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).
__________________
Last edited by spetznaz on May 2nd, 2006 at 08:55 PM
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.
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.
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.
This fight is between a tiger and an African lion correct?
If this fight is a Siberian tiger vs. an African lion, then the lion has no hope of winning.
A Siberian tiger is far larger then an African lion. Siberian can reach up to and over 12 feet in length (amazing animals, page 34).The Siberian tiger is the largest big cat in the world (The encyclopedia of mammals, page 18). So putting an African lion vs. an animal that is heavier then it bigger then it longer then it and stronger then it is not such a good idea. A Siberian tiger wins 10 out 10. Now I am assuming u were speaking about a bangle tiger so let’s analyze the two shall we.
A bangle tiger is quicker and more agile which should be easy to see due to the fact it is not as fat as a lion and is built to be agile. Also though a bangle tiger is pound for pound stronger then a lion and since that is the case, then the bangle tiger is also the stronger due to the fact it stronger pound for pound and it is a heavier animal on average. A tiger unlike a male lion depends soully on it self to survive. So for all who think that lion’s are better fighter then tiger’s u may want to rethink that, after this statement below.
ALL TIGERS LIVES DEPEND ON STRENGTH AN FIGHTING ABILITY (The encyclopedia of mammals, page 20). A lion how ever was not stated in this book to need fighting skill to survive at all.
There for how can a lion beat a tiger? Tiger seems to be better in every single way.
Tiger’s are the strongest and largest of the big cats with siberain tiger being the largest of the tigers.( The encyclopedia of mammals, page 18).
Tiger also have a huge leaping advantage vs. a Lion do to the fact that a tiger back leggs are much longer and stronger the that of a lions making them able to gain speed faster and leap farther allowing there hits to do even greater damage.
I another reason a tiger as a big advantage vs. a lion is because all big cats fight most of the time on there hind legs, but due to how the lion is built it is to top heavy and would not be able to fight also long in that position giving the tiger a huge height advantage.
"... When the Romans set tiger against lion in the Coliseum, the tiger INVARIABLY won..." When the Romans set tiger against lion in the Coliseum, the tiger INVARIABLY won..."
"In the Middle Ages a few lions were kept in European menageries in Germany, England France and Italy. The best known of these early zoological collections was one belonging to Henry I of England that was eventually moved to the Tower of London, where it remained until 1840.
Occasionally lions where forced to fight tigers, but apparently the tigers always won. This observation was confirmed more recently in the 1950's by a keeper in the Bronx Zoo, where a lion cub named Zambezi and a young tiger named Ranee were raised together. There occasional fights always resulted in a victory for the tiger. Alfred Martini, the keeper, described the tiger as being the better fighter, “like a clever boxer against a heavy hitter, shrewder and trickier. (Mel and Fiona Sunquist, 2002 page 287)"
The Living Edens- these were fights to the death.
Not to mention Wild Cats of the World, which states the same thing, but instead of saying invariably, they say almost always...
"Look for "Roman Times", this book talks about how the Caspian dominated the Barbary Lion at will."
"Matter of fact its says the Barbary Lion was no match for the Caspian Tiger. They seem to suggest that .
Bengal tiger= Humerous/Arm ratio= 80:100
African lion= Humerous/Ar, ratio= 87:100
---The lower the # the stronger lb for lb--- compared to the jaguar's 75:100 ratio and the cheetah's 96:100 ratio
From the HRR quotient studies: the tiger's bones showed that it was 5% stronger than the lion preportionately, and this is the bones alone, and no animal goes against the HRR law, which states that the larger the difference in the ratio, the stronger the animal is. HRR also says that the shorter the humerous than the radius, the more muscle the animal has, so compare the 7% difference in the ratio's and multiply it by 3 because you multiply is by the two bicep muscles and the bone... (7x3)= 21% strength difference PREPORTIONATELY... that means the tiger's swipe would be let's see... 415/480= 86... 100-86= 14, 21%+14%= 35% stronger, which is why the tiger was on Animal planet's the most extreme STRENGTH as #4...
Tiger are stronger then lions because there elbow to shoulder is so much longer then elbow to hand this is were the big cats strength comes from.( the way of the tiger) The lion ration of elbow boen to shoulder is a great deal smaller then the tigers. the lion how ever elbow to paw is longer making the lion not stornger but weaker. so if the tige rand lion were the same weight then the tiger would be stronger , but since the tiger is already heavier it is a great deal stronger.
ya well looking at these weights below me the tigers clearly have a good weight advantage over the lion and as u ca nalso see the tigers hieght advantage is also a good dela more then inches try a few feet.
