Originally posted by Battlehammer
for one thing you think lions are stronger then tigers even though the forumal complete disagrees with you not to mention the fact tigers weight more on average.
what the hell are you babbling about? the forum completely disagrees with me...so you pull this outta your ass like that study you posted?
also, I said siberian tigers would be stronger than lions since they're so massive. But similar size lions are stronger and better fighters than similar size tigers.
Originally posted by Master-Borg
what the hell are you babbling about? the forum completely disagrees with me...so you pull this outta your ass like that study you posted?
The formula. Pulled out of my ass? I references who I got it from more then anything you have done.\
Originally posted by Master-Borg
also, I said siberian tigers would be stronger than lions since they're so massive. But similar size lions are stronger and better fighters than similar size tigers.
African lion and the bangel tiger are the most common and thought to be the closest of the two.
Bangel not only stronger pound for pound, but bigger as well.
Lion are not stonger your wrong pound for pound there weaker and they tend to be smaller.
There not better fighters again your wrong nor do they fight more.
during the colossiem times the tiger almost always dominated the lion in battle and I have evidences to support this.
Originally posted by Battlehammerduring the colossiem times the tiger almost always dominated the lion in battle and I have evidences to support this.
just to answer this point...colisseum battles are not good evidence. they take animals out of their habitats from a young age and and therefore those lions and tigers are not representative of how lions and tigers in the wild act.
from http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html
*The tiger has a longer body, and is usually more powerful in the back legs, having evolved this way for great speed and unmatched leaping power. The lion evolved primarily for fighting, with a larger head and more power in the forequarters. Paradoxically this has made him a poor predator.
It seems obvious that there are a small number of tigers out there which are superior fighters to the lion, but across the majority of the animals, the lion would probably indeed be the King of the Beasts.
Originally posted by Master-Borg
just to answer this point...colisseum battles are not good evidence. they take animals out of their habitats from a young age and and therefore those lions and tigers are not representative of how lions and tigers in the wild act.
No they did not. they took them out as adults, not as children.
Also the lions were constantly dominated by the tiger. The almost never won.
oh and the romans favored the lion so no the matches were not rigged.
Originally posted by Master-Borg
from http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict.html*The tiger has a longer body, and is usually more powerful in the back legs, having evolved this way for great speed and unmatched leaping power. The lion evolved primarily for fighting, with a larger head and more power in the forequarters. Paradoxically this has made him a poor predator.
I give you evidences and you give me a bucket of crap how very much like you this is.
The sight extremely bias towards lions. I know the creator. They don't back up almost anything they say with any sources of evidences. They are constantly called out for there bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0AVDVUoe5U
my sources on the other hand are back by facts, research and unbias.
Originally posted by Master-Borg
It seems obvious that there are a small number of tigers out there which are superior fighters to the lion, but across the majority of the animals, the lion would probably indeed be the King of the Beasts.
The historic documented events have the tiger winning.
here is an unbiased source (it criticizes lairwebs) and very good and informative site: http://indrajit.wordpress.com/2006/03/11/lion-vs-tiger-clash-of-the-titans/
Lions: The King of Beasts
Relative advantages over a tiger:
1. Thick protective mane. It also makes a lion look much bigger, heavier and taller than it really is. This is of immediate psychological disadvantage to any animal fighting a lion. It’s downright scary to see a lion coming towards you roaring. A lioness, even if it were of similar size, wouldn’t inspire as much awe. From the fight videos, it does seem that the mane is of huge advantage to the lion. In the only fight-video of a maneless (shaved) lion, the lion seemed too easy to beat by the tiger. The mane is the biggest weapon for a lion - both for defence and for scaring off the opponent.
2. More massively built shoulders. Both the cats have extremely powerful and muscular ’shoulders’. But a lion has it more developed and stronger than a similar-sized tiger. Again, this is an advantage for the lion.
3. Role played as a fighter. This is the most important point cited by the ones who pick a lion to win. A lion is built to be a fighter - super-strong forequarters, protective mane, shorter ears, large head (compared to its body), a big muzzle and strong jaws. In every respect, it seems to have been built for pit fights. And lions do fight over territory and mating fairly often.
4. Taller structure. This makes the lion more intimidating. Also, this somewhat compensates for the weaker hindquarters.
Tigers: The Ambush Killer
Relative Advantages Over a Lion:
1. Longer and often larger size. Now this is often posed by the people who pick a tiger to win, as a serious threat to a lion. A larger yet more agile body of a tiger is really a serious threat to a lion. But this alone can not be a decisive factor.
2. More powerful back legs. This helps a tiger to leap more, to spring from a disadvantageous position and to make sudden moves. This is of tremendous advantage to the tiger. This gives the tiger the ability to rest its weight on the hind legs and make swipes with both of the front legs. When you look at the tiger vs lion fight videos, you may notice that this is a huge advantage to the tiger. Plus, the strong hindquarters allow them to attack from the side and spring from unexpected/disadvantageous corners. Moreover, a tiger makes faster swipes than a lion. Tigers are more agile than lions.
3. Skills of ambush attacking, tree-climbing, swimming etc are handy if the going gets tough. Plus, tigers are faster runners. These are all defence mechanisms for a tiger just as the mane is for a lion.
4. More stamina and power, and a more muscular built. More stamina of a tiger may be a debatable thing, though. The ‘power’/strength of a cat is generally proportional to it’s size.
5. Longer canines and larger paws. These are the ultimate weapons of a cat. Tigers have considerable advantage here.
The site concludes that lions would beat tigers if they fight in closequarters because lions are superior fighters and stronger but that tigers would iwin if the fight takes place in a forest because tigers
are more stealthy.
Originally posted by Badabing
I reopened this because it [b]was a good thread. Don't go off topic again. Thanks. [/B]
pleases? He so utterly wrong can't I respond just off topic one more time ( notthat I need to r eally becuases both my sources are not.coms and as back by many different leading experts). I just want to make sure he fully understands how wrong he is.
Originally posted by Battlehammer
pleases? He so utterly wrong can't I respond just off topic one more time ( notthat I need to r eally becuases both my sources are not.coms and as back by many different leading experts). I just want to make sure he fully understands how wrong he is.
You can always take it to the off topic thread.
That's why it exists.