Subscribe to the blog

Your email:

Fish with the Best

Wild Animal Fights

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Bengal Tiger vs African Lion

  
  
  

       Tiger Facts                                Lion Facts 

    up to 6'0", 500 lbs                     up to 6'6", 420 lbs

Tiger fight, tiger vslion fight, lion vs

 

This is the Big one. The question who would win in a fight between a lion and a tiger is one of life's great questions. The debate can get heated enough to end friendships.

Here is the final answer.

First of all for this fight we will use the Bengal Tiger, instead of the much larger Siberian Tiger, so we can give the poor Lion a chance. The fact is that the Lion still would have no shot. The Tiger is just a far superior animal. It is stronger and faster. It hunts bigger prey and doesn't need the help of something called a pride. Pride? The Lion should be ashamed.

Tiger wins easily.

 

 

Comments

I disagree. I gotta go bear on this one.
Posted @ Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:45 PM by Justin
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.
Posted @ Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:52 PM by elpresidente
Bigger, Stronger, Meaner, Better looking, Better at fighting, Much Quicker, Faster, all around fan-fucking-amazing. Go tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, December 14, 2008 4:54 PM by Scott Fovel
Thank you, Scot - too kind.
Posted @ Monday, December 15, 2008 3:22 PM by UNIT
bengal tiger without a doubt..easy fight
Posted @ Monday, January 12, 2009 4:11 AM by ayaz
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.
Posted @ Sunday, February 01, 2009 4:06 PM by tiger king
lion`s are very lazy the lionesses do all the work.  
 
 
 
So in other words, a lion is a lot like a man?
Posted @ Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:39 PM by Ryan
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.
Posted @ Friday, February 20, 2009 3:37 PM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:41 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, February 24, 2009 1:54 PM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 25, 2009 9:59 AM by Raul
Sorry for my grammar, I am not a native speaker.  
 
 
 
Good day.
Posted @ Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:02 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:26 PM by katey
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 !
Posted @ Monday, March 09, 2009 3:30 AM by mombasa
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.
Posted @ Monday, March 09, 2009 3:34 AM by mombasa
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:18 PM by King Gray
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
Posted @ Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:55 AM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:33 PM by Ayaz
Thank you Ayaz! Finally someone with some sense.
Posted @ Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:49 PM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:36 PM by Me
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.
Posted @ Saturday, March 14, 2009 11:01 PM by Dude
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 .
Posted @ Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:18 AM by hrishi raj
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:17 AM by ayaz
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:29 AM by Raul
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
Posted @ Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:36 AM by ayaz
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:39 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Friday, March 20, 2009 6:54 AM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Friday, March 20, 2009 1:49 PM by Kez
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  
 
Posted @ Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:52 PM by hrishi raj
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
Posted @ Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:53 PM by hrishi raj
vv
Posted @ Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:12 PM by hrishi raj
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:12 PM by Raul Valvert
...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.
Posted @ Friday, March 27, 2009 6:14 AM by boldchamp
....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. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, March 27, 2009 6:20 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Friday, March 27, 2009 12:25 PM by Raul Valvert
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... 
Posted @ Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:01 AM by ayaz
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."
Posted @ Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:43 AM by damon
...raul, i explained everything in my last post, so read all of it. it is not biased, nor selective.
Posted @ Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:46 AM by damon
....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.
Posted @ Saturday, March 28, 2009 7:07 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Saturday, March 28, 2009 9:56 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Saturday, March 28, 2009 3:28 PM by Raul Valvert
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. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:13 PM by Raul Valvert
...hey, what happened to my last comment?....
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:46 AM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:32 AM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:39 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 2:06 PM by Raul Valvert
...why is my comment not showing up?.....well, raul, look here, at my comment to your last post; 
 
 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/1494
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:05 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:18 PM by Raul Valvert
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. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:35 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:01 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 6:07 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:01 PM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:10 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Sunday, March 29, 2009 7:20 PM by Raul
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
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 6:46 AM by ayaz
...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.
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 9:02 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 11:46 AM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 3:03 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 8:11 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 9:35 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 10:53 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 11:23 PM by damon
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
Posted @ Monday, March 30, 2009 11:43 PM by ayaz
.....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.
Posted @ Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:00 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, March 31, 2009 7:02 PM by paulo
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. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:33 PM by Raul
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
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:33 AM by ayaz
..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
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:18 PM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:27 PM by damon
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!!! 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:05 PM by Raul
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. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:27 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:31 PM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:36 PM by damon
..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. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:39 PM by damon
Ok Damon, yeah, what ever you say. 
 
 
 
But at the end: Tiger > Lion
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:42 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:50 PM by damon
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
Posted @ Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:47 PM by sayaz
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.
Posted @ Thursday, April 02, 2009 8:01 AM by damon
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
Posted @ Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:59 AM by ayaz
“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. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:08 AM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:08 PM by damon
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.  
Posted @ Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:43 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, April 02, 2009 9:46 PM by Raul
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?
Posted @ Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:04 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 1:55 AM by damon
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
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 2:03 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 2:07 AM by damon
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
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 2:35 AM by ayaz
..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?....
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 2:43 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 12:05 PM by Raul
....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.
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 12:35 PM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 1:07 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Friday, April 03, 2009 7:58 PM by Raul
....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.
Posted @ Saturday, April 04, 2009 6:20 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:26 PM by Raul
...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?.......
Posted @ Monday, April 06, 2009 6:17 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Monday, April 06, 2009 10:32 PM by Raul
....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 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:12 AM by damon
..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.
Posted @ Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:16 AM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:25 AM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:44 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:42 AM by Raul
...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 
 
Posted @ Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:54 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Sunday, April 12, 2009 7:55 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, April 12, 2009 12:31 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Monday, April 13, 2009 1:46 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:57 AM by Raul
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. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:04 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:14 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:03 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Friday, April 17, 2009 1:07 AM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Friday, April 17, 2009 1:09 AM by damon
...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. 
 
Posted @ Friday, April 17, 2009 1:16 AM by damon
damon you are a liar.
Posted @ Friday, April 17, 2009 11:28 AM by roflcopters
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. 
 
Posted @ Friday, April 17, 2009 9:59 PM by Raul
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. 
 
Posted @ Friday, April 17, 2009 10:11 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Friday, April 17, 2009 10:17 PM by Raul
Oh, I forget it, my new signature: 
 
 
 
Tiger > Lions, that is a scientific, hunting and scholar fact, period.  
 
Posted @ Friday, April 17, 2009 10:22 PM by Raul
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.  
 
Posted @ Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:10 AM by damon
 
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 
 
Posted @ Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:13 AM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:14 AM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:16 AM by Raul
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?.......
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 7:03 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:27 AM by Shaik Javeed
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. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 11:46 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:58 PM by damon
“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? 
 
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:18 PM by Raul
....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.
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:23 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:35 PM by Raul
..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?.....
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:24 PM by damon
..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.
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:27 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, April 19, 2009 5:30 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Monday, April 20, 2009 1:38 AM by damon
..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?...
Posted @ Monday, April 20, 2009 1:44 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Monday, April 20, 2009 9:47 AM by Raul
Of course male lions are stronger than tigers.
Posted @ Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:47 AM by The hugging lion
You pepole need to stop talking down on lions. lions are badass, go watch lion king and get at me.
Posted @ Sunday, April 26, 2009 1:40 PM by coa president
..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. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, April 27, 2009 5:40 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:33 AM by Raul
....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?.....
Posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:06 AM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:46 AM by Raul
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. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:13 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:36 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:58 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:09 PM by Raul
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
Posted @ Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:52 PM by ayaz
...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.
Posted @ Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:07 AM by damon
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?  
 
Posted @ Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:33 AM by Raul
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. 
Posted @ Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:19 PM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:21 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:42 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Friday, May 01, 2009 4:01 AM by damon
...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
Posted @ Friday, May 01, 2009 4:04 AM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Friday, May 01, 2009 12:56 PM by Raul
The tiger is the strongest cat in the world of course it would win.
Posted @ Friday, May 01, 2009 5:26 PM by Allen
...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. 
Posted @ Friday, May 01, 2009 11:17 PM by damon
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
Posted @ Friday, May 01, 2009 11:37 PM by damon
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
Posted @ Friday, May 01, 2009 11:47 PM by damon
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. 
Posted @ Friday, May 01, 2009 11:50 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, May 02, 2009 11:50 AM by Raul
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.  
 
Posted @ Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:20 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:04 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:14 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:18 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, May 02, 2009 7:49 PM by Raul
“...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. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, May 02, 2009 7:50 PM by Raul
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. 
Posted @ Sunday, May 03, 2009 3:00 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Sunday, May 03, 2009 3:45 AM by ckhor
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.
Posted @ Sunday, May 03, 2009 5:32 AM by damon
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!
Posted @ Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:21 AM by ckhor
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.  
 
Posted @ Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:01 PM by Raul
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. 
 
Posted @ Monday, May 04, 2009 1:17 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:09 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:07 AM by damon
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?.....
Posted @ Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:13 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:27 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:29 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Friday, May 08, 2009 10:10 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Saturday, May 09, 2009 4:43 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, May 10, 2009 12:54 PM by Raul
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
Posted @ Sunday, May 10, 2009 9:01 PM by jonathon
...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.
Posted @ Monday, May 11, 2009 4:17 AM by damon
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) 
 
Posted @ Monday, May 11, 2009 10:42 AM by Raul
“...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. 
 
Posted @ Monday, May 11, 2009 10:46 AM by Raul
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. 
 
Posted @ Monday, May 11, 2009 10:50 AM by Raul
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. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, May 11, 2009 2:10 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Monday, May 11, 2009 2:16 PM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:01 AM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:40 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:43 AM by Raul
"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”.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:48 AM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:39 AM by damon
Raul, in my last post, i meant to say 'why don`t you ask Karanth how many tigers he weighed?"
Posted @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:48 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:27 PM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:12 AM by Raul
"As matter of fact... As matter of fact..." 
 
 
 
Sorry for the mistake. Ha ha ha.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:15 AM by Raul
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?......
Posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:04 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:12 AM by Raul
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. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:27 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 12:28 PM by Raul
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?
Posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 4:44 PM by Kez
...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.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 13, 2009 8:37 PM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:23 AM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:49 AM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Sunday, May 17, 2009 1:38 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Monday, May 18, 2009 2:14 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Monday, May 18, 2009 6:29 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:10 AM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:12 AM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:14 PM by pussy
The video says it all. The tiger would win! 
 
Posted @ Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:30 PM by jamar Lee
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.
Posted @ Friday, May 22, 2009 4:41 PM by Kenny
Tiger would win all history points to this.
Posted @ Sunday, May 24, 2009 11:22 PM by Drew
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....
Posted @ Monday, May 25, 2009 3:18 AM by Mattia
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:14 AM by Drew
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 26, 2009 12:22 AM by Drew
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 26, 2009 5:04 PM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, May 26, 2009 5:06 PM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:58 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:24 PM by Kez
lol..Alright everybody, leave Damon alone, you might cause him to go on a killing rampage!
Posted @ Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:58 PM by Kenny
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 
 
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:13 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:27 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:17 PM by Raul
...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. 
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:33 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:01 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:17 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:51 PM by Raul
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)..... 
 
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:23 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:34 PM by ckhor
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
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:51 PM by damon
....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.
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:56 PM by damon
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.-
Posted @ Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:43 PM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 2:07 AM by ayaaz
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.
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 6:47 AM by damon
also, i`m not from africa, but america.
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 6:48 AM by damon
...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.
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 7:06 AM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 7:40 AM by damon
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
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 7:51 AM by damon
..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. 
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 7:56 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 4:20 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 4:27 PM by Raul
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.  
 
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 4:31 PM by Raul
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
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 6:04 PM by damon
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?.... 
 
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 6:09 PM by damon
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....
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 6:42 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 6:46 PM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Friday, May 29, 2009 8:26 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:48 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:52 PM by Kez
...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.
Posted @ Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:24 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:15 AM by Kez
By the way damon. You never answer my questions.
Posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:16 AM by Kez
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:23 AM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:37 PM by Raul
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. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:42 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 3:45 PM by damon
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 ??
Posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 5:53 PM by jo
the tiger is a tank. No question. they are even better looking than lions
Posted @ Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:16 PM by mooma
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
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:36 AM by abutalib
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.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:09 AM by Raul
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
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:59 AM by jo
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.
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:00 AM by damon
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
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:41 AM by jo
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.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:11 PM by Raul
...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.
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:03 PM by damon
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
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:15 PM by jo
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.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:16 PM by Raul
..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.
Posted @ Friday, June 05, 2009 1:20 AM by damon
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
Posted @ Friday, June 05, 2009 5:29 AM by jo
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.  
 
Posted @ Friday, June 05, 2009 3:48 PM by Raul
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. 
 
Posted @ Friday, June 05, 2009 3:53 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Friday, June 05, 2009 4:59 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Friday, June 05, 2009 5:16 PM by damon
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. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:47 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Sunday, June 07, 2009 4:19 AM by damon
Tiger wins hands down in a fair fight.
Posted @ Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:41 PM by t
Answer this question lion siders: can a lion jump a 5 ton elephant. No it can't!!!!!!!! Tigers can do that.
Posted @ Monday, June 08, 2009 6:43 PM by Pogglet
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.  
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:08 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:17 AM by damom
...i accidentally put an m on my name, instead of an n, at the end of the name damon.....my mistake.
Posted @ Wednesday, June 10, 2009 4:28 AM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:37 PM by Raul
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 
 
Posted @ Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:27 PM by damon
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.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:33 PM by Raul
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.
Posted @ Friday, June 12, 2009 2:33 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Friday, June 12, 2009 2:36 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Friday, June 12, 2009 6:01 AM by james
james/Raul, or, if you are not Raul, you are merely repeating what he (Raul) said. when considering sunquist`s study, you should note that it was based not only upon food consumption due to baiting, but from natural kills as well, and certainly those two other males in the study ate in that time frame, which covered about 14 days. 
 
the average food consumption of all the tigers, in a day, was at least 14 kg......due not only to baiting, but from natural kills. the 14 kg figure was the average of all the tigers together.....i never said it meant the tigers which weren`t baited were included. hoevever, that still makes my point valid, as we are talking of deducting the average amount of weight eaten by all the animals...which, as the study shows, was 14 kg. 
 
so, let`s say the study was as foolows; 
 
i`ll include 4 tigers, as did raul; 
 
one weighs 200 kg, another of 220, one of 250, and another male of 267 lbs, which would give an average of almost 235 kg.  
 
now, as for food intake; 
 
200 kg male; 17 kg 
 
220 kg male; 17.5 kg 
 
250 kg male; 18.5 kg 
 
267 kg male; 0 kg 
 
...the average eaten would then be 13.25 kg, bringing the average weight of those individuals to about 221 kg.....but, sunquist`s study was done in precisely the same manner....but, you cannot say for certain rather those two males which were not baited did not ate from an animal or carcass killed by themselves, as sunquist`s study clearly states it is based upon not only baiting, but natural kills as well.
Posted @ Friday, June 12, 2009 6:30 AM by damon
Wow, Damon, I can't believe you could come up with such a complicated calculation. Can you do the same thing to lions as well? I want to know how much you would deduct from lions, because those lions must have had eaten too, right?
Posted @ Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:00 AM by ckhor
...ckhor, if food consumption of a certain lion population was given, then yes, i would most certainly deduct the average amount eaten. but, smuts did that with at least one population of lions, and gave an average of 187.5 kg, from kruger lions.
Posted @ Saturday, June 13, 2009 5:36 AM by damon
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.
Posted @ Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:13 AM by James
Damon, don't you say another fucking word! He's right you're wrong, now give it a rest!
Posted @ Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:35 PM by Kenny
kenny, i`m far from wrong. the study i had says the tigers ate a total of 14 - 18 kg a day, feeding upon baits AND natural kills, and, considering the length of the study, it is likely those two males which were not baited ate from natural kills, and so, their average weight, adjusted for food content, is 221 kg......and note that 14 kg was the LOWEST amount of food intake of those tigers.
Posted @ Saturday, June 13, 2009 4:42 PM by damon
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.
Posted @ Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:02 PM by James
Tigers are far much larger, every source I have looked up says that Tigers are far much larger than the MALE African Lion, so whoever disagrees with this is a complete fucking idiot...NOW, give it a rest, size doesn't even matter anyhow!!! You people have been talking about this damn thing for months and it needs to be stopped!
Posted @ Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:28 PM by Kenny
Hi all! It is time for some scientific facts here...I am a big cat specialist and I study inter-specific competition. 
 
As for the size of lions and tigers we can say that a good sized male is about 220 to 240 kg for Amur tigers and Bengal tigers from Assam and Nepal 
 
200 to 220 kg for other Bengal tigers and African lions 
 
180-200 kg for Asiatic lions and Indochinese tigers 
 
160-180 kg for the Sunderban tigers 
 
140-160 kg for the South China tiger 
 
120-130 kg for Malaysian and Sumatran tigers. 
 
A 50 kg weight advantage is a massive advantage in a fight between 2 felids yet it is not the sole determimng factor....an African lion or an Asiatic lion will win against all tigers of smaller size...and I would say that a massive Bengal or Amur male will have an edge...yet I have witnessed a 222 kg male lion (originating from Botswana) kill a 280 male Siberian tiger with a bite to the spine followed by a neckbite, the individual characteristics of the particular specimen plays a great role in determining the outcome of conflict with conspecifics and competitors. 
 
Anatomically lions and tigers are very similar and have formidable weapons and either is able of killing the other...violent fights even when staged will be short to establish dominance and serious injury or death is rare. 
 
Tigers are better boxers than lions who in turn are more versatile at different combatting styles. 
 
Tigers are not more agile than lions this is a myth, in fact lionesses are clocked at 82 kms/hour versus 64 km/hour for tigeresses and both male lions and tigers do not reach 60 km/hour due to their bulk. 
 
Male lions are specialized fighters,lovers,patrolling agents, and hunters of massive prey ( over 500 kg )so you see them less involoved in hunts than lionesses. 
 
I did see single male lions killing adult giraffe, cape buffalo, male Eland, and massive nile crocodiles ( all over 800 kg )and I have seen coalitions of males killing adult female elephant, adult white and black rhinoceros and adult hippos ( all over 2 tonnes )..the pride system enables this, on the other hand tigers are great hunters but the upper prey size for an individual tiger will be a bull gaur (1000 kg) or a bull water buffalo ( 800 kg) and this in turn is very risky and rarely attempted since catching a 250 kg nilgai or sambar is easier,less risky, and more retainable for the the single tiger. 
 
Reports of tigers killing adult elephants and rhinos have never been scientifically documented and should be treated as hunters tales and villagers claims and not biologists. 
 
Tigers can kill bears up to their own size provided the bear is hibrenating or surprised. 
 
The brown bears sympatric with Amur tigers are fairly small and average 100-120 kg for the female and twice as much for males far less than their cousins in much of their range...very large males dominate Amur tigers and follow them in the spring and steal their kills. 
 
Both tigers and lions are great animals, apex predators and king of their eco-systems. 
 
The staged fights are cruel and wasteful events leading to the injury or death to these wonderful predators. 
 
Who would win in my opinion: 
 
The animal that was born in the wild and not in captivity 
 
The individual animal who had more combat experience 
 
The larger cat if over 50 kg difference 
 
Let us instead of arguing who would win discuss ways of saving both tigers and lions of extinction
Posted @ Monday, June 15, 2009 4:17 AM by Eddie
You claim to be an expert idiot, but what I read is all misinformed bullshit from a 10 year old clown. No lion group weighs 200 kg idiot, some lion groups weigh 145 kg. Crater lions are rumored to be about 200 kg on average, but that's just it, rumors, please stfu. 
 
 
 
Btw tiger wins by a landslide.
Posted @ Monday, June 15, 2009 2:44 PM by James
ayaaz, i mean 'james', the only population of lions which averaged 145 kg, was those of waza national park....all of which were nearing or above the age in which lions begin to lose condition, as well as the fact the study was only based upon a sampling of only 4 specimens....it is scarcely reliable....that very same study makes the same statement.  
 
lions of zimbabwe average 202 kg, and those weighed by the kenya wildife service, though only 4 were measured (limited sapling, i know, and it is merely anecdotal evidence as to the size of these animals0, averaged 221.5 kg. 
 
chitwan tigers, adjusted for food content, average roughly the same....tigers ares are no larger.
Posted @ Monday, June 15, 2009 6:29 PM by damon
Damon, you simple don’t understand. I clearly explain all the thing and you simple don’t get it. Or you are so biased or you are a completely idiot (I think that is the second choose). 
 
 
 
You are so biased to see, the figure can’t be changed. But if you insist then we most change all the figures to, after all, the lions most have eat in the time of the study, don’t you think? 
 
 
 
The figure of the famous lions of 202 kg most be corrected. The lowest amount of food recorded by Schaller was of 7 kg for the males, so the correct average most be of 195 kg at the best!!! The other weights most be of: 
 
* 193.3 – 7 = 183.3 kg 
 
* 188.4 – 7 = 181.4 kg 
 
* 174.9 – 7 = 167.9 kg 
 
The lions of Smuts are already corrected (187.5 kg). 
 
 
 
So, the total average most be of: 183.02 kg for all the African lions!!! 
 
 
 
So, corrected with the average food consumed (the lowest in record, by the way), there is NO ONE POPULATION of lions weighing more than 195 kg, nothing new after all. And remember that the average food consumption of the other populations of lions, apart from those of the Serengeti, most be higher, so the actual weights are lower!!! 
 
 
 
So, the lions are smaller than we know, don’t you think Damon??? 
 
 
 
And remember, a sample of 4 actually weighed male tigers in Nagarahole N. P. with weights of 209, 227, 230 and 257 kg have an average of 230.8 kg, so, which is largest??? The tiger obviously!!! 
 
 
 
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. 
 
 
 
For Eddie: 
 
 
 
The lions don’t kill Nile crocodiles, actually is in the other way, the crocodiles kill lions, that why the lions avoid water when there are crocodiles. And the adult giraffe and buffalo are out of the question for a single lion. The eland is not a dangerous animal, even a lone human hunter (with lances) can kill him, so not big deal. 
 
 
 
The African lions weight from 150-225 kg according with Smuts, the Bengal tigers are form 175-260 kg (Karanth, 2003). 
 
 
 
The records of tigers killing rhinos are not anecdotic; there are actually records of the rangers of the parks. In Kaziranga this is a real problem in the rhino conservation.  
 
 
 
There are no records of lioness running at high speed, but several experts had established that the large Amur tiger can run up to 85 km/hr. 
 
 
 
The hunt of gaur is not rarely attempted, after all, Dr Karanth report several hunts of tigers and many of them are of gaur weighing more than 1000 kg. Read “Wild Cats of the World” of Dr Sunquist, there is established. The average for 83 kills was f 401 kg, including several adults of 1000 kg.  
 
 
 
The male Amur bears not dominate the Amur tigers, there are some records of that but in the 50 % of the ocations the tigers can manage the bear treath. Read the Siberian Tiger Project Monograph. 
 
 
 
So, at the end, you are far from being a real expert. What a fraud are you. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:07 PM by Raul
Raul...it is you who does not get my point. for starters, food intake was never gathered for the zimbabwe lions......deduction of an animal`s weight for food is only reliable when the figures pertains to the study of the particular animals weighed. smuts indicated that nearly 50% of the lions he weighed had empty stomach, and such is negligible. 
 
however, sunquist gave an average food intake not only upon baiting, but from natural kills as well, and they ate an average of from 14 - 18 kg. 
 
schaller was refering to east african lions, from the serengeti. also, 4 lions weighed in southern kenya by the kenya wildlife service averaged 221 kg. 
 
also, that 401 kg average of prey killed by sunquist may have been biased, as sunquist states himself....here are more recent numbers; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/meanweightofvertebratepreykilled.jpg 
 
and, Raul, you have barely mentioned half of the total populations of lions measured, and, the ones you mentioned were reported by smuts...it is likely he himself weighed those animals, and just as likely he adjusted their weights for food consumption.
Posted @ Thursday, June 18, 2009 5:16 AM by damon
You see Damon, you are assuming things that are not true. There is no one proof that Smuts had weighed those lions, so the ONLY lions adjusted for stomach content are those from South Africa. And the correction for the stomach content is completely fair, after all, those lions could have AT LEAST 7 kg of meat in they stomach in base of Schaller’s study. So, don’t be hypocrite Damon, those lions most be adjusted to, after all, like you say, all of them most have some amount of food. Don’t be hypocrite and biased. By the way, now I have proofs that the lions in the other studies were baited to, even the actual project in Namibia is using baits for the lions. Man, you are loosing and loosing, so just stop. 
 
 
 
The average of those figures in the pic are the most reliable from my point of view, however that was another study in base of scats and kills in 1999. The statement in “Wild Cats” is of 2002, so the average of 401 kg is a bit more recent, and reliable. However is just based in gaur kills not overall kills. 
 
 
 
There are just other 3 scientific studies about the weight of the lions, so don’t exaggerate the things, and finally, you can’t change the figure of the Nepal tigers. I don’t know why you are so stupid that even with a simple explanation you just don’t get it. You are so desperate to prove your lie that you simple don’t follow the correct use of the Statistic. Shame on you Damon, really. 
 
 
 
The average of the entire population of male Bengal tigers, based in scientific sources is 221.2 kg. The average for the entire population of male African lions, if we take in count that all of them are practically the same subspecies, is 183 kg, at the best!!! 
 
 
 
And, about the suppose 4 males of Kenya, which had a range of 395-508 lb, and obviously have an average of less than 200 kg, just remember, a sample of 4 ACTUALLY weighed male tigers in Nagarahole N. P. with weights of 209, 227, 230 and 257 kg have an average of 230.8 kg, so, which is largest??? The tiger obviously!!!  
 
 
 
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.
Posted @ Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:32 AM by Raul
Tiger Rules...
Posted @ Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:32 PM by Ganesh
Raul, correction of weight for stomach content is only reliable if the food intake of the measured animals is known. those few studies you mentioned was based upon a completely different set of lions........namely, those from east africa, in the serengeti. 
 
according to smuts, nearly half the lions he weighed had an empty stomach, and really, the debate of such is negligible.  
 
also, sunquist himself stated "the sampling (concerning the averae prey size) included several adult gaur weighing 1000 kilograms, although using only kill data clearly overestimates the average weight of prey taken". 
 
and, the above study was actually not made in 2002....it was merely reported by sunquist of that year. 
 
also, where`d you get those 4 nagarahole weights?...they cannot possibly be from karanth, as he only weighed 3 males, of 209, 215, and 227 kg, though he mentions the weight of other specimens....you cannot include his lowest and highest weight figure, and compute an average that way, with those of later animals being weighed. 
 
and, stop saying i lied. sunquist himself stated his tigers ate about 14 - 18 kg a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills.....average body mass, as such, should be accordingly adjusted. 
 
and, i don`t agree with that scientific document concerning the average body mass of tigers, as i am unsure of the entire source of all the weights, which likely included such inconclusive studies with samplings under 10 specimens. 
 
and, the kenya lions had a range of 396 - 600 lbs.....the 600 lb lion was weighed by r kock, confirmed via email, and supported by scientific document, here; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/272kglionpostprimemale.png 
 
...r kock was a part of the kenya wildlife service, and the figure is reliable. so, tigers are not larger than lions, and, without sufficient data, and indeed, data upon tigers is lacking....you cannot make an accurate size comparison. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:15 PM by damon
In the name of the Lord, how many times I most say to you that Karanth or his helpers weighed this tigers. This tigers are not anecdotical like those from Kenya. And if you want the complete set of males form Nagarahole, here are AGAIN: 
 
 
 
209, 215, 218, 227, 230, 240, 257 kg and a male of 250 kg weighed in Bandipur, so: 
 
 
 
7 males average 228 kg, and including the male of Bandipur, the average is of 230.8 kg. And stop saying that Dr Karanth just weighed 3 males, he weighed much more tigers and like I say before, he will put his figures in public domain when he had the time. 
 
 
 
The sampling of 401 kg could be exaggerated at certain point by the inclusion of gaurs of 1000 kg. However the real average is of 80.53-161.27 kg. That’s reliable. 
 
 
 
Like always, stop changing the figure of 235 kg liar, you can’t do that and I have explained why many times but you simple don’t want to understand. The list of lions, according with Dr Patterson, DOESN’T include the lion of 272 kg, so you can’t count it. And if you take 4 random lions (because you said that the male of 205 was in other reference) then I can take 4 males of the above list and make this: 
 
A sample of 4 ACTUALLY weighed male tigers in Nagarahole N. P. with weights of 209, 227, 230 and 257 kg have an average of 230.8 kg, so, which is largest??? The tiger obviously!!!  
 
 
 
There is enough information about lion-tiger size for make accurate conclusions, so don’t be fatalist.  
 
 
 
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. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:22 PM by Raul
There was this show that I remembered watching when I was maybe 14, it was called "Animal Face Off" and it had that Dave Salmoni guy in it, he concluded that a large Male African Lion weighed in at 530 lbs, and a Large Tiger (I Don't know which) weighed 600 lbs, this was spoken by an expert and handler of big cats, he knows his shit, trust me! Now can we end this stupid quarrel please? It's been going on for at least 2 months!!
Posted @ Friday, June 19, 2009 12:27 AM by Kenny
Raul, prove that karanth had his helpers weigh those other tigers......did karanth state this, specifically?....if not, than why say it?......and, if he did state this, mention the precise quote. 
 
and, i certainly do understand why you believe i can`t change the 235 kg weight figure, doesn`t mean i have to agree. sunquist gave the average consumption of all the tiger which feed from baits or natural kills, and, as suchm the average of which can be deducted to determine average weight.....whether you agree or not. 
 
i don`t have any problems with exception the 235 kg figure....however, this is the body mass of 7 chitwan males...some of whom were baited, which inflates the weight. 
 
abd, you cannot merely pick out weights from the nagarahole....you must include all the males. 
 
and, another source by karanth and sunquist mention an average prey size of around 65 kg, so, we can conclude from 65 - 161 kg....but, even then, the 165 kg figure was based upon only kill data, and perhaps a bit overestimated. 
 
tigers are no larger than lions. 
 
Posted @ Friday, June 19, 2009 2:57 AM by damon
Damon, he doesn't need to answer your question, he's answered it 400 billion fucking times and we're all getting sick of it, now go do yourself a favor and get laid! Go do something else with your life, get some sun, i mean do something else please! This argument is fucking stupid, everybody, including my 9 year old brother, knows that Tigers are larger than Lions, you can find this information in books. Get a life!!
Posted @ Friday, June 19, 2009 5:26 PM by Kenny
Raul, just ignore him, okay! 
 
You know he's wrong, I know he's wrong, so let's just leave this infant alone!
Posted @ Friday, June 19, 2009 5:38 PM by Kenny AKA Damon is a flaming homosexual
don`t insult me...ayaaz, or whoever you are. and kenny, i have every modern document published on the weight of these animals, and i`ve found comparatively little difference.
Posted @ Friday, June 19, 2009 7:23 PM by damon
Damon, I don’t know why you insist in this, I have proved every single time that tigers are larger, and from the weights of Nagarahole I even give the original source, so it’s you who don’t accept the true. Finally, like Kez say “This argument is fucking stupid, everybody, including my 9 year old brother, knows that Tigers are larger than Lions, you can find this information in books”, so I don’t need to continue this. I have proved my point and you have proved to be a liar and a deceiver. If you going to continue, do it alone, I have better things to do. 
 
 
 
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.  
 
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 12:25 AM by Raul
lol at all this stupid dribble...tiger wins bigger animal..but in reality who cares if u love these animals soo much would u like to c one fight the other...in reality its barbaric who cares..ur both cat fans then let it b that
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:12 AM by billy bob joe
Raul, enough of saying i`m lying. i DID NOT LIE!....did you hear me that time?.....I DID NOT LIE! 
 
you stated that i cannot adjusted the weight of the chitwan tigers for food intake, simply because two were not baited. the animals were often weighed several times, and the study upon baiting lasted more than one day, and focused not upon upon food intake from baiting, but that of natural kills as well. the average food intake of all the tigers was at least 14 kg. so, the average weight of these togers, adjusted for food intake, was 221 kg. 
 
...and, you never proved me wrong, merely expressed a differences in opinion, but one you scarcely brought evidence to support. 
 
tigers are no larger than lions. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:29 AM by damon
Whatever kid! Nobody cares what you have to say, THIS is the end of the discussion!
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:13 PM by Kenny
Damon, I feel extremely sorry for you, you must have no life whatsoever! Here's what you should do, you should go to a library, find a book about big cats (look in an Encyclopedia, that will really help!) look up Tigers, it will tell you that the average weight of a Bengal Tiger is around 225 kg, then you should look up African Lions, it will tell you that a healthy male lion will tip the scale at about 190 kg, and that's supposedly a big Lion!! So if you're talking about your average male lion, it's gonna be a smaller number than 190 kg. Like I said, i'm deeply sorry for you, I wouldn't understand what it's like to be a complete jackass who likes to spread ignorance all over the internet, and be a complete ass about it! So what if nobody buys your bullshit, just pack it up and move on, people get old, they don't give a shit anymore! Bye-Bye
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:23 PM by Kenny
Kenny, encyclopedia`s state the tiger has an average weight of 190 kg....so, what are you talking of?....name ONE encyclopedia which states the opposite. and, most lions average about 190 kg....i should know this, as i have every modern document published upon the weight of these animals, so, i need not view any encyclopedia....especially when i have the original documents at hand. and, most support my statement.
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:28 PM by damon
and, what`s the purpose of commenting upon a debate you do not give a shit about?....makes little sense. just because you disagree with my statements, doesn`t mean they are wrong. i can bring forth sources upon everything i`ve stated concerning these animals.
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:30 PM by damon
Damon, shut up! Answer this for me Damon you know because you're obviously the smartest son of a bitch here, why is it that on the discovery channel it will tell you that the Tiger is the largest member of the Cat Family? Or anywhere on the computer, it will share this same information? 
 
 
 
Oh yeah, I'm not the only one who doesn't give a shit about this debate YOU keep starting, everybody here disagrees with you, you are alone my friend, you might as well keep your trap shut, I don't care if you have every modern document, so you say!
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 9:48 PM by Kenny
i did not start the debate, merely comment on those posts directed towards me, or else those i do not agree with. and, discovery channel does not quote actual records, but instead give a fair estimate of the weight of these animals, but one, at least in some cases, i do not support. 
 
and, i can prove i have every modern document. i doubt anyone else in the world can say the same. most scientists usually only cover the animals in their particular area of studies, some paying little attention to weight. and, likewise, data upon tigers are lacking in this respect, and measurements upon any less than 10 specimens may greatly increase the average weight, as there is less variability. 
 
...all of the reliable documents i possess upon the measurements of lions, except one, has a sampling of over 10 lions measured. ALL modern documents upon tigers has a sampling, when concerning average body mass of, of less than 10 specimens...the highest being 8.
Posted @ Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:04 PM by damon
Hey brenton jimmy-damon ransom-bold champ or what ever, you say that you have ALL the documents about lions and tigers. Well, put it HERE and let’s see if you are not lying. 
 
 
 
nobody believes in you, and all the places were you go you are discover in your bullshits!!!!!!! You are a weird person because you know that you are wrong and you just don’t accept that… …you are WEIRD. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:22 AM by Danny
danny, i don`t support a particular statement because of which animal i favor, but because the records seem to indicate such. and, if i thought i was wrong, i would say so. and, since you can only post 3 links at a time, let me start with all the records i have; 
 
here are some records of the body mass of lions ans tigers; 
 
average weight of lions in this next source is about 420 lbs (referrence unknown); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/420poundlion.jpg 
 
records of the weight of african lions, from etosha, as reported by Hu berry; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/etosha3.jpg 
 
the weights of three male lions from the kenya wildlife service, which weighed 180, 205, and 230 kg, respectively, as reported by patterson; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/BodySizeinLions-1.jpg 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:10 AM by damon
here`s more (continuation of previous post); 
 
...the above 3 measurements, added with this other 272 kg lion weighed by the kenya wildlife service, gives an average of 221.5 kg; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/272kglionpostprimemale.png 
 
26 male lions from rhodesia, as quoted by sunquist, weighed an average of 193.3 kg; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionweightsxx7.jpg 
 
...kalahari lions, also quoted by sunquist (mentioned above) weighed an average of 188.7 kg. 41 kruger lions, measured by smuts, weighed an average of 187.5 kg.....and whose body mass was adjusted for food content, as mentioned in the book; 
Journal of zoology: proceedings of the Zoological Society of London‎ - Page 366 
by Zoological Society of London - Juvenile Nonfiction - 1980; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/krugerlion.jpg 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:12 AM by damon
(continuation of previous post) 
 
serenegeti lions weigh an average of 189 kg, scarcely any different; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averageweightofserengetilions.jpg 
 
the lions of zimbabwe, measured by smithers and wilson in 1979, weighed an average of 202 kg, from a sampling of 18 adult males measured; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionsizeandlength.jpg 
 
....average length was a 9 ft, 1 and 1/4 th in. 
 
asiatic lions are as big as lions from east africa, in which schaller, in his book 'serengeti lion, 1972, gives an average weight of 172 kg, based upon a sampling of 14 adult males; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/bodysizeinlions.jpg 
 
however, according to the guinness book of animal facts and feats, meinertzhagen weighed another male of 229 kg, which would make the average a bit more than the previous figures. 
 
....also, charles pitman gives the average weight of 5 adult male lions, from transvaal, as being 217 kg, and of which he states the reliability of the weights of these animals, as having been documented and eye witnesses verified the figures. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:14 AM by damon
(continuation of last post) 
 
here is a source on the size of tigers from central india, in Dunbar brander`s book, wild animals in central india, 1923; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-103.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-14.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-104.jpg 
 
......according to the above sources, the average tiger of central india weighs 420 lbs on average. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:16 AM by damon
here is another source, from the book, jungle trails in northern india, by john hewett; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-12.jpg 
 
....and, those records from cooch behar are not reliable, as he only compared his largest tigers. 
 
further measurements upon the length of a tiger, as given by schaller, indicate an average length of 9 ft; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagelengthofatiger.jpg 
 
7 adult male chitwan tigers, measured by sunquist, weighed an average of 235 kg......though they were baited; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/sunquistweights3.png 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:18 AM by damon
(continuation of last post) 
 
here`s where it says they (chitwan tigers) were baited; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/sunquistweights1.png 
 
...adjusted for food content, they have an average weight of 221 kg, as compared to 202 kg for the largest of reported lions, though it should be noted that little records exist of the largest of reported lions, from the crater, which have particularly rich diets and, according to packer, the upper limit of lions. 
 
the measurements of at least 13 adult male amur tigers, from the siberian tiger project, weighed an average of 187 kg.....here are the records....with some info upon the size of tigers from the terai, as well, which averaged 428 lbs, from records taken from jungle hewett...... 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/1456?page=1 
 
little records exist of the largest of reported lions, from the ngorongoro crater, which may weigh as much as chitwan tigers, possibly more, due to their particularly rich diet of buffalo. dewalt, who measured many lions, gave an average height of 3 ft, 4 in, for lions of kruger national park. the average height of lions in the serenegeti, as reported by the book 'mammals of the african sub-region', was 120 cm, or about 4 ft. 
 
here`s more weights; 
 
The English illustrated magazine‎ - Page 164 
Art - 1892; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigeraveragesize.jpg 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:20 AM by damon
(continuation of last post) 
 
Curiosities of Natural History‎ - Page 261 
by Francis Trevelyan Buckland - 1878 - 360 pages; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigersize.jpg 
 
Thirteen Years Among the Wild Beasts of India: Their Haunts and Habits from ...‎ - Page 273 
by G. P. Sanderson - Hunting - 1907 - 387 pages; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/measurementsofatigermale-1.jpg 
 
Stray Sport‎ - Page 62 
by James Moray Brown - Hunting - 1893; 
 
heaviest male tiger colonel mcdonald weighed was 448 lbs. 
 
also, here`s something upon the average length of tigers, over curves; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagelengthoftigersovercurves.jpg 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:21 AM by damon
(continuation of last post) 
 
also, here`s something on the skeletal muscle mass of a lion, 
Size, function, and life history‎ - Page 19 
by William A. Calder - Science - 1996 - 431 pages; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionskeletalmusclepercentage.jpg 
 
also, here`s more on the height of lions; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tsavolionsheightandlength.png 
 
and, here is some data from smuts on the length of the canines of lions; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionteethmeasurment.jpg 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:23 AM by damon
(continuation of last post) 
 
and, as for the upper crown height in tigers; 
 
Isotopic evidence of saber-tooth development, growth rate, and diet 
from the adult canine of Smilodon fatalis from Rancho La Brea; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagecrownheightoftigers.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averagecrownheightoftigers2.jpg 
 
also, here`s some data upon lion and tiger fat content; 
 
lion; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionpercentageoffat-1-1.jpg 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:25 AM by damon
(continuation of last post) 
 
tiger, in the book, mammals of the soviet union; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/fatcontentoftigers-1-1.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigressbodyfat2-1.jpg 
 
average length of lions, between pegs, as given by hollister; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/bodysizeofugandanandmasjg3.png 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:26 AM by damon
(continuation of last post) 
 
here`s some data upon the gland weights of lions ans tigers, and many other animals, by george crile; 
 
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3110/1/V40N05_219.pdf 
 
here`s more data upon that; 
 
http://books.google.com/books?id=UXidqWwI2o8C&pg=PA85&dq=lion,+weight+of+heart,+intelligence,+power,+and+personality#PPA84,M1 
 
 
/lionkillsrussianbear.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/BearkillsTiger-1.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionkillspolarbear-1.jpg
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:28 AM by damon
and, here`s another source from pocock, in his book, mammalia, stating that lions and tigers are approximately the same size; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money100.jpg
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:30 AM by damon
...i posted a lot of records on the mass of lions and tigers in my above posts, and a bit more data as well. and, that`s not even 1 percent of the amount of records i have, if we include those from hunters (only reliable measurements, of course). 
 
notice, also, that in my above posts i mentioned sources of lion and tiger weights from either scientists or respected figures in scientific literature.
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:34 AM by damon
I think that the fight would start off with the Tiger whooping the Lions ass, because he is bigger and a much better fighter, but in the end, the Lion might win, because he's got that mane protecting his neck, it depends on how thick the mane is, if it's not so thick, the Tiger's gonna strike back with a vengeance and downright embarass that Lion! 
 
 
 
So, Tiger basically wins the fight! 
 
