Grizzly bear vs African lion

Is this some kind of poll question? What are you asking us?

Polls are for trolls...what I'd like to know from the biology community, is the statistics, I have read several opinions from self pro-claimed biologist, but nothing substantial from one with experince, hands on and observation with cedentials.

Like the link I question how immune bears are against attack from smaller animals. It seems popular belief is that bears are Indestructible towards any other living predator. That some how excessive fat grants the bear immunity to harm, fatigue, and gives him super-powers for exploding animals such as bulls skulls. I have yet to see any genuine proof bears are as combat savey and skillful as the common internet-talk has it repeated.

I have come across many science theorys and opinions, but it seems to be more in the line of pesudo-science then true facts. I also question how can bears actively defend themselves from a  puma, regardless the size difference, the puma can attain a size of 200 lbs, and that is enough to inflict damage to anything that walks. Is there any validity to the hype that a full grown bears would remain un-killiable to any animal just because he consist of healthy obesity (large amounts of proned fat)  to survive hybernation, or is that just a bias notion, and that these accounts in that link I showed of pumas, mules, boars, goats, dogs, wolverines, lions, tigers, donkeys and other animals documented killing bears from black/brown/polar up to 150 times up-helded and viable proof that a african lion could very well kill a grizzly more than vice versa?

I'd like to know the statistics in why a lion wouldnt be able to beat a slower in agility, dexterity, speed, skill, fighting experince, stronger bite force and strike force with jaws and paws, has more manuverability and is in general more athletic from actual biologist.

Does slightly greater size make the bear immune to all those advantages?

Post Merge: 8 years ago

Its not like the information was hard to get, all I had to do was type into google:


All empires lion vs bear


And it rooted me into finding 150 accounts of bears being killed by much smaller animals. But thats more in the lines of a history forum in means of a historians portay, I would like to know what Biologist have to say on the matter of biology.

Try this bear vs tiger simulation!

There is no straightforward answer to this, and no answer would satisfy everyone because most of the people already have an answer in their mind.

According to this source (https://indrajit.wordpress.com/bigcats/)


I think that a particularly large brown bear would overpower any big cat in a closed arena and it may go either way in an open space. A lion could win against an American black bear, but not without sustaining injuries.

Ive searched that site already quanity text doesnt equate into quality, just because its lengthy doesnt mean its credible, for instance that site you linked stated that Clyde beatty proved that tigers are superior to lions, theres no way to sugar coat it... but only to call it a lie, heres the data straight from Mr. Beattys books/articles and he had around 53 tigers killed by lions and stated the opposite of whats on that site:

(Page 7 of all empires lion vs tiger)
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17524&PN=7

Which in case the excerpt of the quoteing the bear killed the lion you just took from that site is another white lie as well, or in other words a mis-information, as the fights the books in 1955, 1980 and the latest of the great bear almanac all attributed to the tale'd version of how bears killed lions and bulls with a flick of the risk in the days of the california gold miners, how the bear ramadan slew a city of lions and bulls, these are abstracts thats talking about events decades to entire centurys previous, they werent even born, but we now have access to historical news archives in digital form and can dig through news articles that were printed that very week that happened, and none of it was remotely accurate, parnell the lion and his brother were the ones who killed the bears siskiyou, monarch, grumbler and defeated ramadan who both was in turn killed by the bull panthera.

Again, this is what I spoke of, of any genuine verification of facts, an opinion is an opinion no matter how much they have it engraved in their heads who they want to win, a fact is a fact, my question again still remains the same, all those advantages which are just as much of a fact as the bear is heavier than the lion...how can 2-3 advantages out-weigh 8-10?

I agree there wouldnt be a straight foward answer with limited data, but my question is, are their more biologist/mammalogist who make comparisons between the two as part of their academics to consult or do you all know of who would have knowledge on both animals statistics? Because whats on the basic internet is quite pathetic in terms credability, and reliability. I mean this is a biology forum and already you cited a person who not only has no academic credentials in being any sort of scientist (just a fan boy quoting mis-informed and fictional books), but purposly lies over things in spite and bias.

Again, a fact is a fact and a opinion is a opinion, I am looking for facts.

It boils down to each animal's physiology. We can only speculate which animal is the superior fighter, since a study like this would be unethical or simply cruel. Further more, each animal is adapted to its environment. Throw a lion into a forest, it won't blend well with the background, which reduces its chances of attack - the same with a grizzly bear being thrown into the African Savanna. What further complicates this is that often fights are not to the death.

In Sikhote Alin (southeastern Russia), where the Amur (Siberian) tiger coexists with both black and brown bears, male tigers are known to prey on bears, mostly black but also female and young brown bears. According to Russian biologists in a paper whose translation I once saw, there were no documented cases of mature male brown bears being killed by tigers. On the other hand, some brown bears seemed to stalk and hunt tigers. So here we have the interesting situation that bears and tigers may prey on each other and, accordingly, either can win a fight against the other.

