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

Thoughts ?

Lion.

While smaller, Lions are born brawlers. Plus that thick mane (yes, am aware that some males don't grow one) serves as protection to the neck.

hmm Darkseid wins.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm Darkseid wins.

Way overrated character and a fanboy magnet. Wolverine would wreck his shit.

Man-Thing wins

Originally posted by Robtard
Lion.

While smaller, Lions are born brawlers. Plus that thick mane (yes, am aware that some males don't grow one) serves as protection to the neck. Agreed.Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm Darkseid wins. You seem familiar but nahh....never seen you before in my life.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lion.

While smaller, Lions are born brawlers. Plus that thick mane (yes, am aware that some males don't grow one) serves as protection to the neck. ^ Dis.

And they're not that much smaller. There's also their kill technique: tigers bite the neck from above, seeking to crush bone, while the lion bites from below, crushing the windpipe: a much easier way to kill.

Shere Khan vs Mufasa?

Hmm...as much as I like George Sanders/Tony Jay I think James Earle Jones is too much.

Tigers because they're cool.

how about: Tamil Tiger vs a lion?

Originally posted by Robtard
Rubbish you say? Let's see.

Lion's weight is close to a Bengal, though the Bengal is longer.

True.

Originally posted by Robtard
Strength is up in the air, though if you look at a male lion and a male Bengal, the lion seems to be a bit more heavily muscled. So a lion is likely stronger.

False.

The Bengal Tiger is the strongest big cat, by a significant margin. For example, it drags, sometimes up to miles, beasts that weigh multiple hundreds of pounds, back to their feeding grounds.

Additionally, a tiger is more heavily muscled, but it is not apparent due to the longer fur that a tiger has. Also, the stripes act to hide the tiger so it is sort of an optical illusion of sorts to hide how muscular and imposing a tiger's physique actually is.

Originally posted by Robtard
Female lions typically hunt in groups. Rogue male lions (ones with no pride) generally are loners. Males with a pride rarely hunt, only when they're out on extended patrols and then again, they're hunting alone.

True. This can cause a male lion to be 'softer' than his more lonely counterparts. However, a fully matured male lion that doesn't hunt as often as his female counterparts, would still wreck any single female lion (there are probably exceptions, but those would be very rare).

Originally posted by Robtard
The deciding factor is that a male lion's main purpose in life is to defeat another male lion, take his bitches and then spend the rest of his life fighting off hyenas and other male lions trying to take his pride. ie They're ****ing brawlers, this is what they do. Plus they have a mane to protect one of their vital spots.

Tiger's rarely fight each other and the fights are generally quick with one tiger fleeing.

This definitely would not be the deciding factor on which one would win, however.

Bicnarok is much closer to the truth.



Things that should be considered:

Size: Tiger
Strength: Tiger, by a significant margin.
Biting power: Tiger by a significant margin.
Teeth: Tiger.
Claws: Tiger, easily. Longer and thicker.
Endurance: Tiger, by a significant margin. On top of that, the manes on a lion actually cause them to overheat much more quickly so they cannot exert themselves for too long. Even without the mane, lions cannot exert themselves for very long.
Fighting ability: Tiger, hands down. Tigers are very territorial and fight quite often compared to lions. This point, alone, is why tigers win this. No other points need to be made.
High end Feats: One or two tigers is all it takes to take down a bull rhino or elephant, which is far superior to the 15+ plus it takes for lions to take down the same prey. This means that the Tiger can inflict deeper wounds, faster, than a lion. It is rare for a pride to take out an adult rhino or elephant...but it only takes one or two tigers to do the same.
Speed: Tiger. The tiger swipes much faster than the lion.
Agility: Tiger, easily. They can jump significantly further than a lion. On top of this, they fight reared up on their hind legs and can use both paws, whereas, a lion fights with one paw at a time.
Smarts during a fight: Tiger. Tigers hold their heads back, more closely resembling a small cat than a lion. This prevents more "death" fights but still allows them to get in "strikes." Also, science shows that tigers are more intelligent than a lion.


Why is this even a debate?


Because people have forgotten that tigers and lions were already forced to fight and the tiger won almost every single fight. Why have we forgotten about this fact?



