Utah has a better chance against a grizzily, but against a polar bear is where it becomes 50/50, or really any larger croc or gator. (Cats stand no chance almost)
It's certainly up there! You could make a case for large male African bush elephants (They could be 8,000 kilogrammes) taking on a big carcharodontosaurid (giganotosaurus, carcharodontosaurus, tyrannotitan or acrocanthosaurus). T.rex, anklyosaurus, or triceratops are all probably too much for any modern terrestrial animal. Going smaller, I'd say deinonychus vs. a jaguar would be a good one. Maybe allosaurus vs. the African hippo? The child inside me is giddy with all these ideas.
allosaurus would DESTROY a hippo, larger predators like that would only havea challenge against larger herbivores like elephants or maybe giraffes@@smitabhmoitra5726
Weird how most people don't use the term of brown bear, considering that they all the same species and that grizzly bears are actually the smallest brown bear subspecies. Side note: bear claws are not that sharp, since they're used for digging and occasionally climbing. The damage from their claws is largely from their insanely muscular limbs acting through the claws as a hard surface. Utahraptor would have had sharper claws Edit: Apparently there are two smaller species of brown bear compared to grizzlies, but eurasian brown bears are a bit bigger than grizzlies and kodiak bears are *much* bigger.
In other languages they might. In Dutch "bruine beer" meaning brown bear is the common name, I see no reason to assume other languages don't follow the same naming convention.
Most Americans only ever know the Grizzly because that's where the name originated. It's like asking why Americans call Pumas Cougars or Mountain Lions when they're all Puma. It's just language convention.
Utahraptor could pierce an artery with its sharp claws but besides that .. just look at those grizzly bears ripping each other apart. It's hard to imagine anything surviving that level of brute strength and aggression
bears also have a loose skin that is incredibly good for taking puncture wounds. its not tight like a gorilla is. Would make the claws a lot harder for it to sink in. Bears bite the fuck out of each other all the time without sustaining too much damage.
There's plenty of animals that can survive a pissed off grizzly. You said anything. So you think a rhino, hippo, or elephant would have any issues from an 800lb bear? Lol
@@KarismaKing You may be right but there is a big difference between bear teeth and what are essentially gurkha knives powered by half the raptor's 1000 lb mass. It's hard to tell what a fight to the death between these two animals would look like since there is practically nothing in our world that truly resembles a Utahraptor - I tend to think of them as an eagle the size of a polar bear that runs instead of flies with a powerful jaw of teeth rather than a beak. No doubt it would be vicious and bloody battle. Whoever survived would not do so unscathed, might even die from it's injuries after killing the other.
@Demonic_prinez Bears tend to fail at killing bison anyways if we go by animals that live with them. Also the original comment said that it's hard to imagine anything surviving an angry bear. There's plenty now that can survive them. Definitely less that can survive than not since most animals are alot smaller than a grizzly
In reality if the Utahraptor somehow came to our time they most likely wouldn’t fight each other because they’ve never seen anything like that before and would want to stay away from each other
Literally a huge fuzzy animal going on its hind legs would scare a raptor. Similar with moose and elephants where the size and complexities of their antlers, tusks, and trunks might cause a large theropod even a T-Rex to pause and go "do I REALLY want to tangle with this thing?" Despite on paper the T-Rex having the largest bite force ever.
I've heard a lot of bear attack stories. It's when u think you've won that shit hits the fan. Bears will often retreat and circle back when injured. They make a false trail then hide somewhere along the trail with a few leave and sticks over them for camo waiting to attack their attackers. They have similar speed but a bear has 4 legs which usually means better grip and acceleration and are very good at disappearing into brush. The bear's intelligence allows them to tactically retreat and set themselves up for a perfect strike on their opponents. Then it depends on the raptor's durability. Still cud go either way but dont underestimate a bear.
the bears ability to stand on its rear legs frees its front paws for combat purpose is an overlooked advantage. the raptors main weapon being part of its foot means it has to multi task movement with fighting. bear’s bears can also fight for extended periods of time while sustaining large amounts of damaged. bears can strike, grapple, bite, and gouge opponents. if the raptor can’t secure a win quickly, i believe the odds will favor the bears endurance.
>the raptors main weapon being part of its foot means it has to multi task movement with fighting that more so is underestimating the reflex of a raptor, it evolved all those weapons and utilizes them all in combat. Also for endurance I have to give it to the Utahraptor, it goes for bigger game, it has to stalk it and it takes harder blows then a grizzly does. Grizzly bears rely on overwhelming prey smaller then it. No doubt larger prey animals in the Utahraptors time attempted the same strat.
Small correction, it seems the sources you used for the Utah's speed are a little outdated Despite their massive size, they're still extremely fast, reaching speeds of ~50km/h
@qbgrindddd You're saying that because "It's too robust and an ambush predator" it couldn't reach those speeds? Something simply being robust or an ambush predator doesn't inhibit it from reaching remarkable speeds for its size, hell look at Tyrannosaurids for example. Despite Tyrannosaurus being the largest terrestrial carnivore, and being extremely robust, it's faster than most would expect for something that size. The average rex would reach speeds of 27km/h. The estimate I used was made by JFD, and RandomDino's also said that it'd be possible for it to reach those speeds just not for a long time. Also, correction on my part, it was 48km/h, not 50.
@@theskyis_black9074here’s the thing. Dromaeosaurus typically weren’t that fast oddly enough. While we do have some stand outs like dakotaraptor, dromaeosaurus over all were not well adapted to pursuit or very high speeds like shown in popular media. Edit: Wait nvm just realized you were using kmh god I’m stupid.
easy to say with no source, also if you were listening, he states the fact that the scientific community agrees on which is that is was a AMBUSH hunter NOT a marathon runner, even looking at an ostrich, it maxes out at 60 kmph, being HALF the weight of a utah AND having a MUCH better marathon running "build"
Good vid. Utahraptor wins at real sizes and equal sizes Utahraptor is regularly downplayed and underestimated in these fights partly due to the misconceptions surrounding dromaeosaurs but also because of the fact that bears are some of the most hyped up animals ever. Many see them as invincible brick walls and for good reason, they've regularly shown extremely impressive feats even caught on camera and they look menacing as well, which we sadly cannot get the same for an extinct animal like Utahraptor. Unfortunately many can not imagine something being as tough as a bear even if it was.
100% agreed. People in general tend to underestimate dinosaurs and overestimate modern mammals, especially elephants, rhinos, hippos, bears, and big cats
I sometimes think of a Paleo-themed horror- game with accurate animals and plants, then remember I know nothing about making a video game. But I think a parrot like Utahraptor would be pretty terrifying, mimicing your allies' voices and other sounds as it slowly stalks you. But if I ever make that game, it would be a mix of Alien: Isolation, Resident Evil, and a little bit of an arcade sessions, resembling Doom or Hotline Miami.
The smartest dinosaur rivaled elephants in intelligence, and dromaeosaurs can compare to corvids and parrots in intelligence. If deinonychus can bite with 8,200 n, utahraptor could potentially bite with at least 12,000 n. Utahraptor also probably weighed more than 500 kg, likely weighing near 600-700. Utahraptor might have used its bulk and large digit ll claws to overpower prey before using its hand claws and jaws to finish its prey. So a brawler v brawler battle. Can't wait to see what will happen. And also, I feel that it is wrong to have two animals fight to the death. I always want to first find out which one would be successful in the same area and habitat. edit: Utahraptor was more agile than the bear. It's feet and tyrannosaur feet were designed to turn fast.
@@shahinarahaque2071lol no. The other dinosaurs comparable in intelligence to elephants are modern corvids and psittacids. Dromeosaurs are more comparable to a crocodile. Even troodontids, which are regarded as the smartest non avian dinosaurs, are still closer to a crocodile than any elephant. Jurassic Park is a science fiction horror film, not a documentary.
I agree I think the Utahraptor has the advantage in most scenarios but this is definitely a match up that I could see going either way depending on the specific circumstances.
@qbgrindddd Holotype of that giant Dromaeosaurid consists of pedal phalanx, maxillary fragment that you refer to was described as Ulughbegsaurus in 2021 has had its identity questioned due to the ambiguity of its distinguishing Carhcarodontosaurian traits that might be taphonomic artifacts or traits that are also shared by Dromaeosarids according to Sues, et al. (2022) "A giant dromaeosaurid theropod from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan and the status of Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis". So it may or may not belong to same giant Dromaeosaurid taxon.
@qbgrindddd okay calling it holotype was wrong from my part, however other points still stand. I don't exactly understand what you mean by compare but pedal phalanx does matter and more than maxilla, as exactly this material indicated to us the existence of Giant Dromaeosaurid in Bissekty formation and unlike maxilla you cannot misinterpret it as that of Carcharodontosaurian due to it not having artifacts or deformations akin to that maxilla. Here is the abstract part of Sues (2022) paper: "The Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan has yielded many isolated bones and teeth representing a variety of non-avian theropod dinosaurs. A pedal phalanx II-2 indicates the presence of a dromaeosaurid theropod that attained a larger body size than any previously known member of that clade. The same formation also yielded a large maxillary fragment that has recently been described as a neovenatorid carcharodontosaurian (Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis). However, this specimen lacks unambiguously diagnostic features of that clade, and its purported carcharodontosaurian characters are either taphonomic artefacts or also shared by dromaeosaurids. Thus, the phylogenetic relationships of Uleghbegsaurus uzbekistanensis remain uncertain. A giant dromaeosaurid occurred together with the medium-sized tyrannosauroid Timurlengia euotica in the Bissekty assemblage." You can see that paper clearly states that phalanx indicates the presence of giant Dromaeosaurid, maxilla may or may not belong to that same giant Dromaeosaurid species. Also, i have already wrote the name of the paper in previous comment but i will do it here to: "A giant dromaeosaurid theropod from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan and the status of Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis." Here is the DOI of this paper to: doi.org/10.1017/S0016756822000954
@qbgrindddd Your comment says otherwise, our discussion was about wether or not we knew about Giant Bissekty Dromaeosaurid from maxilla or phalanx bone, i provided source for the fact that it was known from phalanx not maxilla (which was only later on got its Carcharodontosaurian affinities questioned and may be that of Dromaeosaurid, perhaps to same taxon as giant phalanx but its hard to tell due to its incompleteness and artifacts, although i myself too tend to lean to thinking that it does belong to that of Dromaeosaurid), It says that pedal phalanx indicates the presence of giant Dromaeosaurid not "maxilla indicates the presence of giant Dromaeosaurid. Also first time phalanx was published in literature in description for was in 2014 paper by Sues and Averianov "Dromaeosauridae (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the BissektyFormation (Upper Cretaceous: Turonian) of Uzbekistan andthe phylogenetic position of Itemirus medullaris Kurzanov, 1976", maxillary fragment first appeared in literature at least in its description form in 2021 "Ulughbegsaurus" description paper. Then in your replies you didn't refute my points and tried to shift discussion on the scaling of phalanx and whether or not its viable to measure the size of animal with terrible Tyrannosaurus comparison (which is not correct to begin with, i recommend to re-check Scotty's description paper from 2019 and take a look at the table that compares the measurements of various Tyrannosaurus specimen and their different elements and tell me what is the length of Scotty's Pedal phalanx IV-1 and that of Sue's and tell me which one is longer) that is not viable to Dromaeosaurid situation, at least because Scotty and Sue are close in size to each other, Modern weight estimates by paleoenthusiasts provide mass of 10 tons for Sue and 10,4-10,5 tons for Scotty, ~half a ton differences. While pedal phalanx of Bissekty Dromaeosaurid is truly considerably larger than that of Achillobator an animal close in size to that of Utahraptor and not just in one dimension like length but in overall linear size (Google this text: A giant dromaeosaurid theropod from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan and the status of Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis and go to pictures, you would be able to see comparison of Bissekty giant phalanx to that of Deinonychus and Achillobator and how much larger it is compared to latter two). Pedal phalanxes are not good for scaling, true like any other singular element and it applies to maxillary fragment to, especially when it is incomplete and possesses artifacts/deformations. Still pedal phalanx is good enough to get an ida on general dimensions of this animal and it indicates it being larger than any binomially named Dromaeosaurid so far. n
@qbgrindddd Again, Bissekty giant is known originally from phalanx and phalanx is sole reason why we know about the existence of giant Dromaeosaurid from that formation, maxilla may or may not belong to it. Not more invalid than scaling from LITERAL DEFORMED AND INCOMPLETE MAXILLARY FRAGMENT that you don't know its true size if it was complete. It's valid enough to give us an idea of its general dimensions that seem to be much large than that of any known Dromaeosaurid. There is no indication that maxillary fragments don't possess same degree of individual variation or even greater, you made it up to support your claim. "The Scotty point still stands. and yes, Scotty’s pedal phalanx IV-2 is shorter than Sue’s pedal phalanx IV-2, demonstrating exactly why it is invalid to use LITERAL TOE BONES as scaling fossils" -Complete nonsense, you didn't even cared to check Scotty's description paper and just said that Scotty's non existent phalanx is shorter than that of Sue's. If you actually checked the paper you would have known that Scotty only possesses Pedal phalanx IV-1 and this phalanx length is 184 mm while the length of Sue's same phalanx is 154 mm. So no your claim of Scotty's phalanx being shorter than that of Sue's is bullshit. Here is the name of that paper: (An Older and Exceptionally Large Adult Specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex) Google it and properly check for yourself. Doesn't demonstrate why it's invaild because its not the case to begin with. And even if we assume that Scotty's phalanx is shorter than that of Sue or any other Tyrannosaurus specimen that is smaller than it, how exactly does it demonstrate it being invalid? Tyrannosarurids are not Dromaeosaurids, individual variation common to them does not automatically apply to Dromaeosaurids.
