I disagree. I gotta go bear on this one.

Who do you think you are saying a lion would lose? A lion when he is pissed, wins. He's got the courage for the wizard of Oz. It's simple science.

Bigger, Stronger, Meaner, Better looking, Better at fighting, Much Quicker, Faster, all around fan-fucking-amazing. Go tiger.

Thank you, Scot - too kind.

bengal tiger without a doubt..easy fight

I go for the king lion...stronger and more experience in a fight

Tigers would kill lions Besides there way faster and more agile on the other hand lion`s are very lazy the lionesses do all the work.

lion`s are very lazy the lionesses do all the work.  
 
 
 
So in other words, a lion is a lot like a man?

Lions are not lazy. They spend a great deal of time protecting the pride and assist in bringing down larger prey. King of the jungle in africa. But in comparison to the tiger, this is not the case. Lions not having as much hindleg strength, can only swipe with one hand and since they have no true rival in africa by nature charge into a fight aggressively. Tigers on the other hand analyse the situation and then attack according to the movements and tatics. Making adjustments before and while fighting and attacking and by nature are more intelligent. Bengals can be as large as siberian tigers and are very aggressive. With males weighing in at 520-600lbs. Siberians can be 600lbs plus and are slightly taller due to its habitat. Tigers having there weight more evenly distributed can and having stronger hindlimbs can attack with both forelimbs instead of one. They have longer canines,fully retractible claws instead of semi-retractible like the lions and are more agile then Lions. They also compete with bears, leopards, wild dogs, crocodiles, and the rare spotted hyena, and in siberia the russian wolf and brown bear. And they are very intolerant of other males in their territorys and will often fight till the death. Plus to give an example of the strength of a tiger, guars are the biggest bovines in the world and can be 6ft and taller at the shoulder and weigh in at 2000 to 5000lbs. Tigers have been known to take these giants down also rhinos,and elephants, without a pride, by themselves. There is no other carnivore that can will match the tiger.

The sizes are wrong. The head and body length of the Bengal tiger average about 195 cm. (not 180). The head and body length of the largest well measured lion was of 195 cm., the average is about 180 cm. The largest well measured Bengal tiger was of 221 cm. (head and body) and was hunted by Dunbar Brander.

Who posted those numbers? Bengal and Siberians can be 10-13 feet long including tail. Lions can be 8-10.5 feet long. Check your facts.

Kez, you make the same mistake that many people do. The Total length its a poor measurement because the tail of the tigers and lions is much variable. Vratislav Mazak, expert in tigers states that the largest tiger (an Amur one) with reliable sources was of 330-335 cm. total length "between pegs" (in straigth line), so as long as the tail of a tiger is around 1/3 of the total length, the head and body length was of 220-225 cm. probably. But this is just a calcule. The tiger of 221 cm. (the tail was cut-off and just measured 81 cm.) is the best measured tiger by scientist. It was recorded by Archibald Dunbar Brander, member of the London Zoologycal Society, in his book "Wild Animal in Central India" (Page 51 to 53). This was a giant, hunted is the Central Provinces, now Madia Pradesh: 
 
* 221 cm. head and body (no tail). 
 
* 81 cm. tail. 
 
* 150 cm. girth chest. 
 
* 109 cm. heigth to shoulders. 
 
* Weight not taked, but calculated in no less than 272 kg. 
 
 
 
In the lion side, Bruce Patterson, in his book "The Lions of Tsavo: Exploring the Legacy of Africa's Notorious Man-eaters" states that no lion, correctly measured, has reached the 10 feet long, and that a male sheldome excede de 9 feet long. Ned Hollister report that the largest lion, correctly measured was a male hunt near the Ewaso Ng’iro river, close to the mount Kenia, and measures 298 cm. in total length (103 cm. tail). 
 
 
 
That is the correct data, all measurements of tiger from 11.5 to 13 feet long probably was over the curves or taken from the skin. The measurements of lion are taked over the mane, so very little sizes are reliable. 
 
 
 
I hope this help to clearify the facts.

Sorry for my grammar, I am not a native speaker.  
 
 
 
Good day.

it's just so obvious that the tiger wins. more agile and feirce. knows what it's like to figh alone instead of in a pride. great apes, brown bears, crocodiles, and elephants all could easily beat a lion. NOT a tiger.

good analysis. 
 
those who are talking about more fight experience for lions remember that tigers DO THE SAME, again and again and frequently such affairs go down to the finish, one is killed in the process. 
 
secondly, lions frequently pair up in teams of brothers to gang up on pride lions, not so for tigers, they ALWAYS go alone. 
 
tigers regularly hunt BIG GAME LIKE BUFFALOES ON THEIR OWN without any such help as in prides !! 
 
not to mention the tiger is way more powerful, see discovery channel animal face-off data. 
 
as mentioned the lion should be ashamed !! 
LOL !

of course, tigers rarely care about anything, even full grown elephants ! 
 
see the youtube video of the tiger attack, it acts as if the elephant(s) are simply not there ! 
 
there are instances of tigers attacking full grown tusker bull elephants amongst a hunting party and griveously injuring it.

There are many factors to this. For instance, as noted before, Lion have been known to team up in fights -when invading,- and quite often it's seen that the outnumbered lion wins via experience. 
 
Discovery has this show of whose name has left me, but it pitted animals against another. Of course, not real ones. They've taken data, facts, etc, etc, and derived conclusions as to who would win. One thing I distinctly remember is that fact that Tigers attack at the neck, and Lions go for the throat. The only advantage (minus the incentive to initiate the fight) given here is the -male- lion's mane. 
 
Now I know everyone is biased in some way or another. Personally, I favor the lion, but never, EVER discredit a tiger. I'd think the two are better left in their own territories.

I saw the show that you are speaking of mombasa and show based their decision on gathering ratings and popular opinion. Every believes the Lion is the "King of the jungle." And it is. In Africa! One of reasons I say that is that they have these so called experts, but they fail to realize a very important fact. Tigers attack the nape of the throat on small prey and attack the spine on larger prey. But! That is not how they fight other cats or other tigers. Tigers have been likened to a intelligent boxer, able to evalutae the situation and then attack. Observing how a animal moves and assesing its weak points even while on the chase or while fighting. When observing a tiger fighting another tiger, tigers will try to rear up to get the height advantage and come down on the opponet using its weight and strength to flip the opponet on his back and then applying the throat bite. Or I have seen them club the opponet until it gets it in the position to apply the throat/spine bite. In some cases when tigers succeed in getting their opponet on there backs they will attempt to rip the belly of the opponet. Also they did not take into account the longer canines on the tiger sharper claws being the only cat with fully retractable claws and because of its longer tail and being more agile, the tiger can spring out of  
 
dangerous positions into a more advantageous position. Plus I dont know why we are even having this debate because history has already showed us that the tiger is a superior fighter. In acient Roman colliseums, they used to pit the tiger verses lion and the tiger invariably won. So much so that they used to send 5 barbery lions in against 4 bengal and or caspian tigers which are slightly smaller than the bengal. And you can check this fact out on the official PBS website. pbs.org

Obviously Tiger. 
 
Fights that took place in Rome/India/Korea all have tiger statues showing superiority but yet the western world insists on putting lion on top.. it is a well known fact that Tigers are 2/3 Stronger than lions. 
 
 
 
1) Weight advantage 
 
2) Huge Canines (almost twice as big as lions) 
 
3) Mane of a lion only protects it against other male lions not tiger, take a look at the fights in Roman Collaseum/Korean Pit fights/India's maharajah of Gwalior/Kuno Project. All favor the Tiger. 
 
5) Over all the tiger is much bigger animal/stronger and more agile. 
 
 
 
lion has no chance here..go educate yourself people.

Thank you Ayaz! Finally someone with some sense.

The Lions lose everytime, I don't know why they even bother to take the field. I mean christ do you really have to lose every fucking game, maybe they should just leave Detroit we don't want em.

I'm not an animal expert but this is how it would go down: 
 
Taking your average sized lion of 530 pounds against a 570 pound average bengal tiger, the tiger already has the weight advantage. It is also more muscular than the lion everywhere. It can balance on its hindlegs and swipe with both paws consecutively, whereas the lion can't do that as well. The tiger is more agile too. 
 
But the lion is taller, can sprint faster, and the mane could provide some protection. The lion can roar too, which can be scary to some animals. 
 
My conclusion: The only way a lion would win is by intimidating the shorter tiger with its superior height, the mane, which makes it look bigger and its roar, possibly. Then the tiger might be nervous and the lion woould win by default, without having to do much. Otherwise,if the tiger fought back, the lion is screwed. Tigers are physically superior to male lions, who are sort of fat some of the time. Lions are overrated, but a lion could still win, I would just have to say the tiger wins 7-8 out of ten times.

well every body is giving their opinion, someone saying tiger will be the winner because of the weight advantage,bigger canines & more agile & last but not the least stronger hind legs---- & someone is saying that lion might have a chance as it has mane in its back-- someone also says that tiger is a solitary animal which requires greater strength rather than lion which hunts in a pride. 
Now here is some interesting facts 
i) some of the south Chinese tigers are known to be hunt in group due to high rate of population & one of the subspecies of the lion "Barbary lion" was a solitary animal(some of them are still exit in captive, though some zoologist doesn't support their captive existence),not only that a bachelor lion when left by the pride hunts alone to survive, on the other hand a tiger always prefer to attack a small elephant/injured elephant(smaller than their African brothers) , or a gaur calf(Indian bison)or an Indian buffalo calf, they never use to attack a fully mature animals of these spices--same thing goes to lion 
so the conclusion is being solitary is the not way to define who will win the fight as it depends on the environment where the animal is living & the rate of population 
ii) the tiger definitely has the weight advantage, a tiger is nearly 50 to 80lbs heavier in general or even more but being bigger or heavier does not decides the win.-- e.g- when there is a fight between Pressa Canario & a American Pitt bull Terrier, the APBT is known to be the winner in most of the time though pressa is heavier---another example is there-- when there is a fight between Kurdish Kangal dog with a Pakistani bully kutta though the kangal dog is heavier & more aggessive, in most of the fights bully kutta used to win as it has more patience & stamina--- 
same goes to lion as it lives & runs in the plains of Africa it use to has more patience & stamina than the tiger though the lion is slower than the tiger 
The size of the Siberian tiger & the Bengal tiger doesn't have too much difference in length,its the weight which the Siberian has more than the Bengal now the size differences between a tiger & a lion is not much-- Bengal tiger in general is 10 feet in length & 3 feet in height, on the other hand an African lion is in general 9.5 feet in length & 4 feet in height, thus the size is also not the determination factor 
the length of the canines of the tiger is 4 inches & that of a lion is 3 inches but during the fight all the cats hardly use the teeth as they have the fear to damage their own eyes as to bite the opponent they has to bring the face nearer-- so instead of using canines they use their paws & their claws which they use like a boxer-- now here both the animals have same size of claws(3 inches according to the discovery channel) 
now some one says that the tiger has the stronger hind legs but we must not forget that the lion has stronger, longer & more muscular & more developed front legs & forequarter 
so the tiger may be agile but get tired easily where the lion gets the advantage as they are more opportunistic than the tiger & usually when the tiger jumps it usually exposes the hind legs to the lion & the lion is expert in attacking the hind legs of its opponents(its a skill of fighting usually found in lion when the male lions are fighting with each other for the pride) 
so having a stronger hind legs or jumping a lot will not help the tiger to win the battle,it actually gives the lion the advantage to attack the hind legs. 
more over lion usually use the technique of rolling on the ground to get an opportunity to bite the lower portion of the mouth or the throat--this technique is usually used by the lion while they are fighting with each other--it might look like that the lion has been tossed to the ground but it actually rolled itself to get the grip of the lower portion of the mouth or the throat of the opponent  
thus attacking faster with more agility is might be a point to be noted for the win but not the key for the win, the key for the win is the stamina & waiting for the opportunity which the lion has more than the tiger 
the lion not only has mane on its back but also has far superior developed muscled shoulder than tiger so the tiger canine not only has to pierce through the mane but also through the tough muscles to touch the soft tissues 
thus having a longer canine will not help the tiger to win the battle  
iii)in most of the fights taken place in Asia in history the tiger came to be victorious as the maharajahs usually put the tiger & the lion in a closed ring & as the lion is slower than the tiger it usually does not get the chance or good opportunity to attack the tiger & lost against its agility 
on the other hand in the roman arena the lion is known to be the winner most of the time against the tiger as its an open ground arena & as the lion being more opportunistic attack the back of the tiger which has a tendency to jump while fighting 
iv)it has been observed that the tiger always get panicked when placed beside the lion in the circus while the lion is said to be more compound & has no tension or fear for the tiger 
there is a reason behind this ----- 
in the tiger society the tigress usually gets attracted to the bigger tiger-- so when a tiger see a lion it actually recognize the lion as a bigger tiger due to mane & massive forequarter & as the lion is taller & that's why for the survival(the law is bigger will survive & smaller will be ousted)of the tiger it gets panicked & attacks the lion at first 
while in the lion society a lioness usually gets attracted to that lion which has bigger & more densely populated mane--so when the lion see a tiger it recognize the tiger as a mane less lion & it gives the lion an impression that the lioness will not get attracted with the mane less lion so its position will not be in danger(this is because beneath the skin & the muscles the lion & tiger are almost the same animal & they can cross mate with each other producing liger & tigon) 
thus the last conclusion which i can say is that when there is a fight between lion or a tiger or any other animal, the winning of the fight is actually depend on the mental situation of that particular animal .

Raj : You're partially right but you missed out an important factor. 
 
African Lions average around 161-191kg, where as Bengal Tigers average well over 250kg+ except (Sunderbans) Siberian Tigers can go upwards of 300kg aswell along with the Bengal Tigers. It's believed that Tigers from Assam(Kaziranga) are heavier than Siberian Tigers. there is a controvery over Siberian Tiger & Northern Bengal Tigers. The modern science shows that Northern Bengal Tigers are relatively bigger than their Siberian Cousins but anyways. my point is that Size does matter. 
 
i was reading an article stating that tigers are stronger than lions pound for pound, so even without a weight advantage. Lion is considerably slower/weaker than a Tiger & let's not forget that tigers are clever boxers and have the abilities to deliver deadly blows. 
 
1) Kuno Project of India, where 3 pairs of African Lions were released. 2 pairs were shot because they became cattle killers & 1 pair ventured off to a Tiger Territory. The lioness fled and the male lion's body was later discovered partially eaten. This happened in India(Maharajah of Gwalior was responsible for all this). 
this was the only wild encounter between a tiger and a male african lion. 
 
2)Koreans used Siberian Tigers against the mightiest of African Lions & it was believed that siberian tigers showed no interest in fighting so the Koreans continued their search for a beast which could put up a good challenge for those african lions so that's when they discoverd the Northern Bengal Tigers, it's believed that Northern bengal tigers won every fight against lions because they had both the size and agression & one more thing the koreans mentioned was that Bengal Tigers get really violent in combat. Is it a good thing or a bad thing in Animal Kingdom? you can guess but to me it looks like a death sentence for the other opponent which is alot smaller(Lion). 
 
3)Roman Collaseum fights show that Tigers invariably won everytime in a fight against Barbary Lions, that's where the Caspian tigers got their legendary name but the Bengals were also used and were considered the most dangerous animals.  
 
4) Point is that wherever these fights took place. the obvious winner was Tiger. Is it the sheer size? power ? Aggression ? tactics? Boxing abilities ? Agility ? Yes apparrently it does matter. 
 
look at it this way. 
 
Apbt are considered the best fighting dogs in the world but as we all know that Tosas & Bully kuttas would rip APBT to shreds. 
 
Apbt are surely the greatest fighters in their own weight class but against a bigger beast, they are fighting a losing battle:P 
 
this is the tiger lion concept. 
 
a 400 pound lion vs 500 pound tiger is a mismatch. 
 
Tiger wins this.

Hey hrishi raj, this are not facts, but missinterpretations. You cited some data and you twist it. 
 
 
 
First. You say that the tiger just atack weak animals, but the same way goes to lions. Lions are not supercats, they are predators and the predators tend to hunt weak animals. So, don't put half trues here. 
 
 
 
Second. The comparison whit dogs is futile, because this dogs are man-maded mutants, so they are not normal and anything could happen. On the other side, the tigers and the lions are know animals and all his fights, size and weight are advantage, if they not, the weak young lions will defeat the strong and heavier resident males in all the fights, and all we know that this is not true. 
 
 
 
Third. There is difference between the bengal tiger size and the lion size. The Bengal tigers are not in general 3 feet tall, they are at least 3 feet 3 inches. On the other hand, the average lions sheldome excede the 9 feet long and about 3 feet 7 inches. The 4 feet to the shoulders is an exaggerete data. The tallest captive lion just reached 112 cm. to the shoulders. 
 
 
 
Forth. Tigers have not only stronger hind legs. The forequarters are stronger to. In fact, Dr. Sunquist says that the forequartes of the tiger are stronger than the hind legs. The hind legs are only larger, not stronger, that says Mazak, but some one change the real meaning of the paragraph and now all are quoting this, and this is false. So, the tiger have larger hind legs, but forequartes are stronger, and obviously, the tiger have more powerfull forequarters than the lion. 
 
 
 
"more over lion usually use the technique of rolling on the ground to get an opportunity to bite the lower portion of the mouth or the throat--this technique is usually used by the lion while they are fighting with each other--" The tiger do this to, so what? 
 
 
 
"on the other hand in the roman arena the lion is known to be the winner most of the time against the tiger" You don't read books of history, the tiger ussualy won in the Roman arenas, and the tiger have more advantage in open field, so it will be worst to the lion fight in open field. 
 
 
 
"it has been observed that the tiger always get panicked when placed beside the lion" You are changing the words. In Lairweb says that the tiger get nervous, not "panicked". And by the way, you say that the lioness get impresed by the mane of the lion, but in the old days when the lions and tigers were placed in the same cages, the tigons were more comun, so this mean that the lioness mate more often with the male tigers. 
 
 
 
The only true here is that the victory will depend of the mental situation of that particular animal, and this could not be measured.

i don't know what accounts u were readning raj..lions never won in roman collaseum..it's the tigers. go read a proper book next time & stop relying on websites like Lairweb.org. it's a biased website made by a person like us. no experts or scientific website! it's a fan made website. 
 
let me make it easy for you here. 
 
1) Korean pit fights = Winner = Tiger 
 
2) India's Maharajah of Gwalior's fight = Winner = Tiger 
 
3) Kehsri Singh set up 3 fights with Tigers & Lions = Winner = Tiger in each fight 
 
4) Roman collaseum = Winner = Caspian & Bengal Tigers. 
 
5) Good try to fool me :P

Yea, tigers are kings. 
 
 
 
By the way, the book "Mammals of the Soviet Union" show that some Caspian tigers reached the same size that the largest Amur tigers. So, they were amazing animals. Sadly, they get kill by the humans.

Okay. Lets get some of these facts straight. First, tigers have stronger forequarters and hind legs than a lion and the muscle is more evenly distributed throughout the body. Second is its true that tigers will go after sick or weak animals, it is a PREDATOR. But they will and have been known to attack and kill full grown adults. Animals such as Guar, Brown bear, elephants, and sometimes rhino. Its true that the that the rhino and the elephant are slightly smaller than their african cousins but it took 16 lions to bring down  
 
one female elephant which is smaller that a asian tusker. Plus there is many misconceptions about the siberian tiger. One is that it is not as aggressive as its bengal cousins and has a unwillingness to fight. There is no evidence to support that at all. Scientist who study Siberian tigers found that they are extremely aggressive and will fight to death to defend their territorys. They believe this largely due to the fact that the prey is very limited and thats why tigers have large territorys. Larger than any other tiger. In areas where Siberian tigers co-exist with russian wolves- the population of wolves is suppressed. Because they compete for the same prey and tigers in general do not like competition. Brown bears during their "Crank period" will try to usurp kill form tigers but prefer to usurp the kill of a female, shying away from the larger male who is known to aggressively prey on the larger brown bears. Brown bears are extremely aggressive and wolves in a pack can also be. If the siberian tiger where timid and not interested and reluctant to fight, it would not be able to survive in the same habitat as these creatures. Just think about it, a 650 pound Siberian tiger scared  
 
to fight a 500-550 pound lion. A siberian tiger that has no natural predators and competes with animals that are dangerous than those in africa scared to fight. Not to mention not that height makes a difference but siberians have longer legs than bengals and can stand 3.5-4 feet tall at the shoulder. A lion cant even handle 500-600 pound bengal. So its going to beat the larger siberian? Get together. Thats like saying a snow leopard can't beat the slightly larger and more aggressive leopard, but it can beat a jaguar. which is larger and stronger. Come on, get it together. And as stated before, it was the tiger that invariably won in the roman colliseums and if you want a history lesson go to PBS.org and search the topic and you will get all the history on what actually took place, the facts,and experts opinions. Also although it is true and rare that South chinese tigers and any tiger subspecies hunt in groups its not due to the population. It likely that these are sub-adults that had recently seperated from their mother and have not yet matured enough to venture out to claim their own territory. It is not due to their population because there are only 1000 estimated south chinese tigers in the wild with 2500 bengal tigers and 450-600 siberian tigers left in the wild.

I would also like to add that tigers teeth can and do play a role in determining a win. Tigers unlike lions have a shorter more round skull which gives it more bite force than a lion. The are not only long but strong enough to pierce through the vertebrae of any creature. I do not think beyond a belief that 4 to 5 inch teeth will have any problem piercing through a mane. The lion has narrower/longer skull. And for the record there is no scientifical evidence the mane provides any protection at all when battling tigers. And yes tigers do bite as do every big cat when fighting. If a cat wouldnt bite when fighting because they were scared to loose a eye, than why would it attempt to bite its prey with antlers and horns?. Could it not loose a eye or its life going in for the kill? Big cats use a combination of swipes and bites to disable there opponets. Not just swipes. There teeth are their primary weapon in surviving. You cant kill a cape buffalo by swiping at it. Otherwise they would be one dead kitty. Also if your speaking of zoo kept lions, yeah their manes arwe long becasue they are zoo kept and do not have to fight other lions. Wild lions manes are not as long. And lets not forget those manes are to intimidate other LIONS and attract females. NOT to intimidate Tigers. Plus its elementary, with big cats, the bigger the better.

i have recieved ur email it seems that u r a big fan of big cats specially tiger & i appriciate that. i found that u have some objection on my article so i m here going to clerify that------------------------ 
 
i)u told that the pittfight between the dogs are manmade, so do the same with other animals(lion vs tiger), it has never been heard or there is no evidence that a  
 
lion & tiger has faught in the wild, as in the wild one use to retreate, so all this lion vs tiger fight are man made, even in india where both lion & tiger use to  
 
co exist none of this animal use to overlap the other's territory as the type of climate & geographical condition which tiger use to live does not suite lion & same 
 
vise versa 
 
more over u told that apbt will not able to fight against bully kutta--yes u r right, now tell me is the size differenecs between an apbt & bully kutta are same of  
 
lion & tiger ? No, the size differnces between the apbt & bully kutta are same of size differences between tiger & leopard. 
 
if i go with ur word a tiger is in general 10 feet long & 3.3 feet high & that of a lion is 9 feet long & 3.7 feet high(though in discovery channel it has been told that  
 
tiger is not more than 3 feet high & the lion is 4 feet high & 9.5 to 10 feet long) 
 
so what i want to tell is that size does not matter e.g- when there is a fight between wolverine & a bear, the bear use to retreat though it is 6 times double the 
 
size of the wolverine 
 
ii)i have never told that lion is stronger than the tiger, i told that the lion is more opportunistic than the tiger, there is no doubt that the tiger is quicker but becomes 
 
tired easily too, on the other hand lion is slower than the tiger but has more stamina than it 
 
more over if u watch the fighting style of both the animals u will find that the tiger use to jump a lot & use both of its paws like a boxer, while lion has the 
 
intension to roll down to get a good grip of the valunarable lower part of the mouth & the throat of the opponent, but the most important weapon which the lion 
 
has is to attack the hind legs of the opponent & as the tiger use to jump a lot it exposes the hind legs to the lion which the lion use to attack, , thus giving  
 
an advantage to the lion---more over lion is bolder than the tiger i.e the lion does not feels nervous or panicked like the tiger,& believe me it matters alot in the 
 
fight 
 
so if the tiger is stronger,longer,heavier, quicker & more agile, then the lion is taller,more opportunistic,more compond,bolder & has more stamina. 
 
so the chances of winning the fight for both the animal is 50-50  
 
iii)differnt books are giving different information about the pittfight took place in the roman arena & asia under maharajahs  
 
there was a lion named Sultan who use to destroy evry tigers that comes in its way, but these are all controversial 
 
lets come to the recent pittfights arenged by the koreans-----it is true that in those pittfights the siberian tiger is not eager to fight thats why they introduced 
 
nepalese bengal tiger against african lion & the lions were defeated by them but do u know that the koreans use to shave the lion's mane which automatically 
 
makes the lion feel weaker than the opponent( as mane shows how much the lion is healthy & strong, it has been observed that a mane less lion does not 
 
likes to fight & retreat easily as they has a feeling that they are ill and weaker) 
 
it seems that fighting of a tiger against the mane less lion is the same of fighting of a lion against the fat less(thin) tiger 
 
if u watch the recent clippings & videos of the korean suffery park u will find that the tiger start fighting frst but use to retreate when the lion starts attacking 
 
iv)it is true that the tiger has a very strong forequarter but not as much developed as the lion, the lion has 50-60% more developed muscles in the forequaters 
 
than the tiger(most of the zoologist through out the world has agreed with this point & the anatomical analysis also suggests that) 
 
v)and Last but not the least, yes i told that the tiger use to attack weaker animals, so haven't i told "same goes to the lion" it seems that my respected friend 
 
has not read my article properly or partly raed it,---- so pls raed it fully 
 
 
 
last of all thanks to my friend raul for agreeing with the point that the result of the fight will depend on the mental condition of the individual animal 
 
 
 
&nb sp; thank you  
 

thanks for sending the mail, now frst -- the tiger's canine teeth is not 5 inches long, it is just 1 inch longer then the lion(tiger-4inches, lion-3 inches), secondly yes the big cat does not want to use thier teeth so much because they fear of getting hurt thats why they always attack smaller animals & has the power to roar to intimidate the opponent, thirdly when a lion is in the bachalor stage it use to hunt alone & they sometimes known to hunt zebras which is bigger is size than the lion, forthly, tiger's forequarter is strong, but that of a lion's are stronger because 
the muscles are more developed in that area(neary 50-60%),fifthly, 4 inches teeth are not enough to pierce the heavily built neckline of the lion(more heavily built than the tiger thats why it is taller , it is so heavily built that when the pride of lion attack a buffelo it strikes back some time by pinning the horn in the lion's neck or back but due to heavily built neckline the lion use to servive,{u might say that they live in a pride thats why they survive, but i m not talking about hunting, so dnt think wrong), sixthly, there was no direct evidence whether in the previous pitt fights who has became the winner ,because different sources are giving differnet information,seventhly, it is true that the tiger face shape are made to kill in a one bite & that of the lion is to have a better & longer grip--so what? in brawl the fighting style of a lion is such that it never shows the weaker section to the opponent while the tiger use to jump a lot thats why exspose the soft lower part & the hind leg a lot( though the hing legs are stronger but lion knows to attack the hind legs of the opponent (its a natural style of the lion & one bite is enough to disbalance the mightest animal like elephant so tiger is not a big one), and last for not the least, south chinese tiger dont hunt in a group due to left by their mother but this is because the population rate in a particular area there is very high & also the legendary barbary lion was a solitary hunter---- this is because beneath the skin & the muscles lion & tiger are almost the same animal , 
moreover i will also like to add that studies has shown that the lion's mane is really aprotector in its front part(most of the scientists & the zoologist in the world has agreed with this point) 
i know that u r a big fan of tiger nor i m an enemy of tiger & i know that u r not also an enemy of lion, so lets make it clear enough strength cannot be the ultimate weapon to win a fight, the animal which has more stamina & is more opportunistic will have the advantage to win the fight, which the lion has more than that of a tiger 
last of all the i have already informed & again informing the fight will depend on the mental condition of the individual animal 
thank u

vv

Hi Hrishi Raj, I think that you are from India, if you not, please forgive me. I love India and I will like to travel to that beautifull country. 
 
 
 
Well get to the point showe. 
 
 
 
Firts: The fights are obviously man maded, but what I said is that the dogs itself are man-maded. In other words, you can't compare natural animal whit unnatural brutal animals. By the way, the kangal dog is the best fighter and will kill an Apbt whit no problems, why, because IT IS MORE BIG.  
 
 
 
Sorry man, but in real world , SIZE DOES MATTER. 
 
 
 
Second: You actually have seen a bear running from a wolverine. There are manny miths abouth them, but I think that the bear is not frigtning, but nervous that this little thing is running and bitting you. It is like a angry chiwawa attack you, and you don't not what to do. 
 
 
 
Third: Discovery channel say a lot, but you most go to the scientific papers. Discovery say that the siberian tiger measured 4 m long, but in the actual measurements that wasn't correct. Just an example. 
 
 
 
Forth: The tiger and the lion have about the same stamina, the diference is irrelevant. The lion don't roll down, the lion fight in front of his oponnent. He trie to reach the head and shoulders of its opponets and bite them. So the do use they fangs. They do not attack the hind lengs, the tiger to.  
 
 
 
Fifth: Tigers don't enter in panic in front of lions, just nervous, acording to Clide Beaty, and all we know that Clide was a lion fan. So his testimony most by put in test. Who wave see the older korean pitt fights? The only place were the asiatics shaved the lion mane was in the horrible place call "Everland". And by the way, that figths are not evidence, all are edited by tiger or lion fans. Who know what happen in the reality. 
 
 
 
If the lion have an 50-60% more muscle in the forequarters, then the lion most by a smilodon. Sorry man, read more and you will see, nobody say that the lion have more muscles in the forequartes. It's all the contrary, tigers have more developed the front and the hind legs than the lion. I cite you Dr. Sunquist, cite me you a reference of the contrary? 
 
 
 
Well at the end, bouth of us have a point in commun: the result of the fight will depend on the mental condition of the individual animal, and this, like in the people, can't be measured or be generalize to a species. 
 
 
 
Sea latter.

...ayaz, it is the lion which is the usual winner. 
 
 
 
those fights staged by kesri did not much last long. the lion was first to attack, but had to retire after a fw smacks from the tiger. but then, the tiger did not follow up his attack, and neither animal was seriously injured. however, in that connection, the indian ruler, jam sahib, staged 4 battles between lions and tigers, and on all of which the lion won. 
 
 
 
in the book 'lions` n` tigers` n` everything, a lion ended up killing an adult male bengal, though the latter was ptreviously stated as being the better fighter. 
 
 
 
clyde beatty has also mentioned a case where a lion killed a tiger named puna. 
 
 
 
one of his lions, named sultan, took on and whipped evry tiger in his act. another lion, named duke, tore up nearly every tiger as well, male or female, according to beatty. 
 
 
 
...animal trainer loius roth, witness to many lion-tiger brawls, concludes none of the theories are accurate. sometimes the lion wins, sometimes the tiger. and, as far as i know, there is only one record from the coliseum in which the lion and tiger has fought, and the tiger won, according to martial. however, manfredi states the account as being 'surprising' hinting that perhaps that was not the usual case. 
 
 
 
lions would, on average, be the usual victors.

....studies indicate both lionsand tigers weigh an average of about 420 lbs.  
 
 
 
A.A. Dunbar Brander weighed a total of 42 tigers, with a mean weight of 420 lbs, for a gorged animal, no less. in the book a lion`s life', i believe, the lion is stated to weigh an average of about 420 lbs, with an average length of 9 ft. schaller reports the same length for adult male tigers of india, for which he quotes from finn. 
 
 
 
...it would seem that, according to the majprity of records (and, i have MANY more)lions and tigers are of equal mass. no study indicates tigers weigh over 2509 kg on average/ if so, i`d like to see it. 
 
 
 

Finally we met Boldchamp-Damon. It is time to stop all the lies that you are spreading in the web. 
 
 
 
First: You always are selecting just the info that you can use and hide the info that shows your mistakes. Clyde Beaty is not a good source because, like many Americans of that time, are biased for the lion. The lion don't win on average or mostly of the time. Actually, nobody knows, because like Hrishi Raj say, there is no record of a wild fight between these two beasts. It is important to mention that the famous fight in the Gir forest is a lie, because the tiger has never inhabited that part of India, they just have reached the northern part of the state of Gujarat. And besides, it is not estrange that no one report tiger-lion fight in ALL the Indian territory?, it is like the only one who likes fight is the humans, but the tiger and the lions prosper and they never attack each other. This is a sign that the tigers and the lions CAN live together and avoid each other; there is not such thing as "lion domination" or "tiger domination". 
 
 
 
Second: THE TIGER IS THE LARGEST FELINE IN ACTUAL HISTORY. Stop saying the contrary please. You always take information and twist it. There are many averages sizes recorded for the Bengal tiger. Brander is just one. You forget Meinertzhagen who give an average of 216 kg., or Karanth with 217 kg, or Sunquist with 235 kg. I personally take a sample of 26 males and make an average of 212 kg with the smaller male weighing 130 kg (a man-eater of the Sundarbans). The highest average weight recorded for a lion is 202 kg, and ALL the other average weights are less than 195 kg. So this shows that the Bengal tiger IS LARGER, by a significative margin, than the lion, period. 
 
 
 
By the total length, Schaller don't give that figure, he just copy it from Finn (1929), and remember, Schaller don't measured tigers in his study, that was not his objective, his objective has study the tiger in an ecological level. So, he don't put much importance to the sizes and just copy and paste other info. 
 
 
 
Total length is not a good size measurement because the tail is very variable (I state it before). The shortest Bengal tiger measured in straight line by scientist measured 185 cm. head and body length, while the largest was of 204 cm. However, the good Brander give us a jewel, a male with this measurements: 
 
* 221 cm. head and body (no tail).  
 
 
 
* 81 cm. tail.  
 
 
 
* 150 cm. girth chest.  
 
 
 
* 109 cm. height to shoulders.  
 
 
 
* Weight not taked, but calculated in no less than 272 kg.  
 
 
 
These weight its completely real, because the heaviest tiger recorded by scientist in Nepal weighed more than 270 kg (Dinerstein, 2003). 
 
 
 
The largest male lion measured in scientific report: Ned Hollister report that the largest lion, correctly measured was a male hunt near the Ewaso Ng’iro River, close to the mount Kenia, and measures 298 cm. in total length (103 cm. tail).  
 
 
 
Big difference, so the lions are lighter and have a shorter body than the tigers. Scientific fact. 
 
 
 
Conclusion: 
 
*Tiger-Lion fights: 50-50 at the beast. 
 
*Tiger are larger and heavier than lion. 
 
 
 
Not much dificult. 
 

why am i not surprised? Bold_chump aka damon aka jimmy aka brentlion has a reputation of lying to people and spreading lies about the lions and tigers. 
 
Tigers were the usual winners of Roman Arenas, same can be said for both India and Korea. Hence the tiger statues that they have in Roman proves that Tigers always won against Lions. All the history books, scientific data tells us that historically tiger has trumped lion in a fight. Despite all the propoganda from the West side.. Tiger is still people's first choice. 
 
it's just so bloody obvious 
 
1) Size 
2) Agility 
3) Dtronger pound for pound 
4) Boxing technique 
5) bigger canines that can bite through the mane of lions. 
 
 
stop your lies bold_chump..no one likes u over the internet because of ur reputation of lying and spreading propoganda..get a life while your at it... 

ayaaz, what lies?.......according to most studies, there is little, if any difference in the relative size of these animals. 
 
 
 
15 adult male tigers, weighed mostly in the terai, and whose measurements were reported in the book 'jungle trails in northern india', weighed an average of 428 lbs, exactly. 
 
