Who would win in a fight?
- Thread starter screwduke1
- Start date
Apparently this was done back in the 1800s in California. Lions and tigers lasted very little time against grizzly bears. The reasoning is the grizzlies paws which are used for digging have a force of 8000 lb per square inch. As soon as a lion or tiger would grip a grizzly bear, the grizzly would hit them with their paws and split their skulls. Cats do not have large bones like the grizzly bear.
We don't need any tigers killed.
What about Bugs Bunny vs Mike Tyson.. them ears don't stand a chance.
Think I would pick the bear...
Generally speaking, bears have a distinct strength advantage over cats. Bears can also sustain a ton of damage. It would have to be a big grizzly though, at least 1000 lbs. The tiger would have a speed advantage, although bears can outrun racehorses. In the end, the bear’s forelimb power, and immense strength and size advantage would give it the win.
Grizzly bears don't weigh half a ton and they don't outrun racehorses. Bear would win more than likely.
I stand corrected. Actually grizzlies average 400-600 lbs, and can sometimes reach up to 800 lbs. It’s the coastal brown bears and Kodiak subspecies that get over 1000 lbs. The racehorse assertion is actually true for short distances. Will source if need be.
Last edited:
Lions are the bullies of the animal world. They only pick on zebras and gazelles and such, generally things that won't fight back.
Yeah, haha. I’m not saying they can outrun racehorses on the regular, but they can exceed racehorse speeds for short bursts. At least according to the National Park Service and Yellowstone National Park.
Pythons can be pretty lethal. It's a little scary how quicky they wrap and coil once they get a hold of something.
During the California Gold Rush, there were several lion vs bear matches. The bear won every single one of them. Tigers are different: bigger and craftier hunters. Were an equal-weight tiger and a brown/grizzly/polar bear to meet in the wild, the tiger would probably win. In an arranged match with a confined space, it would probably be a Pick 'Em.
If a griz decides to eat you, there's not a lot you can do to stop him. Tigers are the biggest cats in the world with legs so sstrongthat even when killed by a shot can still remain standing. Cats are bursts of ferocity at blinding speeds. Bears are stamina, take all day to hunt you down to kill you. Bear wears the tiger out in the long haul, but is probably severely damaged.
So how and why did these Tiger -Bear matchups occur during the Gold Rush? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Are you saying Tigers were brought in by train on the regular to Northern California to entertain the miners by fighting bears in their free time? Because that would be one hell of a random thing to do in 1849.
Awesome video. Ill take the tiger. More of a vicious killing machine that has no weaknesses....speed, strength, aggression, versatility, intelligence.
This right here. Tiger would defeat grizzly in the wild hands down. In a cage match it’s 50/50.
They put them in pits and forced them to fight. Bears really don't want to fight usually. The Spaniards thought their bulls could defeat grizzlies. That was stupid.
Last edited:
Fought a honey badger twice. 2-0 but the second one gave me a run. Rear naked choke dropped him though.
Similar threads