I think it would be pretty close, but it all depends on the bravery and fighting style of the raptor. I could see it chomp down on the bear's face and then use the sicle claw to slice the belly of the bear. If that fails, the bear is much better at grappling and would put the raptor on it's back and bite. However, I don't think the bear would bite to kill like a tiger would. So yeah. Lots of unknowns. Could go either way imho.
I could see one hit from the bear breaking any of those hollow bones it contacts. The jaw most likely. It might knock a forelimb clean off. Also that VERY loose skin and layers of fat would make it much more difficult to injure the bear with a cutting attack. They bite and slash at each other all the time without sustaining major injury.
assuming both intend to fight to the death I have to say the bear would probably win on brute force, but probably would not get the first attack, also renowned tough hide and fur is good defense against slicing.
Raptor claws can't slice. Some tv show made the test and the claws can only puncture, they can't even slice pig skin. So slicing it open won't work, the only thing that would is stabbing. But I really think the grizzly would win just because of its endurance and grappling skills.
The bear has an awesome shot at winning for a few reasons. Reason 1 is that it can swipe with its massive and powerful claws whilst the raptor has shorter clawed arms that require the raptor to put its face into danger in order to bite or slash the grizzly. Reason number 2 is the bears ability to go into a frenzy state when enough adrenaline is pumping that it can survive massive gunshot wounds and still charge an enemy. This reaction would very likely carry over to a fight like this, allowing the grizzly to sustain a ton of damage even if it died after the fight was over. Due to the nature of dinosaurs, the Utah raptor has a better chance of surviving its injuries if it wins the encounter. This is a really good fight but I just wanted to put some points here for the bear.
I doubt a utah would try to face a grizzly head on since it was an ambush hunter and it prob had sharper claws and was more agile, along with a size advantage
@@Boss-ot1iy knocking a head off is a myth. But bears still pack a serious punch. If it makes contact its breaking any hollow bone or jaw it hits. Because, yeah they're hollow, and they break much more sturdy mammal bones.
@@majinjason The thing is that the bear swiping with it's paws in general are a myth. Bears don't do that and never have. Even this very vid that showed bears fighting showed that they don't swipe. They're just wrestlers
@@Boss-ot1iy um, there's a video of a bear swipe on CNET. The bear biologist is quoted as saying it generates 1200 lbs of force. Where did you hear it was a myth? All I did was a quick Google and tons of stuff came up
That raptors were KILLING machines. Weapons everywhere, that sickle claw would disembowele any animal which weighs same as Utahraptor unless it has a incredibly thick and hard shell like a rhino or even greater than that. Look at the size of that head, can you think how much blood loss this would do? Even hand claws were a problem.
Initially, I wanted to say a Grizzly takes it but then I remember Utah raptors hunted prey the size of elephants. No bear is killing an elephant, that Utah raptors could kill an animal that big means they could handle a grizzly IMHO
Being bipedal would put the dino at an extreme disadvantage vs a bear. Simple physics would determine a lot. Dino fighting style designed to be upright. But the bear would definitely use leverage to put the dino on the ground. Once that happens, no animal of comparable size is going to survive a bear grappling.
ehhh I don't think it's that simple. Utahraptor would be able to kick and slash with its claws if it was on its back. This position would place the bear's stomach within easy access. I think it would be a dangerous fight for either animal.
The claws of the feet are not good for attacking, they are only for clinging to trees and climbing them in small species; In large species, the claw is to hook its prey (which has to be smaller) and the arms extend and flap their wings to maintain balance while the head gives quick bites like those of a pigeon when eating bread.
Theropods are actually quite stable despite being bipedal. They have their long, muscular, stiff tails to serve as a counterbalance and their center of gravity is in their hips. Plus, theropods also have dense muscles in their legs and tail. So the while the grizzly bear is still very strong, it will find it difficult to get the Utahraptor off its feet especially since the dinosaur is slightly heavier.
@DarianTheDinosaur Dinos tails are good stabilizers for outstretched or head-on encounters. The problem for the Dino will be that bears always flank their prey, this takes the dinos tail leverage out of the equation and makes it a scenario of bears leverage vs off balance dino on one leg. It's all about side control.
@@davewarner7046 I would agree that the bear is the more agile animal since the Utahraptor’s long, stiff tail would hinder its turning. But theropods like tyrannosaurs and dromaeosaurs were still quite agile animals, so the there probably wasn’t a big agility difference between the bear and utahraptor. The grizzly would still have a very hard time outflanking and taking down the theropod
The real question is if the fight is direct or if the Utah pounces in a sneak attack, sure the bear has that fur but if that raptor can get its claws and teeth just deep enough or some nasty wounds around the neck, then the bear has a few minutes left alive. This is with the assumption that as a predator, Utahs take in consideration, and the question is if the Utah is grouped with its mate and a few kids learning the ropes, lets be fair, a momma bear is her and her cubs who may or may not wander off at some point.
This assumes the raptor is desperate enough to try a bear, and if something that big could even hope to sneak up on a bear. Bears tend to know you’re there long before they see you.
@@Tucher97 Predators don’t usually lead their juveniles to hunt competitive predators. If a Megaraptor attacked a large bear, it would be out of desperation. Like a Polar bear attacking a Walrus. They’re just not built for it.
Imma tell you now, bleeding out a bear is insanely hard. Male boars brawling often leave just as nasty wounds but they go right back into the fight after taking a step back to analyze their opponent again.
@@Tucher97First, we know that raptors most likely didn't raise their young, since the chemicals found in their teeth (I forgot which exact isotope) are different from the ones found in younger ones, meaning that adult raptors didn't eat the same prey as young ones, which means that they didn't hunt together. Second, no predator would bring their young to a fight with a competing predator unless the predator attacked the whole group first, which is unlikely since bears are smart and wouldn't attack a group of animals if one of them is the same size at itself.
@@lampylightbulbit wouldn't matter what the claw was made for when it kicked. The Utah claw was different than smaller raptors as well. The largest estimates of Utah were almost 1000lbs heavier than the heaviest Kodiak. Usually fights in nature go to the heaviest. Not to mention dinosaurs could breathe more efficiently than mammals.
@@kevinishki yes it would matter And the average size estimate for a Utah on the scale is 600lbs. Yes that claw is big but bear claws are massive and much more versatile. Also the bear would smack down the raptors if it went for it with a kick, easily unbalance it and maul it to death.
Mmm but I think you're also underestimating how durable a grizzly is. There's a reason bears were seen as monsters of mythical preportions for early humans, nothing they could throw at them could take them down. In modern days it takes a pretty big bullet gauge to take down a bear. I also think you are overestimating how strong a utahs for claws and limbs are, the way that they're positioned puts them at a disadvantage for slashing, using them more for grabbing while their arms are speculated to largely be used for balance. Meanwhile I've heard that utahs likely didn't use their sickle for slashing, but for puncturing and holding on to prey. Which could be considered even less effective then a bullet for a bear. Not only that bears have loose skin, making it hard to leave any meaningful damage unless the Utah immidiatly manages to bite the throat. They aren't built like the bone crushing teeth of a hyena, and serrated teeth are meant for slashing damage, and aren't as good for griping, or holding such large prey. The points of pressure seem too narrow to fully utilize that bite force, unlike Tyrannosaurides. But it could leave some nasty lacerations and bleed out a grizzly *if* it can last that long against something with more stamina then it. What the Utah has going for it is bite force, but I'm not certain with those teeth that they could break a bears bone, but their bites would be their main weapon here, meanwhile the bear has both fangs and claws that can leave more meaningful damage. I think people often underestimate just how much of a monster bears are in the animal kingdom. Personality, I think that bears would win more then a single utah in a head on battle, but the Utah could definitely sneak in a good few wins depending on the scenario. Overall this video did seem a tad biased to the Utah, disregarding a few facts and speculating a tad too much without science to back it up said speculations. Also I will say that scientists struggle to measure the strength of bears and the amount of weight they can handle being 700lbs is on the low end of the spectrum from what I remember. Alongside that the bear's ability to switch from two to four legs is completely disregarded, and the fact that their main battle tactics is to grapple prey to the ground by knocking them off balance, something that is easier to do with bipedal prey. Ngl there does seem to be a lot of dinosaur apoligist vibes here. People seem to forget that dinosaurs are animals, not mythological beasts. They also forget that modern animals have evolved to be the most efficient form they can be for their environment and their niches. Things like teeth, for limb positioning, skin, fur and jaws have all evolved past dinosaurs because their model isn't the peak of all body plans in the grand painting that is evolution. Overall the video didn't sit well with me, but I do appreciate the thought exercise it gave me ❤
No animal is more advanced than another if it exists. All animals evolved to thrive in their environment. Mammals aren’t superior to dinosaurs and other reptiles. On average, dinosaurs have better eyesight and more efficient respiratory system while mammals are more intelligent, but these traits don’t make them superior to each other. I think that the battle between the Utahraptor and bear is 50/50, neither animal should be underestimated. It would still be difficult for the bear to knock the Utahraptor off balance due to the Dino having a large tail as a counterbalance and dense leg and tail muscles.
4:59 in terms of brain proportionality utah raptors have an eq score of 5.8, only slighly lower than bottle nozed dolfins (5.9) and way higher than crows (4.1) or chimps (4.2). Bears have an eq of less than 2.3, grizzlies have around 0.84. Eq stands for encephalization quotient, it's a standardised number that not only accounts for brain size relative to body but also the size of brain components. It's not 100% reliable (crows are smarter than chimps, atleast in practical tests for example) but it does give a rough idea. So while not 100% reliable, the utah raptor seems to be smarter than all bears well within the margin of error, and probably smarter than most liveing animals.
One of utahraptor prey item were probably iguanodontids like iguanacolossus,so its safe to say it was capable of killing animals much larger than grizzly bears...
As the Kodiak bear and Russian Kamchatka brown bears are similar in size and like the Grizzly bear subspecies of the greater brown bear species they would probably be better match ups against a utah raptor.