 
 
Oh yeah, by the way, Damon You're spamming.
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:46 PM by Kenny
You know size doesn't matter in this fight anyhow? If you put a 500 lb Lion against a 500 lb Tiger, the Tiger will win. If you put a 300 lb Tiger against a 600 lb Lion, the Tiger will still win, so all you people that are arguing about the sizes of these animals and all these different websites and documents and blah blah blah! 
 
 
 
Yall are all unsuccessful losers, and Damon or Bold Champ or Brent Lion, you are arguing a very irrelevant point, everything that you say doesn't mean shit, or anybody that argues with you, their point doesn't mean shit either, I feel sorry for you or Raul or Kez or James or anybody for arguing about something that is irrelevant for this website, if you put a 250 lb Lioness against a 900 lb Tiger, are yall gonna argue about the average size listed in modern or ancient documents on that as well? 
 
 
 
This website is about animals fighting, NOT animals measuring up to each other, so get a F*****g life folks! Jesus H. Christ!
Posted @ Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:36 PM by Chris
kenny, i was not spamming.a poster by the name of danny asked me to post all the records of lion and tiger weights that i had...so, that`s what i did. 
 
 
 
also, chris, the point i was arguing is not irrelevent, because, it is about lions and tigers, and, correct me if i`m wrong, this particular topic is titled bengal tiger ve african lion....is it not?... 
 
 
 
my argument holds merit, not because it makes little sense, but because i presented a particular topic which i disagreed with, offered my point, and showed records in proof of this. 
 
 
 
and, a 900 lb tiger would most certainly defeat a lioness of 125 lbs, but, speaking realistically, even the largest bengal in captivity did not reach such proportions, and even though the largest siberian reached such masses, it is far from being the norm. besides, how fair a fight would that be?......
Posted @ Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:13 AM by damon
I'm proving a point here asshole, i'm just throwing down numbers and still referring to the Tiger as the victor, did that ever pop into your brain dickhead? 
 
 
 
This is the reason you're disliked nigger, because you like to complain to everybody about how you're right and everybody else is wrong! 
 
 
 
And where the hell did you get 125 lb Lioness? I said 250! That's twice the weight you put down bud! 
 
 
 
I'll go ahead and put down my personal opinion on this topic, African Lions and Bengal Tigers are about the same size, you're right about that actually, but I thought this was about the two fighting, not competing to see which one's bigger! So you have misjudged my point. And that's why nobody likes you.
Posted @ Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:20 PM by Chris
chris, why the fowl language?...keep it to a minimum. and, that was a poor way to show tigers would supposedly be the victor in a fight.  
 
 
 
i only disagree with certain statements concerning the weight of these animals and so forth, and, having every modern document published on the subject, i do feel confident in my answer. 
 
 
 
and, you said 250 lbs, instead of 125....my mistake, it was an accident of wording. and, indeed i knew your point. 
 
 
 
however, when people quote statments such as tigers are much bigger, without the data to accurately prove their point, then it is relavent....i did not start the debate....and, i`m not here to be liked. and, the only ones who don`t like me is those who disagree. 
 
 
 
but, the lion would defeat the tiger in battle, as they are of greater stamina, and higher testosterone as well, which increases aggression. they are also the more practiced fighters, with a large protective mane. the lion would be the usual victor. 
 
Posted @ Friday, June 26, 2009 4:12 AM by damon
I swear not post any more here because I am tire of this; however the misinterpretations of Damon are too much. This will be my last post, and just for show the lies and twisting of Damon. Let’s see: 
 
 
 
The first pic doesn’t have any references. So it could be a fake image. So it is useless. 
 
 
 
The third pic say FOUR males not three like you say, so DON’T LIE!!! 
 
Look the complete page: http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1727/pg113.png 
 
And look that is from the Kenya Wild Life Service and don’t include the suppose male of 272 kg, 
 
 
 
The forth image is proof that this male lion of 272 kg was not a normal lion but a cattle eater. So is unreliable and a weird animal, not different that the cattle eater tiger of 320 kg hunted in Nepal and accepted by Schaller. 
 
 
 
The fifth image show that Sunquist accept tha the heaviest lion in scientific record was of just 216 kg !!! 
 
 
 
The sixth image proves that the heaviest lion empty belly but with a high amount of fat was a male of 225 kg, and from 600 lions weighed by Smuts just ONE reached the 225 kg. 
 
 
 
The seventh image doesn’t shot that average, after all, like Dr Patterson say: “ale lions seldom exceed the 9 ft long.”, as MY previous image show. 
 
 
 
Even when the pic number eight is acceptable, is a second hand reference. So it reliability is not at 100 %. 
 
 
 
Damon: “however, according to the guinness book of animal facts and feats, meinertzhagen weighed another male of 229 kg, which would make the average a bit more than the previous figures.”  
 
A single lion will not make any difference Damon. The average will be of no mere than 180 kg in the best case!!! 
 
 
 
Damon: “....also, charles pitman gives the average weight of 5 adult male lions, from transvaal, as being 217 kg, and of which he states the reliability of the weights of these animals, as having been documented and eye witnesses verified the figures.” 
 
You are the only one who speaks of this “record”. There is no even close of the reliability. 
 
 
 
About Brander, he include some young ones to, so it records are reliable but not accurate. Danny, the hunters in those times don’t have scientific methods for calculate the age of the tigers. So, the average of 190 kg is biased in this case. 
 
 
 
Damon: “....and, those records from cooch behar are not reliable, as he only compared his largest tigers.” 
 
That’s is another lie. Even when Cooch Behar just showed his 26 largest males in the last list, there are other 23 completely different males in his book of 1908. And in a list of Brown (1893) there are other 3 males completely different of those males. So a sample of 52 males (young, prime and old males, all included) give to us an average of 209.4 kg. This sample is more reliable that the Brander data because every single weight is available for comparison. 
 
 
 
Here is the link to the complete book of Cooch Behar: http://www.archive.org/details/thirtysevenyear00bhgoog 
 
 
 
Here is the image of the list of Brown (1893): http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/969/brow1893duarsteraitiger.jpg 
 
 
 
The reference of Finn is not based in any actual measurements, after all it just say “about” which is NOT a scientific statement. So Finn and his quote in Schaller’s book is unreliable and irrelevant. 
 
 
 
Danny, about the males in Chitwan, you can see that not all the maels were baited, so its is unethical to subtract 14 kg to the entire sample. Look my previous post about this theme and you will see the true. Don’t believe in Damon lies. 
 
 
 
From Hewett’s tigers, look these figures: The range of weights 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 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 area (Garhwal and Kumaon to), 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. 
 
 
 
The crater lions are no larger than the Bengal tigers. Damon had say many times that Dr. Packer say to him that this lions had chest girths about the same size that the Amur tigers, so, it the Amur tiger had an average weight of about 194 kg in this days, this crater lions will weight the same. In the other hand, there is no one male tiger weighed by scientist of less than 200 kg. The smaller tiger of Sunquist was a male of 200 kg and the smaller of Karanth was of 209 kg. So, like you can see Danny, tigers are larger than any lion. 
 
 
 
From the last weigth of tigers, it doesn’t matter because they are old hunting records. The new scientific records show 4 years old tigers with weights of no less than 200 kg. The scientific records are MORE reliable that a pile of old unreliable records. Ask Dr Sunquist and Dr Karanth and they will say this to you. 
 
 
 
The total length doesn’t matter Danny, the tail can very variable, from 73 to 113 cm. The head body length is FAR more reliable, and the Bengal tigers average about 190 cm in head-body length, in comparison with the 180 cm calculate by Hollister (1918). So, tigers have longer body, with out mention the Amur tiger with an average head-body length of 195 cm. Look this image, is from a document of the Siberian Tiger Project: 
 
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2566/amurtigresizecurleyetal.png 
 
This is the page:  
 
http://www.wcsrussia.org/Species/AmurTigers/Ecology/tabid/1467/Default.aspx 
 
 
 
About the lions of Tsavo, they were measured over curves, as Dr Patterson discovered in his book. So its measurements are not reliable. This information is in his book “The lions of Tsavo”. 
 
 
 
Look the average size of the canines in those images that Damon post, the lions have an average of 5.15 cm. and the Bengal tigers are of 5.4 cm. So the tigers have longer canines in average. The longest canine for the male lion in that table is of 5.6 cm while for the tiger is of 6.5 cm according with Dr. Sunquist, all of them measured in the crown. So the tigers have longer canines in average and in largest measurements. This is the reference of Sunquist: http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/9018/bengaltigertoothlength.jpg 
 
 
 
The fat content is wrong here, because Damon is stating with just one or two sample of each animal. So, he is wrong, like always. 
 
 
 
The PDF of the comparison in the animals, it had just one male tiger and 5 male lions. So it is not a fair comparison. The statements of Damon had not fundament. 
 
 
 
About all this old accounts of fights, there are unreliable because there is no way of corroborant they reliability. However a lion will not be a mach for any bear, but the Amur tigers prey on black and brown bear indeed. So the tigers are better mach for the bear.  
 
 
 
Damon: “...i posted a lot of records on the mass of lions and tigers in my above posts, and a bit more data as well. and, that`s not even 1 percent of the amount of records i have, if we include those from hunters (only reliable measurements, of course).” 
 
It is funny how Damon that he don’t have post hunter records. About 90% of this records are for hunters!!! There is no need of explication, the same post show the lies of Damon, HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! 
 
 
 
Damon, approximate is NOT equal, so the lion is almost the same size, but the tiger is still larger, and reach higher weight more often as the scientific and hunting records shows. And how we know that this book that you post is “Mammalia” from Pocock??? 
 
 
 
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. 
 
 
 
That’s it, I’m out. 
 
Posted @ Friday, June 26, 2009 9:48 PM by Raul
Raul, why comment, if you`re not going to post again?...what`s the use?...and, you keep ststing i lied....i DID NOT LIE!...quit saying this. also, George washington crile actually compared 15 lions (not sure of the amount of tigers, but two were mentioned in the book)(here`s more records); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-mopics001.jpg 
 
also, i only posted the hunter1s records to show that, even in hunting records, there is little difference between these animals. but, majority of the records i quoted upon the size of these animals, unless talking of a specific hunter`s records, were from scientists. 
 
and, i thought you said you read pocock`s book?.....and, the average length of the males he mentioned was UNDER 9ft. in fact, it was slightly over 8ft, 8 inches. 
 
also, i never really gave a definitive figure for the average weights of the east african lions, with that 229 kg specimen...that would still raise the average weight, anyway. also, the source from patterson does indeed state that 4 lions were measured.....but, only 3 of those males were actually weighed. for the other male, merely his external measurements were taken. so, where did i lie?....
Posted @ Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:11 AM by damon
The tiger would beat the lion first round K.O.
Posted @ Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:26 AM by Gianmario
Raul, Kenny, ckhor, thanks for the info and the good comments. Now I have the information and the correct interpretation. It is obvious that the tiger will be the winner and is the largest cat on earth. 
 
 
 
Bold chump-jimmy brenton-damon ransom or what ever, you are a truly liar! Good that I have the real data now and the real interpretation. 
 
 
 
Cheers to everyone. 
 
Posted @ Monday, June 29, 2009 5:23 PM by Danny
danny, in what way am i lying?....you asked me to show every modern document i claimed to have, and i did. i did not lie, merely made a statement based upon the documents i have. tigers are no larger than lions, and clyde beatty states, based upon 40 years experience, that lions are usually the aggressor while the tiger habitually tries to avoid him. 
 
in the wild, schaller has indicated tigers are not quite so territorial, as say, deer. living alone and having to supply for themselves, tigers would rather avoid injury, which would hamper their hunting ability. they have ways to prevent this.......studies by schaller (the deer and the tiger) indicates a tiger has 'priority rights' if he/she has reached the carcass first, and another tiger, even one more powerful, must wait their turn. this makes sense, as schaller shows tigers congregate/socialize much more during mealtime, and it would be detrimental to their survival if they frequently fought over a meal, they way lions do. schaller has also stated their is very little squabbling among tiger siblings while it is every lion for itself, each animal trying to get the 'lions share` of the meat.  
 
male lions also appropriate any carcass from the females which may be smaller than about 100 kg. unlike tigers, lions cannot afford to be orderly at mealtime, otherwise some may not get a meal.  
 
tigers live in the dense forests of asia, where both predators and prey animals alike are more spread out, and competition less extreme.  
 
.....schaller has also indicated that lions do not hesitate to use their claws, and, living in such close proximity to other, perhaps unknown lions, fights happen rather more frequently than that reported for tigers. packer has indicated that when pride lions fight, they aim for the head and face, where little injury is likely to result. when facing strangers, however, they aim for the hindlegs and rump, most often avoiding the well protected mane area, and studies indicate that attacks to the neck are no more frequent than those to other parts of the body. 
 
lions fight calculatingly, while tigers, by contrast, are quite hesitant to use their teeth in battle, profering instead to stand upon their haunches, to claw at each other with both paws, in quick succession. from my observations of youtube vids where wild specimens of tigers have fought, the battles ended rather quickly, with little to no use of the jaws.  
 
serious fight between tigers, however, doe indicate that, in very serious struggles they fight much like lions....but, they do not fight quite as often, and really are less practiced at it. 
 
lions also have that protective mane. when a tiger should go for a bite, rather than grab the neck, as intended, gets a mouthful of mane. also, studies have shown that in battles between lions and tigers in captivity (lions` n` tigers` n` everything), the mane of the lion often snags the paws, preventing an effective attack on the part of the tiger. 
 
lions also have a higher level of testosterone than the majority of tiger populations, and which increases aggression. it is the lion, not the tiger, which would be the usual victor.
Posted @ Monday, June 29, 2009 6:51 PM by damon
To Damon or whatever alias you are going by. In the book that you mention lions n tiger n everything does not back up what you are saying. For instance on page 28 and I quote " In the AL G Barnes Circus in Califonia, for instance, is a great, sleek muscled, four hundred pound tiger....That tiger is a killer. He has murdered four other cats animals, two lions and two tigers." On page 32 " I always dod like tiger cats better'n I liked lion cats, at that. Course alot of trainers will tell you different but I've seen them all, I been among the slums and I've been among the aristocrats and what I claim is the lions ain't the "King Of Beast."  
 
And these captivity fights are not scientific studies on who would win but are what they are captive animals fighting. 
 
It would seem that history would also agree that tiger would be the victor in such a fight without variables in either cats favor. In ancient rome tigers won invariably and in captive fights there are more accounts of lions being defeated than vice versa. The mane provides little protection against the stronger larger and more agile cat the tiger.  
 
Also damon it seems that most of your records are old hunters records or by people who are not scientist and your info is absent of all modern facts. The fact is that tiger are larger than lions and will almost always win in such a confrontation with no variables.  
 
Plus you are misinformed about tigers fighting over kills. The fact is that tigers will fight to death over territory and thats why there aggressively scent marked. Also the resident males will take kills from females and have been known to kill and or injure the female if they contest or try to defend their kill. This information was obtained from the national geographic website and can be seen on the video "Land Of The Tiger." The information pertaining to the the roman colliseum fights was also obtained from that website and you can also find modern accurate scientific weights on that website which will show that the tiger is larger than the lion on average and in the extreme of either case.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 01, 2009 5:00 PM by Kez
For me the mighty lion is the the most inspiring animal on earth.It is everything I'm dreaming of becoming.It fears nothing, confident,brave,relentless,strong,powerful,arrogant(notice this even in it's walks,as if it owns everything),it full of mighty looks, a ruler looks, a kingly looks, no wonder a any tiger at a first glance of this king gets nevours.I cannot even imagine the almighty God compared to a tiger.
Posted @ Monday, July 06, 2009 7:29 AM by Lennox
Excellent, a Christian fundamentalist. 
 
 
 
Don’t mix these stupid things with religion, God is sacred. The Israelites used the lion because the tigers don’t live in that part of the world. They don’t worship the lion; after all, that is idolatry. 
 
 
 
In East Asia, the tiger is the one who fears nothing, confident, brave, relentless, strong, powerful, and arrogant. But in the north, all this is applied to the mighty bear, the real king of the carnivores. In Central and South America the Jaguar is the king, his own image create an atmosphere of spirituality. So, just a crazy fundamentalist can compare an animal with God. Finally, remember that now, at least in all Latin America, the lion is the symbol of the gay people, and the lioness of the prostitutes. So comparing God with this is not correct. 
 
 
 
God is more that a simple image of an animal, after all, when the angel talk with John about the “lion of Judah”, it doesn’t arise a lion, but a lamb, the most harmless of the animals. Finally, when St Peter talk about satan, he say, that he was like a lion, searching victims to kill.  
 
 
 
Please, God is sacred, don’t put him here.
Posted @ Monday, July 06, 2009 9:10 PM by Raul
Raul, the bear isn`t the king of the carnivores....the lion and tiger is actually at the top, with a slight edge to the lion. studies show, and, i have amy upon this subject, that lions and tigers possess the most fulminating energy, or that instantaneous outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size, including the bear....this was concluded from studies by george washington crile, in his book 'intelligence, power, and personality.' 
 
 
 
i also have records of a lion defeating a polar bear, and another of a lion killing a russian bear as well.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 07, 2009 9:03 PM by damon
The tiger ranked fourth in strength among all carnivores and are able to kill prey single handedly that is 2-4 times its size. The tigers of rathombore almost exclusively prey on guar which is larger than any other wild cattle. Plus siberian tigers have been known to kill adult male brown bears. Although on rare occasions bears have been know to kill tigers. The diffence is that tigers actually hunt bears and when bears come out of hibernation they usually try to usurp the kill of a female tiger than become a meal to male tiger. Also in the pit fights between lions and the almost or extinct californian bears it was the bear that would kill the lion. research it...its true. Lions hailing from a place where they do not have to compete with predators larger than them would try and attack the Much larger bear head on. You would have to be out of your mind to attack a 700 pound bear head on. Thats why tigers are more cunning. They evaluate the situation, see how the animal moves, and then attack. You can witness this on youtube and search tiger vs. crocodile and you will see how tiger walked past the crocodile just far enough out his reach to see how the animal moved and then on the second pass he went for the kill. But then again lions are less agile than tigers which limits their ability to quickly get in to position to make a kill. I have never seen a lion by itself or as a pride kill a larger bull croc.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:48 PM by Kez
Damon, how exactly could a lion kill a polar bear and where did it happen? Lions have trouble taking down Wildebeests, that's why they hunt in packs, because they cannot hold their ground that well! 
 
 
 
Now even with the Siberian Tiger, they only hunt Brown Bears up to 600 or 700 lbs, that's big but it's not that big for a brown bear!! 
 
 
 
Also, there was once a Lion that lived in America called Panthera and it competed against the Short-Faced bear, or Arctodus Simus for food. The Bear won all the time, and there are no more lions in america! What does that tell you? 
 
 
 
Lions are not the king of the jungle at all! In fact, they are far from it.
Posted @ Friday, July 10, 2009 2:10 AM by Kenny
....And this shit was off of the History Channel so don't even go there with your nonsense!
Posted @ Friday, July 10, 2009 2:15 AM by Kenny
..kenny, a lion killed a polar bear in captvity....and, though these were not captive specimens, it was an amazing feat, nonetheless; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionkillspolarbear-1.jpg 
 
...also, no way could a tiger kill a bear of 600 - 700 lbs, and there is no authenticated cases which confirm your statements upon this. if so, post them. and, we are not talking of fights between extinct animals for which data upon actual encounters is only imagined, or in which no actual account exists. we are talking of animals which are alive. here is a case where a lion killed a russian bear; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionkillsrussianbear.jpg 
 
....and, of course lions aren`t he king of the jungle...but that is only because they do not live in jungles. 
 
lions have the most complex celiac ganglia of any animal yet compared, and the most fulminating form of that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size, including the tiger, according to studies by george washington crile, in his book 'intelligence, power, amd personality'. 
 
the lion, in a fight with either a grizzly, or tiger, for that matter, would be able to execute a more effective immediate attack.
Posted @ Friday, July 10, 2009 4:33 AM by damon
In a zoo in Jeonju, South Korea, a male Lion named Cheongi killed a six year old Siberian Tigress called Hobi. Did anyone say that before i did? 
 
 
 
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/12/117_36355.html
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:21 AM by jc94
The lion is the winner for me, because it protects the mane blows the most dangerous. Moreover, the lions have more experience in fighting the tigers. Indeed, the male lions fight fiercely among themselves! That's a boon that has the lion! The advantage is that the tiger is its strength and weight, but against, much less experience in a fight! 
 
Lion VS bengal Tiger = Lion is winner! 
Lion VS Siberian Tiger = Siberian Tiger is winner, easly ! 
 
PS : sorry for my english.
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 9:05 AM by nazgul
You are wrong kez, a healty adult rhino or elephant will kill any one big cat u put infront of it. Oh and you must have forgotten that a bear is a carnivore too. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:53 AM by kevin
A lion defeating a polar bear? That was a polar cub in the best case; after all there is no reference about the size or age of the contenders. A full grow male lion is no mach for a full grow polar bear. Just in the crazy mind of Damon, a lion of 190 kg can defeat a polar bear of 400 kg. 
 
 
 
The bears are the largest carnivores on Earth. They normally weight about 250-500 kg, but depend of the season in the year. Animals of more than 500 kg are rare. 
 
 
 
Lions and tigers have problems killing large bears; however the tigers have more experience in this because they often kill brown bears in the Amur region. 
 
