|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 24, 2014 3:40:44 GMT 5
This was quite a hot topic on CF so I decided to start it here as well. What are the most underrated and overrated animals in these animal face-off debates? In my opinion;
Overestimated Animals
1. Liopleurodon
It was 23 feet long and 2.5 tonnes, not 80 feet long and 150 tonnes. Many people believe that a Liopleurodon would dominate a Megalodon, when in reality it would only have a 50/50 chance against a Great White. Liopleurodon has been overrated ever since BBC's Walking with the Dinosaurs.
2. Silverback Gorilla
No, Gorillas don't have the upper body strength of 20 Olympic weight lifters. Likewise, Gorillas are regularly pitted against animals as powerful as a Grizzly Bear and Siberian Tiger, and people actually back the Gorilla! We can thank King Kong movies for this ridiculousness.
3. Grizzly Bear
Most bears are generally rated correctly and accordingly, however, I do find Brown Bears to be somewhat overrated because of the nonsense written "California Grizzly". No, Grizzlies cannot break the skull of large bovines with a single pawswipe. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that Grizzlies are pound for pound any stronger or more durable than other predators, but too many people believe that they have "Hulk-smash" strength.
Underrated Animals
1. Cheetah
Yes, they are evolved for speed more than strength, but it has become so bad that nowadays people believe that any animal above a rat can kill a cheetah. Cheetahs can actually be quite tough in real life, they have killed Ostrich weighing 250-300 pounds, and Wildebeest weighing upwards 500-600 pounds. They aren't as weak as people think.
2. Black Bear
This is the only underestimated subspecies of Bear. Many posters (on another forum) favored a 400 pound Grizzly over a 500 pound Black Bear. They are underrated, can be very aggressive fighters if provoked, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are pound for pound any weaker than any other Bear species.
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 24, 2014 6:07:48 GMT 5
Overrated
Tiger-I've seen them favored over an elephant, a rhino, a Sumatran tiger favored over a barbary lion, and wildanimalfightclub favored them over a brown bear ( and the tiger got the majority of votes). One of my friends think they have 5 inch claws, and a lot of people think they average at over 800 pounds!
T.rex- if you ever seen pivot dinosaur videos, they win almost every time. And favor them over eveything. A lot of times their bite force is way overestimated
Tarantula- people think they can defeat any arachnid or insect
Gorilla- they're not superman guys, they're average fighters against similar sized cats and bears
Wolf- they have been favored over cougars, brown bears, and Siberian tigers (1 vs 1 I might add)
Underrated
Gorilla- they're not pushovers either. sometimes people seem to forget that they are still massive, brutally strong, and have massive bites
Cheetah- yes, they are weak for their size and would probably lose to a wolf, but they are still deadly in their own right
Spinosaurus- seen as a weak fish eater who would lose to allosaurus
Vultures- they tend to be dismissed as a lowly scavenger, when they are actually very fierce
|
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 24, 2014 6:45:41 GMT 5
Overrated Tiger-I've seen them favored over an elephant, a rhino, a Sumatran tiger favored over a barbary lion, and wildanimalfightclub favored them over a brown bear ( and the tiger got the majority of votes). One of my friends think they have 5 inch claws, and a lot of people think they average at over 800 pounds! On wild animal fight club the Siberian tiger was pitted against the Grizzly bear, not the Brown bear. This is important to note, because generally speaking mountain grizzlies aren’t much larger than tigers. Siberian Tiger = 420 lbs average Grizzly Bear = 490 lbs average There’s not exactly a whole lot of size difference between the two animals; hence, it’s not unreasonable to vote for the tiger. You do make other good points, though I have yet to see someone claim that they average above 800 pounds. |
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 24, 2014 7:00:20 GMT 5
