First some background.
The bear in in question:
- The TRUE Story of the person who shot it can be found here.
The Whale in question:
Now let's look _at_ some size comparisons.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sgifs/ ... risons.GIF
Using that scaled drawing the Giraffe is roughly the size of the grizzly in question. Standing _at_ 14 feet it is almost 3/4th the height of a Trex, and weighing in _at_ roughly 1 ton.
The paws on the bear are larger than a human head with claws up to 7 inches long. Further research into the outer skin thickness of a blue whale has sadly been unfruitful however, I was able to find this.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... blue+whale
Read the third listing down stating that whale blubber is roughly 2 inches thick.
So by this estimation Mr. (or Mrs.) Grizzly bear is going to have a full 5 inches of tearage into such things as vital organs and what-not. I would imagine that roughly 30 seconds to 1 minute of this behavior would result in a mortally wounded Blue Whale, leaving a wide blood swath in the water that would if nothing else bring in your ordinary average underwater predator to finish off the already dying blue whale.
In this situation it is abundantly clear that:
Bear > Blue whale.
Here in this thread I have seen the argument that the blue whale will simply dive underwater in which case the grizzly would simply LET GO. Whale swims away in terror and bear swims to shore.
Where I grew up, running away meant the other guy won.
Again: Bear > Whale
After further study of blue whale physiology the only true defense would be its massive weight, which while in the water cannot be brought to bear (hyuck). The blue whale body is extremely elongated and allows no more than 90 degrees of tale motion in any direction meaning that your average grizzly which when fighting such a large opponent having gone directly for the eyeballs and jugular would be far forward of this pittance of threat.
So we are left with the whales abilities on land, where a smart grizzly would walk to the front of the whale and beat the living hell out of its face easily avoiding any sluggish attempts on the whales part to roll over.
Thru much deliberation and intense background study, with some help from local resources and experts in Bear vs whale combat the only viable situation where a blue whale could actually beat the grizzly bear, is if it were dropped from a height of no less than 50 yards attaining roughly 27.8% of a whales terminal velocity in earths atmosphere to crush the grizzly beneath its weight.
However in this situation the whale would suffer mortal injury once again and the best conclusion I can make would be:
Bear == Whale
But, since last I checked whales cannot jump 50 yards into the air, this is a moot point.
As you can clearly see, a Grizzly Bear will always win vs a blue whale.
Thank you for your time,
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... hale.shtml
These gray-blue whales have 2 blowholes and a 2-14 inch (5-30 cm) thick layer of blubber.
We are talking about the high end of both species... largest bear in the world vs largest whale in the world. The range of 2 inches to 14 inches would indicate that the largest whale would have 14 inches of blubber: meaning that the bear can penetrate 7 inches and the whale still has 7 inches of protective blubber between the bear and its vital organs.
The advantage that TheBearWins describes in the previous post is eliminted/mitigated.
Any thoughts on this argument?
The "biggest" does not necessarily translate to the most overweight.
its possible that the bear has the body style to pull of the combat while the whale does not, also, cutting into fat will produce pain/bleeding that will as discussed in my 2nd point above draw in the local "bad crowd" to end the whales misery.
The blubber layers will only protect for the first 1-2 swipes anyway. STill allowing the bear to tear a whole in his/her allotted 20-30s reaching the vital organs.
The true winner would be the one that better uses its habitat to elude the only common predator, the human. The effect of the extinction of one on the other can be analyzed if that was the context of the first post in this string, but this would take some careful deliberation.
Sadattay, Whattata Respec.
I believe, and someone can correct me if I am wrong, but humans are taken out of the equation. If we include humans then there are also millions of variables that could come into play and if we include them all then the topic would be impossible to answer. Many good points have been raised thus far with out bringing outside factors in.
Plus, a human would lose against both a bear and a blue whale in "hand to hand" combat which is what the fight between the bear and blue whale is.
Sure the whale has a thick layer of blubber protecting it's enourmous body. But have we taken into account the hardened barnacles? This almost acts as a plate of armor for the whale.
A quick quote from a website (http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask03/0208.html):
There does not seem to be a symbiotic relationship between whales and
barnacles unless you consider humpback whales using their barnacles as
weapons for fighting during times of competition symbiotic.
Albeit, the article did not mention blue whales but blue whale do have barnacles.
Also, does the mood change for a whale while in heat? I mean if in heat or "season" would the whale be more aggressive? I don't think a bear would stand up against 150 tons if rammed even once by the whale going 30 mph (http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/bluewhl.htm). And if in heat?
We might have to make a gladiator arena for these animals to battle appropriately. And if possible. Do we make a point system for hits, ect? Or is this just a win or die situation?
Interesting that sanusid should bring into the discussion the topic of sexual aggression, most specifically whether or not the whale being in heat - in estrus, more correctly, would have any bearing on the battle betwixt itself and the kodiak.
If the whale were a female, I would hazard a guess that it would have some bearing, at least, given that we all know females in heat turn into whiney, moany bitches, who want nothing more than a giant penis shoved you know where. And they want it now. If the kodiak bear is perceived as being in the way of receiving said sexual pounding, then my money is definitely on the blue whale.
If it's a male blue whale, the case in favor of the whale is perhaps even stronger. Consider the following urban legend - laugh at it first, and then let's get back to the facts:
The facts are that a blue whale penis can be up to 16 feet in length, which would be larger than our colossal kodiak bear. Given a fight between said bear and a male blue whale who'd just watched a Discovery Channel special on himself, and thus had a massive hard-on, I'd say, once again, the whale wins. In water or or land, the whale would easily be able to use his massive reproductive organ as an effective and deadly weapon, capable of delivering quite a pounding to the bear. Furthermore, if the whale was beached, it could easily use its reproductive systems has a giant offensive weapon of sorts, given that the 25 lb testicles definitely hold enough seminal fluid to pack quite a punch when traveling through the air at high velocity.
Whale with erect penis wins, hands down. I mean, think about it. When you've got an erection, guys, you get what you want, right? Even if you have to take matters into your own hands, but especially if there's a big hairy... bear... involved.
Aynrandsbro, you took an tasteful forum and distorted it completely. Why would you take it to that level?
I agree that certain changes in a creature depending on their cycle would cause them to be initially more aggressive but during the attack their survival instinct would kick in and they would fight to live even if the attacker was in heat.
I don't think penis size has anything to do with the contest we have been talking about and I hope you will keep comments like that between you and your friends and off of the forum.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest