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

So which one of these land carnivores would win in a fight? A Polar Bear, Lion, or Tiger? Let's assume that each of them are the males of each species because from what I know the males are the larger and more powerful of each. So which one would be crowned king of the land carnivores?

Polar bear. More than twice the muscular mass of the cats, thick fur to help protect from bites, longer/thicker claws, and one swipe will break a cat's skull or back. The only advantage the cat has is speed, but I don't think it has enough to compensate for the bear's advantages.

The lion and tiger together could probably score a win.

At size/weight parity? A standoff between the tiger and the lion.

At peak sizes, the bear comes first, then the tiger, and finally the lion.

The bear is much stronger and much larger. It also has endurance on it's side. The largest tiger (Siberian) outweighs lions by as much as 300 lbs. Its bear, tiger, lion.

I never understood why Lions were considered the king of the jungle when I always hear that Tigers would basically whoop them in a straight up conflict, but yeah one on one I could see a bear smashing some skulls, bears are stupidly strong I always said if I ever had technology to clone and combine I'd take a silver back gorilla and a grizzly and make a Bearilla, cause I bet the strength it would have would be ridiculous lol.

Originally posted by Yamcha
I never understood why Lions were considered the king of the jungle when I always hear that Tigers would basically whoop them in a straight up conflict Lions are regal and kingly. Tigers are serial regiciders. The idiom fits.

Originally posted by Yamcha
I never understood why Lions were considered the king of the jungle
Maybe because they don't live in jungles?

On average, lion habitats are in open grasslands and desert like regions.

Originally posted by Yamcha
I never understood why Lions were considered the king of the jungle... It's the mane, man.

I would go with the bear, now it also depends on the location of the brawl as each animal may fight better on its own terrain. The bear may have sheer unmovable force/weight.

Bear vs Rhinoceros would be a fight!

Originally posted by Major_Lexington
Bear vs Rhinoceros would be a fight! Rhino, imo.

Originally posted by Mindship
Rhino, imo.

You never know. Polar bears have been known to kill bull walruses, and beluga whales. They have been witnessed to carry beluga whale carcasses for miles before eating them. Large polar bears have also been able to break a full grown bison's back in one blow, so a rhino may find itself on the dinner table as well. this is why I've always wondered why people thought that a silver back gorilla would ever stand a chance against this monster, but that argument is for the other thread.

Originally posted by Stoic
You never know. Polar bears have been known to kill bull walruses, and beluga whales. They have been witnessed to carry beluga whale carcasses for miles before eating them. Large polar bears have also been able to break a full grown bison's back in one blow, so a rhino may find itself on the dinner table as well. This definitely could happen. But I keep thinking, one gouge with that horn...

I think the bear has a much better shot against a rhino than a tiger or lion has against a polar bear.

Originally posted by Major_Lexington
Bear vs Rhinoceros would be a fight!
Stomp in favor of the rhino.

When it comes to killing huge prey like gaurs and rhinos, a bear(no matter how big) simply cannot compete with big cats like the tiger and the lion.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Lions are regal and kingly. Tigers are serial regiciders. The idiom fits.

I'm hoping that at least some people got this.

Originally posted by Stoic
Large polar bears have also been able to break a full grown bison's back in one blow,

Please site the reference because there is no possible way that a Bison or a Polar Bear could ever possibly meet in the wild, so I am interested to know how this happened and who recorded it.

As for the lion, people have discounted that:
1. It's mane has evolved to protect it's neck during a fight.
2. Male lions fight. Constantly. They rarely hunt, they fight. Tigers may be larger on average, but Male lions fight other large cats on a regular basis and get good at it. Tigers are predators, they show caution when approaching an animal they are going to kill, or apprehension before they have to commit themselves in a standoff. Lions go "balls out".

Those points gotta count for something.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
As for the lion, people have discounted that:
1. It's mane has evolved to protect it's neck during a fight.
2. Male lions fight. Constantly. They rarely hunt, they fight. Tigers may be larger on average, but Male lions fight other large cats on a regular basis and get good at it. Tigers are predators, they show caution when approaching an animal they are going to kill, or apprehension before they have to commit themselves in a standoff. Lions go "balls out".

Those points gotta count for something.
1.In actual menagerie style fights between the 2 species throughout documented history, tigers didn't fight Animal Face-Off style. Not to mention that Craig Packer has dismissed the idea that the mane helps in fights, on the contrary he believes that it would actually handicap the lion due to overheating. And you got the evolutionary reasons for the mane's existence also wrong, as it primarily exists to attract females. The bigger and darker the mane, the healthier and more aggressive the lion, which means the better the type of protector a group of lion girls can find.
2.Again, actual data pertaining to the 2 species mortality rates from animal-to-animal conflicts contradicts this idea. Kaziranga's gigantic bengal tigers have the highest mortality rate among all the lion and tiger subspecies in the wild, and most of it comes from territorial disputes or mating rights based fights.

Still, at weight parity it is a standoff between both cats due to too many anatomical and behavioral similarities. At average weights however, the tiger takes it.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Not to mention that Craig Packer has dismissed the idea that the mane helps in fights, on the contrary he believes that it would actually handicap the lion due to overheating.

Actually he said ""Some people have suggested the mane's evolution was initially due to its ability to protect the neck in fights, but our data suggests this is not a significant factor," not that it does not protect them in fights.

Clyde Beatty (deceased animal trainer) stated, "I can cite a few instances of male tigers whipping male lions, but I can't think of one such case where the tiger didn't have a distinct advantage. I also recall a case where a tiger had a marked advantage and lost the fight. The lion seems to have no fear of the tiger."

Louis Roth (animal trainer) who has witnessed actual tiger/lion encounters stated, "that sometimes the lion wins, sometimes the tiger. "

You can pull up a hundred pages on this argument, and all of it leads me to believe that the outcome of a Lion and Tiger is too close to call.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually he said ""Some people have suggested the mane's evolution was initially due to its ability to protect the neck in fights, but our data suggests this is not a significant factor," not that it does not protect them in fights.

Clyde Beatty (deceased animal trainer) stated, "I can cite a few instances of male tigers whipping male lions, but I can't think of one such case where the tiger didn't have a distinct advantage. I also recall a case where a tiger had a marked advantage and lost the fight. The lion seems to have no fear of the tiger."

Louis Roth (animal trainer) who has witnessed actual tiger/lion encounters stated, "that sometimes the lion wins, sometimes the tiger. "

You can pull up a hundred pages on this argument, and all of it leads me to believe that the outcome of a Lion and Tiger is too close to call.
Now that I rechecked my sources, he mentions that this only applies for conflicts between 2 lions. Between a lion and a tiger, the mane may provide some level of protection, but I doubt it's enough as he himself believes that a lone tiger could kill a lone lion in the wild.

If want my advice, don't ever cite Clyde Beatty in a LionVsTiger debate. I can give a collage of reasons as to why he is the most unreliable source for comparing these big cats in combat, from that infamous ammonia incident while staging the lion-tiger fight for the Big Cage, to outright admitting that he purposely conditioned his tigers to be submissive to the lions, to pitting male lions against female tigers, declining Mabel Starks challenge etc.

I agree though, in general there's a lot of evidence for both sides, which is why I specifically mention that at weight parity, it's a standoff between the 2 cats.

This is my analysis of the debate:
1)Weight parity: lion-tiger standoff, with bear being a definitive inferior.
2)Average size/weight: tiger, lion, bear.
3)Peak size/weight:bear, tiger, lion.

Originally posted by KharmaDog


You can pull up a hundred pages on this argument, and all of it leads me to believe that the outcome of a Lion and Tiger is too close to call.

It would depend on which subspecies of tiger which vary in size much more than lions do. Comments by those animal experts are probably referring to the Bengal tiger which is the most common subspecies and similar in size to a lion at around 500 pounds. A lion would have a clear advantage over a Summatran tiger which weighs in at around 350 lbs but would be a dinner to an 800 lb Siberian tiger.

Tiger is bigger than lion and more sleek and agile than both the Lion and the Bear, so the Tiger wins by evading bear claws and winning with a precision bite and overpowering the Lion.