 
 
dunbar brander weighed a total of 42 adult male tigers, from central india, with an average weight of 420 lbs, for a gorged specimen, no less! 
 
 
 
......it seems tigers are no larger than lions. those tigers measured by sunquist weigh an average of 221 kg, adjusted for food content, as, according to sunquist, they ate an average of 14 kg a day feeding upon baits.  
 
 
 
5 adult male lions, whose figures were reported by charles pitmann, and who says they were accurately documented, as eyewitness accounts verify the figures, gives an average of 217 kg, scarcely any different. 
 
 
 
there is not but ONE record (unless you can disprove me) of a fight between the lion and tiger in the roman coliseum, as reported by martial, in his 12 epigrams, and later revised by manfredi, who states the win as being 'surprising', possibly hinting it may have been an unsual occurence. 
 
 
 
also, it is obvious the role the mane of the lion plays in a fight. when a tiger goes for a bite, whether then reach the vulnerable neck joint, he may, in certain instances, misjudge the distance and instead get a mouthful of mane.  
 
 
 
and, raul, when did meinertzhagen give an average of 216 kg?....show me the document. also, karanth reported an average of 217 kg, for only 3 adult male specimens....hardly any significant number. 
 
 
 
and, as i`ve said before, adjusted for food content, those tigers measured by sunquist weigh an average of 221 kg, only slightly more than the highest reported average, for adult male lions. 
 
 
 
also, cyde did not merely state the lions were superior to tigers. rather, he made a statement based upon long experience, and certainly gave plenty of credit to the tiger as a fighter. 
 
 
 
he has said "people often say i`m prejudiced on the subject. if i am, it is a prejudice born of experience. the sum total of what i have witnessed in the arena tells me over an over again that the lion is the king of beasts, or at least the mightest of the big cats."

...raul, i explained everything in my last post, so read all of it. it is not biased, nor selective.

....also, raul, tigers are not longer than lions. schaller, as i have mentioned, gives an average length of 9 ft for adult male tigers, which he quotes from finn. 
 
 
 
dunbar brander gives an average length of 9 ft, 3 in. for 42 adult male specimens, from central india. 
 
 
 
here are some measurements of lions; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/420poundlion.jpg 
 
 
 
...accoridng to the above mentioned document, the lions average 9 ft, and, this was of measurememnts between pegs. dewalt gives an averag body length of 6.5 ft for male lions, with tail length of approximately 3 ft. it would seem tigers are no longer than lions. 
 
 
 
also, the longest accurately measured lion was 10, 11 in., not 293 cm. check this out; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-1.jpg 
 
 
 
the longest accurately measured tiger, by comparison, as given in the same book from i received the above quoted document, was 10ft, 7 in. 
 
 
 
the heaviest recorded lion, measured in a small town in zimbabwe, weighed in at 438 kg, which can be found in google wiki search. now, as to the reliability of this figure, i`m uncertain. however, the record stands, and this is larger than the largest recorded wild tiger. not that i believe lions to be the larger (in don`t). in fact, i believe both animals to be of equal measurements, and records upon the average body mass of these animals, over a wide population, show figures which are nearly equal in numbers.

in my last post, i meant to say that the longest accurately measured lion was 11 ft., as the source mentions.  
 
 
 
it seems tigers have no advantage, when it comes to size.

Damon, again with your twisted data, good, but twisted. 
 
 
 
“15 adult male tigers, weighed mostly in the terai, and whose measurements were reported in the book 'jungle trails in northern India', weighed an average of 428 lbs, exactly”  
 
Well, all we know that Sir Hewett don’t state the age of his tigers, besides in a population it is obvious that the younger are more, and weight less. As matter of fact, the 1-3 years old male tiger weight about the same as the 1-3yeras old male lions, that is not surprise to me (sadly for some tiger fans it is), but at the age of 3.5 years, the tiger begins to weight more, specially if he became in a territorial male. So, yes, the tiger and the lion could have the same average weight if we count ALL the ages, but if we count just males 3.5-7years, the tiger will weight more, with males normally from 220-260, and sometimes to 270 kg. The lions in the other hand, range (at 3.5-7 years) from 190-240 kg, sometimes up to 260 kg, as the official record suggest. 
 
 
 
“Brander weighed a total of 42 adult male tigers, from central India, with an average weight of 420 lbs, for a gorged specimen, no less!” 
 
I have a record of males averaging 189 kg in central India, so what?. It is stated that the males in central India weight less than those in the north or the south. Again, Brander wasn’t a scientist, so we can’t know the method he chose for determinate the age of the beast. At this time, no one scientist have found a male of 4 years old weighing less than 200 kg, apart form Sundarbans, of course. 
 
 
 
“......it seems tigers are no larger than lions. those tigers measured by sunquist weigh an average of 221 kg, adjusted for food content, as, according to sunquist, they ate an average of 14 kg a day feeding upon baits. Adjusted for food content, those tigers measured by sunquist weigh an average of 221 kg,”  
 
This is really funny, it’s like you know more than Dr. Sunquist!!! Ja ja ja, Dr. Sunquist say that the heaviest beast have not eat his bait entirely. However, the weight of a normal feline most have some stomach content, this is true even in humans. So, a normal tiger-lion will have at least about 5-7 kg of meat in there bellies. So, don’t changes the data, Dr. Sunquist say 235 kg, so it is 235 kg. 
 
 
 
“5 adult male lions, whose figures were reported by charles pitmann, and who says they were accurately documented, as eyewitness accounts verify the figures, gives an average of 217 kg, scarcely any different.” 
 
He says…, ohhhh, that interesting. Who has Charles Pitmann? I don’t find it. Well, it is not important because he doesn’t give a scientific data, and this average could be from males from 200 to 220 kg. So, at the end, an average weight is not credible if its not accompanied by its range and his standard deviation. That is a scientific record. Adding weight and dividing them is not accurate. 
 
 
 
“Raul, when did meinertzhagen give an average of 216 kg?....show me the document. also, karanth reported an average of 217 kg, for only 3 adult male specimens....hardly any significant number. “ 
 
In this matter, I most tell you that I’m sad. I lost the document when I have this reference, so I can’t defend this data. However, like you live in USA, it is more easy for you to find this data, I remember that the book was something about mammals, I think is “The weight of some mammals” or “South India mammals” or something like that. You can find it? Sorry, I can’t help you. In the case of the Dr. Karanth range, it is true, it was just 3 males (209-227kg), but in his book “Hulirayana Akashvani” (“Tiger cameras” I think), mention the weight of 3 other males: 230 kg, 250 kg and 257 kg. So, at the end, the average weight could be higher. Dr. Karanth have probed that the male tiger of south India range among the largest of all India. After all, it is important to mention that a tiger of 250-260 kg is very large, not rare, but large, and these weights are just reached by the dominant males. 
 
 
 
“Clyde has said "people often say i`m prejudiced on the subject. if i am, it is a prejudice born of experience. the sum total of what i have witnessed in the arena tells me over an over again that the lion is the king of beasts, or at least the mightest of the big cats." 
 
Ohhhh, so if a Killer says that he is innocent, even with the video evidence that show his atrocities, you will believe in him? I will not give a penny from this evil tamer. 
 
 
 
By the way, I repeat you, Dr. Schaller doesn’t measured tiger, he just copy and paste other data, so he didn’t give an average size of nine feet. 
 
 
 
“Brander gives an average length of 9 ft, 3 in. for 42 adult male specimens, from central India.” 
 
Like all we know, the tigers in central India are shorter than that of the north or the south. Just look B2 or his sons, they are very stocky, but their bodies are very short. The Rajbhera male is the exception, because he have a large body, sadly, no one have measure him, after all, scientist are more preoccupied for the conservation of the tiger than its size.  
 
 
 
“dewalt gives an averag body length of 6.5 ft for male lions, with tail length of approximately 3 ft. it would seem tigers are no longer than lions.“ 
 
Well, Dr. Dewalt Keet don’t say that, he says “roughly”, so he is not giving a scientific data, just an estimation, it is like he is saying that the male lions almost reach 6.5 feet long (198 cm.) this is more exact. Dr. Bruce Patterson states that the male lion SHELDOME exceed de 9 ft. long (274 cm) So, the correct average length of the males are about 6 ft. (180 cm.). This is proved by Dr. Schaller in his book “The Serengeti lions”, he doesn’t measure them, but the data don’t come from hunters. Ned Hollister gives an average size of the body of 180 cm., Heptner and Sludskii to. And if you look in the books, the average size of the male lions is of 9 ft. The average head and body length for tiger is about 190-195, at least in the northern part of they territory. The shortest male tiger reported by Pocock was a male of 6 ft, the shorter!!! And the largest, the Brander’s giant of 7ft 3in. All this, measured between pegs. So, the tiger is larger in body that the lion.

Lets see more. 
 
 
 
”the longest accurately measured lion was 10, 11 in” 
 
I forget mention something. If we take the hunting records, the largest male lion measured between pegs was a male of 302 cm. in total length, reported by F. Selous. However, the Guinness records reports this three males of 333, 333 and 335 cm. However, you most take in count that there is not more data about them and this is very suspicious. There is not tail length, body length, chest girth, nothing. This data (lion of more than 330cm.) is very cited in much places but it is not reliable. Well, at the end, Dr. Brakefield, when he cite the largest lion at 333 cm. long, says that this are freakish, and that normally, the tigers have longer bodies than the lions. 
 
 
 
For the tiger, is other history, the largest tiger is well measured in all sense. 322 cm. total length, head and body of 213 cm. (8 cm., shorter than the largest Bengal male recorded), chest girth of 140 cm. (10 cm less than the male of Brander). As you can see, this is maybe the LONGEST, not the Largest. Many books twist the words. The Maharaja of Cooch Behar measured his tigers between pegs and his largest was of 218 cm. head and body. And try to don’t use the total length because is very deceptive. An example: 
 
Largest tiger recorded by Dr. Sunquist: 310 cm, but 113 was tail. 
 
Largest tiger recorded by Dr. Karanth: 311 cm, and 107 was tail. 
 
The largest of them, the tiger of Dr Karanth: 204 cm. against 197 cm. 
 
 
 
You see, the lion of 333 could have a large tail. Look the measurements of Holister, the tails of the lions represents about 34.6% of the total length, so its head and body length could be about 218 cm, but this is just speculation. At the end, it is better to stay with scientific data, or at least with complete data.  
 
 
 
“the heaviest recorded lion, measured in a small town in zimbabwe, weighed in at 438 kg.” 
 
I can’t find this record, but when I put 438 Lb, surprise!!! a lot of lions arise. The heaviest lion reached the 313 kg according with Guinness, but was a man-eater. The heaviest tiger reached 388.7 kg and was a cattle-eater. As you can see, this animals are fat, gorged and are freaks. Normal lions and tigers don’t weight this. The records are useless in comparisons, as Sir Hewett says, and these two animals are one in a thousand, so it is better if we don’t use them. Even I think that these animals could be easily killed by the scientific records, the tiger of 270 kg and the lion of 260 kg. 
 
 
 
Finally, don’t get my wrong, I am not saying that the tiger is FAR bigger than the lion, because the differences between them are little, about 10 cm. longer and 20 kg heavier on average, in the case of the tiger. But these little differences make the DIFERENCE. The tiger is larger than the lion, by a relative margin, but is larger. By the way, I don’t care who wins, the experts and the evidence says 50-50 and this is good for me. Just, don’t twist the data, tiger > lions. 
 

...hey, what happened to my last comment?....

raul, brander gives an average length of 9ft, 3in. for his male tigers. where does he give note to the body length of his specimens, in his book?....because, i have his records, but i failed to see where he gave this info. 
 
 
 
also, dewalt did not say the body of his lions were 'roughly' 6.5 ft in length. rather, that was form a second-hand source. 
 
also, miennertzhagen was a hunter. 
 
 
 
 
 
and, dr. patterson only weighed but two lions, so his opinion, though appreciated, is without merit. 
 
 
 
sunuist has told me, via email, that he did not adjust the weight of his tigers, for food content, but his documents show they ate an average of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits, so their average weight, adjusted for food content, is 221 kg. 
 
 
 
also, both sunquist and karanth gave measurements of tigers 'over curves', not between pegs. lions average 9ft in length, as the source which i showed in one of my previous posts suggests. 
 
 
 
finn likewise reports an average length of 9ft for adult male tigers, of india, in which 3 ft of their total length was that of the tail, while brander gives an average length of 9ft, 3in., scarcely any different. 
 
 
 
the weight of 18 adult male lions, repirted by smithers and wilson, was 202 kg, with an average length of 9ft, 1 and 1/4 in.; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionsizeandlength.jpg 
 
 
 
also, the maharaja of cooch behar measured his animals 'over curves', apart from a few (as i have ALL of his records) and states that measurements 'between pegs' at that time, was a fairly new method of measurement, and he lists the length of his males as given 'over curves'. 
 
 
 
also, here is the source of the 438 kg lion; 
 
 
 
 
 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_largest_lion_ever_recorded&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=Largest_lion_on_record 
 
 
 
also, a total of 41 adult male lions, weighed by smuts, weighed an average of 187.5 kg, adjusted for food content, as given in his book 'lions'. for comparison, the average weight of at least 13 adult male siberians weighed by the siberian tiger project, was 187.3 kg or so, majority of whom were stated as being in fair to very good condition, except but one male, who weighed 126 kg and was obviously very emaciated. here are those figures here; 
 
 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/1456?page=1 
 
 
 
also, it should be noted that meinertzhagen was a hunter, though his figures were, i believe, based upon actual measurements. an average weight of 217 kg is given for 5 adult males, by charles pitmann, in his book 'the game warden takes stock'. 
 
 
 
also, heptner and sluduski reports figures of tigers measured over curves, as i`ve seen those figures as reported in the book 'mammals of the soviet union'. 
 
 
 
and, i do not believe clyde to be cruel. he did not stage any lion-tiger battles, rather, they were part of the script, and he wanted to show audiences what would happen when a lion and tiger are placed together. the plan was to stop the fight when there was a clear winner. however, it did not quite work according to plan, and the lion ended up killing the tiger, before he could intervene. while beatty did spray the tiger with ammonia (to get the anoimal to release his hold upon the lion`s mane, to renew the fight) it was obvious that had very little effect upon the outcome of the battle. 
 
 
 
and, in what way did i twist any data?..... 
 
 
 
also, many experts who actually comment on the suaul winner between a lionand tiger are merely expressing opinion. but, i have a great many records of lions defeating tigers, and clyde too, has witnessed many battles, which were accidental. 
 
 
 
and, selous only ever reports the figures of 3 adult male lions, scarcely a conclusive figure. 
 
 
 
it seems, as you can tell from my above written statements, there is little, if any, difference in the average body mass of lions and tigers. 
 
 
 
the average tail length of lions is about 3ft, the same as that given by finn, whose figures which is quoted by schaller. 
 
 
 
also, i have schaller`s records from 'the serengeti lion', and i see no mention of the average body length of the lion, though i do believe, and, you can tell by reading my presvious statements, the average lion is 6ft long, from the head to the insertion of the tail, total length being 9ft. 
 
 
 
it seems that, accoridng to most records, lions and tigers are of equal proportions.  
 

...i meant to say in my last post that bruce patterson only measured but two lions, so his opinion, though appreciated, is without merit. 
 
 
 
also, karanth gives a range of the length of a tiger which is very similar to the figures schaller reports for lions. most other records only give figures of the measurements of tigers, over curves. but, here is a record of tigers measured 'over curves' in which the average length of these animals was 9ft, 3in. or so; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigeraveragelength.png 
 
 
 
...it would seem that tigers are no longer than lions.

Let's begin again. 
 
 
 
“Raul, brander gives an average length of 9ft, 3in. for his male tigers. where does he give note to the body length of his specimens, in his book?....because, i have his records, but i failed to see where he gave this info.” 
 
It is weird that you have “all” those records and you can’t see the measurements of the beast. In the 53 page is stated the measurements of the beast, apart from that, Pocock in “Mammalia” (1938) give a list of tiger measured between pegs and the first in the list is the huge male of Brander. So, look better, I think that a lion is closing your eyes.  
 
 
 
“also, dewalt did not say the body of his lions were 'roughly' 6.5 ft in length. rather, that was form a second-hand source.”  
 
Well, if that is the case, where is the principal reference? 
 
 
 
“also, miennertzhagen was a hunter.”  
 
Someone say something different? I just say that he establish an average weight, but given that I lost the document whit this info, I prefer not to use this data until I find it again.  
 
 
 
and, dr. patterson only weighed but two lions, so his opinion, though appreciated, is without merit.  
 
Ok, but it is not important, because I don’t cite him about weight. I say that he establish, together with almost all the hunting literature, that the average LENGTH of the male lion SHELDOME exceed of nine feet. I don’t say that he weighed something, he don’t say it in his book. 
 
 
 
“sunuist has told me, via email, that he did not adjust the weight of his tigers, for food content, but his documents show they ate an average of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits, so their average weight, adjusted for food content, is 221 kg.”  
 
Yes, but Dr. Sunquist say to that at least, the largest tiger has not eat all his bate. By the way, Dr. Sunquist has told you that are correct this data? I going to Email him about what you are posting. 
 
 
 
“also, both sunquist and karanth gave measurements of tigers 'over curves', not between pegs. lions average 9ft in length, as the source which i showed in one of my previous posts suggests.”  
 
Well, that new for me, I going to ask Dr. Sunquist. With Dr. Karanth its different, I don’t have his email. The average male lion actually average 9 feet, that what I have tried to tell you. 
 
 
 
“finn likewise reports an average length of 9ft for adult male tigers, of india, in which 3 ft of their total length was that of the tail, while brander gives an average length of 9ft, 3in., scarcely any different.” 
 
No, it is different. This little difference makes the difference. As I tell you, both men don’t have an appropriated method of measuring the age of the tigers. So, it is probable that the specimens were of 2-3 years, when they have not reached its maximum size. Normally, the big males reach sizes of 270-300 cm, so the adult male tigers of 274 cm. are about the shorter animals in the country. This shows nothing, because after all, the tiger reach larger sizes that the lion and this is the point of this discussion. Tiger are still the largest of cats. 
 
 
 
“the weight of 18 adult male lions, repirted by smithers and wilson, was 202 kg, with an average length of 9ft, 1 and 1/4 in.;”  
 
The average total length was 2762 mm., but his maximum male has of just 2896 mm. The tigers reach larger sizes often. And by the way, this is the maximum average weight recorded by scientist. The tigers in Nepal, according to you, average about 221 kg, so they are far bigger than this lions, which are about the largest of all. Tiger > lions, again. 
 
 
 
“also, the maharaja of cooch behar measured his animals 'over curves', apart from a few (as i have ALL of his records) and states that measurements 'between pegs' at that time, was a fairly new method of measurement, and he lists the length of his males as given 'over curves'.”  
 
Actually, I have all his records to, but if you make a careful examination of the head-body length and tail length, the longest of the tiger was obviously measured between pegs. However, at least one source says that the Maharaja measured his tigers in a straight line, or in other words, “between pegs”:  
 
“The Maharaja of Cooch Behar, an accurate observer, kept a careful record of 365 tigers shot in 37 years. The longest on his list measured in a straight line from nose to tip 10 feet 5 inches, the tail being 3 feet 6 inches. Tails of northern India tigers are in general longer than those of the south, where they rarely exceed 3 feet and an inch or two. But the largest of the Maharaja's tigers had a body 7 feet 1½ inches long; the tail measured only 3 feet…” Reference: Burton, R. 1936. The tiger hunters. Hutchinson & Co. Ltd. London. (Page 189-190), 255 pp. 
 
 
 
“also, here is the source of the 438 kg lion;  
 
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_largest_lion_ever_recorded&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=Largest_lion_on_record” 
 
Ohhh, that’s the best scientific reference ever found!!! So, the next time that I edit tiger sizes I will put a tiger captured in Kaziranga in may 2007 who weighed 510 kg.!!! Man, I prefer to laugh that be angry for this stupidities of the lion fans.  
 
 
 
“also, a total of 41 adult male lions, weighed by smuts, weighed an average of 187.5 kg, adjusted for food content, as given in his book 'lions'. for comparison, the average weight of at least 13 adult male siberians weighed by the siberian tiger project, was 187.3 kg or so, majority of whom were stated as being in fair to very good condition, except but one male, who weighed 126 kg and was obviously very emaciated.” 
 
Are we talking about Amur tiger? I remember BENGALS. Amur apparently are little in the actuality because they suffer from low base prey. But in the past they could reach large sizes, at least 250 kg in the Manchurian area. I don’t think that ALL the records were fakes, statistically, at least some of them most be true. 
 
 
 
“also, heptner and sluduski reports figures of tigers measured over curves, as i`ve seen those figures as reported in the book 'mammals of the soviet union'.” 
 
So, the lions are more smaller, because I cite them for the size of the lions, not tiger. In that book arise Manchurian tigers of 315 cm. head and body, and this data it is obviously exagereted. 
 
 
 
“and, i do not believe clyde to be cruel. he did not stage any lion-tiger battles, rather, they were part of the script, and he wanted to show audiences what would happen when a lion and tiger are placed together. the plan was to stop the fight when there was a clear winner. however, it did not quite work according to plan, and the lion ended up killing the tiger, before he could intervene. while beatty did spray the tiger with ammonia (to get the anoimal to release his hold upon the lion`s mane, to renew the fight) it was obvious that had very little effect upon the outcome of the battle.” 
 
No, of curse, wash him and drink his water. He has a business man who care more about he money that the safety of his animals. He was biased toward lions, his same book state this many times, even when he tries to not be like that. Come one, reed his book objectively, not like it’s was the Bible. About 90% of your accounts of lion vs tiger came from that book!!! 
 
 
 
“also, many experts who actually comment on the suaul winner between a lionand tiger are merely expressing opinion. but, i have a great many records of lions defeating tigers, and clyde too, has witnessed many battles, which were accidental.”  
 
What records, in the forum http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com, many of the members has show you a lot of fights, and tiger is the usually winner, just in the world of Clyde and yours the lion in the king. 
 
 
 
and, selous only ever reports the figures of 3 adult male lions, scarcely a conclusive figure.  
 
When I cite Seluos, was about the largest lion on record CORRECTLY MEASURED, not the false record of 333 cm. The record of Selous has of 302 cm. total length, this is the largest lion, not in scientific record, but accepted until the rise of the 333 cm. lion, witch don’t have more info. 
 
 
 
“it seems, as you can tell from my above written statements, there is little, if any, difference in the average body mass of lions and tigers.”  
 
The same for you, from my above written statements you can see the tiger is larger than the lion. 
 
 
 
also, i have schaller`s records from 'the serengeti lion', and i see no mention of the average body length of the lion, though i do believe, and, you can tell by reading my presvious statements, the average lion is 6ft long, from the head to the insertion of the tail, total length being 9ft.  
 
Yes, you right, he just mention a male of 272.5 cm, with a tail of 91 cm. An average one. But it is smaller and lighter than an average Bengal tiger 
 
 
 
It seems that, according to most records, tiger are larger than lion. A know FACT since 1884. 
 

...why is my comment not showing up?.....well, raul, look here, at my comment to your last post; 
 
 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/1494

Damon, are you crazy? 
 
 
 
How in the hell I going to answer you in that forum? I don’t even have an account there and I will not open one just for answer you. 
 
 
 
Look, the reason why I think your posts are not showed is because you write to fast and maybe with your liver in the hands. Sorry man, but you are completely wrong. 
 
 
 
First: If anyone read your post it will be easy to see that you write very fast, you don’t think what you post and that is because you are just repeating and repeating the same thing again, and again, and again. 
 
 
 
Second: After you write your answer, please make a fast review for mistakes, your orthography is bad, but is because you think that the world is going to end if you don’t answer me. Take your time, I am not a native speaker but I try to make the things right. 
 
 
 
Third: I hope you are not mad, that will be the worst, because I have read your post in Allexperts, Indrijarit and Yuku, and you always get mad. By the way, are you the disappeared Evilthough? 
 
 
 
Last, I will only defend the tiger>lion FACT here, I will not read what you post in that page; post it here, in two parts if is necessary. But remember, the world is not going to end if the lion or the tiger loose. As matter of fact, I think that if we continuing talking about these we will fill the place just between you and I. You (and the defunct Evilthough) think that the lion = tiger, and you have your data; I (and the rest of the scientific community, amateurs, books, etc, etc, etc,) believe that the tiger>lion, and have my data. So, if you decide to continuing these, its fine, but from right now I know that I will not convince you and you will not convince me. Period. 
 
 
 
I hope you understand, and please, put the proper names with capital letter. I don't put damon, I put Damon, just for respect.

Raul, i wasn`t aksing you to answer my comment, in the AVA forums, but i posted them there as, for some reaosn, my comment did not appear when i posted it in this blog.  
 
 
 
and, you say i always get mad. when?...name one instance. never once did i insult someone, or made it seem as if i was ever mad (never was...it is a discussion, after all, not a fight).  
 
 
 
and, it is habit that i write a name without capitalization, but, i don`t mind capitalizing.  
 
 
 
and, i never write a statement without first thinking it through. but, i`ve gone over this discussion so many times, that i already know what to say. whenever i make a statement, however far fetched, it is most likely based upon actual records. and, those which are not, i give at least a valid reason for. 
 
 
 
but, did you read my comment in the AVA forum?...you don`t have to answer in that thread, just read it.....it`s very informative. and, yes, if i believe you to be mistaken, i will respond. 
 
 
 

Actually, I read it now.  
 
 
 
It is large, but you are passing away an important factor, the age. In all the hunting records, they just say “Adults” but, what was they point of comparison? If we take male tigers from 2-7 years old, of course they will average 270 cm, in fact if we count the Sundarbans tiger, a sample of males 4-7 will average 9 ft. This most show to you that I am not a tiger extremist, I know the variability in the nature. But, Even if the average is close, from 270-280cm in African lions and Indian tigers, the tigers reach normally mayor sizes and obviously larger weights. 
 
 
 
You say something about the Ngogongoro lions, but Packer give a weight range of 200-212 kg, although there was just estimation. So, at the end, they are lighter than the tigers. 
 
 
 
About Clyde, man, stop defending him, are you his familiar or something?  
 
 
 
I know, it is easy to take the information of the hunting and even scientific and get exited, but we most not just believe blindly, do what I do, I believe it the half, and the other half not. This will help you to analyses the data. As I say to you, the hunting records have a lot of problems and holes, and the scientific data don’t save it completely of that. Think in this animals not like data’s in a book, but in living beings, that change, are mutable, variable in size en characters, they are not made it in a machine, and they can change. 
 
 
 
An example: remember the B2 tiger, he is a large one in all sense, but he has a short body and a very small head. I have see lion that are very long, but his body is thin. So, the longest don’t mean the heaviest. As matter of fact, as I have seen that the longest tigers and lions are not the heaviest ones. Weird, maybe, but is true. 
 
 
 
So, don’t get my wrong, I am not insulting you or attacking you (if you think that), no, actually the only thing that I am not agreed is that you are stating that tiger=lion, and this is not true, tiger>lion, for a little but they do. 
 
 
 
Well, I think that this is going for long.

By the way, there is nobody here today, just you and I, defending our ideas. Funny, don’t you think? 
 
 
 
A lion and a tiger fighting in a pit. Yeahhh.

Dunbar brander stated quite clearly that the specimens he chose for comparison were FULLY mature, further saying he weighed and measured very few immature animals. anyone in the field can recognize a male tiger of 2 years old, as he is scarcely of adult mass, and his head is much smaller, nose, much lighter. also, the teeth of the animal can help in protraiying the age of the tiger, as, the older an animal is, the more wear upon his teeth. 
 
 
 
a tiger can produce offspring as early as 30 months of age, and is considered of adult size at between 3-4 years of age. most figures upon the age of wild caought tigers and lions are often of best guesses, or estimates, if you will, based upon long experience with these animals, as well as knowledge of their day to day life. many hunters, particularly the ones which i have mentioned, pay very close attention to their prize, and it would be a really junvenile mistake to include a 2 year old animal, when comparing sizes of adult specimens. 
 
 
 
and, yeah, it`s funny how we are the only ones here, so far. 
 
 
 
and, packer`s statements upon the size of ngorongoro lions is merely an estimate, so it is of little proof, especially when higher figures in average weight have been reported, for lions of trasnvaal, though admittedly the sample size is too small to base any solid conclusions. 
 
 
 
and, i only except those figures which are proven, or verified via reliable sources. for example, those hunting figures i mentioned were of animals which were stated as being measured, and whose figures were documented.....that alone is confirmation in the figures. what i don`t believe is sources merely reporting a weight figure, with no means of verifying the figure. it is easy to say a lion or tiger weighs 250 kg, but, if you did not mention weighing this animal, nor given any inclination that you did such, to the audience, then it is of little conclusion. 
 
 
 
to tell you the truth, i do not much believe b2 to be a particularly massive specimen...i`ve seen larger lions and tigers, and really he appears no larger than about 200-210 kg, pehaps up to 215 kg.

...also (read my above post, if you have skipped to this post)i very much love tigers. i don`t give an opinion of the size of these animals, based on favoritism, or anything like that, but the many records i possess (and, i have a LOT) indicate a figure in weight which is very often equal in numbers. note, also, that little, if any records have been reported of the largest of lions, from the crater, and while i have talked of this in my previos post, this needs to be clarified. the higehst average given for lions is about 217 kg, for those animals measured in transvaal, the weights of which were reliably documented and verified via eyewitnesses, accoridng to charles pitmann.  
 
 
 
likewise, when i emailed packer and many other scientists with details of my beliefs of the average size of lions and tigers, they did not disagree with me, but rather stated that such depends on whether the animal has a full stomach, or not. 
 
 
 
i`ve found that most tigers were under 500 lbs, and closer to 400, and david prynn (author of the book 'amur tiger') agrees that liona nd tigers are equal in mass.

Ok Damon, lest continue. 
 
 
 
“anyone in the field can recognize a male tiger of 2 years old, as he is scarcely of adult mass, and his head is much smaller, nose, much lighter. also, the teeth of the animal can help in protraiying the age of the tiger, as, the older an animal is, the more wear upon his teeth.” 
 
Yes, but this is based in modern discoveries, not old ones, especially in the 1900-1950. They don't say in waht form they classified adult from young-adults. 
 
 
 
The problem is that we base or statements (of size and weight terms) in relative old data. For example, how many tiger have being weighed in 2007-2009? Very few or none, why, because the scientist are more worried about the conservation of this big cats than its size. 
 
 
 
On the other side, the lions have not such problems, they are endangered, but nut much. However, the weights recorded are around 190 kg. 
 
 
 
Well I most leave you, but tomorrow we can continue our discussion. 
 
 
 
Greetings.

my suggestion to u guys would be to stop replying to damon or bold champ.. he's mentally ill and lacks the common knowledge. 
 
 
 
 
 
1) Tigers are the biggest cat, HE DENIES THAT! LOL 
 
2) heaviest lion ever weighed in the wild was 226kg. 
 
3) heaviest tiger ever weighed in the wild was 384kg bengal tiger and a siberian tiger of 373kg.. 
 
 
 
heaviest tiger in captivity = 1060 pounds & also a siberian tiger is listed in guiness book of world record at 1,025lbs. 
 
 
 
Lions don't come anywhere close..stop lying bold_chump. 
 
 
 
An average adult male bengal tiger weighs around 250kg on average (excluding sunderbans) 
 
 
 
An average adult male siberian tiger weighs around 250kg-300kg on average. 
 
 
 
It's common knowledge so shut up you illiterate kid from africa..go back to school LOL

...ayaaz, why jump in other peoples conversation?.....and, who`s mentally ill?...did I get banned from any website, like you did at the AVA forums, several times?.....no. 
 
 
 
and, i say tigers are no bigger than lions, because, as far as records go, they are indeed no larger, whether you want to believe this or not. and, no study yet indicates a tiger averages 250 kg or higher, if so, show me. 
 
 
 
that so-called 1060 lb tiger is not listed in any books, nor excepted by modern scientists, so i have to disagree with the figure. it may have easily been an estimate, though i dont doubt the tiger was a particularly large specimen, by any means. 
 
 
 
actual records indicate siberian tigers average anywhere from 187 kg, and, most unusually, up to 225 kg. 
 
 
 
and, the heaviest wild lion in smithers study weighed 240 kg. another lion, mentioned by berry, weighed in at 260 kg. a lion named castor weighed 272 kg, while a lion of 313 kg was reported in the guinness book of animal facts and feats as having been weighed several times by park officials...that alone is confirmation of the figure. 
 
 
 
in google wiki search, a male lion of 438 kg was reported as being weighed in a small town in zimbabwe. now, as to the reliability of this figure, i am uncertain. but, the record stands.  
 
 
 
a mal;e lion of 930 lbs was quoted by peter jackson, which is heavier than the largest reported captive bengal tiger, which weighed 800 lbs. 
 
 
 
.......tigers are no larger.

Hi everybody, I’m back. 
 
 
 
Well Damon, first, the Bengal tiger don’t average 250 kg but is the only felidae that normally reach this weight, specially the territorial males. 
 
 
 
The lion called Castor come from an image floating in the web and don’t have reference. That's other thing, stop putting images with out reference Damon, some have (and very poor) but some other don’t, like this lion. 
 
 
 
The record of the 438 kg lion don’t stand, I already talk with the wikianswers editors and they change it by the only records, those from Guinness, the 313 of Sudafrica (a freak man-eater) and Simba, the captive abnormal giant of 371 kg. 
 
 
 
The supposed lion of 930 lb in the Dr. Jackson answers don’t exist. It is a mistake in the edition of the web page. He is actually talking about the first weight recorded from Jaipur, the largest Siberian tiger in record. He first weighed 930 lb, but latter reach up to 1025 lb, when he died in 1999. 
 
 
 
Those are the needed corrections here. Hey, I forget something, who tell you that Dr. Karanth measured his tigers over curves? What is your reference? 
 
 
 
Ahh, by the way, the measurement in straight line IS NOT over curves: 
 
Straight line = between pegs, between uprights. 
 
Over curves = fairly measurement, Following the curves. 
 
 
 
Here is when I say that you twist the data. Cooch Behar do measures his tiger between pegs, even your predecessor Eviltought accept this. 
 
 
 
Well, I think this is all for this day, I will comment until the Thursday, because I have much homework. Have a good day. 
 

...for some reason, some of my comments do not get posted?...why is this? 
 
 
 
but, Raul, i basically stated, in my last post that cooch behar gave the measurements of but a small number of his tigers, between pegs, and also 'over curves'. however, he states those measurements 'between pegs' were the 'new' method at the time, and a great many of his records were of males where only the measurement over curves were given, unless otherwise stated. 
 
 
 
even brander, who looked over john`s records, states he measured his animals 'over curves'. i do have proof of this, but, every time i post a long post (as, i had a LOT of info) i does not show up.  
 
 
 
also, when most sources say they measured animals in a straight line, usually they were talking of measuring the animal in a straight line from his nose, to the end of his tail, and over the curves of his body. in other words, it is a measurement in a straight line from the animal`s nose, to his tail. 
 
 
 
but, cooch behar has said he measured his animals over curves, and in his book, where he gives mention of his largest tigers, he only gives the length of his animals, over curves, though he has given the measurements 'between pegs' elsewhere in the book. 
 
 
 
i also have MANY records of lions much over 10 ft, just as many, and perhaps more than those i have of tigers.

Yes Damon, but that lions most have been measured over curves. 
 
 
 
The list of the males of Cooch Behar, even if we take about 12 cm, witch is the difference between the measurement over curves and between pegs in tigers (in lions is larger the diference), the shorter is about 184 cm, and the shortest tiger measured between pegs has a male of 268 cm, so the head and body was of at least 175 cm. So, the average can’t be 180 cm. Besides, Mazak estate a range from 270-310 cm, so the tiger is larger that the “average” of Finn.  
 
