Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 9:50:27 GMT 5
 If we look at ml and ap diameter, the lion has a more robust humerus and femur which is just ap/ml over length |
|
mountainlord
Member
Tiger - The Legendary Killer of Brown bears
Posts: 309
|
Post by mountainlord on Dec 6, 2019 18:40:28 GMT 5
Sorry, what I meant was to address the 'destroy' part. The tiger i think should be favoured 7/10, but it wouldn't DESTROY the lion I'm sure
Not only does the tiger have the clear weight advantage, but its also stronger, more powerful, much faster and quicker in its movements, has a STRONGER biteforce, larger canines/claws, far more agile etc etc etc...
The tiger holds too many significant advantages over any lion.
I even showed you a gif, where even a small tiger was able to EASILY over-power, flip over and pin down a big male lion like nothing. I even showed you a fair fight account where a Bengal tiger slaughtered a huge Barbary lion in a pitted fight to the death. In this match-up, the tiger owns the lion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 6, 2019 19:25:16 GMT 5
Well...okay.
I suppose it's not outside of reason to think so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 21:21:39 GMT 5
Sorry, what I meant was to address the 'destroy' part. The tiger i think should be favoured 7/10, but it wouldn't DESTROY the lion I'm sure
Not only does the tiger have the clear weight advantage, but its also stronger, more powerful, much faster and quicker in its movements, has a STRONGER biteforce, larger canines/claws, far more agile etc etc etc...
The tiger holds too many significant advantages over any lion.
I even showed you a gif, where even a small tiger was able to EASILY over-power, flip over and pin down a big male lion like nothing. I even showed you a fair fight account where a Bengal tiger slaughtered a huge Barbary lion in a pitted fight to the death. In this match-up, the tiger owns the lion.
Even if we ignore the accounts of Clyde beatty, there are many accounts where the lion has killed the tiger even if the tiger attacks first. While I also think the tiger should win. It won't win more than 8/10 of the times. The lion's mane and slightly greater robusticity do give it some advantages. Even if tigers do win the majority of times, you would have a lot of accounts to explain away if the lion has "no chance at all" theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/173/morphology-comparisonen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_versus_lion#Observed_fights-lion-tigerHere are some records from wikipedia "In July 1808, Sylvanus Urban said that Mr. Bolton had a friend who claimed to have seen a fight between the lion and tiger at a circus in Verona. Though the tiger had attacked first, it yielded to the stronger lion." "In 1830, a tiger attacked a lion at a menagerie in Turin, Rome. Despite having attacked first, the lion got it on its back, and used its jaws to hold the tiger's throat. The tiger died after that." In 1934, a fully grown African lion killed a mature Bengal tiger a short time after these circus animals were unloaded from the train, before trainers could separate them Bert Nelson (1938) said that in Chicago, when 20 lions and tigers were mixed together for an act at a circus, a fight occurred, lasting for about 10 minutes. No fatalities were mentioned, but Nelson said that order was 'restored' when the tigers used escape doors to flee. An Indian prince organised a filmed fight in a deep pit in the compound of his palace. The lion had killed the tiger, according to Kailash Sankhala (1978) At the South Perth Zoo, 1949, in a three-minute fight between a lion and a tiger, the lion killed the tiger. The fight occurred when the tiger put his head through a connecting slide. The lion caught the tiger by the throat, and, dragging it through the opening, killed it before the keepers arrived. Renowned naturalist and conservationist of India, Kailash Sankhala wrote in his book Tiger that the tiger would be unable to get close to lion's vital joints because of his thick mane, and that the tiger would be vulnerable to the lion. He mentioned that once an Indian prince organized a fight in which the lion killed the tiger, and opined that "a tiger is no match for even single lion of equal strength" Now here are some wild accounts of indian lions killing indian tigers Herne (1855) mentioned that in the Indian jungle between the village of Elaw, city of Baroche, and Gulf of Cambay, north of the city of Surat and its Ghauts, about 6.0 or 7.0 mi (9.7 or 11.3 km) from the village, he and his party, which included locals, heard a tiger's roar. Pursuing it, they caught a glimpse of it, but by that time, the tiger had attacked a local. It disappeared with the victim, and after pursuing it for about 50.0 yd (150.0 ft), they heard the roar of a lion, and besides it, sounds which suggested that it was in a struggle with the tiger, such as growls. The party not only managed to see the lion and tiger rolling about in their battle, after going through bushes, but also the man who fell victim to the tiger. The author termed both the lion