I think a lot would depend on the beast’s raw courage and its own perceived dominance. That being said, a major mismatch im finding with this is bite force. Sure, a grizzly bear has a significant bite force for a mammal, coming in at around 1,200 psi. But a dinosaur? The average apex predatory dinosaur has been estimated to have bite forces of around 3,000-8,000 psi, with some upwards of about 12,000 psi 😮 The difference is staggering. While one can penetrate thick skin, the other can crush literal bones.
Oooh I love that 😂 utahraptor is my favorite extinct and crows/ravens are my favorite extant dino. I imagine a group of utahraptors would be called an “omen” like a “murder” of crows or “unkindness” of ravens.
Unfortunately there is no evidence Utahraptor, or most any raptor, was a pack hunter-- Utahraptor would be more comparable to a big cat than a crow although obviously it's closer related to the latter. Yeah, the no pack hunting thing was hard for me to come to terms with too, but it's likely how it was. That said, it doesn't mean they weren't social at all, they just likely weren't social in the Jurassic Park sense.
While there are more interesting things to discuss than a fight to me, I have to agree with you on the outcome. The raptor has the experience,speed, and ferocity to take the win. Therefore, in my humble opinion, I decide the Utah raptor, the fast footed feathered fiend the victor.
My issue with mammals vs dino is that mammals are much more stoutly built than dinos. Utahraptor was bigger than a grizzly but weighed about the same due to hollow bones. Mammals are built for speed, intelligence and power. I don't see Utahraptor getting a kill strike in on a grizzly. The loose skin and fat would make that very hard. Unlike on us apes who have tight skin. If a raptor bit a bear, it would likely just get a mouthful of fur, skin, and fat. Nothing important. However, if the bear hit the raptor, I could see it breaking those hollow bones. Maybe even knocking a for limb clean off or breaking the jaw. Reality is even a cougar can get lucky and kill a bear on the right day. BUT I see the bears having the overall advantage in this match up. I think the same of the old elephant vs T Rex match up. One good hit and its over for the Rex. While I can see the elephant taking a few. Though with the bite force of the Rex they might both end up losing in that one.
Hollow bones doesn't mean they're fragile or any weaker than mammal bones. Dino bones were pneumatized which allows them to produce high metabolisms, grow efficient respiratory systems, and grow to large sizes without adding too much weight. I think the idea of a grizzly instantly breaking the bones of an similarly sized Utahraptor with one strike is ridiculous. If dinosaur bones were really as weak as you're making them out to be, how would they be able to hold up all of that weight? An 8-ton bear with solids bones would definitely be crushed under their own weight, the same can't be said for an 8-ton theropod with hollow bones. So I would say that dinosaur bones are actually stronger than mammal bones. Just look at the skeletons of Utahraptor, T. rex, Triceratops, and many sauropods, they are definitely solidly-built animals. More robust than some mammals. Regarding the elephant vs T. rex battle, the tusks are not as strong as you may think. There's plenty of images of rhinos surviving multiple tusk stabs from elephants. In 2018, an Asian elephant was still alive despite being stabbed 20-30 times by a tusker. If an elephant has a hard time killing smaller animals with its tusks, then it definitely isn't going to one-shot an equally large T. rex, especially since the T. rex has gastralia bones to protect it organs. Makes sense that the tusks are not that effective since elephants didn't live with any equally large predator. The tusks are better for smacking around and strip edible bark from trees.
I think a factor to consider if they fought in a wooded are is how Bears know to fight around trees, especially when on the losing end, they know to use it as a buffer between them and the enemy
Wonderful video, normally modern animals are completely overlooked when it comes to this sort of thing. However, I do think that you might have underestimated the sheer power of a large brown bear in a single swipe. Understandibly so, as when two bears fight each other they exchange multiple blows,but that is because they are made for it. There are accounts of big browns klling donkeys and the like with a single swipe, the amount of force they can generate is HUGE. Anyway, we'll never really know, but such fun scenario nonetheless!
A 5k -8k newton bite force? If that raptor got a hold of that bears neck; it would be over in seconds. I'm not sure obviously, how hard a Utah raptor could shake prey, but if it was enough break a bears neck; it would saw through the tough hide on the back. I can't see the bear winning this because if the raptor cannot get to the bears neck, it's probably going to bite its face and never let go. I'm unsure if raptors behaved similar to modern day animals such as Komodo dragons, but if so, they would have absolutely no fear of the bear. They would only stop attacking if they were a corpse.
The bite force is inaccurate with a quick Google search, and those teeth wouldn't be able to put a bite force of that amount to good use like a Rex can. Serrated = slashing damage conical = crushing damage. Also it'd be hard for it to get a good grip to hit vitals with all that fur, loose skin and fat. Biting the bears neck would also leave it open to being slashed or grappled to the ground. The moment that Utah is pinned below a bear it's over for it. It doesn't have the body plan to push it off or get back up with any semblance of ease.
I suppose you're right based on the fact that my argument is only supported by fallible sources. Would you consider it's prey line-up to be consistent with a predator capable of giving a grizzly a good fight? @@lampylightbulb I do see the ankylosaur typically mentioned. Surely this is not an easy meal?
Birds are dinosaurs and their brains have greater neural density than mammalian brains. So while their brains may have been smaller, it's very likely they were at least as intelligent as mammals.
I don't think you're giving enough credit to the brown bear. They are killing machines...and their durability is like at least 5x that of the raptor's. I am pretty confident the bear wins 75% of the time here.
I think this is a bit of an odd comparison, and it would be a cool conversation if you used a smaller spinosaurid that would hunt the same salmon Grizzlies enjoy. Something like Icythovenator, or Irritator. Something that would come into conflict with it naturally.
Raptor I reckon is actually cleverer than the bear, but that’s also why I reckon the raptor would be clever enough not to jump a bear. Bears are so ridiculously durable, practically bleed proof and bullet proof in many cases. I don’t know if those raptors would have the thick, loose skin and layers of fat a bear has to be able to avoid bleeding to death. Interesting thought though. 😊
I like comparing dromeosaurs to corvids -- they were probably highly intelligent, and if anything, the raptor would be a bit better at problem solving over the bear.
@@rebeccalee2155 that’s exactly what I was thinking. I’ve seen studies that reckon even a T.Rex would be comparable to a smart bird when it comes to intelligence so who knows how a raptor would think. At the least bears are smart, but they aren’t crow smart, and a raptor had a crow like brain but bigger, so who knows. I find it fascinating though to wonder how such a thing would react to something like a bear. Would it avoid it? 400lbs of bear will take on and beat 900lbs of wolf in packs and only be superficially damaged. How do you think a big raptor would react to a bear? Would it ambush it or avoid it like I thought or do you think a raptor could hurt a bear?
@@tonywilliamson-bruscaglia3070t rex was smart. For a non avian reptile. There intelligence was comparable to a crocodile, but far below most modern birds. Same with dromeosaurids. Their brains were still structured more like a crocodile than a sparrow, and so they likely had similar cognitive abilities. Still impressive, but not at the level of an average bird.
Bite force is honestly not a conclusive argument IMO, bite force is hard to measure and it seems like every bite force study comes up with different numbers, bite force numbers are inconsistent
I think this fight could be a 50/50 The Utah’s sickle claws are a huge edge and it’s a true apex use go tackling large game. but brown bears have stamina and resilience that’s dam near legendary.
@@dutyinternal3516Cool, that’s assuming it manages to catch the much larger and more raptorial opponent, Utahraptor already faced much more dangerous animals than a bear, moose, or cows.
I feel that the bear just has a better build for grappling in a straight up fight. Don’t get me wrong, Utah was a nasty grappler but the Utah requires an ambush to get a good grab on something. With equal weights I think the bears stockier build and it being just a ball of fur and muscle net it the win here. The Utah if its face gets grabbed would get destroyed. And seeing how its head is huge that will most likely happen. A bears arms could also probably just break a Utahs jaw, ribs if it swiped hard enough. It’s a 50/50 imo. It just comes down to how the fight happens.
@@ferociousrazordino3581 In build it is. Its lower to the ground and thicker than the utah. Im not saying the utah isn't stocky but a bear is literally a ball of muscle. The utah is more spread out in its weight due to its larger frame.
@@dapper3322 that's not how it works...lol. the only reason the utahraptor is "taller" is because it's bipedal and the only reason it's longer is because of it's tail which doesn't add much mass. There is no "larger frame", i can say the same thing if the bear is upright it's taller than the utahraptor thus the utahraptor is less spread out. it's also not thicker than the dromaeosaur in any way( maybe hips ), both are about as thick as eachother.
expectation: the thumbnail is absolute fire, not the best slams. Grizzly Bear probably has some unknown weakness cuz the Utah doesn’t have any major advantage. Reaction after the video: you actually gave the Utahraptor the advantage- sigh
Fr, I love dinosaurs, they're cool, but people keep painting them as killing machines not animals Also a lot of facts about the Utah are left out, like the fact that they do not use their claws as weapons they use them to grip their prey so their jaws and teeth do all the work. The He straight-up ignored so many traits of a bear that would give it an advantage, loose skin that makes it hard to hit vitals, the ability to rear up to grapple to the ground and get on all fours to ensure none of its attacks hit vitals, the fact that bears go bloody bezerk and completely ignore multiple bullets or claw attacks just to charge in and keep fighting. Honestly it was a pretty disappointing, dinosaur-apologist video.
Bear would win by its claws destroying the raptors hide. Its not the same as a bears and wont flex and move the same. The damage the bear claws would cause would be like that on a human.
All brown bears, kamchatka brown bear and larger definetly wins. You could also make an argument that smaller bears such as the eurasian or ussuri brown bear would win too.
Seeing a Utahraptor with a Polar Bear for scale really makes you appreciate the size of the things. A Deinonychus would be able to take down a human with ease. Utahraptors are terrifying.
I think Utahraptor would win more often than not because it would have the height advantage over the bear (though the bear would be the taller one if it stood up on its hind legs) so the raptor could use its toe claws to keep the bear at bay and its feathers would help the raptor avoid taking significant damage from the bear's claws. I think the raptor would use its superior stamina to tire the bear out and then use its claws and powerful jaw to finish the bear off. But it's close.
I would give the bear the better odds of winning actually. I consider the Utah raptor a far better predator even if we exclude potential pack tactics. It's speed is a conservative guess and it's quite possibly faster then the bear as it got similar leg bones as an Ostrich. Add the nasty bite and enlarged claw for causing crippling wounds and it's a very effective package. But I consider the bear a much better fighter. The raptor is made to run, bite and possible claw some, but it got literally no ground game. Bears are natural wrestlers and able to wrestle even larger animals to the ground. The thing with bites are that it comes attached to a weakness, the head. It's not very effective when fighting another well armed animal frontally to rush in head first trying to bite. But a raptor on the ground would be vulnerable to being bitten. The bears bite and claws aren't as dangerous, but sufficient for doing the job. I would also like to point out that both animals are fairly well protected from casual attacks as both fur and feathers offers quite a lot of protection.
I actually think the Raptor's bipedal nature will be a downside. My dad used to take me to Canada, and we'd watch bears for a good time every year. If you've ever seen two male bears get pissed and fight you'd notice that they just don't get stuck in, they keep disengaging, checking each other out, and going back in, kinda like boxers. A bear can get ripped up pretty bad, fall back, see he's not as bad off as the other guy and come back in for the win. Bears will keep fighting with one leg temporarily gimped, even a back leg. If a raptor get's a rear leg broken, it's strait up screwed.