I know why: it's because, in captivity, the tiger usually submits and runs away from the lion because the tiger does not wish to fight and risk injury. However, when force to fight, the Tiger wins close to 100% of the time. This goes back to the tiger being more intelligent in a fight. This is similar to the typical martial arts situation in which the far better fighter refuses to fight those he could easily defeat...but when pressed, can easily beat the aggressors down.

Originally posted by dadudemon
True.



False.

The Bengal Tiger is the strongest big cat, by a significant margin. For example, it drags, sometimes up to miles, beasts that weigh multiple hundreds of pounds, back to their feeding grounds.

Additionally, a tiger is more heavily muscled, but it is not apparent due to the longer fur that a tiger has. Also, the stripes act to hide the tiger so it is sort of an optical illusion of sorts to hide how muscular and imposing a tiger's physique actually is.



True. This can cause a male lion to be 'softer' than his more lonely counterparts. However, a fully matured male lion that doesn't hunt as often as his female counterparts, would still wreck any single female lion (there are probably exceptions, but those would be very rare).



This definitely would not be the deciding factor on which one would win, however.

Bicnarok is much closer to the truth.



Things that should be considered:

Size: Tiger
Strength: Tiger, by a significant margin.
Biting power: Tiger by a significant margin.
Teeth: Tiger.
Claws: Tiger, easily. Longer and thicker.
Endurance: Tiger, by a significant margin. On top of that, the manes on a lion actually cause them to overheat much more quickly so they cannot exert themselves for too long. Even without the mane, lions cannot exert themselves for very long.
Fighting ability: Tiger, hands down. Tigers are very territorial and fight quite often compared to lions. This point, alone, is why tigers win this. No other points need to be made.
High end Feats: One or two tigers is all it takes to take down a bull rhino or elephant, which is far superior to the 15+ plus it takes for lions to take down the same prey. This means that the Tiger can inflict deeper wounds, faster, than a lion. It is rare for a pride to take out an adult rhino or elephant...but it only takes one or two tigers to do the same.
Speed: Tiger. The tiger swipes much faster than the lion.
Agility: Tiger, easily. They can jump significantly further than a lion. On top of this, they fight reared up on their hind legs and can use both paws, whereas, a lion fights with one paw at a time.
Smarts during a fight: Tiger. Tigers hold their heads back, more closely resembling a small cat than a lion. This prevents more "death" fights but still allows them to get in "strikes." Also, science shows that tigers are more intelligent than a lion.


Why is this even a debate?


Because people have forgotten that tigers and lions were already forced to fight and the tiger won almost every single fight. Why have we forgotten about this fact?



I know why: it's because, in captivity, the tiger usually submits and runs away from the lion because the tiger does not wish to fight and risk injury. However, when force to fight, the Tiger wins close to 100% of the time. This goes back to the tiger being more intelligent in a fight. This is similar to the typical martial arts situation in which the far better fighter refuses to fight those he could easily defeat...but when pressed, can easily beat the aggressors down.

Tiger wins then, this was so obvious...

http://www.freewebs.com/jackjacksonj/1104124080_HKaaOb.jpg

Thanos solos.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Because people have forgotten that tigers and lions were already forced to fight and the tiger won almost every single fight. Why have we forgotten about this fact?


Proof?

Cos I googled and here's one where it states "the lion went to maul the tiger to death" and of what we see, the lion is the one pushing the fight.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4318948967926803903#


Eidt: Here's another:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2350723694252545958#

Edit: Animal Face Off agrees too. So "pwned", cos they're 100% correct.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Tiger wins then, this was so obvious...

http://www.freewebs.com/jackjacksonj/1104124080_HKaaOb.jpg

That lion's obviously a poof, so it doesn't count.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lion.

While smaller, Lions are born brawlers. Plus that thick mane (yes, am aware that some males don't grow one) serves as protection to the neck.

I agree. If it weren't for the mane i think the Tiger would rock the Lion. Tigers are bigger stronger and faster but the instinctual target for most animals, especially big cats, is the throat.

Lions are used to fighting tigers are more used to hunting. Lions are calmer in general before a fight where tigers on average are more apprehensive and nervous because they aren't as used to these situations like lions are.

The mane also provides a significant advantage. Lion wins.



Anyone saying tiger stomps really hasn't a clue imo.

The Romans used to fight them in the coloseum. The tigers won most of the time.

