Search this Topic:
Wed, Feb 12, 2014 9:01 PM
thylacoleo wrote:malikc6Wrestling and fists > jaws. Im standing by to what im saying.
Fists won't do anything because chimps just flail around with them. They don't even punch, so that isn't going to help. And it's wrestling won't help because grabbing the wolf won't kill it. The chimp's poor killing ability will be it's downfall.
malikc6Wrestling and fists > jaws. Im standing by to what im saying.
Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:34 PM
THE SUMMARY.Clawing involves cutting and shearing the skin and deeper muscular structure. It is bound to produce open wounds that heal by two main processes:Contraction: surrounding skin moves to reduce the wound sizeEpithelialization: new tissue is created to fill the wound gapsWounds heal more rapidly by contraction, which does not require creation of new tissue. Contraction is most efficient in mammals having a subcutaneous muscle called pannaculum carnaseum, which allows animals to move their skin. The skin in areas without pannaculum carnaseum underneath is not mobile, and thus it is firmly attached to inner structures.Therefore, the degree of mobility or attachment of the skin in different species depends on how developed is the pannaculum carnaseum. The pannaculum carnaseum is well developed and covers large body areas (the whole trunk) in all carnivore predators (felines, canines, hyenas, bears, etc), in rodents, lagomorphs (rabbits/hares), horses, camels, bovids, pigs. However, it is much reduced in primates and is almost absent (vestigial) in big apes and humans.Therefore, skin mobility is correlated to development and coverage of the pannaculum carnaseum. We have the following cases:1. Humans and big apes have firmly attached skin throughout their bodies2. Other primates have firmly attached skin in their ventral region (abdomen) but loose skin in parts of their back3. Predators, rodents, horses, camels have loose mobile skin (at least) in their trunksThe pig is a special case: it has a well developed pannaculum carnaseum but its skin is firmly attached everywhere.Rhinos, hypos and elephants (apparently) lack pannaculum carnaseum but their skin is very thick. I don't know if their skin is firmly attached or not. The presence of the pannaculum carnaseum (skin mobility/rigidity) determines the pattern of vascularity (blood irrigation) in the skin area.We have the following cases:1. If the pannaculum carnaseum is absent, skin area is irrigated perpendicularly by local vessels that originate from deep muscular structures.2. If the pannaculum carnaseum is present, skin area is irrigated in a parallel pattern by vessels located in the skin area itself.This means that wounds in skin areas without pannaculum carnaseum underneath produce much more bleeding and deeper damage.As a consequence of all this info:1. Humans and big apes: there is no pannaculum carnaseum, skin is firmly attached and its vascularity (blood irrigation) originates deeply. Therefore, they are relatively vulnerable to wounds from clawing because: (i) they heal mostly from reposition of tissue, (ii) contraction is not efficient, (iii) they bleed profusely and (iv) the cutting and shearing is more likely to reach inner muscular structures.2. Predators, rodents and most herbivores have well developed pannaculum carnaseum, skin is loose and its vascularity originates locally in the skin area. Therefore, they are much less vulnerable to wounds from clawing because (i) contraction is more efficient, (ii) they bleed less (vascularity parallel to skin) and (iii) the cutting and shearing is (at least) partially shielded by the mobility of the skin and the pannaculum carnaseum.3. Lower primates (monkeys and baboons) are in an intermediate situation: their panniculum carnaseum covers less of their bodies and leaves the ventral regions (abdomen and chest) uncovered. Therefore, they may be as vulnerable as humans and big apes to clawing wounds in these areas.Conclusion.I leave to every poster the evaluation on how this information can affect their stances on different matches. My guess is that this information is relevant to assess outcomes of matches involving contenders with claws and/or humans, big apes and primates.Disclaimerlesser vulnerability to clawing does not mean immunity, severe clawing wounds can still occur. Also, in a species with more vulnerability it does not mean that death or disabling wounds will easily occur from any scratching. The vulnerability can be stated as more damage given the same type/intensity of clawing in a similar scenario.
Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:36 PM
Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:43 PM
malikc6 wrote:Wolfs advantages.
Speed and agility.
Hands like humans.
Possibly more durable.
Wed, Mar 19, 2014 6:44 PM
Vodmeister wrote:A record of two wolves killing an adult moose (gender unknown);Moose, male or female, are far superior to any primate in physical strength and durability.So many people here are favoring the chimp? Why? I'd love to hear one good argument.
Wed, Mar 19, 2014 8:55 PM
Wed, Mar 19, 2014 10:04 PM
Wed, Mar 19, 2014 10:15 PM
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 11:14 AM
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 11:47 AM
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 4:19 PM
Vodmeister wrote:Malikc, Lesnar would stand a better chance against a chimp than against a wolf, because chimps are less durable and easier to hurt. I would agree that they are easier to strike due to being slower. Wolves fight pretty much with their mouth and weight. I think Lesnar could get past that if he had to. As well as an average man to. It's simple compared to trying to get past the chimp. He would have to get past the mouth and the hands that will strike and grab anything vulnerable.
Malikc, you severely overrestimate the damage a chimp can do. Chimps sometimes fail to kill a baby. A wolf would throttle this primate.Even when they try? I am not overestimating the damage that they can do at all. I have seen the pictures and read the accounts. They're not pretty.
Yes, a chimp can grapple, but so what? A gigantopithecus can grapple and a hyaenodon can't, but the ape would still get destroyed in a fight.A hyaenodon probably would kill a gigantopithecus in a fight. That I will agree with. That is similar to a large man against an enraged hyena.
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 4:47 PM
Vodmeister wrote:Malikc, I've witnessed adult men fight domestic pet dogs and get their arse handed to them on a plate. A normal man would get torn to shreds by a 150 pound wolf. Only freaks like Brock Lesnar really stand a chance.
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 4:55 PM
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 5:35 PM
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 5:46 PM
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 5:49 PM
malikc6 wrote:If you think a wolf could kill a man easily, why doesn't this happen as much?
Men get attacked but defend themselves long and hard enough to chase the wolf away or even kill them.
The only time they seem to die, is if multiple wolves attacked. Women, children, and toddlers usually get killed one on one.
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 5:52 PM
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 6:05 PM
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 6:07 PM
malikc6 wrote:Most cases of domestic dogs killing humans are the same as wolves.
Thu, Mar 20, 2014 6:08 PM
Your point being?
Domestic dogs kill humans all the time. If a dog can do it, of course a much bigger and stronger wolf could too. The reason to why single wolves killing humans accounts are so difficult to find, is because wolves are rarely alone.
Malikc, pound for pound primates are the weakest of the weaklings. That's just how it is, even if you find that difficult to accept.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.