 
Young zebra stallion manages to nearly drown a lioness. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:19 PM by MrAlien123456
"All of those lions were males, not females." 
Was refferring to the second link I posted.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:23 PM by MrAlien123456
Ya, I saw that Zebra kick the Lion's ass LOL... The Lion ran away fearing for it's life. 
Good one Mr.Alien!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:24 PM by Ted
LOL, Ted. I just saw your comment. I cracked up.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:27 PM by MrAlien123456
LOL Damon is Oliver's supervisor. HAHA. Good script. Hope it gets on Broadway or something.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:28 PM by MrAlien123456
LoL. He tries shooting at the lion and misses. What comes next? Dununun. There goes Oliver......
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:31 PM by MrAlien123456
Well I have to keep Oliver around until Alaska so maybe I'll have Damon use some of his street smarts and talk some smack getting the Lions to back off LOL... 
However, my son just asked how will I protect them from the Zebras :) 
The script just keeps getting better all the time.  
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:41 PM by Ted
Yes. Save him for the Kodiak bears!
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:45 PM by MrAlien123456
Whichever part of Alaska he goes to; it'll either be a Grizzly bear or a Kodiak that gets. Him whether he goes to Kodiak Island or not. 
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:47 PM by MrAlien123456
Cow buffalo are not 'much' smaller than the bulls, there's no need to overexagerrate and sometimes they can outweigh males by a lot that one in damons video seems to be particularly hefty. 
Although i'm not too sure what you were trying to prove with those videos, it is already well known that lions hunt in prides is it not? So how is it suprising to see prides of lions taking down buffalo? It does not mean that a single lion is any less capable of taking down one, as damon and i proved. 
Also the zebra wasn't trying to drown the lioness he was trying to get away so i suppose luck was on his side that he was in water and the lioness was beneath him.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:23 PM by Oliver
And Ted, I'm quite disappointed in you and your lack of observation, where in that video did the lioness 'run away fearing for her life', watch it again she ran after the zebra which was actually running away and fearing for his life. 
Also I'm glad you found my comment funny, man... if i had a penny for the amount of times people change the subject...
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:27 PM by Oliver
Oh yeah and mralien you do know that the male lions in that second link don't look to be fully grown at all 2 - 3 years old perhaps, the colour and size of the mane is an indicator for you older prime male lions have fuller and more often than not darker manes.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:30 PM by Oliver
<<Theodore Roosevelt experienced bears that kept charging at him after being shot numerous times with rifles.>> 
In fact, it happened to him only once, but that case was spectacular enough. The first shot hit the bear's lungs, the second was very close to the heart, the third one entered the chest, the fourth one broke the lower jaw, and the bear was still able to get so close to him that it almost hit him with a swipe of its paw before dropping dead.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:57 PM by Balazs
What I was trying to point out, Oliver was that I wanted to show you how much damage a lone buffalo could take, and if you actually watched both of the videos, you would see that both of these contained one buffalo against a hunting party or a pride of lions. And you seem to fail to acknowledge that a buffalo bull is generally more aggressive and stronger than a female. And with every bovine species, males are always generally larger than females. They laso have more muscle mass than females.
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:31 PM by MrAlien123456
Only because there was water underneath the zebra, Oliver? 
May I say more, Oliver?
Posted @ Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:40 PM by MrAlien123456
As for the lone lioness attacking the Cape buffalo: the video clearly shows that the buffalo made a fatal mistake when started to flee, instead of confronting the lion. As far as I could see the buffalo's body and horns, I think it was a cow without a calf or a rather young bull, and such animals are usually strongly influenced by herd instincts. If the herd gets involved in a stampede (as it happened here), only adult bulls or cows protecting their calves are inclined to take the unquestionably risky step of not following the herd but confronting and attacking the predator. Staying with the fleeing herd apparently makes sense, but the last stragglers are actually more likely to be targeted than the bold and aggressive individuals, because a lion can deal more easily with a fleeing buffalo than with an attacking one. Still, the video also shows that the lioness, despite its good throat grip, could not knock the buffalo off its feet, and probably it was the other members of the pride which finished the job. Another video shows that even a male lion cannot easily pin down an adult buffalo bull solely by a throat hold: 
As I said with regard to the Parnell-Panthera fight, the outcome of the struggle is very much determined by whether the lion can bring the bull down or not.
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:24 AM by Balazs
Yep mralien that zebra was very lucky he didn't look very old and there's no way he would have got away... Plus your videos kinda prove my point the lioness's are constantly shown overpowering the zebra and taking them down they should have a fair bit more muscle but they are still overpowered. 
watch these: 
Also ted you say a single lion couldn't take down a bull buffalo... by any chance are you refering to a video like this: 
And also when you say the buffalo threw the lioness are you refering to this video? 
because if you are there are 4 lioness's and one gets stabbed in the arm there's no killing. 
such events of buffalos killing lions are extremely rare lions are far too agile and dangerous plus most of the time the buffalo runs rather than fights.
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:56 AM by Oliver
LOL, Oliver, your comment to me didn't make much sense. The videos I showed you clearly shows a zebra standing up to a lioness. You seem to think the lioness was old and the zebra was such a young, fit horse? LOLZ. You are overprotecting the lion. The animal you would kill if it killed your loved one, for revenge. And also, Oliver, you must’ve not seen the last video, because the zebra really kicked the MALE LION’S ass hard and managed to get away. And also, one video shows a zebra downed on the ground, and he managed to get back up with the lioness on top of him. If a zebra had teeth like a lion’s, I’m pretty sure the battle would be even more epic.
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:41 PM by MrAlien123456
You don't seem to understand that zebras are stronger than our domestic horses. They are heavier built and more aggressive. You always seem to underestimate the strength of herbivores. And if an elephant were shrunken down to the size of a lion, the energy and muscle mass it needed to support it’s bulk wouldn’t be so much, which would make it one of the strongest land mammals, p.f.p. The same with the rhinoceros. 
Also Oliver, about the female lion killing that buffalo cow. The lion was level with the buffalo, and the buffalo’s back was turned. The buffalo was half- submerged underwater. So of course the lion can run right up it’s back and give it a throat bite… 
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:07 PM by MrAlien123456
The lions agility and power would pay off against any buffalo that's why records of buffalo killing lions are extremely rare, and when you said a male lion could never take down a bull buffalo did you mean something like this:  
And well Ted unless you can get me that video you can't use it as proof it's just a nameless documentry. 
And I think you're refering to the test brady bar conducted on a 3 year old lion is that the test you're talking about? Even though it has nothing to do with what we're talking about animal planet and national geographic also did a few tests the lions bite force and tigers bite force actually came out at 1000 lbs. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:14 PM by Oliver
mralien what on earth are you talking about? a zebra standing up to a lioness has never in history been documented they were trying to get away from the lioness who easily over powers them lol. 
again the zebra was trying to get away not standing up to the lioness... lioness's in the video you showed me proves my point they are throwing and tossing the zebras around until the end when the zebra finally manages t pull free and run away. 
And no the buffalo in the video with the lioness was not submerged in the water at all until after the lioness grabbed her by the throat, so it would still be a lot harder than you imagine here is the video again for you to watch: 
not only that in the video i gave you the male lion wrestles one cow head on and takes a bull buffalo down from behind. 
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:20 PM by Oliver
LOL, Oliver. Then, you probably never saw this video either.......... Huh? Because it REALLY shows how zebras are cowards after all (sarcasm). 
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:38 PM by MrAlien123456
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:49 PM by MrAlien123456
I never said zebras are cowards now did I? I said they will never stand up to or attempt to fight an adult lioness or more insanely a male lion, they might struggle for their lives but never fight even buffalo very rarely fight lions and when they do they do so only to defend themselves that's why it is extremely rare to find any lion being killed by one, grouped with the fact that they are far too agile and deadly. 
so i think the original point was how well would a lion fare against a spanish bull? and the answer is really probably 9/10 in the lions favour and i only give the 1 fight away due to anomylees anything after all can happen, buffalo makes up about 62% of a lions diet as confirmed by lion expert George B Schaller...they are generally bigger and heavier on average than any spanish fighting bull, equally as agressive, and not only that single lions have been constantly observed throwing and killing animals much larger and heavier than themselves around as damon and I proved, with significant emphasis on the cape buffalo which is the most similar to the spanish bull apart from that it is bigger and heavier.
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:00 PM by Oliver
You are of course right in that zebras would never try to use offensive tactics against lions, but it is interesting to note that if they do so against smaller predators, it does work. Jane Goodall observed that hyenas and wild dogs are not particularly discouraged by the occasional kicks of fleeing zebras (though such a kick can literally send a hyena or dog flying), but if a stallion attacks them with the intention of biting, they usually retreat, at least temporarily. Apparently they are more afraid of zebra bites than of kicks, not the least because bites are always well-aimed and purposeful while kicks are not necessarily so. But of course a zebra would simply commit suicide if it tried to attack and bite a lion. 
Re lion vs. Spanish bull: I think you have not realized yet what I keep emphasizing for quite a long time. That is, the lion might be indeed able to defeat the bull, but only if it can knock it down first and preferably inflict serious injuries on its hind legs and/or spine. A throat hold in itself is apparently not sufficient to immobilize the bull.  
The videos on Cape buffaloes show that if the lion grabbed the buffalo's neck, the buffalo was still often able to lift its head and even shake the lion off. This is why the male lion on one of the videos first threw its whole weight on the buffalo's back and flank and bit its spine, and this is why Parnell, though it was hanging on the bull's neck for twenty-plus minutes, could not kill its opponent. 
My conclusion is that if the bull starts the attack and puts the lion on the defensive from the very beginning, it has a chance to win even though it is likely to suffer serious injuries, but if it gets scared, it will probably lose.  
Since Spanish bulls were bred to be aggressive, it may not get scared too easily, but individuals may be considerably different in temper. Spanish bullfighter managers knew how to use foul methods, and quite often influenced the chances of the fight in favor of or against the matador. If they wanted the guy to win easily, he got a small and cowardly bull; if they wanted him to lose, he got a big and aggressive one.  
If I remember correctly, Hemingway tells a story about a particular region where the bred bulls became so big and aggressive that the matadors' complaints eventually persuaded the breeders to reverse the process of selection. In fact, they went into overdrive, because the bulls eventually became so cowardly as almost useless for fighting.  
But I hate bullfights as much as any other pit fights. The only type of pit fight that I would heartily welcome is to let the managers themselves face the bear, lion or bull in the same pit, with each side using only its natural weapons (claws, teeth, nails, horns, and so on).:)
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:33 PM by Balazs
Hm balazs I'm not completely convinced that a hyena would be more discouraged by a zebras bite more than a kick, I honestly couldn't argue with the observation of an expert but I just can't imagine a zebras teeth being more dangerous I mean... look at them: 
In regards to the spanish bull, I can't see the lion immediately taking the defensive he is after all more agressive and is used to dealing with bigger bulls I'm confident in saying that he could knock down the bull if you take a look at this video this single male lion takes down this buffalo cow head on which should be around the same size as an average spanish bull: 
Although I do have to admit with the spanish bulls more athletic build the lions advantage of agility may be decreased considerably. 
Also I'm not sure how well you can use the story of parnell it was stated that he was badly injured from his fight with the bear. 
Hm and I have to agree with you throwing the animal pit fight managers in with the animals although I would also like to see the managers thrown in with the mob of angry human protesters I think would be more interesting than 20 seconds of fear with a bull, bear, lion or tiger, before they're ripped to pieces.