Also the video greatly overestimated how those claws are used on a Utah, the forelimbs are terribly positioned for utilizing their claws as weapons, and raptors didn't slash with sickles claws, they used it to hook in and bite. This video is greatly underestimating grizzly bears, as someone who lives in Canada and is regularly warned about the dangers of grizzlies, a lot of the world don't realize what massively impressive and terrifying animals they are smh
@@LarryWaterit's also a very big, sharp claw driven by extremely strong leg muscles + possibly the raptor's bodyweight depending on how the kick is done. And being 1 claw, that concentrates the force even more. It's a very nasty weapon.
short faced bear i think it would b a 65 35 in the bears favor as it is much larger and probally stronger then your average grizzly so yeah its like sizing it up and shortening the face
Thats almost certainly a win for the Carno its got a good size advantage... (I put 3 hours of research into this comment for you so please read it and tell me what you think afterward, shouldnt take you more than 2 minutes 😁) There are actually several subspecies of short faced bear that are actually smaller in size than most bears still alive today... The largest species is the Arctotherium angustidens. Which was 412 to 1200kgs, this tells us an Average sized A. Angustidens would have been about 900 kgs. The largest one ever found was an enormous specimen from Buenos Aries Argentina that could have weighed between 983 up to 1588kgs. But normally wouldn't be considered as these debates usually look at the animal as a species not an individual. Average Carno is around 1.8 tonnes and is roughly twice the size of the Arctotherium, giving it the ability to bite at the bears back, neck or head more easily. If the Arctotherium reared up it would stand about the same height as the Carno, but then it would be more vulnerable to the Carno quickly slamming its mass into it and sending the bear careening. Giving the Carno another chance to attack the bear as it gets up. Using Average Specimens I'd say it is pretty much a 90% Carno wins. Encounters would have some obvious variables like terrain though. As the bear could fight it on a hill for example and possibly topple it using the terrain to its advantage. Overall it is a pretty interesting matchup but i think its a little unfair as 900kgs vs 1.8 tonnes is a squash match unless something like terrain aids the bear its screwed 9 times out of 10 (its a bit like putting a flyweight boxer against a super heavyweight) However if we do use the largest Arcotherium we do have a fight as it is about 1.8 meters at the shoulder, 4 meters long when standing on all fours and could rear up to about the same height (12-13 ft). It also weighs 1.6 tonnes meaning the Carno wouldn't be able to push it around as easily and certainly couldn't send it careening like it could the 900kg bear. A large Carnotaurus is 3 meters tall, 8 meters long and could weigh up to 2.1 tonnes. So I'd still give the edge to the Carno but at least in this case the bear is big enough to wrestle with the Carno and potentially pin the carno on the ground if it loses its balance. 60% win to a big Carno against the largest shortfaced bear. But i did really like this debate so a more even version of it could be... "Arctotherium angustidens vs a Majungasaurus crenatissimus" this makes the fight able to be done at equal weight as Majungasaurus weighs 750-1100kg we could take both at 900kgs. Thanks for reading my lengthy reply and giving my brain a fun activity to wake up with haha.
@@jacobniemann4756 sorry for not replying i was sleeping 2 hours ago and i just woke up so I will read it now and thanks for doing so much research for my comment appreciate it man👍👍
@@jacobniemann4756 and all of your points make sense carno has the height advantage and the weight advantage so it is kinda unfair but against majungasaurus cranatissimus it would most likely be closer because the majungasaurus is shorter in height majungasaurus and arctotherium are about the same height actually and majungasaurus is almost the same weight as well because the average between 750kg and 1100kg is around 925 kg though I will have to look more thoroughly into this topic before I can give a definitive answer
@@Julian.noa21 haha fairo gotta catch those Z's mate. Also no worries I love doing this sort of stuff to kill time haha. Thanks for reading my take and yeah thats pretty much what I was thinking it's basically a completely 50/50 at that point in terms of size and I'd probably put my money on the bear 🐻 because it is a bit more versatile. Another random variable could potentially be attitude as certain bears like black don't like injury and tend to flee from combat and being that arctotheriums closest living relative the speckled bear is the least aggressive/defensive bear species in the world Arctotherium could potentially be Giant scaredy cats... but based on the time they lived and their size I would assume they are aggressive predatory bears like polar bears.
@@jacobniemann4756 yeah timezones do differ And on the attitude thing both of them were probably had pretty aggressive behaviour because of the environments in which they lived because the arctotherium angustidens lived amongst a whole bunch of other predators and since majungasaurs came down to literal cannibalism i don't think they were scaredy cats now do I think they were friendly by any means so for this scenario let's just assume a majungasaurus was feeding on the carcus of a dead rapetosaurus and the arctotherium just happened to come across the carcus at the same time
It's easy to imagine that, just like wasps, Utahraptors would be never be alone, but accompanied by other, even more violent and aggressive Utahraptors, all of which, are accompanied by even more.
There is very little evidence supporting that Utahraptors or any Raptors hunted in packs...most likely they where solo hunters who mobbed together like crocodiles do sometimes. But even that isn't proven
Lot of people are bringing up the massive sickle claw but I thought I heard somewhere that it was more likely used for restraining prey and not killing them. They didn’t use those claws as knifes to slice and stab. There is a modern bird with a VERY similar claw structure and it uses it to restrain prey
an ambush predator would have no idea what to do with a charging bear, would either run or get bowled over and mauled... depends on the situation, utah raptor discovers and hunts cubs -bear, 100%. territorial dispute, assuming one doesnt back down, could go either way. depends on the indiviuals really, and the temperment of utah raptor, which we cant observe
Imo if you put a mammal vs a dinosaur of the same size and probably sane niche the dinosaur will always win. They are able to have tougher skin stronger bites and more dangerous tools like a Utahraptors toe claw
Tougher skin doesn't equal immunity, mammals have evolved thing, flexible and loose skin because it stops predators from getting a good grip. They can turn in their skin, birds cannot. Utahs didn't have thick scales, they are not crocodiles. Bears have layers of fat and muscle that are massively good at protecting their vitals.
Here's my idea of what would happen. Utah and Grizzy look at each other and go nope and go the other way. If they fight it's more so to get one off their territory. Animals rarely fight to the death and an Utah seeing a jacked up mammal that can go on its hind legs to appear much taller would be equally as terrifying for the Utah as it would be to the bear. Also if the Utah lives in modern times that means this is a Grizzly that has evolved with that in mind. If an Utah met a polar bear it would most certainly be game over for the oversized chicken cause....damn those things are jacked even more.
You keep saying the bear hasn't fought anything like the Utah raptor, but there's not really any comparable animal to a grizzly bear in the Mesozoic. Strong, compact, durable apex predator with a thick coat of fur. The only Mammals that Utharaptor would have ever encountered were the size of Raccooons, and here comes a a monster that weighs as much as the raptor does. Bear takes this, 6/10
@qbgrindddd the highs for a kodiak (The specific brown bear used in this fight) and for the upper estimates of Utah raptor are basically the same. Utah raptor is longer yeah, but they have the same weight, and the bear is gonna be much stockier in comparison
@@HoboBrute Utah raptor were very stocky. If they weighed the same I'd definitely bet on the raptor. Theropoda have hollow bones, thus a large percentage of their body is lean powerful muscle tissue, while a lot of mammal mass is useless fat and heavy marrow in the bones. I've seen birds man handle mammals their mass/weight, they also seem larger thanks to the airsacs even if they're the same weight. I'd wager on a bear having to be a bit heavier than a dromeosaurid in order for it to win.
why not a Kodiak/general brown bears or polars... brown bears in Siberia occasionally have fought tigers and have lost more than the seem to have won but still crazy fighting prowess and vs data against other major predators i mean i get why you mentioned the alleged decapitations of moose in single strike but their claws are not sharp. so i doubt 110% that's true. they just have claws and when you put 900lbs of animal behind it... they will tear through anything... don't need sharp claws but i would even mention the "alleged decapitation in a single strike"
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
I honestly think this is the most 50/50 fight you could come up with using a present day creature and extinct one
Utah has a better chance against a grizzily, but against a polar bear is where it becomes 50/50, or really any larger croc or gator. (Cats stand no chance almost)
It's certainly up there! You could make a case for large male African bush elephants (They could be 8,000 kilogrammes) taking on a big carcharodontosaurid (giganotosaurus, carcharodontosaurus, tyrannotitan or acrocanthosaurus).
T.rex, anklyosaurus, or triceratops are all probably too much for any modern terrestrial animal.
Going smaller, I'd say deinonychus vs. a jaguar would be a good one. Maybe allosaurus vs. the African hippo? The child inside me is giddy with all these ideas.
allosaurus would DESTROY a hippo, larger predators like that would only havea challenge against larger herbivores like elephants or maybe giraffes@@smitabhmoitra5726
Not even close. Three grizzlies and one utahraptor would even out the odds.
@@TLContractNOPE. Still not even close.
Weird how most people don't use the term of brown bear, considering that they all the same species and that grizzly bears are actually the smallest brown bear subspecies.
Side note: bear claws are not that sharp, since they're used for digging and occasionally climbing. The damage from their claws is largely from their insanely muscular limbs acting through the claws as a hard surface.
Utahraptor would have had sharper claws
Edit: Apparently there are two smaller species of brown bear compared to grizzlies, but eurasian brown bears are a bit bigger than grizzlies and kodiak bears are *much* bigger.
In other languages they might. In Dutch "bruine beer" meaning brown bear is the common name, I see no reason to assume other languages don't follow the same naming convention.
Most Americans only ever know the Grizzly because that's where the name originated. It's like asking why Americans call Pumas Cougars or Mountain Lions when they're all Puma. It's just language convention.
Los dromeosauridos tampoco tenian garras tan afiladas soloneran como gancho no cuchillos,
Grizzly bear is not the smallest species or brown bear, European brown bears are smaller
It's also one of the more aggressive subspecies of brown bear
Utahraptor could pierce an artery with its sharp claws but besides that .. just look at those grizzly bears ripping each other apart. It's hard to imagine anything surviving that level of brute strength and aggression
bears also have a loose skin that is incredibly good for taking puncture wounds. its not tight like a gorilla is. Would make the claws a lot harder for it to sink in. Bears bite the fuck out of each other all the time without sustaining too much damage.
There's plenty of animals that can survive a pissed off grizzly. You said anything. So you think a rhino, hippo, or elephant would have any issues from an 800lb bear? Lol
@@KarismaKing
You may be right but there is a big difference between bear teeth and what are essentially gurkha knives powered by half the raptor's 1000 lb mass. It's hard to tell what a fight to the death between these two animals would look like since there is practically nothing in our world that truly resembles a Utahraptor - I tend to think of them as an eagle the size of a polar bear that runs instead of flies with a powerful jaw of teeth rather than a beak. No doubt it would be vicious and bloody battle. Whoever survived would not do so unscathed, might even die from it's injuries after killing the other.
@@Boss-ot1iybro there not in North America but yeah a bear cant kill them it would take a lot and tons of luck
@Demonic_prinez Bears tend to fail at killing bison anyways if we go by animals that live with them.
Also the original comment said that it's hard to imagine anything surviving an angry bear. There's plenty now that can survive them. Definitely less that can survive than not since most animals are alot smaller than a grizzly
Important thing from this video is too not underestimate the Grizzly Bear.
@@thehillster9729the utahraptor wins most of the time tho
In reality if the Utahraptor somehow came to our time they most likely wouldn’t fight each other because they’ve never seen anything like that before and would want to stay away from each other
Literally a huge fuzzy animal going on its hind legs would scare a raptor. Similar with moose and elephants where the size and complexities of their antlers, tusks, and trunks might cause a large theropod even a T-Rex to pause and go "do I REALLY want to tangle with this thing?" Despite on paper the T-Rex having the largest bite force ever.
Maybe? chickens and geese atleast tend to be straight up immune to intimidation attempts so who knows how they would respond.@@coryfice1881
@@coryfice1881t Rex solos the moose and elephant. The rex has fought similar animals like them, like the triceratops that was a even dangerous animal
@@AnkaraMessiEdits bull elephant would one shot most t rexes
@@SuperBetaBuxbros. True but adult rexes probably not
I asked my paleontologist buddy his opinion. He said, and I quote, "the grizzly would make a fine dinner for Utahraptor" 😂
I've heard a lot of bear attack stories. It's when u think you've won that shit hits the fan.