It is possible these animals actually encountered, and fought, each other in the wild though it would be the now almost extinct, and slightly smaller than it's African cousin, Asiatic Lion. Sadly Tigers are almost extinct in the wild also. It sickens me that any humans would make them fight.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
The Romans used to fight them in the coloseum. The tigers won most of the time. Link ?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Link ?

I saw it on a History Channel Show on TV

Tiger. Lion's are lazy-ass ****ers who just go around killing cubs and crap. They're pretty much douchebags. Tigers are goddamn hardcore by comparison. Also, what Dadudeman said.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Lions are used to fighting tigers are more used to hunting. Lions are calmer in general before a fight where tigers on average are more apprehensive and nervous because they aren't as used to these situations like lions are.

The mane also provides a significant advantage. Lion wins.



Anyone saying tiger stomps really hasn't a clue imo.

You think so? The only thing Lions are used to fighting is each other and that is only when the males are trying to find a mate, beside that the male Lions are lazy as hell

Tiger. They're forecast to go extinct by 2015. And the tigers know it--they have to give every fight all they've got. It's only the way to impress their human gods who might deign to show them mercy once Tribulation is upon them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Tiger. They're forecast to go extinct by 2015. .

In the wild. It's estimated there are now fewer than 3000 wild tigers, down from 5000 ten years ago, and down from over 100,000 in 1900. There are about 20,000 in captivity.

By 2050 it's likely tigers, lions, jaguars, and possibly even leopards, will exist only in captivity. You can definitly add all species of rhino, all the great apes, probably all elephants, and polar bears, to that list as well.

Sadly, the human population will swell to 9-10 billion further crowding out other living things.

so, what you are saying is that it is awesome man is here to stop these things from disappearing forever?

Why the hell are lions referred to as King of the Jungle?

Because they sit around on their fat asses all day getting fatter off the work of others and rape their wives whenever they want and get away with it.

Merry Christmas!

Sounds like white people.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Sounds like white people. Exactly. It's a common misconception that primates are the primeval ancestors of humans. Most humans, maybe. But white people descended from lions.


Brad Pitt's line from Troy makes more sense when you think about it: "We are lions!"

Tigers are much larger. I'll place my bets on the Tiger.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
The Romans used to fight them in the coloseum. The tigers won most of the time. Just an idea, those arranged fights may have been effected by the methods that they used to capture and provoke the animals. Starving them was a way to make them more ferocious and that may have weakened the lions more. Also you could consider that the tigers were more valuable to the romans and so they staged lopsided fights where the tigers had an advantage from the start. Just an idea of why the tigers may have dominated there, but of course I'm not sure.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Exactly. It's a common misconception that primates are the primeval ancestors of humans. Most humans, maybe. But white people descended from lions.


Brad Pitt's line from Troy makes more sense when you think about it: "We are lions!"

Brad Pitt: "We are Lions!!"

His enemy: "Yeah? Well we're TIGERS!!!"

Brad Pitt: "Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?"

From what I've seen the animals seem very evenly matched at ability to fight, and thus the tiger seems to have an advantage by being bigger and stronger than the lion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
UZV0VU1_cFE

Note that the tigress holds her own against a much bigger Lion. Towards the end, she almost killed the Lion. The Lion had given up (overheating due to the mane, not as much endurance, etc.) and was getting choked out. Thankfully the hose came along, right?I disagree, sir.

I believe movie animals are trained for things like this. Factor out the Folies (ie, all the 'roaring'), and you have two big cats looking more like they're playfighting than real deal (I've had cats; this is what they do). I believe I even saw ears up (not folded back) in many sequences (some of which looked repeated). This aside...

In the beginning of the fight (before they pull the man out), it looks like the tigress is indeed holding her own. Second half (after they pull the guy out): I see the lion getting a slight upperhand (eg, chasing the tigress 'round the perimeter). Before the hose comes on, they both have each other in their jaws.

When the water hits, the lion lets go, probably surprised. The tigress...well, it took her longer to get the message (I guess they're not as smart as lions, either. )

vtnLbzJm8aI

Originally posted by Mindship
I disagree, sir.

I believe movie animals are trained for things like this. Factor out the Folies (ie, all the 'roaring'), and you have two big cats looking more like they're playfighting than real deal (I've had cats; this is what they do). I believe I even saw ears up (not folded back) in many sequences (some of which looked repeated). This aside...