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:14 PM by Oliver
Oliver, have you ever been bitten by a horse before? I don't think so. I have quite a few times. Because we actually have two of them.... They need strong jaws to grind up plant material and the edges of their hooves act like blades.
Posted @ Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:24 PM by MrAlien1234456
Quite a pity that this video is fragmented, and thus we do not know how the fight started and how long it took. Still, it appears that in this case also the lion's attack was facilitated by the fact that the buffaloes, supposedly including the victim, started to flee, instead of confronting the lion. The lion was also lucky in the angle of its throat grip, because the buffalo could move only backwards, which of course greatly reduced its mobility. Still, it was undoubtedly a splendid performance.
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 12:39 AM by Balazs
Ted, what is with you and these gay-type remarks?, i guess i`ll take that as you being a fag. also, i never said i would take revenge on an animal that killed a loved one, and, you would know this if you actually read my comments. 
More than likely, it was the person`s fault, if they should be attacked, and i wouldn`t fault an animal for merely displaying his natural behavior. So, no, i would not go on any safari hunt.
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 1:59 AM by damon
"Gay type reamrks" & "You guess I'm a fag?" Are you trying to out me too my wife? LOL... 
However, unlike you I never made anti gay remarks or called someone a fag LOL... 
You're so sensetive; are you sure you are not fighting from the closet LOL... 
You stated somewhere you are black; I guess the Lion is the Symbol of your proud/pride African heritage LOL.. 
Now if I wanted to srerotype you I guess I could write the story with you & Oliver in Africa fighting wild beasts with spears. You know; "Spear Chuckers!" HA HA.. 
I say let's leave the gays and your ghetto upbrining out of it. The Lion or Bear will eat your ass whether you're gay, black, male/female or in your case just plain confussed. 
Come out from the ghetto and evolve! :) 
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 3:37 PM by Ted
Well, I don't know about Damon being black. Ha-ha. I remember one of his "links" that went to a photo of his hands holdings a book. They were white as snow, or a white lion, for Damon's sake....... 
LOL, Oliver, that statement you made about a lion’s bite force being 1000lbs, was bullshit. It’s 691lbs; about as much as a grey wolf’s.  
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 4:53 PM by MrAlien123456
And Oliver, the marsupial lion would just outbute every lion there. Haha.
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 4:57 PM by Mralien123456
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 5:02 PM by MrAlien123456
I don't really care what Damon is! I'am giving him back a taste of stereotyping LOL... 
Before I ever saw this site Damon was arguing with a multitude of people. Scroll to the top and you will see how childish some of those discussions were. Especially, September 4th! 
If you read his comments before and on September 4th, you would know he is a self proclaimed Martial Arts Expert, he lives in Barry Farms D.C. ghetto projects. I figured he was related to Ex-Mayor Barry; the crack head. 
Damon lives to argue Lions versus the world. He won't leave until the rest of us, except Oliver, stop posting. When we stop he wins LOL........ 
Damon the "Karate Kid!" Since you are a martial artist, (I won't ask what style), instead of a spear you can protect Oliver with "The Way of the Open Hand." LOL...... 
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 6:36 PM by Ted
Until he gets his ass beaten by the animal he loves "Oh so much." No more Karate Ghetto White Kid. Haha.
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 6:52 PM by MrAlien123456
I have to say I enjoyed reading those last 7 comments, I particularly liked the reference to damon being childish and then there was an immediate stereotype and a joke about his personal life, that kinda stupid you just can't get in a normal atmosphere lol. 
691 lbs is just too much of a coincidence that it was exactly the same as brady barrs test on a very young lion, I have no doubts in that was where the citation was from. 
And mralien, my sources come directly from the experts national geographic and animal planet, here is a video where they discuss the lion and tigers biteforce 
Conclusive proof? 1000 lbs apiece.
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 8:27 PM by Oliver
Ted, i`m far from sensitive. You were seemingly speaking in an angry tone, at least, that`s the only solution i could come up with, based upon what you`ve stated so far. 
and, what do you mean 'spear chucker?...i`ve told you, many times, that i would not kill an animal because it killed a loved one, of mine. As i don`t blame the animal.  
and likewise, what is with this stuff about the ghetto?....first off....what do you mean, ghetto upbriging?....i was raised, like you (presumably, by god-fearing parents. I don`t let the area in which i live influence my behavior.  
And, mralien, i`m black.....and, that lion with the 691 lb bite force was young, and not yet of adult age. One reliable study, based upon the skull of these animals, gives an estimate of 940 lbs.
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 11:31 PM by damon
Also, Ted, i have my own brand of martial arts, called kundo ken, inspired by bruce lee`s own style (if you could call it that) of jeet kune do.  
and also, i never started an argument with anyone, in the past. Rather, most others stated a particular opinion, and, if i disagredd, i pointed this out, along with showing reliable, scientific documents and eyewitness accounts as proof of my statements, and they retorted with snide remarks, and even more arguing.
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 11:36 PM by damon
Also, Ted, from source mentioning the bite force of the lion as being 691 lbs, was a quotation from Brady barr`s records. Not all were from the same source. And, i`ve yet to see two different studies which report the same exact measurements.
Posted @ Friday, October 30, 2009 11:44 PM by damon
Good to hear from you! 
First, I was never angry; waste of time. I was joking with Oliver when you got involved. Gay & Fag can from you; not me! 
Second, You mentioned "Ghetto" first in your Oct. 26, comments. I wrote "HOOD" & where I come from there are some pretty expensive Hoods. However, Hood can be a place or a mind-set. 
Third, your Lion buddy Oliver made the remark "Tramp Ghetto" Oct. 27, so don't throw that my way. 
Fourth, "Kundo Ken" Great I have been training in Okinawen Karete "Shotokan" & "Kyokushin" since 1984. I became an instructor in 1987. I have also beem training in Judo & Combat Self Defense from 1989 - the reason law enforcement. State Trooper & State Correctional Officer, etc.... 
No need to compare resumes! 
As far as I know you're one of very few people who even no what I look like on the computor due to Wild animals 
Personally I don't care who knows what I look like; I can handle my own & then some. 
The bottom line: I never came on this site to argue with people; I am here to enjoy the debates. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 1:22 AM by Ted
Ted, if you didn`t make any gay comments, why did you say; 
"Damon, do you have any preference as to looks?  
I'm thinking maybe Fred Samford or Mike Tyson; just don't bite Oliver in the ear :)." 
Boxing aside, a dude biting another dude`s ear is gay. And, what is with that statement, do i have any preference towards looks?  
..sounds like some gay-type comments to me. also, yes, let`s not compare resume`s, as i not only practiced karate (don`t do so anymore) but also tae kwon do, jeet kune do, muy tae, ju jitsu, kickboxing, just to name a few.....but finally, inspired by my idol, bruce lee, i decided to create my own style. However, unlike most other styles, i do not chamber my leg before kicking, as this slows down your kicks, and alerts your opponent as to your move. 
and, it`s hard to believe you became an instructor in 1987....3 years after you starter your art, it takes that long for most people to graduate to the level of black belt. and, you`d have to be at least a 4th degree black belt, to teach students, unless you were a 'student teacher'.  
Also, since you claim to have practiced martial arts, why don`t you tell me, how to perform a cresent kick?.... 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 1:43 AM by damon
Damon said he broke the Guiness World Record in throwing kicks LOL... 
Dude I see suicide in your future. 
If your a praying person; get on your knees and pray for some sense and grace.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:11 AM by Ted
Ted, i don`t know the counting system where you live, but here in d.c., 1987 is 3 years after 1984. That may be the 4th year, but, that is not 4 years. and, why`d you post your comment in my name? 
and, i didn`t say tyson was gay....i was talking of biting someone`s ear, outside of boxing. But, if i thought tyson was gay, i`d certainly have no problem in telling him. I might sound overconfident (that`s because i am) but i doubt he could beat me. And, i weigh 139 lbs, actually.  
And, for people which are under the level of 4th degree black belt, they usually teach under an instructor....this is not so for a 4th degree black belt, and higher, who can open their own schools, to teach martial arts.  
and no, it wouldn`t take me 4 years to become a black belt. And yes, indeed, i did learn from books, and observation as well....i am quite skilled in the art actually, and the self proclaimed best in the world. I believe that, in order to be the best, you must first believe you are the best, and train accordingly.  
and, Bruce lee could indeed win in the MMA. In fact, from what i`ve seen of the MMA, their techniques are not very 'technical', and most are rather slow. Bruce less had once gotten into a fight with a 5th degree black belt, in karate, and i believe he was about 19, at the time, or a little older. Anyway, the guy never layed a hand on him. They both started in their respective stances (that was before his creation of jeet kune do, and he was practicing gong fu, at the time. After catching the guy with a flurry of punches to his face, after bruce blocked a punch from that guy, he knocked him over, and was on the verge of 'finishing' him, when his friends stopped him. 
He once also hit a guy with his famous one inch punch, and the guy later proclaimed to have extreme chest pain for days, and he had to stay home from work, because of it. Just check out the speed of bruce lee; 
also, check out this vid, showing him in tournament; 
and no, bruce could not just throw the side kick. When he was alive, he performed thousands of kicks a day, for practice. and yes, with time and background knowledge of the moves to which you are performing, yes, you can learn from books.  
and, you still haven`t answered my do you perform a cresent kick..... 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:41 AM by damon
I assure you, Ted, you would never get te chance to bite me in the ear....if we ever were to fight. i`m quite strong, actually, and fast as hell!...because yes, i did beat the previous guinness world record. But, my kicks were performed low to the ground. while the record kicks (which i did not know at the time) were performed by kicking high into the air. If you want, i could even show a video of me performing martial arts?.....since you doubt me?...
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:44 AM by damon
Here's another "Lion (Bruce Lee) vs. Grizzly (Tyson)" debate that we all know that the "Grizzly" is going to win............. 
And Damon, how are you black if the picture you took of you holding the book had white hands. I've only met three albino black people in my fifteen year lifespan, and I doubt you are albino.....  
Don't ask why I'm up so late......  
I dozed off at 7:30 PM and woke up at 4:15 AM.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:49 AM by MrAlien123456
That's almost nine hours of sleep right there....
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:52 AM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, what picture are you talking about?...of the few pics i showed where my hands are visible, it is quite easy to see that i am black, and trust me, i`m very dark colored. and, if bruce was alive, and in his prime, he would most certainly defeat tyson.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:01 AM by damon
LOL, Karate Kid, I'm not that afraid of you, considering that I have big balls and I won three gold medals for state championship wrestling in my league, for the past four years, and have taken my share of kids who are older and larger than me for the past time I was in high school. Also, since I was born with thicker bones than an average person (the doctor has given me many x-rays of my kyphosis and scoliosis and pointed that out), I can sustain more damage, not a whole lot more, but enough to make a significant difference. Let's put it this way; I'm 5' 9" (never got my growth spurt yet, unfortunately, since both my parents got theirs at around 16-17 years old?)and I'm 195lbs; however, I'm certainly not fat or overweight, since I work out every other day.......
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:09 AM by MrAlien123456
Of you holding the book apparently showing the bear and lion skeletons, on your forums. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:12 AM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, what do you nean, you`re not scared of me?...i never even challenged you.....but, i assure you that you cannot defeat me. Wrestling helps very little in an actual fight....besides that, certain techniques i practice, the same or similar in wrestling, is rather proficient. I`m only a bit under 5'8, and 139 lbs....but, i`m strong as hell, with 14 inch biceps, and crazy speed.  
and, unless you are blind, the book of me holding the book of the bear skeleton showed black hands...