Bears will often retreat and circle back when injured. They make a false trail then hide somewhere along the trail with a few leave and sticks over them for camo waiting to attack their attackers.
They have similar speed but a bear has 4 legs which usually means better grip and acceleration and are very good at disappearing into brush.
The bear's intelligence allows them to tactically retreat and set themselves up for a perfect strike on their opponents.
Then it depends on the raptor's durability. Still cud go either way but dont underestimate a bear.
Great point
Basically it means that bears are a good Ghostface material even if they are not anthropomorphic. Thanks for telling me :-).
the bears ability to stand on its rear legs frees its front paws for combat purpose is an overlooked advantage. the raptors main weapon being part of its foot means it has to multi task movement with fighting. bear’s bears can also fight for extended periods of time while sustaining large amounts of damaged. bears can strike, grapple, bite, and gouge opponents. if the raptor can’t secure a win quickly, i believe the odds will favor the bears endurance.
>the raptors main weapon being part of its foot means it has to multi task movement with fighting
that more so is underestimating the reflex of a raptor, it evolved all those weapons and utilizes them all in combat. Also for endurance I have to give it to the Utahraptor, it goes for bigger game, it has to stalk it and it takes harder blows then a grizzly does. Grizzly bears rely on overwhelming prey smaller then it. No doubt larger prey animals in the Utahraptors time attempted the same strat.
Dinosaurs are animals, dont word it like that
Yeah the start threw me ofd pftt!
Hell, even sponges are animals. Based on context he must have meant mammals, but it still bugs the hell out of me lol
yeah lol
I think the intention was - an extinct animal vs an extant animal.
Then think of a better title than Dinosaurs vs. Animals
Small correction, it seems the sources you used for the Utah's speed are a little outdated
Despite their massive size, they're still extremely fast, reaching speeds of ~50km/h
@qbgrindddd You're saying that because "It's too robust and an ambush predator" it couldn't reach those speeds?
Something simply being robust or an ambush predator doesn't inhibit it from reaching remarkable speeds for its size, hell look at Tyrannosaurids for example.
Despite Tyrannosaurus being the largest terrestrial carnivore, and being extremely robust, it's faster than most would expect for something that size.
The average rex would reach speeds of 27km/h.
The estimate I used was made by JFD, and RandomDino's also said that it'd be possible for it to reach those speeds just not for a long time.
Also, correction on my part, it was 48km/h, not 50.
@qbgrindddd Please tell me what he says, Stego (guessing you know who that is) also said 48km/h is still usable .
@@theskyis_black9074here’s the thing. Dromaeosaurus typically weren’t that fast oddly enough. While we do have some stand outs like dakotaraptor, dromaeosaurus over all were not well adapted to pursuit or very high speeds like shown in popular media.
Edit: Wait nvm just realized you were using kmh god I’m stupid.
easy to say with no source, also if you were listening, he states the fact that the scientific community agrees on which is that is was a AMBUSH hunter NOT a marathon runner, even looking at an ostrich, it maxes out at 60 kmph, being HALF the weight of a utah AND having a MUCH better marathon running "build"
sorry if that came off aggressive 😅@qbgrindddd
Bear: Nah I'd win
Bear: stand proud Utahraptor you are strong
If you're unsure on who's going to win, always bet on Utahraptor
@TheOverseerDebates It depends if he can get through infinity
Utahraptor, The King of Raptors
Next video: T rex Vs Grizzly Bear| Closer Than You Think
fun fact dinosaurs are animals they can be literally nothing else
Preach
Good vid. Utahraptor wins at real sizes and equal sizes
Utahraptor is regularly downplayed and underestimated in these fights partly due to the misconceptions surrounding dromaeosaurs but also because of the fact that bears are some of the most hyped up animals ever. Many see them as invincible brick walls and for good reason, they've regularly shown extremely impressive feats even caught on camera and they look menacing as well, which we sadly cannot get the same for an extinct animal like Utahraptor. Unfortunately many can not imagine something being as tough as a bear even if it was.
bears are hyped up because they are fighting tanks,strong,with weaponary and endurance
100% agreed. People in general tend to underestimate dinosaurs and overestimate modern mammals, especially elephants, rhinos, hippos, bears, and big cats
I sometimes think of a Paleo-themed horror- game with accurate animals and plants, then remember I know nothing about making a video game.
But I think a parrot like Utahraptor would be pretty terrifying, mimicing your allies' voices and other sounds as it slowly stalks you.
But if I ever make that game, it would be a mix of Alien: Isolation, Resident Evil, and a little bit of an arcade sessions, resembling Doom or Hotline Miami.
That would certainly be interesting!
Yeah, indeed. There is not much of a dinosaur games anymore. @@TheOverseerDebates
Gotta TM that idea before it’s too late, mate. Solid idea!! 👍
There's already a game kinda like that coming out; It's called the lost wild.
@@OceanMachine_ nice 👍
The smartest dinosaur rivaled elephants in intelligence, and dromaeosaurs can compare to corvids and parrots in intelligence. If deinonychus can bite with 8,200 n, utahraptor could potentially bite with at least 12,000 n. Utahraptor also probably weighed more than 500 kg, likely weighing near 600-700. Utahraptor might have used its bulk and large digit ll claws to overpower prey before using its hand claws and jaws to finish its prey. So a brawler v brawler battle. Can't wait to see what will happen. And also, I feel that it is wrong to have two animals fight to the death. I always want to first find out which one would be successful in the same area and habitat.
edit: Utahraptor was more agile than the bear. It's feet and tyrannosaur feet were designed to turn fast.
Just use the dragon balls
@@SuperKamiGuruu Wdym/
@@shahinarahaque2071lol no. The other dinosaurs comparable in intelligence to elephants are modern corvids and psittacids. Dromeosaurs are more comparable to a crocodile. Even troodontids, which are regarded as the smartest non avian dinosaurs, are still closer to a crocodile than any elephant.
Jurassic Park is a science fiction horror film, not a documentary.
The grizzly does have loose skin that gives it more durability but as usual I agree Utah raptor wins high extreme difficulty
I agree I think the Utahraptor has the advantage in most scenarios but this is definitely a match up that I could see going either way depending on the specific circumstances.
I am a Utahn.
I will be very angry if you call the Utahraptor a "Mormonraptor."
0:04 Omg dinosaurs aren't animals?!
They are, the video meant modern animals i guess
@@Mr.Estiverne I know, I was just joking :)
@@KougatWheat2915 oh I see :)
Nah Goku solos bruh. How did you miss this!???
Nah I'd win
@@TheOverseerDebatesI think 5-6 dudes can really beat a Utahaptor.
@cemilhan725 but can they beat my dad?
Saitama wins low diff
You mean the Utahraptor is Frieza? 😉
There's a new dromaeosaurid even larger than Utahraptor as of currently, being as heavy as a bull Masai giraffe, the Bissekty raptor
@qbgrindddd Holotype of that giant Dromaeosaurid consists of pedal phalanx, maxillary fragment that you refer to was described as Ulughbegsaurus in 2021 has had its identity questioned due to the ambiguity of its distinguishing Carhcarodontosaurian traits that might be taphonomic artifacts or traits that are also shared by Dromaeosarids according to Sues, et al. (2022) "A giant dromaeosaurid theropod from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan and the status of Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis". So it may or may not belong to same giant Dromaeosaurid taxon.
@qbgrindddd okay calling it holotype was wrong from my part, however other points still stand.
I don't exactly understand what you mean by compare but pedal phalanx does matter and more than maxilla, as exactly this material indicated to us the existence of Giant Dromaeosaurid in Bissekty formation and unlike maxilla you cannot misinterpret it as that of Carcharodontosaurian due to it not having artifacts or deformations akin to that maxilla.
Here is the abstract part of Sues (2022) paper: "The Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan has yielded many isolated bones and teeth representing a variety of non-avian theropod dinosaurs. A pedal phalanx II-2 indicates the presence of a dromaeosaurid theropod that attained a larger body size than any previously known member of that clade. The same formation also yielded a large maxillary fragment that has recently been described as a neovenatorid carcharodontosaurian (Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis). However, this specimen lacks unambiguously diagnostic features of that clade, and its purported carcharodontosaurian characters are either taphonomic artefacts or also shared by dromaeosaurids. Thus, the phylogenetic relationships of Uleghbegsaurus uzbekistanensis remain uncertain. A giant dromaeosaurid occurred together with the medium-sized tyrannosauroid Timurlengia euotica in the Bissekty assemblage."
You can see that paper clearly states that phalanx indicates the presence of giant Dromaeosaurid, maxilla may or may not belong to that same giant Dromaeosaurid species.
Also, i have already wrote the name of the paper in previous comment but i will do it here to: "A giant dromaeosaurid theropod from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan and the status of Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis."
Here is the DOI of this paper to: doi.org/10.1017/S0016756822000954
@qbgrindddd You didn't get anything what i mean, not close, re-read my previous comment.
@qbgrindddd Your comment says otherwise, our discussion was about wether or not we knew about Giant Bissekty Dromaeosaurid from maxilla or phalanx bone, i provided source for the fact that it was known from phalanx not maxilla (which was only later on got its Carcharodontosaurian affinities questioned and may be that of Dromaeosaurid, perhaps to same taxon as giant phalanx but its hard to tell due to its incompleteness and artifacts, although i myself too tend to lean to thinking that it does belong to that of Dromaeosaurid), It says that pedal phalanx indicates the presence of giant Dromaeosaurid not "maxilla indicates the presence of giant Dromaeosaurid. Also first time phalanx was published in literature in description for was in 2014 paper by Sues and Averianov "Dromaeosauridae (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the BissektyFormation (Upper Cretaceous: Turonian) of Uzbekistan andthe phylogenetic position of Itemirus medullaris Kurzanov, 1976", maxillary fragment first appeared in literature at least in its description form in 2021 "Ulughbegsaurus" description paper.
Then in your replies you didn't refute my points and tried to shift discussion on the scaling of phalanx and whether or not its viable to measure the size of animal with terrible Tyrannosaurus comparison (which is not correct to begin with, i recommend to re-check Scotty's description paper from 2019 and take a look at the table that compares the measurements of various Tyrannosaurus specimen and their different elements and tell me what is the length of Scotty's Pedal phalanx IV-1 and that of Sue's and tell me which one is longer) that is not viable to Dromaeosaurid situation, at least because Scotty and Sue are close in size to each other, Modern weight estimates by paleoenthusiasts provide mass of 10 tons for Sue and 10,4-10,5 tons for Scotty, ~half a ton differences. While pedal phalanx of Bissekty Dromaeosaurid is truly considerably larger than that of Achillobator an animal close in size to that of Utahraptor and not just in one dimension like length but in overall linear size (Google this text: A giant dromaeosaurid theropod from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan and the status of Ulughbegsaurus uzbekistanensis and go to pictures, you would be able to see comparison of Bissekty giant phalanx to that of Deinonychus and Achillobator and how much larger it is compared to latter two).
Pedal phalanxes are not good for scaling, true like any other singular element and it applies to maxillary fragment to, especially when it is incomplete and possesses artifacts/deformations. Still pedal phalanx is good enough to get an ida on general dimensions of this animal and it indicates it being larger than any binomially named Dromaeosaurid so far. n
@qbgrindddd Again, Bissekty giant is known originally from phalanx and phalanx is sole reason why we know about the existence of giant Dromaeosaurid from that formation, maxilla may or may not belong to it.
Not more invalid than scaling from LITERAL DEFORMED AND INCOMPLETE MAXILLARY FRAGMENT that you don't know its true size if it was complete. It's valid enough to give us an idea of its general dimensions that seem to be much large than that of any known Dromaeosaurid. There is no indication that maxillary fragments don't possess same degree of individual variation or even greater, you made it up to support your claim.
