|
|
Post by s on Aug 28, 2023 17:18:42 GMT
Hardcastle i have a genuine question, at a parity weight of your choice, who would you back between Smilodon Populator/Smilodon Fatalis (assume it's a mini-version, much smaller but is just as proportionally robust as their standard versions and it's weaponry is just as powerful proportionally) and an elite best of the best Bulldog, Hércules or Camoral tier? Well in case you missed the updated robusticity chart-  Forget about me, everyone should basically follow this chart. Or basically to go against it you need a good argument and good evidence, this should be the "common sense" baseline. Isn't Fatalis slighty higher than Bulldogs in your chart though? My question was over who would you favour at parity between an elite bulldog and a mini-Smilodon Fatalis that is just as proportionally robust |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 28, 2023 17:48:07 GMT
Yes, logically according to the robusticity data S. Fatalis would have been too proportionately powerful. I'm even open to felids potentially having a slight advantage at equal robusticity levels. Jaguar vs boarhound for example, yes boarhounds have the robusticity advantage but my hunch is jaguars are close enough in robusticity to maximise the benefit of their dexterous forelimbs and possibly dominate. EVEN THOUGH if you read between the lines on the legendary bulldog vs jaguar fight the jaguar was overwhelmed and losing before the dog succumbed to injuries, that's bulldog vs jaguar. Boarhound vs jaguar at parity, I would not be surprised if the jaguar was dominant despite being lesser in robusticity.
On the other hand, I actually think boarhounds and bulldogs might OVER-achieve against bears at close robusticity levels and close weights. Just a styles make fights situation.
So it is funny I am always accused of being biased against felids, I really give them every chance and boost them higher than I need to, and for the reasons cat fans talk about- the dexterous forelimbs and the claws and the killing ability, etc. To some extent I do agree, but you give an inch and they take a mile and next thing you know caracals are beating Staffordshire bull terriers. No. Even boarhound vs puma around 100 lbs, no. Closer than it should be thanks to cat strengths, but no.
However, absolutely, fatalis seems to be out of the question. Even hypothetical parity (though not possible) it is pinning down the best bulldog and killing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 29, 2023 9:07:01 GMT
Hardcastle i have a genuine question, at a parity weight of your choice, who would you back between Smilodon Populator/Smilodon Fatalis (assume it's a mini-version, much smaller but is just as proportionally robust as their standard versions and it's weaponry is just as powerful proportionally) and an elite best of the best Bulldog, Hércules or Camoral tier? Well in case you missed the updated robusticity chart- Forget about me, everyone should basically follow this chart. Or basically to go against it you need a good argument and good evidence, this should be the "common sense" baseline. Also where would you place a "Domestic/Family dog" on the chart? Thinking breeds such as Labrador/Golden Retriever. Want to see how you would compare it to "Bulldog" and "Boarhound" |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 29, 2023 9:53:53 GMT
Well in case you missed the updated robusticity chart- Forget about me, everyone should basically follow this chart. Or basically to go against it you need a good argument and good evidence, this should be the "common sense" baseline. Also where would you place a "Domestic/Family dog" on the chart? Thinking breeds such as Labrador/Golden Retriever. Domestic dogs are all over the place. Domestic dogs are many different animals (functionally about 27 or so different animals) and each one of those animals is gonna place somewhere different. In the vindolanda study they unfortunately don't tell us which spot on the graph is which breed, we got lucky with the boarhound due to the healed tusk injuries (and cudgel injuries, to make it break its holds) so we know what it was, and with the bulldog its pretty evident due to the physique and location, but for most of the dogs in the data-set we don't know what they are. Including 7 modern pet dogs (represented as stars in the graph)  We don't know what breeds they are, but we can see that 5 of the 7 are more robust than the most robust wolves. None are as gracile as the most gracile wolves. In fact of all the dog bones collected from various archaeological digs, as you can see most are more robust than wolves. This is why we need to understand the wolf is actually very unusually gracile, to facilitate it's long-distance specialisation. It is safe to assume the labrador would be more robust than wolves too. As it is one of the heavier set sturdier types of dog. One may ask "why?", when it is used for retrieving ducks, but for some reason retrievers actually descend in significant part from mastiffs. It is documented in literature from as early as the 1400s some people were mixing gripping dog into bird-hunting dogs for some unknown reason, and the DNA of retrievers confirms a connection, so that is why they are quite heavy boned. It may also explain why they tend to do weirdly "Ok" in videos of random street scraps between pet dogs. A surprisingly high number of videos where labradors are dominating dobermans and the like in dog-park disagreements. But some domestic dogs would be very lightly boned, collies for example have quite light bones (and also, like wolves, need to run extremely long distances in their line of work- in fact even longer than wolves. GPS tracked working sheep dogs regularly cover 80 kms in a day). |