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 4:43 AM by damon
That’s my reaction when I hear people BRAGGING about what they can do, yet almost every kid that did that at my school got beat up, dissed, or ignored when they started annunciating that towards me....... 
That's why I have very few friends (7 at the most, the rest being acquaintances or annoying people) at school. People are too scared to go near me now since I took my share of game..... 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:08 AM by MrAlien123456
Also, Damon, I just measured my biceps. They came out to be 12-12.5inches. Not much of a big difference from yours...... My dad has bigger biceps than you....... 
So it's not amazing for an adult to have those.... I never got my major growth spurt yet, which involves muscle development, as well. Also, when I wrestle, I freestyle. I never follow any moves....... So there you go.......... Every tournament I won, I used none of the moves I was taught in class, because I never bothered to remember them. The only move I really know is the leg grab, where you grab the opponent’s leg, and push into their abdomen or trip and make them fall. So, if they tried kicking me (if this were in real life, not on a wrestling mat), I always turn my head to the side, charge at them, and then perform the move. Sometimes I might twist their leg, if I do it wrong. I did that a couple of times in practice. I do another move by reflex. In the tournaments, when someone is on my back, I perform a grab, haul and throw technique. It worked the majority of the times I did it before, in tournaments and in practice spars. Then I jump on top of the opponent and flip them on their back, using my weight to hold down the opponent and their arms. But really, my main feature is not my biceps. It's my shoulders. They were always broad from birth. I but I never bothered to join football because I hate sports. I mean, I know how to fight using my fists, but I never bothered to do kick boxing. I just work out, but I’m not a sports fanatic…. The wrestling thing was my dad’s idea, but I quit wrestling. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:43 AM by MrAlien123456
14 inch. biceps; not impressed. For someone who hints about God; show some humility. Even a true Martial Artist understands that principle. 
"The counting system" (1984-1987) is 3 years???? 
Math 101 LOL... If someone trained/played sports in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 that comes out to 4 years.  
If you want to be specific about Martial Arts and say someone is in their fourth year; who gives a rats ass LOL.... 
Now to more of your coments: 
"You said wrestling helps very little in an actual fight."  
1. WRESTLING: Most street fights go to the ground; a very skilled wrestler can take down his opponent to his domain & ground & pound if they know how. 
2. "Cresent Kick" Why would you ask such a stupid question? That particular kick is the least effective in terms of landing. If your opponent has his hands up you should never throw that kick unless you are going to fake it and rechamber to a Side Kick or Round House. We use that technique more for show and stretching LOL.. 
3. You stated, "you do not chamber your kicks!" The Chamber assures good technique, power & snap. Bruce Lee never chambered his kick and they look technically unsound. His Roundhouse was a joke. That is exactly why I said Bruce Lee only looked good throwing his famous two step Side Kick. It had real power but would never land against a good fighter.  
Kicks 101:  
Front Kick to body, Front snap Kick to jaw. 
Side Kick, Side Snap Kick, Spinning Side Kick, Spinning Back kick, Flying Side Kick. 
Roundhouse Kicks to lower legs, mid section, head. 
Leg Sweeps! 
Axe Kick - bust someones forehead, bridge of nose. 
scissors Kick etc... 
Now add your own if you like LOL... 
I also mentioned Judo and Combat defense: No need to brag LOL.. 
4. As far as instructor: I never said I was a SHIHAN by year 4; if you know any Japanese SHIHAN = MASTER. 
All our Black Belts were expected to INSTRUCT as part of their training.  
Did you even train in a real dojo; if so you should know that.  
Also, you should know better then to infer 4th, degree is a requirement if someone opens up a dojo. 
5. Mike Tyson in his Prime would have eaten you alive. Now he is a sad overweight and medicated man. 
6. As for REAL people I have trained with: LOL... 
1. Matty Melisi was my first Shihan!  
2. Michael "Jai" White; "Jai" is part of his acting name in Hollywood. Very good Martial Artist; if you look up his Bio you will see He is from BRIDGEPORT, CT just like myself LOL... 
He played Mike Tyson in the TV version, he also played Spawn in the movie.  
3. Andre Tippet: NFL Hall of Fame Linebacker for the Patriots; Hall of Fame Martial Artist 6th/Dan in Okinawan Karate. 
4. Trained with my Shihan Matty Melisi in L.A. under Benny "The Jet" Urquidez as a Kickboxer. He is probably the best pound for pound fighter in the world. Check out his Bio! 
I know you think you are the best pound for pound but Benny "The Jet" would rip you a new one. 
Finally; your hero Bruce Lee was never known to engage in real combat or MMA fights. He was HOLLYWOOD! The top MMA guys are not slow; they would have submitted Bruce Lee. 
GREAT READING: Since you like to read! 
1. "Martial Musings" very good book on the great Martial Artists in the past century. I don't agree with all of his opinions butstill great for revisiting the past. 
2. The Godfather of Grappling: Gene LeBell, Judo. 
Damon, you seem quite a bit of a Narcissus. Go look it up in the dictionary, #2 definition LOL... 
After your narcistic rebuttel; I think the rest of the group would rather discuss animals then reading our sparring sessions over Martial Arts LOl.. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:00 PM by Ted
Well Ted, I was simply pointing out how hypocritical it was to call someone childish and then immediately make a joke about ther personal life how strange you would do that =o 
So don't give me that 'well damon did it' because it doesn't make you look any better. 
And actually like damon said I have also never heard of 2 tests that produce the EXACT same results, brady barr did only measure a young lion and here are the animal planet and national geographic references again for you: 
Sure, everyones a martial arts expert online and although we all appreciate a good laugh it's more about the individual, it doesn't usually matter... if someones stronger and faster than you you'll probably end up on the floor. 
This is a completely bias judgement because i've been watching bruce lee since i was like 2 I think I'd probably back bruce lee up against miketyson kicks are after all more damaging than any punch I'm sure even a practiced 10 year old childs kick is stronger than most punches, and bruce lee was amazing in the fact that he wasn't just an actor he was an agressive fighter. 
saying that I mean speaking personally I've never seen bruce lee in a real life fight, i'm sure he was amazing but i have seen mike tyson knock someone down with just a few punches and take punishment for 12 rounds. 
BUT even still bruce lees a legend to me I could never imagine him losing to mike tyson.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 5:12 PM by Oliver
And as always Ted, you read half of the post and make very silly comments about it, i would claim disappointment again but i'm afraid i don't expect much more now o0 
hm, a martial arts expert? See unlike people such as yourself, i try to keep information about myself to a minimum, i mean of course i could say a whole clop of things such as i am an 80 year old kung fu expert who raises lion cubs for a living but such as with the case of you being a judo expert who has seen and studied bears, and mralien who is a wrestling expert and bullies people at school, and damon being a jeetkun do expert or whatever he said who lives in the ghetto... ... who the crap do you expect to believe that? 
So my advise to you is; talk about things you know about, and quote informed facts, quote experts gives sources and videos, make a well balanced argument but don't quote your personal life because noone will believe you and frankly... noone cares. 
As for my videos being staged (which is a typical excuse of someone who has been beaten in an argument), i mean yeah you're like totally right! like the one i gave you of the buffalo being killed by that lion... you know the buffalo was totally in on it all that blood and shizzle was just tomato sauce, they got up and the lion and the buffalo are best of friends... get real... 
Hm, and this is what I mean about your reading skills the real quote was actually 'even a well practiced 10 year olds kick is stronger than most punches'. 
And I could swear i already said i hadn't seen bruce lee in a proper fight (like most people), so nice job on stating the obvious...  
Sooo anyways what you're saying is that a punch is stronger than a kick? which is just a little bit strange... I'm sure any expert will tell you any kick in question generates far more force than any punch however if you doubt me which i'm sure is your immediate conclusion please watch this very interesting video about how much force a punch creates in comparison to a kick: 
however like i said if the individual is stronger and faster than you you'll probably end up on the floor.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:05 PM by Oliver
Mralien, i did not brag about my abilities. Rather, Ted doubted my statements, and yes, in that case, i defended them. But trust me, i doubt i`d get beat up, by you, or anyone else. I don`t fear any human being on this planet.....never will. And, while i was never a bully of any sort, no so-called bully would ever pick on me.  
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:21 PM by damon
mralien, you have 12 - 12.5 inch biceps?...and, you`re supposed to weigh 195 lbs?....i only weigh 139 lbs, and my biceps are 14 inches. And, i can prove it....i already have images on my photobucket. 
and, my shoulders too, are quite broad. But, they weren`t always that way. It is due to the fact that i work out frequently. And, it also wouldn`t surprise me if you`re dad had bigger arms than i do....i`m only 139 lbs, after all.....and 14 inches is extreme for someone of my size.  
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:24 PM by damon
Ted, i never stated i used the cresent kick in a fight.....though i`m skilled enough to do so. As you said, it is more for show. 
and, 14 inch bices, considering i weigh only 139 lbs, is quite impressive. and, in counting the years from 1984 - 87, year 87 may be the 4th year, but, it is not 4 years. Just as, when you are 3 years of age, you are in your 4th year of life.  
And, as for Bruce lee, he doesn`t perform the round kick, and neither do i. He calls his kick a hook kick, because, unlike a true round kick, his kick is thrown almost in a straight line, perhaps hooking the kick near the end. I call mine`s a slant kick, because, my kick is even more streamlined than bruce`s, and is thrown almost straight up, which increases the speed of the kick, while at the same time, does not display your meaning, before the move, while chambering your leg would. 
also, i know all about the kicks. And, bruce lee was in many tournaments, and in fact, if you view those videos i showed you, you would know this as well. And, i`ve seen the top MMA guys...they were really slow.  
and no, he would not have eaten me alive....i`m far too fast, and my moves (excuse my arrogant behavior)sound as according to technique.  
My kicks are also rather fast...but my best weapons are my hands. also, unlike most other styles, i only have one stance, which, like in jeet kune do, is called the straight lead stance, which gives you perfect balance, as your stance is not too short or too wide, and also allows for great maneuverability, unlike with certain stances such as with karate. With only one stance to chose from, which works in any situation, i wouldn`t have to rack my brains, like other practicioners of martial arts, to find a suitable stance when fighting. Also, most of my moves would be sinple, and last minute, in that i do not plan any attack...rather, i react to the opponent, which is also one of the reasons why i never performed any type of kata. Well, i did long ago, but has long since learned, from bruce, that they are useless. 
I also train 1/10 as much as most other martial artists, but, because my training methods are, in my opinion, very effective, there is no need to train more. 
I could even tell you my training regime, if you want?.... 
and no, i`m not a Narcissus, and indeed, i know what the word means. After all, that word is encountered in greek mythology, which is where i first heard the term. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:43 PM by damon
Ted, and, i`ll answer your questions directed towards Oliver. The side kick, as well as the spinning back kick would be the strongest of the kicks you mentioned, for they allow more use of the body upon contact, and of course both are rather similar in execution. 
and, Oliver never said he was an online expert....can you read?...he was referring to OUR comments on us being martial arts simply mentioning you are a martial arts expert online, is no proof at all. 
Also, if i were to chose any punch against any kick, it would be the straight lead, a punch i had gotten from bruce lee`s style of jeet kune do. The punch is thrown, of course, from the straight lead stance. Here`s how it looks; 
And, Bruce lee also once trained chuck norris....and, when training under bruce, norris never lost a tournament. Kareem abdul jabar also trained under bruce lee. 