Male lions weight around 450-500 pounds and are 7 between8.8 feet in length.
(the way of the tiger) states that in Russia and also in india many tiger were found that were 12 to 13 feet. and also states on the same page the average weight of a tiger is 380 to 570 this of course is the wieght of an average bengal tiger.
"The lion is taller, and i read somewhere or was it on a video , that they use large objects in zoos to scare the tigers from human attacks and other things because they fear larger things."
this is a straight out lie. tigers prey is normally as large or larger then them selfs( way of the tiger) (the encyclopedia of Mammals) and alone with many other sources state this, so please reframe form lieng.
"Aggression both have aggression but lions have more due to their hormones are very high and their hormones can be seen in their manes the darker the mane the more experience and stronger and aggressive the lion is."
show some prove to back this up
"Fighting both fight but lions fight more often able to survive with a pride, tigers fight but not as often being alone and being injured surtine death."
again another lie. siberian tigers are known to kill and eat brown bears and black bears.( the way of the tiger page 43) tiger are known to kill leopards and sloth bears along with dholes(the way of the tiger page 43)
tigers rely on strength and fighting abilities to survive( The encyclopdia of mammals)
so know lions don't fight more.
so again i ask what are lions actauly better in then tigers.
Yes, the tiger is approx. 30-35% stronger than the lion preportionately, which means that if we had a 450lb tiger vs. a 450lb lion this would be a good estimate as to how much of their weight would be thrown into the punch- not in foot lbs or inches- just body weight... It is estimated that both lions and tigers convert about 30% of their body weights into their attacks so:
450x30%= 135lbs- this is about how much each cat would throw at eachother with each swipe
(now calculate the tiger's being approx. 35% stronger)
135lbsx35%= approx. 47 lbs
So with two animals of equal weights (450lbs) the tiger would throw swipes with about 182lbs of body weight behind them while the lion would throw swipes with about 135lbs behind them.
Now if we change to the average weights of the animals watch what happens:
Tiger= 480lbsx30%=144lbsx35%= 50lbs--- 144lbs+50lbs= 194lbs
Lion= 415lbsx30%= 124.5lbs
That- my friends- is why strength matters- if we take an average sized Bengal tiger and compare it's strength to an average sized African lion, we find that the tiger throws (124.5/194= 64%) 36% more damage at the lion, than the lion does to the tiger...
Each Bengal tiger swipe does approx. 36% more damage than each lion swipe
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.
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
I'm certain you did not write all of that out .....for one it is too logical and has no spelling errors.
Anyways .....
The show actually used many similar measurements, and they did show that size wise and strength wise the tiger did have more power.
HOWEVER, they also showed that the power generated by the lion was still more than enough (by a good margin) to kill the tiger.
In essence here is a crude analogy .....say you are 25% stronger than I am.
Ok, now let's say I can lift 100 tons, but I have the durability of a normal man.
You can lift 125 tons (since you are 25% stronger than me), but you also have the durability of a normal person.
What does that mean?
It means that your strength advantage is MOOT ....because if I am a better fighter than you are, then my 100 ton strength is able to kill you WITH ONE BLOW.
In the show the animal expert representing the tiger brought up the strength argument, but he was quickly shown to be grasping at straws when it was shown that the lion had more than enough strength to kill the tiger with a single blow.
Thus it came down to skill ....since each animal had sufficient strength to kill the other with a throat bite or paw swipe or whatever.
And thus that is why the lion won ......the tiger may be a little stronger, but the lion is still strong enough to kill the tiger with ease ....and hence it all boiled down to one thing: fight specialization.
That is why the lion won.
Now, make a thread that has a Bengal tiger engaging a lion in a weight-lifting competition and the tiger will win most of the matchups.
However have a match that has a Bengal tiger facing a lion in a fight and things like strength do not matter, because the 'weaker' cat still has more than enough strength to destroy the tiger (lions can bring down adult male Cape Buffalo with one swipe of their paws).
Again ....it seems nice to quite strength stats, but basically in this case it is 100% moot.
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.
__________________
Last edited by spetznaz on May 2nd, 2006 at 09:38 PM
KMC Community Forums
May 2nd, 2006 08:19 PM