 
 
The male Amur brown bear have an average weight of 264 kg (range 260-321) (Kucherenko, 2003), while the male Amur tiger average 176.4 kg (Slaght et al, 2005). So, there is no big difference between a bear and a large elk (in terms of body weight), and can be killed by the Amur tiger. 
 
 
 
That stupid statement that the cats have more energy is silly. Any animal expert can say that the bear have more energy and stamina that the cats. The cats are master of the speed but have no endurance, the bears like the dogs are marathoners and have far more energy that other carnivore.  
 
 
 
That’s why I said that the bears are the kings of the carnivores. They are larger and heavier and can kill more easily. 
 
 
 
Kevin, you are wrong to. Even when an elephant is normally too much for a tiger-lion, the Kaziranga tigers normally kill rhinos, actually they do it so much that the officials of the park are preoccupied for this killings which incredibly are biased toward male rhinos!!! 
 
 
 
Look: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080313/jsp/northeast/story_9012303.jsp 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 3:05 PM by Raul
....Raul, it is obvious you did not understand my last post. for starters, i said the lion has the most 'instantaneous' outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size. i`m not refering to an estimate...the statement was made based upon the gland and organ weights of many animals. here is the study; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/outburstenergylion2.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/outburstenergylion.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/energycomparisonliontiger.jpg 
 
...the study included both grizzlies and polar bears. i`ll post more in my next post..... 
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 5:54 PM by damon
Raul, here is more info in the organ and gland weights of both lions and tigers, and other animals as well; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/heartsizelion.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionlungsizes.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigerorgansizes.jpg 
 
...now, as for the books and articles from which the above data comes from; 
 
book; 
'Intelligence, power, and personality' by George washington Crile,  
 
pdf article; 
A Record of the Body Weight and Certain Organ and Gland Weights of 3690 animals, by george washington crile.
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:05 PM by damon
...Now, little reliable documents exist of the weight of brown bears, but, i do have at least a reliable source upon the average weights of grizzly bears, which are still a species of brown bear; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/meanweightofgrizzlybears.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/meanweightsofgrizzlybearsage.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/weightsofgrizzlybears2.jpg 
 
...also, polar bears don`t average 400 kg, and, the record i have of a lion killing a polar bear was, i believe, of an adult specimen, and, there was no indication the specimen was anywhere near 400 kg. 
 
....i`ll post studies on the polar bear in my next post.
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:19 PM by damon
Raul, also, here is the account where the lion killed the polar bear, if you haven`t already seen it; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionkillspolarbear.jpg 
 
..this next study upon polar bears actually shows they, in this case, averaged more than 400 kg, though the sampling is limited; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/charicteristicsofmalepolarbears.jpg 
 
...however, studies actually indicate that, proportionately (i.e. length, height, bone mass0 grizzlies and polar bears are virtually equal, and mass is related to the amount of food intake these animals receive. polar bears usually dine on animals rich in fat such as seals, and, even whales in most cases, while grizzlies, who does not often have such luxuries of dining upon such rich animals, likewise are smaller. however, given food intake is equal, weight too, should also be the same. 
 
...also, here is an account of a lion killing a russian, or brown bear; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionkillsrussianbear.jpg 
 
...also, the siberian tiger project gives an average weight of 160 - 195 kg.......slaght`s data, however the sampling size, included young specimens, as well as captive animals, so, in this case, i find the data unreliable. 
 
...and, if you want, i could also show the source of the weight of the siberian tigers of the siberian tiger project?......i have every modern document ever published upon the weights of these animals. 
 
...it is the big cats which are the true kings of carnivores....in one study, for instance, the lion was found, amoung a study of 41 other different types of mammals, to have the higher muscle mass of ANY mammal compared, as shown by pitts and bullard. 
 
......another study indicates the felids have the largest muscle mass of any mammals compared, though i believe a grizzly, of equal weight to that of a lion or tiger, would have a muscle mass just as high.
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 6:33 PM by damon
Damon, you are the one who don’t understand. 
 
 
 
It doesn’t matter if the lion have the best set of energy; the bear will broke him as easy as he kill a mouse or a bison. 
 
 
 
By the way, this book is false and OBVIOUSLY biased; after all, the lion doesn’t have the most developed system of energy, no even the largest heart. The dogs and the bears have more energy and more stamina, which is the important thing in the hunt and the fight. 
 
 
 
Other thing, all these pics, you have already posted, and the comparisons are stupid, because this guy compare about 10 lions with JUST ONE MALE TIGER!!! This is stupid and useless. So, if your statements area based in this simple book, man you have already lost (like many times here, by the way). 
 
 
 
By the way, I don’t mentioned grizzly bear (like those you post), I say Amur brown bears (which are bigger), and my source is very reliable, after all, it came from direct studies, and Kucherenko was one of the best bear experts in the field. The grizzly bears are among the smallest brown bears. You just have ONE or TWO reference about bear (which I ALLREDY have), while I have MANY other modern and old reference. So you have been owned again, don’t flatter you self, HA HA HA!!! Grizzly is a different subspecies that the other brown bears, don’t confuse the people. Go and learn about mammals, you barely know the lions and obviously don’t know about tiger, but now you are talking about bears, HA HA HA!!! I going the kick you very easily this time. 
 
 
 
The pic about the lion vs polar is old and unverifiable. There no one reference about the age of the bear, but apparently, if it was first trained, then it was a young bear obviously. So my statement stands. 
 
 
 
You always say that the samples are limited. All the evidence that show that you are a liar and a desciever, you simple discredit it, so don’t be hypocrite damon. 
 
 
 
The bear ARE the king of carnivores in matters of size and strength; don’t compare them with other animals. Those accounts of lions defeating bears are old and can’t be verifiable. Polar and brown bears don’t have equal mass. This is the same stupid thing about the tiger and lions. Polar bears and tigers are larger, in base of real measurements, the lions and the brown one goes to a second place. These are scientific and acceptable statements. 
 
 
 
Damon: “...and, if you want, i could also show the source of the weight of the siberian tigers of the siberian tiger project?......i have every modern document ever published upon the weights of these animals.” 
 
This is the same lie that you tell to Danny. You say “modern” but you post just the OLD records, and you just SELECT those who don’t show the largest tigers. What hypocrite are you. By the way, the modern records of the Amur tigers are those posted in the Monograph of the Siberian Tiger Project. By the way, you just have SOME weights of the reports (which I already have to), but the S.T.P. compute an average based in several other weights from the same animals.  
 
 
 
Damon: “.......slaght`s data, however the sampling size, included young specimens, as well as captive animals, so, in this case, i find the data unreliable.” 
 
What a LIAR!!! Slaght use just wild animals, and he put those captive apart. He just mix them at the end, but I quote just the wild ones. By the way, you are saying that the scientists of the Siberian Tiger Project are UNRELIABLE? Who are you to say that? You are just garbage, dropped from the highschool, meanwhile they are scientist, experts in the field. What pathetic are you damon, really.  
 
 
 
Damon: “...it is the big cats which are the true kings of carnivores....in one study, for instance, the lion was found, amoung a study of 41 other different types of mammals, to have the higher muscle mass of ANY mammal compared, as shown by pitts and bullard.  
 
......another study indicates the felids have the largest muscle mass of any mammals compared, though i believe a grizzly, of equal weight to that of a lion or tiger, would have a muscle mass just as high.” 
 
Stupid statements, like always. A single blow of a bear can broke the skull of a bull. The lions can’t do this, except id the cow is young. The bears are the strongest carnivores, specifically the polar and the largest brown bears. Just in your mind can you compare the incredible mass of the bears with the mass of the tiger or the puny lion. By the way, Slaght don’t put any average, so DON’T LIE!!! 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:00 PM by Raul
Finally, where I say that the polar bears average 400 kg? I just mentioned 400 for show a figure, but let’s see this data: 
 
 
 
The male polar bears are the largest carnivore on earth and range from 300-730 kg and sometimes more than 800 kg. Other sources say 273-545 kg.  
 
 
 
Mean weight of 94 males more than five years old in Hudson Bay was 489 kg, with the largest 654 kg; in Alaska the heaviest male was 610 kg. Males too heavy to be lifted have been estimated to weight 800 kg. They don’t use estimations for compute the average. Several males scaled in the southern Beaufort Sea, 1967–89 and 1990–2006 have an average of 367.6 kg (1967–89) (n=38) and 329 kg (1990–2006) (n=83).  
 
 
 
This show that some populations have higher weights than others and the weight is less in the other years because the climate change is affecting they environment. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:14 PM by Raul
Raul, the book was not biased, and, since you fail to understand AGAIN, like always, i`ll explain. i was NOT talking of stamina, but that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy....if you don`t know what it means.....look it up. this was based upon certain organ and gland weights of all the animals in the study. 
 
and yes, the lion did not have the largest heart measurements......but, in most cases, it exceeded that of MANY other animals, and in another study the lion had the largest heart size compared. but, that is not my point....even though heart size is only a small factor to stamina...the lungs are important as well, and those of the lion are massive for his size. 
 
...and, that ONE tiger was largern than ALL the lions in the study, yet, that ONE tiger had, most usuaLLY, the smaller organ and gland weights...that is significant. and, i indeed know that you stated amur bears...but, that average is more of an asymtotic figure, than something based entirely upon conclusive data. 
 
....and, raul, you say i post just the old records....look at the posts i made after i stated i had every modern document on this study.....i excluded know...and, i even have a few which i did not even show.  
 
and, i don`t have SOME weights of the amur tigers...i have the entire document (though it is in russian, though the measurements of these animals was converted to english). i have the ENTIRE study.  
 
and, the S.T.P did not compute an average based upon several weights of the same animal, but instead computed an average for ONE animal based upon many weights of that animal, which may have fluctuated during the months/years. and then, the average of all the animals in the study was compared. 
 
and, a bear rarely, if ever, have been found to fracture the skull of a bull....and, those isolated cases where they have are very rare. lions too, are likely capable of the same feat...as they have enormously dense bones, according to most sources. 
 
in one account, a lion killed a pair of hunting dogs with just a tiny flick of his paws. and, slaght did compute an average...i`ve already shown the source before. i never said he weighed those animals....just that he gathered an average from many different sources, which included captive specimens, as well as young animals. it is not conclusive. 
 
...and, stop saying i lied.....i did not lie....there are documents i can show which prove everything i stated. and, when the hell did i say the siberian tigerprojedct was not reliable?...i merely stated, again, that slaght`s computed average is not reliable. 
 
but, here are the records of the siberian tigers, in the siberian tiger study; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/anexo71averageweightkga.png 
 
...note the average of the weight of the males in that study...now, here is data of the highest recorded weight of those same males; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/amurtigersadultssize-1.png 
 
...so, you were saying?......
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:20 PM by damon
Data from Slaght et al (2005) included in the Siberian Tiger Project Monograph: 
 
 
 
Wild male Amur tigers (historical): 215.3 kg (n=9) 
 
Wild male Amur tigers (modern): 176.4 kg (n=18) 
 
Mixed with captive: 171.3 kg 
 
 
 
So, where I mentioned the average of 171 kg? I clearly say 176 kg, which only include the modern wild males. 
 
 
 
Slaght et al don’t show any range. 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:23 PM by Raul
Raul, why don`t you post the source, or else show an extract from the slaght document?.....you hardly ever post any sources or images of the data you mention....and, where did slaght get the data upon the modern captive amurs?...because, the siberian tiger project did not measure more than 12 specimens of male amurs.......
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:30 PM by damon
...also, i just forgot i had excess to slaght`s document.......however, it`s in russian. so, how did you know those weights you quoted was of wild or captive specimens, like you stated?.....
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:32 PM by damon
Asymptotic? Actually you know what this means?  
 
 
 
That tiger was not larger, was HEAVIER, and been captive it could be a fat one. 
 
 
 
It doesn’t matter the “outburst of energy”, the bear will kill the lion very easily. The lion will tire first and the bear will destroy his head. The mane doesn’t matter here; the force of the big bears is amazing and incomparable between the carnivores. 
 
 
 
From the “Modern” data, you EXCLUDE Karanth and Sunquist!!! You exclude the reports in the Journal of Bombay, and just post SOME large tigers. But from lions you put just the largest. Why you don’t put the Waza lions, of the Kenya lions (all of them)? LIAR!!! 
 
 
 
You don’t have the entire study, I put the entire study and I translate it in the AVA forum, so don’t flatter your self, you don’t even know were published this documents. 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, the S.T.P did not compute an average based upon several weights of the same animal, but instead computed an average for ONE animal based upon many weights of that animal, which may have fluctuated during the months/years. and then, the average of all the animals in the study was compared.” 
 
Is the same thing idiot. 
 
 
 
Like I say before, that images are those that I posted in AVA forum. What a LIAR damon, you are stealing the credit of things that you have not made.  
 
 
 
Damon: “Raul, why don`t you post the source, or else show an extract from the slaght document?.....you hardly ever post any sources or images of the data you mention....and, where did slaght get the data upon the modern captive amurs?...because, the siberian tiger project did not measure more than 12 specimens of male amurs.......” 
 
I always put the image of my statemenst, and about the REAL records of the S.T.P. here is the image: 
 
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6131/slaghtetaltabla62.jpg 
 
It clearly say “Wild” and “Captive” 
 
 
 
So, like you can see, I am the one who have post the tables of the document of Slagth el al. So, like always, DON’T LIE BOLD (Damon, Jimmy or whatever, you don’t even have a real personality). 
 
 
 
So, you were saying? HA HA HA!!! 
 
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:41 PM by Raul
Raul, of course i know what asymtotic means......i have 2 cases of a lion killing a brown bear, and one of a lion killing a polar bear....so, your statements matter very little.  
 
also, the weight of brown bears fluctuates during the year, as food availability varies. and, i did not exclude sunquist from my modern data. i used the chitwan tiger study.....and, i merely forgot to include that of karanth. however, i do have the study......but, it was not nessceary to show that document, as the sampling was too limited, anyhow. 
 
and, the grizzly is not larger than the lion (they average 192 kg)...and, the polar bear, only with a much greater food intake, grow much larger. 
 
a grizzly cannot easily kill a lion...and indeed, the mane does matter. and, in fact the lion is also the most combative of the carnivora. 
 
and, i do not agree with the waza park study (which only included 4 adult males, all of which were of the age in which males begin to lose condition). and, from lions i did not put just the largest...i put the ones where samplings was usually more than 10 specimens, and indeed only ONe document i mentioned contained only 4 male lions, and i already stated those figures were not conclusive....however, it is suggestive. 
 
..and, you stated i lied?....where did i lie?.....i save every reliable document i come across, whether i found it or not. i did not say i created those images that i posted, but i have the full study, nonetheless. also, again, i did NOT say i posted the source of the siberian tiger project that you posted, however i do have separate sources of the same data. also, i did not take credit for the study, merely stated that i had it. get it, now?....
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:17 PM by damon
Raul, also, do you seriously think a 209 kg tiger can be considered fat?......your arguments make little sense.
Posted @ Sunday, July 12, 2009 8:27 PM by damon
In both cases were the lion killed the bears, the age of the bear is not mentioned, and apparently, according with the text, those bears were juveniles and the lions were old. So, the fight was not fair. 
 
 
 
We are not talking of Grizzlies; we are talking of the largest brown bears, like I say many times in my previous posts. Grizzlies, like I say before, are among the smallest of the brown bears, so it is no surprise that they have weight of 150-385 kg. However you can’t say that the large Kodiak brown bears average 190 kg, they average, at least, about 300-350 kg, if not more. They are giants, and will kill any lion of 190 or 272 kg with a single blow. It doesn’t matter if the lion is the most combative of the carnivore, the bear will crush its skull like they do with the elk or the mouse, which weigh more that a large lion. 
 
 
 
Damon: “get it, now?....” 
 
I always get everything, alter all, I already know that you are a liar and a deceiver. Like many post in the AVA forum, you get the credit when is not true. If you have “different” sources of the same data, post it here and let’s see. 
 
 
 
Damon: “Raul, also, do you seriously think a 209 kg tiger can be considered fat?......your arguments make little sense.” 
 
Idiot, the subspecies of this tiger is unknown, and you most take in count the fact that in those times the Bengal and the Indochinese tigers were considered the same subspecies. So this tiger could be a FAT Indochinese tiger or even a Bengal-Indochinese mix. So, as far the data came, this is just a generic tiger. At the end, yes, this tiger could be small fat tiger of 209 kg.
Posted @ Monday, July 13, 2009 12:09 PM by Raul
Raul, those bears were likely of adult age, being used in the circus show. i know that for the ringling bros, they train an animal until it is old enough to perform properly. 
 
 
 
likewise, you previously stated i was refering to stamina when i mentioned that lions had the greatest 'instantaneous' outburst energy......that implies you did not understand. 
 
 
 
also, the type of tiger was known, and i posted the link to this, several times. but, since you insist, here is proof that tiger was bengal; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionandtigerstaminacomparisonlevels.jpg 
 
 
 
...according to the source, it was the largest tiger in america at that time, and yet, his organ and gland weights were most usually smaller than those lions, though all were of lighter sizes. and, when i say larger, i`m referring to the weight of the animals, not the size. how many times do i have to say it?.... 
 
 
 
....Raul, we are not talking of the largest brown bears, as those were not the type which fought the lions, and indeed the weight of these animals fluctuates depending upon many factors. 
 
 
 
and, a lot of data about kodiak bears are clouded in mysterie, though i do have some sources upon this subject. proprotionately, they are no larger than grizzlies....there weight is based, instead, upon the food consumption of these animals, as all brown bears are virtually the same, according to a few scientists, and i`m inclined to agree. 
 
 
 
and, most of the studies i post were usually of ones that i myself have found.....though i do save every study i come across. nevber once did i get credit for data i did not find myself. all the ones i got credit for, i found myself. 
 
 
 
and, if someone should give me credit for a particular bit of data which i did not myself find, i say so. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, July 13, 2009 12:42 PM by damon
There is no evidence of the age of the bears, and every circus train they animals when they are young, so where you get this new lie haaaa? 
 
 
 
Damon: “likewise, you previously stated i was refering to stamina when i mentioned that lions had the greatest 'instantaneous' outburst energy......that implies you did not understand.” 
 
Incorrect, I was clearly understand, however my point was that the “instantaneous' outburst energy” is IRRELEVANT in a fight against a bear, and again, that study is biased, after all, the cheetah had more instantaneous energy, and many small cats to, with out mention that the deer is a more nervous animal. So, it is obvious that this guy don’t make a very good study, but nevermind, after all, he show what you what so it is obvious that you will defend him, even when the common sense state the contrary. 
 
 
 
They say “Bengal”, but like I say to you, this could be a hybrid, so the word “Bengal” doesn’t guarantee any purity of the animal. Is like the “Bengal” tigers of the Australian Zoo, they ARE NOT BENGALS, even when they are presented like one. The ONLY Bengal tigers live in the Indian Zoos, however you include them in your deceiver document like if they were pure bred, even the weights (of about 160 kg!!!) don’t match. They are Sumatran tigers, after all, the Australian Zoo just participate in the Subspecies Survival Plan with the Sumatran tigers. It will be good if you correct that “mistake” of your paper. 
 
 
 
I say to you, where I mention the grizzly bears??? I never talk about them just when I say that they are among the smaller brownies in the world. 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, a lot of data about kodiak bears are clouded in mysterie, though i do have some sources upon this subject. proportionately, they are no larger than grizzlies....there weight is based, instead, upon the food consumption of these animals, as all brown bears are virtually the same, according to a few scientists, and i`m inclined to agree.“ 
 
There is no “clouded” data and mystery (not mysterie). They are large, simple, and far larger that any grizzly. For example, the grizzly average about 184 kg in the Cooke city Mount. In southwest Yukon, males average 139 kg. West Brooks Range, Alaska, mean of 155 kg. But the heaviest individuals are found in coastal Alaska: mean 389 kg; on islands (e.g. Kodiak) mean 312 kg. In the only thing that I am agree with you is that all the brown bear are the same and that they size is based in the food consumption. However, we are talking about size here, and the Alaskan, Kodiak or whatever you like to call him, is the largest of the brown bears, and is isolated from all the other bears, like the Sumatran tigers, so is completely plausible that they are indeed a deferent subspecies of brown bear. 
 
 
 
As matter of fact, I can make a list of the largest carnivores (the largest of every species): 
 
Polar bear: 489 kg 
 
Kodiak bear: 389 kg 
 
Nepal tiger: 235 kg 
 
Zimbabwe lion: 202 kg 
 
 
 
So, who is larger??? And I can put all the reference of every single figure. So, you want to see it??? 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:04 AM by Raul
Raul, the low averages of some populations of grizzlies is possibly related to the time of year in which they were measured, as, like many predators they go through times of poor food availablilty, and this seems to be particularly true for the bears. 
 
 
 
also, you keep saying i lied?...where, i was stating that the circus animals are trained when they are young, but, mots usually, they are not put into the arena unless at least of adult age, or by which point there training should be at a point where they are good enough to perform. 
 
 
 
and, the cheetah does not have more instantaneous energy.....and, NO study indicates anything like that. in fact, compared to the lion, the lungs of the cheetah was relatively small in proportion to the weight of these animals. 
 
 
 
and, i know that purebred bengals only live in india...never said they didn`t, nor did i state anything other than that....however, that bengal was taken from the wild.......which would indicate it is a purely of the bengal variety, even though an animal which is part bengal would scarcely be any different. the sizes would be equal. studbook bengals weigh usually 390 - 420 lbs in captivity, but some can certainly weigh less than that figure. 
 