 
 
You can have a LOT of info, but you can’t interpret it. Many records of lions are below the 9.5 ft, and the largest is close to the 10 ft. I have a lot to, but I carefully look if those measurements are reliable. For example, at the beginning I believe in the measurements of the lions of Tsavo, but now Dr. Patterson has proved that these measurements, like that of the Mfuwe lion, were taked over curves. So, if the largest lions are about 290 cm, and the giants rarely reach the 310 cm, the appearance of lions of 333 cm most be debatable, or could be males of 320 between pegs. This measurement is more reliable. 
 
 
 
Well, I most go to an other forum (this time in Spanish), sea latter Damon. 
 

...again, you have to check out my last comment here (go to the second comment) because, for some reason, it wouldn`t post; 
 
 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/forums/58/master/1/ 
 
 
 
...but, reply to my comment on this site.

The first image: 
 
That’s it, the tiger that I say to you was of 268 cm, with a head-body length of 175 cm? Even this tiger is larger that the calculus that I made. In the first image it don’t say over curves, but even there this was a young-adult or a dwarf tiger. Not estrange. 
 
 
 
The second image, its was a Young!!! Man, the same book states this. The Maharaja doesn’t say that this tiger was of adult size, and no scientist in the present will say that to. This was your conclusion, and a BAD one. 
 
 
 
The third image, a difference between 14 cm and 6 cm respectively, in the measurements over and between curves. And the next 13 cm. 
 
 
 
The next one, 15 cm in difference, and 16 cm in the head-body length. 
 
 
 
Damon, this records give me the reason. The Maharaja don’t separate young-adults from adults, and it is obvious that this males were young, of about 2-3 years old, searching for a territory. By the way, Mazak show that the difference between “over curves” and “between pegs” is from 10 to 15 cm, but the great majority that I have found is about 12 cm. However all this tigers enter in this rank, so I am correct. 
 
 
 
The difference of the lion is higher, because the measurements are taken over the mane. Frederick Vaughan Kirby has a sample of males measured over curves and between pegs and the differences are from 13 to 28 cm!!! 
 
 
 
The guys ho says that the largest tigers has of 9 ft 6 in are just trying to excuse them. Stray sport show some tigers measured between pegs, and they range from 260 to 290, with some of 310. So, the tigers normally reach that sizes, but an average of 270 cm, maybe in Sundarbans. Actually, the average will be about 285 cm, but the territorial males could reach the 300 cm. The male Rajbhera of Bandhavgarh is a good candidate for the 310 cm, it is large and heavier than the old B2. By the way, you say that you think that B2 is about 210 kg, mmmm, it could be, because he is old (about 12 years).  
 
 
 
If you want to post here, you must put just the important info. You put too much, but just for impress, but at the end, is the same thing, misinterpretations.  
 
 
 
Sorry man, tigers > lion, the proves are here and there. 
 
 
 
Until tomorrow. 
 

...where did cooch behar say anywhere in hsi books that those aniamsl i mentioned were not adults?....nowhere, as i`ve read the entire book. some may have been young adults, but, an animal is really considered an adult between the ages of 3-4 years of age. an animal between the ages of 2-3 years of age, would be 8 ft, or less in length, according to most studies. i have many other records of ADULT tigers being measured (and, this was specifically mentioned) and they averaged 9ft, 6 in. over curves. another source i have (and, one which i have already shown) showed that a total of about 26 adult tigers or so averaged 9ft, 3 in., over curves! 
 
 
 
....lions average 9ft, between pegs, and i have another source, which gives the length of these aniamls as being 9ft, 6 in., over curves. i could show those sources, as well, if you want?.... 
 
 
 
it is quite obvious, from the many records i have, that tigers are most usually under even 9.5 ft. and, i have MANY sources in proof of this, and those were of measurements over curves, and still, majority of these animals were under 10 ft, and averaged about 9ft, 6in......again, this was 'over curves'.  
 
 
 
tigers average 185 cm, over curves, but not between pegs, and i have at least 5 sources of reliable info as proof of this.

actually no damon..u probably have noticed that i clowsed down my youtube network which was mocking lions. 
 
 
 
1) i got banned from AVA because of my behaviour with some guy..i harrased him and that's why i got banned 
 
 
 
2) i do not support the lion tiger fights anymore 
 
 
 
3) tigers are the largest cat n i will support it till the end. 
 
 
 
4) learn to accept the truth 
 
 
 
5) go out a bit more

.....i never supported lion-tiger fights, thoug, admittedly the outcome of such battles is a bit interesting, to say the least.  
 
 
 
i don`t merely support the lion because of favoritism, or anything like that, but all the records i have, whether it be of testosterone (and, i have more records) behavioral differences, ect, all indicate the lion would be the usual winner. 
 
 
 
tigers are scarcely, if any larger than the lion, according to the majority of studies.

ESSA LUTA FOI VENCIDA PELA LIONES POR PONTOS A TIGRESS SAIU MAIS FERIDA,MAS QUANTO O ARGUMENTO LION VS TIGER ,APESAR DE MUITO SE FALAREM MAS ATE AQUI FALTAM PROVAS CONCLUSIVAS PARA TER UMA CERTEZA DO PROVAVEL VENCEDOR APENAS OPINIOES .QUEREMOS VER VIDEOS OU FATOS OCORRIDOS COM ANIMAIS DE MESMO PESO LUTANDO , COM TESTEMUNHAS IMPARCIAIS, ENTAO NAO VALE HISTORIAS PASSADAS QUE NAO SE PODEM PROVAR NEM A PALAVRA DE KOREANOS SEM UMA PROVA REAL PELO MENOS UM VIDEO SEM SER EDITADO OQUE É MUITO ESTRANHO NAO TER JA QUE PREFEREM O TIGER.

Come on Damon, it is simple logic, a tiger can’t have an average length of 185 over curves. By the way, the reference that you say that the tiger are of 290 cm. over curves, don’t say that. Actually, they say in straight line, and that means between pegs. So the tiger have an average total length of 290 cm between pegs. Period.  
 
 
 
Now I get it. You are confused. Your records actually show tigers between pegs, and you think that they are over curves. As I say to you, you are understanding the information in a wrong way. The tigers are larger, even Brander shows this. An average of about 280 cm it is larger than the lion with 270 cm. So, what is the big deal? 
 
 
 
At the end, Paulo, you are from Italy? Maybe you can write again your statement but in English (or Spanish) please. I talk Spanish, and I understand a little of what you put here, but not to much. However, thanks for writhing here. 
 
 
 
And finally, Damon:  
 
“tigers are scarcely, if any larger than the lion, according to the majority of studies.” 
 
You are mad. All the records, of hunting or scientific show that the tiger is the largest of the cats in the actuality. So, don’t talk this lies, you are confusing the people. Tiger > lions. 
 

bold_chump just happens to be one of the dumbest individual over the internet, totally arrogant, lame and repeative. He really tries to be an expert. 
 
 
 
every mother fucking expert in this world says that bengal & siberian tigers are out of lions league....hell even the heaviest indochinese tiger weighed 250kg ! heavier than the heaviest 226kg lion LOL. 
 
 
 
 
 
just fuck off bold_chump/damon or whatever ur name is..go graduate from highschool..go to a university..become something in life and then tell us what's bigger tiger or lion LOL!. 
 
 
 
obviously ur fucked in the head to think that ppl r gonna believe u over scientific data/experts. 
 
 
 
enormous tigers like B2/madla/hairyfoot/taala/bokha/jenny/gabbar/sauraha/abu & nick are way out of lions league.. 
 
 
 
these are proven 250kg + BEAST LOL. 
 
 
 
there's about 20-24k lion left but yet there's no individual that weighed over 200kg...lion average is 165kg-191kg..the 190kg figure is very rare too.. 
 
 
 
what you failed to understand is that lions are a smaller breed...u cannot make it bigger because of ur personal preference u fucking idiot...go ask god why the tigers are larger than lions..it's not the lions fault that they are smaller.. it's just as simple as that. 
 
 
 
1) lions need to stay in top shape to fight off other nomadic males and to rule the territory so they obviously can't overfeed or gain fat because of ur entertainment or wishes! lmao..200kg lion lmao..my fucking ass... 
 
just stfu damon..no one wants to hear ur bullshit again n again..u have no life

..this site is not allowing me to post, for some reason, so, i`ve put my anwser to your statements, with proof that the tigers i mentioned were measured 'over curves' here; 
 
 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/1494

...Raul, i also have MANY records of which hunters have reported, for either lions, or tigers, and most usually, the figures were similar. not to mention, a great majority of those records given of tigers, and for some i can prove it, such as the 600 and 700 lb tigers, mentioned by rowland ward, were estimates, as stated by john hewwet, in his book 'jungle trails in northern india'. 
 
 
 
..there is many other records of the body mass of tigers, for which there is litrle verification, such as the so-called 250 kg tiger, named madla. i`ve seen the video of his captured, and it was obvious this animal had not been weighed, yet, there are sources which report this animal as being 250 kg. 
 
 
 
there is also mentioned of the tigers, m105 and m026, that were supposedly 270 kg, yet, i know for a fact (as i have the sources to prove this) that those males bottomed out the scale in which they were measured, and their real weights unknown. 
 
 
 
the so-called 272 kg tiger, named harryfoot was never measured, and he died before anyone could confirm the estimate....of his weight.  
 
 
 
...karanth has mentioned a male tiger of 240 kg, but gives no mention of having weighed this specimen, and, other than that small mention in his book, makes no further reference of the figure, which, i`m lead to believe, was merely an estimate, and not his true weight. 
 
 
 
..i also have records where the LARGEST tiger measured was only 448 lbs, and another, which i have already shown, where a well feed/bulky tiger only weighed 349.5 lbs. 
 
 
 
...tigers are no larger than lions.

Damon, look what are you saying. 
 
 
 
You have many hunting records, but that is the problem, they are from OLD hunting records. We can’t know its reliability, however, I also probed that the measurements of mostly tiger are straight line (between pegs). 
 
 
 
The giant tigers of Panna have obviously not weighed less than 240 kg, and the largest could weight at least 260 kg, so these estimation are from scientist, not amateurs like us. 
 
 
 
Dr. Karanth doesn’t give more info because that was not the point of the book. The scientists are not worry in proving that the tiger is the larger cat because the history itself has proved it right now.  
 
 
 
By the way, the tiger M026 was actually weighed, but because the scale just reach to 600 lb (100 lb more than the scale of Dr. Sunquist), the animal bottom it, and so the tiger could weight more than 272 kg. The other tiger M105 (aka T105) is the famous Sauraha tiger, which weight have been recorded may times, and range from 258 to 272, so the last study put him in 261 kg, which is reliable for a male in Nepal and south India. Estrange that you don’t know it, or you just hide this information. 
 
 
 
The tiger of 448 lb and the other of 349.5 lb, I have it to. The first came from Lockyer, 1879 and last came from Sanderson’s book “Thirteen years among the wild beasts of India”. That was they appreciation of the beast, and it is not rare to found dwarf specimens. So, it is normal and I take it in count when I calculate the average weight of 211.9 kg (range 158-270 kg) and a standard deviation of 33.3 kg. The next smaller male that I found was a male of 160 kg from Sundarbans. 
 
 
 
This is sad, because I see that this discussion is just give in turns about the same thing. I don’t know what your objective is. You are trying to probe a lie, and sorry, but if you say a lie, no matter how many times, never will be the true. The tigers (at least the Bengal’s) ARE LARGER than any lion. Please man, understand this!!! 
 

Damon, read well, your are changing the meaning of the data. 
 
 
 
This image: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagetigerlength.jpg 
 
 
 
The average is not from Manchurian tigers, but from Amoy, in other words, South Chinese tigers, and like we ALL know, the Chinese tiger is smaller than the Bengal. So I catch you again. 
 
 
 
"the animal should be measured from the nose along the spine as he lies dead where he fell" 
 
It is like more to straight line (between pegs) that over curves. Normally if is over curves most be say “following the curves of the body”. So, misinterpretation of words.  
 
 
 
This guy Perrault, I think you most heed him, you can be banned, based in past cases in that forum. 
 
 
 
I will not write noting more today, so, I advise you to do the same, give space for other people to give they opinion. Just don’t forget: TIGER > LION_ Scientific fact. 
 

...the date of the records do not matter. the fact is, the animals were stated to have been measured, which is confirmation in itself. likewise, you were wrong in your previous statement that they were not measured in curves, when the source very clearly states they were. 
 
 
 
..i never lied, merely expressed a difference of opinion, but one which i produced the data to prove. the age of the records in question does not matter, as the length of these animals, in one given area, would remain constant. i`ve already shown you the source where sunquist mentioned measuring his tigers, over curves, and he specifically states this....so did cooch behar, though the latter did mention measurements of a few of his animals, between pegs, but, those were some of the few which he did mention, and all his other measurements, and even the ones where he mentions the measurements between pegs, were still measured over curves as well, with him also stating that his measurements, between pegs was fairly new, and when he listed most of the records of his specimens, near the end of the book, only their measurements 'over curves' were listed. 
 
 
 
and, i did indeed know of the 261 kg male, in fact, i have that very same document, where his weight was given, but i did not yet make the connection, until fairly recently, between that figure, and the one given for m105. 
 
 
 
no matter who makes the estimation, it is still just that, an estimate, and is as liable for mistake as that of anyone else. 
 
 
 
i not only have hunting records, but those from scientists as well, and they all agree with my statement that tigers are no larger than lions. karanth for instance gives a range in length of male tigers, from nepal, as being nearly equal to that given by scahller, for those lions of east africa. 
 
 
 
it would seem, and, modern studies seem to suggest this, tigers are no bigger than lions.

...it seems you were right that that particular source to which you mentioned, was of amoy tigers, from soouth china....it still is significant, as, according to peter maithissen, in his book 'amur tigers' he has found little to no difference in the external measurements of these tigers, compared with those of india, but that they appeared less massive. 
 
 
 
but, the other records (and, i know this for a fact, as i read the entire books) were of specimens from india. 
 
 
 
and, measurements over the spine relates to measurements over curves, as that`s what it means. between pegs means between two sticks, placed from one end of the tiger, to the other, not over the spine.

..and, perrault can only suggest a ban, he cannot actually ban me, himself......i did nothing wrong, and i was not answering a pm, as he had suggested, but admittedly i posted the comment before i read his message. 
 
 
 

Ok Damon, yeah, what ever you say. 
 
 
 
But at the end: Tiger > Lion

...Raul, i provided measurements (exclusive of those of tigers, from amoy) which showed rather similar, if not altogether equal figures.  
 
 
 
...i have even more records (and, it is extensive) where the average indian tigers were stated as being 9ft, 6 in., over curves, and my previous records support this. yet, you obviously don`t want to believe this. i also proved those records from sunquist, was over curves as he actually said this, himself. 
 
 
 
...tigers seem to average 190 kg, not 211.9 kg, as you have suggested. but, you accuse me of using hunters figures, but you yourself did the same thing. however, i make sure the measurements i use were of figures where the animals were stated to have been measured....as that is confirmation within itself.

damon is living in denial because the kid is a handicap in real life and spends about 24 hours searching for websites to spread his b.s but as usual no one buys this retards bullshit theories about lions averaging 200kg in wild! lmfao...Tiger average of 2008 puts the bengals at 236kg even though the population is hardly 1000 animals left..if the population consisted of 20,000-24,000 animals then the average would be alot higher.. 
 
 
 
lion population is 20,000-24,000 & yet there is no lion that exceeded 200kg LOL...it's not the lion im laughing at...im laughing at ur stupidness damon. 
 
go kill urself

ayaaz, or sayaz, i`m not a kid. and, living in what denial?...i merely have a difference of opinion, but an opinion i can readily back with many sources. 
 
 
 
and, lions have indeed exceeded 200 kg in the wild. those of zimbabwe, for instance, averaged 202 kg, from a sampling of 18 adult males measured, by smithers. that seems a bit over 200 kg, don`t you think? 
 
 
 
charles pitman reports an average of 217 kg for 5 adult male lions, from transvaal, south africa....and, according to pitman, these were of figures which were documented, and confirmmed via eyewitnesses.  
 
 
 
not to mention little, if any records exist of the largest of reported lions, from the crater, who have a particularly rich diet.

damon is living in denial because the kid is a handicap in real life and spends about 24 hours searching for websites to spread his b.s but as usual no one buys this retards bullshit theories about lions averaging 200kg in wild! lmfao...Tiger average of 2008 puts the bengals at 236kg even though the population is hardly 1000 animals left..if the population consisted of 20,000-24,000 animals then the average would be alot higher..  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
lion population is 20,000-24,000 & yet there is no lion that exceeded 200kg LOL...it's not the lion im laughing at...im laughing at ur stupidness damon.  
 
 
 
go kill urself

“charles pitman reports an average of 217 kg for 5 adult male lions, from transvaal, south africa....and, according to pitman, these were of figures which were documented, and confirmmed via eyewitnesses.” 
 
I already search this “Charles Pitman” and his suppose 217 kg average weight. I can't find int ans even this weight is not proof of largest lion. As I say before, a large weight can change de value. Besides, you say that has confirmed by eyewitnesses, so the same goes to the 857 lb giant tiger of the Smithsonian. So, based in “confirmed via eyewitnesses” you can say that big foot exist or the loch Ness monster. 
 
 
 
“not to mention little, if any records exist of the largest of reported lions, from the crater, who have a particularly rich diet.” 
 
That lions weights no more than 230 kg. Just look theme, they are about the same size that the south African lions. After all, the heaviest lions of Kenya are from 220 to 230 kg, including hunting records. The hope of the lion fans is futile. 
 

...Raul, those records of pitman are given in his book 'a game warden takes stock'.and, yes, that 857 lb tiger was indeed confirmed, as i have the document, giving his measurements, with confirmation of the animal being weighed, so yes, i do agree with that figure. 
 
if you give me your email, i could send you the document.  
 
and, 230 kg (as an average) is larger than those tigers reported by sunquist, which, adjusted for food content, was 221 kg. 
 
tigers average no more than lions, according to the majority of studies. 
 
to recap, 26 adult male lions, from rhodesia, as quoted by sunquist in his book 'wild cats of the world', weighed an average of 193.3 kg. 15 adult males, from kalahari, weighed 188 kg, from the same source. in his book 'lion', smuts reports an average weight of 187.5 kg, for 41 adult males.  
 
schaller reports an average of 174 kg, for 14 adult males, from east africa, as given by meinertzhagen.  
 
18 adult males, reported by smithers and wilson, weighed 202 kg on average, the heaviest of which scaled 240 kg. 
 
as for tigers, 42 adult males reported by A.A. Dunbar brander weighed an average of 190 kg, for a gorged specimen, no less.  
 
the weights of 15 adult male tigers, captured mostly in the terai, weighed an average of 428 lbs, and whose figures were reported by john hewwet.  
 
the WCS, or wildlife conservation society, reports an average weight of 160-190 kg, for adult male siberians.  
 
the heaviest weight reported for bengal tigers, were of those from chitwan, weighing an average of 235 kg, with a sampling of 7 adult males measured, by sunquist. adjusted for food content, they weighed an average of 221 kg. 
 
the heaviest average reported for siberians, was from sunquist, in his book 'wild cats of the world' for which he gives an average of 225 kg, for 9 adult males. these were of figures taken from different sources, and the figures, though of reliably reported measurements, are not reliable, as the chances of the particular sources reporting a weight of abnormal proportions, is increased. 
 
the largest average reported for lions, as i have stated, was 217 kg, scarcely any different than that reported for chitwan tigers. not to mention little records exist of the largest of reported lions, which may indeed weigh more than those reported from south africa.

also, The biggest tiger shot by G. R. Leonard,M.B.E., of the Game Department, was a male 9 feet 6 inches  
long between pegs, shorter than that animal measured by selous. 
 
according to A. Locke, Leonard quotes 8 feet 10 inches to 9 feet 4 inches as the  
average size for the male and 7feet 10 inches to 8 feet 6 inches  
for the female, but these averages are a good deal higher than  
those obtained from the fifty-four animals shot by myself. 
 
...those measurements were over pegs.  

Damon, I never say that the average weight of the lions is of 230 kg. That is IMPOSIBLE, the largest average weight is of 202 kg, thanks to a rare lion of 242 kg. I say that the largest lions of that area weight from 200 to 230 kg. As matter of fact, the lion rarely reach the 225 kg, especially if you see that the largest lion recorded by scientist are 260, 242, 230 kg. Then all the other are from 200 kg or below. Well, not all but the majority. 
 
 
 
Brander don’t count, as I say before, he don’t use any modern method to determinate the age of his tigers. So, we can’t know if that tigers were completely adults or not. And Hewett, well sorry but is completely unreliable because he doesn’t take this average, you did it, and so, we can’t know if you are selecting some weight and other no. Sorry, but your record show that. If not, everybody can see this in this forum: 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/forums/71/t/Lion-vs-Tiger.html 
 
You select your data, taking some weights and other not. 
 
 
 
The average of 217 kg in completely unreliable, we don’t know even the range, present at least the range. Maybe the largest male is of just 230 kg, so you don’t want to put it because is lowest than other tiger weights. Shame on you. 
 
 
 
I will not give you my Email, image this: If you past all the holy day in forums (speaking nonsense), maybe you will fill my email of your fool lion propaganda. Sorry, but I don’t have time for this. 
 

The Dr. Vratislav Mazak say that the male Bengal tiger measure from 270 to 290 cm, and somethimes more than 310 cm. So, if he says that, who cares the hunting reports?

...it is not impossible for a population of lions to average 230 kg, no less than it is possible for tigers. 
 
i agree with records based upon actual figures, not those of estimates. 
 
and, mazak mentioned records based upon measurements of tigers over curves. likewise, those were of old records, not to mention a small sampling size. 
 
i don`t except some records, and disagree with others. lots of times, in the AVA forums, people often use records which are based upon estimates,in comparison with those of actual measurements, in order to 'prove' that tigers are larger than lions.  
 
i gave note to all the reliable figures of measurements i had....it was only biased tigerfans which thought i may have been selective. i disagree. 
 
and, i wouldn`t post other stuff to your email, other than what i told you i would. but, there`s no need anyway. here is the document; 
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10502070/USNM395727 
 
and, mazak said male tigers measure from 220 - 300 cm, which is certainly within the range of lions. but, do you want proof?...here it is; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/bodysizeofugandanandmasjg3.png 
 
...the average of the lions mentioned was about 9ft, 2in, as large as those tigers measured 'over curves' in one record which i have shown you.

and, one more thing. i have no lion propaganda, as i`m both a lion, and tiger fan.  
 
and, here`s a source which reports a range in length for lions, which quite agrees with those reported by mazak, for tigers; 
 
http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/762_Panthera_leo.pdf

also, mazak gave a range in the length of tigers, not an average figure. the range he gave was 220 cm - 300 cm (based upon the pdf document i showed you), between pegs. so, a length of 270 cm, which he gives in his chart, must represent the average figure, which quite agrees with my statement.

damon is living in denial because the kid is a handicap in real life and spends about 24 hours searching for websites to spread his b.s but as usual no one buys this retards bullshit theories about lions averaging 200kg in wild! lmfao...Tiger average of 2008 puts the bengals at 236kg even though the population is hardly 1000 animals left..if the population consisted of 20,000-24,000 animals then the average would be alot higher..  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
lion population is 20,000-24,000 & yet there is no lion that exceeded 200kg LOL...it's not the lion im laughing at...im laughing at ur stupidness damon.  
 
 
 
 
 
i seriously regret giving this website to damon..he's goign to fucking spam this website too...this guy is mental 
 
 
 
 
 
go kill urself

..ayaaz, when did you give this website to me?.......and, i think i`ll stay. 
 
and, you are correct, the great majority of lions in the wild are under 500 lbs, and closer to 400. in a poluation, such as those with tigers, the chances of finding an overlarge animal increases, as the number of choices to choose between decreases. 
 
isn`t it easier to find a 500 lb animal, amongst 40 animals, then it is to find one amongst 4000?....., especially when the great majority are much under this weight?....

Damon, come on, Mazak based his records in tigers measured Between Pegs. His document says this: 
 
http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/152_Panthera_tigris.pdf 
 
 
 
This image doesn’t exist. Put another one, the link show that the image was removed 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/bodysizeofugandanandmasjg3 
 
 
 
In the PDF document about lion, they use the exaggerate size of “Walkers Mammals of the World”. There is not size range or any other thing. The range of size posted in Mazak (220 – 300) contemplate the tiger as a species, so the lower size is from Bali tigers and the larger are form the Caspian, Bengal and Siberian. So, don’t twist the data, you can’t take an average size of this range. From the Bengal tiger, he said 270-310 cm, so the average will be about 290 cm. Sorry, but Dr. Mazak data give me the reason.  
 
 
 
Damon, please, you are twisting data, changing the meaning of the words, and for be sincere with you I am worried by your personal life. I barely write up to 11:00 pm and that will be because I am working in university homework, but you are writing in the 1 to 2 AM. Do you sleep? Or have a personal life? Go to the Church, with your family or friends? Damon, this thing is not the life; I tell you these like a friend, don’t put your entire life in these, even if you are studying for this career. After all, no matter how many post you put here, you will not change the true, Tigers > Lions, even for centimeters and pounds, but the tiger are larger. Please, understand this, man. 
 

....there is a range in the size of the lions given, on that of the lions. did you fully read the book?...they were from hollister.....and, mazak did mention records between pegs, but his largest tigers were of records 'over curves' and he specifically states this. 
 
 
 
and you didn`t copy the png part...that`s why the image didn`t work. but, here it is, again; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/bodysizeofugandanandmasjg3.png 
 
 
 
and, i certainly do not put my entire life in this. but, i check my emails frequently, and it was really literally hours before i check for comments, on this site. 
 
 
 
also, i do have more records from hollister, as well, concerning the length of lions, and the figures reported, as i have said, was similar.

...also, this site doesn`t give the right time as it is here, because, it is 2:06 now, and, it`ll probably be almost 1:00 here on this site.

That's it. This is the image of the largest lion measured by scientist.  
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/bodysizeofugandanandmasjg3.png  
 
 
 
In other words, this is the largest lion of which we have reliable references. The others, well, they are just "some" records". 
 
 
 
Sorry Damon, just if you had not noted, you are loosing. Ja ja ja.

....Raul, you scarcely proved your point. name ONE source which directly reports an average length of over 9ft, 3in. for adult male tigers?........ 
 
 
 
the range in length given by mazak, for tigers, is nearly equal to that of lions, by hollister.  
 
 
 
average length of adult male lions, from the book 'a lions life, i believe, is 9ft. hollister, as i have shown, gives an average length of 9ft, 2 in. 
 
 
 
for tigers, brander reports an average length of 9ft, 3 in., scarcely any different, while scahller quotes a record of 9ft for tigers. 
 
 
 
...now, correct me if i`m wrong, but aren`t those figures virtually the same?....... 
 
 
 
but, i have another sources which gives the average length of lions as 9ft, 8 in., but this was of measurements over curves.....compare that to the sources i have of the average length of tigers over curves, as being 9ft, 6 in., for one population, and 9ft, 2 and 1/4 th in. for another. so, are tigers truly longer?......the records don`t support this. 
 
 
 
and, that image i showed was of the largest reported average length, of lions between pegs, but does not mention the largest lion. 
 
 
 
not to mention the data upon weights showing similar figures. most usually, tigers weigh 190 kg, same as lions. 
 
 
 
the highest average for tigers, adjusted for food content, was 221 kg, by sunquist, as they ate a total of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits. compare that to transvaal lions, in which charles pitman, in his book 'a game warden takes stock' reports an average weight of 217 kg....scarcely any different. not to mention little records exist of the largest of reported lions, from the crater, who have particularly rich diets, and would certainly weigh a stint more.

Well, first of all, this will be my final post here, I will focus all my attention in the Animalvsanimal forum. However, just if you decide to do the same Damon. 
 
 
 
Second, I have proved my statements many times here, but you don’t accept it. I don’t even need to put a reference, everyone who need the average Bengal tiger size just need to search on the web, take any book about great cats or even write to a scientist, and all will say that the Bengal average 290 cm in total length between pegs and weights 220 kg. So, probe my point is not even hard. I already win from the beginning. 
 
 
 
Third, Mazak says that the Bengal measure from 270 to 290 cm and sometimes more than 310 cm, without mention those giants of 320 cm. The Brander tiger, with his complete tail could measure 330 cm. From the other side, Hollister put a range from 273 to 298 cm, and the largest measured between pegs been 302 cm, from Selous. So, tigers are larger. 
 
 
 
The image shows the largest lion in scientific record, the huge male of 298 cm, between pegs. Even your predecessor Evilthough establishes these. 
 
 
 
The record of the 5 males is not scientific, that was proved in the AVA forum, and even you accept that. And if you don’t see it, 221 > 217, so Tigers are heavier. 
 
 
 
Well. I don’t need to continue this here, other people can post here their opinion, but you and me, well I think that just the time will say. 
 
 
 
See a latter tiger and lion fans, the forum is for you again. Thanks for this space.

...Raul, i don`t mind only posting in the AVA forums. but, when did you prove me wrong?....most sources, including mazak, rather than report an average figure, give a range in length or weight. 
 
and, yes, i agree tigers have the largest recorded average. this i did not deny.  
 
and, mazak said bengals measure from 220 - 300 cm here; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigerlengthmazak.jpg 
...his range starting at 170 cm may be the average, as, you can see above, he quotes starting from a much lower range, and one which is near equal to the range given by hollister.  
 
and, you merely compare the highest average gathered for bengals, with that of normal sized lions. little records exist of wild lions and tigers, and of the majority that do, shows figures which are near equal, in concerning the weight of these specimens. 
 
and, 217 kg is scarcely any different than 221 kg. a difference of 4 kg is not enough to suggest they are larger. not only that, but little records exist of the largest of reported lions, from the crater, and packer states measurements upon the chest girth of these animals are similar to those reported for siberian tigers. 
 
average length of male lions in one study which i have already shown, was 9ft. the average length of male tigers as reported by schaller, who quotes finn, is also 9ft. 
 
hollister gives an average of 9ft, 2 in. for adult male lions, while brander gives an average of 9ft, 3 in., scarcely any different. 
 
9ft, 3 in. is UNDER 190 cm, is it not?.......

Well, I think that you don’t want to stop these, so, lets continue until the end (metaphorically speaking). 
 
 
 
First, the range of the tiger posted in the work of Mazak is for all the species of tiger, not just the Bengal. That I already explained before. You are twisting data again. 
 
 
 
The average of 217 kg is not a scientific record, so I don’t know way you still use this. If you use this data I will use the average weight for the Amur tiger posted by Mazak in “Der Tiger”, which is of 233 kg, higher that any of the other weights of the Bengal and impossible to reach for any lion in the world. Those tigers have been confirmed by eye witness to, so Mazak accept it.  
 
 
 
Mazak don’t give any average for the head and body length for the Bengal tiger, so where you get the 170 cm, you are now inventing data, man you are worst every day. 
 
 
 
4 kg, 1 kg, even 1 pound is difference, and I we remember that the real average for the Bengal tiger is of 235 kg (at least for the northern ones), the differences is higher. 
 
 
 
The average total length of Brander is now irrelevant, because he stated, together with Mazak, Sterndale and Pocock, that the tail of the tiger is very variable. So, a tiger could have tiles from 80 to 110 cm, but its body could not correlate with these. 
 
 
 
Enough with the crater lions, there is not reliable data about theme; it is like I say that the largest tiger reported are those from the Kazirangha National Park. There is a statement about these, but like the crater lions, there is not reliable evidence of that. 
 

....Raul, there is enough data bout crater lions, such as that of chest girth,as well as daily food intake, to indicate they are indeed larger than most other populations of lions. 
 
and, you are merely quoting the highest average for bengal tigers, and one which was not adjusted for food content, even though they were baited. average weight for these males, adjusted for food, is 221 kg. 
 
and, yes, the tail of the tiger is indeed variable. but, there would be an average, over a wide number of specimens measured, would it not?.... 
 
and, as far as i know, mazak did not give an average upon the length of his animals, but a range. what was the average?...... 
 
but, here are some more records of tigers (from guggisberg); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/measurementsandweightsofltigers.jpg 
 

..i also have several studies where the length of the lion in almost all the cases, was near equal.....average tail length was roughly the same...the same would be true for tigers.

...also, when comparing animals over a wide range, 1 kg, or a few kg`s scarcely makes a difference. tigers are not longer than lions, and mazak`s records do not show this, as lions too, reach those lengths as given by mazak.

...this is what mazak said, regarding the length of tigers; 
 
the largest indian tiger (p.t. tigris) known was the bachelor of powalgarh," shot in 1930 in kumaon; it measured 3228 mm (10 ft 7 in) "over curves" which equals about 3070 to 3100 mm measured "between pegs".......and, how is it that the largest of the estimates mazak gave on the length of that tiger, between pegs, is quoted in his figures regarding the external measurements between these animals?...... 
 
..the same was done for the amur tiger, as well. he mentioned a large male amur, measuring 3507 mm (or 11 ft 6 in.) "over curves", and then estimates the length of this animal would be 3300 to 3350 mm, between pegs" 
 
....and, he again quotes the 3300 figure as the greatest length of the amur tiger, between pegs, just as he did with the bengal tiger. 
 
......it is obvious he only had figures upon the measurements of these animals, over curves, as, at least in the case of the two males mentioned above, he specifically mentions this.

Yes, he has these measurements over curves but he transform it in to between pegs, so, he uses measurements between pegs. The sizes of 310 cm in total length have been proved by Dr. Karanth, Brander, Hewett and Pocock. Even the old hunting records mention that a tiger of 305 cm measured between pegs is not uncommon, especially those large dominant males of the Terai and the Assam. 
 
 
 
The average from the Bengal tiger is about 290 cm, maybe the lowest would be 285 cm. The average from Brander just contemplates the population of the center of India, which is known for having shorter bodies. Even Brander mentions this. So, If we take the range from 270 cm (for the Sundarbans), 290 cm (central India) to 310 cm (for the Terai and South India), the average will be about 285 cm, this average is larger than any figure about average lions.  
 
 
 
The normal range from lions reported in scientific measurements is from 260 to 290 cm with exceptional males reaching 298 cm and 302 cm. The scientific consensus is that the male lions seldom exceed de 9 ft (274 cm) in total length. So what? Tiger has longer body than the lion. Even, the largest of the Roosevelt lions reached the 297 cm.  
 
 
 
Of 150 lions measured by Col. James Stevenson-Hamilton while he was warden of the Sabi Game Reserve only one approached ten feet (305 cm) in length. Maybe the same size that the lion of Selous. And, how may tigers of more than 305cm have been measured between pegs in record? Obviously more than four. So Tiger > Lion in size and length. 
 
 
 
The lions are the second largest cat in the world, the tiger is the largest. Other form is: 
 
* The Bengal tigers are slightly larger than the African lion. 
 
* The African lion are almost the same size than the Bengal tiger. 
 
 
 
However, at the end, Tiger > Lion. Measurements in the field show these. 
 

...Raul, you cannot transform measurements to 'between pegs', as there can be as much as a foot in the difference between measurements over curves, compared with that between pegs, according to actual records in which both measurements were carefully taken. 
 
and, brander stated that males from northern india weee usually longer, but only had measurements over curves to compare that of his own, which were 'between pegs', to compare with. 
 
anyway, check this out, on the measurement of tigers; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigerskullandweight.jpg 
 
here`s another, where the average length of tigers, over curves, is given, and this is specifically stated; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagelengthoftigerscubsexcluded.jpg 
 
....that does not quite sound as if tigers measure 9ft, 6 in. over curves, as i have already shown you another source in which a total of over 20 adult male tigers averaged 9ft, 3 in. or so, as compared to 9ft, to 9ft, 2 in. for lions, between pegs. 
 
very few measurements of tigers measured between pegs have been given, especially in recent times. if so, show these records. 
 
check this out; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/largestmaletigermeasured.jpg 
 

and, another source on the length of tigers; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigersizelengthcoloneljmacdonald.jpg 
 
it says "Colonel J. Macdonald found only three out of seventy tigershe killed touched 10 ft"....the heaviest, 448 lbs. 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigersizelength.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigersizelength2.jpg 
 
..the above states; "sanderson....says his experience points to 9 feet 6 inches as the maximum length of any tiger he shot, the weight of this animal, which was well fed and in good condition, was 349 1/5 lb." 
 