"The Scotty point still stands. and yes, Scotty’s pedal phalanx IV-2 is shorter than Sue’s pedal phalanx IV-2, demonstrating exactly why it is invalid to use LITERAL TOE BONES as scaling fossils"
-Complete nonsense, you didn't even cared to check Scotty's description paper and just said that Scotty's non existent phalanx is shorter than that of Sue's. If you actually checked the paper you would have known that Scotty only possesses Pedal phalanx IV-1 and this phalanx length is 184 mm while the length of Sue's same phalanx is 154 mm. So no your claim of Scotty's phalanx being shorter than that of Sue's is bullshit.
Here is the name of that paper: (An Older and Exceptionally Large Adult Specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex) Google it and properly check for yourself.
Doesn't demonstrate why it's invaild because its not the case to begin with. And even if we assume that Scotty's phalanx is shorter than that of Sue or any other Tyrannosaurus specimen that is smaller than it, how exactly does it demonstrate it being invalid? Tyrannosarurids are not Dromaeosaurids, individual variation common to them does not automatically apply to Dromaeosaurids.
The sudden Bear in the Big Blue House made me spit out my cranberry juice.
0:03 Dinosaurs vs Animals? Are Dinosaurs not Animals?
He meant todays mamals
I think it would be pretty close, but it all depends on the bravery and fighting style of the raptor. I could see it chomp down on the bear's face and then use the sicle claw to slice the belly of the bear.
If that fails, the bear is much better at grappling and would put the raptor on it's back and bite.
However, I don't think the bear would bite to kill like a tiger would.
So yeah. Lots of unknowns. Could go either way imho.
I could see one hit from the bear breaking any of those hollow bones it contacts. The jaw most likely. It might knock a forelimb clean off. Also that VERY loose skin and layers of fat would make it much more difficult to injure the bear with a cutting attack. They bite and slash at each other all the time without sustaining major injury.
assuming both intend to fight to the death I have to say the bear would probably win on brute force, but probably would not get the first attack, also renowned tough hide and fur is good defense against slicing.
Raptor claws can't slice. Some tv show made the test and the claws can only puncture, they can't even slice pig skin. So slicing it open won't work, the only thing that would is stabbing. But I really think the grizzly would win just because of its endurance and grappling skills.
The bear has an awesome shot at winning for a few reasons. Reason 1 is that it can swipe with its massive and powerful claws whilst the raptor has shorter clawed arms that require the raptor to put its face into danger in order to bite or slash the grizzly. Reason number 2 is the bears ability to go into a frenzy state when enough adrenaline is pumping that it can survive massive gunshot wounds and still charge an enemy. This reaction would very likely carry over to a fight like this, allowing the grizzly to sustain a ton of damage even if it died after the fight was over. Due to the nature of dinosaurs, the Utah raptor has a better chance of surviving its injuries if it wins the encounter. This is a really good fight but I just wanted to put some points here for the bear.
I doubt a utah would try to face a grizzly head on since it was an ambush hunter
and it prob had sharper claws and was more agile, along with a size advantage
No bear swipes. That's a ridiculous myth that every modern video shows to be false
@@Boss-ot1iy knocking a head off is a myth. But bears still pack a serious punch. If it makes contact its breaking any hollow bone or jaw it hits. Because, yeah they're hollow, and they break much more sturdy mammal bones.
@@majinjason The thing is that the bear swiping with it's paws in general are a myth. Bears don't do that and never have. Even this very vid that showed bears fighting showed that they don't swipe. They're just wrestlers
@@Boss-ot1iy um, there's a video of a bear swipe on CNET. The bear biologist is quoted as saying it generates 1200 lbs of force. Where did you hear it was a myth? All I did was a quick Google and tons of stuff came up
Did not expect to see Jon jones in a video about bears and utahraptors lmao
That raptors were KILLING machines. Weapons everywhere, that sickle claw would disembowele any animal which weighs same as Utahraptor unless it has a incredibly thick and hard shell like a rhino or even greater than that. Look at the size of that head, can you think how much blood loss this would do? Even hand claws were a problem.
its like a fight between a wrestler and a serial killer with a knife
I honestly think that a Utahraptor's experience hunting prey larger than anything a grizzly hunts would prove useful in this fight.
Initially, I wanted to say a Grizzly takes it but then I remember Utah raptors hunted prey the size of elephants. No bear is killing an elephant, that Utah raptors could kill an animal that big means they could handle a grizzly IMHO
Being bipedal would put the dino at an extreme disadvantage vs a bear. Simple physics would determine a lot. Dino fighting style designed to be upright. But the bear would definitely use leverage to put the dino on the ground. Once that happens, no animal of comparable size is going to survive a bear grappling.
ehhh I don't think it's that simple. Utahraptor would be able to kick and slash with its claws if it was on its back. This position would place the bear's stomach within easy access. I think it would be a dangerous fight for either animal.
The claws of the feet are not good for attacking, they are only for clinging to trees and climbing them in small species; In large species, the claw is to hook its prey (which has to be smaller) and the arms extend and flap their wings to maintain balance while the head gives quick bites like those of a pigeon when eating bread.
Theropods are actually quite stable despite being bipedal. They have their long, muscular, stiff tails to serve as a counterbalance and their center of gravity is in their hips. Plus, theropods also have dense muscles in their legs and tail. So the while the grizzly bear is still very strong, it will find it difficult to get the Utahraptor off its feet especially since the dinosaur is slightly heavier.
@DarianTheDinosaur Dinos tails are good stabilizers for outstretched or head-on encounters. The problem for the Dino will be that bears always flank their prey, this takes the dinos tail leverage out of the equation and makes it a scenario of bears leverage vs off balance dino on one leg. It's all about side control.
@@davewarner7046 I would agree that the bear is the more agile animal since the Utahraptor’s long, stiff tail would hinder its turning. But theropods like tyrannosaurs and dromaeosaurs were still quite agile animals, so the there probably wasn’t a big agility difference between the bear and utahraptor. The grizzly would still have a very hard time outflanking and taking down the theropod
Loved the Jon Jones shoutout lol
The real question is if the fight is direct or if the Utah pounces in a sneak attack, sure the bear has that fur but if that raptor can get its claws and teeth just deep enough or some nasty wounds around the neck, then the bear has a few minutes left alive.
This is with the assumption that as a predator, Utahs take in consideration, and the question is if the Utah is grouped with its mate and a few kids learning the ropes, lets be fair, a momma bear is her and her cubs who may or may not wander off at some point.
This assumes the raptor is desperate enough to try a bear, and if something that big could even hope to sneak up on a bear. Bears tend to know you’re there long before they see you.
@@keyow2 and if the raptor is with another raptor and maybe lets say some juveniles learning teh ropes, then that bear is probably screwed.
@@Tucher97
Predators don’t usually lead their juveniles to hunt competitive predators.
If a Megaraptor attacked a large bear, it would be out of desperation. Like a Polar bear attacking a Walrus. They’re just not built for it.
Imma tell you now, bleeding out a bear is insanely hard. Male boars brawling often leave just as nasty wounds but they go right back into the fight after taking a step back to analyze their opponent again.
@@Tucher97First, we know that raptors most likely didn't raise their young, since the chemicals found in their teeth (I forgot which exact isotope) are different from the ones found in younger ones, meaning that adult raptors didn't eat the same prey as young ones, which means that they didn't hunt together. Second, no predator would bring their young to a fight with a competing predator unless the predator attacked the whole group first, which is unlikely since bears are smart and wouldn't attack a group of animals if one of them is the same size at itself.
The bear would try to grab and stand up with the raptor then get it's guts shredded by the raptor
The raptors sickle was used for gripping prey not slashing, this isn't jurassic park
@@lampylightbulbit wouldn't matter what the claw was made for when it kicked. The Utah claw was different than smaller raptors as well. The largest estimates of Utah were almost 1000lbs heavier than the heaviest Kodiak. Usually fights in nature go to the heaviest. Not to mention dinosaurs could breathe more efficiently than mammals.
@@kevinishki yes it would matter
And the average size estimate for a Utah on the scale is 600lbs.
Yes that claw is big but bear claws are massive and much more versatile.
Also the bear would smack down the raptors if it went for it with a kick, easily unbalance it and maul it to death.
That bite force for raptors seems a little high, and a qui ck google search doesn't suggest anything quite that high.
Fr
Also those teeth wouldn't be able to utilize that bite force.
Mmm but I think you're also underestimating how durable a grizzly is. There's a reason bears were seen as monsters of mythical preportions for early humans, nothing they could throw at them could take them down. In modern days it takes a pretty big bullet gauge to take down a bear.
I also think you are overestimating how strong a utahs for claws and limbs are, the way that they're positioned puts them at a disadvantage for slashing, using them more for grabbing while their arms are speculated to largely be used for balance.
Meanwhile I've heard that utahs likely didn't use their sickle for slashing, but for puncturing and holding on to prey. Which could be considered even less effective then a bullet for a bear.
Not only that bears have loose skin, making it hard to leave any meaningful damage unless the Utah immidiatly manages to bite the throat. They aren't built like the bone crushing teeth of a hyena, and serrated teeth are meant for slashing damage, and aren't as good for griping, or holding such large prey. The points of pressure seem too narrow to fully utilize that bite force, unlike Tyrannosaurides. But it could leave some nasty lacerations and bleed out a grizzly *if* it can last that long against something with more stamina then it.
What the Utah has going for it is bite force, but I'm not certain with those teeth that they could break a bears bone, but their bites would be their main weapon here, meanwhile the bear has both fangs and claws that can leave more meaningful damage.
I think people often underestimate just how much of a monster bears are in the animal kingdom.
Personality, I think that bears would win more then a single utah in a head on battle, but the Utah could definitely sneak in a good few wins depending on the scenario.
Overall this video did seem a tad biased to the Utah, disregarding a few facts and speculating a tad too much without science to back it up said speculations.
Also I will say that scientists struggle to measure the strength of bears and the amount of weight they can handle being 700lbs is on the low end of the spectrum from what I remember.
Alongside that the bear's ability to switch from two to four legs is completely disregarded, and the fact that their main battle tactics is to grapple prey to the ground by knocking them off balance, something that is easier to do with bipedal prey.
Ngl there does seem to be a lot of dinosaur apoligist vibes here. People seem to forget that dinosaurs are animals, not mythological beasts. They also forget that modern animals have evolved to be the most efficient form they can be for their environment and their niches. Things like teeth, for limb positioning, skin, fur and jaws have all evolved past dinosaurs because their model isn't the peak of all body plans in the grand painting that is evolution.
Overall the video didn't sit well with me, but I do appreciate the thought exercise it gave me ❤
No animal is more advanced than another if it exists. All animals evolved to thrive in their environment. Mammals aren’t superior to dinosaurs and other reptiles. On average, dinosaurs have better eyesight and more efficient respiratory system while mammals are more intelligent, but these traits don’t make them superior to each other.
I think that the battle between the Utahraptor and bear is 50/50, neither animal should be underestimated. It would still be difficult for the bear to knock the Utahraptor off balance due to the Dino having a large tail as a counterbalance and dense leg and tail muscles.
4:59 in terms of brain proportionality utah raptors have an eq score of 5.8, only slighly lower than bottle nozed dolfins (5.9) and way higher than crows (4.1) or chimps (4.2). Bears have an eq of less than 2.3, grizzlies have around 0.84.
Eq stands for encephalization quotient, it's a standardised number that not only accounts for brain size relative to body but also the size of brain components. It's not 100% reliable (crows are smarter than chimps, atleast in practical tests for example) but it does give a rough idea.
So while not 100% reliable, the utah raptor seems to be smarter than all bears well within the margin of error, and probably smarter than most liveing animals.
One of utahraptor prey item were probably iguanodontids like iguanacolossus,so its safe to say it was capable of killing animals much larger than grizzly bears...
As the Kodiak bear and Russian Kamchatka brown bears are similar in size and like the Grizzly bear subspecies of the greater brown bear species they would probably be better match ups against a utah raptor.
