|
Post by brobear on Aug 19, 2021 14:02:20 GMT -5
First argument on Earth: Adam says to Eve, "Look at those two beautiful powerful cats. I believe that if they fought, the Lion would slay the Tiger." And so in response, Eve declares, "Oh no, Adam my love, the Tiger would surely slay the Lion." And from that fateful day and all through the ages, this argument has raged. Maybe iconic species demand disputes which are larger than life Some of these animal face-offs will never end, so long as humanity exists. Lion vs Tiger, Wolf Pack vs Hyena Clan, or Shark vs Crocodile are some top examples. For one thing, nothing can be proved. As for Amur tiger vs Ussuri brown bear; nearly all knowledgeable posters agree to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 19, 2021 20:02:52 GMT -5
I think the tiger and lion are more equal than people give credit for in general.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 21, 2021 7:50:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 25, 2021 13:07:07 GMT -5
I think the tiger and lion are more equal than people give credit for in general. I voted 50/50 as they each have their own peculiar differences, even though they are normally near equal in size and strength. The two biggest subspecies of tigers are normally some heavier than the biggest African lions; but not a game-changing advantage. Simply because there are differences both physically and mentally, this fight would probably be more of a 6 out of 10 face-off, with one winning more often than the other. But, which one. Rather than guess, I will vote 50/50. *I will edit and add: every lion fan is positive that he is right / every tiger fan is positive that he is right...
|
|
|
Post by tom on Aug 25, 2021 17:52:20 GMT -5
I don't look at this as one specie over another as you said they are very on par with each other. I look at this as more of an individual face-off. The winner likely will be the aggressor or the more dominant of the two. Lions in general fight a lot but then again male Tigers have their battles as well so which is the better fighter and or more dominant of the two that day will win. 50/50 is a good educated guess as any.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Aug 28, 2021 6:04:23 GMT -5
( IMO ), the best way to compare a lion with a tiger ( girth, weight, musculature, etc. ) would be to compare them at equal head-and-body length. The big cat fans often declare that "lions are taller than tigers" or "tigers are longer than lions". Neither is correct. Lions have longer legs ( proportionately ) than tigers.
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 28, 2021 7:29:17 GMT -5
How accurate would this comparison be?
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Aug 28, 2021 7:32:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 3, 2021 19:06:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by OldGreenGrolar on Sept 3, 2021 19:48:19 GMT -5
They both look so similarly built.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 4, 2021 4:26:12 GMT -5
They both look so similarly built. It's big cat vs big cat; a cat-fight. ( IMO ) it's not a matter of who will win, the lion or the tiger? It's a matter of which individual will win in each specific fight. Prime example: I have been asked, "who is tougher, a soldier or a marine?" Well, I've known some really tough guys on both sides of the line. I've also known a few soldiers and marines who would fit right in with the "Camp Fire Girls."
|
|
|
Post by tom on Sept 6, 2021 15:42:21 GMT -5
They both look so similarly built. It's big cat vs big cat; a cat-fight. ( IMO ) it's not a matter of who will win, the lion or the tiger? It's a matter of which individual will win in each specific fight. Prime example: I have been asked, "who is tougher, a soldier or a marine?" Well, I've known some really tough guys on both sides of the line. I've also known a few soldiers and marines who would fit right in with the "Camp Fire Girls." Special forces Green Beret vs Navy Seal? Sorry waaay... off topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2021 16:18:50 GMT -5
It most likely depends on the individual
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2021 2:12:04 GMT -5
OldGreenGrolar That chart/picture which you shared shows quite nicely how "frame" of both of the biggest cats is very similar in size. What comes to weights, 365 kg for tiger isn´t based on any verified and reliable weight and same is with 313 kg for lions. Guinness accepted once that tiger, which is now in Smithsonian museum and it was claimed to have been over 380 kg, but in reality all circumstances what comes to its weighing are unreliable. It was accepted in 1960s, but with similar documentation trying today, it wouldn´t be accepted. And that´s why scientific studies nowadays call it alleged and unverified etc. Same is with every tiger which has been claimed in past to be clearly over 300 kg and same with lions. Guinness as source isn´t too good, imo, they have published so much crap during time. Once they claimed that Great white sharks could grow 12 meters long. I guess, that they were fooled by megalodon teeth or something back in 1970s. They also printed to their book, that gorillas could lift over 800 kg from ground based on invalid claims concerning chimpanzees. Then they have had claim, that during ww2 crocodiles would have killed and eaten approximately 1000 Japanese soldiers in some jungle, which was later found out to be total nonsense. And who knows how many other things. When talking about animals, they can be reliable when talking about captive animals, but even when talking about those records, some are sources of misinformation too. For instance they printed that Jaipur would be biggest captive tiger, weighing 423 kg. From the photo it can be seen, that he was sadly the most obese big cat I´ve ever seen, nothing more. In good condition for sure a big tiger, maybe 250 kg or more. But in no way extraordinarily big cat, just abused by owner, who overfed it. Still some