Overrated Tiger-I've seen them favored over an elephant, a rhino, a Sumatran tiger favored over a barbary lion, and wildanimalfightclub favored them over a brown bear ( and the tiger got the majority of votes). One of my friends think they have 5 inch claws, and a lot of people think they average at over 800 pounds! On wild animal fight club the Siberian tiger was pitted against the Grizzly bear, not the Brown bear. This is important to note, because generally speaking mountain grizzlies aren’t much larger than tigers. Siberian Tiger = 420 lbs average Grizzly Bear = 490 lbs average There’s not exactly a whole lot of size difference between the two animals; hence, it’s not unreasonable to vote for the tiger. You do make other good points, though I have yet to see someone claim that they average above 800 pounds. Have you you actually read that page? www.wildanimalfightclub.com/lion-fight-tiger-vs-gorilla-attacks/bid/25248/Siberian-Tiger-vs-Grizzly-Bear"The Siberian Tiger is the largest Big Cat on Earth, growing up to 11 ft long and up to 850 lbs." -wildanimalfightclub "It also has a size advantage,growing up to and beyond 1000lbs." -wildanimalfightclub on the grizzly bear By the way, all the weight estimates I've seen place the grizzly at about 700 pounds, but populations everywhere are different. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 24, 2014 7:33:07 GMT 5
On wild animal fight club the Siberian tiger was pitted against the Grizzly bear, not the Brown bear. This is important to note, because generally speaking mountain grizzlies aren’t much larger than tigers. Siberian Tiger = 420 lbs average Grizzly Bear = 490 lbs average There’s not exactly a whole lot of size difference between the two animals; hence, it’s not unreasonable to vote for the tiger. You do make other good points, though I have yet to see someone claim that they average above 800 pounds. Have you you actually read that page? www.wildanimalfightclub.com/lion-fight-tiger-vs-gorilla-attacks/bid/25248/Siberian-Tiger-vs-Grizzly-Bear"The Siberian Tiger is the largest Big Cat on Earth, growing up to 11 ft long and up to 850 lbs." -wildanimalfightclub "It also has a size advantage,growing up to and beyond 1000lbs." -wildanimalfightclub on the grizzly bear By the way, all the weight estimates I've seen place the grizzly at about 700 pounds, but populations everywhere are different. Nope. I recommend that you read this thread; theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/673/size-weight-bearsThe size and weight of a grizzly bear is vastly overestimated. |
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 24, 2014 7:42:08 GMT 5
Got it But Why did you even reply to my first post in the first place? Did you just not read the page I was referencing before you responded. |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Mar 24, 2014 9:23:30 GMT 5
Yes, but I don't take WAFC seriously. Their size estimates are more often than not very poor. For instance, they used a 600 pound specimen for a Gorilla (lol).
Anyway, two more overestimated animals would have to be the wolverine and honey badger. To some people, their aggression (which is blown way out of proportion) makes them invincible somehow. Watch all the nonsense videos on YouTube such as "honey badger owns pride of lions" and "wolverine destroys wolf and bear". The fanboyism is delusional.
|
|
Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on Mar 24, 2014 15:50:39 GMT 5
Taipan thinks that a velociraptor "simply lacks the weaponry" to kill a honey badger, it just made my day lol. People think HBs are unstoppable punching bags since they saw lions finding killing them a challenge.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Mar 24, 2014 18:41:21 GMT 5
Most overrated: Tyrannosaurus, Lion, large birds of prey, (Some say a 1 pound falcon would kill a human easily), Constrictors, wolverines.
Most underrated: Whales, Sauropods, Spinosaurids, hadrosaurs, humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 24, 2014 22:29:16 GMT 5
I don't know, maybe we can specify underrate/overrated by the public, the internet, forums or science papers.
When it comes to science papers, I would consider animals to be overrated/underated of which either outdated data is frequently cited (this applies to animals where the average size went through significant changes in the last years, i.e. tigers) or where outdated estimates are still used (Torvosaurus luckily doesn't belong there anymore, thanks to the new publication).
As for the net/forums, most was said on CF or here.
As for the public, probably all the less hyped animals are in the underrated list (since most aren't particularly interested in animals, I can't say more than that).