 
 
and, i also stated that those bengals in the austrailian zoo weren`t purebred.......so, what are you talking about?..... 
 
 
 
and, you keep quoting a lot of inconclusive data. the highest average for the lions was 221.5 kg. 
 
 
 
adjusted for food content, the chitwan tigers average roughly the same. and, likewise, it is actually the kodiack bear which has the highest reported average.....i`ll get more upon this later. 
 
 
 
and, i never stated those bears couldn`t grow larger....but, this is due mainly to their much greater food intake.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 14, 2009 6:48 AM by damon
About the trained animals, I have speak personally with many animal trainers in at least 5 circus in my country, and all of them state that the animals are trained when they are young, and they begin to perform when they are young adults, in the case of two brown bears, they began when they were about 3-4 years old.  
 
 
 
Damon: “and, the cheetah does not have more instantaneous energy.....and, NO study indicates anything like that. in fact, compared to the lion, the lungs of the cheetah was relatively small in proportion to the weight of these animals. “  
 
Come on, the lungs of the cheetah are among the largest of ALL the mammals. Don’t you see Discovery or National Geo? They NEED this enormous longs for develop that speed. Is the same case with the heart. Another case of this are the greyhounds, they head big hearts and large longs, and I know about dogs, so there is no way that the lion had the best outburst of energy, if many animals had a best development in the race. 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, i also stated that those bengals in the austrailian zoo weren`t purebred.......so, what are you talking about?.....” 
 
Let’s quote: “At the Henry doorly zoo, an average body mass of 184 kg and 102 kg was given for male and female bengal tigers, respectively (Seager & Demorest, 1978; Seal et at., 1985). A 5 year-old male bengal tiger, of the Australia Zoo, weighed 173.4 kg (381.48 lbs). Another male, of the same age, weighed 166.4 kg (366.08 lbs). Another adult male tiger, born on march 7, 1997 at the bronx zoo, weighed 436 lbs. His mother (Norma), born may 10th, 1993 at Minnesota zoo in Minneapolis, weighed 285 lbs. Alexis, daughter of tigress Norma, weighed 303 lbs. Taurus, another female, weighed 264 lbs, while her sister, Zeff, weighed in at 292 lbs.” 
 
You never state that those “Bengals” are not purebred, Those tigers of the Henry Doorly, Australia and Minnesota Zoo are not pure bred, but you don’t clear the issue here. So, go and correct it. By the way, you quote Seager & Demorest, 1978 and Seal et at., 1985, I will like to see the original source of this documents: images or the link for the documents. 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, you keep quoting a lot of inconclusive data. the highest average for the lions was 221.5 kg.” 
 
There is not such thing. This is an average that you fabricate with many different sources and with just 4 males. ALL THE OTHER DATA THAT I HAVE POST IS VERY CONCLUSIVE. Those numbers are maded by scientist in the field and represent the highest figures. However, if you insist in showing lies like this averge of 221.5 for the lions, I will put the average of 229 kg for the Bengal tigers in Nagarahole, based in 7 males weighed by Dr Karanth and in the same area. So, who is larger haaa? 
 
 
 
Damon: “adjusted for food content, the chitwan tigers average roughly the same. and, likewise, it is actually the kodiack bear which has the highest reported average.....i`ll get more upon this later.” 
 
The average of the Chitwan tigers is at least of 227 kg adjusted for food content, I already explain this, but the REAL figure is 235 kg, so you can’t change it, even when your dark agenda demand it. Look the book of Sunquist: 
 
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9315/sunquist2002tigersize.jpg 
 
It say 235 kg, so is 235 kg. It doesn’t matter what you say. When you die your lies will be discarded like the theory of the plain Earth, however the book will prevail and all the people will still knowing that the male tigers in Nepal average 235 kg, let’s hope that the tigers can survive a little more. 
 
 
 
And about the bears, I already put the information, and the polar bear is the heaviest of all, look this images: 
 
 
 
Here are all the brown bears 
 
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/5681/brownbearrealsize.png 
 
 
 
From the “Alaska Department of Fish and Game”. They say that they are about the same size, but no less, like you say 
 
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3056/polarbearalaskadepartme.jpg 
 
 
 
The author says that calculate an average is meaningful, and I personally think that the same goes to the Bengal tiger, for his great variation in size 
 
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6629/polarbearnoaverage.png 
 
 
 
The largest polar bears 
 
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6709/polarbearsizeweigthhuds.png 
 
 
 
The smallest polar bears 
 
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/734/polarbearweightbeaufort.jpg 
 
 
 
All of them are from OFFICIAL sources. So, who is larger haaaa??? 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, i never stated those bears couldn`t grow larger....but, this is due mainly to their much greater food intake.” 
 
Now you retreat? Be a man, YOU have said that, and accept your own words, even when you had been owned again, HA HA HA!!! 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:04 AM by Raul
I made a little mistake, the author say that IS NOT meaningful to calculate an average for the polar bear. This could be applied for the Bengal and that is why the ranges are more used in the official documents with this animals.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:10 AM by Raul
Raul, i know that circus animals are trained when they are young.....after all, i have read clyde beatty`s book, and i already said i knew this. so, whay repeat it?....... 
 
 
 
...and, also, there was never any proof to the statement that cheetahs had unusually large lungs among the cats. a female jaguar (34.47 kg), for comparison, which was smaller than the cheetah, which weighed 40 kg, had the much larger lung size, which was 576 g. the cheetah`s lung size was only 360 g. 
 
 
 
 
 
in that george crile document, the cheetah (a male) had a lung size of only 360 g......one lion, a small one at that, had lungs roughly 10 times as large...or over 3000 grams.  
 
 
 
also, i`ve looked at the book of sunquist, although those are interesting documents concerning the bears.......but, do you know what time of year in which the bears were measured?...that males a great deal of difference.  
 
 
 
sunquist gave an average of 235 kg for 7 adult males (very limited sampling, and so limited variability in weight as well) most of which were baited or else fed from natural kills, which would inflate the average weight, though sunquist stated they ate at least 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills. the average weight of those tigers, adjusted for food content, is 221 kg. and, i`m not changing sunquist`s statements. those males he weighed average 235 kg...but, without adjustement for food. but, you don`t except my figures because you want the tigers to be as large as possible. fo what reason, i don`t know. but, i`ll bet sunquist will agree with my statements. 
 
 
 
also, the records i showed for the lions (suggestive at best) is from the kenya wildlife service. it is not entirely conclusive data, being that the sampling is so limited, but it is suggestive at best.  
 
 
 
also, karanth did not weigh 7 male tigers, but 3. and, even then, such limited studies, even those 4 specimens mentioned by me, is not very conclusive, but only 'suggestive' at best. we need a much larger sampling to make any conclusive statements. 
 
 
 
also, i already showed the source from the henry doorly zoo of those tigers.......also, i mentioned the weights of the studbook bengals after i gave the weights of those tigers from the henry doorly zoo, and from the australia zoo, and i figured it would have been obvious (i also stated they were not studbook in the AVA forums). 
 
 
 
even then, those tigers from the henry doorly zoo showed little genetic variation (i`ll try and find the study on this) which indicate they may have been purebred bengals. 
 
 
 
also, here`s where i showed that henry doorly zoo document; 
 
 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/topic/1588?page=1 
 
 
 
...even though the sampling was small, it was suggestive, as i`ve been told, via personal communication, by C kennion, that most studbook bengals, and, he has worked with both lions and tigers, weigh 390 - 420 lbs.....similar to the sizes which i have given.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:39 AM by damon
You have read a book, but I have talk with REAL people, BIG difference, don’t you think? 
 
 
 
About the bears, the years are there, and is obvious that those bears could not be measured before-after the winter but in summer, when the weight is not biased, so what is the point?  
 
 
 
Damon: “but, you don`t except my figures because you want the tigers to be as large as possible. fo what reason, i don`t know. but, i`ll bet sunquist will agree with my statements.” 
 
I don’t want to inflate the Bengal’s; after all, I calculate, in my study, an average for all the population of about 210 kg+, so why you say this? What I say is that the statements of scientist can’t be changed unless they show that they make a mistake, like Dr Karanth say about that relative young tiger of 250 kg, which actually was of 218 kg. An about Dr Sunquist, let’s ask him, and we will see how is right. 
 
 
 
Suggestive, yes, like those 7 tigers of Nagarahole, they are very suggestive and all of them are from the WCS in South India to. 
 
 
 
Damon: “also, i already showed the source from the henry doorly zoo of those tigers.......also, i mentioned the weights of the studbook bengals after i gave the weights of those tigers from the henry doorly zoo, and from the australia zoo, and i figured it would have been obvious (i also stated they were not studbook in the AVA forums).” 
 
It is obvious for people like me, how know all this things; however this document can confuse the people which don’t know the “small” details. And remember that not all the people go the AVA forum, so if you are fair, you will edit your work and correct the mistakes in your document. 
 
 
 
Damon: “even then, those tigers from the henry doorly zoo showed little genetic variation (i`ll try and find the study on this) which indicate they may have been purebred bengals.”  
 
That’s not the point, the point is that you mention them like actually “PURE breed” Bengal’s, which is not true. If we want real Bengal’s, let’s go to India, and they average about 175-193 kg. You see, there is no need of twist the data like you do, the true is easier.  
 
 
 
So, you most put that about the personal communication, but don’t put smaller tigers like those Sumatran’s just for probe your false point of view. Be fair Damon, respect the true. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:21 AM by Raul
Kodiak Bears are way larger than grizzlies! Because the diet of the kodiak bear consists mainly of high protein (Salmon, Moose, Elk etc.) while, the Grizzly's diet is more vegetarian-like! 
 
 
 
The comment you posted earlier about the slap from the huge brown bear to the lion, and you saying that the mane matters is completely an ignorant statement. 
 
 
 
A slap from a Grizzly bear will damage that lion permanently!!! 
 
 
 
What's the matter Damon? Do you think that the Lion's shit don't stink or what? 
 
 
 
You are not normal! You might as well go ahead and say that a fucking truck going at 90 mph couldn't hurt a lion if you're going to keep repeating the ignorance you're spilling out now!
Posted @ Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:30 AM by Kenny
This is flat out wrong. You didn't even offer any scientific evidence other than a vague indication of size and prey.  
 
This is pure opinion, and guess what? It's actually most likely wrong. 
 
Think about it in terms of animal behavior. Lions and tigers are roughly similar size, with tigers getting a slight edge by your account. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 
Tigers are the better hunter without a doubt, but lions are by far the more combative species. They constantly have to fight each other over territory (the males generally represent in lion vs lion territorial battles), and evolutionarily this is why they developed thick manes around their necks -- to deflect the aim of other similar feline predators (which by instinct go for the bite to the neck).  
 
It doesn't take a genius to figure out which would really win when the evidence is placed out there. 
 
 
 
oh yeah, and an adult grizzly bear would kill either without a hitch.
Posted @ Friday, July 17, 2009 11:21 PM by lol wrong
Lions will win in a fight against a tiger. They are a symbol of power, strength, and courage. In ancient Rome, and in modern symbols of other country, you see a lot of statue of the Lions. Tigers are gay. All the weight they have is fats, they have lots of fats especially the Amur. Lions are pure muscle weigth. open your eyes people,Lions are more muscled than tigers. Lions are revered everywhere. Lions rules. Why did The Lion have the title King of the beast/Jungle. Because people who witness the demise of the gay tiger when pitted against the Lions
Posted @ Sunday, July 19, 2009 9:25 PM by Sniper
I've been reading this LONG discussion for a while now and i have to say I'm supraised at Damon Cuz no matter how much time Raul repeats Damon just won't listen. And where the hell does he gets off at saying a lion would beat a Brown/Polar bear or saying that the tiger and the lion is the same size. Ok so the Bengal tiger is about 25-50Kg heavier than its African cousin how does that make them the same size. What Damon, are you saying that Nat. Geo. is wrong or that Dic. Channel is wrong for saying the tiger is larger than the lion. And a Grizzly Bear at 750 pounds can kill a Moose(380-720kg) / Bison(998kg) with a single blow to the back of each animal, where do You a male lion killing a wildebeest(160-290kg) / zebra(250-430kg) with a single strike from its paw. the polar bear and the grizzly that lost to that lion were probely young or sick but there is not way a healhty full grown male lion can kill a healthy full grown male polar/grizzly bear in a fair fight. To say that is just idiotic and childish. Even thougth the same can be said for a male bengal tiger the tiger would proberly put up a better fight for it is use to fighting bears. Whereas a male lion isn't used to figthing a preditor bigger than itself. You Damon just think that the lion is superior to ever other carnivore but its not it can't hunt without a pride while bears and tigers can do that and they can also take down bigger prey without a pride.
Posted @ Sunday, July 19, 2009 9:25 PM by BJ
..yes, BJ, to answer your question, i would say that nat geo and many others are quite wrong on the lion-tiger size subject. i have every modern document upon this subject, and, in scientific records, lions have reached the same sizes.  
 
4 lions weighed by the kenya wildlife service, regardless of what Raul may have said in the past, averaged 221.5 kg, about the same as the weight of chitwan tigers, adjusted for food content.  
 
the study upon the kenya lions was limited, by suggestive, nonetheless. but then again, so is that of the chitwan tigers. 
 
also, a grizzly at 750 lbs would be an overlarge specimen, in one study 9and, i have the entire document, if you want to see it?) they averaged 192 kg, based upon a sampling of 65 adults, measured throughout the year. they are no larger than lions or tigers, and nor can they kill a moose with one paw swipe, and in fact there is no authentic case of one doing so. if so, post the reference, and let others decide. 
 
also, i have a new forum i just made......on lion vs tigers and other subjects concerning other animals as well; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.forumtwilight.com/forum.htm 
 
...check it out.
Posted @ Sunday, July 19, 2009 9:52 PM by damon
4 male lions against 7 male tigers? Yeah, this is a suggestive average, but just in your mind Damon. 
 
 
 
Larger samples show that the lions seldom exceed the 190 kg in average. For the other side, the tigers often exceed the 200 kg in average weight. Besides, according with Tom Brakefield, the male tigers often exceed the 500 lb while the male African lions seldom exceed the 500 lb in weight.  
 
 
 
Finally, the higher average for the lions, in scientific record, is of 202 kg, while the highest average for the tiger, in scientific record, is of 235 kg; better, impossible. The grizzly bears are about the smaller brown bears in record, contrary to the huge Kodiak ones, which can kill animals with a simple punch. The evidence is there, in the videos, books and the stories of the people. The bears are unstoppable. A lion will be just garbage against a bear; just the tigers can defeat them, however, with a lot of effort. 
 
 
 
I already saw your forum (and there is just ONE post from an idiot lion fan, by the way), it says the same bullshit that you had said here and that you repeat again, and again, and again, and again. Is funny that just the most "hard core lion fans" support your statements, and they do this because they can’t support them statements and think that if they repeat the same lies that you say, they will win. However, there is no one single modern document, nor a web page!!!, that say that the lions are larger, not even equal, that the tigers (Indochinese, Amur and Bengal specifically). So, your dark agenda had fail Damon, this is a GOOD thing for the REAL science. 
 
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 10:11 AM by Raul
Raul, why do you keep stating i lied?...i NEVER lied on this or any other forum!......so, stop saying i did. 
 
and, i never stated that a sampling of 4 male lions was conclusive, merely that it is suggestive. in other words, the average is not set in stone. but, the weights does indicate they can, and do grow large. 
 
and, that one post on my forum, the lion vs tiger section, was from me.......and, what bullshit?.....i mentioned actual studies, not heresay. i have no dark agenda....never said i did. however, i do not agree tigers are larger.....the largest lions in scientific studies were as large as tigers. 
 
the lower the number of samplings in a study, and indeed that of tigers in scientific studies is low (a combining of several different studies is not conclusive)....likely, the variability in the weight of these animals will most certainly be low or high as well, which may inflate, or reduce the animal`s apparent average weight.  
 
a great majority of the studies i mentioned upon lions, ever, mostly consisted of samplings of at least 14 specimens....all but 3 scientific studies i have mentioned exist of less than a sampling of 14 specimens, and they are not conclusive, merely suggestive of the actual weight of these animals.  
 
..you cannot say, for certain, given the amount of records i have as proof, that lions over 500 lbs, or 550 lbs do not exist, given the number of these animals....perhaps there are more 500/550 lb lions than there are tigers, as there is a greater number of lions in the wild, when comparing there indian/asian counterparts. however, given that most are most usually UNDER this weight, it does not surprise me that few have been recorded at such sizes.  
 
let`s say, for example, that, in a population of perhaps 100 lions, there were 30 males of 500 lbs, 10 of 520 lbs, and the rest between the weights of 350 - 500 lbs. 
 
okay, compare that to a population of, say, 10 tigers. 3 are of 500 lbs, 1 is of 520 lbs, and the rest are between 350 - 500 lbs. 
 
...now, for the simple fact that there are less tigers to chose from, you are much more likely to find a overlarge specimen, and, if you should, by chance, weigh the 4 largest tigers, that would immediately inflate their average weight. do you get my point now?......... 
 
however, even in scientific records, lions have reached large sizes, such as those of transvaal (charles pitman), a sampling of 5 average 217 kg, or those of southern kenya, which averaged 221.5 kg....adjusted for food intake, the chitwan tigers average roughly the same. tigers are no larger. 
 
also, which videos show bears of ANY kind killing a large animal which a single 'punch'?....i`d like to see it.
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 10:39 AM by damon
also, Raul, there is a few webpages which state the lion is larger than the tiger....a statemenet which i do not agree with, and something which i never stated...yet, you said, in your last post, that there are no modern documents or webpages that say lions are larger than tigers, as if i supported that statement. i`ve never stated the lion was larger than the tiger. but, i`ll try and find more info on these animals, and from scientists as well.......so, i`ll get back to you later.
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 10:49 AM by damon
..also, i only repeat sources when people ask for them, or when a particular poster has yet to view them.
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 10:54 AM by damon
Yeah Damon, whatever you say, blah blah blah. 
 
 
 
It is amazing that you are already here. Don’t you have a life? A real one? I barely have time for answer here but you live in these places. The funny thing is, like I say, there is no SERIOUS source that state that the lions are equal to tigers. The general consensus is that the tigers are larger, for a foot or for just 5 cm, but they are larger. That’s the point in all this. So, yes, it could be some web pages when is stated that the lions>tigers, but this are pages of “hard core lion fans”. In your forum, there is a poster named “lionking” to, he is the idiot that I mention before.  
 
 
 
About you “example”, look these facts: from about 600 lions weighed by Smuts, just ONE reached the 225 kg. For the other side, there is NO ONE adult male tiger in the scientific record of less than 200 kg, and all the others are of more that 225 kg. Did you see the reality? Even when they are more lions that tigers, the great great great majority of lions seldom exceed the 225 kg, and the lions over 250 kg are much rare that the male tigers of this size. The point is, if it will be two equal population of lions and Bengal tigers, there will be far more tigers of 250 kg than male lions of 230 kg. The REAL scientific sources show this.  
 
 
 
About the samples, you mention those from South Africa again, that is not a SCIENTIFIC source, that’s the point. Even Meinertzhagen mention the same average for the Bengal, based in 16 males, by the way. So, if we look scientific sources, let’s look the male tigers in Karnataka (Nagarahole and Bandipur), which have an average of 229.4 kg (209, 215, 218, 227, 230, 250 and 257 kg), based in 7 well documented males of the park. This is a REAL scientific source. 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, what bullshit?.....i mentioned actual studies, not heresay” 
 
That is a SINGLE biased study, not a conclusive source. And are your statements which are bullshit, after all, no matter how many times you say a lie, it will never be true. 
 
 
 
Tigers ARE larger and heavier that lions, this is a Scientific, scholar and popular FACT. Don’t be stubborn. 
 
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 12:05 PM by Raul
Just a correction, when I say: “and all the others are of more that 225 kg.” Actually what I really want to say was: “and the great majority are of more that 225 kg”, after all, there are some males of less than 225 kg to, it is obvious.
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 12:09 PM by Raul
Raul, how is that source i showed biased?......it was based upon a congression of studies of the gland and organ weights of these animals, as well as upon observation.  
 
also, karanth mentions a tiger of 175 kg...and, being a scientist, that makes the record scientific, in that it is acknowledged and agreed upon, by a respected figure.  
 
and, if the populations of lions and tigers should be equal, i doubt the tigers would be any larger. also, other studies, ones of greater sampling, actually show similar masses...and, also, it should be noted that tigers from the sundarbans, in scientific studies, were UNDER 200 kg.  
 
and, i did not lie, i merely made a statement based upon the article i presented. that`s not a lie. and, tigers are no larger than lions. 
 
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 1:00 PM by damon
...also, i do have a life....no one works all day, and i doubt you cannot find the time to post here on this site, however busy you may be. i too, am quite busy most of the time. however, i was online when you posted, and your comment appeared on my email...so i checked it out. 
 
why not post when you actually have the time?......
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 1:02 PM by damon
Damon.....I know quite a few people that work all the time. 
 
 
 
And KODIAK BEARS are way bigger than lions and tigers, i don't know why you say otherwise, you must be a stubborn retard!! 
 
 
 
I've had a Wild America collection and it had a female grizzly bear kill a large elk with a few blows of her paws, so..what do you think a large male grizzly would do to that elk? 
 