I think a lot would depend on the beast’s raw courage and its own perceived dominance. That being said, a major mismatch im finding with this is bite force. Sure, a grizzly bear has a significant bite force for a mammal, coming in at around 1,200 psi. But a dinosaur? The average apex predatory dinosaur has been estimated to have bite forces of around 3,000-8,000 psi, with some upwards of about 12,000 psi 😮
The difference is staggering. While one can penetrate thick skin, the other can crush literal bones.
I think Utahraptors' pack behaviour is like crows'.
Edit: 8:03 wait a minute, Nodosaurs are not a part of Ankylosauridae?!
I should've made it more clear, but both are part of the same suborder of Ankylosauria. But they diverge in family.
@@TheOverseerDebatesThank you for clarification!
Oooh I love that 😂 utahraptor is my favorite extinct and crows/ravens are my favorite extant dino. I imagine a group of utahraptors would be called an “omen” like a “murder” of crows or “unkindness” of ravens.
Unfortunately there is no evidence Utahraptor, or most any raptor, was a pack hunter-- Utahraptor would be more comparable to a big cat than a crow although obviously it's closer related to the latter. Yeah, the no pack hunting thing was hard for me to come to terms with too, but it's likely how it was. That said, it doesn't mean they weren't social at all, they just likely weren't social in the Jurassic Park sense.
Are Dinosaurs not considered animals 😂
I knew I couldn't be the only one to catch that bit at the beginning, lol
While there are more interesting things to discuss than a fight to me, I have to agree with you on the outcome. The raptor has the experience,speed, and ferocity to take the win. Therefore, in my humble opinion, I decide the Utah raptor, the fast footed feathered fiend the victor.
My issue with mammals vs dino is that mammals are much more stoutly built than dinos. Utahraptor was bigger than a grizzly but weighed about the same due to hollow bones. Mammals are built for speed, intelligence and power. I don't see Utahraptor getting a kill strike in on a grizzly. The loose skin and fat would make that very hard. Unlike on us apes who have tight skin. If a raptor bit a bear, it would likely just get a mouthful of fur, skin, and fat. Nothing important.
However, if the bear hit the raptor, I could see it breaking those hollow bones. Maybe even knocking a for limb clean off or breaking the jaw. Reality is even a cougar can get lucky and kill a bear on the right day. BUT I see the bears having the overall advantage in this match up. I think the same of the old elephant vs T Rex match up. One good hit and its over for the Rex. While I can see the elephant taking a few. Though with the bite force of the Rex they might both end up losing in that one.
Hollow bones doesn't mean they're fragile or any weaker than mammal bones. Dino bones were pneumatized which allows them to produce high metabolisms, grow efficient respiratory systems, and grow to large sizes without adding too much weight. I think the idea of a grizzly instantly breaking the bones of an similarly sized Utahraptor with one strike is ridiculous. If dinosaur bones were really as weak as you're making them out to be, how would they be able to hold up all of that weight? An 8-ton bear with solids bones would definitely be crushed under their own weight, the same can't be said for an 8-ton theropod with hollow bones. So I would say that dinosaur bones are actually stronger than mammal bones. Just look at the skeletons of Utahraptor, T. rex, Triceratops, and many sauropods, they are definitely solidly-built animals. More robust than some mammals.
Regarding the elephant vs T. rex battle, the tusks are not as strong as you may think. There's plenty of images of rhinos surviving multiple tusk stabs from elephants. In 2018, an Asian elephant was still alive despite being stabbed 20-30 times by a tusker. If an elephant has a hard time killing smaller animals with its tusks, then it definitely isn't going to one-shot an equally large T. rex, especially since the T. rex has gastralia bones to protect it organs. Makes sense that the tusks are not that effective since elephants didn't live with any equally large predator. The tusks are better for smacking around and strip edible bark from trees.
I think a factor to consider if they fought in a wooded are is how Bears know to fight around trees, especially when on the losing end, they know to use it as a buffer between them and the enemy
That was a neat breakdown. Now we just need to see you evaluate one more fight, the long awaited rematch between grizzly bear and Tyrannosaurus rex. 😜
Wonderful video, normally modern animals are completely overlooked when it comes to this sort of thing. However, I do think that you might have underestimated the sheer power of a large brown bear in a single swipe. Understandibly so, as when two bears fight each other they exchange multiple blows,but that is because they are made for it. There are accounts of big browns klling donkeys and the like with a single swipe, the amount of force they can generate is HUGE. Anyway, we'll never really know, but such fun scenario nonetheless!
A 5k -8k newton bite force? If that raptor got a hold of that bears neck; it would be over in seconds. I'm not sure obviously, how hard a Utah raptor could shake prey, but if it was enough break a bears neck; it would saw through the tough hide on the back.
I can't see the bear winning this because if the raptor cannot get to the bears neck, it's probably going to bite its face and never let go. I'm unsure if raptors behaved similar to modern day animals such as Komodo dragons, but if so, they would have absolutely no fear of the bear. They would only stop attacking if they were a corpse.
The bite force is inaccurate with a quick Google search, and those teeth wouldn't be able to put a bite force of that amount to good use like a Rex can. Serrated = slashing damage conical = crushing damage.
Also it'd be hard for it to get a good grip to hit vitals with all that fur, loose skin and fat. Biting the bears neck would also leave it open to being slashed or grappled to the ground.
The moment that Utah is pinned below a bear it's over for it. It doesn't have the body plan to push it off or get back up with any semblance of ease.
I suppose you're right based on the fact that my argument is only supported by fallible sources.
Would you consider it's prey line-up to be consistent with a predator capable of giving a grizzly a good fight? @@lampylightbulb
I do see the ankylosaur typically mentioned. Surely this is not an easy meal?
Birds are dinosaurs and their brains have greater neural density than mammalian brains. So while their brains may have been smaller, it's very likely they were at least as intelligent as mammals.
I think it would be more who got the jump on who. And it would be who got the 1st hit as the battle probably won't go much longer than that.
I don't think you're giving enough credit to the brown bear. They are killing machines...and their durability is like at least 5x that of the raptor's. I am pretty confident the bear wins 75% of the time here.
A lot of people say T Rex is their favorite but me, it's Utahraptor.
I think this is a bit of an odd comparison, and it would be a cool conversation if you used a smaller spinosaurid that would hunt the same salmon Grizzlies enjoy. Something like Icythovenator, or Irritator. Something that would come into conflict with it naturally.
Would need to use a spinosaurid similar in size to a bear for that
Raptor I reckon is actually cleverer than the bear, but that’s also why I reckon the raptor would be clever enough not to jump a bear. Bears are so ridiculously durable, practically bleed proof and bullet proof in many cases. I don’t know if those raptors would have the thick, loose skin and layers of fat a bear has to be able to avoid bleeding to death. Interesting thought though. 😊
I like comparing dromeosaurs to corvids -- they were probably highly intelligent, and if anything, the raptor would be a bit better at problem solving over the bear.
@@rebeccalee2155 that’s exactly what I was thinking. I’ve seen studies that reckon even a T.Rex would be comparable to a smart bird when it comes to intelligence so who knows how a raptor would think. At the least bears are smart, but they aren’t crow smart, and a raptor had a crow like brain but bigger, so who knows. I find it fascinating though to wonder how such a thing would react to something like a bear. Would it avoid it? 400lbs of bear will take on and beat 900lbs of wolf in packs and only be superficially damaged. How do you think a big raptor would react to a bear? Would it ambush it or avoid it like I thought or do you think a raptor could hurt a bear?
@@tonywilliamson-bruscaglia3070I see you like the word "reckon"
@@vornamenachname989 I reckon that is a fair assessment. 😎
@@tonywilliamson-bruscaglia3070t rex was smart. For a non avian reptile. There intelligence was comparable to a crocodile, but far below most modern birds. Same with dromeosaurids. Their brains were still structured more like a crocodile than a sparrow, and so they likely had similar cognitive abilities. Still impressive, but not at the level of an average bird.
Bite force is honestly not a conclusive argument IMO, bite force is hard to measure and it seems like every bite force study comes up with different numbers, bite force numbers are inconsistent
Also unlike the Rex those teeth are meant for slashing damage, not grabbing or crushing damage
Da raptor will win
the way most of these mammals are being spared by the fact it’s utahraptor and not some larger middleweight carnivore
Bro be calling a dinosaur not an animal💀
Sorry but I think in this case... Grizzly would mop a small carnivorous dinosaur...
I think this fight could be a 50/50
The Utah’s sickle claws are a huge edge and it’s a true apex use go tackling large game. but brown bears have stamina and resilience that’s dam near legendary.
I think Utahraptor’s claws are way too deadly for a bear of equal mass.
a bear of equal size could snap its neck just as easily
@@dutyinternal3516lmao it couldn't
@@ferociousrazordino3581 it has been recorded that a bear can snap a cows neck, that's a muscular animal of a significantly larger size
@@dutyinternal3516 give a reliable account and its definitely not easily
@@dutyinternal3516Cool, that’s assuming it manages to catch the much larger and more raptorial opponent, Utahraptor already faced much more dangerous animals than a bear, moose, or cows.
I feel that the bear just has a better build for grappling in a straight up fight. Don’t get me wrong, Utah was a nasty grappler but the Utah requires an ambush to get a good grab on something. With equal weights I think the bears stockier build and it being just a ball of fur and muscle net it the win here. The Utah if its face gets grabbed would get destroyed. And seeing how its head is huge that will most likely happen. A bears arms could also probably just break a Utahs jaw, ribs if it swiped hard enough. It’s a 50/50 imo. It just comes down to how the fight happens.
The bear is not stockier than the raptor
@@ferociousrazordino3581 In build it is. Its lower to the ground and thicker than the utah. Im not saying the utah isn't stocky but a bear is literally a ball of muscle. The utah is more spread out in its weight due to its larger frame.
@@dapper3322 that's not how it works...lol. the only reason the utahraptor is "taller" is because it's bipedal and the only reason it's longer is because of it's tail which doesn't add much mass. There is no "larger frame", i can say the same thing if the bear is upright it's taller than the utahraptor thus the utahraptor is less spread out.
it's also not thicker than the dromaeosaur in any way( maybe hips ), both are about as thick as eachother.
expectation: the thumbnail is absolute fire, not the best slams. Grizzly Bear probably has some unknown weakness cuz the Utah doesn’t have any major advantage.
Reaction after the video: you actually gave the Utahraptor the advantage-
sigh
Fr, I love dinosaurs, they're cool, but people keep painting them as killing machines not animals
Also a lot of facts about the Utah are left out, like the fact that they do not use their claws as weapons they use them to grip their prey so their jaws and teeth do all the work.
The He straight-up ignored so many traits of a bear that would give it an advantage, loose skin that makes it hard to hit vitals, the ability to rear up to grapple to the ground and get on all fours to ensure none of its attacks hit vitals, the fact that bears go bloody bezerk and completely ignore multiple bullets or claw attacks just to charge in and keep fighting.
Honestly it was a pretty disappointing, dinosaur-apologist video.
Bear would win by its claws destroying the raptors hide. Its not the same as a bears and wont flex and move the same. The damage the bear claws would cause would be like that on a human.
Reptiles has way more agility
Image if birds returned to dinosaurs
All brown bears, kamchatka brown bear and larger definetly wins.
You could also make an argument that smaller bears such as the eurasian or ussuri brown bear would win too.
Sloth bears haunt my nightmares
everyone talks about badgers but everyone sleeps on sloth bears, giant badger or roids@@lampylightbulb
Arctotherium, wouldve been a better comparison.....it actually lived with dinosaurs. the "phorusracids"
I agree Utah raptor will take this one
Seeing a Utahraptor with a Polar Bear for scale really makes you appreciate the size of the things.
A Deinonychus would be able to take down a human with ease. Utahraptors are terrifying.