....it would seem tigers are no larger than lions. i`ll agree that tigers have the largest reported average, but, ven then, the sampling is limited (in the case of the tigers from chitwan) and, adjusted for food content, they average 221 kg, as compared with 202 kg for zimbabwe lions, scarcely of any importance. 
 
most other sources show similar figures upon the weight, as well as the length of these animals.

Again with old records Damon? 
 
 
 
Why you don't put the complete reference of your pics? 
 
 
 
This tiger weights are from the time when weigh tigers was new, so obviously the records are lower. 
 
The length measurements are not problem, because as one of your pics say, the length of the tail is a variable thing and a 9.5 ft tiger could have a short tail and be a massive beast, but a 10 ft tigers could have a longer tail and a lithe body. So, as I say before, the Bengal tiger can average 280 cm in total length, but its tail could be very variable. The largest of the tigers of Brander show this. So, at the end Tiger > Lion. Even by few inches or some pounds, but the tigers are larger and obviously reach larger sizes. 
 

...Raul, of course the length of the tail of the tiger is variable. but, there is an average over a wide range of specimens measured, is there not?..... 
 
and, the data does not support your statement that tigers average 185 cm. and, it is just too painstaking too include references. if you want the full sources, just type in a particular sentences or line from one of my sources, in google, and the document should come up. 
 
lions too, can reach those sizes as reported by brander, and i have already shown this. even guggisberg, in his book 'wild cats of the world' mentions 2 lions, one of 10ft 8 in., and the other of 10ft, 6 in. 
 
....it would seem tigers are no longer than lions.also, the date of the records does not matter, as long as they are of actual figures.

Damon, the tigers average about 189 cm in total length straight line, maybe more. The lions rarely pass the 180 cm. That is the sentence of Dr. Patterson (about the lions of course). From the 333 cm lions of Gugguisberg, he just cites the record, but if you see (and I already told to you) this size is deceptive, because it doesn’t report other measurement like tail length or high to shoulders, nothing. So it is not reliable, even if is cited by important people. The largest lions measured between pegs, reported in hunting records, are about 320 cm, but they are extremely rare, and are not completelly reliable.

The male lion seldom exceed of 9 ft long. Dr. Patterson. 
 
 
 
The average length of the Bengal tiger is 280 cm. Brander. 
 
 
 
280 > 270 cm, so. 
 
Tiger > Lion.  
 
Period. 
 

Raul, dr. patterson only measured but 2 lions, and both were over 9ft.....so his opinion, though appreciated, is without merit......likewise, records do not much support his statement, as lions average 9ft, in most cases, and sometimes slightly longer. 
 
no study, other than those based upon measurements, over curves, indicate tigers average 189 cm. 
 
...and, records upon the height of the respective animals need not be mentioned, when concerning the length of these animals.....not all measure the height of their animals, and such is not relevant, when considering the length of the animal in question. 
 
 
...the longest reliable measurement gathered for a tiger,was one of 10ft, 7 in.....this measurement was reliably reported, and i have the full document concerning his measurement. 
 
...i`ve shown you plenty of sources where the tigers avergae, between pegs, between 9ft-9ft 3 in.......about the same as that of a lion. i`ve even shown you several sources of the tiger, of measurements of tigers, over curves, and the average length was that of 9ft, 3-9ft 6 in. 
 
...so, records do not support your statement. and, the average length of the lion, as given by hollister, was 279.9 cm....only but ONE cm less than that given by brander...scarcely any different. 
 
....so, you are wrong. first, you state tigers average 185 cm...then you say 189 cm....and now, here you are quoting those figures by brander, and which scarcely proves your point. most other reports of tigers measured between pegs, give an average of 9ft.

Dr. Patterson mention this average size (9 ft) based in a very wide sample not is his measured lions. So it is irrelevant if he measured 2 lions or 20 lions, read the book man.  
 
There is no study in base of the head and body length of Bengal tigers, just total length and that is a problem, but based in the data posted by Pocock we can say that the shorter of the males measured between pegs was of 6 ft!!! (183 cm), so how can you say that the average is less? That why I calculus an average from 185 to 190 cm, more close to the second, but with the shorter been 180 and the largest been 204 cm, that without counting the largest males of up to 221 cm. 
 
 
 
For the total length, you deceive yourself, because if there is no more reference in a total length, not even a picture, then how we well knows that that size was reliable? That measurement is wrong, stated by Dr. Patterson, and he mentions that the largest lions reaches de 320 cm, and were very uncommon. Of 150 lions measured by Col. James Stevenson-Hamilton while he was warden of the Sabi Game Reserve only one approached ten feet (305 cm) in length. Maybe the same size that the largest lion of Selous. And, how may tigers of more than 305cm have been measured between pegs in record? Obviously more than four. So Tiger > Lion in total and head and body length.  
 
 
 
Then, why I quote Brander? Well to show you that even the smaller average size reported by the Bengal (from hunting record) is larger than the average size of the African lion (from a scientist reference). Finally, stop saying that the average of 290 cm for the tiger was over curves, because there is clearly stated that this measurements were take in straight line, which is another word from Between pegs. You just put those where it mentions above the measurement over curves, and that is for confuse the people. That why I always have say that you twist the data!!! 
 
 
 
Tiger > Lions, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact, period. 
 

...Raul, which source did i bring you stated that the tigers averaged 290 cm, in a straight line?...because the ones which i have shown you, stated specifically that the tigers averaged 290 cm, over curves. 
 
....i can show you again, if you want?...... 
 
and, we are not discussing the range which pocock has given, but the average, which was less than what you have stated, and of which no records agree.  
 
and obviously, if lions average 9ft, than most certainly they get over this length, frequently, don`t you think?...... 
 
and, even with the hunting records, there is little variation, and it simply does not support your statements. 
 
and, check these sources out, again; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagelengthoftigersovercurves.jpg 
 
...it clearly states the animals were measured over curves. 
 
here`s another source, from schaller, of the average length of male tigers, between pegs; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lengthofamaletiger.jpg 
 
here ois another source, of the average length of male tigers, apparently of measurements over curves; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averageof26adultmaletigers.jpg 
 
...so, which source stated the tigers were measured in a straight line?......that was a source YOU mentioned, and i believe it refered to those measurements of cooch behar, and the great majority of his figures were of that 'over curves' unless specifically stated otherwise.

...so, Raul, in which way did i twist the above mentioned data?.....i gave the data, just as it is, and there was NO mention of tigers being measured, in a straight line, between pegs. 
 
sunquist has stated he measured his tigers over curves, as well as mazak, who even included estimates in his figures of the weight, and length of the tigers he included in his tables, and so forth. so, in the end, you are wrong.

...here is more info upon the measurements of tigers, again, over curves; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/measurementsofatigermale-1.jpg 
 
...it would seem, as you can tell from the above mentioned source, that tigers are scarcly, if at all, larger than lions. 
 

damon you are a liar.

The only average specifically taked over curves is that of Inglis, but Burton mention an average of 290 cm straight line. Even from 1893 there is a very know difference between the measurement over curves and straight line, as is mentioned by Brown in Strait sport. So don’t come with this, I all ready know all this and the evidence support my statements. 
 
 
 
“and obviously, if lions average 9ft, than most certainly they get over this length, frequently, don`t you think?...... “ 
 
Actually no, because as Dr. Patterson say, lions seldom exceed the 9 ft. So it is rarer a lion over 9.5 ft long than a tiger over 10 ft. Your records don’t function here because the hunter of lions just reports those more than 9 ft; however the scientific show other thing. 
 
 
 
“and, we are not discussing the range which pocock has given, but the average, which was less than what you have stated, and of which no records agree.”  
 
 
 
That’t my point, you don’t accept Pocock because he give a range that prove that tigers don’t average 6 ft in heads and body length. So, you ignore it, even when he is very more reliable than old your other hunting records. Pocock give a range from 183 to 221 cm so, the average most be about 200 cm, larger than any lion. So there is, scientific evidence coming from Zoologist not just hunting man. Then when you mentioned Cooch Behar, Burton has already mentioned that the Maharaja measured his tiger in straight line, not all but his lists of the largest are in this way. You “THINK” that the Maharaja don’t measured this tigers in this way, but there is no evidence of the contrary, you can have the complete book, but you can’t read it well, maybe a lion is closing your eyes. 
 

You say: “...it would seem, as you can tell from the above mentioned source, that tigers are scarcly, if at all, larger than lions.“ 
 
 
 
Are you crazy Damon, tigers reach larger sizes than the lion, so obvious the tigers are larger, not just in average but in maximum.  
 
 
 
This image: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/measurementsofatigermale-1.jpg 
 
 
 
This tigers has measured in straight line according with you the last time, so now is over curves? Decide now. Even if we take the very low weight (even if Sanderson say that was a healthy male), this was obviously a little young male.  
 
 
 
And again you say: “sunquist has stated he measured his tigers over curves, as well as mazak, who even included estimates in his figures of the weight, and length of the tigers he included in his tables, and so forth. so, in the end, you are wrong.” 
 
 
 
First, Mazak give very accurate conversion from over curves to between pegs, after all, the Bengal tigers reach indeed the 310 cm straight line, and the ancient Siberian tigers measured 330 cm, so don’t talk about the Dr. Mazak, because he is so much and you are noting against him. He is one of the BEST authorities on tigers, sadly he is dead now. 
 

At the end, why I take the bother of talking with you, you discard the scientific records in favor of the hunting ones, especially does which are not used by Zoologist. Put a lot of references but no one can against the scientific studies in this time, so you can continue with this, but and the end, the true is know by everybody. Put “the largest cat in the world” in the internet, or search it in a book, then you will have your answer. 
 
 
 
By the way, hi Roflcopters, nice to see you writing here, be welcome.

Oh, I forget it, my new signature: 
 
 
 
Tiger > Lions, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact, period.  
 

roflcopters...where did i lie?...i quoted actual records, upon the measurements of lions and tigers. in what way did i lie?........ 
 
and, Raul, i never stated those tigers were measured in a straight line. if you want, you can review all the posts i have made, and tell me where i made that statement. 
 
and, sometimes, there is indeed little diferent between measurements between pegs, and those over curves. but, there CAN also be a difference of a foot, between the length of a tiger measured over curves, as compared with that between pegs.  
 
...and, i do not agree that tigers reach larger sizes, as there is little records, comparatively speaking, of the measurements of wild lions and tigers, not many taking the time to actually weigh them. likewise, i never disagreed with any scientific records.....just don`t agree that those of measurements 'over curves' are any more conclusive than those 'between pegs', and i already had shown you many sources in proof of this. now, to prove there can be as much as a foot between the two different forms of measurements.......but first, look at this; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentlion_2008album/tigerlengthmeasured.jpg 
 
...the source states, quite clearly, that tigers very rarely reach 10 feet in length.  
 

 
also, read this document, as well; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigersrarelyreach10feet.jpg 
 
here are the measurements of 4 tigers; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/fourtigerslength.jpg 
 

...even amoung several measurements of the same animal, results can vary as much as 8 inches; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/problemswithmeasuringtigers.jpg 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/problemswithmeasuringtigers2.jpg 
 
...notice that the above mentioned tigress, in her first measurement, measured 10 ft, 5 in. over curves. later measured in a straight line, she measured 9ft, 5 in., exactly 1 foot less, though the body of the tigress was considerably stretched. 
 
and, statements simply stating tigers are larger, are of little proof. it is records which must conclude this, and, thus far, the majority, at least, show figures very similar in numbers.

Damon, your first reference doesn’t state the date of the Journal. However, like all the short tigers in your pics, all these are from Central India, and all we know that the tigers there are shorter than the tigers in the north, shikar knowledge. Come one Damon, the same pic say this. But they just have shorter tail, because in head and body they often reach the 200 cm, like Mr Pocock proved. 
 
 
 
The example of the tigress can’t be applied to all the tiger measured over curves, because the great great great majority of them where measured in the same spot where they laid after the dead, so it is rare the tigers that are stretched by the way, as the book Strait Sport say. Remember, I have this book to, so don’t change it. 
 
 
 
So, you can post a loooooooooot of images but all of them have an incorrect interpretation, with out counting the problem that you just put a fragment of the page, the one you interpret, but you hide the rest, that is not accurate. Show full pages, so the people can judge by them self’s. I have told you this many times. 
 
 
 
The normal difference between the measurement over curves and straight line (between pegs) is from 10 to 15 cm, up to 6 inches. Those up to a foot are bad measurements. However, at least in the northern tigers, we can calculus the correct measurement if the tail of the tiger if it range about 30-33% of the total length. That is the case of the tigers in Cooch Behar.  
 
 
 
So, Tiger > Lions, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact, period.  
 

Raul, i showed the part of the page which related to the measurements of the animals, the other info being irrelevent. and,all of those tigers measured in cooch behar, were measured over curves, though occasionally the length of these animals were given, between pegs, though such was a new form of measurement, according to cooch behar, and, before a certain point he did not measure his animals, between pegs, unless otherwise stated. 
 
 
 
..the tigers of northern india may indeed be 'slightly larger....but, little records of the measurements of these specimens, between pegs exists, so, we have little to go by. 
 
 
 
and, even hunting records, which can be seen in the ones i posted (and, i have more of those records, where it states lions average 9ft, 6 in., likely over curves.)...is that not the exact same measurements, as reported for the majority of those tigers?.......

Tiger is Stronger why because he is a single in the forest, and lion is not single in the forest he depends on his she lions.thats why the Tiger is stronger and king of the forest.

Damon, you most show the complete page. How we can be sure that the information that you omit is not relevant? There is when you lost your accuracy, and from the tigers in Cooch Behar, there is no references about the last tigers, the only one is that I have show 
 
you many times, and say that this tigers where measured in straight line (between pegs). However, even if its not, the largest of them reached the 204 cm in head and body, and the smaller 183 cm, so they enter in the range established by Mr. Pocock. 
 
 
 
From the northern tigers, is a know fact that these are larger than the south ones, thanks for its long tail. In head and body, bout reaches the 200 cm. And finally, the comparison with the lions is not even accurate. The difference between the measurement over curves and straight line in the tigers is from 10-15 cm, but in the lions is of 13 to 28 cm!!! I already show you this. So a 300 cm tiger over curves could be from 285-290 cm in straight line, but a lion of 300 cm could be from 272-287 cm. That is because when a lion is measured over curves, the mane take much of the length, the tiger don’t have this problem. 
 
 
 
Finally, welcome Shaik Javeed, good point. 
 
 
 
So, Tiger > Lions, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact, period. 
 

Shaik Javeed, the tiger is not stronger, nor does the lion much rely on the females. they can, and do, hunt quite frequenlt, such as when they pratrol their territories, and, in the case of lions in the kruger park, or even in tsavo, they most usually get their food by hunting the prey themselves. 
 
 
 
and, Raul, i only stated that SOME of cooch behars tigers, not all, were measured between pegs, along with measurements over curves as well. in fact, all of his tigers were measured over curves, but, he often measured a few between pegs as well, though stating this method was fairly new, and he only caried out measurements between pegs at a certain point. however, he onlyt lists the measurements of his largest tigers, over curves. 
 
 
 
and, as i`ve stated before, he weighed 35 or 36 adult male tigers, the rest being female, or cubs. however, he only reported the mass and length of his 26 largest specimens. 
 
 
 
when measuring lions over curve, they put the measuring rope, THROUGH the mane, not over the mane...so, it makes little difference. but, as i`ve stated, there can be a difference of up to a foot, between measurements over curves, and between pegs. i am not talking of the usual range. 
 
 
 
but, the only truly rliable measurements is that between pegs, and, so far, the records are virtually equal, whether you want to believe it, or not. 
 
 
 
do you even have any sources of tigers measured between pegs, like i have shown you?....the length of specimens, from different areas, varies very little.

“when measuring lions over curve, they put the measuring rope, THROUGH the mane, not over the mane...so, it makes little difference.” 
 
 
 
You actually believe this? 
 
 
 
“but, the only truly rliable measurements is that between pegs, and, so far, the records are virtually equal, whether you want to believe it, or not.“ 
 
 
 
Scientific measurement disagree 
 
 
 
“do you even have any sources of tigers measured between pegs, like i have shown you?....the length of specimens, from different areas, varies very little.” 
 
 
 
Yes, from North India, Assam, Eastern Ghats and from South India. Those from Nepal are doubtful. If they were measured straight line, they were average tigers but if they were measures over curves, as you say (and the image that is floating in the web with out reference), then this tigers was just big clouded leopards (short body and very long tail) don’t you think? 
 

....raul, which scientific records, where the tigers were measured exclusively between pegs, do you have?....because, i`d like to see it. 
 
 
 
and yes, i do indeed believe measurements of lions, over curves, is made through the mane, rather than over it. 
 
 
 
but, i`ve already shown you measurements of the tigers, though they were of central india. but, please, show those records you have, and, it must specifically state the tigers were measured, between pegs.....i`ll be waiting.

But you have it, Central India are the Brander tiger's.  
 
 
 
From North India is Hewett, from the Ghats is the Journal of Bombay, and think is the number 26. Finally, from South India there are the tigers of Dr. Karanth. Sterndale mention measurements from different parts of India, but we most take in count that the names had change it since 1884, be careful not all are straight line. “Stray sport” mention others and finally those from the Assam are from Cooch Behar, and even if they were measured over curves, this tigers enter in the range of Mr. Pocock, a I forget it, Pocock "Mammalia" and "Tiger" in the Journal of Bombay. This last I lost them in the cleaning of my computer. Maybe you can find it completely, I just had parts of this last one. 
 
 
 
If you write again, I will answer you until monday, I am making a homework right now, ok.

..john hewett mentioned measurements of tigers, over curves...even brander acknoledges this fact, and i know as well, as i have ALL his records. i read his book at the library of congress, which you canm find (if you don`t believe me) in the lirary of congress online catalog. 
 
 
 
and, Dr. karanth, as far as i know, gave a range of the length of tigers, which is, in fact, quite similar to that given of east african lions, from schaller. 
 
 
 
and, i asked for you to SHOW me the records, don`t merely talk of them. and, karanth is a coleage of sunquist, who measured his tigers over curves. karanth likely did the same....unless, you can prove otherwise?.....

..also, in the record where 26 adult male tigers were measured, they were measured 'over curves', and i`ve already shown that source, as proof. 
 
 
 
and, i`ve read the book 'mammalia', as well..they were also measured over curves. so, you don`t have any records i haven`t seen...and, none of them supports your statements.

This is the overflow of your insanity; you have surpassed your own foolishness. 
 
 
 
“and, Dr. karanth, as far as i know, gave a range of the length of tigers, which is, in fact, quite similar to that given of east african lions, from schaller.” 
 
 
 
There is no one lions measured between pegs that have reaches the 204 cm in head and body length, not even 200 cm. The largest lion reached de 198 cm according with Ned Hollister. Maybe the largest lion of Selous (302 cm total length) had reached the 201 cm. 
 
 
 
“and, i asked for you to SHOW me the records, don`t merely talk of them.” 
 
 
 
And what difference will make, even if I bring you pictures of the measurement of a tiger you will not believe in me. By the way, if you have it too, why you need it? This is for all the people that have read this conversation but had not participate, Google had a collection of these books, so you can search there and find the true. 
 
 
 
“and, karanth is a coleage of sunquist, who measured his tigers over curves. karanth likely did the same....unless, you can prove otherwise?.....” 
 
 
 
Dr Karanth is a colleague of Dr Sunquist, not Dr Sunquist it self. If you have doubt of his measurements ask him. Tiger Lover in AVA have his email, but maybe he don’t give it too you, whit the experience of Aiolia is enough. He measures his tigers in straight line form the tip of the nose to the beginning of the tail, not the end of the hip, that why the largest tail measured 107 cm. 
 
 
 
“..also, in the record where 26 adult male tigers were measured, they were measured 'over curves', and i`ve already shown that source, as proof.” 
 
 
 
Are you referring to the Cooch Behar records? You have not probed anything. You THINK that they were measured over curves, but I give you a reference that state that they were measured in straight line, another word from between pegs. So, those measurements are reliable even if you don’t like. Sorry for you. 
 
 
 
“ and, i`ve read the book 'mammalia', as well..they were also measured over curves. so, you don`t have any records i haven`t seen...and, none of them supports your statements.” 
 
 
 
This is the top of you insanity. Mr. Pocock, in the page 205, put a list of male tigers measured between pegs and the first one is the giant male of Brander (221 cm). He says “the first seven of the table were taken between pegs”, and the others from Sterndale are obviously taken in the same way. So all this sources including yours, are the prove that support my statements and the idea that you are a LIAR!!! 
 
 
 
Just Catlion support your idea, sorry man, you are officially insane. 
 
 
 
So, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

Raul, i have already shown you records where the head and body length of the lion exceeded 200 cm, between pegs, such as those records from hollister, or the pdf document, mammalian species.  
 
and, i just went through all the books titled mammalia, and i could not find the info you mentioned....though you again mentioned brander, who gave an average length of 9ft, 3 in. and, correct me if i`m wrong, but didn`t brander measure tigers from central india?.... 
 
and, i did not lie. there are sveral books titled mammalia, and, in all the ones i could find, i saw nothing on page 205, which had anything romotely to do about tigers. do you want proof? well, here are the books i`ve seen; 
 
http://books.google.com/books?id=5AkPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=mammalia#PPA205,M1 
 
another; 
 
http://books.google.com/books?id=vrjPAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=mammalia#PPA205,M1 
 
one more; 
 
http://books.google.com/books?id=MMgYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=mammalia#PRA1-PA205,M1 
 
...i`ve seen many more books, yet, couldn`t find anything you mentioned, on page 205. 
 
and, why don`t you show me the source from the mammalia book. though, i wouldn`t think those records can be considered reliable, if the measurements of tigers were taken from different sources. but, stop calling me a liar. i did NOT lie.

..raul, i just found the book you were refering to. it`s titled, and it says "I have records of 
the total length " between pegs " of two tigers and two tigresses from that ..." 
 
http://books.google.com/books?um=1&spell=1&q=pocock%2C+length+of+tigers&btnG=Search+Books 
 
so, only two tigers were compared...hardly a reliable measurement, don`t you think?...

Damon, you are fool or you try to appear like one? 
 
 
 
“and, i just went through all the books titled mammalia, and i could not find the info you mentioned....” 
 
I specifically mentioned “Mammalia” from Pocock, so, why are you searching other books? By the way, my connection don’t let me see complete pages from some books, so I have found the best image from this book ABOVE. 
 
 
 
“and, why don`t you show me the source from the mammalia book. though, i wouldn`t think those records can be considered reliable, if the measurements of tigers were taken from different sources” 
 
Why you say that? Now you are an authority in measurements? The measurements from different sources represent different places, which make a better comparative image around ALL the tiger territory, so this data is more reliable than yours, after all, this is the compilation of a very respectable Zoologist, cited by Dr. Mazak, Dr Sunquist and Dr Karanth, and so your opinion doesn’t count. However, as I say before, this is the better image that I could found in the web, maybe you found a better one because some books are just sniped view in my net: 
 
 
 
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/7188/tableofbengaltigersizeb.png 
 
 
 
“Raul, i have already shown you records where the head and body length of the lion exceeded 200 cm, between pegs, such as those records from hollister, or the pdf document, mammalian species.” 
 
No, you have not. The largest male recorded by Hollister is of 198 cm head and body, and appears to be the largest in scientific records. The PDF document just copy and paste the size from Walkers Mammals of the World, so if you believe in lions of 250 cm head and body (no tail), you most believe in tigers of 280 cm head and body (no tail), because is in the same book!!! 
 
 
 
“though you again mentioned brander, who gave an average length of 9ft, 3 in. and, correct me if i`m wrong, but didn`t brander measure tigers from central india?.... “ 
 
What I say? Tigers from Central India have shorter tail, so Brander size is reliable at some point (not all). You can see pictures of tigers from there, the big males have relative short tail (B2, Rajbhera, etc). That’s way I don’t trust much in the total length, the tail is deceptive. 
 
 
 
“stop calling me a liar. i did NOT lie.” 
 
I don’t call you liar, I’, merely quoting the opinion of the great majority of people which know you, at least in the web, those from Wikipedia, Youtube, AVA forum, etc. You always say that the references of tigers are not reliable and discard them just because destroy your point of view, so I can put much information but you always will say that is not reliable, so at the end you don’t accept the true. You don’t accept Mazak, Sunquist, Pocock, Karanth, etc. Misunderstand Brander and Hewett, so what we could wait from you?  
 
 
 
I see that this looooooooong conversation have lost its point, you don’t accept the data, you just accept your data. Sorry man but there is no worst blind than that which don’t want to see. 
 
 
 
“so, only two tigers were compared...hardly a reliable measurement, don`t you think?...” 
 
Lying again, you see what I’m talking about? If some one is not prepare, you can deceptive him easily, so I will not answer you any more, but if some one give an opinion and you try to twist him, I will show the true.  
 
 
 
So, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 
 
 
I will say no more. 
 

Of course male lions are stronger than tigers.

You pepole need to stop talking down on lions. lions are badass, go watch lion king and get at me.

..Rual, you said i lied....i didn`t. i showed the ONLY reference i had to the specific mammalia book to which you refered, and it only mentioned 'two tigers'....what am i supposed to think?......if i`m mistaken, so be it. but, you mean to tell me, you couldn`t see that?..even when i already stated i have not read that particular version of the mammalia books? 
 
and, you still haven`t proven your point. in scientific records, the largest tigers for which there is reliable figures is one of roughly 270 kg, and even that figure is not reliably reported. my only reference to this being a email. well, i have another, but, it is a second hand source. 
 
a lion of 272 kg, later confirmed by R kock in an email to me, and for which there are reliable documents exist. another lion of 260 kg, reported by berry was mentioned. 
 
estimates upon the length of northern tigers between pegs are scarcely reliable, and the only comparison we have of these animals, as with those of central india, are from hunters, many of which gave, based upon reliable measurements, an average length of 9ft 2 and 1/3 in. to 9ft, 6 in. for tigers, over curves. finn reports a length of 9ft for tigers, while brander 9ft, 3 in, only a cm less than that reported of lions, from hollister. 
 
tigers are NOT larger than lions. they certainly have the larger reported average, but that alone is not proof as to their larger mass, as such is related upon food intake as well, and there is no reliable info to suggest chitwan tigers are larger than crater lions, or those from tsavo. 
 
i am of the belief that lions and tigers are of equal length and weight. even karanth reports a range in length for tigers of northern india which is similar to that of lions from east africa, as reported by schaller, of which he quotes from meinnertzhagen. 
 
 
 

Poor Damon: 
 
 
 
“and, you still haven`t proven your point. in scientific records, the largest tigers for which there is reliable figures is one of roughly 270 kg, and even that figure is not reliably reported. my only reference to this being a email. well, i have another, but, it is a second hand source. a lion of 272 kg, later confirmed by R kock in an email to me, and for which there are reliable documents exist. another lion of 260 kg, reported by berry was mentioned. “ 
 
 
 
I have proved my point, but you simple don’t hear reasons. The tiger of 270 kg was not a roughly estimate, as matter of fact, he bottomed a scale of 600 lb, so this tiger weighed more, and is very reliable. The lion of R Kock is not reliable, because he gives to different opinions, one to Tiger Lover and other to you, so, which say the true? The only documents which mention this is a very simple copy-paste reference in Nowell and Jackson, and just say “R. Kock in litt.”, a very poor reference. From the other hand the lion of 260 kg it is very reliable, and was cited by Estes, and him do it from Berry. Sadly, I have no more that at this time of this male.  
 
 
 
So: 
 
Largest tiger in scientific record: 270 kg 
 
Largest lion in scientific record: 260 kg 
 
 
 
“an average length of 9ft 2 and 1/3 in. to 9ft, 6 in. for tigers, over curves. finn reports a length of 9ft for tigers, while brander 9ft, 3 in, only a cm less than that reported of lions, from hollister.“ 
 
 
 
How many times we have discussed this? You are like a parrot, just repeat and repeat the same thing again and again. You don’t take in count something, you always complain about the small samples of the tigers, so this is the same case, there is just 5 lions in Hollister record, and there are 42 males tigers, almost all adults, from Brander. So, the comparison is futile. By the way, the total length is a very deceptive measurement (as I say many times here), the head-body length is a better one. The average head-body length reported from Hollister is 180 cm (what a surprise) but the average between pegs for the tigers, according with a sample of more than 7 males from Pocock give around 200 cm. So, who is larger in average? Tigers for sure. And by the way, the largest lion from Hollister is 195 cm and the largest tiger from Brander is 221 cm. Big difference don’t you think? 
 
 
 
“tigers are NOT larger than lions. they certainly have the larger reported average, but that alone is not proof as to their larger mass, as such is related upon food intake as well, and there is no reliable info to suggest chitwan tigers are larger than crater lions, or those from tsavo.” 
 
 
 
Man, you are obsessing whit the crater-tsavo lions. Where is the proof of that? You are the only who mention this by the way. However, you forget the Assam tigers, those from Orang and Kaziranga, which have very high prey base, more than the Chitwan tigers. These are the largest cats in the world. Crater-tsavo lions will be about the same as large South African lions. So tigers ARE larger than lions, in every sense. 
 
 
 
“i am of the belief that lions and tigers are of equal length and weight. even karanth reports a range in length for tigers of northern india which is similar to that of lions from east africa, as reported by schaller, of which he quotes from meinnertzhagen.” 
 
 
 
Karanth mention tigers of 289-311 cm. in total length. Where are the lions of more than 300 cm? There is just one, the male of Selous. So, don’t say nonsense. The lions quoted by Schaller don’t even reach the 274 cm. So he shows the statement of Dr. Patteron: “Male lions seldom exceed the 9 ft (274 cm) of total length). 
 
 
 
Again I have refuted your evidence, and now is MY evidence. Sorry man, you are fighting a lose battle. 
 
 
 
So, AGAIN, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

....Raul, i also mentioned records of the length of lions, from that pdf document i have shown. and, schaller, as well as guggisberg, gave an average length of 9ft for male lions. if that is the case (and of course, larger lions were reported) than obviously, lions can exceed this length. 
 
little, if ANY records of the length of tigers exist, between pegs. so, your statements have little merit. even in hunting records, the longest measured was a lion...but, i do not say lions are longer. it was just a circumstance of chance that the lion had the larger measurement, while accurate measurements of the length of a tiger indicate the longest 'accurately' measured tiger was 10ft, 7 in....i have several references for this figure, and it is reliable.  
 
chitwan tigers are scarcely larger than the largest of reported lions, and i doubt tigers of kaziranga or any other range you have mentioned, will exceed the body mass of crater or tsavo lions. but, i`ve been told, via email, that records of the mass of these animals will be reported soon. 
 
and, the zimbabwe document i showed you mentions a lion (lioness) of 3020 mm in length. so, any more excuses?.....

Damon, again the same thing? 
 
 
 
“....Raul, i also mentioned records of the length of lions, from that pdf document i have shown. and, schaller, as well as guggisberg, gave an average length of 9ft for male lions. if that is the case (and of course, larger lions were reported) than obviously, lions can exceed this length. “ 
 
 
 
The PDF document just copy and paste the information of Walker’s Mammals of the World, so, if you believe in lions of 250 cm head-body length, you MOST accept the tigers of 280 cm head-body length because they are in the same book. Gugguisberg and Schaller just copy-paste the average of Brander and Finn, and even if Brander is more realiable, Finn is unknown, so how know how he measure or just report of even he infer from some small sample. So Finn is not reliable and the quote of Schaller is not guarantee. The lios SELDOM exceed the 9 ft long, stop say the contrary. 
 
 
 
“little, if ANY records of the length of tigers exist, between pegs. so, your statements have little merit. even in hunting records, the longest measured was a lion...but, i do not say lions are longer. it was just a circumstance of chance that the lion had the larger measurement, while accurate measurements of the length of a tiger indicate the longest 'accurately' measured tiger was 10ft, 7 in....i have several references for this figure, and it is reliable. “ 
 
 
 
This is funny, any record of tigers between pegs? JA JA JA. The Bengal tigers are the only cats that have been measured BETWEEN PEGS and have reached the 310 cm in total length. The lions of 333 cm are completely unreliable, as I say before, they don’t have reference or other measurements, much weird don’t you think? But you will never accept it because is your war horse, sadly for you, is a dead horse to. The Total length is very deceptive; the tiger of 323 cm (10ft 7in) is the “longest” tiger, not the “largest”. The largest tiger in record is the giant male hunted by Brander. It measure 221 cm head-body length between pegs!!! There is no one lion in ALL the records which have reached this size. His Chest girth was of 150 cm, his shoulder height was of 109 cm and the tail measure only 81.3 cm, it was cut off maybe by another tiger. 
 
 
 
The longest lion accepted by Dr. Patterson was a male of 320 cm, but like the man-eater of Mfuwe, this could be a measurement over curves. 
 
 
 
“chitwan tigers are scarcely larger than the largest of reported lions, and i doubt tigers of kaziranga or any other range you have mentioned, will exceed the body mass of crater or tsavo lions. but, i`ve been told, via email, that records of the mass of these animals will be reported soon.” 
 
 
 
Come on, you DOUBT? That is not the best answer in this entire topic. What you believe don’t count, show evidence, and SURPRISE, there is no evidence that the crater-tsavo lions are larger than the big South Africa lions. The Chitwan tigers are larger than those, well just imagine the Kaziranga tigers which have a high prey base, these monsters are huge and pictures of this place show that. So, the “giant” lions are just in your imagination.  
 
 
 
“and, the zimbabwe document i showed you mentions a lion (lioness) of 3020 mm in length. so, any more excuses?.....” 
 
 
 
Damon, that is obviously a misprinting, or a male lion in the best of the cases. And don’t surprise me this because the largest lion in hunting record (correctly measured) was a male of 302 cm hunted by Selous. So, this could be real, but this is just speculation, the simpler is that it was a misprint. So, any more excuses Damon, or you will repeat the same again and again, even when I have discredited all your statements? 
 
 
 
Just remember this, I am not trying to convince you, I am just show the real evidence because there are people who read this and I don’t want that these misinterpretations reach the common people, which are trying to learn about this things.  
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

raul, yeah, those tiger records came from the same book. but not the same reference. a tiger with a body length of 280 cm is extreme....that given for the lions is not, and also is based upon actual records. if you want, i could get the original document, concerning the length of these lions, if you want?..... 
 
and actually, the largest lion in hunting records was one of 11 ft.....i`m sure guinness wouldn`t add the record, if it wasn`t accurately proven. 
 
andk, those records of the tigers may have been a misquote, but, i doubt that of the lioness in the zimbabwe document is, as it is entirely plausible, unlike a body length of 280 cm for tigers. 
 
and, you didn`t show me any real info, you just gave me YOUR opinion of the info i showed, and, i don`t agree, and i`ve also shown you records of the length of tigers, such as those from finn, which indicate an average of 9ft (though the area in which they were measured was not given) and brander, which gives an average of 9ft, 3 in.  
 
the book, kingdom of might mentions two large lions of 10 ft, 11 in., measured accurately. i have not found tigers to be larger than lions...at least, across the majority of records. the largest recorded bengal in the wild measured 857 lbs, but this animal had heavily gorged upon a young buffalo carcass the night previously, making his actual weight a bit less. and, even then, that tiger was FAR heavier than any other measured in the same area....so, this was an unusual case. 
 
...tigers seem to be no bigger than lions, but really, there is little records (comparatively speaking) to go by. 
 

