Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

the real animals which one wins?

Male/female? Age?

both males and both average age and such

Female Tigers are larger and more powerful then male tigers

Nevermind

The Tiger kicks the Lion's ass.

I thought as Wolverine8888 you made this exact thread. What gives?

As for the winner .....consensus amongst animal experts is quite interesting.

For one what sub-species of tiger are you talking about? While most have been made extinct (same for the lion sub-species, since only 2 exist to this day ....the African and the Indian Gir-forest variant) the ones still in existent range a gamut from the sheer power of the Siberian to the Sumatran. Although normally when the experts talk on this the sub-species they are normally referring to (from the four tiger sub-species still alive today: Siberian, Bengal, Sumatran, South-china and Indo-Chinese) is the more 'common' (though still highly at risk) Bengal tiger.

Then the next problem is that match for match there can be huge differences in fights. These are after all animals, and at times one may want to fight more than the other.
In the late part of the 19th century there were some pit fights where people would have a lion vs tiger, tiger vs bull, chimpanzee vs human boxer, bear face a lion (actually I managed to get a video of a more recent matchup between a bear and a lioness from Korea that was shot in the 1950s .....the lioness bloodied the bear, but then they both retreated to lick their wounds), but the problem is that it was always hard to have both animals fight. Usually one would have more fight than the other, and thus the winner would change quickly.
One time the tiger (or tigress) would win, the other the lion (or lioness) would win.
There were even times when bulls would defeat the great cats.
Remember these were just stupid fights made by stupid men, and all they wanted was some action. At times the two cats would be too malnourished to do anything, and were scared sh!tle$$ most of the time. And due to the difficulty of always coming up with 'combatants,' at times you would find a juvenile lion/tiger fighting an adult lion/tiger.
Goodness .....they even had some losses to DOGS!

Thus any of the fights from the turn of the century (or even the Korean one from 50 odd years ago) do not have any veracity .....it is simply animal torture.

However there was an interesting TV show a year or so ago that would find out which animal could defeat another ....and one of the first matches was the Lion vs Tiger match.
The name of the show was 'Animal Face Off', and it was on the Discovery channel around 2004.
They went through it in an extremely scientific manner, measuring bite strength, combat techniques etc (although it should be noted that lions and tigers are so similar that they can have fertile offspring ....Ligers and Tigons .....and without their skin it is almost impossible to tell which one is a lion and which is a tiger).

They did all the scientific measurements, and brought in animal experts, AND DETERMINED THAT THE LION WON.

In a nutshell this is why:

Male lions do nothing but BREED and FIGHT.
That is all they do!
They guard the pride from other male lions, because if another male takes over the pride it will kill all the cubs and mate with the lionesses.
This is why male lions have manes .....neck protection .....and their main 'job' is simply to fight.

Male tigers on the other hand are solitary .....they have to take full care of themselves and thus they are not as specialized. They are more specialized towards hunting.

A lion in a pride doesn't need to hunt (and with a mane it would be hard to effectively camouflage itself) since it has around 7-10 lionesses that do all the hunting in the pride.
The only job it does is:
1) impregnate the lionesses
2) fight off any invading male lions trying to take over the pride.

All they do is eat, have sex when the lionesses are in heat, and FIGHT.

Thus, all things being the same (i.e not juvenile African lion facing off against an adult Siberian beast of a tiger) then the lion (especially the African male, which is larger than the Indian Gir lion) will win most of the fights.
Just as the program showed (using scientific measurements as well as animal experts).

What the program doesn't show is how many lions are actually without a pride what so ever to defend. There are lone male lions and normally they aren't as big nor as strong as the pride counterparts because they spend time hunting and keeping hyenas and such from killing them.

Take a solitary Lion vs a Tiger (which by its nature is solitary) the tiger more times then not should destroy that poor lion.

Originally posted by spetznaz
I thought as Wolverine8888 you made this exact thread. What gives?

As for the winner .....consensus amongst animal experts is quite interesting.

