In all of this, the overall build of the contenders is irrelevant and so does not factor…To answer this most directly and efficiently – it is decisively the polar bear. The reason for this is in the wording of what you say, ‘species’. The brown bear is excluded from contention because across the ‘species’, it is considerably the smaller bear. What would make the question more interesting and hence require a more detailed explanation is if you simply asked ‘strongest bear’. Then, the largest brown bears must come into contention given their similarity in size to the polar.Before moving onto that, I want to bring to your attention something you have stated incorrectly… “i would say polar bear but ive heard good arguments for grizzly,brown bear,and Kodiak bear”– the grizzly and the kodiak ARE brown bears (2 subspecies), and so how you presented that is incorrect…Ok, the bears in contention are the polar and 3 brown bears (that is, 3 subspecies) – in size order the kodiak, kamchatka brown and the grizzly. The reason the kodiak is joined by the other 2 is that the largest subpopulations of both the kamchatkan and the grizzly are comparable in size to kodiak with some overlap. With that addressed, these 3 candidates (provided we are specifically talking of large examples from within each) are a good match in strength for the polar. In one strength dynamic, the shoulder, it is likely that relative to size these brown bears are stronger. But that is only one aspect and it does not really translate into usable power in any meaningful way here. The simple answer is that the 4 are evenly matched, if the 4 individuals are the same size. What decides it, by the slimmest of margins is that they do not happen to be of equal size, particularly the kamchatkan and the grizzly – even within the specific context I described above. For this reason on a statistical basis the polar is the strongest because statistically it is the largest bear. In reality I could not call it between polars, kodiaks and the largest subpopulations of the kamchatkan and grizzly.Donuts – breed is a term relating to domestic animals. There is nothing unusual about the size and strength of those 2. darksky – the grizzly is far from a close second, when you refer to the entire subspecies as you have, the consideration is not what I have detailed. As an entire subspecies, the grizzly is considerably smaller than the others I mention.JoeJack – that would be ‘other subspecies’ and the grizzly would not be third.LesCRNI – some good, informed info there…there is no rule that correlates weight with strength in any comparison, only rules of thumb. Consider a polar at 1000 lbs and a grizzly at the same weight, but the grizzly is obese and some of its weight is comprised of fat. This clearly does not contribute to strength, meanwhile (in this example) the polar is a lean 1000 lbs (typical weight of a lean mature male). I think you get my point…Your third paragraph is flawed, but without getting into all that, suffice to say that adaptive traits are an irrelevance to physical strength.The dietary strategy does not play a part beyond my cursory mention of the shoulders of brown bears. The occasional physicality involved in dealing with whales by polars is infrequent enough to be excluded in any analysis of strength dynamics across successive generations. The same reasoning can be applied when speaking of the polar bear’s thickly muscled neck....
Show More