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 10:00 PM by damon
LOL, Oliver, have you read my whole two posts? I don't think so....... I never said I bullied anyone at school. I use my skills against people who are BULLYING me.....I was never the popular kind of kid, but now, the majority of the people don’t' talk to me because of what I did to the more "popular" people, who were bringing out my anger. I can hold my anger for a while, but if it continues from middle school to high school, then I start making my stand. Have you ever been in my position, Oliver? I'm not the "geeky" kind of person, but someone who doesn't talk much. However, after enduring years of annoyance, and bullying, I finally made my point clear in front of the majority of not just my grade level, but the rest of the school. Here’s an example of this occurring, and keep in mind the statements I made above in this comment. This happened in high school. One of the annoying people was stealing my chair away from me at lunch, but then I managed to grab it in time. He asked “You wanna fight, n**er?” (No offense Damon, but that’s what truly goes on in my school; I’ll explain a worse story than this after this one.) Then I grab the chair out of his hands. He punches me in the stomach, and then tries to give me another punch (I don’t know where), but I grab his arm to early, knee him in his abdomen and throw him into the wall. He gets up, but I then I held him against the wall, until the lunch aids came to break up the fight. I got suspended for a couple of days. Pretty stupid…… 
I’m white, but that kid was white trash. I know white trash, and that kid was the symbol for it. 
LOL, Oliver, have you read my whole two posts? I don't think so....... I never said I bullied anyone at school. I use my skills against people who are BULLYING me.....I was never the popular kind of kid, but now, the majority of the people don’t' talk to me because of what I did to the more "popular" people, who were bringing out my anger. I can hold my anger for a while, but if it continues from middle school to high school, then I start making my stand. Have you ever been in my position, Oliver? I'm not the "geeky" kind of person, but someone who doesn't talk much. However, after enduring years of annoyance, and bullying, I finally made my point clear in front of the majority of not just my grade level, but the rest of the school. Here’s an example of this occurring, and keep in mind the statements I made above in this comment. This happened in high school. One of the annoying people was stealing my chair away from me at lunch, but then I managed to grab it in time. He asked “You wanna fight, n**er?” (No offense Damon, but that’s what truly goes on in my school; I’ll explain a worse story than this after this one.) Then I grab the chair out of his hands. He punches me in the stomach, and then tries to give me another punch (I don’t know where), but I grab his arm to early, knee him in his abdomen and throw him into the wall. He gets up, but I then I held him against the wall, until the lunch aids came to break up the fight. I got suspended for a couple of days. Pretty stupid…… 
I’m white, but that kid was white trash. I know white trash, and that kid was the symbol for it. 
Also, you know what's funny Damon? You're comparing your biceps to that of a person who recently turned fifteen years old. I never had my major growth spurt yet, since both, my dad and mom had theirs at around 16-17 years old and are both fairly tall (my mother is 5' 8" and my dad is 6' 3").  
You had years of working out every day experience. I work out every other day, and never on the weekends. And I just started doing that this summer. I naturally had fairly large muscles for my age in the first place, compared to those of other kids. Also Damon, I stated I had thicker bones than an average person and I have the majority of my muscle in my abdominals, rather than my forelimbs. I was BORN with broad shoulders, as my father and mother are direct descendants from North European ancestry (Not Western or Southeastern Europe, but from Siberia). I also have more pronounced eye ridges than other Europeans from Western European ancestry, or any other areas of Europe. Everyone, excpet me and my brother were born in Europe.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:06 PM by MrAlien123456
Shit, how did that story repeat itself? W/e  
It's nothing big....
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:08 PM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, stuff like that don`t usually happen in my school (i mean, people stealing another person`s chair, or something similar). Not because the kids are 'nice', or anything, but because serious fights would break out, if that were to happen, and besides, there are plenty of seats for everyone, anyhow, and of course not all students usually stayed in the cafeteria, when i was in school. 
And, i would not give anyone the chance to hit me in the offense, either, but i would have blocked his punch, and delivered one of my own. 
I`ve never had a significant growth spurt...basically, i was this size since i was like, 14 or 15 or so.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:14 PM by damon
The stomach punch was unexpected, and since I have Aspergers syndrome, my reflexes are slowed down, quite a bit. If I were to ever play video games with the friends I do have (let's keep in mind that I'm still 15 , and not a 40 year old adult that sits home and plays video games all day) I don't have very good "trigger fingers". I cannot fire a shotgun as quickly, if I were playing a shooting game, and I doubt I’d do any bettering the arm in really life. However, that doesn’t stop me from overwhelming my opponents. I’m in tenth grade, yet I‘ve kicked 11th and 12th grader asses. I can sustain more damage in physical conflict, and that stomach punch only made me angrier. I could’ve easily snapped the kid’s neck, but I knew there would be much more serious consequences. I knew I could’ve sucker punched him, but I was afraid it may involve a longer school suspension, if I did it too hard. I don’t realize my own strength sometimes, and I’ve hurt people I didn’t mean to. Luckily they weren’t serious injuries, and I was just fooling around with them, but it was enough for them to stop fooling around (again, I didn’t mean to inflict physical damage on them on purpose). I usually am not a person who looks for fights. I’m pretty much the giant ground sloth of the school. Lazy, usually passive, but likes personal space, but if someone starts physically abusing me, I will definitely counteract their moves with my own. All of the physical confrontations I had in school, I won (against the kids of the “popular sorority”. That’s why nobody wants to talk to me anymore, besides the 7 friends I have in that school, a couple of girls and the other out-of-school friends.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:36 PM by MrAlien123456
Counteracting physical conflict towards me with my own is a better way to deal with things than barging into the school one day with SMG's and Assault rifles, and start shooting everyone in sight, like Seung-Hui Cho did in Virginia Tech.
Posted @ Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:49 PM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, sorry to here that you have Aspergers syndrome, even though i have no idea what that is. In my old school, we never had any groups such as the 'popular kids', or any other such groups, because, basically, everyone would be fighting for the top position. 
Also, as soon as i figure how to convert my video from windows media player, of me doing a couple of swift kicks, i`ll post them on my photobucket, and show it here.
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:09 AM by damon
It's a high performing form of autism on the spectrum. It takes me slower to think. It doubles the amount of time I need to finish exams. I also have ADD, so that adds some conflict to my school life. I don't have the best coordination and I'm rather clumsy in my calm state, but it still doesn't prevent my capabilities too much when I get angry or enraged. I have to take Strattera pills to help me stay focused in class, however, for some reason they are starting to lose effect. I’m horrible at mathematics; however, I excel at science and global studies without even studying or paying attention, considering they are my prime interests.
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:35 AM by MrAlien123456
Damon & Oliver, 
Damon, your hung up on this 4 year thing. Are you always so anal? Your sidekick Oliver is just hung up LOL... 
LOL... I did talk about things I know & the people I mentioned I know. My training partners/friends that I listed are living breathing badass human beings LOL...  
However, if you choose to think I made stuff up do you rally think I care? Oliver you can call me a "Internet Wannabe Martial Artist" if it makes you feel better LOL.. 
As far as personal info; unlike Damon the Super Hero HA HA, I never gave the size of my biceps, chest, shoulders,thighs etc.. Nor did I post my weekly training regiment. You guys crack me up! 
You guys sure write a lot; I guess none of you enjoy the World Series!  
Big Bears 9.5 
Big Lions 0.5 
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:07 AM by Ted
Good job against the Bully!  
Unfortunately sometimes you have to get suspended in order to move forward and gain respect. 
I hope your physical health improves; your still a young teenager. Look into excercise to help your balance. Basic Martial Art moves can help your balance dramatically. You don't have to trian in a dojo; you can just buy a video that teaches you how to properly stretch & some very basic movements.  
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:20 AM by Ted
Well mralien, as thrilling as that story was you kind of missed the point to my little speech there just a little. 
And that story most likely ended up there twice because you were copying and pasting it from somewhere and did it twice by accident. 
Personally I've always had an appreciation for capoeira (and not just because of the flashy moves), it's pretty effective too take a look at this 20 second capoeira knock out:
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:27 AM by Oliver
Oliver, I C&P because I type so fast, I don’t feel like revising every word I wrote, so I just use spell check on Microsoft Word. I stumble over keys very easily, if you read that I don’t' have the greatest coordination or reflexes in the other recent posts.
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:33 AM by MrAlien123456
When I write, it's different from typing. I took typing class, in hope of increasing the way I type. It helped, but writing on paper takes me forever. And full bodily movements are another story. My mom wants the school to give me a laptop so I can manage to write my reports faster, instead of being sluggish on paper.
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:35 AM by MrAlien123456
How's the reading skills workin' out for you there Ted? 
I said ''talk about things you know about... blah blah blah, but it's pointless mentioning your personal life noone will believe you and noone cares'' 
So although you might know about it your life story is irrelevant. 
And lol you're doing it again you're saying things like ''well damon does it'', now now Ted if damon was to jump off a cliff would you do that too? 
And i would never be so rude to call you an 'internet wannabe martial artist'... of course i'm thinking it but i would never say it. 
also i wasn't aware you could win half a fight unless you mean a draw?
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:36 AM by Oliver
Erm last post for tonight but mralien you really don't need to give me a play by play or explain everything the same story is not a crime lol
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:38 AM by Oliver
That's what all of these other kids have, who are dyslexic, or have trouble writing on paper, like me, who takes twice as long to complete an essay as the other students in a class. I also have OCD, so I always like my papers to be neat, when written by hand. The school so far does not allow my situation to have a laptop. I don’t know why. But hopefully they will. I could take notes faster. Sometimes, the teacher changes the next slide of notes on the projector when I’m only half way done with my notes, and I try to write as fats as I can. The computer is the only way that shows my true writing speed and potential.
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:39 AM by MrAlien123456
My reading skills are fine; thanks for asking :). 
You should thank me for keeping you alive LOL.. Right now I have you on the plane headed to Africa for you big adventure. Remember? Your hunting the Lion that killed your love one LOL.. 
You are such a fool; do I really need to explain to you .5 LOL... 
Big Bear 9.5 
Big Lions 0.5 
NFL time!
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:04 PM by Ted
Yeah Ted, sadly that's kind of what I meant about your reading you see a lion didn't kill my loved one it was hypothetical you know? 
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 2:03 PM by Oliver
Now Now Oliver! 
Don't try to back away from your comments. You made them; now own them LOL.. 
You said if an animal in the ZOO or WILD killed your loved one; you would kill the animal for REVENGE LOL... 
Remember - EYE for an EYE! 
I don't blame you for wanting to seperate yourself from your foolish & ignorant comments. 
Don't worry; your plane will be in the air for a while. 
The NFL & World Series has bought you some time.  
Now be a good chap and go watch some soccer LOL.. 
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 2:28 PM by Ted
Hm, gosh ted there you go again misreading comments you should really work on that. 
i mean you even said it yourself 'if an animal killed my loved one blah blah blah' the keyword in there is 'if' so don't go packing me off to africa before it's even happened that doesn't make sense. 
it's not ignorant... what's ignorant is refusing to accept another persons point of view on the matter. 
soccer? don't you mean football? and no i'm not talking about that silly version of rugby americans play just with arm pads, shoulder pads, helmets, and mouthguards. 
have a nice time anyway.
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 6:11 PM by Oliver
Oliver Twist! 
You told me to "Have a nice time anyway" that would be bitch slaping you from one end zone to the other. Also ANYONE who wants to defend your REVENGEFUL MINDSET. 