For one what sub-species of tiger are you talking about? While most have been made extinct (same for the lion sub-species, since only 2 exist to this day ....the African and the Indian Gir-forest variant) the ones still in existent range a gamut from the sheer power of the Siberian to the Sumatran. Although normally when the experts talk on this the sub-species they are normally referring to (from the four tiger sub-species still alive today: Siberian, Bengal, Sumatran, South-china and Indo-Chinese) is the more 'common' (though still highly at risk) Bengal tiger.

Then the next problem is that match for match there can be huge differences in fights. These are after all animals, and at times one may want to fight more than the other.
In the late part of the 19th century there were some pit fights where people would have a lion vs tiger, tiger vs bull, chimpanzee vs human boxer, bear face a lion (actually I managed to get a video of a more recent matchup between a bear and a lioness from Korea that was shot in the 1950s .....the lioness bloodied the bear, but then they both retreated to lick their wounds), but the problem is that it was always hard to have both animals fight. Usually one would have more fight than the other, and thus the winner would change quickly.
One time the tiger (or tigress) would win, the other the lion (or lioness) would win.
There were even times when bulls would defeat the great cats.
Remember these were just stupid fights made by stupid men, and all they wanted was some action. At times the two cats would be too malnourished to do anything, and were scared sh!tle$$ most of the time. And due to the difficulty of always coming up with 'combatants,' at times you would find a juvenile lion/tiger fighting an adult lion/tiger.
Goodness .....they even had some losses to DOGS!

Thus any of the fights from the turn of the century (or even the Korean one from 50 odd years ago) do not have any veracity .....it is simply animal torture.

However there was an interesting TV show a year or so ago that would find out which animal could defeat another ....and one of the first matches was the Lion vs Tiger match.
The name of the show was 'Animal Face Off', and it was on the Discovery channel around 2004.
They went through it in an extremely scientific manner, measuring bite strength, combat techniques etc (although it should be noted that lions and tigers are so similar that they can have fertile offspring ....Ligers and Tigons .....and without their skin it is almost impossible to tell which one is a lion and which is a tiger).

They did all the scientific measurements, and brought in animal experts, AND DETERMINED THAT THE LION WON.

In a nutshell this is why:

Male lions do nothing but BREED and FIGHT.
That is all they do!
They guard the pride from other male lions, because if another male takes over the pride it will kill all the cubs and mate with the lionesses.
This is why male lions have manes .....neck protection .....and their main 'job' is simply to fight.

Male tigers on the other hand are solitary .....they have to take full care of themselves and thus they are not as specialized. They are more specialized towards hunting.

A lion in a pride doesn't need to hunt (and with a mane it would be hard to effectively camouflage itself) since it has around 7-10 lionesses that do all the hunting in the pride.
The only job it does is:
1) impregnate the lionesses
2) fight off any invading male lions trying to take over the pride.

All they do is eat, have sex when the lionesses are in heat, and FIGHT.

Thus, all things being the same (i.e not juvenile African lion facing off against an adult Siberian beast of a tiger) then the lion (especially the African male, which is larger than the Indian Gir lion) will win most of the fights.
Just as the program showed (using scientific measurements as well as animal experts).
actauly the show u are speaking about is called animal face off. also it was not a siberian tiger vs a african lion, it was a african lion vs a bangle tiger.
the show also said that what they say is not always correct.


for this fight it is the average male aferican lion vs the average male bangel tiger.


if a siberian tiger vs a african lion this would not be a debate a siebrain tiger are far more power then a lion and would win almost 100% of the time.

Originally posted by Soleran
What the program doesn't show is how many lions are actually without a pride what so ever to defend. There are lone male lions and normally they aren't as big nor as strong as the pride counterparts because they spend time hunting and keeping hyenas and such from killing them.

