Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on Jan 30, 2014 4:31:43 GMT 5
I am unsure on this one, but the baboon would really be a serious opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jan 30, 2014 4:52:06 GMT 5
But who is to say that the leopard was lesser well adapted for killing? In fact, all felids are better adapted for killing with biting than primates. So they have longer teeth, but were they more deadly? I admit that I am somewhat of a cat fanboy myself, but primates seem quite heavily overrated, especially when leopards (being so much smaller than gorillas generally) have been documented killing fully grown silverbacks in the past. Would you rather get bit by a clouded leopard or a baboon? If I were you I'd pick the former. Clouded leopard don't rip their teeth angrily through flesh and bone like baboon do. Baboons may not be good at CLEAN QUICK KILLS but that can also be said for dogs, eagles and bears. Are they inefficient killers as well? Yea... You don't want to be attacked by a big cat either. Deadliness, for a lack of better words, seems to be opinionated if anything. Ok, so they were longer and stronger, but that is because they were used differently (outward in slashing). |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jan 30, 2014 5:13:10 GMT 5
Would you rather get bit by a clouded leopard or a baboon? If I were you I'd pick the former. Clouded leopard don't rip their teeth angrily through flesh and bone like baboon do. Baboons may not be good at CLEAN QUICK KILLS but that can also be said for dogs, eagles and bears. Are they inefficient killers as well? Yea... You don't want to be attacked by a big cat either. Deadliness, for a lack of better words, seems to be opinionated if anything. Ok, so they were longer and stronger, but that is because they were used differently (outward in slashing). A clouded leopard is not a big cat, though I assume you meant that statement in a literal sense. Regardless I'd rather square up to a clouded leopard than an unpredictable attacker like a baboon. And your comment to VD just shows you cherry pick. You're quick to state a baboons teeth aren't weapons and a clouded leopards teeth are deadlier yet when evidence shows the opposition is true you change up to say it's all opinionated and different uses. The fact regardless remains a baboons teeth will last in a fight far longer and do much more damage than a clouded leopards. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 30, 2014 5:46:29 GMT 5
Would you rather get bit by a clouded leopard or a baboon? If I were you I'd pick the former. Clouded leopard don't rip their teeth angrily through flesh and bone like baboon do. Baboons may not be good at CLEAN QUICK KILLS but that can also be said for dogs, eagles and bears. Are they inefficient killers as well? Yea... You don't want to be attacked by a big cat either. Deadliness, for a lack of better words, seems to be opinionated if anything. Ok, so they were longer and stronger, but that is because they were used differently (outward in slashing). Ok, so we now know you acknowledge the fact that baboon canines are longer and stronger than those of the clouded leopard because they are used differently. So.....what now? You haven't really proved much (if anything) with that. To the first sentence of deadliness being opinionated; at least in my opinion, not exactly. Deadliness is the quality of being dangerous. A clouded leopard's bite is used in precision (most of the time as far as I know) while a baboon's bite is used for violent slashing, as you yourself noted. I don't really see how the latter is any less potent than the former. In fact, the baboon would likely have a bit of an edge here given its canines are longer (thus causing more damage) and at the same time, stronger (advantages to that are self-explanatory). |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 30, 2014 23:35:30 GMT 5
All by themselves those points mean little.
But what we do see is that baboons seem to be much more violent and agressive fighters than clouded leopards (or most cats for that matter), and that they will probably show a much less careful and surgical attack style (that would require surprise and/or control of the opponent). The baboon will probably slash at whatever body part gets within its reach, and would be apt at causing wounds on most of an opponents body (long, slashing canines and a wide gape), relying not on a precise puncture but on mechanical damage inflicted through slashing bites (although it also appears they try to bite the neck).