You stated, "I'll kill the Polar Bear in the ZOO!" 
Face it your a ignorant punk who hides behind Superman's cape. You are trash; nothing more. 
You wrote to Mr.Alien not to write about his physical challenges in detail; you said you don't need to read about all of his difficulties. Well you have more challenges than anyone on this blog. You are nothing more than a bitch!  
You are a English bitch who needs another cup of tea! 
Have a good day mate! LOL... 
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 8:16 PM by Ted
Whoahh Ted here you go again misreading I'll answer your second accusation first, I told mralien that he didn't need to explain to me what he needed to do to write on here it was unnescesarry what's so wrong about that? I didn't specifically ask him not to I just said there's no need to explain, so read again please Ted. 
I didn't say I'd go shoot a polar bear in the zoo do you have any idea how much panick that would cause? I don't understand how you can misread this much... I type in fairly good grammar which admittedly I don't pay much attention to but I know it's just fine and I don't use any slang so where goes the problem with the literacy? 
Hides behind a supermans cape? I'm not the one that comes on here claiming to be a judo expert that studied alaskan bears and whatnot in their natural enviroment, as I've said I prefer not to discuss my personal life so therefore I make sure that I have backed up everything I have said on here with expert opinions, evidence, and various sources... If you don't think this is true then name me something that I haven't and I will provide the source for you. 
And what a very anti-English post, and then you call me ignorant... how much more hypocritcal do you want to be?
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:24 PM by Oliver
No need for agressive posts Ted, I haven't backtracked once and if you cared to read my posts instead of half reading and misquoting them you may realise this. 
Ah yes finally a true quote, well done Ted! I did say I would get revenge captivity or otherwise, but that doesn't mean I'd take a stroll up to the zoo with a shotgun and shoot the polar bear through the bars do you realise how much panick that would cause? 
The normal method would obviously be through courts which would result in the polar bear being shot dead (a normal process for larger animals) that is what i was refering to but I do wonder how you immediately jumped to the crazy conclusion. 
So... I hope that answers all your enquiries enjoy watching your sports.
Posted @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 10:45 PM by Oliver
It seems I've struck a nerve, however I'm not trying to 'fool' anyone what I'm simply doing is providing you evidence (much of it video evidence), expert opinions, and facts whether you believe it or not is simply up to you but there's no point in just labelling it as 'bullshit', when much of it is clear evidence. 
Yep you're right I said that if hypothetically it killed a loved one of mine, no lol I didn't mention the court system but I also never mentioned running up to the zoo and shooting the bear so it worries me that you jump to the silliest conclusion. 
Like I said before it's not ignorant the only thing that's ignorant is refusing to accept another persons viewpoint on this matter. 
Lack of sensitivity huh... I'm not here to sympathise, yours nor anyone elses personal life on here does interest me in the slightest I'm suprised you thought that it might... Anyway the point of arguing is to address the issue rather than the person so unlike the way you've been arguing recently I tend to follow this simple rule. 
Also reading the whole comment and not jumping to immediate conclusions helps lol. 
And again, if there is anything that I have said that you think is 'bullshit' then please highlight it to me and I'll give you the source, or expert, or video which it came from. 
I look forward to hearing your indirect comment in a week or a month until then I wish you well.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 12:20 AM by Oliver
Yes, Oliver. Ted is right about pretty much everything he said about you. I understand SAVING A loved one form the animal attack at the moment before the animal kills your loved one, but revenge on an animal is much different than revenge on a person, who knows what they're doing. An animal does it in the name of protecting his/her territory, food or young. A psychotic person does it for the thrill of it. And the man-eating animal attacks are human provoked in the long term (unless they are rabid or have some other disease that makes them sick). People venture into the animal's territory in the first place, and either colonize there or hunt or w/e there. The animal may attack the person and get a taste for human flesh and realize that without any weapons, we aren’t so tough after all, and now consider us easy prey. People are the ones expanding into the animal's environment. I don't blame black bears, mountain lions, wolves, or coyotes for going into the neighborhoods and taking garbage, pets and occasionally people. That was once THEIR territory that we took away from them. It's not their fault if someone gets into conflict with them, unless if it’s a sick animal. People expanded into their territory, so what do you expect? What would you do a black bear was in your house? Would you shoot it, just like you would for your revenge? After the animal kills your family member, there is no other reason to find the animal and kill it. The "deed" is already done, Oliver. You can’t go back in time. I'm sorry, but killing an animal out of pure revenge won't change a thing, except you would have taken an animal's life, who thought your loved one was threat to them, their young, their territory, or their food. 
Also, Oliver, about the comment you made about me describing my disease….. Just because it’s a higher functioning autism on the spectrum that my life is SO much easier? Just because I don’t have the most severe case of autism doesn’t make my case important? In my district, they do not think about the higher functioning autistic kids. It’s great how they help out the desperate ones with the very bad cases, but they hardly think of us, the Asperger’s children. Do you think I always had extra time on my tests? NO. My mother went out of her way to get that accommodation for me because the district hardly thinks about us, the Asperger’s kids. Do you think I’ll ever get a laptop to help me with my schoolwork? Probably not… Just because you live in a ghetto, as you stated before, doesn’t mean you are anymore special. Damon seems to have more sense than you, too. You would probably say the same to an autistic kid that has it worse than me. I never got resource rooms or anything to help me out with my situation in elementary or middle school. This resource room crap is a new thing that I recently got from high school. Kids, who don’t even have problems, go to resource room, and some even get better accommodations than me. I could understand if these people have problems, but half of these people are skanks who went through 3 boyfriends in a year. Some of these people are from the so called “jockey” crowd. Some of these people have 10x as many friends as me. The social meetings I have once a week I’m in are with the autistic kids with very bad cases. I don’t mean to offend them, but I cannot relate to them the same way I could relate to people on my level. It’s not that I think they’re stupid. But this shows how little the district thinks about Asperger’s children. You can’t group two different groups of autistic children together. They wouldn’t relate as well as someone who has the same case as them. That’s why in school, the kids with the worse autistic cases than me have a better “work” life in school. I’m pushed as much as any other student in my regular classes. Too much pressure will cause me to give up over homework assignments. That’s why I’m happy that I could drop foreign language next year and take another science course that I have interest in. In 12th grade, the year after next, it would be a much less pressuring life, because I would only have 3 school courses to think about since I’m going off to a technical institute, to go into their veterinary assistance clinic for half of my school day. 
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 12:42 AM by MrAlien123456
Mralien, you seem to think that the animal doesn't know he's about to kill a person, of course they know and it's not just for territory they'll kill to eat and sometimes just to kill. 
Don't give that silly argument of 'that territory was once theirs', because no it wasn't animals steal territory from other animals all the time it belongs to noone we just claimed it as ours and are able to defend it better than most animals. 
Yep I'd shoot a black bear that made it's way into my house, the animal is much bigger and stronger and poses a serious threat, and I would also shoot an animal that kills my loved one just because 'the deed is done', it doesn't mean that i'm not going to take revenge do i let the animal get away with it? why would i ever think twice about killing an animal who didn't think twice about killing my loved one? 
Mralien i said you didn't need to describe your disease or your personal life in general to me because the end result will be the same... i don't want to know, i don't care, and of course i don't care... I don't want to know about your life your life is meaningless to me, the debate is the only thing that is important here not your life i don't care about your life. 
So please don't give me your life story and please don't try and get me to give you sympathy because it has nothing to do with this debate and i honestly do not care... Also I never said I lived in the ghetto I said I live in England and nothing more I don't care about your personal life and I don't care to give you any details of mine. 
Good Day.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 4:20 AM by Oliver
Remember, ALWAYS keep your sense of humor! You seem like a bright and intelligent young teenager. 
It was good to share some laughs with you about "Oliver's Great Adventure" LOL... 
Also, REMEMBER; it is not about the debate. These debates are for the most part fictional and of no use in the real world. I think MOST people making comments here know this. I mean how many of us in our right minds would think of a make plan to kill an animal in the zoo or wild out of revenge? MIND BOGGELING! 
If someone really wants to SERIOUS debate real issues that make a real difference then they should get involved in the cause being debated. Mr.Alien you did just that, if you indeed donated to various animal organizations. 
Hang in there Mr.Alien; soon you will be in a position where you can persue a career that you are passioniate about. I have no doubt you will do well.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 12:01 PM by Ted
Hey, thanks Ted. Oliver is probably the only one in this debate without common, sense. Damon does seem to have it. Even though we are on different sides on this Bear vs. Lion debate, I still think his common sense is much more than that of Oliver's. And Oliver, I was never telling you about my "life story" in the first place. It was linked to my social disabilities that I have at school, and you are the individual who stated that I was the bully, which in fact is quite the opposite.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 1:43 PM by MrAlien123456
Oliver is still on that plane to Africa I guess. :P
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 1:46 PM by MrAlien123456
I agree! At least Damon & I share some of the same interests and he was nice enough to wish you well. 
However, I think I'll keep Oliver on an extended flight LOL..
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 2:55 PM by Ted
Yeah mralien it doesn't matter how many times you mention it i still don't care, i said something about you being a bully at school, but that wasn't the point it doesn't really matter what you talk about the point was that noone belives you and noone cares. 
don't forget the debate is the only thing that is important here not you. 
Plus it doesn't matter if you think I don't have common sense the fact is everything I have said here is backed up by expert opinions, sources, and video evidence and ifyou don't think so highlight something to me and I'll give you my source.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 4:12 PM by Oliver
So, Oliver, you are allowed to assume everything about me, yet I cannot state the real case of what is up with MY LIFE? It seems like you don't want me to speak, yet you are the one that is putting out ignorant comments and information that nobody pays attention to.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 4:33 PM by MrAlien123456
Oliver said "Noone believes you!" 
He is wrong as usual; I believe you :).
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 4:40 PM by Ted
Please get on-topic if possible. This discussion is as off-topic as one about the promiscuity of male lions would be. But if some of you are practising martial arts, I wonder what you think about an age-old question: how much chance a really good karate, kung fu or tae kwon do expert would have against a chimpanzee or gorilla of the same weight? Are there any martial arts techniques which might offset the ape's superior strength and unusual fighting style, and would enable the human fighter to avoid being grabbed and bitten?
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 8:31 PM by Balazs
balazs, i believe that it is quite possible for a very skilled martial artist to defeat a chimp, but not a gorilla. Even then, i do not think most martial artists can stand facing a chimp, because they are not only extremely powerful (about 5 times as strong, according to one study) and with more agility. This is not to be confused with speed, at which the martial artist would most certainly have an advantage in, in contests of striking, dogding, ect. But,. in terms of agility, the chimp would have the upper hand.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 8:40 PM by damon
Many thanks Damon -a most welcome diversion from the earlier verbal battle.:) 
I absolutely agree with you in that the chimp's agility would be a major problem. They can easily jump at your neck, yet they are relatively short in stature, and thus it would be quite difficult to throw them by using aikido techniques. I wonder which methods are proposed in martial arts against an opponent whose aim is to grab and use a weapon like a bagh nakh.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 8:53 PM by Balazs
Balazs, against a bagh nakh, i wouldn`t really have any planned attack....because, your opponent will not operate in some pre-determined way...his reactions, and likely his attacking you, will be spontaneous. Your response, likewise, should be equally spontaneous, but, if you should favor any attack in a fight against the bagh nakh, it should be a kick, for one, as these are your longest weapons, and likewise your most powerful. I would recommend a front kick, which is the most direct.....well, a leaning front kick, to be exact, where you perform the kick by leaning back, so that it is difficult for your adversary to retaliate. Also, don`t chamber your leg, as with most styles, as this telegraphs your technique, and consequently makes it slower in execution.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 9:14 PM by damon
It seems that the analogy was good, because the chimp would definitely fight in a spontaneous style.:) I agree with that kicks would be better than blows, but a single kick would be probably insufficient to disable the chimp. Which mobile fighting style would be the best to remain outside the chimp's reach and at the same time deliver occasional kicks? I think kung fu or a modified form of capoeira might be more effective than tae kwon do. I love things Korean, including tae kwon do, but in this particular case I would not trust it.:)
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 9:35 PM by Balazs
Against a chimp I'm not so sure I remember watching something once on TV a guy went into a chimps cage at a zoo and it was playing with him and like did one of those thump things in a very playful way and the guy got a pretty big bruise... but i think balazs is right where he says kicking styles like capoeira would be most useful. 