 
 
You are so aggravating! 
 
 
 
Just to have people respect you more, why don't you just shut up and not answer anybody that disagrees with you, because it's EVERYBODY on this damn forum!
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 9:23 PM by kenny
You make me laugh!!! 
 
You are so biased and you're such an asshole! 
 
 
 
Talking to you is like talking to a damn robot, because you repeat the same shit over and over...Do Not tell me you have a life, because you do NOT! And if so, what do you do? 
 
 
 
You can take every document you have and just wipe your ass with them, because they're useless!!!! 
 
 
 
Brown Bears are Bigger, do you understand what BIGGER means? Like i was saying, Brown bears are bigger than lions and tigers. Some, for example, can weigh the equivalent of 2 lions! That sounds like a grizzly bear to me!! 
 
 
 
 
 
You are in denial if you tell me otherwise, everybody knows grizzlies and polar bears are bigger than lions and tigers! 
 
 
 
....Maybe a 4 year old might agree with you, but then again maybe not! 
 
 
 
There you go, you've been schooled!
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 9:33 PM by Kenny
....kenny, grizzly bears are not larger than lions/tigers, and trust me, i have many RELIABLE documents on this matter. here`s but one; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/averageweightsofgrizzlybears.jpg 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/weightofmaleandfemalegrizzlies.jpg 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/effectsoffoodavailabilityofweightsg.jpg 
 
 
 
....also, in which study did i female grizzly kill an elk with a few blows of her paw?....i`ll even ignore the fact that we were talking of merely ONE blow from these animals. 
 
 
 
the size of brown bears, kodiaks included, is related to food availability. most usually, sources which mention the weights of these animals are giving merely an asymptotic figure, or of animals measured during a specific time of the year, which is not conclusive.  
 
 
 
and, what a bear CAN weigh is not the same as the average weights of those animals. a human has weighed up to 1600 lbs....does that mean we are, as a species, larger than bears?....... 
 
 
 
are you starting to see the falacy in your arguments?...or, do you need more incentive?..... 
 
 
 
and, you`re taking the discussion too seriously, to say that i aggravate you. it is just a discussion......it is meant to be discussed.....if you are entirely sure about your statements, why post here at all?....... 
 
 
 
i don`t merely make a judgement just because that is the excepted statement. chances are you`ll find very few reliable studies, and, ones that are may still be partially biased. 
 
 
 
...i`m not in denial, either. do you know what that means?....it means to deny something which you KNOW is correct. trust me, i would make the statments i do, if i did not fully believe they were true. i`ve spent many years studying these animals, gathering as much reliable documents that i could.....there are very few studies which i have not heard of, or at least seen already. do you think i cannot make a proper argument?.....i`m not merely 'guessing' wheni make a statement, but instead using a congression of sources, even ones that are opinion based, to make what i hope to be a reliable conclusion. if i`m wrong, then so be it. but, you`ll have to prove it, with actual studies. i`m always willing to admit a mistake. 
 
 
 
but, one thing i`m absolutely certain about is that grizzlies, nor tigers, are any larger than lions.
Posted @ Monday, July 20, 2009 10:28 PM by damon
Damon: “but, one thing i`m absolutely certain about is that grizzlies, nor tigers, are any larger than lions.” 
 
This is the worst stupidity that a “fan” of the animals can say. From this time, your reputation is complete GARBAGE!!! 
 
 
 
Look this: 
 
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/5681/brownbearrealsize.png  
 
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3056/polarbearalaskadepartme.jpg  
 
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6629/polarbearnoaverage.png  
 
http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6709/polarbearsizeweigthhuds.png  
 
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/734/polarbearweightbeaufort.jpg  
 
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9315/sunquist2002tigersize.jpg  
 
 
 
Conclusions: Average weight (the highest figures in SCIENTIFIC record) 
 
Polar bear: 489 kg 
 
Kodiak bear: 389 kg  
 
Nepal tiger: 235 kg  
 
Zimbabwe lion: 202 kg  
 
 
 
You see, you discard the REAL reliable records and post just those who support your stupid statements. 
 
 
 
Tigers are larger that lions but Brown bears are much larger that both, tigers and lions. The polar bears are out of they league. 
 
 
 
You are in clear negation, because you know the true both you simple don’t accept it. You are not proving a point here; I think that you have a real psychological problem. For your own sake, go and see a psychologist. You really need help. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:55 AM by Raul
Even the brown bears, taked as a hole, have a higher average that the African lions. About 250 kg of the overall Brown bear against 190 kg for the overall African lion. And look that I am been conservative with the Brown ones.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:58 AM by Raul
The average computed for the Bengal tiger is this: 
 
Average: 213 kg 
 
Range: 130-276 kg 
 
 
 
So, the comparison of these three animals most be this: 
 
Brown bear: 250 kg 
 
Bengal tiger: 213 kg 
 
African lion: 190 kg 
 
 
 
About the polar bear, I think that about 400 kg is very fair. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:03 AM by Raul
Raul, some of those sources you showed did not give any average weight, merely mentioned a range.....likewise, i already have the source of the chitwan tigers, and of course you already showed the polar bear documents. but, those were the weights of the animals at their highest.....i have the full pdf document (i can show it, if you want?). 
 
...the average weight of the chitwan tigers, without adjustment for food intake, is 235 kg. however, most were baited, while i`m sure others have feed from natural kills as well, as sunquist`s document mentions, and which shows they ate a total of at LEAST 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits and natural kills. the average weight of these animals then, adjusted for food, is 221 kg. 
 
...and, i don`t discard any records, merely take into account other possibilities. also, your source stated the alaskan bear, not the kodiak, averaged 389 kg....and, this was likely based upon the point in which time they had put on a great amount of weight, such as before hibernation. a more reliable figure would have been to measure the animals throughout the year, and to give an average weight based on that, such as what was done with the grizzly bears. 
 
my point is that the weight of those animals, size aside, was based upon food intake at the time of the weighing. merely reporting the weight of those bears at a specific time of the year is not a reliable meas of measurement, and one which i do not except.  
 
and, you forget the average of 217 kg for transvaal lions i reported, as well as the average of 221.5 kg for those of southern kenya.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:38 AM by damon
...also, Raul, the data upon those alaskan bears (i have the full document) was only upon 5 specimens over 9 years of age....so, not only was the variation in numbers was low, but, they were all of an age in which specimens were at their largest; 
 
http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_4/Glenn_Vol_4.pdf 
 
http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_4/Glenn_Vol_4.pdf 
 
...those are scarcely reliable figures. also, some of those other figures upon brown bears were asymptotic figures, which is not reliable. besides that, my statements was that the weight of these animals was based more upon food intake at the time of weighing, as well as the time of year in which they were weighed, rather than the body size of these animals, which is a much more reliable figure of determining relative size of these animals.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:16 AM by damon
in my last post, i accidentally put the same source twice....here is the other document i meant to put; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/sizeofbrownbears.jpg
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:18 AM by damon
a grizzly bear cannot kill a moose with one paw swipe, what the hell r u guys talking about? yeah, maybe a sick or injured moose but not a healthy one. Moose can weigh close to a ton and they have got huge antlers, and in case you didn't know, bears are OPPORTUNISTIC hunters!!! 
 
 
 
Only a dumb bear will charge at a full grown healthy moose! 
 
 
 
A Lion will most certainly kill a tiger in a fight, tigers may be better hunters, but lions can easily win because they're better fighters! 
 
 
 
On average, they're the same size! 
 
 
 
I can't believe the rest of you, Damon is right and he proves his statements more than you prove yours! 
 
 
 
The near 400 comments on this forum are from all of you, not just him. 
 
 
 
Give him a break, jesus!
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:01 AM by Jason Henson
Ok i don't know where Kenny saw that female Bear kill a moose but i have seen a vedio on Nat. Geo that showed a female Grizzly Bear obviously on adult female that charged a moose with huge antlers head on and won. And when she did 2 cubs came running to her side. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So if that retarded ass statement that a lion is equal in size to a bear can only show that even at eqaul size the bear is stronger. And any tiger larger,smaller or the same size of a lion can kill it. A bear(polar,Brown) is lager that a lion and a tiger and can destroy a lion much easier than a tiger can. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Its so stupid to say that a lion,tiger(Bengal/siberian) and bear (polar and any Subspecies of brown bear) are equal in size.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:50 PM by BJ
Damon: “and, you forget the average of 217 kg for transvaal lions i reported, as well as the average of 221.5 kg for those of southern kenya.” 
 
Yeah, and you forget the average of 229 kg from the Bengal tigers of Nagarahole, the 16 males of Meinertzhagen with an average of 217 kg, or even the average of 225 kg for the Siberian tigers in “Wild Cats” of Mel Sunquist. Ha ha ha, you see, the tigers are heavier; simpler, impossible. 
 
 
 
About the bears, there are only excuses; the Alaskan bears are the largest about the brown ones. It doesn’t matter if they are of extreme Alaska of just from Kodiak; after all, the giant bears are not just from the island of Kodiak. The figures that I post are from real Scientifics, however is not surprise that you (Damon) don’t accept them, after all, you just use the data that support your statements. That’s a pathetic behavior form your part. 
 
 
 
There are no asymptotic figures in ANY bear study, where you get this new lie??? Damon, stop lying and making new excuses, no one of these studies say anything about asymptotic data’s.  
 
 
 
The study that you post is a complete different source that the one posted by me before. And actually, there were not just 5 bears, but 344 bears measured during 502 captures in 5 spring seasons, SPRING, when the bears had they lower weights. You simple omit this part and make assumptions of complete different samples. However, the real consensus is that the Brown bear in the coast of Alaska are averaging no less than 300 kg. This is sure. 
 
 
 
It is funny that ALL the data, from scientific sources no less, that show your lies, you simple say that they are “scarcely any different” or “not reliable”. What a looser are you!!! 
 
 
 
Finally, I will not waste my time with persons like “Jason Henson”, which doesn’t know anything of these matters. If he supports Damon, then he is just another “hard core lion fan”. 
 
 
 
REAL conclusions: 
 
Polar bears= From another league. 
 
Brown bears= He can brake the skull of a lion with one blow. 
 
Tigers= Largest of the cats. 
 
Lions= In second place, like always. 
 
 
 
Better, impossible.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:58 PM by Raul
Raul, i don`t have those records of meinertzhagen, concerning the weights of those tigers....but, i`d like to see them. and, i no longer quote those records of the siberian tigers as given by sunquist, as they were based entirely of those from hunters, as mentioned in the book mammals of the soviet union', the source to which he got those records....likewise, he included a few specimens which were not, in my opinoion, accurately proven....so, i`d have to disagree. besides that, it is based upon records gathered from different sources... 
 
..and, i know that source i posted on the polar beasr was not the same source, nor did i say any such thing. but, it relates to those same records........though it only mentions the weight of those 5 males.....read the whole document....i posted the link to it. what the source shows is that those polar bears lost, at one point, a substantial amount of mass, and of which your source did not mention. an avefrage should have been gathered also from the mass those animals lost, as compared with their heaviest recorded mass, so that an accurate average may be gotten. 
 
..and, STOP saying i lied...i did not lie about anything. i merely do not support your statements.  
 
and, it would take a lucky shot from an overlarge bear to down a lion with one blow....but, from the many sources i have, i know that is not possible. i even have a record where a lion very quickly defeated a tiger, and then, almost immediately afterwards, had to contend with a bear (species unknown) and defeated that animal more quickly then his previous rival, even though he was likely exhausted. that speaks VOLUMES of his fighting ability, regardless of the type of bear involved in the fight.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 22, 2009 10:24 AM by damon
this is bullshit..I trust animal planets Face off much more than his pathetic blog that is based with no facts what so ever. ( the gorilla start throwing bananas at the bear, fucking dumb) And Animal Beg to differ. Lion would win EASILY. Both animals are beautiful though.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:35 PM by HAHAHA pathetic blog
Okay, Jason and Damon can go to hell for all I care!! 
 
 
 
I saw a female grizzly kill an elk, not a moose, dipshit Jason! 
 
 
 
And it was a Wild America Movie Collection that I had that showed this!!! Of course I can't find this record on the internet because it's probably not there, but ONCE AGAIN..... I SAW IT MYSELF!!
Posted @ Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:59 PM by Kenny
Kenny, I was not referring to just you I was referring to everyone. 
 
 
 
I am not a hard core lion fan, in fact, the lion is my least favorite animal, I am a bear fan. 
 
 
 
And in my professional opinion, grizzly bears are opportunistic hunters which means they will not charge a full grown moose head on, BJ you are an idiot for saying such a lie ever! 
 
 
 
Why don't the rest of you prove your statements then? Damon is! 
 
 
 
A Lion will dominate a tiger in a fight, they proved it! 
 
 
 
And the average size of a Siberian Tiger is 272 kg and 11.5 feet long, while the Bengal averages 204 kg and measures 9 feet in length. 
 
 
 
And last but certainly not least, the African Lion averages 204 kg (same as bengal tiger) and measures 8.5 feet in length and 4 feet tall. 
 
 
 
There you go! Say thank you everybody!
Posted @ Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:25 PM by Jason Henson
2 Damon and Jason d fucking jackasses, what u guys need to do is; 
 
 
 
1) get off ur pc 
 
2) get out of ur house 
 
3) get some fresh air and some sun lite 
 
4) then get a real life 
 
 
 
cuz all u 2 do is talk pure shit 
 
tigers are bigger thn lions and can win thm wit ease. Bears are bigger thn both cats and can kill a lion wit little effort.all of them are not the same size. By the way Jason i was watchin tht chanel 2 and the bear did charge d moose head on if u dont want 2 beleive fine but i saw it and i have no needs to tell a lie here where 2 loosers tht cant amit wen they wrong man . its ridiculous.
Posted @ Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:19 PM by Dave
kenny, eve in wildlife documentaries....all of the action is not always shown. however, the discussion was that a grizzly could kill a MOOSE, not an elk, with one blow. no one has proved that....not that i doubt it can happen. it could....however, it`s so rare.....likewise, the strike must be nearly perfect to be pulled off. 
 
also, jason, siberians don`t average 272 kg, though. the siberian tiger protect gave an average of between 160 - 195 kg.....and, not one tiger even weighed 500 lbs in scientific records (not that they couldn`t). 
 
also, the lion and tiger (siberian and bengal included) averages 9 ft in length. a lion of 8.5 ft is too short.....and, any tiger of 11.5 ft is exceptional.
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:54 AM by damon
Damon, first of all, I never say anything about the polar bears; I say that you put different sources about the BROWN bears of Alaska. And about the weight of the Polar’s, I have the complete documents (because it is not just one) and all the bears were measured during the spring or the summer, were the weight of the bears is not biased. So, stop discrediting the scientific information just because it destroys your dark agenda. 
 
 
 
And about the average of the lion and tiger, these are the REAL figures. 
 
 
 
*Amur tiger: 
 
Total length: 294 cm. 
 
Head-body length: 195 cm. 
 
Weight: 176 kg (S.T.P.) and 225 kg (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). 
 
 
 
*Bengal tiger: 
 
Total length: 283 cm. 
 
Head-body length: 191 cm. 
 
Weight: 213 kg (all the subspecies). Up to 235 kg. 
 
 
 
*African lion:  
 
Total length: 274 cm. 
 
Head-body length: 180 cm. 
 
Weight: 190 kg (all the subspecies). Up to 202 kg. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:54 AM by Raul
Raul, you see my point?...the weight of bears fluctuates between the years....a more reliable figure would be an average gathered of the same animals, throughout the year, as apparently, the bears lost quite a bit of mass immediately after spring......well, at least the polar bears. about the brown bears....that was indeed a different source i mentioned, but, it relates to the same records you mentioned.  
 
and, i do not agree with that average you gave for bengals, and, those records of siberians from sunquist were from hunters. if you want to include hunters records, why not include those of brander, or, for lions, those sources i took note of, that you conveniently chose to leave out?..... 
 
and, the lions averaged up to 179 cm in length......also, the method of measurement for those siberian tigers is not known?...do you have any info upon that?...i believe they were measured over curves?...and, tigers average 9 ft as well, as i have even more records on this subject.
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:33 AM by damon
I think that this theme about bears it was gone to far. They are heavier (both Polar and Brown) that any wild cat in the world, believe it or not. So, there is no point in continue this. 
 
 
 
About the weight of the Siberian tigers, I just put it there because is the highest gathered in literature, apart from that of Mazak. But I specifically put the average of the Siberian Tiger Project (S.T.P.) there, which is the scientific figure now. However if Dr Sunquist cite them (the average of 225 kg), is quite sure that this average is reliable. And I am not sure that the reference of these weights was quoted from Heptner and Sludskii, after all, there are not 9 weights in they book for gathered an average of 225 kg. Most of the weights in that book are of males from >300 kg and up to 400 kg!!! 
 
 
 
Bengal tigers don’t average 9 ft, and remember that I have ALL the references that you have, as matter of fact, many of “your” references are data that I have posted before. The best average recorded for the total length came from Brander, and he calculates the total length in 282 cm (between pegs). In my study, which I have not published yet for questions of time in the University, compute the SAME average total length, plus an average head-body of 191.5 cm (n=17) (or 191 cm, is the same thing). All the measurements used for this average where for males measured “between pegs” or “between sticks”. No male measured “straight line” or “over curves” was used. Like you can see, the average is the same, so it is obvious that the head-body were the same to.  
 
 
 
Finally, 180 or 179 cm, is the same thing Damon, a single centimeter is irrelevant. Even we can around the figures to 280 cm for the Bengal’s and 270 for the male lions. And the Amur tigers measured by the S.T.P. were measured in straight line, like ALL the scientific measurements of tigers, lions and jaguars in the scientific records. The reference for the scientific method for measure cats is in -Nowell & Jackson 1996-. 
 
 
 
These are the images of the book: 
 
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/4052/measurements2.png 
 
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/9018/measurements1.png 
 
That is the method used by the S.T.P. 
 
 
 
ALL the SCIENTIFIC measurements of tigers, lions, jaguars, ocelots, etc, were made with this method. The description of the measurement varies with the author (“along the curves”, “in straight line”, “in a line stretched in the back”, etc), but the method is the same. This is what Dr Sunquist and Dr Karanth had said to me. Believe it or not, this is the scientific method, and I trust in these measurements because they were no made by hunters with lust of fame.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:07 PM by Raul
..Raul, i only ever used your records from the siberian tiger project......i did not use any of your other records. the rest i found on my own.  
 
and, raul, those weights sunquist mentioned were indeed from mammals of the soviet union.....but, only the ones for which he could verified, such as when the area in which the animal was weighed was given, the person responsible for the measurements, ect. but, those so-called 400 kg tigers are bogus.  
 
and, for lions, the average is between 274 - 279 cm, as most sources state. want even more proof?....here are some records; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money061.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money062.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money058.jpg 
 
...note how the second source states that a lion of 9ft or over is a good average one. and, he has measured MANY lions....well over 25 adult males, in fact, though i`m unsure of the exact number. also, today i`ll be getting all meinertzhagens records of those east african lions he measured. 
 
along the curves can also mean measureing the curves of the body. but, i`ll except this, nonetheless. so, between pegs, siberians average 9ft 6 in....lions, between 9 - 9ft, 2 in. bengals, 9 - 9ft 3 in. 
 
and, the 279 cm figures was for the lion, not the tiger, from hollister. also, if you had the total number of male tigers mentioned by pocock, whom you often quoted, the average is UNDER 9ft.  
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:08 PM by damon
also, Raul, here is another source where the lions averaged 9 ft in length, and 420 lbs; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/420poundlion-2.jpg
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:50 PM by damon
Damon, do you really read your references or my posts???? 
 
 
 
First, prove that the weights of Sunquist (2002) are from Heptner and Sludskii, because I have the entire chapter of the Tiger and there are not 9 males, with out counting those of more that 300 kg. By the way, I never say that the tiger of 400 kg was a dogma of faith, I just mention it because is in the book. 
 
 
 
The four images of the lion measurements prove my point!!! The average male lion is of 274 cm or 9 feet and the male lions seldom exceed this (Patterson, 2003). Those images say to that the total length is irrelevant, and the lions of 279 cm in average, reported by Hollister, had just 180 cm in head-body, TAILS DON’T COUNT. So, like I had said many times, the total length is irrelevant and the head-body length is much more reliable. However, let’s see the other image, that with out reference, it says the same thing, lions of 9 ft. So, what is your point Damon? The average male African lion average about 274 cm in total length, but just 180 cm in head-body and its weight is of 190 kg. This is the SAME figure that I write in my last post!!! 
 
 
 
The third image, you see, the author say that the tiger have “advantage”, so he personally believe that the Bengal’s are heavier, by little, but heavier, and that’s the point of this entire debate. 
 
 
 
Finally, Pocock never state any average, he just put a list of males, and the average head-body is about 200 cm!!! The last male and the first female are NOT Bengal’s, this are Indochinese tigers from Bankachon and Megui. Remember that is those days that two subspecies were considered the same one. Besides, you simple forget that the tail is irrelevant, so if there is a total length with out head-body or tail length, this measurement is USELESS.  
 
 
 
If you dare to prove me wrong in this thing, put the entire pages of the books and they references, not just pieces of the pages. You are like a fanatic religious; you just use some pieces of the information. PUT THE ENTIRE PAGES DESCIEVER!!!!! 
 