I recall fatalities in rivalry fights were usually due to postcranial injuries, for example on the legs. That does illustrate how baboons certainly aren’t picky with what regions they bite or slash at, and I presume that could be fairly important, since it greatly increases the chances of wounding an opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jan 30, 2014 23:39:15 GMT 5
To further add on to that. When baboon do fight almost all the time injuries are sustained to the head neck and chest.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jan 31, 2014 5:17:28 GMT 5
I would have to give the edge to the cat. Although the baboon would be very dangerous, the cat is the "quick kill" specialist, and in all likely hood would make the neck bite before succumbing to the slashing canines of the primate. Still, only a narrow victory, 60/40
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jan 31, 2014 5:32:05 GMT 5
I would have to give the edge to the cat. Although the baboon would be very dangerous, the cat is the "quick kill" specialist, and in all likely hood would make the neck bite before succumbing to the slashing canines of the primate. Still, only a narrow victory, 60/40 I doubt it'd do a neck bite with the baboon literally throwing its teeth at the cat. But meh. |
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Jan 31, 2014 8:17:41 GMT 5
Quote: A clouded leopard is not a big cat, though I assume you meant that statement in a literal sense. Regardless I'd rather square up to a clouded leopard than an unpredictable attacker like a baboon.
They are pantherines, which includes all felids closer to big cats (lion, tiger, leopard, etc) than to little cats (such as the domestic cat, lynx, bobcat, etc). But yes, little cats (both in literal and scientific terms) can in fact be quite dangerous if provoked.
Quote: But what we do see is that baboons seem to be much more violent and agressive fighters than clouded leopards (or most cats for that matter), and that they will probably show a much less careful and surgical attack style (that would require surprise and/or control of the opponent). The baboon will probably slash at whatever body part gets within its reach, and would be apt at causing wounds on most of an opponents body (long, slashing canines and a wide gape), relying not on a precise puncture but on mechanical damage inflicted through slashing bites (although it also appears they try to bite the neck).
--I agree with that piece, but cats in general just seem to be more efficient and specialized killers nonetheless. Yea, they are less aggressive fighters, but from what I have heard, primates seem to be highly inefficient killers
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 31, 2014 15:04:45 GMT 5
--I agree with that piece, but cats in general just seem to be more efficient and specialized killers nonetheless. Yea, they are less aggressive fighters, but from what I have heard, primates seem to be highly inefficient killers How do you know this applies to all primates? Most primates don't have the teeth of a baboon. You need to provide evidence for this claim. From what I have found in the profile ( carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8424139&t=9328642 ), the mere presence of male olive baboon, which mostly are half as large as chimpanzees, can keep chimps away, hence you shouldn't underestimate these guys. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jan 31, 2014 17:44:54 GMT 5
Just because some primates can be ineffective killers, you cannot say this applies to all of them. Baboons have proven themselves to be effective killers, and can be very dangerous even to big cats. Cats are very good hunters, because they utilise speed and precision. But that is not necessarily applicable to fighting. In a fight, being able and willing to not use precision can be an advantage.
Baboons can still go for the neck (and in fact that is reportedly the region they aim at during fights), they merely aren´t restricted to it (their huge teeth, large jaws and wide gapes and slashing bites allow for other killing strategies, such as severing of the femoral artery). Cats don´t seem to do that. They rely heavily on overpowering an opponent to place a bite, and that can be fairly difficult in situations where they can neither exploit their agility nor their strenght.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Jan 31, 2014 21:57:10 GMT 5
But I guess we can't forget about the claws and primate skin dilemma tho..
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 1, 2014 0:17:41 GMT 5
That certainly not. I was not adressing this fight specifically, just the general characteristica of baboon and cat jaws and fighting styles. Imo this is a matter of the size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reticulatus on Feb 16, 2014 23:13:39 GMT 5
I'm not sure on this but it seems to me the technique the baboon uses to fight its own kind has some disadvantages in this instance. The CL isn't going to simply adhere to a face to face canine slashathon. I imaging the feline would instead, before or after being bitten or slashed bite and bite hard, and refuse to release. whether this would be a successful tactic not withstanding. I suppose it comes down to whether it can get a hold on something vital.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2014 3:33:02 GMT 5
The clouded leopard 55/45 of the time
|
|