Take a solitary Lion vs a Tiger (which by its nature is solitary) the tiger more times then not should destroy that poor lion.
either way a tiger would more then likly win.


also he for got the mention that the lion exspert was a zoo keep while the tiger expert was the top big cat trianer in the owrld and also of the top big cat exsperts in the world and he said him self that the lion should not have won.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.Jumpy

Originally posted by capt it up
actauly the show u are speaking about is called animal face off..\

And what did I call the show?
Let me see .....Animal Face off!
Are you blind?




Where did I say it was between a Siberian tiger versus a Lion.
I did not say that.
Moreover, before I mentioned the show I did say that the best matchup would be between the Bengal (not Bangle ....that is a wrist ornament) and the lion.
Again ...are you blind?



Are they infallible?
No.
However they did use animal experts, plus utilized the scientific method.
Consequently, it is one of the best sources for this debate since it provides an ability to compare the two creatures in an equitable manner (unlike the pit fights of a century ago that would have a scared disoriented and malnourished tiger ....normally with a chain limiting its mobility ....facing 10 dogs).




And THAT is what I was thinking .....don't know what made you think otherwise (unless, ofcourse, you are blind).




Obviously the Siberian tiger is a beast, and that is why I mentioned that the Bengal tiger would be a better matchup.
Hence I do not comprehend why you bring it up at all.
I even said that a caveat of the match would be to ensure that we do not have a 'juvenile African lion facing off against an adult Siberian beast of a tiger' since it would be a slaughter.
I also said the following: 'sheer power of the Siberian to the Sumatran. Although normally when the experts talk on this the sub-species they are normally referring to (from the four tiger sub-species still alive today: Siberian, Bengal, Sumatran, South-china and Indo-Chinese) is the more 'common' (though still highly at risk) Bengal tiger.'

Apparently you have some ocular difficulties .....get your eyes checked.

Oh ....and again, did you not make exactly the same thread as Wolverine8888?
And exactly what do tigers and lions have to do with comics? There are tigers and lions occasionally in comicbooks, but this might as well be a matchup between a bedbug in an apartment in Metropolis vs a cockroach in an apartment in Gotham.

Originally posted by spetznaz
And what did I call the show?
Let me see .....Animal Face off!
Are you blind?




Where did I say it was between a Siberian tiger versus a Lion.
I did not say that.
Moreover, before I mentioned the show I did say that the best matchup would be between the Bengal (not Bangle ....that is a wrist ornament) and the lion.
Again ...are you blind?



Are they infallible?
No.
However they did use animal experts, plus utilized the scientific method.
Consequently, it is one of the best sources for this debate since it provides an ability to compare the two creatures in an equitable manner (unlike the pit fights of a century ago that would have a scared disoriented and malnourished tiger ....normally with a chain limiting its mobility ....facing 10 dogs).




And THAT is what I was thinking .....don't know what made you think otherwise (unless, ofcourse, you are blind).




Obviously the Siberian tiger is a beast, and that is why I mentioned that the Bengal tiger would be a better matchup.
Hence I do not comprehend why you bring it up at all.
I even said that a caveat of the match would be to ensure that we do not have a 'juvenile African lion facing off against an adult Siberian beast of a tiger' since it would be a slaughter.
I also said the following: 'sheer power of the Siberian to the Sumatran. Although normally when the experts talk on this the sub-species they are normally referring to (from the four tiger sub-species still alive today: Siberian, Bengal, Sumatran, South-china and Indo-Chinese) is the more 'common' (though still highly at risk) Bengal tiger.'

Apparently you have some ocular difficulties .....get your eyes checked.

Oh ....and again, did you not make exactly the same thread as Wolverine8888?
And exactly what do tigers and lions have to do with comics? There are tigers and lions occasionally in comicbooks, but this might as well be a matchup between a bedbug in an apartment in Metropolis vs a cockroach in an apartment in Gotham.
I have no idea if I amde this thread before. it has nuthing to do with comics it a friendly debate.

also animal face of show ya like I said it was the leading big cat trainer vs a normal zoo keepers.

the big cat trainer him self stated that it was wrong that the lion won and was even pissed off.