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Mar 24, 2014 22:38:39 GMT 5
Overrated:
Liopleurodon - I don't have to give my arguments again, why i think it's extremaly overrated animal, in my list.
Some big cats, especially Lion - Due reputation and annoying fanbase thinking they can beat any land animal, even large dinosaurs.
Deinosuchus rugosus - The largest crocodylomorph? No. 15 m? Not even close. Largest species of Deinosuchus, likely... no.
Honorable mentions: Pitbull, Honey Badger, most well known theropods, Gorilla, Grizzly bear, Titanoboa, Ekrixinatosaurus and Great white shark.
Underrated:
Most sauropods - Because of theropod fanboys. Size matters, especially if the animal is much bigger. Also don't forgot about tail whip in some sauropods.
Hadrosaurs - Even they may not the best defenders, but saying they would be killed by much smaller predators like raptors is dumb.
Spinosaurids (except Spinosaurus) - They may be not the best fighters ever, but saying they are weak fish eaters is stupid. They were certainly strong as they need due size advantage against smaller predators in their habitat.
Achillobator - One of the most overlooked dromaeosaurids. Maybe smaller and slightly weaker than largest known dromaeosaurid Utahraptor, but people should give it credits rather than vastly overestimate Velociraptor.
Spotted Hyena - Cowardly scavengers? The stereotype is as stupid as thinking all Germans are nazists. In reality they are both active predators and scavengers like most carnivores.
Honorable mentions: Ceratosaurus, Cheetah, Herrerasaurids, Kelenken
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 0:08:40 GMT 5
Taipan thinks that a velociraptor "simply lacks the weaponry" to kill a honey badger, it just made my day lol. People think HBs are unstoppable punching bags since they saw lions finding killing them a challenge. Taipan is a mammal fanboy and often a dick. I can still remember these posts  carnivoraforum.com/topic/9713068/5/carnivoraforum.com/topic/9713068/4/ |
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Mar 25, 2014 0:50:43 GMT 5
Or look at threat pack of Orca vs Livyatan. He sounded like an cretin.
Edit: Velociraptor is overrated, but the fool overrate mammals even more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Mar 25, 2014 2:20:50 GMT 5
Remember, these by no means list all overrated and underrated animals. Overrated:Big cats: no brainer; metriacanthosaurus stated the reason quite well. Bears: again, a no brainer; people apparently think their paw swipes can kill animals significantly larger or more powerful than themselves. Many predatory theropods: yet again, a no brainer. It's a tyrannosaurid and it has a powerful bite, so it automatically wins...I guess! Dat T. rex-owning/dwarfing long-legged Spinosaurus from JP3 tho. A pack of roughly 5 raptors can beat practically anything on land that's ever lived (even if they individually weigh as much as a wolverine while their prey is as big as a f*cking elephant)! Carnosaurs preyed on things larger than themselves (as if other theropods couldn't/didn't). Elephants: apart from the fact that they don't move anywhere near 25 mph (40 km/h), I think their fighting efficacy is overestimated in general, especially on a "pound for pound" basis. Despite their tusks, their size has proven to be a more valuable asset to elephants than these are, such that even tuskless elephants consistently dominate smaller tuskers; size trumps tusks, regardless of whether or not the larger elephant has tusks. And we're not talking about a drastic size advantage either, just a >10 cm difference in height, and a correspondingly modest advantage in body mass. There are even two accounts documenting fatal fights between tuskless and tusked elephants; in both cases the tusker kills the tuskless elephant, but not without being killed or mortally wounded itself ( first account->, second account->), suggesting that an only modestly bigger tuskless elephant could indeed go as far as to kill a tusker. And a tuskless elephant is by no means a well armed animal. If a modestly larger tuskless elephant could dominate or even kill a tusked elephant, then how badly would a far better armed animal of similar size (e.g. a macrophagous theropod) screw it up? Killer whale: People seem to think these things are the Flash and Batman put together in the body of a giant dolphin from the planet Krypton. Or that even just a handful of the things can kill anything ever and utterly dominate everything in the ocean (in reality, they seldom succeed in killing adult