Well, let’s continue this. 
 
 
 
“raul, yeah, those tiger records came from the same book. but not the same reference. a tiger with a body length of 280 cm is extreme....that given for the lions is not, and also is based upon actual records. if you want, i could get the original document, concerning the length of these lions, if you want?..... “ 
 
 
 
You see, you are so biased, tigers are extreme but the lions don’t? Man you are crazy. The largest lion between pegs was 198 cm, so the lion of 250 cm is a complete exaggeration, not even extreme. And I don’t even need that you put the reference. Just by putting “Walker’s Mammals of the World” or “Walker’s Carnivores of the World” in the Google book search and there are this books. So, don’t come with your flatters. 
 
 
 
“and actually, the largest lion in hunting records was one of 11 ft.....i`m sure guinness wouldn`t add the record, if it wasn`t accurately proven. “ 
 
 
 
This lions are just mentioned in “Guinness book of Animals facts and feat”, and there is mentioned the giant tiger of 800 lb as reliable. So again, “your” references are against you, more reference for me.  
 
 
 
“andk, those records of the tigers may have been a misquote, but, i doubt that of the lioness in the zimbabwe document is, as it is entirely plausible, unlike a body length of 280 cm for tigers.” 
 
 
 
Plausible lioness of 302 cm????? Ja ja ja ja ja. You are crazy man. 
 
 
 
“and, you didn`t show me any real info, you just gave me YOUR opinion of the info i showed, and, i don`t agree, and i`ve also shown you records of the length of tigers, such as those from finn, which indicate an average of 9ft (though the area in which they were measured was not given) and brander, which gives an average of 9ft, 3 in.“ 
 
 
 
We have the same references, but different opinion. Well, now all these are My reference of course. Finn is an unknown man, and Brander, which is a little more reliable, don’t take in count the large variation in tail length. You know something, I will start to copy and paste my previous answers, like the experts in Allexperts did when you say the same nonsense again and again. You are my little parrot. 
 
 
 
“the book, kingdom of might mentions two large lions of 10 ft, 11 in., measured accurately. i have not found tigers to be larger than lions...at least, across the majority of records. the largest recorded bengal in the wild measured 857 lbs, but this animal had heavily gorged upon a young buffalo carcass the night previously, making his actual weight a bit less. and, even then, that tiger was FAR heavier than any other measured in the same area....so, this was an unusual case.“ 
 
 
 
Again your dead horses of 330 cm. He just quoted from Guggisberg or Guinness, and they from “just God knows”. So, they are not reliable, they are just a commentary which was travel from book to book, like the phrase: “Siberian tiger’s weight up to 800 lb”. This phrase is quoted in almost all the web page. The HEAVIEST tiger is 857 lb, the LONGEST tiger is 323 cm, the LARGEST tiger is the Brander record tiger of 221 cm in head-body length and chest girth of 150 cm, so be careful with your words. And this tiger was not FAR heavier. If we take in count that these cattle eater can eat about 1/5 of his own weight, then the real weight was of 685.6 lb (311 kg), which is less than the second largest tiger (the giant of Smythies of 320 kg). However I don’t even need the records, with the normal tigers I defend my point very good. 
 
 
 
“...tigers seem to be no bigger than lions, but really, there is little records (comparatively speaking) to go by.“ 
 
 
 
There are records, the problem is that you misunderstand them. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

Raul, the same person did not measured those lions and tigers, it was merely reported in the same book. get it, now?......and, those records of the lion was NOT extreme, and some came from schaller, who mentioned records from meinertzhagen, and he actually measured his lions. the rest came from other sources, as the book clearly notes more than one. 
 
i don`t misunderstand any records.....i quoted all the records i had, just as they are. but, YOU are making assumptions that those lions lengths were estimated, or else exaggerated, when lions have reached those lengths. not only that, but the reference for these records are reliable. 
 
i just don`t agree tigers are larger. and, you have YET to bring any reliable measurements upon the length of tigers, between pegs....but, i have. even the measurements that i have brought on tigers 'over curves' do not agree with your statements. 
 
so, in this instance, i do not agree with what you state.

Hummm. 
 
 
 
“so, in this instance, i do not agree with what you state.” 
 
What a surprise. 
 
 
 
“Raul, the same person did not measured those lions and tigers, it was merely reported in the same book. get it, now?......and, those records of the lion was NOT extreme, and some came from schaller, who mentioned records from meinertzhagen, and he actually measured his lions. the rest came from other sources, as the book clearly notes more than one. “ 
 
Now is merely reported, not an accurate investigation. The lions that I say were exaggerations are not those from Schaller of Meinertzhagen, are those from Walker’s etc, etc. Schaller and Meinertzhagen are reliable to me. You see, again changing the words of the people. 
 
 
 
“i don`t misunderstand any records.....i quoted all the records i had, just as they are. but, YOU are making assumptions that those lions lengths were estimated, or else exaggerated, when lions have reached those lengths. not only that, but the reference for these records are reliable. “ 
 
For you at least. But who believe in you? Tell me one people (apart from Catlion)? I don’t say that the 333 cm lions are estimates; I say that they are over curves by sure.  
 
 
 
“i just don`t agree tigers are larger. and, you have YET to bring any reliable measurements upon the length of tigers, between pegs....but, i have. even the measurements that i have brought on tigers 'over curves' do not agree with your statements. “ 
 
I mention Pocock, Sterndale, Mazak, Karanth, and you say that I have not brought information? If you want images, sorry, but I don’t like it. However I have put the image from Pocock, the Sterndale book is available completely in Project Gutenberg, and Mazak is known by every one. And the measurements of tiger over curves, who cares? Even these ones are by no way against me. Sorry man, your commentaries are drowned kicks. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

damon aka bold champ is a nigger, he didn't even finish highschool , once again he's a dirty black nigger who doesn't know shit about lions n tigers.  
 
 
 
fuck you dirty nigger scum nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

...don`t insult me, ayaaz. if you have something to post, than do so. and, i know a great deal of lions and tigers, having spent many years both reading and analyzing records of these animals, as well as constantly being in contact with many experts on the subject, most of which agree with my statements.

Damon, what a Liar!!! 
 
 
 
"as well as constantly being in contact with many experts on the subject, most of which agree with my statements." 
 
 
 
I have talk with the experts too and no one of them agreed with you. It's very simple, read what they were post in they works: "Tigers are the largest cat in the world". They don't say tiger=lion, they say tiger>lion. So, this time you are messing with serious things. Be careful man. Even Craig Paker have said that the Amur tigre is larger. So, what? Stop spamming here. 
 
 
 
By the way, have you finish the highschool at least?  
 

Raul, craig packer never told me personally that tigers were larger than lions (though i did see the email where he stated this)...but,craig said that, with similar food intake the siberians COULD be larger....that is not based upon actual records, but merely an opinion, but one which i do not agree with. but, he did also state that the chest girth measurements he found of crater lions were similar to that of bengals. when i showed him records of the body mass of lions and tigers, also giving my statements that i believed both animals to be of equal mass, he stated that it could make a difference depending upon whether or not the animals had an empty stomach, but did not deny my statements. 
 
and, david prynn agreed with me that lions and tigers were equal in mass, but that those tigers in the northern most range were larger. and, i agree, most records indicate they grow larger than most recorded weights of lion populations. but, i doubt they are any larger than crater lions, or those of tsavo. peter jackson, as well, did not deny my statements concerning the body mass of lions and tigers, but stated, instead, that such depended on whether they had a full belly, or not, but also that there is not much between these animals. 
 
and no, i have not finished highschool. but, i don`t need school to tell me how smart i am. i have an iq of 133, after all. 

...also, Raul, stop calling me a liar. i never lied on this or ANY other forum, or never will. i may be mistaken at times, and you can certainly say this, or point it out. but, don`t call me a liar. i`ve told you before i have never lied. if you don`t believe what i state, ASK me to verify...don`t accuse me of lying.

Damon, the e-mail says that the chest girths of the crater lions are similar to those from the Amur tigers, not Bengal tigers. Man, you forget that I have read the e-mail to. You can’t deceive me. 
 
 
 
And the tigers in northern parts are by far larger than the crater lions. Those lions are just speculation. You just talk and talk of them, but you forget that the Kaziranga tigers are larger than the normal tigers, and this lasts are larger than any lion. So Tiger > Lions. 
 
 
 
Finally, you have an Iq of 133 and you don’t have finish the high school? Man in the picture published in AVA forum you look very old (not the avatar). So, your Iq most be of air. Ja ja ja. 
 
 
 
And again, I say you liar not just for your twist statements, but because is the common consensus of ALL the people that know you (except from CatLion), as matter of fact, I think that this is your new nick name already. Forget Bold-Champ and Brentlion, your new name is “LionLiar”, sound cool!!! 
 
 
 
Just remember, I have read all that you have read, but I just wait for catch you in your mistakes, which are MANY. Ja ja ja. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

Raul, i never said the email mentioned bengals...i mentioned, specifically, that he refered to siberians. but, i have records upon the chest girth of lions and bengal tigers, and, it would seem that, proportionately, lions have the larger chest girth. and, this makes sense, as they have the greater chest capacity. 
 
and, just because tigerfans call me a liar, doesn`t make it so. and, i did NOT twist any data....merely reported them as they are. i`ve certainly made mistakes on this.....and mentioned this, when i had. 
 
if i`m ever mistaken, so be it. say so. but, don`t call me a liar. unless, you want me to start calling you one?..... 
 
but, as always, i do not agree tigers are larger than lions. there is little, if ANY hunters records which i don`t have. in fact, i have MANY records from hunters, and the great majority show figures similar in weight.  
 
even the weights of captive lions and bengal tigers was similar.

...and, i NEVER showed my picture in the ava forum. but, i`m only 23....but, i look 16 or 17. so, what are you talking of, Raul?...... 
 
here`s a pic of me, with my little sister; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/bertdmo-1.jpg

Damon, shame of you: 
 
 
 
“Raul, i never said the email mentioned bengals...i mentioned, specifically, that he refered to siberians.” 
 
If not, then what say here? This is your previous statement: 
 
“he (Craig Paker) did also state that the chest girth measurements he found of crater lions were similar to that of bengals.” 
 
Then why we call you liar? For this vise yours f change the data. 
 
 
 
“but, i have records upon the chest girth of lions and bengal tigers, and, it would seem that, proportionately, lions have the larger chest girth. and, this makes sense, as they have the greater chest capacity.“ 
 
Tigers have the largest chest capacity, and the tigers have the largest chest girth. The largest chest girth in scientific record for the lion is 130 cm, and is for the lion of Etosha of 260 kg. The largest chest girth in scientific record is that of the “Sauraha” male, which measure 140 cm and weighed 261 kg. The largest tiger of Brander had a chest girth of 150 cm and the largest chest girth in record is one of 160 cm, reported by Sterndale. 
 
 
 
“but, as always, i do not agree tigers are larger than lions. there is little, if ANY hunters records which i don`t have. in fact, i have MANY records from hunters, and the great majority show figures similar in weight.“ 
 
You just bluffing, like always. 
 
 
 
...and, i NEVER showed my picture in the ava forum. but, i`m only 23....but, i look 16 or 17. so, what are you talking of, Raul?......  
 
You don’t, but someone did, and you are together with an Afro-American boxing fighter. Obviously they are joking on you in that picture. But never mind. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

The tiger is the strongest cat in the world of course it would win.

...Raul, i made a mistake when i said packer said the chest girth of crater lions was similar to bengals.....that was obvious. it wasn`t a lie, merely a misquote. i MEANT siberians. but, i DO have records of the chest girth measurements of lions and tigers, and, proportionately, lions have the greater chest girth measurement. 
 
i was never with any boxer in a picture....at least, not one that i`ve seen. that`s probably someone else.....can you show me the pic?.... 
 
and, i never bluff, raul. if i say i have the records, i do. i`ve never lied, or been mistaken on this fact.......i remember every record i`ve ever saved, on lions and tigers. here`s a few on the weight of tigers; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigersize.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigeraveragesize.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/measurementsofatigermale-1.jpg 
 
....i have many more records than that.....and, notice, also, that all these specimens were stated to have been measured.....which is confirmation within itself. 

here are some more records (of lions...and tigers); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/books-45.png 
 
..the above lions were measured by george washington crile, a well known figure in scientific literature. 
 
here`s more weights; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/largestlionshot2.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/BodySizeinLions.jpg

here`s some more records as well; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigersizelengthcoloneljmacdonald.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/asiaticlionssize.png 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/largemaletigermeasurements.jpg

here`s even more records; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionweightandgirth.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/measurementsofatiger.jpg 
 
...as you can see, the weights and measurements of the lions i mentioned (and, these were of actual measurements) are similar. and, i have even more records than this....as i`ve stated, the weights were similar, if not altogether equal in numbers.  
 
from the many records i`ve seen of the measurements of lions and tigers, they seem to be of equal size. 

Just old records Damon? Almost all those records are unreliable. There was no scientific corroboration in the field, and we can’t be sure if they are real. By the way just these figures are reliable for the lions: 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/largestlionshot2.jpg 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/BodySizeinLions.jpg 
 
 
 
All the weights of the tigers are from 1850-1910 so they are completely unreliable, after all the modern investigations show very high weights in Indian populations. 
 
 
 
And, you most see that the weight of the lion have not change until now because the hunters have always hunted bug male lions, but the hunters can’t distinguish between an adult tiger and a young one, so many “adults” in record are young or large cubs. I can describe every one of your pics and show the problems, but give me time. 
 

As you can see, this fragments yours are just bluff. However if we use actual information we can see weight of male tigers from 220 to 270 kg, and male lions from 150-260 kg. Big differences. So, you can see that the tigers are heavier than the lions. 
 
 
 
Dr. Karanth reported 6 males from Nagarahole: 205, 218, 227, 230, 240, 257 kg. They are from his thesis, the book “A view from the Machan” and “Hulirayana Akashvani” (camera tigers). 
 
 
 
Dr Sunquist reported 7 males from 200-261 kg, with an average of 235 kg. That with out the 270 kg male of Dinerstein. Aparently Dr. Dave Smith weighed another heavy tiger of more than 270 kg (according with Dr. Sunquist in personal communication), however I will ask him personally for be sure. 
 
 
 
A young male of 3.5 years old translated to Sariska, was radio collared and weighed. He reaches the 220 kg, not gorged obviously. 
 
 
 
As you can see, modern scientific investigation shows that the tigers are heavier than the lions. The heaviest lion more or less reliable is that one of Etosha which weighed 260 kg. The next one is a male of 242 kg. Just taking in count the scientific records. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

...raul, ALL of those records i brought of the lions were of actual measurements. the first (of the 410 and 420 lb lions) was from george washington crile, who weighed every animal he dissected; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/animalsweighedbygeorgewashingtoncri.jpg 
 
george crile recorded the weights and organs of 3,734 different animals, large and small, including lions. the above source was from his book, intelligence, power, and personality. as you can see, he actually weighed those animals. 
 
the records from the book, indian shooting, was also of actual measurements, where one lion weighed was 495 lbs, without his entrails. selous quotes the 500 lb lion mentioned by rowland ward, in the above mentioned source of the 495 lb lion, in the book 'a hunter`s wanderings', and this too, is an actual measurement. 
 
selous has also changed his opinion, stating that he believes a lion in good condition to weigh 400 - 500 lbs; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/selous.jpg 
 
...voth the lions selous weighed also had to be cut into smaller pieces, as his scale only had a capacity of 200 lbs...so, much weight would have been lost, to blood. 
 
the 402 lb lion from somaliland was also of an actual record, as can be seen from the description, measured by theodore roosevelt. 
 
the other records, of the tigers, were also of actual measurements, as most of these animals were actually stated to have been measured, and that is confirmation within itself. and, the records were similar, as you can see.

also, sunquist only measured 7 males, all of whom were baited, and weights not adjusted for food, though, according to sunquist they ate an average of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits, which would make their actual weight 221 kg, adjusted for food content. 
 
...lions have also reached those weights which have been reported for tigers. r kock reported a lion of 272 kg, which he later verified, and also confirmed via an email to me. berry mentions a lion of 260 kg, while smithers reported a lion of 240 kg, in 1979.  
 
the average body mass of zimbabwe lions is 202 kg, scarcely any different that those gathered for chitwan tigers, and much more conclusive, as 18 specimens were measured, in this case, as opposed to 7 for chitwan tigers. 
 
not to mention, little records exist of the largest of reported lions, from the crater, and measurements upon the chest girth of these animals indicate they grow especially large, and would certainly equal the mass of chitwan tigers. 
 
you could say that tigers have the largest recorded average, but, you cannot say with absolute certainty that they are larger than lions as a whole, as little, if any records exist of the largest of reported lions, and external measurements of these animals is roughly equal. 
 
also, you should know the average tail length of the cooch behar tigers, according to one source, was a bit over 3ft, 1 in. the average for indian tigers being 3ft,.....scarcely any difference, and just as i had said. indian tigers average 9ft in length, according to finn, and, if the body length of tigers from northern india should be the same (as the same source gives the tail length, mentions little difference between the bodies of tigers from separate populations), then the length of these tigers should be roughly the same as that given for those tigers measured by brander, at 9ft, 3 in.

also, that 3.5 year old male which was supposedly of 220 kg is not reliable, as the figure was not actually posted by an expert....as i have myself seen the reference of the weight of this animal, and little proof is shown, other than the fact the animal was actually captured....though, i don`t doubt it isn`t possible, as the animal is nearly adult. though the pic of the animal showed a tiger of normal proportions, so, in this case, i disagree.

Damon, 
 
 
 
“the records from the book, indian shooting, was also of actual measurements, where one lion weighed was 495 lbs, without his entrails. selous quotes the 500 lb lion mentioned by rowland ward, in the above mentioned source of the 495 lb lion, in the book 'a hunter`s wanderings', and this too, is an actual measurement.“ 
 
I crearly say the this reference in particular is reliable, when I say the contrary of this specific pic? 
 
 
 
“selous has also changed his opinion, stating that he believes a lion in good condition to weigh 400 - 500 lbs” http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/selous.jpg 
 
From what date is this reference? Then we can see if he changes from 400 to 400-500 or was of 400-500 to 400. After all the low part of the pic show a male of 408 lb, not big deal.  
 
 
 
“...voth the lions selous weighed also had to be cut into smaller pieces, as his scale only had a capacity of 200 lbs...so, much weight would have been lost, to blood.” 
 
Show the reference of that.  
 
 
 
“the 402 lb lion from somaliland was also of an actual record, as can be seen from the description, measured by theodore roosevelt.”• 
 
I clearly say that this record is realible because it came from Roosevelt.  
 
 
 
“the other records, of the tigers, were also of actual measurements, as most of these animals were actually stated to have been measured, and that is confirmation within itself. and, the records were similar, as you can see.” 
 
All that are unreliable, they don’t have source and a simple pic is not reference at all. The averages are useless because there is no range or number of specimens or anything else. 
 
 
 
“also, sunquist only measured 7 males, all of whom were baited, and weights not adjusted for food, though, according to sunquist they ate an average of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits, which would make their actual weight 221 kg, adjusted for food content. “ 
 
Again with this foolishness, like I not already know it. I have explained before why this statement is false and useless. 
 

“...lions have also reached those weights which have been reported for tigers. r kock reported a lion of 272 kg, which he later verified, and also confirmed via an email to me.” 
 
He say one thing to you, but he say other thing to Tiger Lover, so who say the true? R Kock is not reliable. 
 
 
 
“the average body mass of zimbabwe lions is 202 kg, scarcely any different that those gathered for chitwan tigers, and much more conclusive, as 18 specimens were measured, in this case, as opposed to 7 for chitwan tigers. “ 
 
Scarcely? Are you nuts? There is a difference of more than 42 pounds!!! So don’t say nonsense. And by the way, the sample of 7 males is representative because the population is Chitwan is very low. The sample of 18 specimens is necessary because there are a lot of lions in Zimbabwe, so they need a larger sample. So, not big deal. 
 
 
 
“not to mention, little records exist of the largest of reported lions, from the crater, and measurements upon the chest girth of these animals indicate they grow especially large, and would certainly equal the mass of chitwan tigers. “ 
 
Again with your miths? Just don’t forget the Kaziranga, the Manas and the Orange tigers. 
 
 
 
“you could say that tigers have the largest recorded average, but, you cannot say with absolute certainty that they are larger than lions as a whole, as little, if any records exist of the largest of reported lions, and external measurements of these animals is roughly equal. “ 
 
The largest reported lions are from Zimbabwe and South Africa, so there is plenty information about the largest lions. So what? 
 
 
 
“also, you should know the average tail length of the cooch behar tigers, according to one source, was a bit over 3ft, 1 in. the average for indian tigers being 3ft,.....scarcely any difference, and just as i had said. indian tigers average 9ft in length, according to finn, and, if the body length of tigers from northern india should be the same (as the same source gives the tail length, mentions little difference between the bodies of tigers from separate populations), then the length of these tigers should be roughly the same as that given for those tigers measured by brander, at 9ft, 3 in.” 
 
This is nonsense. The tigers in the north are larger than those of the Center of India. And remember that the tigers in the North east have longer tails than the North West or the Center of India. So the tail is deceptive. The average head-body length for the tigers in Cooch Behar is of 206 cm, which is higher than 180 cm (6 ft) of Finn. And by the way, how many tigers measured Finn? Where is his study? Even Brander is more reliable than him, and remember that Brander include young animals in his sample. So no, male tigers don’t average 6 ft in head-body, they are around 200 cm according with Cooch Behar and Pocock. 
 
 
 
“also, that 3.5 year old male which was supposedly of 220 kg is not reliable, as the figure was not actually posted by an expert....as i have myself seen the reference of the weight of this animal, and little proof is shown, other than the fact the animal was actually captured....though, i don`t doubt it isn`t possible, as the animal is nearly adult. though the pic of the animal showed a tiger of normal proportions, so, in this case, i disagree.” 
 
For you maybe, but all the other people accept this weight, and a tiger of normal proportions most weight about 221 kg according with Slaght et al. So this weight is reliable. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

Raul, you said you clearly stated before while my statements concerning the chitwan tigers were false. well, sunquist himself made the statements.....stating his specimens were baited, and ate fully 14-18 kg a day, feeding upon baits, according to one of sunquist`s published data. and, here is the reference for the selous data; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionweighedbyselous.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/measurementofalionselous.jpg 
 
on one source, sellous actually mentions his scale could not weigh anything over 300 lbs, but, in another, he stated it actually had a capacity of 220 lbs.....sorry for the mistake. 
 
and, you only stated the data from two sources which i had brought upon the lions was not reliable...i mentioned those others, which i proved WAS, and is, of reliable measurements.  
 
and, here is the info from the book by selous; 
 
 
Travel and Adventure in South-East Africa: Being the Narrative of the Last ... 
 
Travel and Adventure in South-East Africa: Being the Narrative of the Last ...‎ - Page 445 
by Frederick Courteney Selous - South Africa - 1893 - 503 pages 
 
....according to selous`s book in 1894, big game shooting' of the 408 lb lion, he measured the animal in 1891, 3 years before the book, and before his statement that he believes a lion in good condition should weigh 400-500 lbs. 
 
and, slaught gave an average of 221 kg for only 3 adult male tigers....hardly a reliable figure. and, just because many except the figure of that so-called 220 kg 3.5 year old tiger, doesn`t make it an actual measurement.  
 
and, as usual, i disagree that tigers are any larger than lions. and soon, i`ll publish a document confirming lions and tigers are, relatively speaking, of equal mass. 

Please don't be too hard on Damon, he is a little boy and may have been through some tragedy that makes him stay at home all the time. Please be considerate of his possible terrible past. We can ignore him, but please don't do name calling and labeling. Thanks.

ckhor, i`m not a little boy, and i certainly haven`t been through any tragedies in my childhood.....perhaps you have, though?...certainly seems the type. 
 
anyway, all i stated previously is true.

Damon, I truly agree with you that lion is bigger than tiger. From my reliable source, it can even reach the size of an elephant, and even hunts tigers for fun. Everyone here is simply dumb, you are the only one who sees the truth. I have seen enough, and I 100% agree with you. So please don't keep repeating the same things over and over again. May God bless you and lions, so lions one day will reach the size of whales and nobody will ever doubt its strength and weight anymore. I was so fortunately to accidentally clicked into this forum last night to learn that there is such a wise man in the world, you are such a living bible. But please let all people here rot by themselves, they deserve it. Move on to other forum to rescue others who may want to have themselves rescued. Thanks!

Damon, again with your twist manners: 
 
 
 
“Raul, you said you clearly stated before while my statements concerning the chitwan tigers were false. well, sunquist himself made the statements.....stating his specimens were baited, and ate fully 14-18 kg a day, feeding upon baits, according to one of sunquist`s published data.” 
 
 
 
Dr Sunquist just mentions that they have been baited, but that doesn’t shoe that all this seven tigers were gorged in the moment of the capture. So, that’s way you can’t low the average stated by Dr Sunquist. You get it now???  
 
 
 
About the Selous, you have proved again that you make many mistakes because you don’t know what you are talking about. How many other times have you make “mistakes” in your statements and have confused the people? Thanks God that I’m here now for stopping you.  
 
 
 
“and, slaught gave an average of 221 kg for only 3 adult male tigers....hardly a reliable figure. and, just because many except the figure of that so-called 220 kg 3.5 year old tiger, doesn`t make it an actual measurement.” 
 
 
 
The 220 kg tiger is reliable and doesn’t matter if you don’t accept it. By the way the sample of Slaght et al was of 5 figures of averages in different regions, so is more accurate of what we though latter. 
 
 
 
“and, as usual, i disagree that tigers are any larger than lions. and soon, i`ll publish a document confirming lions and tigers are, relatively speaking, of equal mass.” 
 
Then I will most write another to, just for reveal your twist statements. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

ckhor, i don`t believe lions are larger at all.....never even said so. in my opinion, they are equal in mass. 
 
and, Raul, the figure of slaught was of 5 different tiger subspecies....the first of bengals, the second of siberians, and so forth....the body mass he gave for bengals was based only upon 3 specimens....hardly a reliable figure. 
 
and, also, sunquist stated, quite clearly, that he baited his tigers with a carcass of approximately 100 kg, big enough for the animals to feed several times before capture. and, i was fully right about selous, as he stated both the lions he weighed had to be cut into smaller pieces, as the scale he used only had a capacity of 220 lbs. and, he also said, as i have shown you, that he now believes a lion in good condition will scale 400 - 500 lbs. in which way did i make a mistake?........ 
 
you have NOT proved tigers are larger than lions, and frankly, most records disagree, and i`ll publish a document proving lions and tigers, relatively speaking, are of equal mass. 
 

Damon, you actually believe your own lies? And this time you are clearly saying lies, look to your words: 
 
 
 
“and, Raul, the figure of slaught was of 5 different tiger subspecies....the first of bengals, the second of siberians, and so forth....the body mass he gave for bengals was based only upon 3 specimens....hardly a reliable figure. “ 
 
 
 
Slaght et al use a figure of 5 males from Sunquist (1981), Smith (1984, unpublished data) and Karanta (1993). They present the average of 7 subspecies by separate, not 5 together, and the Amur tiger is the first. Latter come the Bengal and the others. So, don’t lie, I catch you again and don’t forget it, I have the documents to. 
 
 
 
“and, also, sunquist stated, quite clearly, that he baited his tigers with a carcass of approximately 100 kg, big enough for the animals to feed several times before capture.” 
 
You can’t know if all the tigers were fully gorged in the moment of the weigh, so you can’t change the average of Dr Sunquist, but at the end it doesn’t matter because nobody believe in you. 
 
 
 
“i was fully right about selous, as he stated both the lions he weighed had to be cut into smaller pieces, as the scale he used only had a capacity of 220 lbs. and, he also said, as i have shown you, that he now believes a lion in good condition will scale 400 - 500 lbs. in which way did i make a mistake?........ “ 
 
Look this words from you: 
 
“on one source, sellous actually mentions his scale could not weigh anything over 300 lbs, but, in another, he stated it actually had a capacity of 220 lbs.....sorry for the mistake.” 
 
You see, you always mistake your statements, but until one of us shows your mistakes many times, you don’t accept it.  
 
 
 
“you have NOT proved tigers are larger than lions, and frankly, most records disagree, and i`ll publish a document proving lions and tigers, relatively speaking, are of equal mass.“ 
 
I have probe this many times here, how can you say that? Don’t you have shame? So don’t change the context of the affirmations and the information presented by scientist. They are not of equal mass; the tiger is, was and will be always larger and heavier than any lion, simple science. 
 
 
 
“ll publish a document proving lions and tigers, relatively speaking, are of equal mass” 
 
I don’t need to publish an already know true, but because all your arguments are lie, you most create a source for that. But don’t worry, I will discredit it to, like I have discredit ALL your statements here.  
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.

Raul, why do you keep saying i lied?....here are slaught`s records; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/meanweightsofdifferenttigersubspeci.jpg 
 
...as you can see (unless you have some records i may not have seen) he does not mention sunquist`s records, and the bengal tiger`s records is shown first....only 3 specimens were weighed. 
 
..and, i`ve made few mistakes. and, sunquist stated he baited his tigers with a 100 kg buffalo carcass, large enough for the animals to feed for several meals. 
 
and, i`ve seen MANY records, most of which i have not even shown, and the results were the same. there was little, if ANY difference in the body mass of these two animals. likewise, the average tail length of the tigers measured in cooch behar (just to show that there is little variation between populations) was a bit over 3ft, 1 in. check this out; 
 
[IMG]http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/taillength.jpg[/IMG] 
 
...the average tail length given for the tigers, from finn, was 3ft, hardly any different. considering the average body length of most tigers is roughly 6ft, that would make the avergae tail length of brander`s tiger`s at about 3ft, 3 in., similar/possibly greater than that of cooch behar tigers. 
 
and, i have never lied in any forum, and i also quote actual records when making ANY document. stop saying i lied.....if you have any other records to the contrary, then so be it. say so. but, don`t say i lied.

and, just so you are not further confused, it is obvious you misunderstood my last post (the one to which you last commented on). i said that 5 different subspecies was used in the study (i was quoting this on memory) as the number was actually 7. it`s an easy mistake, so, don`t say i lied. if you`re not bright enough to realize a mistake when someone makes them, how can you confidently defend your case?.....

Let’s continue. 
 
“if you`re not bright enough to realize a mistake when someone makes them, how can you confidently defend your case?.....” 
 
Come on Damon, you don’t confuse often, you twist the data for create confusion. 
 
 
 
“...as you can see (unless you have some records i may not have seen) he does not mention sunquist`s records, and the bengal tiger`s records is shown first....only 3 specimens were weighed.”  
 
Ok, this time you have not lie, but you are confused, that’s why I don’t like the second-hand sources. This is the original source of Slaght et al (in Russian): 
 
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/8869/slaghtoriginalsource.jpg 
 
If you need a translation of the columns and the rows I can’t give it to you, if you want? 
 
 
 
As you can see the source that you post is from Barlow (2009) thesis about the Sundarbans tigers, and he misquoted the original source. So, this is the original source. A fragment of the document says: 
 
In Russian: Данные о весе диких бенгальских тигров были взяты у Санквиста (Sunquist,1981), Смита (Smith, 1984, неопубликованные данные) и Каранта (Karanth, 1993). 
 
In English (traduced by Google): Data on the weight of wild Bengal tiger was taken from Sankvista (Sunquist, 1981), Smith (Smith, 1984, unpublished data) and Karanta (Karanth, 1993). 
 
Served. 
 
 
 
I will not discuss again the average size because it was discussed many times and I have proved that the average head-body length of the male Bengal tiger measured between pegs is about 190-200 cm. So, I will not waist my time anymore. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

raul, when did you prove the tiger had a head and body length of 190-200 cm?.....you proved no such thing.....unless, you are referring to mazak`s record`s of the measurements of tigers over curves, where he 'decucted' a few in., for the length of these specimens, between pegs?....hardly conclusive, and it does not prove your point. even then, the average length of the lions measured by dewalt keet was 6ft, 6 in., though i believe these particular specimens were measured 'over curves'.  
 
you can conclude, from all the records, that the tiger has the largest recorded average weight, but, that`s all. a comparison of ONE subgroup of tigers do not constitute the measurements of an entire population. likewise, the records were so limited. 
 
and, that russian document i`ve already seen, but, i did not fully read it, the last time. but yeah, i would certainly like the translation of the document.

Ahhhh, this is already bore, but let’s continue..... again. 
 
 
 
“raul, when did you prove the tiger had a head and body length of 190-200 cm?.....you proved no such thing.....unless, you are referring to mazak`s record`s of the measurements of tigers over curves, where he 'decucted' a few in., for the length of these specimens, between pegs?....hardly conclusive, and it does not prove your point. even then, the average length of the lions measured by dewalt keet was 6ft, 6 in., though i believe these particular specimens were measured 'over curves'.” 
 
Don’t you remember Dr Karanth, or Pocock, or Sterndale? Come on, even the tigers of Cooch Behar which I have already proved that are straight line (between pegs). So, I don’t know why you continue this. Mazak just give total length records, I am talking of head-body length records. So, you loose, I win.  
 
 
 
“you can conclude, from all the records, that the tiger has the largest recorded average weight, but, that`s all. a comparison of ONE subgroup of tigers do not constitute the measurements of an entire population. likewise, the records were so limited.” 
 
Limited? There are the same numbers of records of lion and tigers, and for several populations. You are the only who insist only in the Chitwan tigers. The records talk about the South India tigers, the Assam tigers, the Central India tigers even the Sundarbans tigers. So, what are you talking about? These words from you are just drown kicks.  
 
 
 
“and, that russian document i`ve already seen, but, i did not fully read it, the last time. but yeah, i would certainly like the translation of the document.” 
 
Then, if you already have it, why you cite the incorrect reference and not the correct one? You see, you discard the true evidence, then you lie. This is another probe that you are a fraud. 
 
 
 
I will put the translation latter, I don’t have time right now, and I am in final tests in the University. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.

Raul, you did not prove that cooch behar measured his tigers between pegs. it is true he measured 'some' of his tigers between pegs, but, all were also measured over curves, and those are the records he actually showed to the public. 
 
...i`ve have read his entire book, and have ALL his records. he measured a total of about 35 or 36 adult tigers, yet, he only reported the measurements of 26 of these animals....that is biased. 
 
dr. karanth gave a range in length similar to that reported by schaller, for lions.  
 
and, Raul, stop saying i lied. i said i had seen the russian document....i do not actually have the document at hand. and, besides, i cannot read russian. so, stop saying i lied. i did not read the entire document, anyway. do we have to keep goind through this all the time?....i DONT LIE!....do you get it?.... 
 
and, there are not the same number of records of tigers,a s there are for lions. i was not talking about the number of populations studied, but the sampling. even then, more populations of lions were measured. 
 
there has been documents on zimbabwe lions, rhodesia, kruger park, east african lions, those of the kalahari, the serengeti, etosha, and a few more. little data, by comparison, exists of the tiger for comparison, when considering scientific documents. 
 
as far as i know, there have only been two measurements (of weight) reported for male tigers, from the sudarbans, and this was not by the sundarbans project. the data upon the central indian tigers shows records similar to those gathered for lions, so as usual, your statements do not support the actual data published. 
 
in ALL of the sources i have upon the weights of lions, at least 10 specimens were weighed, from each population. not 7, or 6, or 9, like those of the tigers, and not of measurements gathered, from different areas or sources like that of the tigers. so, in that sense, it is limited.

Ahhh, this is bore man, I have to explain to you the same thing again and again and again? 
 
Cooch Behar measured his 26 tigers in the last list in straight line (between pegs). I already show the source of that statement, so I will not put it again, search the answer in this forum. 
 
 
 
“dr. karanth gave a range in length similar to that reported by schaller, for lions.” 
 
