tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 7, 2019 3:21:41 GMT 5
Again, I repeat, learn how to debate and stop picking cherries. There is no evidence either animal is stronger or have more stamina than the other. Your link is typical fanboy crap. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 3:32:34 GMT 5
If I'm, a fanboy, so is the scientist who wrote the paper as well as the ones who approved it for publication.
If you look at the link, you will see measurements for size of lungs between lions and tigers and the lion has much larger lungs. In addition, there are biologists linking lung size to stamina.
Endurance is literally how long the body can provide blood to nourish the rest of the cells so heart and lung capacity will be useful in stamina.
If I'm a fanboy so are all the other scientists whose works were quoted in the website
Again, I said that the tiger will win 6/10 so go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 7, 2019 3:33:11 GMT 5
tijkilThat's not fanboy crap, that's a real researchgate article. Do you have anything to the contrary?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 7, 2019 3:37:54 GMT 5
LifeYou may want to keep track of this thread tijkilPlease try not to dismiss everything against your arguments as fanboy crap. If you disagree with something, give a calm and polite explanation why you think it is wrong with evidence to back it up.
|
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 7, 2019 4:48:00 GMT 5
If I'm, a fanboy, so is the scientist who wrote the paper as well as the ones who approved it for publication. If you look at the link, you will see measurements for size of lungs between lions and tigers and the lion has much larger lungs. In addition, there are biologists linking lung size to stamina. Endurance is literally how long the body can provide blood to nourish the rest of the cells so heart and lung capacity will be useful in stamina. If I'm a fanboy so are all the other scientists whose works were quoted in the website Again, I said that the tiger will win 6/10 so go figure. Not the 'scientists', you. Your link also did not give measurements of size but rather of weight. See? Big difference there. Lions that weigh 60 kg less than another lion, has almost twice the lung weight as another lion. His adrenal, thyroid and liver is above the roof. Don't you think there is something wrong there, maybe more factors in here? Maybe obesity, or other diseases and conditions which can add weight such as lack of activity, captive state of the animal can also play a role? How about the fact you barely have a few tigers in your sample size. Female tigers having larger hearts than male tigers. Please cherry pick more for me. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 7, 2019 5:43:31 GMT 5
tijkilDo you have any studies?
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 7, 2019 10:01:31 GMT 5
Anybody who believe that Tiger is superior to lion in every aspect, is biased and/or ignorant. Lions have biological adaptations for prolonged hunting - stamina; endurance; tolerance. Male lions tend to be very strong on top - capable of wrestling larger animals to the ground. Large lungs fit the bill. Tiger tend to be large, muscular, and well-equipped to be able to kill numerous animals swiftly. But when not able to kill swiftly, Tiger will be at a disadvantage in a prolonged engagement if it materialize. Tiger cannot take lot of injuries and continue to hunt efficiently - solitary hunting lifestyle does not accord this luxury. Trade-offs are in the picture. There is no such thing as one animal being excellent in every capacity. Sorry. tijkilYou have a problem with every study now? How is this constructive or helpful? |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 7, 2019 10:19:10 GMT 5
Anybody who believe that Tiger is superior to lion in every aspect, is utterly biased or ignorant. Lions have biological adaptations for prolonged hunting - stamina; endurance; tolerance. Male lions tend to be very strong on top - capable of wrestling larger animals to the ground. Large lungs fit the bill. Tiger tend to be large, muscular, and well-equipped to be able to kill numerous animals swiftly. But when not able to kill swiftly, Tiger will be at a disadvantage in a prolonged engagement if it materialize. Tiger cannot take lot of injuries and continue to hunt efficiently - solitary hunting lifestyle does not accord this luxury. Trade-offs are in the picture. There is no such thing as one animal being excellent in every capacity. Sorry. tijkil You have a problem with every study now? How is this constructive or helpful?
Your opinion is very clear, but you still have no real evidence on you. Both animals are able to "wrestle" larger animals to the ground. Lions mostly hunt in groups and their "adaptations" match exactly one of a solitary cat, that became a group hunter.
Nobody said tigers are superior to lion in every single aspect here, the animals are basically equal in these kinds of aspects, no evidence otherwise. Looking at their build, there is clearly no significant difference in robusticity and stamina.
I never said I have a problem with every study, I kinda have a problem with sending little links to fanboys cherry picking some data and making a very unscientific conclusion on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 10:40:01 GMT 5
Data is data, it may be "cherry picked" or not, but its still data. The fact that its published meant that a board of scientists deemed it as scientifically valuable. The fact that it was published shows that scientists felt that the amount of lions and tigers was an adequate sample size and the fact that your qualifications pale in comparison to both the scientist that published the data and the board who approved it means that you have no credibility to challenge their claims.