In the beginning of the fight (before they pull the man out), it looks like the tigress is indeed holding her own. Second half (after they pull the guy out): I see the lion getting a slight upperhand (eg, chasing the tigress 'round the perimeter). Before the hose comes on, they both have each other in their jaws.

When the water hits, the lion lets go, probably surprised. The tigress...well, it took her longer to get the message (I guess they're not as smart as lions, either. ) I also thought that a few sequences looked repeated, and come to think about it there was an unwounded, non-limping lion going into it's cage after an extended fight. The cats did look as if they would be evenly suited in a fight however so it's hard for me to call which one would last longer on anything except size. Did you already state which one you preferred?

Lion

What about Leopards?

HHbPMPdtYzc

Originally posted by The MISTER
Just an idea, those arranged fights may have been effected by the methods that they used to capture and provoke the animals. Starving them was a way to make them more ferocious and that may have weakened the lions more. Also you could consider that the tigers were more valuable to the romans and so they staged lopsided fights where the tigers had an advantage from the start. Just an idea of why the tigers may have dominated there, but of course I'm not sure.

No clue as to your thought but I'll add it was usually the now extinct Caspian Tiger against the also now extinct Barbary Lion.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I saw it on a History Channel Show on TV Discovery channel pitted them and lions won.Originally posted by Nephthys
Because they sit around on their fat asses all day getting fatter off the work of others and rape their wives whenever they want and get away with it.

Merry Christmas! Correction. They acquire a pride after proving themselves to be elite and then they sit in their asses because as king you would have others do your work for you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Link ?

I already provided a link from PBS.

Originally posted by Mindship
I disagree, sir.

I believe movie animals are trained for things like this. Factor out the Folies (ie, all the 'roaring'), and you have two big cats looking more like they're playfighting than real deal (I've had cats; this is what they do). I believe I even saw ears up (not folded back) in many sequences (some of which looked repeated). This aside...

In the beginning of the fight (before they pull the man out), it looks like the tigress is indeed holding her own. Second half (after they pull the guy out): I see the lion getting a slight upperhand (eg, chasing the tigress 'round the perimeter). Before the hose comes on, they both have each other in their jaws.

When the water hits, the lion lets go, probably surprised. The tigress...well, it took her longer to get the message (I guess they're not as smart as lions, either. )

Several sequences are repeated but, no, there is no "mutual hold" at the end.

And, yes, it was a "fer realz" fight with each animal taking damage. As I mentioned earlier, it was one of the reasons we have rules about animals in movies and why people take pride in "no animals were harmed in the making of this film."


Originally posted by quanchi112
Correction. They acquire a pride after proving themselves to be elite and then they sit in their asses because as king you would have others do your work for you.

On top of that, they continue to hunt (just not as often as the Lionesses) and fight other lions. Additionally, they fight off other animals such as other big cats and hyenas.

Contrast this with the Tiger that is "solo" with the males fighting each other quite often (for big cats, they fight a lot). They male tigers tolerate females venturing into their territory, but not other males. Even then, they still fight other females. Also, as usual for mammals, the females do not tolerate other males in their territory as they raise cubs.

I would say that no lion stands a chance against a large, agressive, tiger. There are probably exceptions, but they would be rare. The lion is just too far outmatched in speed (contrary to the silly animal face-off giving speed to the lion...which is wrong), strength, and size.

http://tigervslionfight.blogspot.com/

Several items indicate tiger victories. I would like to point out that the portion that says the "lion" is lazier and avoids conflict is false...sort of. The male tiger is more agressive in defending his territory against other male tigers, for sure...and Tigers have been known to be "vengeful" but taking revenge against the people that have wounded them (mostly anecdotes...but kind of creepy, if you think about it), but a tiger, when out of it's territory, will almost always back away from conflict because it cannot gamble it's life on a silly scuffle when they are solitary animals: a lion can. This also points out that a Tiger is smarter than a lion...at least in strategy.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Discovery channel pitted them and lions won. Correction. .