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 29, 2023 10:28:26 GMT
Also where would you place a "Domestic/Family dog" on the chart? Thinking breeds such as Labrador/Golden Retriever. Domestic dogs are all over the place. Domestic dogs are many different animals (functionally about 27 or so different animals) and each one of those animals is gonna place somewhere different. In the vindolanda study they unfortunately don't tell us which spot on the graph is which breed, we got lucky with the boarhound due to the healed tusk injuries (and cudgel injuries, to make it break its holds) so we know what it was, and with the bulldog its pretty evident due to the physique and location, but for most of the dogs in the data-set we don't know what they are. Including 7 modern pet dogs (represented as stars in the graph) We don't know what breeds they are, but we can see that 5 of the 7 are more robust than the most robust wolves. None are as gracile as the most gracile wolves. In fact of all the dog bones collected from various archaeological digs, as you can see most are more robust than wolves. This is why we need to understand the wolf is actually very unusually gracile, to facilitate it's long-distance specialisation. It is safe to assume the labrador would be more robust than wolves too. As it is one of the heavier set sturdier types of dog. One may ask "why?", when it is used for retrieving ducks, but for some reason retrievers actually descend in significant part from mastiffs. It is documented in literature from as early as the 1400s some people were mixing gripping dog into bird-hunting dogs for some unknown reason, and the DNA of retrievers confirms a connection, so that is why they are quite heavy boned. It may also explain why they tend to do weirdly "Ok" in videos of random street scraps between pet dogs. A surprisingly high number of videos where labradors are dominating dobermans and the like in dog-park disagreements. But some domestic dogs would be very lightly boned, collies for example have quite light bones (and also, like wolves, need to run extremely long distances in their line of work- in fact even longer than wolves. GPS tracked working sheep dogs regularly cover 80 kms in a day). I simply disagree with your chart being some some sort of infallible Religious book that determines how powerful X animal is at parity with 100% accuracy, take Eagles or Hawks for instance, their Bones are much more flexible than Mammal bones, but in order for them to be that flexible they are much more fragile, so much that they probably wouldn't even be on the chart since they would score less than 4% or so, does that mean an Eagle would lose to a Red Fox or to a Serval at parity? Of course no |
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 29, 2023 10:30:16 GMT
I believe how effectively is X animal able to use it's robusticity in it's favour is more important than the actual robusticity
"What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Dwight Eisenhower
A modified version of this quote is still accurate with Robusticity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 29, 2023 15:18:21 GMT
I simply disagree with your chart being some some sort of infallible Religious book that determines how powerful X animal is at parity with 100% accuracy, There you go again, having to exaggerate and mis-represent my argument in order to have a counter-argument. No one ever said it is perfectly 100% always exactly consistent and not debatable, it's just a surprisingly solid guide, but only specifically for the "carnivoran order". That is the whole "carnivore limb robusticity study" and what it is about. Reddhole explained the significance of it better than anyone, I suggest your read his breakdown- linkThe limb robusticity seems to reflect FAIRLY faithfully (not perfectly) on the predatory capacity of carnivoran predators, regardless of sub-order or genus, even though they use their limbs differently, that is the interesting part, and it highlights how limb strength and resistance is still pivotal even in predators like hyenas and canines who don't use their forelimbs for forelimb grappling, because they still use their forelimbs to pull on prey with their mouth and weak forelimbs means they can't control and subdue larger prey. Carnivoran predators who prey on smaller game typically have more gracile limb bones than those who prey on larger game, and EVEN IF the limb bones might originate as an adaptation for digging, they still end up affording the animal who has them heightened capacity to struggle with larger prey. They are still gifting the predator with strength that can then translate to predatory feats. And, significantly for Ava debates, higher capacity to struggle with larger more powerful prey seems to translate pretty nicely to interspecific conflict. When one carnivoran predator who has the power to regularly struggle with (lets say) 1000 lbs prey gets locked into a combative engagement with a carnivoran predator who usually struggles with 40-60 lbs prey, the former predator tends to find itself overpowering and subduing the latter predator, at least in the initial "test of strength" engagement it will tend to gain the ascendancy. The point is it is FAIRLY consistent so a PRETTY GOOD guide, as was agreed upon by most of the smarter analysts of Ava when the study was originally brought to the table and broken down by Red Dhole. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 29, 2023 15:24:35 GMT
So when you said this just before on carnivora-
That's cap. That's big jokes. The power difference is ENORMOUS, and the struggle for ascendancy will be won very very quickly, immediately, by the pitbull.