and tiger as "tyrants of the forest," given that they would attack weaker creatures. The tiger was about the same size as the lion, but more agile. As for the lion, it used greater strength, and its mane, which was somewhat deeper than those of its bigger African cousins, could protect its head from the tiger's claws, though not other parts of its body, such as the back. They were as determined and brave as each other, but the lion endured. It caught the tiger's throat, turned it on its back, and killed it by clawing its abdomen open. The lion was thus hailed as the "King of Beasts." Otherwise, the fight had been harsh for both beasts, to the extent that the author felt that it would avenge their victims And a stalemate The Sun (New York) reported that in a depopulated Indian village at the bank of a creek connected to the Cauvery River, about 30.0 mi (48.3 km) north-west of Bangalore, a hunter injured by a venomous creature saw a tiger on his left-hand side, and a lion on his right-hand side. The tiger was a "rousing big fellow, who had seen 15 years of his life," and had muscular limbs. The male lion was "medium-sized." Both of them stalked him, but they did not notice each other at first, as they were separated by a wall that was about 4.0 ft (120 cm) tall, and their focus was on the witness. When they got closer to him, the tiger scented the lion, and behaved like an angry cat, which included making a noise that startled the latter. The lion showed its teeth in response, and after reaching the end of the wall, roared at its foe. After the lion's head showed around the wall, the crouching tiger pounced on it, and rolled over with it. Tigers often kill victims by biting their throats, and keeping their hold on them for as long as necessary,[110] but that was not the case with this struggle. Despite different descriptions of their sizes by the narrator, and that the tiger was more agile than the lion, the tiger's neck was vulnerable to a bite by the lion, and for reasons like these, it was difficult for either cat to defeat the other, overall. After they temporarily retreated from each other, the hunter could see that they were both injured. Still, they were determined to destroy each other. The lion and tiger respectively roared and snarled. The narrator suspected that their hatred for each other may have been because both had been hunting him at the same time, therefore, their respective presences interfered with each other's hunt for him. The tiger pounced on the lion's back, rolling over or falling with it again, and struggling to its feet like it. The lion seemed helpless as the tiger held onto its fore shoulder, before making a move in which it managed to catch the tiger's neck. Now the tiger seemed helpless, before making a move to use its hind claws to force the lion to release its hold on it. Though the tiger was the aggressor this time, their struggle became more like that of dogs unable to beat each other. They bled from nose to tail as they moved away from the witness, towards the creek. They fell into the water, which was about 2.0 ft (61 cm) deep, and this stopped the fight. They retreated from each other, limping into the forest.[c] There are just as many accounts in favor of the tiger, and I honestly favor the tiger as well. However, I wouldn't be putting money on either cat. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 6, 2019 23:21:40 GMT 5
Maybe I could make a size comparison?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 23:31:48 GMT 5
wildfact.com/forum/topic-captive-lion-and-tiger-weightsCaptive weights are skewed. Captive lions weigh the same as captive American Bengal tigers which all have Siberian blood in them. Captive indian purebred Bengals are actually smaller than captive lions so lions will have a size advantage against a true Bengal in a fight
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 7, 2019 0:47:04 GMT 5
^Good find!
Haven't wild Bengal and Siberian tigers also shrunk since the 1980's?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 0:59:04 GMT 5
Captive siberians have definitely shrunk a lot. I'd wager they were larger in the 1800s than the 1980s. There are still large bengal tigers out there, but the thing is that they literally live in tiger paradise. The ones in Kaziranga or Chitwan have plenty of food so they can grow huge so I doubt they shrunk at all. In other areas bengal tigers are the same size as lions. Lions tend to have harder lives as they are constantly fighting with other male lions so they usually die out before they get big. Thus, I won't be surprised if the average wild weight of lions is smaller than tigers simply because many of them never even reach maturity. www.livescience.com/41572-male-lion-survival.htmlHowever, captive accounts of lions and tigers usually have parity fights so its reasonable to say that its close to 50/50 or 60/40 in favor of the tiger. But larger cat should win. |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 7, 2019 1:29:04 GMT 5
That has nothing to do with strength - and the sample sizes were just too small and inconclusive. Its called cherry picking.