 
 
Damon: “so, between pegs, siberians average 9ft 6 in....lions, between 9 - 9ft, 2 in. bengals, 9 - 9ft 3 in.” 
 
Damon, those of the Bengal and the lion are ranges, not averages weight. And bad ranges by the way. You want ranges, well: Lion 250-302 cm; Bengal’s 260-312 cm. That’s better. 
 
 
 
I will put the figures for you again, maybe this time you will ACTUALLY read it: 
 
*Amur tiger 
 
Total length: 294 cm.  
 
Head-body length: 195 cm.  
 
Weight: 176 kg (S.T.P.) and 225 kg (Sunquist & Sunquist 2002). 
 
 
 
*Bengal tiger:  
 
Total length: 283 cm. 
 
Head-body length: 191 cm. 
 
Weight: 213 kg (all the subspecies). Up to 235 kg. 
 
 
 
*African lion: 
 
Total length: 274 cm. 
 
Head-body length: 180 cm. 
 
Weight: 190 kg (all the subspecies). Up to 202 kg 
 
 
 
Like I say before, tiger (Bengal and Amur) are larger and heavier that lions, simple fact. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:44 PM by Raul
Sorry, my mistake. I put “not averages weight”, instead “not average total lengths”. 
 
 
 
The phrase is: Damon, those of the Bengal and the lion are ranges, not averages total lengths, and bad ranges by the way. You want correct ranges, well: Lion 250-302 cm; Bengal’s 260-312 cm. That’s better.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:50 PM by Raul
Raul, the reference sunquist used for those records was from the book, mammals of the soviet union. and, yes, i know there were more than 9 specimens mentioned, but, he only included those data which were such as info as the name of the person that weighed them, the area, ect. in short, he included all the RELIABLE data. but, i`ll prove it tomorrow when i go to the library. 
 
and, if 9ft is an average for lions, don`t you think they exceed that length?...i don`t agree with patterson. but, to prove my point, check these records out, of lions measured by james hamilton, between uprights (he specifically stated this); 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money063.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money041.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money042.jpg 
 
...so, what was that about lions rarely getting over 9ft?.... 
 
also, where did i say pocock mentioned an average?....i myself mentioned an average from the list of males he mentioned. and, i agree lions usually average 9ft, but, you seem to be neglecting to use hollister`s records.  
 
and, hollister`s lions had a body length of 180 cm, but most actually have a body length of 182.88 cm, or 6 ft....i`d rather be exact. 
 
..also, i didn`t show the whole page because the rest of the info had nothing to do with measurements, and, this site only allows me to post 3 links at a time (no idea why). likewise, i`d have to post twice as many links, as my camera cannot capture the whole page....only portions of it at a time.....you only need to see the part concerning the discussion at hand. 
 
and, what i gave of the lion was average ranges. and, i never stated your figures upon the lion, concerning weight, was wrong. what i have a problem with is your statements concerning the tiger. also, i wasn`t including the females from pocock`s list, but only the males...i`1l post the source in my next post. 
 
and, when we are talking of total length, the tail is very relevent. however, the study of hollister is just one study, another study upon tigers, gives an average body length of 6ft, and, i`m not talking of the one referenced by schaller.  
 
also, don`t call me a deceiver...i show only the data we are refering to....the other parts of the pages have to do with other such unimportant info that we are not even discussing.  
 
tigers average 274 cm in length, and 190 kg..but, i`ll prove this more later, even though james hamilton mentions an average of 400 lbs, and which i already showed.  
 
and, the tigers in the siberian tiger project were similar, or else smaller than the lions. so, what are you talking of?....likewise, the data upon bengals are too limited to make any conclusive statements upon the size of these animals. 
 
the highest sampling in scientific data concerning these cats is about 8 specimens....hardly a reliable figure. and, don`t start mentioning stuff about how many tigers are in that area....such studies usually last up to years, ample time to weigh living and upcoming tiger generations. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:53 PM by damon
and, here`s the records from pocock, in his book 'mammalia'; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money084.jpg 
 
...note the average of all the males....it was under 9ft.
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:56 PM by damon
Wow, there sure is alot of ignorance going on here-c'mon people, why do you have to get so upset over things for Odin's sake?! For th erecord, bears have killed an adult moose with one paw-swipe-my best friend and I saw this happen(a RARE occasion to see) while in upper Washington state hiking. We saw the moose and were watching it when all of a sudden there seemed to be an explosion out of the snow, this grizzly came flying out and a fight occured at which point he hit the moose and the moose went down and never got up-moose are 7ft at the shoulder! The largest bears have been weighed at 2400 lbs-in NJ in a zoo there is a 2200 lb bear-polar bears are largest. 
 
As for this outcome, i think the bengal tiger would defeat the lion-thats my opinion so don't start berrating me with derrogatory statements and your so-called facts. You wanted an answer, yoiu have mine-the bengal tiger!
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:37 PM by Attila Kane
Attila Kane, you mentioned the grizzly and moose had a 'fight', this suggests the bear did not kill the animal with one swipe....otherwise, there would have been no fight.
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:05 PM by damon
also, Attila Kane, i have many records which suggests the lion would be the usual winner. i have many cases of lions defeating or killing tigers, as well as studies upon the stamina of these animals, which shows that of the lion is greater. 
 
the lion also has that protective mane of his, and he is the more practiced at fighting....certainly the more willing opponent.
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:08 PM by damon
Damon, why you don’t put the entire table? There are some missing lions in the last part where you CUT the image. The statement that “the male lions seldom exceed the 9 ft long” don’t came from me, but from a scientist, and besides, the author of this book that you have show clearly say that he chouse just the largest lions that he considered worth to be mentioned, his exact words were: 
 
“I have selected the fifty largest males, and the twenty five largest females out of nearly double that number of each which were large enough to be worth measuring” 
 
You see, these records are like the final tables in Cooch Behar, this figures are biased toward the largest animals. So, at the end, the statement of Patterson stands: “male lions seldom exceed the 9 ft long”. 
 
 
 
About the tigers in Heptner and Sludskii, you don’t get me? I say that there are NOT enough “reliable” for gathered an average in that book, at least if you don’t use some males of more that 300 kg. And don’t go to the library, in Google book search is the entire chapter of the tigers, you can see it right now. 
 
 
 
I’m not neglecting to use Hollister, for the contrary, I thing that is one of the best reference in the theme of the head-body length of the lions. What I say is that the tail length is irrelevant, look this example: 
 
A lion of 280 with a tail of 100 cm in no the same that a lion of 280 cm with a tail of just 80 cm. Do you se, the total length is very deceptive and apparently is the worst measurement for calculate the REAL size of an animal. The total length was often used just for show records, but many of them are unreliable. Head-body length is one of the best measurements for calculate the real size of an animal, together with the chest girth. 
 
The difference between 180 and 183 cm is irrelevant, so is the same thing to me, you can say 183 cm, it doesn’t matter. 
 
 
 
About the pages, my camera is of just 5 megas and takes very clear the complete pages of the books, so this thing that “my camera cannot capture the whole page....only portions of it at a time.....you only need to see the part concerning the discussion at hand” is just another of your fool excuses. 
 
 
 
Just Brander have put an average of tigers measured between pegs, and all were just total length, however I put together all the tigers measured Between pegs (like I say in my previous post) and the head-body was of 191 cm. This is completely reliable and logic after all, the tail is about 1/3 of the total length, so a tiger of 283 cm in total length will have a head-body of at least 190 cm. Bengal tigers average 283 cm in total length and 213 kg in weight, and I have the reference for this. 
 
 
 
The Amur tigers are longer that ANY lions subspecies, but are lighter, about the same weight that the lions in Kenya.  
 
 
 
Damon: “the highest sampling in scientific data concerning these cats is about 8 specimens....hardly a reliable figure. and, don`t start mentioning stuff about how many tigers are in that area....such studies usually last up to years, ample time to weigh living and upcoming tiger generations.” 
 
This had been discussed so many times, that is irrelevant to repeat this, is you who insist in this stupid thing. The sample is reliable because the population is very low. Go and learn statistic, in the Highschool obviously!!! 
 
 
 
Finally, about the tigers in Pocock, the average total length there was of 279 cm, and the head-body was of 193.2 cm. So, where you get that the average was of less that 9 ft? And then you complain why I call you a liar. 
 
 
 
And finally, about the result, it doesn’t matter; the records that you use are OLD and can’t be confirmed. The consensus in the scientific (the real ones) world is that a fight between a tiger and a lion, it will be a 50-50 match. That’s why I don’t care your statements or those from the other about this “fight”, because the result is too vague to be completely accepted like a fact. 
 
 
 
The only REAL fact here is that the tigers (Bengal’s and Amur) are larger that any lion subspecies in the historic times. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:34 PM by Raul
Damon, by the way, what is the reference for these pics about the lion size?  
 
 
 
The next time that you post an image, at least take your time for putting the references, ok? 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:44 PM by Raul
Raul, i was only showing the lions 9ft or over, but, since you want the rest of the records; 
 
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/?action=view&current=d-money104.jpg 
 
also, you said the average total length of pocock`s tigers was 279 cm.....no it wasn`t. let`s look at the records; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/d-money084.jpg 
 
...and also, i used a calculator to determine the average length of those lions, but, at the time, i added all of the records (thought they were only males) by accident. but, the actual average is 9.13 ft.....about the same as those lions of hollister. i didn`t lie, merely made a mistake (a small one, though). 
 
and, of course body length may vary between individuals, but, as averages go, there would be little difference between studies.  
 
and, i do have to go to the library to get the full referrence of sunquist`s book (i already have the image for his records)to prove he used those records from the book, mammals of the soviet union, because, for all his records he mentioned, he also mentioned the referrences in which he got those records. 
 
and, how do you know the amur tigers were longer than any lion population?......i haven`t even shown all the records i have upon these animals, and, even now i`m looking for more. the amur`s only averaged 9ft, 6 in. or so, only 4 in. longer than those lions from hollister. 
 
and, the only way to be truly certain which one of these animals would win in a fight is to have actually witnessed many fights from these animals. and, most experts do not support the statement a fight between these animals would be 50/50. isabel thomas, who has a phd in animal physiology, from oxford, and author of the book, lion vs tigers: animals head to head, states the lion would be the winner. animal trainer clyde beatty, witness to many lion-tiger brawls, states this; 
 
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8765/books002g.th.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/books-83.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/books_002-78.jpg 
 
also, animal trainer loius roth, witness to many lion-tiger brawls states sometime the lion would win, sometimes the tiger. indian ruler, jam sahib of nawanager, as mentioned in the book 'journal of the zoological society of london (1956), witnessed 4 battles between lions and tigers, and on all of which the lion won.  
 
....in the book, lion`s n` tiger`s n` everything, a tiger was stated to have been the more accomplished fighter, and yet he ended up being killed, by a lion named king edward. clyde beatty also mentioned a case where one of his lion`s, sultan, took on and whipped every tiger in his act. he mentions a similar feat by his lion, duke, whom he states tore up nearly every tiger in his act, male or female. so, who`s the better fighter?.... 
 
i could mention more people who favor the lion as well. 
 
 
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 7:57 AM by damon
also, Raul, my camera is a casio ex-z9, exilim, with 8.1 mega pixels. while it takes clear portraits, the text is not all that clear. you have to keep the camera as steady as possible, or it`ll be blurry, and, the camera is small, only about 4 inches long, by an inch wide, and when i try to get the whole page in a book, i have to move the camera farther from the image, and then you wouldn`t see anything but a blur. and, i`m not lying. i could even prove it, if you want...but, when i come back from the library.
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 8:15 AM by damon
and, Raul, i got the info of the lion measurements from the book by james hamilton, called 'wild life in south africa'. i viewed the book at the library of congress, in d.c.
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 8:17 AM by damon
Raul, in one of my above posts i meant to say, when talking of the length of those males by pocock, that they did average over 9ft....i had made a mistake, though only a slight one....just wanted to get that clear. but just stop saying i lied. i can admit when i make a mistake, but, i`m not gonna lie about anything. lying proves nothing, and really, what`s the use?....i`m trying to prove a point..... 
 
Posted @ Friday, July 24, 2009 8:25 AM by damon
Raul, you said meinertzhagen weighed 16 tigers, yet, in his book 'kenya diaries', he only mentions weighing two specimens, and they averaged 216 kg....so, from which document did you get that meinertzhagen weighed 16 tigers?....... 
 
also, i have the referrences of the siberian tiger weights that sunquist mentioned in his book. i`ll show them later....right now, i`m uploading a lot of images to my photobucket.....
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 8:43 AM by damon
Alright, I found these statistics on the African Lion. 
 
 
 
Scientific Name: Panthera leo  
 
Range: Central Africa 
 
Average Weight: 
 
Female: 114 -126kg (250 - 277 pounds) 
 
Male: 204 -228kg (450 - 500 pounds) 
 
Size (Length): 
 
Female: 2100mm-2400mm (7'-8') with tail approximately 1050mm (3'-6") in length 
 
Male: 2300mm-2400mm (7'-8"-8') " " " " 
 
Diet: All lions are carnivorous. Lion prey consists mostly of large hoofed animals (ungulates) such as wildebeest, zebra, waterbuck, kudu, giraffe, buffalo and other large mammals 
 
Gestation Period: 100-100 Days (Averaging 103 Days)  
 
Cub Maturity: 18 months - 2 Years 
 
Cubs Per Litter: (Usually 2-6 cubs) Cubs are born blind and weigh 2-3 pounds. 
 
Lifespan: 15 Years 
 
Predators: Nomadic Male Lions, Hyenas, Man.  
 
Social Structure: Social groups known as "Prides" consisting of one or two males, up to seven females and 14-15 cubs of different ages. 
 
Territory Size: 250km - 500km (150-300 miles) 
 
Population (Wild): Estimated 40,000  
 
Conservation Status: The African lion is listed on Appendix II of CITES which means that an export permit is always required to transport the trophy. It was listed at the first Conference of the Parties in 1976. (All wildcats are listed on CITES Appendix I or II). The African lion is categorized as "vulnerable" by IUCN in the Red List of Threatened Species of the World. (IUCN/SSC). 
 
 
 
Now these stats are the TRUTH! 
 
 
 
In a little bit, i'll pick up some stats on the Bengal Tiger, bc that's what kind of Tiger we're using in the fight. And then Damon, i'll put down the website.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:34 PM by Kenny
Raul, here is my sources upon the weights given by sunquist, in his book 'wild cats of the world', as proof he got those weights from the book, mammalia of the soviet union'; 
 
siberian tiger weight records; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/boldchamp/boldchamppics005.jpg 
 
...notice the source of the weight`s of those tigers is the number 8...look at the next image; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/boldchamp/boldchamppics006.jpg 
 
...what`s the source for number 8?....
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:35 PM by damon
Kenny, you are not mentioning any actual records upon the weights, or length of these animals, as i have every modern document published upon this subject, concerning the mass of lions and tigers.......don`t follow what some website states....they are mostly likely estimates. and, in this case, i know for a fact they are. 
 
lions average 190 kg...the same as tigers. but, you should check out my forum; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.forumtwilight.com/index.htm 
 
...sign up.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:39 PM by damon
An average male Bengal tigers weigh around 420 pounds. 
 
 
 
The Bengal tiger has a body length of 6 feet and a tail length of 3 feet and therefore has a total length of 9 feet long. 
 
 
 
A female Bengal tiger is only 310 pounds and 8 feet long including tail.  
 
 
 
 
 
Bengal tigers are incredibly strong and are able to drag their prey almost half a mile even though the prey may be heavier than itself. 
 
 
 
A tigers coat can actually take on a variety of colours. The standard colours of a Bengal tiger are an orange body with black stripes coming down the sides. The two most common variations are the White Bengal tiger and the Golden Tabby.  
 
 
 
The White Bengal tiger is white with either brown or black stripes coming down the sides. The Golden Tabby is a whitish yellow colour, with amber stripes coming down the sides. Tigers have large fangs for killing and maiming prey. Bengal tigers have the longest canine teeth of any living felid measuring approximately 4 inches (100 millimetres) in large individuals. A canine tooth of a tiger is larger and longer than that of a similar-sized lion. Bengal tigers also have large, retractable claws that allow them to climb and kill prey. Their stripes help them camouflage as they stalk their prey. Bengal tigers have excellent vision and good hearing. 
 
 
 
The heaviest Bengal Tiger ever reported was 389.5 kilograms. Female Bengal tigers are considerably smaller and have an average weight of 141 kilograms (310 pounds), but they can weigh up to 180 kilograms (400 pounds). 
 
 
 
There you go Damon!
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:42 PM by Kenny
also, kenny, why would you put down the website?.....you weren`t right about those sources.....you merely reported the weight figures in some website, but they are not supported by scientific documents.
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:44 PM by damon
Kenny, most websites are not made by experts, by normal people, like you or me. and, quite simply, most merely report a well known 'estimate' of the size of lions or tigers, though the particular site you mentioned does give what i believe to be accurate figures, nontheless. i have every modern document concerning the size of lions and tigers, and many upon bears as well......
Posted @ Saturday, July 25, 2009 7:39 PM by damon
Tiger wins, for several reasons: 
1)Its bigger. 
2)It has bigger canine teeth: 
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8663/5701838603228332277.jpg 
3)It has a stronger bite: 
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b67/reddhole/ChristiansenWroeResults001.jpg 
4)It has stronger forelimbs: 
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b67/reddhole/BigCatsRadiusOverHumerusRatio001.jpg 
5)It has a protective mane as well: 
http://lh3.ggpht.com/mjbmeister/SGn8JVYA_RI/AAAAAAAAIB0/3CFi7WhChlU/s400/bengal-tiger-Luke-Robinson.jpg 
TIGER WITH THE WIN.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:09 PM by Gianmario
Also, the lions' taller structure isn't and advantage, its a disadvantage because the animals' vulnerable areas are on its undersides(the throat, the belly etc.) so a tiger would have an easier time striking the lions' vulnerable areas, than the other way around.
Posted @ Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:15 PM by Gianmario
Yeah, and plus, Lower center of gravity which makes the lion more easy to knock down than the tiger. 
 
 
 
Tiger will win!
Posted @ Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:01 PM by Kenny
...Kenny, are you sure the tiger will win?.....well, i don`t think so. check this fight out, from the book, lions` n` tigers` n` everything; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigerandlionfight.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigerandlionfight2.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/tigerandlionfight3.jpg 
 
i also have an account, reported by sir thomas laurence, where a lion defeated a tiger, and, almost immediately afterwards had to contend with a bear (russian/brown bear), and defeated his second adversary much sooner. 
 
 
in the book, clinical aspects of dysphasia, a lion was stated to have killed a tiger.  
 
..i also have two accounts where a lioness kills a male tiger. 
 
clyde beatty also mentions a case where a lion, named sultan, took on and whipped every tiger in his act.....he mentions a similar case with a lion named duke, whom he states tore up nearly every tiger, male or female.
Posted @ Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:05 PM by damon
whatever happened to Raul?.....we were having a discussion...and now, he hasn`t shown up in a while.....
Posted @ Friday, July 31, 2009 3:20 PM by damon
Wow, thanks for your concern!!! 
 
 
 
Actually, I have many work right now, so I barely have time to came here. But, maybe, if I found some free time I will return for the discussion. 
 
 
 
I am working in two different campaigns of Marketing for two different Enterprises, and developing, with my work team, a new product, new or innovated. So, as you can see, I have plenty of work.  
 
 
 
I don’t promise anything, but if I don’t found time for this, at least you can be sure that I will return until November, when I take vacations. 
 
 
 
See a latter, all of you. Bye. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, August 01, 2009 10:26 AM by Raul
Frankie......i don`t believe this would be an even match. studies have been done on the territoriality of tigers, by tiger expert Kailash Sankhala (tiger! the story of the indian tiger). He stationed two baits for two adult male tigers within hearing range of each other...yet, neither made an attempt to displace the other for the area.....not even in the form of growls.  
 
When tigers fight, according to Sankhala (through observation), they first start upon their haunches, with claws sheathed...until a nic or scratch which triggers both animals to unleash their claws, standing upon their hind legs and, with eyes closed, begin to swat at each other. Generally, he stated, the fight is over within 1 or two minutes. 
 
Tigers appear hesitant to use their jaws (as sankhala seems to indicate), and, the reason is simple; tigers live alone, and must therefore supply a meal for themselves. A tiger injured during a prolonged struggle, perhaps crippling him, would greatly hamper his hunting ability, likely meaning certain death. The claws, therefore, is an easier option, as there are less risks involved. And, such 'blind' swinging as Sankhala notes would likely result in neither animal being able to land any penetrating blow. 
 
However, tigers do fight.....but, not over land. most usually, serious fights are the result of two males fighting over a female, there most important resource. However, such fights are rare. Schaller (the deer and the tiger) also indicates that tigers seem to congregate more at kills, and mentions several cases of several tigers feeding off the same kill, with little squabbling, such as might be seen in lions. This makes sense, because, unlike lions, tigers, having only to feed themselves, can afford to share a meal now and then, and fighting, which may lead to death, is hardly worth the struggle.  
 
Schaller has further maintained that a tiger has 'priority' rights if he/she has reached a carcass first, and another specimen, even one more powerful, must wait their turn. He in turn states there is very little squabbling among tiger siblings. Lions are quite different by contrast, as there is much squabbling as each animal tries to get the lion`s share of the meat. This is due to the fact that there is no heirarchy in lion society, and such 'orderly' feeding as seen in tigers may result in some animals having little or nothing to eat. Male lions also appropriate any carcass from the females that should be smaller than about 100 kg. 
 