Hypothetically the lynx could maybe pull off some kind of scratchy blood-letting kill, but it would be WHILE being easily manhandled emphatically by the much stronger pitbull with the enormously superior robusticity and predatory capacity advantage. It's cold hard stark facts that the pitbull has way more oomph behind it, and the lynx will be thrown down like an origami swan and thrashed.
|
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 29, 2023 18:06:38 GMT
So when you said this just before on carnivora- That's cap. That's big jokes. The power difference is ENORMOUS, and the struggle for ascendancy will be won very very quickly, immediately, by the pitbull. Hypothetically the lynx could maybe pull off some kind of scratchy blood-letting kill, but it would be WHILE being easily manhandled emphatically by the much stronger pitbull with the enormously superior robusticity and predatory capacity advantage. It's cold hard stark facts that the pitbull has way more oomph behind it, and the lynx will be thrown down like an origami swan and thrashed. Pitbull is more muscular and agressive but it's weaponry/dentition is quite mediocre, i do think Pitbull wins Vs Eurasian Lynx more often than not btw, but it wouldn't be easy And the Lynx's class will do quite more than "scratching blood-letting", if an angry domestic cat's claws can do this, what could a Lynx that is 5 times heavier do? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3750425/amp/16-year-old-protective-cat-named-Baby-mauls-pitbulls-hospitalizes-dog-walker.htmlI putted power as a Tie because Pitbull is more robust but Lynx has better and more varied weaponry overall. A Pitbull's weaponry is not noteworthy, it's dentition is only slighty superior to that of a Coyote. As evidenced by a side by side comparison of the skulls in a picture someone did. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 29, 2023 23:18:00 GMT
Yes, a weakness of gripping dogs is damage output of their dentition. They have unremarkable, fairly small and blunt teeth, because their primary purpose is to hold onto big game and never let go no matter how hard the target tries to dislodge them. If they had sharp slicing teeth they'd be dislodged with a chunk of steak in their mouth and then the approaching human would be killed by the badly wounded but still very dangerous and now free and angry beast. So these dogs have a blunt gripping bite, and when they want to cause damage (say after the prey has stopped resisting) they then need to generate forces on their holding bite by shaking their body and twisting, but even then yes, slicing and penetrating through hide and flesh is a weakness. What is remarkable about their jaw, however, more impressive than a wolf, is the forces it can withstand. The mandible is deeper and thicker and the condyle, where the mandible joins the skull, is wider. The skull in general and muzzle etc is also proportionately wider relative to the length, making for a more steadfast purchase on the hold. The whole skull is also deeper relative to the overall size. They can endure more punishment to the skull and withstand more twisting and jarring forces and impacts. Yes, damage output from their dentition is absolutely low, that is correct, but their bite is exactly perfectly suited for what it is meant to do. That is control, neutralise and demoralise an opponent. Far far far more serious opponents than a lynx.