Recently though I've been wondering if a human could ever take a cheetah (bare handed), I remain convinced that we could cheetah has speed, agility, and the jaws... But I think we have weight, power, and intelligence plus height and length in general. 
I think a fairly fit human with little/no martial art training could take a cheetah.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 10:38 PM by Oliver
LOL... Good one! 
Don't let anyone bullshit you. Without a gun an adult Silver Back or full grown Chimp destroys us. I don't care what techniques are used except for running with a good head start LOL. 
A front kick, or any other kick would be smothered by an adult Chimp and we would be dead. 
Those Chimps know "Chimp Ju Jitzu"; and they bite like hell LOL.. 
In a fight to the death: 
Gorillas & Chimps 10 
The best Human 0 
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 11:15 PM by Ted
Big Bears 9.5 
Big Lions .5 
For Oliver; out of a hundred encounters that would be Bears 95; Lions 5 LOL.....
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 11:24 PM by Ted
I think that with sufficient training, one would be able to cope with a cheetah. American museum collector Carl Akeley was once attacked by a wounded leopard which had one front leg broken but was otherwise quite able (and willing) to fight. Akeley was apparently lucky because somehow he could pin the leopard down, crush its ribs and strangle it in a way that the animal was face down, rather than belly up. Had it been the other way around, he would have been probably neatly gutted by the leopard's claws, but he was seriously injured anyway. A cheetah is a far less formidable opponent than a leopard.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 11:30 PM by Balazs
my problem is that I know definitely less about human martial arts than about animals, and thus I do not know what a human fighter can or cannot accomplish. I guess that a kick that is strong enough to break hardwood or bricks would produce some effect even on a chimp, but I agree on that if once the chimp gets a firm hold and starts mauling the guy, the guy will inevitably end up as second best. I doubt if anyone can break the two-hand hold of an adult male chimp while being bitten on his legs, and an attempt to grab the chimp's neck or throat would probably only result in one's hand being bitten instead. Thus the question is whether one may be agile enough to outmaneuver the chimp or not. This again looks quite difficult enough.
Posted @ Monday, November 02, 2009 11:48 PM by Balazs
Remember a brick or piece of wood does not move or strike back. One would have to penetrate a vital organ in the chimp which is unlikely. Even if we did; the animal would still have enough adrenalin, strength, & insticnt to grab us and maul us.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 12:30 AM by Ted
The only reason I don't think orangutans would be good for this fight is because they have very bad footing on the ground. As adults, orangutans have the smallest legs, in comparison to body size with other apes. Orangutans ARE stronger than chimpanzees, but are much slower, and they have very slow reflexes. However, against an average human, the ape would rip the person apart. Again though, you have to remember, when you compare a cheetah to a martial arts expert, you are not comparing an average person to one. All of these animals that we compare to “the world’s strongest man” or “the world’s most experienced MMA fighter”; humans are the animals that train in physical abilities the most, out of every other animal, so of course the world’s strongest man would manage well with a cheetah, wolf, or baboon, but when you put them against the average man, the story will be a lot different, even if a cheetah does have a thin build, it can manage to kill warthogs, which could easily tear apart humans. See, we brag about our strength, yet the animals we compare it to, we don’t realize that they don’t work out like we do. They don’t push their “exercise”. Sure cheetahs run fast, but that’s not really a workout for them. They just tire easily because of their fast-twitch muscle fibers. But in actuality, if a cheetah or a wolf trained like a human, they could be apt to kill men that are stronger than the average person.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:00 AM by MrAlien123456
Also, despite gorillas being considerably shorter than the average human male, even the weakest gorillas (6 xs stronger than a human) can still kill the world's strongest man. Ha-ha. Male silverbacks could be 9-10x stronger than the average human male.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:02 AM by MrAlien123456
Despite the habit of gorillas usually going for the limbs of an animal when they use their powerful jaws and sharp canines (instead of a neck hold), (PSI of 1300lbs)giving that to a human is much more devastating than giving a bite to the limbs of another gorilla, or even a leopard.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:05 AM by MrAlien123456
A chimp against even the most well trained martial artists will still have about an 8-9/10 chance of winning this fight. A male silverback gorilla is an all-timer. Silverbacks and leopards face off in the wild quite a bit, and gorillas kill leopards and the leopards kill the gorillas (50/50 chance for both animals). The leopards have the agility advantage, while the gorilla has a lot of muscle and don't forget that a gorilla has very thick bones. A silverback gorilla could easily withstand those quick kicks and jabs and just start charging. Also, the great apes have a lot of stamina, compared to other animals. They could last longer in a fight without tiring easily. That's why humans (humans are considered part of the Great Apes or Homidae family, along with our recent ape ancestors; gibbons and siamungs are in the family known as Hylobatidae, or lesser apes), in the early days managed to travel miles a day, being a nomadic species, before the Neolithic Revolution came into place. I mean, if this were out in the open, the martial arts expert could just run away from the gorilla, but in a room like that the martial arts expert will keep doing kicks and jabs at the gorilla until the gorilla eventually smashes is spine, skull, or grabs him and snaps his spine in two.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:09 AM by MrAlien123456
Balazs, it`s not the style which is important, but the practicioner. Contrary to popular belief, taekwondo practicioners actually concentrate more upon strikes than kicks, though they do pay a lot of attention to kicking techniques. doesn`t matter what style you are practicing, as most are similar anyhow.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:15 AM by damon
Re human vs. cheetah: I did not actually mean martial arts training, just ordinary physical training and some basic knowledge about the fighting methods of the cheetah. For instance, the guy should know that hugging the cat from the front would not be a winning move because cheetahs not only bite but also stratch and kick.:) 
Re orang vs. human: orangs are indeed slower and definitely less aggressive than chimps, but they have extremely long arms and formidable teeth. I remember a real story about an orang which was acting in an unruly way and its keeper wanted to discipline it by demonstratively showing it a plastic snake or lizard. This usually makes apes afraid, because they greatly fear reptiles, but on that occasion it did not work. On the contrary, the orang got angry, grabbed the hand of the keeper, and neatly amputated his thumb.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:17 AM by Balazs
Actually, since we are so into this conversation and since the admins don't really accept any of our requests for new animal conflicts, we might as well start making up new ones on this thread, because I mailed my battle of a hyena and a chimpanzee 3xs and no response. Ha-ha
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:34 AM by MrAlien123456
Spotted Hyena vs. Chimpanzee 
Spotted hyenas have very powerful jaws that can exert pressure as much as 1000PSI and females can weigh up to 190 pounds. Rogue hyenas have been known to take down prey as large as wildebeest. Hyenas have always been looked upon as pathetic scavengers, but really,, hyenas are powerful hunters; hunting taking up 80% of their diet, while the other 20% is from foraging for small animals and scavenging. Lone hyenas have been known to steal kills from leopards. Scientists have recently been looking into hyena intelligence and have found out that they have higher intelligence than other animals in the order Carnivora. 
Length: 3-5.5 feet 
Weight: 90-180lbs 
Armaments: Powerful, bone-crushing jaws that can exert over 1000PSI, fairly intelligent, strong neck muscles, which can be durable when a lion or another animal attacks that area of the hyena. 
Chimpanzees have strength that is of 4-6xs the average human male. Chimpanzees have been known to go into groups and kill leopards and have been known to hunt with weapons, like spears and stones. They may go in groups and take down antelopes and other primates, for their own nutritional sources. Chimpanzees can also learn how to use a basic handgun, like a magnum or a pistol. Combine that intelligence with their brutal strength, and you have a primate almost as deadly as a gorilla. 
Height: 3-5.6 feet 
Weight: 80-170lbs 
Armaments: Powerful, upper-body strength, 4-6xs stronger than an average human male, can be extremely aggressive, very dexterous, and very, very intelligent. 
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:44 AM by MrAlien123456
I must admit you are one wise individual :). 
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:48 AM by Ted
I did some search on the fighting capabilities of hyenas vs. dogs a few weeks ago, but I found surprisingly little, only a laconic statement based on a 19th-century book that hyenas allegedly strive to disable their canine opponents by targeting their legs. This is possible but needs further verification. I think a big hyena that is really determined to fight would probably win, because chimpanzees maim and kill their enemies primarily by biting their hands, legs and genitals and, if possible, by crushing their ribs with powerful blows, whereas hyenas are more likely to grab the opponent's throat or disembowel it. Both methods are nasty enough, but the latter kills faster.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:02 AM by Balazs
I must admit you are one wise individual :).>> 
Thanks, but why? Because I suggested that we should focus on wild animal fights, rather than fighting each other?:)  
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:11 AM by Balazs
Well ted very nice indirect comment there but we were talking about 10 not 100 fights... plus to give a bear 9.5 wins is not very informed. 
Balazs I don't think you can compare a leopard with a broken leg who must have been in a considerable amount of pain plus obvious physical limitations to a healthy cheetah... but yeah i still think a human is quite capable. 
Concerning the strength of a chimp I'm quite worried about the facts you're given for example a chimp is only 5 times stronger than a human POUND FOR POUND, I mean think about it if a healthy human can bench press 250 lbs that would mean a chimp could bench over a ton which is ridiculous. 
I actually think a human could take a chimp in the same manner you could take another human but i suppose they would have to be a little more agressive than normal and also be prepared for biting. 
a gorilla... not a chance without some kind of weapon, however i'd be interested in a leopard vs a gorilla animal planet did a show on this here's the link:
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:10 AM by Oliver
Re Akeley vs. the leopard: broken leg or no broken leg, that leopard was in sufficiently good shape to overtake Akeley who started running when he noticed that his shot had not been as straight as intended. 
I doubt if conventional human vs. human tactics would work against a chimp. The ape would first go on all fours for your leg, grab it and bring you down, then it would proceed to bite you. This is not very much in the books of karate-do.:) 
I know that gorilla vs. leopard computer stimulation, and it is quite unrealistic, particularly in its last clash. Some others, like the one about elephant vs. rhino, are better.  
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:29 AM by Balazs
I don`t think it`s possible for a human to defeat an orangutan, at least, not usually. It may not be extremely agile...but then, it doesn`t have to be. His strength more than makes up for it. There is a case where an orangutan was able to pick up and throw a lo a few meters, which 4 men could not budge. 