Originally posted by capt it up
either way a tiger would more then likly win.


also he for got the mention that the lion exspert was a zoo keep while the tiger expert was the top big cat trianer in the owrld and also of the top big cat exsperts in the world and he said him self that the lion should not have won.

It's called "expected viewpoints." Dave Salmoni is biased towards tigers.

Originally posted by batdude123
It's called "expected viewpoints." Dave Salmoni is biased towards tigers.
actauly hes not. his first movee was the "den of the lion". u ever see it.
dave has no preference he just storngly believes due to hsi exsperience with both animals that the tiger would win

Originally posted by capt it up
I have no idea if I amde this thread before. it has nuthing to do with comics it a friendly debate.

also animal face of show ya like I said it was the leading big cat trainer vs a normal zoo keepers.

the big cat trainer him self stated that it was wrong that the lion won and was even pissed off.

Yes you did.

As for the lion and tiger thing, the main point the pro-tiger guy was making was that the tiger is stronger.

And that is why he lost ....that was his only point, and while true (since generally tiger species can be bigger than most, but not all, lions ...although the Siberian is always bigger) the strength of a lion is still prodigious enough to kill or cripple a tiger with one blow.
Again, lions have been known to bring down Cape Buffalo with one blow, although they prefer the far safer (in terms of injury risk) method of an ambush by several lionesses followed by a bite to a throat.

Thus, a tiger is stronger, but a lion still has enough strength to do a one-hit TKO.
Thus, if all you have to say for the tiger is that it is on average stronger, you just lost the argument because you forgot to look at what the lion is capable of.

Lesson of the day:

Sun Tzu said that if you know your enemy, and you know yourself, you will win a hundred battles without disaster.

This is a lesson that would help some here in KMc (since there are those who tend to look only at their favorite character but neglect to look at his/her/its opponent .....eg Wolverine is a great fighter and an amazing character, but he is not doing anything against Superman. Thus one has to look at both 'oneself' and the 'enemy').
This is a lesson that also holds much substance in real life. Too many people are myopic, and that just makes them easy pickings for someone who can look at the bigger picture and engage stratagems with a higher level of efficacy.
Mark my words it is useful in real life.


The pro-tiger guy knew about the tiger's strength advantage, but he ignored that the lion still had more than enough strength of its own to kill the tiger.
Thus it wasn't a strength match but a skill match .....the pro-tiger guy 'knew himself,' but he blatantly ignored the enemy.

He lost ....and justifiably so.

To use your own favorite character ....Wolverine .....this is a fight between Wolverine and Sabretooth.
The winner of this fight is not based on who is stronger or has more offensive weaponry (since BOTH of them have sufficient ability to make the other really hurt), but it depends solely on skill levels.

Same thing with the lion vs tiger .....the tiger may be stronger, but the lion still packs enough strength to make the tiger go bye-bye. With ONE shot!
And it is the lion that spends its life as a FIGHTER FIRST.

Originally posted by spetznaz
Yes you did.

As for the lion and tiger thing, the main point the pro-tiger guy was making was that the tiger is stronger.

And that is why he lost ....that was his only point, and while true (since generally tiger species can be bigger than most, but not all, lions ...although the Siberian is always bigger) the strength of a lion is still prodigious enough to kill or cripple a tiger with one blow.
Again, lions have been known to bring down Cape Buffalo with one blow, although they prefer the far safer (in terms of injury risk) method of an ambush by several lionesses followed by a bite to a throat.

Thus, a tiger is stronger, but a lion still has enough strength to do a one-hit TKO.
Thus, if all you have to say for the tiger is that it is on average stronger, you just lost the argument because you forgot to look at what the lion is capable of.

Lesson of the day:

Sun Tzu said that if you know your enemy, and you know yourself, you will win a hundred battles without disaster.