Maaaaan when I read “closer than you think” I thought scientists were on the brink of cloning a Utahraptor so we could find out for real
I think Utahraptor would win more often than not because it would have the height advantage over the bear (though the bear would be the taller one if it stood up on its hind legs) so the raptor could use its toe claws to keep the bear at bay and its feathers would help the raptor avoid taking significant damage from the bear's claws. I think the raptor would use its superior stamina to tire the bear out and then use its claws and powerful jaw to finish the bear off. But it's close.
Bear has better stamina. However i agree with the utahraptor winning
Dinosaurs are animals tho?
I would give the bear the better odds of winning actually. I consider the Utah raptor a far better predator even if we exclude potential pack tactics. It's speed is a conservative guess and it's quite possibly faster then the bear as it got similar leg bones as an Ostrich. Add the nasty bite and enlarged claw for causing crippling wounds and it's a very effective package.
But I consider the bear a much better fighter. The raptor is made to run, bite and possible claw some, but it got literally no ground game. Bears are natural wrestlers and able to wrestle even larger animals to the ground. The thing with bites are that it comes attached to a weakness, the head. It's not very effective when fighting another well armed animal frontally to rush in head first trying to bite. But a raptor on the ground would be vulnerable to being bitten. The bears bite and claws aren't as dangerous, but sufficient for doing the job.
I would also like to point out that both animals are fairly well protected from casual attacks as both fur and feathers offers quite a lot of protection.
I actually think the Raptor's bipedal nature will be a downside. My dad used to take me to Canada, and we'd watch bears for a good time every year. If you've ever seen two male bears get pissed and fight you'd notice that they just don't get stuck in, they keep disengaging, checking each other out, and going back in, kinda like boxers. A bear can get ripped up pretty bad, fall back, see he's not as bad off as the other guy and come back in for the win. Bears will keep fighting with one leg temporarily gimped, even a back leg. If a raptor get's a rear leg broken, it's strait up screwed.
Also the video greatly overestimated how those claws are used on a Utah, the forelimbs are terribly positioned for utilizing their claws as weapons, and raptors didn't slash with sickles claws, they used it to hook in and bite.
This video is greatly underestimating grizzly bears, as someone who lives in Canada and is regularly warned about the dangers of grizzlies, a lot of the world don't realize what massively impressive and terrifying animals they are smh
How the fuck is dinosaurs vs dinosaurs different than animals vs animals? Im out.
I remember riding a utah raptor in ark survival evolved, they were the coolest mount and I wish they were real.
The fight in my head: bear stands up to intimidate, raptor do kung fu kick on the belly. Bear is ded.
Bear is protected by a ton of fat and thick fur.
@@LarryWaterit's also a very big, sharp claw driven by extremely strong leg muscles + possibly the raptor's bodyweight depending on how the kick is done. And being 1 claw, that concentrates the force even more. It's a very nasty weapon.
Remember, Dromaeosaurs were sharp at the end like hooks, not bladed edges like a knife. They're used for gripping on to prey, not slashing.
@@just_a_guy9688 some people suggested that it also uses it to tear and slash other than pinning the prey.
@@just_a_guy9688 You as a human, could use a fossil raptor claw to injure a bear's eye. Now imagine what the actual 1000 pound ,Raptor can do
Id like an article of a scientist calculating the Utahraptors bite at 8000 pounds, seems a bit too much. Otherwise great video.
I have seen several different videos of brown bears take point blanks shot gun rounds and getting right back up to continue charging.
Yeah, im putting my money on a grizzly. People who dont live near them and see them often tend to underestimate their sheer power and size.
Smell is related to memory, memory is why animals learn.
Bear would dominate 1v1
Dinosaurs Vs Animals? 🤔
Sería muy interesante
How about Utahraptor vs. Shortfaced bear?
short faced bear i think it would b a 65 35 in the bears favor as it is much larger and probally stronger then your average grizzly so yeah its like sizing it up and shortening the face
Thinking a clunky bear would defeat a speed built and better in all physical stats is idocity
Can you please do arctotherium engustidens vs majungasaurus crenatissimus
Thats almost certainly a win for the Carno its got a good size advantage...
(I put 3 hours of research into this comment for you so please read it and tell me what you think afterward, shouldnt take you more than 2 minutes 😁)
There are actually several subspecies of short faced bear that are actually smaller in size than most bears still alive today...
The largest species is the Arctotherium angustidens.
Which was 412 to 1200kgs, this tells us an Average sized A. Angustidens would have been about 900 kgs.
The largest one ever found was an enormous specimen from Buenos Aries Argentina that could have weighed between 983 up to 1588kgs.
But normally wouldn't be considered as these debates usually look at the animal as a species not an individual.
Average Carno is around 1.8 tonnes and is roughly twice the size of the Arctotherium, giving it the ability to bite at the bears back, neck or head more easily.
If the Arctotherium reared up it would stand about the same height as the Carno, but then it would be more vulnerable to the Carno quickly slamming its mass into it and sending the bear careening. Giving the Carno another chance to attack the bear as it gets up.
Using Average Specimens I'd say it is pretty much a 90% Carno wins.
Encounters would have some obvious variables like terrain though. As the bear could fight it on a hill for example and possibly topple it using the terrain to its advantage.
Overall it is a pretty interesting matchup but i think its a little unfair as 900kgs vs 1.8 tonnes is a squash match unless something like terrain aids the bear its screwed 9 times out of 10 (its a bit like putting a flyweight boxer against a super heavyweight)
However if we do use the largest Arcotherium we do have a fight as it is about 1.8 meters at the shoulder, 4 meters long when standing on all fours and could rear up to about the same height (12-13 ft).
It also weighs 1.6 tonnes meaning the Carno wouldn't be able to push it around as easily and certainly couldn't send it careening like it could the 900kg bear.
A large Carnotaurus is 3 meters tall, 8 meters long and could weigh up to 2.1 tonnes.
So I'd still give the edge to the Carno but at least in this case the bear is big enough to wrestle with the Carno and potentially pin the carno on the ground if it loses its balance.
60% win to a big Carno against the largest shortfaced bear.
But i did really like this debate so a more even version of it could be... "Arctotherium angustidens vs a Majungasaurus crenatissimus" this makes the fight able to be done at equal weight as Majungasaurus weighs 750-1100kg we could take both at 900kgs.
Thanks for reading my lengthy reply and giving my brain a fun activity to wake up with haha.
@@jacobniemann4756 sorry for not replying i was sleeping 2 hours ago and i just woke up so I will read it now and thanks for doing so much research for my comment appreciate it man👍👍
@@jacobniemann4756 and all of your points make sense carno has the height advantage and the weight advantage so it is kinda unfair but against majungasaurus cranatissimus it would most likely be closer because the majungasaurus is shorter in height majungasaurus and arctotherium are about the same height actually and majungasaurus is almost the same weight as well because the average between 750kg and 1100kg is around 925 kg though I will have to look more thoroughly into this topic before I can give a definitive answer
@@Julian.noa21 haha fairo gotta catch those Z's mate.
Also no worries I love doing this sort of stuff to kill time haha.
Thanks for reading my take and yeah thats pretty much what I was thinking it's basically a completely 50/50 at that point in terms of size and I'd probably put my money on the bear 🐻 because it is a bit more versatile.
Another random variable could potentially be attitude as certain bears like black don't like injury and tend to flee from combat and being that arctotheriums closest living relative the speckled bear is the least aggressive/defensive bear species in the world Arctotherium could potentially be Giant scaredy cats... but based on the time they lived and their size I would assume they are aggressive predatory bears like polar bears.
@@jacobniemann4756 yeah timezones do differ
And on the attitude thing both of them were probably had pretty aggressive behaviour because of the environments in which they lived because the arctotherium angustidens lived amongst a whole bunch of other predators and since majungasaurs came down to literal cannibalism i don't think they were scaredy cats now do I think they were friendly by any means so for this scenario let's just assume a majungasaurus was feeding on the carcus of a dead rapetosaurus and the arctotherium just happened to come across the carcus at the same time
It's easy to imagine that, just like wasps, Utahraptors would be never be alone, but accompanied by other, even more violent and aggressive Utahraptors, all of which, are accompanied by even more.
There is very little evidence supporting that Utahraptors or any Raptors hunted in packs...most likely they where solo hunters who mobbed together like crocodiles do sometimes. But even that isn't proven
Lot of people are bringing up the massive sickle claw but I thought I heard somewhere that it was more likely used for restraining prey and not killing them. They didn’t use those claws as knifes to slice and stab. There is a modern bird with a VERY similar claw structure and it uses it to restrain prey
Yes, I have the video to debunked the myth of bear’s striking power!
Actually they still used their claws to lacerate their prey.
an ambush predator would have no idea what to do with a charging bear, would either run or get bowled over and mauled... depends on the situation, utah raptor discovers and hunts cubs -bear, 100%. territorial dispute, assuming one doesnt back down, could go either way. depends on the indiviuals really, and the temperment of utah raptor, which we cant observe
Imo if you put a mammal vs a dinosaur of the same size and probably sane niche the dinosaur will always win. They are able to have tougher skin stronger bites and more dangerous tools like a Utahraptors toe claw
Tougher skin doesn't equal immunity, mammals have evolved thing, flexible and loose skin because it stops predators from getting a good grip. They can turn in their skin, birds cannot. Utahs didn't have thick scales, they are not crocodiles. Bears have layers of fat and muscle that are massively good at protecting their vitals.
Here's my idea of what would happen. Utah and Grizzy look at each other and go nope and go the other way. If they fight it's more so to get one off their territory. Animals rarely fight to the death and an Utah seeing a jacked up mammal that can go on its hind legs to appear much taller would be equally as terrifying for the Utah as it would be to the bear. Also if the Utah lives in modern times that means this is a Grizzly that has evolved with that in mind. If an Utah met a polar bear it would most certainly be game over for the oversized chicken cause....damn those things are jacked even more.
Velicoraptor vs wolverine will be interesting
You keep saying the bear hasn't fought anything like the Utah raptor, but there's not really any comparable animal to a grizzly bear in the Mesozoic. Strong, compact, durable apex predator with a thick coat of fur. The only Mammals that Utharaptor would have ever encountered were the size of Raccooons, and here comes a a monster that weighs as much as the raptor does. Bear takes this, 6/10
@qbgrinddddthat’s a massive Utah estimate. Both animals averages would be very similar.
@qbgrinddddoverestimating Utah stats 💀
@qbgrindddd the highs for a kodiak (The specific brown bear used in this fight) and for the upper estimates of Utah raptor are basically the same. Utah raptor is longer yeah, but they have the same weight, and the bear is gonna be much stockier in comparison
@@HoboBrute Utah raptor were very stocky.
If they weighed the same I'd definitely bet on the raptor. Theropoda have hollow bones, thus a large percentage of their body is lean powerful muscle tissue, while a lot of mammal mass is useless fat and heavy marrow in the bones.
I've seen birds man handle mammals their mass/weight, they also seem larger thanks to the airsacs even if they're the same weight.
I'd wager on a bear having to be a bit heavier than a dromeosaurid in order for it to win.
@@trvth1sdem hollow bones are also a lot more fragile son.
I think utahraptor win but his legs claws are the principal factories
Amazing
Grizzly vs Jon Jones
Who would win?
"Animals vs Dinosaurs".... Is the weirdest thing to say, Dinosaurs ARE (were) animals.... Don't you mean Dinos vs MODERN mammals?
Hey just wanted to mention, your Grizzly bear section of the video is very similar to SethTheProgrammers Grizzly vs Gorilla video.
why not a Kodiak/general brown bears or polars... brown bears in Siberia occasionally have fought tigers and have lost more than the seem to have won but still crazy fighting prowess and vs data against other major predators
i mean i get why you mentioned the alleged decapitations of moose in single strike but their claws are not sharp. so i doubt 110% that's true. they just have claws and when you put 900lbs of animal behind it... they will tear through anything... don't need sharp claws but i would even mention the "alleged decapitation in a single strike"