A chimp was reported to have easily deadlifted 600 lbs, and one study shows chimps are much stronger than humans;
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 6:07 AM by damon
Mralien, you said you mailed your conflict of chimps vs orangs, or something like that. But, you can create your own blog, or even a website, for free, much like this one, at
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 6:16 AM by damon
Balazs I've never seen anything with a broken leg in sufficiently good shape to do much at all, there would be excruciating pain plus it wouldn't be able to move well at all; there would be no agility, not much agression because of the pain, and i wouldn't count on many paw swipes either, I'm not saying it would be defenceless but a broken leg doesn't just hurt your leg it puts your whole body in shut down. 
Some people even after breaking their arms cannot walk, or walk properly. 
Also yes I know it's computerised but it was the only one i could find lol and maybe the actual fight is not that good but i think the way the fight turned out is pretty weel informed on the part of animal planet. 
Yes damon, but even in some of those records you gave it shows the pull strength of humans is on a similar wavelength to a chimpanzee. 
and not only that you gave the guiness world record maximum 2 handed deadlift for a chimpanzee well if you check this link out even the maximum one handed deadlift for a human is higher 
I think all things considered chimps are not that much stronger I still believe they are stronger on average but on a similar scale not the hyped up scale people sometimes seem to think. 
also I do believe martial arts training would be useful against a chimp, martial arts was after all invented so the weak could overpower the strong.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:55 AM by Oliver
Alright. Thanks for the info on the website thingy, Damon. :P 
Re Orangutan vs. Human: Yeah, I guess you're right. The orangutan has an arm that is longer than the legs of a human. There was a video on “Untamed and Uncut” that showed a male orangutan, approximately 4.5 feet tall, dragging around power scooters with ease. He was establishing his dominance in this event, and unlike bear attacks, it’s better to run from an enraged ape rather than play dead. However, even if you play dead, a black bear will still play around with your body as a toy. Brown bears would just retreat after they think you died. A black bear is a different subject with the “play dead and they won’t hurt you” thing. Big cats need to be fended off, like black bears,. Brown bears would just leave you alone after you play dead. Big cats and black bears would still play around with your corpse and may even start eating off of you if you’re unlucky enough. 
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:45 AM by MrAlien123456
You're referring to Wikipedia, Oliver? That's a site that I'd only trust as a last resort. 
Look at this, Oliver: 
"So the figures quoted by primate experts are a little exaggerated. But it is a fact that chimpanzees and other apes are stronger than humans. How did we get to be the weaklings of the primate order? Our overall body architecture makes a difference: Even though chimpanzees weigh less than humans, more of their mass is concentrated in their powerful arms. But a more important factor seems to be the structure of the muscles themselves. A chimpanzee's skeletal muscle has longer fibers than the human equivalent and can generate twice the work output over a wider range of motion. In the past few years, geneticists have identified the loci for some of these anatomical differences. One gene, for example, called MYH16, contributes to the development of large jaw muscles in other apes. In humans, MYH16 has been deactivated. (Puny jaws have marked our lineage for as least 2 million years.) Many people have also lost another muscle-related gene called ACTN3. People with two working versions of this gene are overrepresented among elite sprinters while those with the nonworking version are overrepresented among endurance runners. Chimpanzees and all other nonhuman primates have only the working version; in other words, they're on the powerful, "sprinter" end of the spectrum." 
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:59 AM by MrAlien123456
Actually Balazs, I just looked up that account. The leopard was only 80lbs. That's why it was so easy for him to flip the animal over. That was a very small leopard. Much smaller than him and probably had am maximum body length of 3- 3.5 ft. 
And actually Oliver, when an animal is injured, they are at their most aggressive, and their most alert. I'm sorry but you are wrong on that part; however, a leopard does require both of it's legs to fight and one injury could be fatal to the leopard's hunting ability in the long term; whether it gets infected, or the leopard cannot travel far or hunt well and dies from starvation and/or dehydration. But really though, a healthy leopard, of even that size could have made an meal out of that hunter. 
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:42 PM by MrAlien123456
I think MrAlien is right on that it was more the size of the leopard and sheer luck than the broken leg that mattered. Had you read as many reliable hunting stories as I did, you would not underestimate the capabilities of a wild animal with a broken leg. To quote two concrete cases from the books of a very reliable Hungarian hunter:  
He once shot a leopard and made the same mistake that Akeley had made, as his bullet broke one of the leopard's front legs. The leopard, which was walking in a dry riverbed below him when he shot at it, spotted him, and leapt out of the riverbed "like an arrow," charging directly at him. Fortunately for him, he managed to hit it with a second shot before it could have reached it. 
On another occasion, he wanted to shoot a zebra as bait for a male lion about which he wanted to take photos. He missed again, as his shot merely broke one of the front legs of the zebra. The group of zebras took flight, with the injured one actually running ahead of all others. Unfortunately for it, they happened to run directly toward the lion which they noticed too late. When the lion attacked, the zebras speeded up, and this time the injured one was clearly overtaken by the healthy ones. Still, the lion managed to catch and kill it only after a relatively long chase, and had to run at full speed to overtake it.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 5:59 PM by Balazs
Mralien you are wrong about wikipedia they do not provide the information, rather it is the sources at the bottom of the wikipedia page that will dictate a reliable source here are the sources that the deadlift wikipedia page used: 
1.^ Soong, Michael: "Men's Superheavyweight Weight Class Top 20", "Powerlifting Watch", Retrieved: 2009-06-20 
2.^ [1] Konstantin Konstantinovs Pulls 939 Lbs Raw 
3.^ Guiness Book of Records, 1981 
4.^ "Romanian Deadlift", Core Performance", Retrieved on 2009-06-20 
5.^ Tsatsouline, Pavel: "Power to the People", Retrieved: 2009-08-23 
And those sources are actually a little more reliable than the personal website you provided. 
When animals are injured you are quite correct they are more agressive and more dangerous HOWEVER not when the injury is as severe as a broken leg it's unreal look at this elephant with a broken leg, even though it's healed slightly she still can hardly move: 
And here is a lioness with a broken tail and she can hardly move and it's her tail: 
I do of course know that most animals are more agressive and dangerous when injured but broken bones cannot be overcome by a brave face, for example balazs i just can't believe that a zebra with a broken leg can run it is impossible.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 6:47 PM by Oliver
It is pure mechanics and medical science, you know. There is a maximum weight that a leg bone can carry. The heavier the animal is, the thicker the leg bones must be. This is why the biggest land animals like elephants have column-like and rather inelastic legs. This is also why such a bulky animal cannot afford to lose a leg. In such a case, the weight on the remaining three legs would be simply too much. 
In contrast, lighter animals with more elastic legs can run even on three legs, because their weight does not cause intolerable strain for the uninjured legs, and their center of gravity is located conveniently enough to enable them to keep their balance. If they run on three legs, the injured leg is simply hanging lamely, which actually reduces the pain, because the worst pain is caused if one wants to put one's weight on an injured leg.  
As for the lion's tail: it appears quite likely to me that the observation was made not immediately after the animal suffered the injury but considerably later. Once infection and gangrene sets in, any injury, even the slightest one, can seriously weaken, disable or even kill an animal or human, and this is particularly true for the tropics. This is why so many people died because of relatively slight claw wounds inflicted by big cats. But if you try to tell any hunter that you can disable and stop a charging lion by shooting off its tail, they will roll on the floor laughing. And if you actually try to carry it out, you will soon end up as Whiskas.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:13 PM by Balazs
BTW, that particular lion also had an injured thigh, and this probably played a more important role in hindering it than its injured tail.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:50 PM by Balazs
Very true Balazs. That is why elephants can only carry at maximum, 25% of their body weight on their backs, because the larger the animal is, the more energy it requires to just support it’s own body mass. The smaller the animal is, the less amount of energy it requires to hold its own body weight. That's why if cars were shrunken to the size of an ant, the ant would run faster than the car would rive, but if it were the opposite way around, the ant wouldn't even have enough energy to support it's size. That's why, even in prehistoric times, the largest arthropod, a genus of Eurypterid known as Jaekelopterus, contained specimens that got about 9 feet long, which makes them look like brine shrimp, compared to blue whales.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:56 PM by MrAlien123456
Balazs the wound wasn't on her thigh and it was too small to contribute to such a severe limp, a broken bone really does echo through the body, and unless there was a greater injury the camera didn't show it couldn't have been anything else. 
And okay if you don't like the elephant... here's a zebra with a broken leg limping along trying to catch up with the herd: 
You said before that a zebra was able to run faster than the rest of it's herd, take a look at that video...  
I don't think a hunter would laugh if you said you could disable a lion by shooting off the tail... It does after all disrupt the center of balance and will cause severe pain.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:19 PM by Oliver
Oliver, the maximum of that chimp wasn`t 600 lbs...if you read the source carefully, it states the chimp deadlifted the weight 'with ease'. also, that study on the strength comparison of humans vs chimps showed that one chimp, a female, named suzette, had a pull of over 1200 lbs, w2hen enraged, and managed a deliberate pull of 905 lbs. Those other chimps were perhaps not trying their hardest, as the more recent study was of chimps which were starved for a that was supposedly going to give the animals more 'drive'. I don`t think so, however.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:36 PM by damon
Here's a video of a fucker who was video taping an injured wolf who got hit by a car, and then was attacked by the wolf. I hope he dies. No point in video taping an animal in pain. See if you think the wolf is less dangerous than it is when it was in normal shape. Normaly, a wolf would just run away from a human.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 10:54 PM by MrAlien123456
Mralien you really really need to read more carefully, I said animals are more vicious when they're injured however if that wolf had a broken leg like the leopard he wouldn't have been so willing to run after and attack that guy plus broken bones cannot be overcome by a brave face animals with broken bones are no where near as dangerous as without. 
I know it was said he pulled it with ease damon but that's still the maximum deadlift plus it's a far cry away from the 1000 - 1100 lb. record for humans and also there are questions that need to be addressed, did the chimp belong to someone and was the chimp trained for the deadlift because if it did belong to a human it was undoubtedly trained and if so it doesn't give a reliable estimate as a wild chimp would. 
Hm and I'm not denying the enraged chimp pulled this much but it doesn't account for the fact that the others were very similar, Again I think that on average a chimp will be stronger but it's not by a great amount and also I read over those records again and not once does it say those chimps were starved.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:30 PM by Oliver
Oliver, i don`t think those other chimpanzees were using their entire strength, and of course, that female chimp had a pull higher than every human there...certainly, she was not the strongest chimp? male chimps are usually stronger than females, and also that was a rather amazing feat for the chimp.  
I do have another study, however, and one which is more shows the chimp is stronger.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:43 PM by damon
Oliver, again, you are comparing a chimp's dead lifting skills, that haven’t even gone through rigorous training like the world's strongest man. However, even a chimp half the size of human male can still brutally maul him to death. A gorilla would rip apart the world's strongest man with just one arm. Ha-ha. Also, chimps have a stronger jaw than us and can use that to their advantage to. All of the great apes (gibbons and siamungs are lesser apes, not great apes) outmatch us by body strength and jaw strength. The great apes have longer muscle fibers than humans and have jaws built to grind tough foods. We have lost this over millions of years of evolution. We are the weakest out of all of the great apes. Even the bonobo, which is also known as the pygmy chimpanzee had legs about 2x as strong as an average human’s.
Posted @ Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:44 PM by MrAlien123456
This imperialist & male chauvinist & pitfightist website just swallowed up my latest comments. Let's test it once more.