Yes, the weight of the heart matters because it means that the lion has a bigger heart using both wild and captive lions. In both, the lion had a bigger heart than the tiger which makes sense because the lion lives in the jungle so its necessary for it to run for prolonged periods of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 7, 2019 10:43:58 GMT 5
Anybody who believe that Tiger is superior to lion in every aspect, is utterly biased or ignorant. Lions have biological adaptations for prolonged hunting - stamina; endurance; tolerance. Male lions tend to be very strong on top - capable of wrestling larger animals to the ground. Large lungs fit the bill. Tiger tend to be large, muscular, and well-equipped to be able to kill numerous animals swiftly. But when not able to kill swiftly, Tiger will be at a disadvantage in a prolonged engagement if it materialize. Tiger cannot take lot of injuries and continue to hunt efficiently - solitary hunting lifestyle does not accord this luxury. Trade-offs are in the picture. There is no such thing as one animal being excellent in every capacity. Sorry. tijkil You have a problem with every study now? How is this constructive or helpful? Your opinion is very clear, but you still have no real evidence on you. Both animals are able to "wrestle" larger animals to the ground. Lions mostly hunt in groups and their "adaptations" match exactly one of a solitary cat, that became a group hunter.
Nobody said tigers are superior to lion in every single aspect here, the animals are basically equal in these kinds of aspects, no evidence otherwise. Looking at their build, there is clearly no significant difference in robusticity and stamina. I never said I have a problem with every study, I kinda have a problem with sending little links to fanboys cherry picking some data and making a very unscientific conclusion on that.
Both cats have biological differences which are not commonly discussed because people are fixated on looks and raw visible aspects. For example: Are ~60% muscle, and have higher density bones than tigers. In terms of bone strength, lions are stronger. Tigers are ~60-70% muscle, but have lower bone density than lions. In terms of muscular strength, tigers are stronger. Taken from this link: www.diffen.com/difference/Lion_vs_TigerHigher bone density = more practical for wrestling Lion also have relatively larger lungs = superior stamina for hunting (pound-for-pound). Lions are known to partake in hunts which can last several hours from actively chasing to making the kill. Observing an animal from a distance before deciding to give the chase, does not count (Tiger fandom very often mistake observation as a component of hunting). I can watch an animal for 2 hours straight from a distance but I cannot actively chase it for 2 hours straight if I have to - no human can (stamina factor). African environments are not exactly dense forests, mind you. Surprise factor does not last long there. A short bout between a Lion and a Tiger is likely to be inconclusive. However, a determined Lion can/will wear a Tiger down by prolonging confrontation (force the Tiger to flee or even subjugate it). The bottom line. Shift Tigers to Africa and see what happens. |
|
tijkil
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 58
|
Post by tijkil on Dec 7, 2019 11:10:42 GMT 5
Data is data, it may be "cherry picked" or not, but its still data. The fact that its published meant that a board of scientists deemed it as scientifically valuable. The fact that it was published shows that scientists felt that the amount of lions and tigers was an adequate sample size and the fact that your qualifications pale in comparison to both the scientist that published the data and the board who approved it means that you have no credibility to challenge their claims. Yes, the weight of the heart matters because it means that the lion has a bigger heart using both wild and captive lions. In both, the lion had a bigger heart than the tiger which makes sense because the lion lives in the jungle so its necessary for it to run for prolonged periods of time.
Yea and you data proves absolutely nothing  Actually, there has been no scientist that has evaluated or collected data regarding lions and tigers to prove one has more "stamina" than another. You saying that "leofwin" another fact twisting mindless crazy fanboy is a scientist? Hahahahahahah.
Yea and female tigers have larger hearts than male tigers who are significantly larger based off a tiny meaningless sample size. You have no data, end of discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 7, 2019 14:51:56 GMT 5
tijkilLearn to talk sense first. Then WE will talk. Removed your post for rubbish accusations. Address highlighted sources, not accuse me of lying and fanboyism. Tiger fandom accusing others of fanboyism = ironic to the nth degree. EDIT Second rubbish post removed. Post more crap and see what happens. You have been warned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Dec 7, 2019 15:03:38 GMT 5
Accusations and insults = not acceptable here.
I voted Tiger in this thread B/W.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 7, 2019 16:23:56 GMT 5
How about this thread, then? 2 Indian lions/lionesses vs Bengal tiger
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 7, 2019 17:15:47 GMT 5
Lions are known to partake in hunts which can last several hours from actively chasing to making the kill. Observing an animal from a distance before deciding to give the chase, does not count (Tiger fandom very often mistake observation as a component of hunting). I can watch an animal for 2 hours straight from a distance but I cannot actively chase it for 2 hours straight if I have to - no human can (stamina factor). Humans can and often do run for several hours straight. In fact, humans did evolve to actively chase down prey over long distances (and some still do, e.g. the San people in the Kalahari). Unlike lions. Humans have far superior stamina to most other animals, certainly including big cats, for a variety of reasons (especially our very effective cooling mechanism through sweating, and the felids overreliance on white, fast-twitch muscle fibers). Ancient greeks used to use runners to deliver messages. Why? Because humans can run longer than horses (which themselves are far better endurance runners than cats). You have footage that shows a lion being capable of running for hours without rest?
That is not to say lions might not have better stamina than tigers, which seems logical given their lifestyle, but reliable scientific data on that would certainly be useful to people here. |
|
Actually, there has been no scientist that has evaluated or collected data regarding lions and tigers to prove one has more "stamina" than another. You saying that "leofwin" another fact twisting mindless crazy fanboy is a scientist? Hahahahahahah.