You mean animal face off..I saw that, but it's not a real fight, just speculation. The Romans staged real fights.

lol i pop into the gdf and what do i see? quanch making a vs thread! it's a classic debate though so thought i'd throw my 2cents in.

i'd say that most of the time a tiger would likely win the fight. it has a fairly insignificant size and strength advantage and it's bite force is also quite a bit greater. the tiger has also been shown to be able to kill a large variety of big game-esque animals from crocodiles to even black and brown bears. an interesting fact is that lions usually figth on 3 legs and the tiger balances on its hind legs--a big advantage. it doesn't NEED to attack the neck. it would go for the eyes. paw-to-paw the tiger takes it. i actually like lions better than tigers, (living near detroit though, i'm convinced a small child could take either....) but i'd take a tiger maybe 7/10. one factor that could upset the tiger applecart though is serious injury. the tiger would literally have to kill the lion to win. the lion however could win by injuring the lion. lions tend to fight to the death and not flee. tigers (according to big cat experts) will sometimes flee to avoid being seriously injured. assuming they both stay and fight to the death though, i'd say tiger more often than not.

Originally posted by leonidas
lol i pop into the gdf and what do i see? quanch making a vs thread! it's a classic debate though so thought i'd throw my 2cents in.

i'd say that most of the time a tiger would likely win the fight. it has a fairly insignificant size and strength advantage and it's bite force is also quite a bit greater. the tiger has also been shown to be able to kill a large variety of big game-esque animals from crocodiles to even black and brown bears. an interesting fact is that lions usually figth on 3 legs and the tiger balances on its hind legs--a big advantage. it doesn't NEED to attack the neck. it would go for the eyes. paw-to-paw the tiger takes it. i actually like lions better than tigers, (living near detroit though, i'm convinced a small child could take either....) but i'd take a tiger maybe 7/10. one factor that could upset the tiger applecart though is serious injury. the tiger would literally have to kill the lion to win. the lion however could win by injuring the lion. lions tend to fight to the death and not flee. tigers (according to big cat experts) will sometimes flee to avoid being seriously injured. assuming they both stay and fight to the death though, i'd say tiger more often than not.
Et tu, leonidas?

Originally posted by leonidas
lol i pop into the gdf and what do i see? quanch making a vs thread! it's a classic debate though so thought i'd throw my 2cents in.

i'd say that most of the time a tiger would likely win the fight. it has a fairly insignificant size and strength advantage and it's bite force is also quite a bit greater. the tiger has also been shown to be able to kill a large variety of big game-esque animals from crocodiles to even black and brown bears. an interesting fact is that lions usually figth on 3 legs and the tiger balances on its hind legs--a big advantage. it doesn't NEED to attack the neck. it would go for the eyes. paw-to-paw the tiger takes it. i actually like lions better than tigers, (living near detroit though, i'm convinced a small child could take either....) but i'd take a tiger maybe 7/10. one factor that could upset the tiger applecart though is serious injury. the tiger would literally have to kill the lion to win. the lion however could win by injuring the lion. lions tend to fight to the death and not flee. tigers (according to big cat experts) will sometimes flee to avoid being seriously injured. assuming they both stay and fight to the death though, i'd say tiger more often than not.

There is one correction in your post that needs to be made:

The tiger, when equal in size to a lion, is significantly stronger than a lion. The cats are built different from one another.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is one correction in your post that needs to be made:

The tiger, when equal in size to a lion, is significantly stronger than a lion. The cats are built different from one another.

you're right. oops. i said a fairly INSIGNIFICANT size and strength advantage. what i MEANT to say was a fairly SIGNIFICANT size and strength advantage. pologies for the mix up.

and mindship: LEOnidas? heh i get it.....

on the plus side, i like the surfer's odds against the tiger. and happy holidays my friend.

Originally posted by leonidas
on the plus side, i like the surfer's odds against the tiger. As long as the tiger is never worthy to wield Mjolnir, he'll do just fine.

and happy holidays my friend. Most ditto to you. cheers

Originally posted by leonidas
you're right. oops. i said a fairly INSIGNIFICANT size and strength advantage. what i MEANT to say was a fairly SIGNIFICANT size and strength advantage. pologies for the mix up.

and mindship: LEOnidas? heh i get it.....

on the plus side, i like the surfer's odds against the tiger. and happy holidays my friend.

Oh. lol


Well, size difference is not that much. It's the strength difference that is significant.

440-500lbs for the lion versus 480-580 lbs for the tiger.


Both males.


There are accounts of 800lbs tigers, though. But this is not the extreme versions versus each other.

Originally posted by Mindship
As long as the tiger is never worthy to wield Mjolnir, he'll do just fine.

lol

nice......