Posted @ Wednesday, November 04, 2009 3:13 AM by Balazs
This is way off track on the title, but since you are engaged in this convo, my opinion is that an adult non-roody-poo male human can definately discourage a chimps assault. I'm 6'2 and 275 lbs, can pick up 440 lb manganese barrels at the iron foundery where I worked, and I'm confident if faced with life or death, I could maul a chimp, not a gorrila unless I used my wits and surroundings to outsmart it.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 1:02 PM by ATTILA
I'm sorry Attila, but I have to disagree with you on this one. All of the great apes (again, gibbons are not great apes; they are lesser apes)have longer muscle fibers than us. A female chimpanzee managed to pull a weight of over 1000lbs in the Bronx. Also, great ape has stronger jaws than a human. They have an under bite and long muscle fibers that help them bite harder. Chimpanzees also have VERY sharp canines and a charging chimpanzee will go on all fours and bite anywhere they could on a human, including their genitalia. Combine them with their great strength and they could easily overtake an average human male. A bonobo, which is also known as the pygmy chimpanzee, and is the smallest of the great apes, has been recorded to push 2xs the amount of weight with it's legs an average human male could. Chimpanzees have even been known to go in small parties to kill leopards. A feat that would be tough for even 5 men (not just because of the animal’s strength, but agility, as well). All great apes possess longer muscle fibers than we do and stronger bones and jaws. These all give them advantages in combat.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:14 PM by MrAlien123456
I just felt like posting this video here, though. :P  
It shows how durable and agile coatimundis are. 
Don’t try to negatize the animal. You got to give him credit. Coatimundis get around the size of a large housecat, in weight and length.  
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:21 PM by MrAlien123456
It is possibe to kill the Chimp but you better not let the bastard near your throat/face. 
There are exceptions to the rule; it is possible for some humans to use their size, strength, & speed to overcome a Chimp. However, % wise I go with the Chimp. 
As for the Gorilla; using one's wits for me would be running the hell away LOL.. 
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:26 PM by Ted
Ya, I also agree with Mr.Alien; if you grapple with the chimp don't let him near your nuts. They will bite everything & anything.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:29 PM by Ted
I think your only chance is if you can somehow grab the chimp's neck and strangle it, because this might prevent it from biting you. But you must be quick as hell in doing it, because if the chimp grabs your hand while you are reaching for its neck, it will promptly bite it, and with a mauled hand, you'll end up as second best in a short time. In fact, apes often start fighting by grabbing the opponent's hand and biting it, so you'll certainly have a very hard time. What about acquiring two pairs of longer canines through a little bit of surgery or genetic engineering?:))
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:50 PM by Balazs
<<As for the Gorilla; using one's wits for me would be running the hell away LOL..>> 
Wrong move. This would DEFINITELY inspire the gorilla to pursue and grab you even if it had not originally planned to attack you. Those people who made this mistake usually paid for it with a big bite in their ass (literally, because gorillas, for reasons unknown to me, like to target that particular part of one's body).
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:56 PM by Balazs
Yeah, I wouldn't run from anything-its ill-advisable, people are so slow, we can't outrun anything that could kill us that I can think of off the top of my head-and why give your back to your opponant giving them the advantage. I'd try and break its neck or strangle from behind. They may do it because if you get bit there, its hard to move your legs very well as thats the area of the human body with the largest muscle and the legs derive much of their power from it-thats assuming they think about all that-like sharks go for our legs to dissable our locomotion at the source as they do with fish. 
Also, dogs have been known to pull 1,200 lbs on a sled (a single dog)I watched it. As far as strongmen go-the strongest have been from Scandinavia-Magnus Samuelson, Magnus Ver Magnusson, Jon pall Sigmarsson, Karl Svenson-all 4 time WSM winners except the last named-they carried cars via straps on their shoulders (950 lbs) for a long distance as well as other great feats of strength and endurance(rip large phone books in half, crush pressurized beer cans, etc) I mention this only in reference to Olivers above statement about strongmen of a looong time ago who's records have been shattered by these guys. The bar's been lifted so to speak in the area of human limits and capabilities-I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are about as strong as a gorrila
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:41 PM by ATTILA
Take a look at these teeth: 
Now, compare them to yours.  
And DO NOT forget, all of the great apes have stronger bites than humans because they eat tough foods, like shoots, roots, bamboo, meat (chimpanzee and bonobo). 
Now a gorilla's canines; forget about it. LOLZ 
They have a bite around 1300PSI and they are USED to eating tough food like roots, shoots and other plant matter. 
And actually Balazs, the chimps would still be more deadly, even if you did by synthetic canines. They would still have a stronger bite advantage. You'll be seeing a fight like Smilodon (their teeth snap so easily) against a modern day lion or tiger (they could actually deliver bites in battle, while Smilodon had to wrestle their to the ground, and then deliver the puncture to their jugular, which is why they are suspected to live in prides; you can’t expect a single Smilodon to bring down the large animals without us it’s teeth; it’s like us not having any fingers or knuckles to use in battle), except the human competitor would be weaker. Ha-ha. 
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:50 PM by MrAlien123456
Wait, Attila, are you thinking of Burmese Mountain dogs? They are really beautiful dogs. I have an English mastiff, which they descended from, and really, the English mastiff was used in Rome against the barbarians, but they call them English mastiffs? Why? They are very strong dogs. When I get older, I want to get two Alaskan malamutes. They could be stubborn at times, but they are fairly larger than their husky breed relatives. Males can get from 80-100lbs on average; about the size of an average grey wolf, except the studies I looked up came to the conclusion of male wolves ranging fro m80-115lbs on average. I don’t want to risk it with a REAL wolf, you know, because I’m planning on keeping other animals when I’m older, and I don’t want the wolf’s predatory instincts to turn on. Skunks and raccoons. Those are two animals I really want. If you have experience with ferrets (I have two) you could be getting ready to start owning raccoons and skunks. They do make really great pets. Raccoons are pretty much like ferrets in temperament, if raised properly fro ma young age, except that they are much more dexterous. I know you’re probably thinking I’m way over my head in animals, but as a 15 year old kid, I take care of all the pets in my house, including my reptiles, birds, dog, ferrets and invertebrates. Lol, sorry, I didn't mean to get off topic. I sometimes tend to drift on to another topic fairly easily.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:01 PM by MrAlien123456
In fact, it is not only the chimp's canines that are dangerous but also its incisors. A predator's canines usually inflict "only" deep puncture wounds, but an ape's incisors can neatly bite off a finger, toe or nose. Apart from the wound itself, this is particularly dangerous because of the resulting massive blood loss.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:02 PM by Balazs
I found this fight between a chimpanzee and human. It’s rare footage caught on tape. Hopefully you'll see how weak we are.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:09 PM by MrAlien123456
A possible theory of why we are what we are, today:
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:12 PM by MrAlien123456 
I found the picture of Akeley and the Samalian leopard he killed. That's a small ass leopard, LOLZ!
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:26 PM by MrAlien123456
Yes, and I read that Akeley was a quite big and heavy man. He definitely looks so on the picture. Still, the cat managed to injure his arm and hand quite seriously. It is not visible on the pic, but I also read that his legs were also injured.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:59 PM by Balazs
I love jaguars, but that puzzled expression on the jag's face while it was licking its bitten paw was priceless.:)) Coatimundis are definitely tough fighters. In Brazil, people hunt them with dogs, but if the dog gets involved in a fight with a coati, it is often quite seriously injured.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:14 PM by Balazs
I would never run from a wild animal unless I knew I had a very good chance to escape and reach safety. My point was I would never get close to a Gorilla where I would have to run or fight. Also, I would first attempt, just as with a Grizzly, to submit before choosing to fight. 
As far as braking a Chimp or Gorilla's neck: 
You heard the term of someone going "Ape Shit?" Well when you grab a Chip around the neck two things have just happened. First, the Ape is going to go ballistic. Second, you have now placed your head/face close to the Chimps bite. 
If you have the skills/method & confidence for breaking the Chimps neck; you had better succeed on your first try because I doubt you will have a second chance.  
As for breaking a Silverback Gorrila's neck; I don't see that happening.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:31 PM by Ted
I'am not sure how weight pulling came up; but my 95Lb. American PitBull & American Bulldogs can pull with the best of dog breeds. 
As for Mastiffs: I'll go with the Cane Corso & the rare Tibetan Mastiff.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:39 PM by Ted
<<As for breaking a Silverback Gorilla's neck; I don't see that happening.>> 
This is how it should be done: 
But if you do not do it in the proper way, this is what will happen to you:
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:52 PM by Balazs
Submission would work quite well with an uninjured gorilla, but I am less sure whether it would produce the intended effect on a chimp; chimps are generally far more aggressive than gorillas. The chimps' own formula is that if your superior attacks you, you should submit, and if this is not enough, then you run. But if a human is once grabbed by a chimp, he has zero chance to run away any more.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:02 PM by Balazs
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:04 PM by Ted
LOL Balazs………. I thought Gorilla Grodd was a batman villain, but then again, Superman and Batman live in the same universe, because they have teamed up with each other a couple of times. But I don't read comic books much, so I don't really know for sure. :P
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:51 PM by MrAlien123456
Tibetan mastiffs are beautiful dogs. They look almost like a German Sheppard- Newfoundland mix. 
But English mastiffs are probably the largest dogs on average. Cane Corsos are a little on the small side for a mastiff breed. My English mastiff is on the small end of the size spectrum for his breed of mastiff and yet he's 150lbs. The largest dog ever was a mastiff that went by the name of Zorba and weighing in at 343lbs and was not obese. He was 8' 3" from nose to tail- the length of some of the larger specimens of male lions and tigers (considering that his tail was also shorter, in comparison to his body size). 
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:03 PM by MrAlien123456
They average about 90- 120lbs, while English mastiffs average from 145-200lbs, however, for males, 210+ isn't uncommon. Mines on the smaller end of that spectrum, at 150lbs, exactly. 
Great Danes are massive looking dogs, but they don't have the heavyset build of a mastiff breed. Still, they can average 160lbs. However, if they had the build of a mastiff, they could easily get over 220lbs on average. I saw many Great Danes, and all of them looked like the kind of dogs a basketball player like Shaquille O'neal or Yao Ming would own. 
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:12 PM by MrAlien123456 
Here's Zorba
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:18 PM by MrAlien123456
Unfortunately, you can't even see his total height, since he can't stand up straight (his back is not at a 90 degree angle) and he’s too heavy to lift.
Posted @ Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:20 PM by MrAlien123456
<<Chimpanzees have even been known to go in small parties to kill leopards.>> 
I wonder where you found that info, but I definitely doubt its veracity. The only comparable case I am aware of was Kortland's experiments with wild chimpanzees. He installed a stuffed leopard on one of the paths frequently used by chimps, and tested the apes' reactions. Jungle chimps only threw branches and yelled, but savannah chimps actually attacked and hit the leopard with big branches, some of which were as long as six feet.
Posted @ Friday, November 06, 2009 12:32 AM by Balazs
Let me add to the discussion about whether a zebra can run on three legs or not that it is sufficient to read a few hunting websites about the tracking of wounded deer. They make it very clear that overtaking a deer with a leg hit is a quite difficult task, and may even take several days.
Posted @ Friday, November 06, 2009 1:33 AM by Balazs
Balazs, here is that study of the female chimp pulling 1260 lbs; 
The test i`m refering to is the second post by me, the bold champ.
Posted @ Friday, November 06, 2009 2:08 AM by damon
Ya, I know the story. The guy actually had a very hard time in persuading the chimps to pull in the proper way and with full strength, because they weren't particularly interested.
Posted @ Friday, November 06, 2009 2:18 AM by Balazs