people even today brag, that tigers can be over 400 kg, because that one tiger was overfed to weight almost double of his healthy weight. Guinness has many things right and nowadays they are more careful, than in past. But what comes to tigers and lions, their information is old and unreliable. They are just so slow to change things and seem to dislike when they have to correct something, no matter how clear their mistake has been. When both species average closer to 200 kg for adult males and size variation isn´t so big overall, it´s quite difficult to take too seriously claims of tigers or lions clearly exceeding 300 kg. Reliably weighed wild individuals are very big already if they are 250 kg or a bit more. In some facebook threads etc. some guides have given occasionally big numbers, but they never give anything to back up those numbers. I personally don´t take such claims seriously. I follow what reliable sources publish, rumors have been seen so often to be just hyping up things with nonsense. All in all, biggest lions and tigers seem to be very close call, difficult to see any major advantage for either physically.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 7, 2021 4:32:27 GMT -5
Excellent post Shadow. About the 'Guinness Book of World Records', I believe it is in the book, 'The Bear Almanac' by Gary Brown, ( weight taken from the almanac ), the record Kodiak Bear in the wild was 2500 pounds. Anyone here still have that book, check it out and please correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2021 5:27:00 GMT -5
Excellent post Shadow. About the 'Guinness Book of World Records', I believe it is in the book, 'The Bear Almanac' by Gary Brown, ( weight taken from the almanac ), the record Kodiak Bear in the wild was 2500 pounds. Anyone here still have that book, check it out and please correct me if I'm wrong. 2500 lbs is something I´ve never seen mentioned as reliable. After all well known Kodiak bear experts as Troyer and others say, that biggest ones can be over 1500 lbs and there is huge gap to 2500 lbs. That heavy bear would be really fat even by bear standards. I´ve seen one bear mentioned to have been 1680 lbs or something like that by a person, who couldn´t see that bear personally but trusted to the person who told it. So it can´t be verified as 100% reliable. Some accept it, some maybe don´t. I keep it possible, even though it is a lot, 762 kg. I think, that it´s possible because there are weighed bears pretty close to it. 700-800 kg for a big Kodiak bear in wild is in my mind plausible. But I don´t think that much more than that. In lbs it would be 1540-1765. 2500 lbs would is same as 1134 kg. No, I can´t take such claim as valid without tons of solid evidence and reason is, that I have never heard or seen mentioned any wild bear coming even close to such weight. Only two captive bears have been close or over 2000 lbs as far ass I remember.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Sept 7, 2021 5:49:06 GMT -5
*My point exactly. The record confirmed wild Kodiak bear weighed 1600 and some odd pounds. The heaviest in captivity weighed above the 2,000-pound mark - but that has little meaning ( IMO ). *Edit and add, from my reading, the 1680-pound Kodiak is mentioned as if a fact in numerous sources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2021 6:12:52 GMT -5
*My point exactly. The record confirmed wild Kodiak bear weighed 1600 and some odd pounds. The heaviest in captivity weighed above the 2,000-pound mark - but that has little meaning ( IMO ). *Edit and add, from my reading, the 1680-pound Kodiak is mentioned as if a fact in numerous sources. Great Bear Almanac has vague mention, that heaviest brown bear would have been 2500+ lbs. But there is no information whatsoever, that where, when and how it would have been weighed etc. And I have never seen such claim anywhere else, same time range of other bears is mentioned to have been 500-900 lbs with average 725 lbs. And then after those is that 2500+ lbs.... more than odd, I think. Maybe typo in some notes and it should have been 1500+(?). And yes, that 1680 lbs Kodiak bear is mentioned as a fact. But thing is, that biologist, or whoever it was who gives that weight hasn´t been there himself. He got that weight from a hunter, who he describes as a man, who all consider reliable down to earth guy and that´s why he accepted that weight. So if looking at it with very critical eye, it can´t be said to be 100% confirmed in same way as it can be considered to be, when a team of biologists make weighing themselves. I personally see it to be quite ok since it´s in plausible weight range of Kodiak bears. All reliable biologists state, that biggest Kodiak bears can weigh more than 1500 lbs, it´s not mentioned as "up to" weight. And also some captive Kodiak bears have been clearly heavier. Pity that no photos, it would have been very interesting to see that bear and know more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2021 6:48:29 GMT -5
One correction, that 1680 lb was from memory, right number was 1656 lbs (751 kg).
|
|
|
Post by nocapakabl on Sept 18, 2021 5:41:07 GMT -5
I mean, shouldn't it all depend on the individual and subspecies in question? On average, the mainland bengal tigers are heavier than south african lion and seem to have a less lanky, more bulky built hence I'd favor a tiger as far as physicality goes. It has been seen that lots of male lions are exceptionally bold specimens with little resistance when it comes to engaging in dangerous situations while tigers are more hesistant, so if you were to put the two together in captivity you'd probably observe the lions being more dominant and aggressive and the tigers generally avoiding battle, does this prove anything? No, it doesn't.
I personally hold the opinion that a average sized mainland bengal tiger specimen would beat an average sized south african lion, but at parity weights it'd be a coin toss, depending on the individual themselves and their ability in combat.
|
|