It should be noted that the bears of this region are probably close to North American grizzly bears in size (and temper). If we took a very large polar bear, Kamchatka bear or Alaskan brown bear, all of which can grow considerably larger than a grizzly, I think that, unless the tiger had a very distinct advantage , i.e. complete surprise (I doubt that would be sufficient), or the bear being sick, hibernating or otherwise incapacitated, I do not believe the assumed greater agility, and possibly reflexes, of the tiger, can compensate for a virtual 2:1 advantage of the bear in pure mass. With the largest bears I would expect the bear to win over a tiger (or a lion for that matter).

First of all, why is my post blacked out? Does it hold that much weight in substance that the mods here dont wish for the public to view it? Is that science to obscure facts and counter-weigh with bias opinions...

As my post to you, no need for bringing up tigers, if I wanted to talk about tigers I would have titled the thread that. And second, lions do live in forest, via the gir forest, along with having been documented the leo species has covered every terrain on the clobe just short of the artic, from deserts, mangroves, jungles, forests savannahs, icy rockerys, you name it and leo has been there.

Explain to me what is cruel? We are speaking hypotheicals and quoteing excerpts of things that already happened decades to centurys ago. Nor a am I a promoter on animal cruelty, just because I like to watch CSI cases now and then, doesnt mean I go on killing sprees.

Again, you are contradicting exactly what science is suppose to prove, facts, you state 3 advantages are out weighing 10, thats no means logical or scienctific based. Its obvious you didnt even read my links, if you arnt here to figure out the truth, and only wanna hear your self talk then leave my thread, and make your own, I am here looking for facts to compile, not poor opinions from a person who has no credentials or atleast quotes academic or reliable sources. I have in my source  its cited 4 biologist, 3 animal trainers, over 100 eyewitnessed accounts of conflicts between these animals, you have nothing but proven false and unreliable data.

You even are gesturing that that size can by-pass skill, even though that same link showed a 160 lb man beating a 600 lb man...your entire argument is size, as that was exposed and exploited to be not true, if you had read it...but you didnt.

Nothing was blocked out I can read everything perfectly fine. Why don't you try another browser before writing stupid things like this.

I brought up tigers because it's what's available to me, and they both belong to the same genus (Pathera). It's not like I chose an animal that's completely different, like a kangaroo, so relax!


The reason I mentioned cruelty is because the only way to find out for sure which animal is truly stronger would be to instigate a fight within a closed environment. You'd have to do this many times with multiple animals to get a significant answer. In the end, you'd have a pile of dead animals only to answer a question that no one needs answering but you.


Look dude, I tried explaining why I think this idea is absurd. I pointed out that "each animal is adapted to its environment" and "that often fights are not to the death". Both of these points are TRUE. There are more reasons, but they go without saying.


I never mentioned size by-passes skill. I merely suggested it plays a role, along with temper.

Why is the others see-able and not that one then? You can only see it when its quoted, not as is, and second...does a tiger have a pride to be consistant with fighting week to week, does he have mane that protects his vital areas? Do tigers have a extracurricular physicological state of mind to protect his cubs with his life and take on multiple opponents at once? Hence not the same animal.



So what you're saying is, in order for we to find out what human race is superior we have to stage wars all over again and not just read the historical writings and records? Wow you're ignorant, there are hundreds of past records, just because you are too lazy to do genuine research, doesnt mean these fights dont exist and cant be judged off.



Then why are you here if you wanna not compile evidence? Again, you just wanna state who you favor like this is some kind of youtube challange, no this is a science forum, and you bring fourth no abstracts genuine to the debate. I specifically came here for biologist abstracts, if I wanted a empty brain-dead back and fourth debate I would have gone to a animal vs animal forum. I am interested if their are any biologist here, obviously not.



No you think size trumps all, when bears arnt even significantly bigger than lions, a elephant is significantly bigger, a whale, godzilla is, but being only near the same weight, to at max only twice as bigger, is not significant enough to by-pass a tremendous amount of skill, brown bears in america dont have any skill worth noting, they hibernate almost half a year each season, if a boxer cut half his life out of training he wouldnt be nearly as conditioned as a fighter, there was nearly 50 accounts of pumas killing bears in that link, a lion is a puma magnified a 100x fold in overall capabilitys.

There are no accounts of leopards killing lions, but almost 50 accounts of pumas killing black and brown bears? Sounds like skill-less to me, both bears and tigers have been proven not only to fall victim to smaller animals because of lack of skill, but lack of a defensive anatomy, tigers being killed by leopards:

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35256


Hmmmm, am I seeing a pattern here, since no small animal has been documented killing lions as have small predators have killed bears/tigers, it speaks volumes on the lions skill and weapon/defensive anatomy, is it just coincidence that a boxers is vastly superior in fighting compared to the average person because they train month to month, as the lion fights month to month? Hmmm, but bears and tigers dont fight month to month, at best its year to yearm some bears/tigers dont fight once in there entire lives because they are solitary...while lions social, a boxer who trains with group, a coach and gym doesnt just lose all his fighting experince in training, nor would a lion lose his fighting expertise of pride-in-fighting.

