Thanks, Bolushi! Anyway, I believe that this matchup would be a 50/50 at similar weights with maybe a slight edge for the moose.
Before we begin, here's a size comparison I made a while back:
Let me get over the advantages each animal has in a fight:
Alaskan Moose:
Weaponry - While yes, some horn shapes > some antler shapes, the comparatively small, upwards facing horns cannot provide much defense against the massive antlers of the moose.
<-- The moose's antlers are wide and depending on the individual, the tines can also curve inwards, forwards or upwards. An eland's horns wouldn't really be able to do much about said tines potentially poking at it during a wrestling match.
<-- Compare that to this. The eland's horns are certainly better for piercing/stabbing, but elands wrestle, so it's not gonna be doing a lot of stabbing on the moose in the matchup, and it would have a hard time getting past the antlers themselves of the moose.
Neck Strength - This one is debatable, however my basis for this is down to the fact that the antlers of the moose weigh considerably more than the horns of the eland, and moose basically have to have very powerful necks just to support their head.
<-- Take a look at that neck. I also think the moose's neck might actually be larger in absolute terms, as the moose has a larger frame in general and is still comparable in neck size, however I am not 100% confident about this claim.
Aggression - Assuming we're using a rutting bull moose, I believe it would certainly be more aggressive. From what I've seen, they fight a LOT during the rut. According to the book Racks: A Natural History of Antlers and the Animals That Wear Them by David Petersen, an average bull moose recieves anywhere from 30 to 50 puncture wounds every single rutting cycle. They'll even occasionally kill each other.
Kick/Stomp Strength - While this will not play much of a role, it's still an advantage. The moose's longer legs allow it to have more leverage in it's stomps, so if the moose gets the eland to the ground, the stomps and kicks would do some pretty great damage if they land properly.
Common Eland:
Robusticity - A common eland is some 12% more robust if my memory serves me correctly. "Robusticity" in this case is measured by taking the weight of the animal in kg (494kg for the eland) divided by length in meters to the power of 3. So for the eland, the calc would be this:
494 / (2,51^3) = 31,23962302
The alaskan moose (assuming they average ~540kg (note: assuming. A 540kg bull would probably be one right from the depths of the Yukon itself with ample food and little human interference, i.e a "peak" specimen)), would have a score as follows:
540 / (2,69^3) = 27,74194586
This is not a huge gap by any means, but it's still rather meaningful. It's muscles are probably denser and it might have the advantage in Explosive Strength (nothing to back this up im afraid).
The eland is also lower to the ground, which means it has a lower center of mass and may be harder to trip.
All in all, assuming a matchup near parity, I would slightly favor the moose. The moose's advantage in weaponry, size (sorta depends on weight ranges used) and aggression should make up for the lack in robusticity and maybe hind-leg strength?