Good joke!!! The largest lion reported by Schaller (measured by Meinertzhagen, by the way) was of 284 cm. From the other hand, the largest tiger reported by Dr. Karanth was of 311 cm!!! Where is the similarity??? Ha ha! 
 
 
 
“the data upon the central indian tigers shows records similar to those gathered for lions, so as usual, your statements do not support the actual data published.” 
 
Don’t support them? Come on Damon, where are lions of 280-300 kg right now? They don’t exist, but look the huge tigers in Central India in these days, look B2 or Bohka, Madla and Hairyfoot. These males weighed no less than 250 kg, and those from Bandhavgarh have reached the 300 kg in these days!!! So, the records of Brander in Central India from 1920 are useless. Look the new records they are far higher than those from any lion.  
 
 
 
“there has been documents on zimbabwe lions, rhodesia, kruger park, east african lions, those of the kalahari, the serengeti, etosha, and a few more. little data, by comparison, exists of the tiger for comparison, when considering scientific documents.” 
 
Yes this is true, but you most take in count that the tigers are like rare gemstones, they are difficult to found and catch, and because the populations in the parks are small there is no need of huge samples. By the way, I have talk with Dr Karanth and he tell me that he will make public his list of sizes and weights of the tigers of Nagarahole, and the sample is bigger than 10 males, so soon it will be a better study of the morphology of the South India tigers. And from the tigers of Chitwan, Dr Dave Smith weighed other tigers apart from those 7 which give the know average of 235 kg. So, the sample of Nepal tigers is of more than 10 to. Sadlly this last are not published, but you can ask to Dr Smith. There are other samples of tigers of single regions: Hewett give a list of 17 males from 4-7 years old and have an average of 211 kg, all from the Terai and Garhwal-Kumaon region (range 176.9-258.6 kg). Cooch Behar reported a list of 12 males exclusively from the Duars –Terai and have an average of 221.7 kg (range 201.8-249.5 kg), all of them in Brown’s Stray Sport. 
 
 
 
From the other hand, the lions are like rats, you can catch them wherever you want. Just pick a place and there are prides of them. So the samples are higher because they are many. It is simple Statistic, high population high sample; low population, low sample. For this is that exist the “Statistical Inference”. But I think that this terms are estrange to you, so go and win the high school, then return here. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

i go with lion because last year, i went on a vacation to africa, and they show me the lion and 2 tigers, the lion look so furious, the tigers also look furious but the lion scare the tigers away and get to eat first, then when the lion goes away the tigers eats, if the lion come back, the tiger runs up the small cliff ( there are only one lion) oh also i saw someone says that lions are weak because they work in tribe.... they are so wrong, a lion may work in tribe, but that doesnt mean they stink at fighting, a lion is furious, but if they are in tribe, nothing can stop them, so that why, they just wanted to make things easier

...Raul, i have ALL of cooch behars records, directly from his books....and he measured all of his tigers over curves, though he gave a few of their measurements between pegs, which i had already explained before. however, he only measured SOME of his tigers that way, stating that was a fairly new form of measurement. however, when he listed their measurements at the end of his book, he listed them 'over curves', and only gave the measurements of his 26 largest tigers, though he measured about 36 adult specimens.  
 
i have a list of 18 adult male tigers from hewett`s book, mostly from the terai, with an average of 428 lbs, though the 570 lb tiger, due to the fact it was not measured in the same area, was not included.  
 
cooch behar only gave a list of his largest males, and i siagree with his records. the average of all the males he weighed, is 458 lbs. 
 
...and, i would like to see the data presented by karnath, on nagarahole tigers. 
 
i doubt those tigers are any larger than zimbabwe, or even rhodesia lions.

Again Damon? Well, let's continue. 
 
 
 
“...Raul, i have ALL of cooch behars records, directly from his books....and he measured all of his tigers over curves, though he gave a few of their measurements between pegs, which i had already explained before. however, he only measured SOME of his tigers that way, stating that was a fairly new form of measurement. however, when he listed their measurements at the end of his book, he listed them 'over curves', and only gave the measurements of his 26 largest tigers, though he measured about 36 adult specimens.” 
 
Sorry Damon, but the reference says other thing: 
 
“The Maharaja of Cooch Behar, an accurate observer, kept a careful record of 365 tigers shot in 37 years. The longest on his list measured in a straight line from nose to tip 10 feet 5 inches, the tail being 3 feet 6 inches. Tails of northern India tigers are in general longer than those of the south, where they rarely exceed 3 feet and an inch or two. But the largest of the Maharaja's tigers had a body 7 feet 1½ inches long; the tail measured only 3 feet…” Reference: Burton, R. 1936. The tiger hunters. Hutchinson & Co. Ltd. London. (Page 189-190), 255 pp.” 
 
So why believe in you when I have a far more reliable reference. 
 
 
 
“i have a list of 18 adult male tigers from hewett`s book, mostly from the terai, with an average of 428 lbs, though the 570 lb tiger, due to the fact it was not measured in the same area, was not included.” 
 
You include the sick one and young males, I have saw it, so don’t act like no one knows that. By the way the 570 lb that you have excluded is probe that you are a deceiver and a selective person who only uses what can help you and discard what you want. This tiger was measured in the same area, after all, the area of the Terai-Garhwal-Kumaon is very extensive and the book specifically mention the north of India, so all the evidence suggest that this male is from this regions. All this is explained in this map: 
 
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6233/teraiarccomplete.png 
 
The range of weights presented by Hewett is 365-570 lb; however those weights from 365-375 kg are from cubs, or at least from young adults from 2-3 years old. Why? Let's see. Dr Mazak give a range for adult males of 180-258 kg, the lowest is 180 kg. Latter Dr Karanth give a range of 175-260 kg, the lowest is 175 kg. Finally Dr Sunquist give a range of 200-261 kg, with the lowest been 200 kg, even with out 14 kg, the weight will be 186 kg. So, we can safely say that the lowest level of the adult males is 175 kg. So, the weights of the males from 4 to 7 years old (completely adults) reported by Hewett are these ones:  
 
570 lb = 258.6 kg 
 
493 lb = 223.6 kg 
 
493 lb = 223.6 kg 
 
490 lb = 222.3 kg 
 
490 lb = 222.3 kg 
 
488 lb = 221.4 kg 
 
487 lb = 220.9 kg 
 
487 lb = 220.9 kg 
 
482 lb = 218.6 kg 
 
462 lb = 209.6 kg 
 
462 lb = 209.6 kg 
 
432 lb = 196 kg 
 
427 lb = 193.7 kg 
 
427 lb = 193.7 kg 
 
423 lb = 191.9 kg 
 
407 lb = 184.6 kg 
 
390 lb = 176.9 kg 
 
So, from 17 adult males (4-7 y/old) from the Terai-Garhwal-Kumaon area, the computed data is this:  
 
Average: 465.3 lb (211.05 kg).  
 
Sd: 43.57.  
 
n: 17.  
 
This is a more wide range of weights and even then, the Bengal tigers have a much higher average weight than the higher average weight of the lions. 
 
 
 
“cooch behar only gave a list of his largest males, and i siagree with his records. the average of all the males he weighed, is 458 lbs.” 
 
False, when I mention the specific list of 12 males from Duars, he included some of about 200 kg, like the sample of Dr Sunquist, so this show that the adult (not all of course) male tigers weight no less than 200 kg in the north. Here is the image: 
 
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7760/0273.jpg 
 
The data computed from the Duars and Terai: Source: Brow, J. Stray Sport. 1893. 
 
Average: 488.7 lb (221.7 kg)  
 
Sd: 36.46 lb  
 
n: 12 males  
 
Range: 445-550 lb (201.8-249.5 kg) 
 

“...and, i would like to see the data presented by karnath, on nagarahole tigers. i doubt those tigers are any larger than zimbabwe, or even rhodesia lions.” 
 
Simple, the weights are: 
 
+Two from *Karanth, K.U. 1993. Predator prey relationship among large mammals of Nagarhole National Park . ( India ) Ph.D. thesis, Mangalore University, Mangalore. 209 and 227 kg. I will ask him for the middle one. 
 
+Three form the book “Hulirayana Akashvani”, of K. Ullas Karanth and T.S. Gopal. There are reported the weights of 230 kg (T01, old male, 12-13 years old), 257 kg (T03, prime male, killed by a gaur) and 250 kg (T04, young male “Mara” of 3-4 years old). In this book is also mentioned a male that weighed 250 kg in the Taboda Tiger Reserve, told by Harshvardhan Dhanvate. +However I don’t count it because it was not weighed personally by Dr Karanth. 
 
The last male came from “A view form the Machan” of K. Ullas Karanth. Was a old male of 240 kg radio collared in Nagarahole. 
 
All these weights are far higher than any of your tiny lions in Zimbabwe or Rhodesia. 
 
 
 
So in resume: 
 
 
 
1. Terai-Garhwal-Kumaon area: 
 
n: 17 males 
 
Average: 465.3 lb (211.05 kg). 
 
Sd: 43.57 lb 
 
Range: 390-570 lb (176.9-258.6 kg) 
 
 
 
2. Duars-Terai area: 
 
n: 12 males  
 
Average: 488.7 lb (221.7 kg) 
 
Sd: 36.46 lb  
 
Range: 445-550 lb (201.8-249.5 kg) 
 
 
 
3. Royal Chitwan NP: 
 
n: 7 
 
Average: 235 kg 
 
Range: 200-261 kg. 
 
And there is not even counted the male of 270+ kg, weighed by Dr Dinerstein and Dr Dave Smith. 
 
 
 
4. Nagarahole NP: 
 
n: 6  
 
Average: 230.2 kg 
 
Sd: 18.87 
 
Range: 209-257 kg 
 
Soon Dr Karanth will publish a new document were he will make public all his measurements of tigers, and he’s sample is of more than 10 males, according with a personal communication. 
 
 
 
Any of this average weights is higher than the higher reported for the African lions. So based in a more wide area, the Bengal tiger have show to be the largest of the Felidae. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

From me: "+Two from *Karanth, K.U. 1993. Predator prey relationship among large mammals of Nagarhole National Park . ( India ) Ph.D. thesis, Mangalore University, Mangalore. 209 and 227 kg. I will ask him for the middle one." 
 
Actually there are three males, but it doesn’t mention the middle one, that’s way I will ask him about this lost male. Then, the sample will be of 7 males of Nagarahole, just like the sample of Royal Chitwan, and with out counting the new weights that Dr Karanth will publish soon. 
 

raul, that 570 lb tiger was not measured in the same area as those other tigers mentioned by hewett, and he included that weight on an entirely different section. however, there was supposed to be 19 records, yet, you only show 18. i should know, as i was the one who posted those records to begin with.  
 
and, my reference on the cooch behar tigers is directly from his book, not a second hand reference. he weighed and measured over 300 tigers, but only about 36 of those were adult males. 
 
also, you seem to be under the impression that male bengals do not weigh under 200 kg...here is a few records, from cooch behar, that he did not include in his list of tiger measurements, at the end of his book; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/395lbmaletiger.jpg 
 
here`s some more; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/479lbtigerandoneof318lbs.png 
 
...notice the record of the above mentioned tiger, of 318 lbs. that is a young adult specimen, likely between 3-4 years of age, as most 2-3 year old tigers, measured over curves, are usually of 7-8 ft in length, according to one source which i have. notice, also, that behar gives the measurement of this animal, over curves, and between pegs. his length between pegs was actually one foot less than his measurement over curves. 
 
here`s one more record of small tigers of his; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigergirthweight.png 
 
cooch behar stated that the measurements he had given, between pegs (he only listed the measurements a few of his tigers between pegs, and all of them were also measured over curves, and that was the measurement he listed, in his tiger list, at the end of his book)was a 'fairly new' form of measurement. 
 
and, the males of sunquist were baited, and weights not adjusted for food, though they ate at LEAST 14 kg of meat a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills. adjusted for food, they average 221 kg. 
 
the largest lion in scientific record, is 272 kg, from r. kock, and he later confirmed this measurement, via personal communication, and the lion had an empty stomach as well, according to kock. 
 
and, i know the weight of karanth`s males, from 209-227 kg. it was 215 kg, as the average of those 3 males was given as 217 kg, and, 209+215+227, divided by 3, would give 217 kg as the average. 
 
and still, none of that data proves tigers are larger than lions, because, just as i`ve stated before, cooch behar only compared his largest tigers, and that 570 lb tiger measured by hewett, was not from the same area in which those other tigers were measured, so it should not be included. even then, the records of some lions indicate they could reach such weights, as bertram reports a lion from etosha that weighed 260 kg, and the predator conservation trust in africa, weighed a lion of 200 kg, and let`s not forget the other 260 kg lion, mentioned by berry. 
 
also, the first 2 lions measured by smuts, weighed 216 and 218 kg, respectively. now, imagine if those were the only males he weighed. that would have inflated the average weight of those animals, as we see in the case of the male tigers weighed by sunquist....the sampling is simply too limited, to make any conclusive statements. 
 
 
 

also, here`s another record of a well fed, bulky male tiger of only 349.5 lbs, weighed twice; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/measurementsofatigermale-1.jpg 
 
here`s the record of another tiger, though this male was siberian, but healthy, stated as being unusually fat and healthy; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/385lbtiger.jpg 
 
...i have many more records, where the tigers were actually stated to have been measured, where they were much less than 500 lbs, even less than 200 kg, in most cases.

What a stubborn are you Damon, 
 
 
 
“raul, that 570 lb tiger was not measured in the same area as those other tigers mentioned by hewett, and he included that weight on an entirely different section. however, there was supposed to be 19 records, yet, you only show 18. i should know, as i was the one who posted those records to begin with.” 
 
Don’t twist the data, the book is from Northern India tigers, I have probe you the actual locality of these tigers, so the 570 kg tiger IS from that area. You are a selective person, a deceiver, but that’s why I am here, for discover your evil agenda. You show just selective data, but your own data defeat you. Ha ha ha!!! 
 
 
 
“and, my reference on the cooch behar tigers is directly from his book, not a second hand reference. he weighed and measured over 300 tigers, but only about 36 of those were adult males.” 
 
I am not talking of the book, but from you. You misinterpret every source about tigers; you discredit them because it shows your lies.  
 
 
 
“also, you seem to be under the impression that male bengals do not weigh under 200 kg...here is a few records, from cooch behar, that he did not include in his list of tiger measurements, at the end of his book;  
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/395lbmaletiger.jpg  
 
here`s some more;  
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/479lbtigerandoneof318lbs.png” 
 
Records from when, 1890 or 1920? Ha ha ha. The lightest male tiger in scientific records was of 175 kg, no doubt of that, but from 2000 to 2009, no one adult male tiger weighed less than 200 kg!!! And the last tiger is a young of 2-3 years old, not 4-5. What deceiver are you. You try to misinterpret all the information, but here is the true. 
 
 
 
“cooch behar stated that the measurements he had given, between pegs (he only listed the measurements a few of his tigers between pegs, and all of them were also measured over curves, and that was the measurement he listed, in his tiger list, at the end of his book)was a 'fairly new' form of measurement.” 
 
Again with this. I have probed that you lie, so why you insist? What is your objective? Convince me? Ha ha ha. You are lost.  
 
 
 
“and, the males of sunquist were baited, and weights not adjusted for food, though they ate at LEAST 14 kg of meat a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills. adjusted for food, they average 221 kg.” 
 
The record is 235 kg, and the baits were insignificant according with a personal communication with me, Tiger lover and I think that with Roflcopters to. So, stop changing the things, deceiver.  
 
 
 
“the largest lion in scientific record, is 272 kg, from r. kock, and he later confirmed this measurement, via personal communication, and the lion had an empty stomach as well, according to kock. “ 
 
The heaviest male lion in record is a lion of 260 kg. The Kock male is completely unreliable. Tiger Lover has probe it. And were you get that was empty belly? Ha ha ha, that is the best joke at this time. HA HA HA!!! 
 
 
 
“bertram reports a lion from etosha that weighed 260 kg,… …and let`s not forget the other 260 kg lion, mentioned by berry.” 
 
This are the same lion idiot, learn to read. Bertram don’t report this lion, was Berry and later Estes copy it. 
 
 
 
“also, the first 2 lions measured by smuts, weighed 216 and 218 kg, respectively. now, imagine if those were the only males he weighed. that would have inflated the average weight of those animals, as we see in the case of the male tigers weighed by sunquist....the sampling is simply too limited, to make any conclusive statements.” 
 
Ha ha ha, now you know more than a Scientist. A man that don’t have finished the high school say that an Ph Teacher in a famous University is wrong? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! 
 
 
 
“...i have many more records, where the tigers were actually stated to have been measured, where they were much less than 500 lbs, even less than 200 kg, in most cases.” 
 
Just the old records which no one give a cent for them. Stop you Google search of dark old records. I have show you SCIENCE, in the 2009 year. So you are defeated. I have show that you are a deceiver. But don’t worry, if you insist in continue this I will to, after all, I enjoy your funny posts and your pathetic intent to probe that a lie is the true. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

...Raul, for the hewett issue, i was talking almost specifically of tigers measured in the terai. but, we can include the 570 lb tiger. but, the record of that 2-3 year old tiger is not confirmed, but obviously individuals of that age, given the average weight of subadult tigers, as given by sunquist, is rare. 
 
and, the 175 kg tiger, as mentioned by karanth, was actually from an old record, in the 1920`s, which karanth quotes. adult tigers can, and do, go under such weights. and, what measurements have been gathered of bengal tigers, since 2000-2009, other than the unreliable source of the so-called 220 kg subadult tiger?..... 
 
and, i emailed sunquist, and he stated that karanth ONLY weighed 3 tigers, and they varied in weight from 209-227 kg.  
 
but, those records of tigers which i said have been weighed which were under 500 lbs, i was talking of modern data of siberian tigers.  
 
and, go ahead, bring records from hunters, i have MANY more than you do.....well over a thousand, in fact, and most were reliably proven via eyewitnesses, and most of my sources clearly states this. that is confirmation within itself. the age of the records does not matter. 
 
also, when i first emailed sunquist, he agreed with me that lions and tigers were equal in weight, but apparently changed his statement, when the yuku poster, tiger lover sent him data upon tigers, not all of which were actually measured, mind you. 
 
the first two lions measured by smuts, which were 216 and 218 kg, respectively, weighed more than the first 2 tigers weighed by karanth. 
 
and, mazak used estimates in his records of the weight of tigers, and some of his tigers mentioned, at least a few of the amur variety, were captive. 
 
the lightest lion in the rhodesia study was 172 kg. 
 
and, yes, i do indeed disagree with any statements saying one animal is larger than the other, when there is not much data to go on, as the sampling for the tigers is limited. schaller excepts the figures for the tigers weighed by brander, and they are reliable. the average weight of the males in that instance was 190 kg, for a gorged specimen, no less.

Reloaded, 
 
 
 
“and, i emailed sunquist, and he stated that karanth ONLY weighed 3 tigers, and they varied in weight from 209-227 kg.” 
 
That’s the weights that Dr Sunquist was aware. The other weights are in a book in Kanada, so obviously Dr Sunquist doesn’t know about them. By the way, Dr Sunquist doesn’t know the 270 kg tiger of Dr. Dinerstein until I show it to him.  
 
 
 
“but, those records of tigers which i said have been weighed which were under 500 lbs, i was talking of modern data of siberian tigers.” 
 
There is no problem there. Is much known that this subspecies suffer of very low prey base, as is stated in the Siberian Tiger Monograph about the Amur tiger and in the book “Riding the Tiger”.  
 
 
 
“and, go ahead, bring records from hunters, i have MANY more than you do.....well over a thousand, in fact, and most were reliably proven via eyewitnesses, and most of my sources clearly states this. that is confirmation within itself. the age of the records does not matter.” 
 
The age doesn’t matter? Man, this show how biased are you. By the way, those dark old records are useless and now one cite them, except you, so why I will waste my time searching unreliable sources? You can have “many” of them but I have the scientific ones and those from reliable people, and that’s what really matter.  
 
 
 
“and, yes, i do indeed disagree with any statements saying one animal is larger than the other, when there is not much data to go on, as the sampling for the tigers is limited. schaller excepts the figures for the tigers weighed by brander, and they are reliable. the average weight of the males in that instance was 190 kg, for a gorged specimen, no less.” 
 
Brander doesn’t know the age of his tigers and Dr Schaller mentioned because at that time there was no scientific study in the field. However the new studies have show very large weighs and high average figures. Like Dr. Karanth says: “Contrary to early perceptions measurements obtained from tigers captured for radiotelemetry studies in the Indian subcontinent show that they are not smaller than tigers captured in the Russian Far East “ Keep in mind that they are comparing them with the large Siberian tigers in the historical records. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

"There is no problem there." 
 
I mean "there is no problem here". 
 
 
 
However, the Siberian Tiger Project show that the body size of the actual Amur tigre is the largest recorded by scientist of any felidae. So, the Amur tiger have a large body but weight less because they have very low prey base, according with the Siberian Tiger Monograph about the Amur tiger and in the book “Riding the Tiger”.

...Raul, why don`t you ask sunquist how many tigers he weighed?...and also ask, specifically, for the weight of these animals, even if you already know them, so you can make absolute certain they are accurate.  
 
karanth was a coleague of sunquist`s...it is unlikely that karanth would have weighed some animals to which sunquist was not aware. and, sunquist did know of the 270 kg+ tiger, as he published a document on this specimen, though it was of an earlier measurement, but of the same animal. 
 
i`ve found little, if any difference between the mass of lions and tigers, in old hunting records. even as we speak, i`ve just found new sources from hunting records, which are accurate. most show records similar in number. 
 
and, brander never stated he did not know the age of his specimens, but rather, the classification of what is considered an adult animal is different, depending upon the views of the individual. and, that is indeed true. no one, including the greatest of scientists, know the precise age of the animals they capture, unless they were present at the time of birth of the tiger in question, or else have personal knowledge of such. but, i doubt ANYONE would confuse a subadult tiger, with that of a young adult, between 3-4 years of age, as a subadult tiger has a skull which is smaller, in proportion to his body, then normal for adult tigers, and has a lighter nose. 
 
some of the same methods used today to determine the age of an animal was also used in those times as well. but, one thing is certain, brander stated that his tigers were FULLY mature.

Raul, in my last post, i meant to say 'why don`t you ask Karanth how many tigers he weighed?"

Lets please end this pointless argument. Do your research! While searching the internet you can find all types of information on sizes of the two cats. Thats why its best to focus on averages rather then extreme cases of large individuals. First, if you check the facts on lions you find that they average 413 lbs and 9 feet long. With the larger lions of transvaal averging 432.3lbs. Lions are also the tallest at the shoulder. The heaviest Lion in the wild was shot in 1936 and weighed in at 690lbs. Largest lion ever recorded in captivity was named simba and weighed in at 826lbs. Typically lions in captivity are known for weighing in at 500+ pounds. Secondly the Tiger. Bengal tigers averge collectively 440-480lbs. Northern india and nepal tigers average 518lbs and measure 9-10.2 feet long. The largest tiger in the wild was 857lbs and is on display in the smithsonian museum. In captivity Bengal tigers have been known to tip the scales at 600+ pounds. Not sure on the heaviest bengal ever in captivity. 
 
Siberian tigers are the LARGEST pure-bred cats. Historically they average anywhere from 500-800lbs. Though recently a 600+ pound cat is hard to come by due to lack of prey and destruction to its habitat. This is echoed in the fact that siberian tigers in captivity have seen weights close to 800lbs with the largest being a 1,025lb male which is noted in the guinsess book of world records. Also even at similar weights to the lion and tiger the head of the siberian tiger it larger and "crest" which is found on predators that use bite force to kill there prey is larger than both bengal tiger and african lions. It was also just discovered that The caspian tiger is not a subspecies of tiger but actually a smaller siberian tiger. The caspian tiger was widely used by the romans in there pit fights with gladiators and other animals including barbary lion which average anywhere from 440-550lbs. According to historicist the caspian or siberian tiger and the bengal tiger were invariably the winner of such fights with the lion. So its a matter of opinion whether you feel the bengal tiger is significantly larger than the lion. In honesty comparing to the average weights you can only say sometimes yes and sometimes no depending on the individual. If you have an exceptional lion that weighs 470lbs and a average tiger that weighs 480lbs than no. If you have 518lbs tiger and 413lb lion than yes. And if you were going to take extreme cases from both species the bengal tiger and siberian are exceptionally larger. Thats why any expert no matter the bias will not argue that tigers are larger. Whether its slight or not. Lets not forget that this forum is about who would win in a fight, not whos larger. That fact is obviously apparent. And if you look at history and the facts the tiger is better fighter and will most likely dominate the lion almost everytime.

To Damon: 
 
“karanth was a coleague of sunquist`s...it is unlikely that karanth would have weighed some animals to which sunquist was not aware.”  
 
The weights of the last three males are in a book in Kanada language, so its a publication just for the Indian people. And don’t think that these two scientist talk daily. So it is completely possible that they don’t share all they information. 
 
 
 
“and, sunquist did know of the 270 kg+ tiger, as he published a document on this specimen, though it was of an earlier measurement, but of the same animal.” 
 
No, he told me that he have not heard about it. He mention the Sauraha male (Aka T105 or M105) which weighed more than 227 kg in 1973 but then was weighed in a better scale and reach the 261 kg. However the tiger M026 of Dr Dinerstein, that he don’t know it. As matter of fact, he told me that his friend Dr Dave Smith have weighed a heavier male than the Sauraha tiger, and that maybe this male and M026 are the same, however, at this time, Dr Smith have not replay my message. 
 
 
 
“and, brander never stated he did not know the age of his specimens, but rather, the classification of what is considered an adult animal is different, depending upon the views of the individual. and, that is indeed true. no one, including the greatest of scientists, know the precise age of the animals they capture, unless they were present at the time of birth of the tiger in question, or else have personal knowledge of such. but, i doubt ANYONE would confuse a subadult tiger, with that of a young adult, between 3-4 years of age, as a subadult tiger has a skull which is smaller, in proportion to his body, then normal for adult tigers, and has a lighter nose.” 
 
I think not, after all some young tigers reach large sizes and some old tigers are shorter ones. This is stated by our friend the late Sterndale. So, only the revision of the skull sutures, the dentition and the color of the nose are relative reliable ways to estimate the age of the tigers. However as far I know, Brander don’t use any of this methods, and a know way used by hunters to found the age of they animals has the color of the skin, which is an unreliable method. By the way, do you know which was the method used by Brander? If you have it, put the pic of the page, better if you put the complete page. 
 
 
 
“...Raul, why don`t you ask Karanth how many tigers he weighed?...and also ask, specifically, for the weight of these animals, even if you already know them, so you can make absolute certain they are accurate.” 
 
As matter of fact I have do it. As matter of fact, he told me that he will put together all his measurements in a single public reference, when he has the time. I have found one pic of the male T04 called “Mara” where is mentioned that he weighed 250 kg. I will put it soon. 
 
 
 
To Kez: 
 
This is the point that I have proved many times here, that the tigers are larger than lion, but Damon insist in the contrary. So, if he ends this, I will end to, but I can’t let than someone confuse the people. So, don’t worry, I don’t think that this conversation remains more time.

"As matter of fact... As matter of fact..." 
 
 
 
Sorry for the mistake. Ha ha ha.

Raul, the size of young and old tigers may indeed vary, but not the relative proportions of the body. a young tiger, not yet full grown, will have a smaller than normal head, relative to his mass, and likewise his nose is much pinker.  
 
and, Karnath stated the 250 kg male tiger mentioned in that book was a typo, but one which he had not noticed.  
 
and, i have no idea of the methods brander used to identify young male tigers, with that of adults, but, some of the same methods used today were also used back then....it was only 1923, after all. 
 
and, kez, i disagree, and the transvaal lions actually averaged 217 kg, not 197 kg, as you have maintained.  
 
i disagree tigers are any larger than lions, simply because the data, and consequently, the methods used to prove this is limited. for example, do scientists compare the external measurements of the specific populations of lions and tigers mentioned, as well as food intake, and the effects of such upon the body mass of these animals?..... 
 
for example, does the larger population of lion or tiger have the greater food intake?.....are they, proportionately speaking (i.e. external measurements) of larger size?....... 
 
studies indicate the food intake of chitwan tigers exceeds that of the majority of lion populations, and this may explain there larger mass.  
 
also, here`s some info upon the length of tigers, in northern india (note the similarity with brander`s records); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lengthoftigers.jpg 
 
....so, as can be seen, there is no difference in the length of central indian tigers, and those from the northern most ranges. 
 
...also, you said you have asked karanth to give a list of the amount of males he measured. he may have meant that he would give a record of ALL the measurements he has upon these tigers, not merely his own. why don`t you ask him, how many tigers did he personally weigh, himself?......

To Damon: 
 
“...also, you said you have asked karanth to give a list of the amount of males he measured. he may have meant that he would give a record of ALL the measurements he has upon these tigers, not merely his own. why don`t you ask him, how many tigers did he personally weigh, himself?......” 
 
He tells me that he going to show the tigers measured by him, the 3 tigers mentioned before were weighed by him personally. From the other part, I will ask him how many tigers have he weighed personally, but not in this days because I am very busy with the final tests in the University. Maybe until May 30. From the male “Mara”, yes, according with Tiger lover this tiger weighed 218 kg, but this correction from Dr Karanth probe that he personally weighed this three tigers. So, the list of male tigers weighed by Dr Karanth, reported in books at this time, is: 
 
209, 215 (according with you), 218, 227, 230, 240, 257 kg. These 7 males compute this data: 
 
Average: 228 kg 
 
Standard deviation: 16.43 kg 
 
Sample: 7 
 
Range: 209-257 kg 
 
Completely reliable for the males in South India. The previous average calculated was just 2 kg more, so not big difference. 
 
 
 
By the way, this image: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lengthoftigers.jpg 
 
Is by no means a secure reference. It is from 1887 and don’t say how many animals where used for this “average”. Even the measurements of Brander are more reliable, but as I say before, he don’t make a correct classifications of the adult tigers, so his records are incorrect. 
 
 
 
“and, kez, i disagree, and the transvaal lions actually averaged 217 kg, not 197 kg, as you have maintained.” 
 
This is based in an unreliable record. You have discarded it in previous post so, why you put it again? The males in South Africa average at the best about 195 kg more or less.

Raul, brander never mentions his classifications for what he believed to be an adult tiger, so, how can you state he does not make a correct classification of such?..... 
 
no one knows the precise age of the animals they capture, unless they know of, or have personal knowledge of the birth of the individual animals mentioned. however, a fair 'estimate' can be gathered, by considering certain features of the tiger which i`m sure brander was well aware of. he was, after all, a member of the zoological society of london, and a very consciencious observer, according to some. 
 
also, the 217 kg figures for the transvaal lions is indeed reliable, as, according to the author, charles pitman, those records were documented, and reliably proven via eyewitnesses. however, i no longer use these figures, as the sampling is too low. i only mentioned them again, because another poster brought it up. 
 
o believe, as a whole, that lions average 190 kg. but, you cannot expect weight to vary in different areas, and indeed, considering the differences in food consumption, prey availability, and such, the average mass of lions, from different populations, can vary quite a great deal. 
 

Damon: 
 
 
 
“Raul, brander never mentions his classifications for what he believed to be an adult tiger, so, how can you state he does not make a correct classification of such?..... “ 
 
His range, in length and weight. Those sizes are to small to be an adult. Even in the modern records the lowest weight for a male tiger was of 175 kg, outside of Sundarband of course. A tiger of 353 lb can be just a young one. 
 
 
 
“o believe, as a whole, that lions average 190 kg. but, you cannot expect weight to vary in different areas, and indeed, considering the differences in food consumption, prey availability, and such, the average mass of lions, from different populations, can vary quite a great deal.” 
 
Obviously, some other male weigh 180 kg and other much less. So, don’t big deal. 
 

The reason I gave that figure is that is that norm that you are posting is the "alleged weight." That weight is average weight was documented by officails and eye witnesses confirmed their truth, HOWEVER, they were not gathered with a scientific purpose, and therefore unlike the average weight that I posted, are considered very questionable. I'm not some tiger lover or lion lover that does not know the facts about both creatures. I respect both animals and research both thoroughly. So before you post you should do the same. Of 344 lions ages 4 and above were recorded. Males portrayed a average 0f 187.5kg(413 lbs). During this study it was discovered that lions continued to increase in girth and aquired there full weight around age seven, after which point, they declined in mass. Thus the study reflects a mean bases on growth fluctuation. Males in their prime averaged 196 kg(432 lbs). The largest male in this study (age 5) harbored a mass of 225 kg ((496 lbs). Another male age 10. weighed 206 kg (454 lbs) Stomach contents were not included in the weights of the 344 krueger big cats. So tell me damon how does average of 432 lbs compare to a nothern or nepal bengal average of 518 lbs? Even the larger lions of this conducted scientific study are not as big as a average male bengal from nothern india or nepal. Lets not mention that collectively lions weigh on average 413 lbs for males. Wikepedia states that average male bengal tigers weigh 220 kg (485 lbs). And those in northern india and nepal avergage 235 kg (518 lbs). So how is it that tigers are not larger than lions?

...Raul, the weight of adult tigers vary considerably, and i have a source (which i have already shown) of an adult indian tiger, weighed twice, that was 349.5 lbs, and was apparently discribed as being bulky and well feed. also, cooch behar mentions a tiger of slightly over 370 lbs, i believe, and even the siberian tiger project mentioned a bulky adult male amur tiger (not a bengal, but still relative to the discussion) that weighed 385 lbs and which was apparently healthy. 
 
....those modern records show very little sampling, so, it does not surprise me that the lowest in those figures was only 175 kg.  
 
and, brander`s range in length and weight is nearly equal to that which i had shown of the 26 adult male tigers, measured over curves, that averaged a bit under 9ft, 3 in. 
 
the average length of tigers as given by finn was 9ft, and modern records shows a range in length similar to that given by brander....as adult tigers can indeed be less than 9ft in length. 
 
but, note that brander also stated that he weighed and measured very few immature tigers, but that his figures upon the average body mass of adult male tigers, as he had lost most of his other records, consisted of 42 FULLY mature males. doesn`t the previous statement not indicate they are adult specimens?...... 
 
also, Rez, the average body mass of chitwan tigers was only based upon 7 adult males, and they were baited, but ate a total of at least 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits. the average weights of these tigers, adjusted for food content, is 221 kg. even then, the sampling is quite limited, and, with a limited number of specimens weighed, there is, consequently, less animals for weighing to choose from, and a greater likelyhood of finding, upon a single population of tigers, either unusually large or otherwise small specimens. but, studies also indicate that chitwan tigers recieve a higher level of food consumption than the majority of lion populations, and this may explain their heavier mass. 
 
also, wikipedia is not a credible site, as it can be edited by anyone, and really is not run by experts. but, 42 fully mature males weighed by dunbar brander averaged 190 kg...about the same as kruger lions.

Damon: 
 
 
 
“and, brander`s range in length and weight is nearly equal to that which i had shown of the 26 adult male tigers, measured over curves, that averaged a bit under 9ft, 3 in. “ 
 
The range of Brander, at least, have a sample size, and were measured correctly, the other source is irrelevant and unreliable, for the same reasons. I don’t say that I don’t accept Brander at all, but it most take in count that he don’t know the best ways to estimate the age of his tigers, so, at some point his records are not completely accurate. However, are acceptable, except from those of the weights, as modern research show that at least the adult males weigh no less than 200 kg according with Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist.  
 
 
 
“...Raul, the weight of adult tigers vary considerably, and i have a source (which i have already shown) of an adult indian tiger, weighed twice, that was 349.5 lbs, and was apparently discribed as being bulky and well feed.” 
 
This tiger could be the exception of the rule, or maybe was a male from Subdarbans, at the end who knows because is one of the first tigers weighed, so the record is too far to corroborate. But at the end, it can be counted because it represents the weight of a male of Sundarbans. 
 