If you're not here to post facts, then why are you here? To post base-less opinions (since you dont have any experince with any of them) and or lies (like your source you ignorantly quoted?)...probably both.

Many things would need to factored in:

- Size
- Weight
- Hearing
- Sense of smell and touch

Bears have a heightened sense of smell, for instance, which they rely on to hunt their prey and forage for food. Lions have this ability, given that they are big cats. Lions are carnivores (unlike bears, who are omnivores), and predatory machines. They can leap up to two meters and climb trees - bears have the ability to climb as well. Bears are nonplussed. They're quite secure in their very bearness, and won't attack unless provoked, or trying to assert their dominance.

On a side-note, it's funny how I get scorned for making a few contributing posts. Were you by any chance banned from every other forum? Anyway, not interested in having a conversation with someone that believes in "race" - a concept lacking genetic basis.

A sense of smell is useful in a fight?

XD XD XD

Size and weight contribute to the same thing, both still not significant, if so, bears would have never lost to pumas even once in their lives, but theres near 50 times they have been killed, bears stated to weigh in the 1,000 pound range...as why you retorted with bears over tigers 2;1 we take only there average sizes to factor in a average outcome. No what I find funny is it states you have been here for 2 years and such little post, yet all your post are visible and two of mine are blanked out (mainly the two that have important disputes) sounds more of a cover up from a base-less administrative member.

Contribution? Which one, the one where it stated Clyde beatty themes it as tigers were superior, yet he stated over a 100 times a lion would beat a tiger 9 times out of ten? Or the california gold miners who manifested from originally being daniel boones incident into lions have weak thin skulls and bones, so bears crushed them in with one blow (even though 4 biologist stated bears dont throw blows to kill under there own observation) and (the oesteology test showed lions have relatively the same bone density as kodiak bears with even some places densar bones) Those??? XD XD XD If this was on a science board meeting in a colledge review by schollars, you would have been laughed off the stage and escorted out the building with your made up sources, also called lies, as it doesnt contribute to science, it shames it, it probably contributes to the catagorie of pesudeo science though, you can get points for that lol.


And race? You can call it nationallity, color, another culture, different people, (patatoe patato), you knew what the point was being made. You know sometimes when you dont have any credible answers, you shouldnt try to answer something, what if someone asked you instructions to operate a crane, would you just state your own opinion (even though you have never in your life driven one) to go ahead and operate it and then give a childrens book to that as a guide? You'd get people humiliated or worse.

If you dont know the answer, just state you dont know or atleast if you volenteer to answer it then do some actual research. Instead of posting the very first thing that pops out on the interent. My question still stands and awaits a biologist to contribute, does all the advantages of the lion not make it warrented to win more than vice versa, or does non-significant size trump everything logical.

Could you attach a screenshot? No where in this forum's coding do posts get blanked out, so I am curious to see what you're seeing. I'm part of the tech team.


Do you think an African lion could overpower a grizzly bear 9 times out of 10?

If thats just a glitch, its the most well placed glitch I've seen, dont have the screen saver option on this C...and I dont favor the lion that highly, but most do the opposite, and I liked to see proof of this other than, they're just bigger rants. I believe now though...that lions would certainly out strike any sized grizzly, if the lion has his paws tied together and it was soely a pushing match with body mass, the lion would lose, but the lion is the superior striker as shown, yet one mis-information on the web, and everyone quotes on it as if they saw it them selves:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+grizzlies%2C+using+their+paw+as+a+club%2C+shattered+the+unfortunate+bull%27s+skull+or%22&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=%22The+grizzlies%2C+using+their+paw+as+a+club%2C+shattered+the+unfortunate+bull%27s+skull+or%22&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3...8367.12996.0.13185.3.2.0.1.0.0.216.371.0j1j1.2.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..3.0.0.UCkl4vn7Y3Q

Theres no proof of that, those are boones incient and the bears lost, not the Parnell and Sultan.

lol Over 30 videos of bears fighting shows they dont utilize their paws for striking haymakers or any paw swats that could do any damage specifically in blunt force, 4 biologist states its a myth, false and  fallacie, its a misconception, a difference between a haymaker and a sumo downward smack is all the difference from stunning to completely killing the opponent. There is little to no documentation of bears using paw blows consistantly, a boxer is superior in combat because he is consistant in fighting/training, the same as the records show lions consistantly kill their advesary with blows from the paws, almost every animal the lion has gone up against he has killed exclusively with tremendous amounts of force with his paws.

Lions have broken the backs of siberian tigers and leopards with paw blows, killed hyenas and dogs out-right with one blow, swiped at jaguars killing them with only a few swipes, shattered the bones of buffalos limbs into peices with his paw swipe, crushed the skulls of black bears, killed grizzly bears with a single blow of the paw breaking in their backs, whacked down nearly two tons of giant eland,  and the list goes on, this shows a consistancy just as much as the bears fat over the lion.

I'll have to cutt you off on this one, is there even any biologist on this site? In which case, if there isnt...then I wont bother looking for info here.