The dog in your link has extremely superficial scratches, I can promise you it is not impacted by that at all. A lynx would do slightly worse but still ultimately superficial scratches. There's a very small chances it could achieve more serious deeper gashes if it was really raking on a sensitive area, but most of the time it would just be thrashed and ragdolled to death fairly quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Aug 30, 2023 1:31:59 GMT
So when you said this just before on carnivora- That's cap. That's big jokes. The power difference is ENORMOUS, and the struggle for ascendancy will be won very very quickly, immediately, by the pitbull. Hypothetically the lynx could maybe pull off some kind of scratchy blood-letting kill, but it would be WHILE being easily manhandled emphatically by the much stronger pitbull with the enormously superior robusticity and predatory capacity advantage. It's cold hard stark facts that the pitbull has way more oomph behind it, and the lynx will be thrown down like an origami swan and thrashed. Pitbull is more muscular and agressive but it's weaponry/dentition is quite mediocre, i do think Pitbull wins Vs Eurasian Lynx more often than not btw, but it wouldn't be easy And the Lynx's class will do quite more than "scratching blood-letting", if an angry domestic cat's claws can do this, what could a Lynx that is 5 times heavier do? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3750425/amp/16-year-old-protective-cat-named-Baby-mauls-pitbulls-hospitalizes-dog-walker.htmlI putted power as a Tie because Pitbull is more robust but Lynx has better and more varied weaponry overall. A Pitbull's weaponry is not noteworthy, it's dentition is only slighty superior to that of a Coyote. As evidenced by a side by side comparison of the skulls in a picture someone did. Sure, if a domestic cat scratched the hell out of a pet bull that didn't even fight back an eurasian lynx would probably tear its face. Bobcats have terribly injured lazy petbulls aswell. Now, replace that dog with this .  |
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 30, 2023 10:44:56 GMT
Pitbull is more muscular and agressive but it's weaponry/dentition is quite mediocre, i do think Pitbull wins Vs Eurasian Lynx more often than not btw, but it wouldn't be easy And the Lynx's class will do quite more than "scratching blood-letting", if an angry domestic cat's claws can do this, what could a Lynx that is 5 times heavier do? www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3750425/amp/16-year-old-protective-cat-named-Baby-mauls-pitbulls-hospitalizes-dog-walker.htmlI putted power as a Tie because Pitbull is more robust but Lynx has better and more varied weaponry overall. A Pitbull's weaponry is not noteworthy, it's dentition is only slighty superior to that of a Coyote. As evidenced by a side by side comparison of the skulls in a picture someone did. Sure, if a domestic cat scratched the hell out of a pet bull that didn't even fight back an eurasian lynx would probably tear its face. Bobcats have terribly injured lazy petbulls aswell. Now, replace that dog with this . View AttachmentIm aware the Dogs likely didn't resist at all. And in fact i do back a working Pitbull over an Eurasian Lynx more often than not. I was simply justifying my decision to mark power as "Tie" (reason being that Pitbull is stronger but Lynx has better weaponry) |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 30, 2023 10:47:35 GMT
"better weaponry" is kind of a matter of opinion, weaponry for what? Is it really better if it doesn't do anything and you get thrashed to death by the opponent with "lesser weaponry"?
|
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 30, 2023 10:49:05 GMT
Yes, a weakness of gripping dogs is damage output of their dentition. They have unremarkable, fairly small and blunt teeth, because their primary purpose is to hold onto big game and never let go no matter how hard the target tries to dislodge them. If they had sharp slicing teeth they'd be dislodged with a chunk of steak in their mouth and then the approaching human would be killed by the badly wounded but still very dangerous and now free and angry beast. So these dogs have a blunt gripping bite, and when they want to cause damage (say after the prey has stopped resisting) they then need to generate forces on their holding bite by shaking their body and twisting, but even then yes, slicing and penetrating through hide and flesh is a weakness. What is remarkable about their jaw, however, more impressive than a wolf, is the forces it can withstand. The mandible is deeper and thicker and the condyle, where the mandible joins the skull, is wider. The skull in general and muzzle etc is also proportionately wider relative to the length, making for a more steadfast purchase on the hold. The whole skull is also deeper relative to the overall size. They can endure more punishment to the skull and withstand more twisting and jarring forces and impacts. Yes, damage output from their dentition is absolutely low, that is correct, but their bite is exactly perfectly suited for what it is meant to do. That is control, neutralise and demoralise an opponent. Far far far more serious opponents than a lynx. You seem to conflate "Gripping Dog" with "Hound" a lot, Gripping Dogs (like Pitbulls or Presa Canarios) were made primarily to fight other dogs, Hounds (like Dogos or Alanos) were primarily made to tackle Game. Gripping Dogs are better against other Dogs and Hounds are better at tackling/distracting a target so the Hunter can get a good shot. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 30, 2023 10:50:21 GMT
The dog in your link has extremely superficial scratches, I can promise you it is not impacted by that at all. A lynx would do slightly worse but still ultimately superficial scratches. There's a very small chances it could achieve more serious deeper gashes if it was really raking on a sensitive area, but most of the time it would just be thrashed and ragdolled to death fairly quickly. The damage in the picture wasn't severe, but "extremely superficial" is a strecht, you can see how he seems to have difficulty opening his right eye because one of the scratches hitted nearby. |
|