 
 
“....those modern records show very little sampling, so, it does not surprise me that the lowest in those figures was only 175 kg.“ 
 
Dr Mazak shows that the lowest weight for an adult male was of 180 kg and he knows all the hunting records to. Latter Dr Karanth put the figure of 175 kg. So 175 kg is the lowest weight for adult males, maybe in the edge of they independence (3.5-4 years old). However largest males of this age have been weighed, like the male of Sariska with 220 kg. 
 
 
 
“the average length of tigers as given by finn was 9ft, and modern records shows a range in length similar to that given by brander....as adult tigers can indeed be less than 9ft in length. “ 
 
Yes, but this could be just dwarfs tigers. The lowest head-body length between pegs according with Pocock was of 180 cm, so the average most be higher. Finn don’t give a range or a sample size, as far I know, so is unreliable at the end. 
 
 
 
“but, note that brander also stated that he weighed and measured very few immature tigers, but that his figures upon the average body mass of adult male tigers, as he had lost most of his other records, consisted of 42 FULLY mature males. doesn`t the previous statement not indicate they are adult specimens?...... “ 
 
No, because like Dr Sunquist say, we can’t know his methods, so this records are not bad, but are incorrect because young animals were included, like the record of 187.5 kg for the South African lion.  
 
 
 
Look this, the dominant males in Kruger have an average of 196 kg, based in a sample of 7, like that of the Chitwan tigers, so the sample is of the same size, and is reliable. However we most take in count that the population of Chitwan in 1973-1981 were of about 60 tigers, maybe less, and the population of lions in Kruger was of more than 1000 animals. So, which population needs a larger sample??? As you can see, the sample of 7 males of Chitwan is far more reliable than those from Kruger. So, stop saying that the small samples are unreliable, here is the proof. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

Raul, the particular source to which i was refering, when talking of the measurements of those tigers, over curves, did have a sampling, of 26 adult male tigers. and, when did brander state he did not know the best way to estimate the age of his tigers, he simply said that much depends on the individual views of the person. and indeed, it does, as no one knows the precise age of their tigers, unless they had personal knowledge of the birth of the animals. but, by that same token, brander also stated those tigers were FULLY mature. 
 
and, the number of tigers in a given area does not matter.....but, the SAMPLING does. a sampling of at least 10 specimens (regardless of the number of animals in that specific area) is much more reliable, as there is likely some variability in size, which we usually see in individuals, as well as a large enough number to get a fair figure of the average mass of the particular subgroup. 
 
and, a larger sampling can be gathered over many years, over generations. but, as i`ve said, i`ll prove that tigers are no larger than lions.

Damon, come on, I am tired of this conversation, you say the same thing again and again, and use the same reference that I have discarded many times before. You act like if the first conversations have never happen. I have probe that the tigers are larger, so what is the point of all this?  
 
 
 
“Raul, the particular source to which i was refering, when talking of the measurements of those tigers, over curves, did have a sampling, of 26 adult male tigers. and, when did brander state he did not know the best way to estimate the age of his tigers, he simply said that much depends on the individual views of the person. and indeed, it does, as no one knows the precise age of their tigers, unless they had personal knowledge of the birth of the animals. but, by that same token, brander also stated those tigers were FULLY mature. “  
 
What? Old records of unknown dates, and even if we take these references, so I can put the reference of Inglis where he mentioned an average of 290 cm for the male tigers. So what? The Bengal tiger have a head and body length between pegs of 180-221 cm and those recorded by Dr Karanth, which was measured in straight line from nose to beginning of tail are of 189, 192 and 204 cm (soon will be more measurements when Dr Karanth publishes them). So the smallest Adult male tiger in record measured about 180 cm in head and body, THE SMALLEST. So where you get that the lions are of the same size? The average lion is about 180 cm, and the average tiger is about 190-200 cm so, the tigers are longer in body. End of the discussion.  
 
 
 
“and, the number of tigers in a given area does not matter.....” 
 
How in the hell can you say this? Did you know something about Statistic? The population is VERY IMPORTANT. Who you will know the correct sample size if you don’t know the population? The numbers of tigers are very important. 
 
 
 
“but, the SAMPLING does. a sampling of at least 10 specimens (regardless of the number of animals in that specific area) is much more reliable, as there is likely some variability in size, which we usually see in individuals, as well as a large enough number to get a fair figure of the average mass of the particular subgroup. “ 
 
Man, you are so ignorant. There is no one law, no even an advice that say that the sample size most be of more than 10 specimens. YOU CAN’T WEIGHT ALL THE ANIMALS IN A REGION!!! The samples of 7 dominant males ARE VERY RELIABLE. After all, how many adult males are in a region, 2, 4, 7? The other males are obviously wandering ones, this make a very fair sample. 
 
The samples of Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist are very reliable. Don’t confuse the people saying this bullshit. Damon, I think that it is time to return at the school. You are saying stupid things; any Statistician will say the same thing to you.  
 
The variations are already proved, the range of weights is 175-270 kg (average 221 kg) and the size is 270-311 cm (average 285 cm). So where is your point here? There is no need of samples of more than 10 because there are no more than 5 dominant males in each park, maybe up to 10 in some regions, but the tigers are very rare now, so the great majorities are females and cubs. I have put you average weights with samples of more than 10 weights, and soon Dr Karanth will put all his weights in to public dominion. However, I doubt that you will change your opinion because I have probe that the tigers are larger WITH YOUR OWN REFERENCES and you keep your stubborn attitude.  
 
 
 
“and, a larger sampling can be gathered over many years, over generations.” 
 
That’s what Dr Karanth has done. So, when Dr Karanth publishes his weights, you will accept them? I think not, because your biased mind can’t accept the true. 
 
 
 
“but, as i`ve said, i`ll prove that tigers are no larger than lions.” 
 
You will? I think that you have already done. HA HA HA HA HA. The tigers are the largest felidae in the world The Bengal’s are the heaviest cats and the Amur tigers are the largest in body size. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

Raul, i did not state the same thing in every post, but merely indicated where you may have been wrong, in neglecting those records which i have showed, the dates of which are not unknown. and, where did karanth state he measured his tigers 'between epgs'?....measuring animals in a straight line does not mean between pegs...it could simply mean the body of the animal was as straight as they could get them, and measurements taken over the curves of the back, without much bend in the take measure. but, can you post the source for this?..... 
 
the records upon tigers, in comparison to those gathered for lions, is limited, and i do not agree they are larger, simply because lions have reached such masses, in scientific literature.  
 
and, here is that document i wrote, of the relative size of the lion and tiger; 
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15574755/Relative-Body-Mass-of-the-Lion-and-Tiger 
 
and, i will certainly agree with karanth`s records, as i agree with those of sunquist. but, i do not agree it will prove tigers are any larger than lions.

So, as I say before, there is not worst blind that the one who don’t want to see. 
 
 
 
I see that you want to continue this conversation; however I am tired of this, not because I don’t like the big feline’s conversations, but because we are talking of the same thing again and again. You have your opinion, wrong, but yours. I and all the scientific community had our own. So, I don’t want to convince you and you will never convince me. Let’s stop this and let other people to give them opinion, like Kez or Ckhor, Ok.  
 
 
 
From the document, there is no surprise that all the same nonsense’s are there. However I don’t care about it because the true is already there (and here in all my posts) and don’t need of publicity. 
 
 
 
The only true here is, that in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.

National Geographic official website states that lions weigh up to 420 lbs or 191kg on average and bengal tigers weigh up to 500 lbs or 227kg on average. 80 pound difference on average.

What would be a better fight would be a indo-chinese tiger vs. african lion. Which is very similar in size to a african lion.

Ofcourse the tiger will win. Not only is he beautiful but also stronger than a Lion. So, who said the Lion is the King of the JUNGLE?? King of nothing....ha,haa,a...Viva Bengal Tiger the true King of the JUngle.

The video says it all. The tiger would win! 
 

I personally think that the fight would be close! I've seen Lions fight before and I've seen Tigers fight before, it all looks the same to me.

Tiger would win all history points to this.

Oh, c'mon! I can understand a tiger fan to see the tiger in advantage, but never seen a 100% perspective of victory! Anyway, no matter that tigers are larger than lions: siberian tigers are heavier because of fat storages against cold but not muscles: if larger tigers are 280 kgs and larger lions are 250 kgs, take away the fat and you will have animals of the same size. 
And here the male lion is in advantage: the mane that hides the neck and entangles claws, larger chest and taller shoulders make it a killing machine less suited for hunting and more for fighting, even more trained by nature. Tiger, of course, are not kitties and are great animals too, better hunters for sure, but people should not misunderstand the hunting ability with the fighting ability. Also, incidents in circuses are the proof that tigers are in troubles against such a strong foe: I agree with the ones that claim that lions win 6,5 or 7 times on 10. 
All the rest are desperate attempts of tiger fans to defend their beloved animals negating evidence. And don't tell me that those fake collages on youtube are evidence....

Mattia your a fucking idiot. Besides Clyde Beatty, all historical evidence is in favor to a tiger. 1700's 1800's early 1900's Rome, completely dominated by tigers. For a lion to beat a male tiger in a fair fight would be rarity and it will always be the underdawg in a fight.

Infact it's lion siders who talk out the ass and go against evidence. Based on evidence an accounts the lion loses the majority of the time and is a inferior animal. Until recently through video editing, garbage show animal face off, lion vs tiger was considered a joke, and a one sided debate. 
 
 
 
The lion today is at a high through video editing, lieing, and fake websites, that's it's never been before. 
 
 
 
All throughout history the lion has never been considered to be a match to a tiger.

Thats funny that anyone would even mention clyde beatty. Most his lion were bigger than his tigers and most of of his tigers except for One male bengal tiger that was bigger than his lions. Most of his tiger were female bengal tigers and male sumaturn tigers which are the smallest subspecies of tiger. He was a True lion lover. Even so he mentions in his book that he recalls numerous accounts of one of his sumaturn tigers holding off several lions at once. He also stated that the main attraction of his show was his lions. He then goes on to add that he would send 20 lions in first to start the show let the squabble over who is going to be the dominant male and then bring in only 5 tigers, so that the lions could gang up and excercise dominance over them. Why would he do that If the lion is the superior animal. Why would he not bring in 20 tigers and even things up. If you want the answer google the clyde beatty "big cage" scene(full version) in which a female tiger and a healthy big male lion were supposed to put on a show and it actually turned into a real fight. Make sure you look at the full version because there are alot of short edited clips in which lion lovers put on the internet to mislead people. That female bengal beats the love out of that lion and is probaly 200+ pounds lighter. And in the end when she gets the throat bite and flips the male lion on its back rendering it motionless even while be sprayed by a fire hose. Then tell me how much the mane protects the lion. That mane is a mechanism to intimidate other males. Not for protection. And lions are not better fighters than tiger. Tigers are both better predators and better fighters. Lions are slower, and can only swipe at each other using one forelimb. when lions fight another lion, according to national geographic they will fight and back off for 1:15 seconds and then attack again rotating between the two or more males until the victim submits. Usually going after the weak hindlegs of the lion. They rarely if ever fight to the death. Tigers on the hand fight and continue to over territory to the death or until the resident is severely injured. They are quicker and are able to use both forelimbs to swipe 
 
at each other. They also have strong hindlegs which allows them to spring from bad positions giver them greater agility than that of lions. They have longer teeth more bite force and sharper claws.

Plus lets not forget that the romans use to send 5 barbary lions in against 4 tigers. Even they knew what was up first hand.

Kez, clyde beatty gave an opinion that lions were bigger than tigers, but did not specifically state his lions were bigger. besides this, he later changed his statement, in his book, facing the big cats, where he stated that lions and tigers were a standoff in terms of weight. 
 
also, he only mentioned one case of a sumatran holding off a group of lions....and, it did not fair well for the tiger. he got dominated, though was merely able to keep from getting injured. 
 
also, in the big cage fight, the tiger was male, not female...i have pics of the animal`s balls, if you want to see them?.....and, the lion won, not the tiger. 
 
and, beatty often used 20 tigers as well, he only started with 20 lions when first entering the animals into the cage, because it makes for a more interesting scene, i guess.  
 
lions too, are also able to use both paws at a time. just look at my youtube vids, under the name brentlion.

Wrong again damon. Lions are only able to use one paw when swiping. They have very weak hindlegs to balance them when attempting to raise up and attack. You see when cats fight and neither will submit, they will try to raise up higher than the other cat and attack the head and face with swipes. Lions only use one, not to when attacking and you can check that fact out on any reputable website you can also view this on youtube and on national geographic websites when fighting over territory. And I would love to see your pic of the tigers balls cause it was a female. And if your brave enough to take a look at the full version not the lionfan edited 45 second version you will clearly see that the bigger lion lost to the smaller female badly. Clyde beatty never made the mistake of saying that lions were bigger than tigers. But that most of the lions he had were bigger than the tigers he had. He did not have any siberian tigers and only one bengal that was larger than any of his lions. Nor was clyde beatty a scientist, but rather a lion fan with a circus act. So his statements cannot be counted as fact but rather opinion. If you were to research any reputable site you would find unanimously that siberian and bengal tiger are larger than lions. You will not find one site that will say that lions are the largest pure bred big cat in the world on ANY site. But on the other hand you will find that if you search tiger. And in beatty's book he never stated that he would send in 20 tigers and 5 lions. He only stated that he would send in 20 lions and 5 tigers. And the reason for that is that lions are not good individual fighters. They social creatures and they draw their strength socially or through a pride. They gang up and attack rather than confront individually. When taking over a pride lions will rotate attacks on the one isolated lion. This is exemplified in the way that they hunt large game. Lions hunt socially and fight socially. Lions are social from the day that they are born. Not saying that a solitary leopard can beat a solitary lion. But they are not designed by nature to be individual killers. They are designed to be social. Tigers are on the other hand are solitary and are designed to defend their territory and hunt by themselves, thats why they are equipped are better equipped. Longer canines, sharper claws, more agility LARGER WEIGHT and stronger forelimbs and hindlegs. You will rarely find a pride with only one male. MOST are at least 2 or more and often they are brothers. Because a pride with only one male will not last long against 2 males in their prime. Even the movie gladiator depicted what history proves when a lion fights a tiger. They lose. Thats why beatty would send 20 lions in and only 5 tigers so they could gang up on them. Thats the lions nature. Stop with the lies and misinforming people. The siberian tiger and the bengal will trump the lion everytime.

lol..Alright everybody, leave Damon alone, you might cause him to go on a killing rampage!

kez, lions are indeed able to use more than one paw at a time; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blc1trpMFME 
 
and, check this out as well (read from pages 68-70); 
 
http://books.google.com/books?id=QcWNEqI-wxUC&pg=PA69&dq=lion,+dan+the+bengal#PPA68,M1 
 
and, kez, i have seen the full fight of the lion and tiger in the big cage...the lion won. in fact, i have a few scenes that were not included in the movie; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfYr4JojABM 
 
..i cut out the scenes that were repeated. and, here`s another vid of the same fight scenes, with a new scene added; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SLLbbkMGb4 
 

also, here`s pics of the tigers balls; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/Five-BigCage.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/Three-BigCage-1.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/One-BigCage.jpg 
 
and, the canines of the tiger are only longer by about 2 cm, to suit it`s purpose of long hunting, as his teeth can more easily fit between the vertabre of their prey. also, the lion`s canines are longer. and, one of the main reasons tigers are solitary, is because of the lesser degree of competition they recieve, as, living in the ndese jungles of asia, both predators and prey animals alike are more spread out, and competition less extreme. studies also indicate the lion has the larger paws on average, and of greater bone density, which would equate to a more forceful strike. likewise, strike speed between these animals was measured by animal face off, using video footage, and they both strike with the same speed, at 18 ft per sec. 
 
chitwan tigers, adjusted for food content, average 221 kg. 4 adult male lions weighed by the kenya woldlife service, averaged 221.5 kg, ranging in weight from 180 - 272 kg. tigers are no larger. 
 
and, yes, at the BEGINNING beatty would send in 5 tigers and 20 lions...but, this had nothing to do with favoritism. his is a fighting act, the this makes the tension high. he would have, at one time, 20 lions and 20 tigers in his cage.  
 
and, beatyty indeed had siberian tigers. in fact, one of his lions, named detroit, killed 2 of them. you obviously did not read his books. also, beaty stated in his book, facing the big cats, that lions and tigers were a standoff in terms of weight. 
 
lions face greater competition, which is one of the reaosns they live in groups, as they must often face not one, but multiple opponents. but, at the same time, a lion with a pride will invariably be of greater testosterone than one without, and, not only is there a physical battle between these animals, but a physichological one as well, and the pride male/males may be able to intimidate their rivals into retreat. lions are far more combative than tigers, and certainly the more practiced at fighting....just just at my last two vids, which i uploaded before uploading the full lost jungle movie, in my account brentlion.

Damon don’t lie!!! 
 
 
 
The tiger have the largest canines in all the panthera genus (up to 9 cm). The tigers have the largest paws to, and the longest claws (up to 10 cm). And the bone density is obviously larger in the tiger because they hunt larger prey. 
 
 
 
The average for the tigers in Chitwan is of 235 kg not 221!!! The figure of 221 kg belong to ALL the populations of tigers in India. So don’t twist the data. And what is this fallacy of lions averaging 221 kg??? The lion of 272 kg was a cattle eater so it doesn’t count, at least that you accept the tigers of 318 and 320 kg hunted in India and Nepal respectively, which were cattle eaters to. So don’t lie, Bengal tigers are larger than African lions and I have prove this MANY timer here. 
 
 
 
Don’t believe him Kez, his videos are edited and is obviously that all that fights were staged to show that the lion is the best fighter, after all that was the motive of that movies. 
 

...Raul, i have actual data upon the measurements of the canines of both lions and tigers, and that of the tigers was only larger by slightly less than 2 cm.  
 
and, here is the record of the 272 kg lion; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/272kglionpostprimemale.png 
 
...the weight was document and later verified, via email; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/rkock-1.jpg 
 
and, as the email states, the lion had an empty stomach. 
 
....Raul, i did not edit any of my videos, except the big cage fight, and, even then, i only extracted those scenes which were repeated. 
 
and, it is lions which usually hunt larger prey...as the prey animals usually killed by tigers is chital deer, while that of lions is usually wildebeast, or zebras, which are bigger than chital. and, it is single lions which usually hunt these animals, according to studies by schaller.  
 
male lions quite frequently, whether alone or in groups, hunt such large animals as cape buffalo, or even giraffe, more so than the females, and they actually get more food from hunting for themselves, than from the females. 
 
and, the 272 kg figure was reported by scientists, not hunters, though they were problem lions, and had to be shot. notice, also, that that lion of 272 kg was post prime, or past the age where male lions begin to lose condition, according to studies by smuts. 
 
and, those records you mentioned does not indicate tigers are larger than lions. 
 
and, the average of those 7 chitwan males, adjusted for FOOD INTAKE (as they ate a total of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills) is 221 kg. i do not except the 221 kg figure given by slaght. 

Kock give two different answers, one to you and other to Tiger Lover, so he is not reliable. And the phrase “post prime” is very doubtful, after all the subjective adjectives are not scientific statements, so they are invalid. The lion of 272 kg is a doubtful record. 
 
 
 
And for the prey, it depend of the populations, after all the tiger in Nagarahole often hunt Gaur and those of the Assam region hunt Asiatic buffalo which is larger than the African buffalo. So, tiger do hunt bigger animals and they do it ALONE!!! 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, the average of those 7 chitwan males, adjusted for FOOD INTAKE (as they ate a total of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills) is 221 kg.” 
 
Who many times I most tell you that YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE DATA!!! This is why you are a twister. The males T102 and T105, which have been captured several times, were not even baited as Smith & Sunquist (1983) stated, with out counting that not all the other tigers had eaten they bait completely. So the figure of 235 kg stands. And who cares if you don’t accept the figure of 221 kg of Slaght et al, this is a scientific figure and are far more reliable and acceptable than any of your twist statements. 
 

Raul, the sunquist document stated food consumption not only from baits, but natural kills as well. so, the 235 kg figure does not stand. and, you keep stating i changed the data...i did not, merely reported what the document stated, and made the nessecary changes.  
 
and, stop saying i have twist statements...i don`t. i do not know the source of all the measurements given by slaght, and i much rather see the full document, translated.  
 
and, studies indicate tigers very rarely hunt gaur, as scat analysis indicate no remains of gaur, while lions quite regularly (rather singly, or in groups) hunt giraffe as well, especially the males, and giraffe are bigger than gaur.

Damon, the lions rarely hunt giraffes and they always do it in groups. A single lion is not match for an adult giraffe. 
 
 
 
And the second principal preys for the tigers in Nagarahole is the Gaur. If you don’t believe me read “Riding the Tiger” or “Wild Cats of the World” of Sunquist. By the way, the first prey in bout, Chitwan and Nagarahole, is the Sambar deer, which is of the same size that the wildebeest. 
 
 
 
And you actually twist the information, the proof is the average for the Chitwan tigers, you can’t change it because a recalculation is not as simple like subtract 14 kg for all the tigers, some have this amount but others don’t even have stomach content, so don’t twist the data, the average is 235 kg, scientific and accepted fact.

Raul, tigers very rarely kill gaur; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/noremainsofgaurfoundintigerscats.jpg 
 
while studies show tigers do prefer gaur where they are plentiful, the actual average weight of the prey animals killed is much less; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/preyselectionbythetiger.jpg 
 
...now, something for lions (though, more than one lion had hunted the animals, it is still impressive); 
 
"Lions in this area prey mainly on impalas. Males lions, especially when younger, are far less risk averse than the females and will tackle larger prey far more frequently. The West Street Males caught five giraffe in a month when they first came into the area as five young adults, and the young Charleston Males – two of whom became the Rollercoaster Males – caught eight giraffe in two months. The Eyrefield Males once caught an adult rhino cow." 
 
http://journeysofdistinction.co.za/wildlife_7_lion.htm 
 
and, i didn`t change the chitwan tiger figure. sunquist himself stated the tigers ate a total (even excluding the two other males, it is a reliable average) 14 kg a day. but, he also mentioned the tigers fed upon natural kills as well, and the range in food consumption (which likely included the two other males you mentioned) ranged from 14 - 18 kg a day. 
 
check this out, on the average size of prey killed by single lions (go to next post)..... 
 

Please leave this little boy alone, his life has been a miserable one. You know why he didn't finish high school? Because he didn't accept the simple truth of 1 plus 1 is equal to 2, and he couldn't persuade his teachers to accept his twisted theories.  
 
 
 
Let's pretend we accept his data. Quote from his previous posts, 2cm longer is not actually longer because it is only slightly longer. Tigers is not heavier than lions because they receive higher level of food consumption than the majority of lion populations. We can also conclude that Americans are not heavier than Rwanda refugees because we have higher level of food consumption, and Usain Bolt is not the fastest person in the world because he is only faster than his opponents by less than 1 seconds. 
 
 
 
Another example, Luxembourg (82,306 GDP per capita) people are no richer than people from mainland China (5,963 GDP per capita). The data is not valid because, according to him, the sample taken from Luxembourg is only 493,500 compared to 1,321,851,888 taken from China. To prove Luxembourg people are richer than Chinese, one has to provide the sample of 1,321,851,888. But, I believe he will take the samples from the 493,500 richest from China and come up with the conclusion than Luxembourg people are not richer than China. According to him, the conclusion is valid because it is a 493,500 to 493,500 comparison.

here`s a vid of a lion killing a giraffe. another took part in the hunt, but only one lion actually killed the animal; 
 
http://www.fachak.com/first-ever-lion-kills-giraffe-caught-on-tape 
 
also, simon king states single lions have killed giraffe. and, studies by schaller show lions usually hunt alone; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/singlelionshuntfrequently.jpg

....Chor....you completely misinterpret my words. the highest average for tigers, was that of chitwans, and, adjusted for food content, averaged 221 kg. 4 adulr male lions weighed by the kenya wildlife service averaged 221.5 kg. 
 
i stated, rather clearly, that chitwan tigers were larger than most other lions because they had the higher food consumption. i did not state they were the same size because tigers had the larger food consumption...that doesn`t even make sense. 
 
....don`t post stuff you know little about. and, i assure you, my life was never miserable.

Damon....you always find a way to prove the somemone else right. In the last video of the big cage that you posted they had to use a fire hose to seperate the tiger from the lions head. Now you did prove that it was a male tiger. BUT you also prove by your own post how clyde beatty used non-mature, young tigers in his shows with lions. Look at the size of the males in each of those video, They could not of been bigger than 300 pounds versus a 450-500 pound lion and the lion still could not kill it. Thats why if you read his books most of his tigers were sumaturn or very young tigers not to the point of maturity. Thats why I do not to quote clyde beatty for the simple fact that he is a lion lover and a circus act. Not a educated scientist. So all the info in his books and accounts are biased and are opinion based not scientific. If you take a fully grown mature bengal tiger and a fully grown mature african lion and stage a fight as the romans did non biased (for only the best were used for entertainment purposes) than the inevitable fact is that the lion looses. HISTORY shows taht. No more twisting facts. And by the way no single male lion has EVER killed a full grown adult giraffe, cape buffalo, rhino, elephant by themselves. EVER. Tigers in Nagarhole and Rathombore regularly have been known to kill Full Grown 2000 pound guar and 15 foot long crocodiles, black bears, wild dogs, 18 foot pythons, brown bears, Adult moose,and rarely rhinos and elephants by themselves. They compete with leopards, bears, wild dogs and in some regions wolves and the rare spotted hyena. What happened when they used to pit lions against bears? Oh yeah I remember, they got destroyed. So dont say that the competion in africa is more fierce in africa. Lions are the largest predator in africa. Thats why they are title king of beast IN AFRICA. Tigers compete with larger predators than lions do. And have been known to predate on the LARGER predators and prey. By themselves. And if any lion were to have a chance at beating a tiger it would have to be a lion that weighs 150-200 pounds more than it and a young inexperienced tiger. History shows this FACT. Not mere storys by lion lovers or staged fights of small inexperienced tigers. Look at your videos damon and you tell me how big those tigers that beatty was using are full grown. And show why there are now videos of beatty showing Full grown male fighting a lion? The only thing close is watching some of the everland videos and trying to find one that has not been edited. And there you find amongst the editing garbage that the animal that rule the zoo is a huge siberian male named 16kang. In a one fight no lion has defeated him and there is even a vid of him submitting a whole pride.-

theboldchamp is a fucking nigger from africa..this faggot has never seen a wild lion or a wild tiger, he googles everything n posts stuff that he wants to post...biggest faggot on the interent tbh...btw for those who didn't know. 
 
 
 
Damon/jimmy/raul/brentlion/theboldchamp are same people..this fuckin nigger deserves to get shot in the head..hes a fucking spammer that deserves to get shot in da head with an ak-47.

Ayaaz, i`m not Raul....he`s some spanish guy. i barely know any spanish...though i`m learning. and, i don`t merely post what i want to post, i post all the relative info that i have. i never even bother to look at those records which are not conclusive, or those for which little sources prove their account. and, who`d shoot me?.....certainly not you.  
 
and, i already said i was brentlion, idiot.

also, i`m not from africa, but america.

...Kez, only one of those vids i showed was from clyde beatty. but, regardless, clyde beatty, witness to the entire struggle, states the lion won. they seperated the animals, not because the tiger was winning (he only had the lion`s mane), but because the fight could turn deadly. however, who ran in several scenes in the movie?.....why run if you`re winning?......and, that was a full grown tiger, though the tiger actually used in the caesar vs bobby fight was bigger. 
 
and, you obviously have not read clyde`s books. he only mentioned ONE case where a sumatran tiger, named chester, who able to keep from getting seriously injured. he still got dominated, and, he wouldn`t have survived for long, hadn`t clyde interviened. also, he mentioned plenty of cases where big, powerful tigers lost to lions. he only staged two battles which were shown in his movies, and, in both cases the lion won. 
 
there is only one recorded instance of a fight between a lion and tiger in the coliseum, by martial, and, though the tiger won, it was later quoted by manfredi as being 'surprising' hinting it may not have been a usual occurrence. and, tigers are no bigger than lions, yet, lions have the greater stamina, higher testosterone, and certainly are the more willing to combat. lions also have that protective mane of theirs.

Kez, here is what beatty says about the lion vs tiger issue, in his book 'facing the big cats'; 
 
"if what i have witnessed in the arena applies to an encounter in the open, the tiger would try to get away. the lion would pursue him and try to engage him. in an enclosure-and this is based on forty years of observation-the lion is almost invariably the aggressor and the tiger habitually tries to avoid him." 
 
"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. i`m thinking of a big powerful tiger, normally fearful of lions, who saw an opportunity to grab one from behind. the tiger sank his teeth in the lion`s shoulder, and the lion, the victim of shock, slumped to the arena floor. i`ve often wondered whether this was pure shock or whether there wasn`t an element of strategy-a kind of buffing-involved in the lion`s winding up on his stomach, stretched out full length and looking as if he were submitting to his attacker. 
 
the tiger, with all the force behind his tremendously powerful jaws, seemed to be clamping his teeth down even harder; then, seemingly thinking he had won the fight, he relaxed his jaws a little. so quickly i could hardly follow it, the lion shook himself loose, scrambled to his feet and wielding his right forepaw as though it were a club, struck the tiger with great force and sent him banging against the bars of the arena. if the blow from that huge, powerful paw had hit the tiger on the neck, which was what the lion was aiming for, it might have snapped it. the fight was over. the tiger never again wanted to tangle with that lion-in fact, did everything he could thereafter to avoid the maned cat short of hiding behind a pedestal." 
 
 
"if it were possible to walk into a stadium and witness a fight between these two most powerful of the big cats, first placing a pari-mutual bet on the outcome, i would put my money on the lion. i would be backing a belief that he would win through a combination of superior power and tactics designed to get the tiger to wear himself out. the lion would fight calculatingly, and one of his objectives would be to conserve his strength. one of several ways of accomplishing this would be to avoid becoming paw-weary, a condition that would handicap him as much as arm-wearing depletes a boxer. 
 
paw-clouting is one of the favorite methods of attack of the big cats. it is their form of boxing. sometimes, as shown in illustration number twenty-seven in the photo section, they raise up on their hind legs when they deliver these blows, which can be shattering when they connect. a miss can be shattering too-to the animal that misses. a series of such misses can bring on the paw-weariness refered to. from my own observations, the tiger misses much oftener than the lion and therefore is likely to tire faster. by the same token, the tiger leaves himself "wide open" more frequently than the lion. 
 
on one of my movie-making excursions to hollywood, one of my toughest lions (sultan the first) was in a scrappy mood-perhaps disliking the role of motion-picture actor-and one by one took on and whipped every tiger in my act. it was an amazing performance since my entire entourage consisted of big, young, powerful animals. so these were not pushovers that sultan defeated. this remarkable lion, feinting like a clever boxer and making his opponents miss, would then send the off-balance enemy sprawling across the arena with a tremendous clout..........occasionally i am told that i am prejudiced on the subject. if i am, it is a prejudice born of experience. the sum total of what i have witnessed in the arena tells me over and over again that the lion is the "king of beasts". or at least the mightiest of the big cats." 
 
also, here are some scans from the book 'Wild tigers & tame fleas'; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-16.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-17.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-18.jpg 
 
...other than the statement saying lions were bigger than tigers, everything else is pretty much accurate.  
 

here are some scans from clyde`s books; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-63.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-64.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-70.jpg

..finishing from my last post, here is more from beatty; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-71.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-80.jpg 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-81.jpg 
 
..i also have the full scan of the battle between those lions and chester, as well as the full caesar vs bobby scan, and the part beatty mentioned where rogue was able to hold off several lions at once....though, he did not actually 'defeat' them, but was merely able to keep them at bay. 

Damon, are you stupid or what? 
 
 
 
This image: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/noremainsofgaurfoundintigerscats.jpg 
 
Where was made this “study”? What source? What date? This is completely unreliable. Look this image from “Riding the Tiger”, one of the best documents about tigers: 
 
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9267/tigerbiomassridingtheti.jpg 
 
You can see that in Nagarahole more that one third of the prey consist in Gaur, and there are no Gaur in Nepal, so the principal prey is Sambar in this case. By the way, Schaller also report high predation in Gaur from the tigers. 
 
 
 
And this image is self explained: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/preyselectionbythetiger.jpg 
 
Here doesn’t say that the average of the Gaur is 176 kg, it say that THE TIGERS HUNT PREY OF MORE THAN 176 Kg!!! What a twister and a liar are you. 
 
 
 
And that a group of lions hunt a giraffe is not impressive, impressive is that a lone tiger hunt a full grow male rhinoceros, that’s impressive and remember that the rhino weight more than an adult giraffe, look this: 
 
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080313/jsp/northeast/story_9012303.jsp 
 
And this is more common problem in Kaziranga. 
 

And returning to the average figure of Chitwan, you can’t change a figure by subtracting 14 kg from the figure because you can’t know which was the amount of food of each tiger, go and learn Statistic ignorant, you are making a sin against the mathematic here!!! 
 
 
 
Other thing, this page is wrong: 
 
http://journeysofdistinction.co.za/wildlife_7_lion.htm 
 
The heaviest male weighed by Smuts has of 225 kg, empty belly but with a lot of intestinal fat. 
 
 
 
And this video: 
 
http://www.fachak.com/first-ever-lion-kills-giraffe-caught-on-tape  
 
It was a small giraffe and it need two lioness to kill it. This giraffe weighed less than an adult buffalo. What pathetic are the giraffes. 
 
 
 
Damon: “also, simon king states single lions have killed giraffe.” 
 
This King is a stupid if he say that, is question of logic, the lion come close and the giraffe will kick his ass. And Clyde is the worst reference to probe that the lions are better fighters, after all he was completely biased toward the lions like many people of that time. 
 
 
 
By the way, good coment from Ckhor, his example show who stupid are your arguments Damon. 
 
 
 
Ayaaz, don’t be stupid, I am not Damon, have you read the entire blog?  
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.

I made a mistake in the word, I put “probe” but is “proof” 
 
 
 
So, the correct sentence is: 
 
Clyde is the worst reference to proof that the lions are better fighters; after all, he was completely biased toward the lions like many people of that time.  
 

Raul, where did i say gaurs averaged 197 kg?...i said the weight of the principle prey killed by tigers, which is given in this next source, was a little over 90 kg; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/preyselectionbythetiger.jpg  
 
and, yeah, i know that source was wrong on the size of the largest lion weighed by smuts, as i myself have the document of the measurements he has reported. 
 
and, the giraffe in that vid i showed was not small...and, only ONE lion killed it. the other lioness certainly helped to take the animal down, but only one lion actually made the kill. but, there is many more sources (can`t yet find them at the moment) of lions killing giraffes single handedly.  
 
and, here is the source of that study i showed (since you asked); 
 
http://www.wii.gov.in/publications/researchreports/2001/ecology_gaur_content_&_summary.pdf 
 
and, that source i showed you about the prey selection of tigers indicate the average weight of prey tigers prey upon is 91.5 kg....studies by schaller and packer indicate lions usually hunt alone, (72% of the time) and the usual prey item is wildebeast, which average about 170 kg or so (packer). 
 
and, in what way was clyde biased?...he made a statement based upon years of observation. if you would read his books, he actually seems to enjoy tigers a lot, possibly more so than lions. look at what clyde says here, about one of his tigers; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-76.jpg

and Raul, here is more info on the mean mass of prey killed as given by Dr, karanth; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigerprey.jpg 
 
...so, you were saying?.... 
 

but..........i will admit that tigers from the nagerholes main prey source is gaur........tigers from the nagerholes prey is larger then any lion subspecies prey.... forgot about that one....

an silly me I forgot to mention what subspeices packer is talking about...........im a fucking moron who likes to selective post and bullshit..different areas of lions and tigers differ on the prey size they hunt............. 
 
 
 
besides clyde beatty a few unreliable quotes from books...........what evidence does the lion side really have....absolutely none............ 
 
 
 
 
 
its all in favor of the tiger.