sperm and baleen whales, with the exception of minkes that are similar in size to them). While orcas do obviously use their intelligence when hunting certain prey items, can anyone point me to evidence showing that they come up with similarly unusual, creative, yet effective strategies of killing prey as large as or larger than themselves (particularly giant whales)? At least from what I remember reading in the scientific literature, they simply seem to rely on coordination and, of course, the damage their weaponry can dish out, as is expected for a pack-hunting predator. I'm supposed to believe one will come up with some galaxy brain plan and triumph over a similarly-massive, even better armed, and highly-mobile marine predator (e.g. a pliosaur)? Likewise, their speed is very likely exaggerated. The sole published estimate of ~12-15 m/s I've seen for the things that went into any detail as to how it was produced was by means of...shipboard observations of trailing orcas...yup. The one published speed estimate I know with reasonable methods isn't anywhere near 15, and substantially <12 m/s (7.91 m/s). Underrated:Hadrosaurs: "Lambeosaurine dinos lacked natural weapons, they were basically giant hornless semi-bipedal cows with a fat tail. Or sitting ducks if you forgive the pun". Those were the words verbatim of someone from Carnivora. Hadrosaurs are also commonly depicted being killed by a handful of maniraptorans probably lighter than a man, sometimes in like two seconds. People seem to like ignoring the fact that they have this massive, muscular tail at their rears to bludgeon with. Likewise, breaks in hadrosaur ribs have been proposed to be the result of kicks from conspecific hadrosaurs; their robust, heavy-footed hindlimbs could lash out with serious backwards force (with not just leg and hip, but also femur-retracting tail muscles recruited in such a blow) if they were to kick out with one foot and the other three legs on the ground (obviously they couldn't kick out with both legs while standing on just their forelimbs). If you think a multi-ton animal armed at least with a massive muscular bludgeoning weapon is just tooth or claw fodder, you need to seriously reconsider what you view as dangerous or lethal. Sauropods: like hadrosaurs, it's not uncommon for one to see them as weaponless. In reality, sauropods were a diverse clade that lasted 144 million years; lumping them all together as somehow being "hurr durr weaponless" is inaccurate. Some sauropods had tail clubs, spines, or spiked or studded necks. A lot of sauropods had long, muscular tails for their size to be used as bludgeoning weapons (and again, these are attached onto animals that often weigh within double digit tonnage mass); directed to the head of a similar-sized animal this could absolutely be serious or even fatal. At least most had a claw on each manus cocked upwards to stay sharp, and all had club-footed hindfeet armed with three claws. Phorusrhacids: mere small game specialists that got outcompeted by big predatory carnivorans (even though large and small prey specialists logically wouldn't outcompete)? Nope, apex predatory taxa lived for ~3 million years with carnivorans up in North America (non-apex predatory taxa lasted even longer). Also, not all phorusrhacids were built the same; the supposed small prey specialist Andalgalornis had an extremely paper thin, hollow beak with thin, stiff articulations and relatively small temporal fenestrae. Phorusrhacines had large bones to support the skull's rigidity and large temporal fenestrae (and the skull was wide at the back). Brontornithines and Paraphysornis ( skeleton for reference->) also had powerfully built skulls, but also had legs so robust that they're considered to be graviportal ( Angst et al., 2015). Just for comparison look at these three shots of Paraphysornis' skull/mandible and note how wide/massive they are and how massively built the quadratojugal (the bar of bone below the eye socket) is ( 1, 2, 3), and compare this to Andalgalornis->. |
|
Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on Mar 25, 2014 2:21:59 GMT 5
I was just having some popcorn during the time that i was reading the livyatan vs orca pod thread for the lulz..... I have to say that one especially amusing part of the debate is that taipan kept on parroting that one post from lionclaws and used against pretty much all of grey's, meg_man's and elosha's arguments.  He is just an incredibly insecure loser who so can't stand corrected, as he just insults and bans people that pwn him in a debate. |
|