Not saying that I disagree with you or anything but it was a published source, so I doubt it is cherrypicking Looks like you don't know what "cherry picking" means. So what if it was published from a study? Its still cherry picking because you chose it and pretend it proves anything, when it proves absolutely nothing. |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 7, 2019 1:33:14 GMT 5
Captive siberians have definitely shrunk a lot. I'd wager they were larger in the 1800s than the 1980s. There are still large bengal tigers out there, but the thing is that they literally live in tiger paradise. The ones in Kaziranga or Chitwan have plenty of food so they can grow huge so I doubt they shrunk at all. In other areas bengal tigers are the same size as lions. Lions tend to have harder lives as they are constantly fighting with other male lions so they usually die out before they get big. Captive Siberian tigers are larger than in the wild, it is the wild tigers that have gotten smaller. And it is the complete opposite, it is the harsher lives of Bengal tigers that make them big, as the bigger tiger is the one who gets to win fights and gain territory and reproduce. That is why Bengal tigers have gotten larger over the past century, due to fighting rates going higher. Kaziranga tigers literally have the highest mortality rates from fighting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 2:08:27 GMT 5
Your own forum has an entire thread that has data on limb robusticity on lion and tiger so I'd naturally use this data. And the lion edges the tiger 11-7 on the categories. In addition, I hope you know how hard it is to publish a paper. If the paper had any instance of cherry picking, it wouldn't be published. Thus, I would trust the paper than whatever some rando on the internet said. Anyway, I hope you know what cherrypicking is because tigers don't beat lions 100% of the time despite what you claim. In addition to some measures of robusticity, the lion has greater stamina via larger heart and lung size as an adaptation for the savannah so the lion should win a prolonged conflict. www.tapatalk.com/groups/animaluntamed/lion-vs-tiger-stamina-t564.html |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 7, 2019 2:28:09 GMT 5
Your own forum has an entire thread that has data on limb robusticity on lion and tiger so I'd naturally use this data. And the lion edges the tiger 11-7 on the categories. In addition, I hope you know how hard it is to publish a paper. If the paper had any instance of cherry picking, it wouldn't be published. Thus, I would trust the paper than whatever some rando on the internet said. Anyway, I hope you know what cherrypicking is because tigers don't beat lions 100% of the time despite what you claim. In addition to some measures of robusticity, the lion has greater stamina via larger heart and lung size as an adaptation for the savannah so the lion should win a prolonged conflict. www.tapatalk.com/groups/animaluntamed/lion-vs-tiger-stamina-t564.htmlHow old are you? Serious question? This isn't my forum, and that thread was also full of cherry picking just like you are doing now. And I never claimed that tigers win against lions 100 percent of the time. Again, more cherry picking. You aren't a biologist to determine if that has anything to do with stamina, there are so many factors in that its not even a debate for somebody like us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 2:36:49 GMT 5
Sorry, I confused you with the poster who said that the lion had no chance, which is blatantly false.
You do not need to know how old I am because it has nothing to do with this topic.
There are biologists which state that lung capacity has to do with stamina, and based on how stamina works, I would agree. I do not think quoting actual studies is cherry picking especially since you brought up no evidence of your own. The fact that these studies are published suggests that they do have scientific value as the publishing process is very rigorous.
|
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 7, 2019 2:56:04 GMT 5
Sorry, I confused you with the poster who said that the lion had no chance, which is blatantly false. You do not need to know how old I am because it has nothing to do with this topic. There are biologists which state that lung capacity has to do with stamina, and based on how stamina works, I would agree. I do not think quoting actual studies is cherry picking especially since you brought up no evidence of your own. The fact that these studies are published suggests that they do have scientific value as the publishing process is very rigorous. Yes it is cherry picking, when it proves nothing and deliberately misrepresenting the data, and with a very small inconclusive sample size. I don't need to bring in evidence when I made no claims here, the burden of proof is on you. Where did you show lung capacity? You never showed lions have higher lung capacity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 3:06:04 GMT 5
|
|