Damon: “...so, you were saying?....”  
 
I was saying that you are a twister and a deceiver for this: 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/tigerprey.jpg  
 
This image includes several training prey, as you can see a tiger can’t live of monkeys!!! The mean of 287 kg is logic because any predator will take the young more easily than the older, however tigers hunt bulls of 1000 kg “alone” more often than the lions upon buffalos, “alone” of course. Even you can see that the main prey, the Sambar deer, is just present in the 6.3 of the cases; however the other graphic showed that it is the main prey. So, the tigers, whatever happens, hunt prey of more than 200 kg. The chital prey is obvious an important part, after all they are very common in India and the tigers search food not an incredible fight. 
 
 
 
The document were say that there were no gaur rest in the scats is form Pench, not Nagarahole or Kanha, so don’t twist the things. 
 
 
 
And obviously a giraffe is easier to kill than an Asiatic-African buffalo or a rhino. 
 
 
 
And your point about Clyde is futile, after all you have say many times in other parts that Clyde favor the lion because it is larger and other nonsense. Is incredible how you defend him. He was a deceiver to and a cheat, making everything in order that the lion win like spraying ammonia in the tiger’s eyes. And don’t say that it doesn’t painful.  
 

...those last 2 comments were not made by me. and, clyde did indeed spray ammonia on the tiger, but, not in defense of the lion, and not in his eyes either. he did so as the fight was not going as suggested, as that was a movie, and as such there would need to be a bit more action....i posted the entire fight account on one of my youtube vids, using scans taken directly from the book. and, it was also apparent from the description of the fight that the ammonia played little role in the outcome. 
 
and, i did not say clyde favored the lion because they were larger....i never said anything of the sort. beatty actually states, in his book facing the big cats, that lions and tigers are a standoff in terms of weight. 
 
and, who said tigers regularly kill monkey`s?...they are still a food source, and as you can see, the mean mass of prey animals killed by tigers, as given by dr. KARANTH, is lower even then 70 kg, in all those cases, and upwards of 91 kg, as i had shown in one of my previous messages. 
 
and, how do you come to the conclusion tigers hunt gaur alone more frequently than lions hunt cape buffalo?...can you prove this. there is very few records of tigers killing gaur, and no video footage of such, as most sources only describe the aftermath of a tiger at a gaur carcass, that MAY have killed the animal. however, there is also video footage of single lions killing adult buffalo, and many eyewitness accounts. 
 
also, if you ever read clyde`s books, you will see he was not biased at all.

Damon. Sunquist and the information on prey that you are posting is 14 or more years old. And no longer accurate. And to say that clyde beatty is not biased is like saying the sky is not blue. He may of liked tigers but he LOVED lions and he took steps to make sure his lions would stand out in his show and in his fight sequenceds. He says it in his book that make no mistake lions are the main act of my show. And as I stated before he was not stating that lions were larger than tigers but he was stating that HIS lions are larger than HIS tigers. And spraying ammonia in the eyes of the tigers is just low. Also let me ask you a question. If that tiger had just the the lions hair how come the lion lay motionless at the end of the scene? And the first time the tiger had lion by the hair the lion was kicking franntically with its hind legs trying to break free. See...the reason for that is PAIN. If some pull you by the hair what do you feel. And I highly doubt that the second time the tiger had it by the hair. Why? Because what happens to hair when hair gets wet? It thins which would make it easier for the tiger to apply the throat grip. And as you can see in the video the SMALLER tiger non-matre tiger which you can tell by the color of its nose flipped the larger lion on its back.Noticed how in his book and your own references how many of the accounts were of lions ganging up on one tigers. And of your post of the lions taking down the giraffe. The females helped him bring it down! That is not by himself. Tigers bring down prey weighing two to four time larger than them by themselves. No females helping. Its exactly like I said they are social creatures. They take down large prey socially. They are not designed to take down large prey by themselves. Tiger are. They form coalitions meaning two or more to lead and defend their prides because a pride with one male is susceptable to being taking over easily by two males. The definition of doing it by yourself is doing something with no assistance damon. Like writing a paper without your friends or parents help. And as I said before beatty is not a reliable source not just because he was a lion lover but because he was a circus act for entertainment purposes only not a educated scientist. Quoting clyde beatty is as futile as asking Sigfried and Roy which animal is better. Although they have dealt with both lions and tigers. Whats the main act of their show? A 600 pound white bengal tiger. What do you think they would say. What if they put that 600 pound bengal in a cage with 450 pound lion and sprayed ammonia in its eyes? My point is they are not historians or scientist. They are just people with biased opinons as of which this site is becoming. People who ignore all fact and post fiction ingnorant of reality. History shows the the tiger to be the victor in fights between the tiger and lion. And science proves that the tiger is the LARGER of the two. Science also proves that the tiger is ranked fourth in world among storngest of all carnivores and is the most powerful of All big cats. Those are the facts.

...kez, the info from sunquist is reliable, and no older than that showed by Raul. and, beatty NEVER stated that HIS lions were larger than his tigers. he stated, specifically, that lions were heavier on average....those were his exact words (in fact, i have the scan, and have already shown it). and, beatty only sprayed the ammonia on the tiger, as their was not much action shown in the fight, as the tiger was merely holding the mane of the lion, and he wanted to get the tiger to release his hold. he did not want to use water, as that would have destroyed his act for the day. note also that the fight shown int he movie was NOT the fight between caesar and bobby. and, the tiger may have been smaller, but, it was full grown. did you actually read his books?.....the caesar vs bobby fight was the only fight where he actually used ammonia, and, it was not in defense of the lion...... if you actually read the description (which i have shown on my youtube page, brentlion, in full context) this was obvious. and, the video of the lion taking down the giraffe showed a female, not a male, and one female was on the backof the giraffe, which played little part in his falling to the ground, as the video shows. but, my point was that only one lion administered the killing bite. 
 
 
 
and, 4 lions measured by the kenya wildlife service averaged 221.5 kg, while chitwan tigers, adjusted for food content, average 221 kg....almost exactly the same. note, however, that both these studies are inconclusive, and not representative of the average size of an entire population, as the sampling, in both cases, was too low. so, i use such figures as an approximate sample, rather than any clear indication of the size of these animals. also, if you read the description of the caesar vs bobby incident, it was obvious the ammonia was not specifically sprayed in the tigers eyes, and indeed, he certainly did not react as he did, as beatty stated the tiger clawed at his nose (rather than his eyes, which would have been the case, had he been sprayed there). also, it is obvious the ammonia played little role in the fight, as the tiger immediately took the offensive again, indicating he could see, and perfectly....otherwise, their would have been an element of hesitation (animals are more causious with people or other animals which they cannot readily see). the lion killed the tiger. but, beatty also mentioned other cases where the lion defeated the tiger, with no action on his part, and most were by accident. also, bobby was a particularly large tiger, and he was actually shown in the movie (he was the tiger which was made to go on the pedestal, just before the fight occured...caesar was the lion opposite him, also on a pedestal, as he had a belly mane.). the lion actually shown in the fight, did not have a belly mane. also, beatty states in his book 'facing the big cats' that lions and bengal tgers are a standoff in terms of weight, and he indeed had siberian tigers in his act, and states, quite specifically, that those were the animals which his lions usually faced.

Damon, you post old information and old hunting records of lions weights which are not reliable. The scientific data of both lion and tiger weights as of june 3, 2009 show that the tiger is larger than the lion in average weight and in maximum weight period no matter what you think. As I said before check all the reputable sites and scientist not hunters state that the bengal tiger is on average 50+ pounds heavier than a lion. And if you want old hunter records there are records of 400kg siberian tigers. As siberian tigers were larger back in the 1920's. And as I said before quoting clyde beatty is like quoting sigfried and roy. Very biased. And if you anything about tigers you would know that there nose is highly sensitive to the point that they will not eat what they cannot smell. And if clyde beatty was so sure of his lions beating siberian tigers or even large tigers, how come there is no visual evidence of that??? Yet what you do see is very small immature tigers fighting large lions? A modern day Full grown male bengal tiger TODAY is larger than any of the tigers in any of the black and white scenes you showed. While the male tiger in your post is if any larger than the female fighting the female lion in the video clip at the begining of this site. Why is that??? I digress. Additionally, historical weights of the two proves that the tiger is larger and longer on average. The largest tiger ever was 1,025 pounds. The largest lion ever was 826 pounds. Thats almost a 300 pound difference. And if you want to talk historically about fighting. In ancient Rome they used to pit barbary lions which is supposed to be the biggest and most aggressive lions against bengal and caspian/siberian tigers and the tiger invariably won. No ammonia. To the point that they would send in 5 lions against 4 tigers JUST to make it interesting. Even if you compare zoo and circus accounts there are more accounts of tigers killing/defeating lions than vice versa. Eyewitness accounts meaning more than one person not just one biased person giving a opinion. And it seems that many people think that the tiger is at a disadvantage because of the lions mane and that tigers go exclusively for the throat. But in these accounts you will find that in killing the lion the tiger has flipped the lion over, then ripped the belly of the lion open. And recently in tiger and lion everland the only animal that died in the zoo from attack was a male lion that died due to the spine bite by the male bengal tiger. Tigers when killing prey will usually either go for the spine bite or for the nape of the neck. In your own post It states "that the lion may be king of beast in its appearance but in encounters with the tiger it would always come in second against the the stripe beast. Like an intelligent boxer the tiger would stand on its hinglegs raining blows on the lion. Until one day a reversal took place when the lion was fed a live fowl." My point is that if the tiger and lion would have not been seperated the lion would have been killed and that reversal would of never took place. Who knows how long (as it did not state in your post) the tiger was beating that lion up. Even a broken watch is right twice a day. What I am saying is that if the lion loses a 100 fights and then wins one. Can you truly say that the lion is the better Fighter? Thats like Mike Tyson knocking me out 21 times and then one day I hit him just right and knock him out. Does that make me the better fighter??? Damon get some current information and stop trying to spread your lies on here and youtube. Everyone knows tigers are larger both historically and currently. Your own post prove you a wrong. I think that you know your wrong but are to stuborn/argumentive to admit it. And in a fight tigers win almost all the time or invariably. I cant honestly say that they will win everytime because nothing is 100% given. But a majority of the time the tiger will win. Its a better fighter. And to expound on nothing is given I have seen on national geographic where a lion has died from a broken jaw that it suffered from a kick when trying to take down a zebra. Or a tiger that that died trying take down a guar. Now usually a tiger can take down a gaur and a lion can take down a zebra, but sometimes things go wrong. But a majority of the time they will come off successful when they capture these creature. I am not saying that they will suceed everytime they hunt, but when they make contact with these creatures.

By the way damon. You never answer my questions.

kez, i wasn`t refering to old hunting records of lions, which i rarely, ir ever posted. so, what are you talking about?.... 
 
 
 
and, i already agree the siberian tiger is slightly larger, by about 15 - 60 lbs, but, nonetheless, modern data upon the mass of these specimens indicate an average of about 195 kg, the size of rhodesia lions. 4 lions measured by the kenyan wildlife service, in southern kenya, average 221.5 kg. and, that point you mentioned about the lion always coming in second does not prove your point that tigers are usually the superior. that same tiger was eventually killed by that lion. KILLED, not knocked out, by an animal which was previously stated to have bene inferior. and, i have MANY records of lions defeating, or otherwise killing tigers in fights. and, tigers are not better fightser, and the romans did not put 5 lions in with 4 tigers.....i`ve seen a source which states this, but, no actual proof of that account, and it is simply bogus. 
 
 
 
and, which lion died in everland, due to a spinal bite from a tiger?...did everland actually make that statement, or was it merely stated in some website?.....that is not reliale. 
 
 
 
and, it is actually the lion which is the more practiced fighter, certainly more willing to combat. studies by packer show that when lions fight, they often avoid such areas as the head and neck of the adversary, where little injury is likely to result, and instead attack the hindlimbs and rump, their most vulnerable areas. fights are often serious, and fatal. fights between tigersm by contrastm is often short where both animals neglect the use of their teeth, as a way of avoiding too serious an injury, which for an animal which must supply for itse;f would be detrimental to it`s survival. schaller, by contrast, states lions very quickly bring forth the use of their teeth in a battle, while he also states tigers are not quite as territorial, as say, deer. and, i never mentioned any biased opinions from one person. rather, beatty made a statement based upon years of observation...that is not an opinion. if you actually read his books, you`d know this.

Damon, tigers do hunt gaur more often than the lions on buffalo ALONE, if there are no videos is because is more difficult to watch tigers in the wild than lions. 
 
 
 
In the video, the ammonia does play a big role; after all, it hurt the tiger’s eyes. Clyde was biased just like you, so, just like you, he is completely unreliable. 
 
 
 
And who cares the average prey weight, after all, the tigers hunt by themselves, but the lions hunt for the entire pack, that’s way the average prey of the lions weight more. The giraffe was a female to, so this animal could weight no more than 300 kg, easy prey for TWO lionesses. 
 
 
 
The weight for the Chitwan tigers is of 235 kg and is for 7 males, stop twisting the things. How many times we have spoken this here? And you continue changing the figure, and saying that the sample is inconclusive. The population of full grow males in Chitwan according with Dave Smith was of about 6 males, so the sample of 7 exceed this and is highly reliable, drop your excuses. 
 
 
 
And were you get that 4 lion are averaging 221 kg? Kenya lions weight about 172 kg in average according with Meinertzhagen (in Schaller’s book) and 174.9 kg according with Smuts. So, these lions are about the smaller but more common of the lions in Africa. 
 
 
 
Damon: “kez, i wasn`t refering to old hunting records of lions, which i rarely, ir ever posted.” 
 
Liar, the old records are your only source, and your misinterpret them!!! 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

Raul, when comparing lion weights, i very rarely used hunting records, and only when proving a point to you...that being, that in hunting records, there was very little difference between lions and tigers. but, the great majority of my records of lions was from scientific documents, as was most of my records from tigers, apart from a few. of the many records i showed of lions, i mentioned those from smuts, or sunquist, berry, smithers, ect. 
 
 
 
also, meinertzhagen weighed another east african lion of 229 kg, according to the guinness book or records, which would make the average weight of the east african lions at 201.5 kg. and, the kenya wildlife service weighed 4 lions, of 180, 205, 230, and 272 kg, and that gives an average of 221 kg, of lions from SOUTHERN kenya....i already showed the documents. and, which records did i misinterpret/...i never stated anything that wasn`t in the documents i showed. are you refering to my statements of the measurements over curves and between pegs?...which documents, specific, did i misinterpret?.... 
 
 
 
and, again, the chitwan tigers ate a total of 14-18 kg a day, from book natural kills, and baits, and there average weight, adjusted for food content, is 221 kg. why don`t you ask sunquist on this matter, better yet, i`ll ask him. 
 
 
 

also, majority of lions hunt alone, according to studies by both packer and schaller, and they usually hunt large prey. while tigers may prefer large prey, the same can be said for lions, and they have been documented to hunt large giraffe`s, singly.

since we are all going on about sates etc it is proven the off 100% of a lions body fat and muscule 80% of that is musclur that is a huge amount i must say i am a lion lover but even i hate to say the a siberan tiger not much but still larger "can" and has a better chance of winning but a bengal tier is out of the question and obs this website creater must be a tiger loveer am i ryt ??

the tiger is a tank. No question. they are even better looking than lions

well! such a pathetic hypothesis. 
let's take a 500 pounder lion which was basically in lion vs bear fight and a 500 ponder tiger. The one which has better fighting techniques and better experience would win. Then you should not deny that a lion would win. 
Even if 500 pound lion fights with 
540 pounds tiger, then also the lion will have a better chance of winning against a tiger

Come on Damon, you use it, and many times, if not, look the several links that you have post here, about the 95 % are of old records. 
 
 
 
Form the other, how can you change the average from Meinertzhagen, did you know the weights of the other 14 males? Even if we do this: (150+189+229)/3=189.3 kg, the average barely reach the 190 kg, so were you get this 201 kg? You have not show this suppose reference about this four males from “south Kenya”. However, if a take 4 males from WCS-India the average will be of 230.75 kg (weights of 209, 227, 230 and 257 kg respectively). 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, again, the chitwan tigers ate a total of 14-18 kg a day, from book natural kills, and baits, and there average weight, adjusted for food content, is 221 kg. why don`t you ask sunquist on this matter, better yet, i`ll ask him.” 
 
 
 
This is when you change the data and twist it. By the way, I already have the document of Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al (1983), and not all the tigers were baited and there is no security that all the tigers have eaten before being weighed. So, you can’t change the figure, the scientist put 235 kg, so is 235 kg, period. By the way, the average amount of food was of 14 kg +- 1.6 of standard error, so where you get the 18 kg? You see, I catch you again. 
 
 
 
Finally, if the lions hunt alone, this could be applied for small and medium prey, but for buffaloes to large giraffes, the pride is needed. And is nonsense to say that a single lion can handle a large giraffe. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

to de honest i would'nt wanna come face to face with them anyway  
 
 
 
 
 
and when the siberain tiger becomes extinct lyk it is sure to do the african lion will "be proven to be the largest cat on the planet

Raul, i only mentioned those hunting records when you stated that tigers were larger than lions in old records, which i disagreed with. yes, i`ve shownb those records quite a few times, but, most usually, whenever i quote the weights of lions, or tigers for that matter, a great majority are of modern documents. 
 
 
 
also, meinertzhagen gave an average of 172 kg; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/books-76.png 
 
 
 
however, if you add the weight of his heaviest male, of 229 kg to the 172 kg figure, you get an average of 200.5 kg, not 201.5 kg....my mistake. 
 
 
 
food intake of the chitwan tigers measured by sunquist; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/dailyfoodconsumptionoftigersinch-6.jpg 
 
 
 
..notice that the LOWEST food intake of the chitwan tigers was 14 kg, the highest 18 kg. so, where did you catch me again?...where did you catch me the first time?....you are proven wrong. the food intake was not only related to these animals feeding upon baits, but natural kills as well. 
 
 
 
and, most often, the male lions hunt buffalo frequently. but, even if we conclude that large prey animals of lions are usually hunted in groups, the average size of wildebeast or zebra, there usual prey animals, is larger than the average weight of prey animals usually hunted by tigers. and, lions have been witnessed to take down giraffe`s singled handedly.

i think this is just a biest site a tiger is harly 3ft 3 inc short between a siberian tiger and a mae african lion soooo unfair to be honest

Damon: “however, if you add the weight of his heaviest male, of 229 kg to the 172 kg figure, you get an average of 200.5 kg, not 201.5 kg....my mistake.”  
 
 
 
Damon, you can’t do this!!! This is not ethic, no even accurate. As I show you many times, you most know all the others weights for include this new weight of 229 kg, then you can calculus the average of 200. If you just add the 229 to the 172 kg, then you are only calculating the average between these two weights, not all the sample!!! This is like if I take the average of 235 kg and just add the weight of 270 kg and compute the figure of 252.5 kg!!! Obviously this is incorrect but is the same case that you make. As I say you many times, go and learn Statistic, but if you can’t I can teach you, after all, I manage this matter very easily, do you want that I teach you??? 
 
 
 
The weight of 18.6 kg is for the average in 7 days, the same graphic show this, and so here is when I catch you. And for the kills, when I say that this figure was just from baited? It was B2Fan who say that. However, there is no clue to say that all the males were baited, no even gorged, so at least two males of the seven (T102 and T105) were no baited and not gorged, so you can’t just subtract 14 kg for the figure, the scientist say 235 kg then is 235 kg, period. 
 
 
 
Is obvious than the lion hunt larger prey, but just relative. There are plenty Wildebeest and Zebras in Africa, but in India, the deer’s are they equivalent which range from the Chital (by far the most abundant) to the Sambar (of the same size that an average Zebra and a bit larger than a Wildebeest). However, the lions often hunt the two beasts and just hunt buffalo if there is no other prey. The tiger, for the contrary, prefer larger prey; even if the scats show other thing, you most take in count that they will not wait until a large prey arise to hunt, if there is small prey available they will eat it, however is of common knowledge that the tigers prefer larger prey because they have more food, so if the larger prey is Sambar, they will prefer Sambar, even when the just can catch Chital in the moment; if there is Gaur, they will hunt him every time when they can; and if there is Rhino, like in Kaziranga, they will hunt the adult males because they are more easy to kill then an Asiatic Buffalo and its flock. By the way, you have not proofs at the moment that the lions have kill male adult giraffes in a single fight, so this most be just one of your myths. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

...actually, the most usually prey item for tigers in most cases is the chital deer, or, in other areas like chitwan, according to that source i showed from karanth, the axis deer, which are, i believe, smaller than both wildebeast and zebra, which lions usually hunt alone, according to both schaller and packer.  
 
 
 
and, the average food intak of 18 kg was the average in a DAY (the source states this) that the animals ate in a time frame of 7 days. the source states "the average consumed per day"...look at the top of the document. that means that, in 7 days, the tiger consumed an average of 18 kg a day....do you understand the document?..... 
 
 
 
and, most scientists agree the lion, whether alone or in groups, hunt prey animals larger than tigers. and, tigers very rarely kill rhino`s, which are usually out of the question.....and, i`ll show documents proving lions can kill adult giraff`s, although that video i showed of the lion killing the giraffe is sufficient enough, as 2 lions helped in the hunt, but only ONE animal actually delivered the killing bite.

raul and whats your face damon give it a fuckin rest fair enought putting your point accros i fell a lion would win bla bla carrying a bit one lyk bit imature to be honest lets face it the chance of them coming together face to face is very unlikly

Bold, the table clearly says “7 DAYS” so this is the average in 7 days not in one day.  
 
 
 
If the tiger hunt more often smaller prey than the lion it doesn’t mean anything, after all when Salmoni was training the tigers in Africa, the often hunted the largest prey that they could have, so the Wildebeest was the most common for them, however if they are hungry they could eat fish and lizards. So, it doesn’t depend of the animal’s capacity, but of the hunger of the animal. 
 
 
 
And in Kaziranga the rhinos are not out of the question any more, after all they are a real problem in the rhino conservation, especially when they are killing mostly adult males. And the lioness just bite the troth of the giraffe, don’t even fight with her, after all the giraffes are very delicate animals, even two large jaguars could kill them. There is need of two lionesses to kill a sub adult giraffe but it just need a single tigress to kill and adult Gaur, what difference of strength and ability. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

..Raul, i`ll circle the part of the document of the food intake of the tigers, to show you what i mean (and you claim i misinterpret info); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagefoodconsumedperday.jpg 
 
...i circled where it says the average food comsumed per day...which was 18 kg in one instance. they comsumed 130 kg in 7 days, if you add the TOTAL amount they eat in that time frame, but, the average they consumed per day, in 7 days, was 18 kg. do you get it now?.... 
 
...and, dave salmoni`s tigers hunted the animals which was easiest for them to catch...though it should be noted they had help in that case, as the crew would actually stampede the animals towards the tigers. and, that giraffe was an adult specimen. but, very rarely does a tiger/tigress kill gaur. a lion could kill any animal a tiger can, and they can certainly kill giraffe. 
 
and, like always, i disagree that tigers are any larger than lions.

damon and whats your name raul give it a fucking rest fair enough putting your point accross lyk i think a lion would win thats my veiw bla bla but your carrying htis on a bit,bit sad and imature

Damon: “...and, dave salmoni`s tigers hunted the animals which was easiest for them to catch...though it should be noted they had help in that case, as the crew would actually stampede the animals towards the tigers. and, that giraffe was an adult specimen. but, very rarely does a tiger/tigress kill gaur. a lion could kill any animal a tiger can, and they can certainly kill giraffe.” 
 
 
 
That was just an example, after all I already know that these animals were no even released at al, but it proofs that the tigers will prefer the wildebeest over antelopes if they could have it, sadly for them, even the small prey is unavailable in this days do the poaching of the preys for the humans. However even in this poor condition the tigers still reach larger size than any African lion, scientific researches are proof of this. 
 
 
 
And the table say 7 days, so its 7 days, period. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

The tiger/tigress often kill gaur and larger prey, after all, it is more productive than small animals and the lions have not proved to kill any animal larger than a zebra alone. Even for a buffalo it needs at least 4 lionesses to kill it. The male lions in photographs just kill small or sick buffalos. And a male lion is useless against a male giraffe, that’s sure. 
 

Raul, that sunquist document concerning food intake says the average food intake of the tigers in a day, lasting a period of 7 days, was 18 kg. but, they actually ate 130 kg in those 7 days, which the source states....look at the document again from my last post....i underlined where it says the 18 kg figure was the consumption over a day. 
 
and, scientific studies do not show tigers are larger, as chitwan tigers (regardless of what you state) average 221 kg adjusted for food intake....why don`t you ask sunquist about this, and see his take on this matter?...... 
 
...those 4 lions measured by the kenya wildlife service averaged 221.5 kg. tigers are no larger.

Raul, there are many records of lions killing buffalo singlehandedly....check this out; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cniRVsEBnok&feature=PlayList&p=3F9A5B5D2D3072CE&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1 
 
Raul, tigers eat alone, so, they do not need to kill a larger animal in order to get enough to eat, and about every study i`ve seen shows an average prey size of roughly 91 kg or so, at best. 
 
for single lions, the number would be a bit higher, as single lions usually hunt warthogs (especially the males), wildebeast, zebra, and occasionally buffalo, which are all larger than 91 kg. schaller also shows that over 70% of lions hunt singly. even if several other lions actually participate in the chase, unless the animal should be particularly large, the lioness si likely to bring the animal down alone. lions hunt larger prey, while tigers do not regularly hunt gaur and rhinos, or whatever.

Damon, the table says 7 days, I don’t know way you don’t accept this, its clear. 
 
 
 
And how many times I most say to you that you can’t change the figures, two of those tigers were not baited or gorged and the others could not eat the complete bait, so it impossible to change the figure by just subtracting 14 kg from the average, this is stupid. Learn Statistic ignorant. You are repeating the same thing again and again, this is nonsense, you are in negation and twisting the thing even when I clearly show you the correct way to calculate an average. So, don’t twist the things, the Bengal tigers average no less than 210 kg and about 221 kg based in scientific research, so they are larger than any population of lions and obviously more than the lions at all.  
 
 
 
Your sample of 4 males of Kenya is irrelevant; after all 4 males from Nagarahole average 230.7 kg. So, which is larger? The tigers, obviously. 
 
 
 
From the other, what I have say to your? Apparently you never read what I post, maybe because its the true and you don’t accept it. 
 
 
 
The video is staged, it doesn’t show the actually kill, just the lioness jumping on the buffalo. A hundred things could happen then, after all many documentals are made by pasted parts, so its irrelevant. The same Joubert’s say that the “mighty” Tsaro lioness could not hunt a buffalo if there were less than 4 lioness. 
 
 
 
Damon: “while tigers do not regularly hunt gaur and rhinos, or whatever.” 
 
This phrase show how biased are you, you hate tigers because they beat your precious lion, but don’t worry, if the stupid humans continue poaching the tigers, your precious false “king” will be the largest cat. Tigers do hunt largest prey than lions, this is a prove fact. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD. 
 

Raul, sunquist`s table says the average the tigers ate per day in 7 days was 18 kg......do you get it?....again, i`ll circle where it says this......look at it again (look at the part in red that i circled....it clearly says 'average comsumed per day); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagefoodconsumedperday.jpg 
 
...the tigers ate 130 kg of food in those 7 days, as the source states....18.6 times 7 is 130. 
 
and, when have i stated those tigers measured by sunquist were gorged?.....unless those two tigers you mentioned did not eat throughtout his study, than what i state holds merit.  
 
and, actually, i do not hate tigers....they are one of my favorite animals, second only to the lion. lions are certainly the more interesting of the two, tigers more beautiful and certainly the more practiced hunter. but, when it comes to hunting large prey, it is the lions which exceed them. and, note that i have nearly every modern document ever published on these animals (i can show you, if you want?). and, tigers are actually doing well in the wild...their numbers are slowly rising.

Tiger wins hands down in a fair fight.

Answer this question lion siders: can a lion jump a 5 ton elephant. No it can't!!!!!!!! Tigers can do that.

Damon: “and, when have i stated those tigers measured by sunquist were gorged?.....unless those two tigers you mentioned did not eat throughtout his study, than what i state holds merit.” 
 
Don’t be stupid Damon, those two tigers obviously were weighed many times, sometimes they could weight less than the figure in Smith et al (1983) and sometimes more (like the case of T105 which in one occasion bottomed a scale of 600 pounds). So, like the Siberian Tiger Project, maybe the weights of 200 kg to T102 and 261 kg for T105 are averages of all those measurements. 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, note that i have nearly every modern document ever published on these animals (i can show you, if you want?). and, tigers are actually doing well in the wild...their numbers are slowly rising.” 
 
That’s the worst lie in all your life. How can you say that tigers are doing well? Don’t you read the news? The tigers are much endangered, they are dieing in all India in very high numbers, about 8 in just one month in Kaziranga, or very high level of deaths in Chitwan, not only from poaching but from conflict of territory, and after all, there is no more space for tigers!!! So, this lie in especial show how biased are you, that you are saying lies about the tigers an they status. The tiger MOST BE PROTECTED, and people like you are no worst than the tiger poachers. You are a despicable person. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

Raul, stop saying i lied. yes, tigers are endangered, but, at least in some areas, it is stated they are doing well. and, how the hell am i much worst than poachers?.....i love tigers....i merely expressed a statement which i repeated from a recent document.  
 
and, those two tigers you mentioned were, well, at least in one case, was weighed twice, the first measurement take by sunquist, i believe, and they (the measurements) were years apart. 
 
so, as usual, i disagree tigers are any larger than lions, for reasons i gave before.

...i accidentally put an m on my name, instead of an n, at the end of the name damon.....my mistake.

Damon, T102 was weighed two times by Seindesticker & Tamang and Sunquist and reported in the document of 1981, the same goes to T105. However even when T102 don’t change its weight (200 kg in both occasions), T105 actually do it. First he was weighed 2 times with a scale of just 227 kg, latter, according with a personal communication with Dr Sunquist this male weighed 258.2 kg, and finally that male bottomed a scale of 600 lb according with Dinerstein (2003). So, the weight of 261 kg probably was obtained of several measurements recorded by Sunquist, Smith and Dinerstein. Actually I email Dr Sunquist and he say to me that Dr Smith had weighed another tiger which was heavier than T105 (Sauraha). However, as I say to you before, I have no replay of him, maybe I am using a wrong email or he just don’t want to answer, after all I think that he is working now in a project in Indochina. So, if you want, you can ask to Dr Smith, maybe he answers to you. 
 
 
 
This is the email that Dr Sunquist had sent to me: 
 
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1096/tigerheavierthatsauraha.jpg 
 
 
 
This other emails are important, this is the other weight reported for Sauraha, mentioned before, is from Tiger Lover, I think: 
 
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/8443/nepaltigerweights.jpg 
 
 
 
This other is from Tiger Lover surely and shows that not all the male tigers had eaten the bait or had consumed the alleged 14 kg of meat. So you can’t change the figure, the source say 235 kg, so it is 235 kg, period. I will ask him personally this, but Tiger Lover is very reliable to me: 
 
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/5006/sunquistigernotfullstom.gif 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

Raul, i already saw those emails from tiger lover....and indeed, i never stated those tigers were gorged, just that they ate a total of 14 - 18 kg a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills.....which the study states. 
 
and, i also know about t105......weights can vary between males, as, when particularly young (at about 4 years of age, even though they are of adult age, they have not yet attained full growth, until about the age of 7 years, and his weight may very, after which time he begins, much like lions, to lose condition. 
 
and, i have asked sunquist about the food intake, and he said this; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/sunquistnoadjustmentforfood-1.jpg 
 

Damon, that email from you says nothing new, after all we actually know that some tigers were baited. The point is that you can’t change the figure by subtracting 14 kg because there are several variants that you most take in count. Apart from those which I have already stated (like the correct use of the statistic) the fact that some males were not even baited affects your reduction. I will explain this to you like a child: 
 
 
 
Let’s say that this 4 imaginary tigers were weighed and the result was: 200, 220, 230, 240 kg. Then the average will be of 222.5 kg.  
 
 
 
Well, then the recorder say that some of them were baited (the males of 220 and 240) but the males of 200 and 230 kg were captured following the radio collared signal. The average amount of food consumed of baits and natural kills was of 10 kg. 
 
 
 
Then the male of 220 kg just eat 5 kg of the meal, so we most just rest him 5 kg. The other male of 240 kg have eaten the complete 10 kg. The male of 200 have eaten 11 kg of meat from a natural kill and finally the male of 230 kg had an empty belly. 
 
 
 
So:  
 
200 – 11 = 189 
 
220 – 5 = 215 
 
230 – 0 = 230 
 
240 – 10 = 230 
 
The correct average will be of 216 kg. The difference was of 6.5 kg. 
 
 
 
What you are doing is this: 222.5 – 10 = 212.5 and this is not correct. 
 
 
 
So like you can see, in this incorrect way you simple ignore all the other factors that influence the real average figure, and obviously 212.5 is not the same that 216 kg, NOW YOU SEE? 
 
 
 
So, the figure of 235 kg most be treated in the same way, maybe the real average was of 227 or 230, actually we can’t know it, however the official figure was of 235 kg, so we most respect that figure.  
 
 
 
This is the difference between real knowledge and your empiric knowledge. 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.  
 

Raul, all the males need not be baited, as the food consumption was an average based upon not only baiting, but NATURAL kills as well, and he really only needed to bait the tigers once.....but, i asked sunquist about this as well, an my suggestion of deducting weight for food content....i await his reply. 
 
and, Raul, you are indeed right about the food consumption of those 4 randomly selected weights. but, that`s almost exactly how sunquist gathered an average as well, except that those males that weren`t baited ate from natural kills, unless they did not eat in that time frame, in which case they would have either been too weak to hunt, and also starving, as the study lasted 14 days. 
 
the average food intake of all the males in sunquist`s study was at least 14 kg, so, that is the amount which needs to be deducted.

also, from your four randomly selected weights, you said i would deduct 10 kg as the average food intake......how so?....how did you come up with 10, or else figure i would come up with that?.....that`s not how i do it....i add all the numbers up, and subtract by the amount of tigers in the study.

Damon, that email from you says nothing new, after all we actually know that some tigers were baited. The point is that you can’t change the figure by subtracting 14 kg because there are several variants that you most take in count. Apart from those which I have already stated (like the correct use of the statistic) the fact that some males were not even baited affects your reduction. I will explain this to you like a child:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Let’s say that this 4 imaginary tigers were weighed and the result was: 200, 220, 230, 240 kg. Then the average will be of 222.5 kg.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Well, then the recorder say that some of them were baited (the males of 220 and 240) but the males of 200 and 230 kg were captured following the radio collared signal. The average amount of food consumed of baits and natural kills was of 10 kg.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Then the male of 220 kg just eat 5 kg of the meal, so we most just rest him 5 kg. The other male of 240 kg have eaten the complete 10 kg. The male of 200 have eaten 11 kg of meat from a natural kill and finally the male of 230 kg had an empty belly.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So:  
 
 
 
200 – 11 = 189  
 
 
 
220 – 5 = 215  
 
 
 
230 – 0 = 230  
 
 
 
240 – 10 = 230  
 
 
 
The correct average will be of 216 kg. The difference was of 6.5 kg.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What you are doing is this: 222.5 – 10 = 212.5 and this is not correct.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So like you can see, in this incorrect way you simple ignore all the other factors that influence the real average figure, and obviously 212.5 is not the same that 216 kg, NOW YOU SEE?  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So, the figure of 235 kg most be treated in the same way, maybe the real average was of 227 or 230, actually we can’t know it, however the official figure was of 235 kg, so we most respect that figure.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This is the difference between real knowledge and your empiric knowledge.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So, like always, in base of all this information we can safely conclude that Tiger > Lions, in maximum and average size and weight, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact. All other affirmation out of this is nonsense, PERIOD.