This is a lesson that would help some here in KMc (since there are those who tend to look only at their favorite character but neglect to look at his/her/its opponent .....eg Wolverine is a great fighter and an amazing character, but he is not doing anything against Superman. Thus one has to look at both 'oneself' and the 'enemy').
This is a lesson that also holds much substance in real life. Too many people are myopic, and that just makes them easy pickings for someone who can look at the bigger picture and engage stratagems with a higher level of efficacy.
Mark my words it is useful in real life.


The pro-tiger guy knew about the tiger's strength advantage, but he ignored that the lion still had more than enough strength of its own to kill the tiger.
Thus it wasn't a strength match but a skill match .....the pro-tiger guy 'knew himself,' but he blatantly ignored the enemy.

He lost ....and justifiably so.

To use your own favorite character ....Wolverine .....this is a fight between Wolverine and Sabretooth.
The winner of this fight is not based on who is stronger or has more offensive weaponry (since BOTH of them have sufficient ability to make the other really hurt), but it depends solely on skill levels.

Same thing with the lion vs tiger .....the tiger may be stronger, but the lion still packs enough strength to make the tiger go bye-bye.
And it is the lion that spends its life as a FIGHTER FIRST.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the amount of fight in the dog!

Originally posted by batdude123
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the amount of fight in the dog!


Yeah and I like Ice Cream.

Originally posted by capt it up
the real animals which one wins?

In the late 1800's and early 1900's *%$(*& bastards used to pit these animals against each other to find out. What they found was that even though the Tigers were typically larger and stronger, the Lion almost always won.

This was because Tigers kill by attacking the neck of the prey. Unfortunately for the Tiger, the Lions have a thick mane that protects their necks. In addition, it was found that Lions, perhaps because they are used to hunting in packs, are more flexible and resourceful in the way they attack.

The Tiger is a majestic beast and is undoubtedly the biggest and strongest of all cats but it just isnt as good in a scrap as the male Lion.

Originally posted by aliveinboston
In the late 1800's and early 1900's *%$(*& bastards used to pit these animals against each other to find out. What they found was that even though the Tigers were typically larger and stronger, the Lion almost always won.

This was because Tigers kill by attacking the neck of the prey. Unfortunately for the Tiger, the Lions have a thick mane that protects their necks. In addition, it was found that Lions, perhaps because they are used to hunting in packs, are more flexible and resourceful in the way they attack.

The Tiger is a majestic beast and is undoubtedly the biggest and strongest of all cats but it just isnt as good in a scrap as the male Lion.

Yes, but those manes on the back of lion's necks mean jack sh*t compared to a real tiger bite. That little bit of extra fur isn't going to stop a 1000lb bite from the tiger. The reason that the mane was so effective, was because it threw off the tiger's direction and made it attack in a non-lethal zone.

Actually those manes are there to protect male lions from exactly that. Apparentely they developed those manes to protect themselves from competing male lions. Male lions fight one another from the moment they are born till they die and instinctively have acquired some pretty wicked tactics over thousands of years.

an equally sized tiger it seems is at a disadvantage if pitted and a male lion to the death.

Originally posted by meep-meep
Actually those manes are there to protect male lions from exactly that. Apparentely they developed those manes to protect themselves from competing male lions. Male lions fight one another from the moment they are born till they die and instinctively have acquired some pretty wicked tactics over thousands of years.

They've proved time and time again that the mane would do jack sh*t against the bite of a tiger. That little bit of extra fur is nothing compared to a 1000lb. bite of a tiger. The mane is not that thick. In a fight, it showed that the tiger got confused and the extra hair around the lion's neck threw off the tiger's sense of direction thus, losing.

So your saying it wouldnt do anything but then saying it would?

Originally posted by meep-meep
So your saying it wouldnt do anything but then saying it would?

I'm saying that a little bit of extra fur around the lion's neck is not able to stop the tiger's full force bite. They've proven this. The tiger's bite is powerful enough to not only dig into the muscles of the lion, but is also able to snap the lion's spine. But, what it does do is throw the tiger's sense of direction off. Thus, the lion wins this due to better fighting skills and the mane which throws the tigers off.

How about a lioness vs a tigress!

A giraffe comes and kills them both.