Fight amongst lions of the same pride is scarcely serious. When they do fight, they generally aim for the head and face area (according to Dr. Craig Packer, where little injury is likely to result. But, such fights are frequent, and Packer as well as Schaller quotes seeing many a lion with a numerous amount of scars from such fighting.  
 
Fighting amongst pride members is very similar to that of tigers.....though Schaller states "lions do not hesitate to use their teeth" (Serengeti lion). But pride members of course, just as the case is with tigers, seem not to want to cause there opponents serious injury. 
 
However, fights between rival lions, according to Packer, often leads to the quick death of one or more combatants. When rival lions fight, they avoid the mane area, instead attacking the rump and hindquarters, and indeed Packer states most injuries upon lions is found in that area. He further mentions the fights are serious, and indeed an open wound to the back area may become infected, resulting in the death of the animal. And of course, an injury to a hind leg may debilitate the animal enough so that his mobility is greatly reduced, and he is liable to be killed by a rival at some point, possibly during the same struggle. Sunquist has told me, via personal communication (email: sunquist@ufl.edu), that the first tiger captured by Dr. Karnath (a colleage of his) to be weighed, had an open wound to his spinal column, likely caused by another tiger. He later died from his injuries, likely as the result of an infection. This shows tigers can, and do fight in a manner similar to that of lions.....However, such is less frequent and, simply put, they are less practiced at it. 
 
Also, here`s an article (by george washington crile) which shows the greater organ and gland sizes of the lion, as compared with the tiger; 
 
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3110/1/V40N05_219.pdf 
 
...The lion, which was stated to have the most complex sympathetic system (i.e. Adrenal gland, Thyroid Gland, Celiac ganglia) than any large animal yet studied (intelligence, power, and personality)and the larger lungs as well, would have the greater stamina, and was also quoted, By Crile, as having the most fulminating amount of that 'instantaneous' energy known, as a consequence to his complex sympathetic system.  
 
studies has also shown the lion has the greater testosterone as well (table 2); 
 
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov10/articles19.htm 
 
...This is based upon studbook specimens.....even though further studies of the testosterone of wild african lions and hybrid bengal tigers indicate similar numbers. However, the data indicates (at least, based upon most records) the lion would be the more aggressive animal.....certainly more willing to battle, according to famous lion-tamer Clyde beatty, who stated; 
 
"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."  
 
Of course, from the above statements, many a tigerfan has certainly called him 'biased', or a liar. But, he made statements based upon many years observation, and also states, from observation, the tiger misses much oftener than the lion, and is therefore likely to tire faster. By the same token, the tiger also leaves himself 'wide open' more frequently. The tiger seems a less than practiced fighter, as compared to the lion. Beatty has also stated:  
 
"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."  
 
In a fight, the lion would/should be the usual victor. 
Posted @ Saturday, August 15, 2009 8:21 AM by damon
Why The Tiger Has a Better Chance of Winning: 
 
There is a popular notion that a lion is meant for fighting whereas a tiger is meant for hunting and hence a lion will win in a tiger-lion fight. Some people mention that like a pitbull can own larger dogs, a lion can defeat a tiger since, like the pitbull, the lion is meant to be a fighter. This is a bad comparison. That a lion plays the role of a fighter in a pride doesn’t make the tiger a worse fighter. The tiger is probably a more fierce predator. 
 
 
 
The ’strength’ analysis is of course an ideal one. A lot of them may prove to be invalid in real fights. Most of the ‘documents’, ‘eye-witness accounts’ and vidoes (though most of them are manipulated to suit the story of movies) show that there is more chance of a tiger winning the fight than a lion winning it. It seems that a tiger might be reluctant to fight at first. But if compelled to, it’s a much better and more powerful fighter than a lion. 
 
 
 
Size does matter. An average Bengal/Siberian tiger measures 10 feet and 500 lbs. Can measure up to 11 feet and ~620 lbs. Lions average 9 feet and 410 lbs. Can grow as large as 10 feet and 530 lbs. (Not considering the more extreme cases for either cat). Clearly, tigers have an advantage. Additionally, the build of a tiger provides much more balance and agility. The weight of a tiger is more evenly distributed over its body-length than that of a lion. A tiger’s tail, being heavier compared to a lion’s, makes it easier for the tiger to turn. And if the animal with larger size also has greater agility, it’s the one that should win more fights. Add to that the advantages of bigger paws, faster swipes and longer canines! 
 
 
 
An African lion, hailing from a place where it doesn’t get much competition from other animals, attacks from the word ‘go’. On the other hand, a tiger, coming from places where it fights bears, wild dogs etc, assesses the situation first and then goes for the kill. (Ok, lions, too, live alongside wild dogs. But they don’t clash much since lions live in prides. For the same reason, lions rarely fight leopards). For this reason, some animal trainers and experts have mentioned the tiger as an intelligent boxer. Additionally, the Bengal tigers are widely considered as being extremely aggressive when drawn into a fight. 
 
 
 
In 10 fights between the two in any natural setting and in non-extreme climate, I’d bet a Bengal tiger will own an African lion 9 times provided there is no bias in choosing the animals. I’d expect an average Bengal tiger of the Terrai (see above) with 530 lbs and 10′, to make a short work of an average South African lion (~410 lbs and 8.5′). Even pound for pound, a tiger is stronger. If it’s a smaller-than-average Bengal tiger, with size and wight similar to the lion’s, it should be 7-3 in favor of the tiger. 
 
 
 
Overall, there may be very few really big and aggressive lions that may defeat a Bengal/Siberian tiger, but on an average a tiger will win against a lion almost everytime. 
 
 
 
this make more sense than anything rite here.
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:35 AM by Andre'
Andre, you`ve merely copied some info frrom another site.....info which is, however, quite wrong. the lion actually averages 420 lbs, or 190 kg on average. that of the tiger is the same. and indeed, i have every modern document published upon the mass of these animals. 
 
The lions is also the more practiced fighter....certainly the more willing opponent. Just read my last post. Also, the average lion and tiger is 9ft in length.
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 4:27 PM by damon
well damon, even though the lion might be the usual victor, it could still go either way. That's what I mean.
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:42 PM by Frankie
...Frankie...what can i say?....i generally agree with that.
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:54 PM by damon
Isn't it oblivious Damon. Any one with eyes could see that. I'm just really here to ask questions now dont get me wrong but I am not attacking you like most persons here. So heres question one 
 
you say that lions and tigers are the same length but the lion is taller, wouldn't that make the lion heavier given that both cats are built alike? 
 
Two 
 
You also copy and paste link to other people's work, how is that any different from what I did? 
 
Three 
 
Have you ever been to any of Africa's or India's animal reserve? 
 
I know I have and I would like to say that lions don't fight as much as you make it seem. I've been to Norht Luangwz, Ngorongoro Crater, and the place where lions are plentiful the The Kalahari.  
 
Now I've been to this The Kalahari place 3 times already and planing to go again this Decemder. While I was there ,alot of rouge lions can be seen and these guys are big now I've witness lions trying to take over other prides and though the guides said most figth take place in the nigth no figth had happen at all. All the pride leaders did was intimidate the intruders and they ran. And i've seen this happen in six different prides. I'm no big cat expert, and most of the intruder had a good size mane just like the pride leaders. The guide also said that you can tell a lion's age by the color of its nose,pink nose means that the lion is around 2 yrs or under , when the nose is 50% pink then the lion is properly 2.5-4yrs old and fully black means its an adult, most of the rogues had black nose. 
 
 
 
now in your statements you said that lions are more willing to fight but 3 rogues against 2 pride leaders and you'll say 'Hey the rouges win' but after some intence moments the rogues who clearly had the upper hand ran, that doesn't seem willing to me, so I need you to explain that for me. 
 
 
 
In India I've been to Manas National Park 
 
though I've only seen like 4 or 5 tigers  
 
which cannot compare to the amount of lions I've seen in Africa, the tigers dont interact as much and well I guess that makes them figth less. But accroding to the guides Male tigers dont think twice before they start figthing over mates. Can you also explain the tigers who fight over mates in contrast to the willing rogue lions that flee?
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:44 PM by Andre"
Andre, yes indeed, i`ve said lions and tigers are the same length, and the lion the taller animal. However, the tiger has a proportionately longer spinal column (from root of the tail to the beginning of the skull area), exclusive of the head and neck, which is longer in the lion, overall length being equal. 
 
And yes, generally, i do copy and paste links to other people`s work. However, i also construct my own sentences based upon carefully viewed studies, rather than repeat another`s posts/source word for word, especially one which is not an expert upon the subject (no offense).  
 
And, as for your 3rd question....No, i`ve never been to africa or asia......but, is it really nessecary?.....the data to which most refer already exists, and indeed i have every modern document concerning the size of these animals. 
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:53 PM by damon
Also, Andre, yes, lions are indeed the more willing fighters. Studies by russian zoologists, for example, on a tiger`s reaction to a potential competitor, showed the tiger did not even approach the potentail arrival for hours, yet, a similar study on lions, done by packer, indicated the time at which lions approached potential competitors can be measured in minutes (from 7 to about 45 min), the latter of those times having to do with a single lion approaching 3 potential competitors. 
 
And, yes, sometimes a smaller group of lions, such as those in possession of a pride, can chase off/deter a large, but nomadic group. The reason is simple; lions which have a pride, according to studies by packer indicate these animals have a higher level of testosterone than ones without. this most certainly makes them a more aggressive animal......and, the intruders may get intimidated. 
 
and, indeed, i know precisely how to tell the age of lions....i have a scientific document upon this very subject, and of course many a scientist have made such statements upon how to determine the age of an animal.
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:01 PM by damon
I don't really want 2 burst ur bubble damon, but lions don't seem that aggressive to me, they sleep for like 20 hours a day, they're more laid back than how you describe them.
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:33 PM by Damon Walker
Damon walker, lions sleep up to 20 hours, but usually, it is a bit less. But, then again, tigers can sleep up to 18 hours. The reason for the lion`s great inactivity is that, in africa, it is extremely hot, and there large manes often cause heat stress....according to packer...so, most of their activity occurs at night.  
 
And, i described these animals based upon actual studies from respected scientists.
Posted @ Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:46 PM by damon
Like the old phrase say: “When the cat if gone, the mouse’s make party”. 
 
 
 
That is exactly what Damon is doing here. 
 
 
 
For all the new posters, looks this: 
 
 
 
First: The lions are NOT the usual winners, as matter of fact, the tigers, even been more caution, have won more battles against the lions than lions against tigers. 
 
http://indrajit.wordpress.com/bigcats/ 
 
These website have the largest account of fights that I have see, and some more data about these felines. Look that the tiger is the usual winner. This is a fact since the Roman times!!! It is awful to say that even there, Damon is spamming with his lies against the tigers. 
 
 
 
Second: Tigers and lions are NOT equal. This is a very well know fact, and this entire forum is full with explanations about this. Look my previous post, and you will see that the Bengal tigers and longer and heavier that any African lion, and the Amur tiger is, on average, as heavier that the East African lions, but is longer than booth, Bengal’s and lions in general. Tigers have longer bodies, broader heads and ticker arms and legs. The lions are relative taller, have longer skulls and more slender limbs, with a belly more drawn that the tiger. It is a an interesting fact that the American cave lion, even when he was heavier than the lions and tigers in this days, it have more slender limbs than the lions in this days. 
 
 
 
Finally: Look this other website, it have more information about the conflict between tiger-lion, and again, it show that the aggressiveness in not a very important fact in a fight, after all, even a bold champion can be defeated by a more cleaver fighter, or a more decided and stronger fighter. 
 
http://www.freewebs.com/jackjacksonj/ 
 
http://www.freewebs.com/jackjacksonj/tigervslionaccounts.htm 
 
There are other interesting facts in this same place. 
 
 
 
It is good to say that the suppose “scientific” references that Damon uses are just reports of biased animal-trainer like the evil Clyde Beaty and some personal thought of hunters about the theme. But there is no one serious scientific study about the result of a fight tiger-lion. As matter of fact, if you ask the REAL scientist which have worked in the field, they will say that the probabilities are about 50/50, with the tiger having a slight advantage. He is just buffing here (and all the other places were he spam). It is better to make a personal investigation that just simple believe in a person that have even win the highschool. 
 
 
 
In base of all this evidence, it is safe to say that Tigers ARE larger and heavier that lions, this is a Scientific, scholar and popular FACT. 
 
Posted @ Monday, August 17, 2009 11:24 AM by Raul
Raul, i have seen those accounts shown in the wordpress.com site. In fact, i used to occasionally post there..still do, every now and then. Trust me, i have a great deal more records than what was shown on that site.....i can show you, if you want?.......; 
 
 
 
likewise, you stated aggression is not very important in a fight. That is far from true. Clyde beatty mentioned many a time where a tiger has run from a lion, and this was due to his more persistant nature.....in other words, the lion had been the more willing opponent.  
 
 
 
And, there is also only one battle recorded between of a fight between a lion and tiger in the coliseum, by martial (in his epigrams), and the tiger won, but, according to manfredi, who later quotes the same account/record, the tiger won 'surprisingly', suggesting such was not the usual occurence. Now, here are many battles in which the lion has invariably won; 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/37/master/1/ 
 
 
 
Also, i`ve contacted many a scientist on this matter, and, one, such as frank mendell, favors the lion. Only packer ever told me the tiger may defeat a lion, and then, later, he re-thought this suggestion when i brought up many a records of lions and tigers, and also showed a clear indication of how the lion fights, as compared with the tiger. 
 
 
 
And, your size statistics are wrong, Raul. And, how is Beatty evil?.....most of the fights which happened in his arena were by accident, and ones which were staged were not even his idea, but was instead a part of the script for a movie. Likewise, Beatty did not merely report an opinion on this matter, but rather, made a judgement based upon long observation. And, i also have many more records than what i`ve shown from Beatty.
Posted @ Monday, August 17, 2009 12:01 PM by damon
both of you (damon and raul) are crazy!! 
 
 
 
They showed this fight on Animal Face off, and the lion won by locking the tigers windpipe. 
 
 
 
And have any of you played the animal face off game, all you do is put an animal to an animal and it will tell you the outcome of the fight. 
 
 
 
to be honest, I don't know why everybody gets bent out of shape arguing on this RETARDED website, this website sucks! And u 2 (damon and raul) need to quit wasting ur lives typing stuff to each other when none of you agree with one another. 
 
 
 
Here's the answer to Lion vs Tiger: 
 
 
 
Lion wins because he is an awesome fighter, and he has a protective mane around his neck, tigers don't have that. 
 
 
 
But please quit fightin' fellows!
Posted @ Monday, August 17, 2009 5:23 PM by Damon Walker
u c? I just put down my opinion, that's what ur supposed to do.....am i correct? 
 
 
 
no body on here is a scientist, ur all just geeks on ur computers, thinking that u know everything about these animals. 
 
 
 
and when you go out of ur way to try and prove somebody what u know is correct, then good luck damon, it really looks like it's working. 
 
 
 
and raul ur guilty of doin the same thing, ok...... don't take this to offense but...get a life people!
Posted @ Monday, August 17, 2009 5:34 PM by Damon Walker
My opinian is that the tiger would win most of the time and not because he is bigger and stronger but becuase of his figthing style. Lions aren't used to fighting standing up but tigers can fight both ways, on all threes or standing up.
Posted @ Monday, August 17, 2009 7:17 PM by ZeroMan
Ja ja ja!!! Damon, your stuffs about the “equal size” are completely wrong, tigers are larger and stronger. 
 
 
 
Second, if you quote the accounts of Indrijarit, why you NEVER mention those about the tiger wining? With out mention that the tiger have won more times. These show your true dark agenda. 
 
 
 
Third, Clyde was obviously evil and biased. He was even judged by cruelty with animals. His book is garbage, and you can’t believe in a killer which says that he is innocent when his own actions show otherwise. 
 
 
 
Finally, the aggression is not important, after all, the individual stage of the animal is something that nobody can say for sure. You can’t say that the lions are more aggressive, especially when we had seen many lions running from the fights. The momentum is a variable that nobody here has take in count. But, like Damon Walker say, I am wasting my time here. No matter how many times I have corrected you, you will never accept the true. 
 
 
 
Final answer, tigers are larger and in a fight with a lion, they will win. Bye. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:50 PM by Raul
Raul, for starters, the tiger does not have more wins. Did you actually view my records i showed?...there were MUCH more for the lions. Just those from clyde outnumber all of those on the indrajit site, for the tiger. 
 
And, how is Clyde evil?....i`ve read his books, and, while he was accused on abusing his animals (which he talked of), with no witness as to his supposedly abusing them, it was never substantiated. He also made note of his training methods in the big cage, and, i scanned those images. And, in what way was Beatty biased?...can you explain this?...Is it because you disagree with his statements?......He did not merely make a claim. He made a statement based upon years of observation. 
 
And, you have not corrected me...it is quite the other way around. You just refuse to believe it. And, lions are indeed more aggressive. Many people who has staged battles between these animals, stated the lion was usually the first to attack....even Sankhala, a tiger expert, agrees the lion would be the usual winner, and Clyde has stated that, from 40 years of observation, it was the lion, not the tiger, which was invariably the attacker, while the tiger habitually tried to avoid him.
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:04 PM by damon
Damon give it a rest please because no matter how much time you post no one is going to believe you. almost everybody here disagrees with except lion fan boys and not honest people.
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:13 PM by Chady
Chady, i supported my statements with actual documents, from scientists. And indeed, i have many.  
 
And Raul, tigers are not larger than lions, nor are they stronger.....i`ll publish a document (a professional looking one) to prove this.
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:26 PM by damon
I agree with chady, no one gives a crap about a document from way back then or even recent, you are just to post ur coment and leave.  
 
y do u think on discovory or animal planet or even national geography they say the tiger is bigger abd stronger its because they dont give a fuck about those document. please man give ur computer a break.
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:37 PM by damion
Damien, what do you mean, no one gives a crag about an old, or recent document? The documents i showed were, for the most part, recent, and, likewise, they were based upon actual studies by scientists. National geographic often quote estimates of what they believe to be the size of an animal, and of course no accurate test of the strength of the lion and tiger has been done in recent years.
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:52 PM by damon
Jessee man what i meant was they aint saying lion an tiger r the same size like u 
 
its just a cooment dont take it seriously 
 
also in 2005 aniaml planet brougt 2 shows that said tiger r the strongest cats and the other said that "bcuz the bengal tiger is at 50kg more that a lion a tgier cud beat a lion, dont attack me if u want to fite som1 fite animal planet cuz they were the ones that said a tiger can kick the fuck out of a lion not me u neardy dimwit
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:04 PM by damion
fuck man get a real life
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:05 PM by damion
Damien, i know what you meant. I disagree with nat geo, which was my point. I`m not merely reporting a guess on the sizes of these animals, but something based upon actual knowledge, as i have every modern document published upon the weights of both lions and tigers. 
 
and, i`m not attacking you. Merely stating my disagreement with your post. Also, merely stating tigers are 50 kg heavier or that they are stronger, is not proof of that statement, nor is it based upon any actual records. One of those documents was comparing the asiatic lion to the bengal tiger...even then, little records exist for either of these animals, and the measurements are, at best, merely suggestive of the actual, average weight of these animals. The other was merely the same quote, copied, with no basis as to the statement, as the person who made the statement (simon king) has never weighed lions or tigers. 
 
also, i have a life. But, do you?....
Posted @ Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:17 PM by damon
oh come on damon, what kind of immature shit was that? "I have a life but do you" you sound like a fucking kid. 
 
 
 
and you sure seem proud of yourself, because every post i read from you it always says "As I have every modern document published upon the weights of lions and tigers" lemme tell you waht though, what everybody is trying to say to you is that we're not buying it, we have our opinions and you have yours, ok? 
 
 
 
Now don't attack me becuz it is not necessary to attack me, i'm just telling you how it is, and stating your disagreement is almost the same thing as attacking, people don't like to have somebody argue against what they believe to be correct! Ok? 
 
 
 
Now what you can do for everybody is just quit commenting towards other posters, we don't need your so-called knowledge of these animals attacking us for what we put down, we're just putting down our comments, ok? 
 
 
 
I'm sorry to say such a thing, but, I think you need to get your head examined by a psychiatrist, becuz I really think you're crazy! 
 
 
 
That's all I have to say 2 you. This is what I think you're worth! 
 
 
 
"I agree with chady, no one gives a crap about a document from way back then or even recent, you are just to post ur coment and leave." 
 
 
 
What else could it mean?
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:43 AM by Brad
Tiger will win (And yes, i'm SURE about it damon). I can't believe you're still on here giving everybody hell!!! 
 
 
 
Damon, you cannot and will not convince me on your ignorant bullshit!! How many times have you seen me put that down? Well If you're sick and tired of people like me not agreeing with you, then how do you think I feel? I simply don't believe that Lions can whoop Tigers in a fight! Do not say anything, because you cannot and will not convince me otherwise!
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:53 AM by Kenny
Please, don't even bring up those documents!! You can stick them up your ass!! They're worthless, I simply don't believe in them! I will buy anything Animal Planet says than anything you say, Animal Planet is called "Animal Planet" for a reason you stupid fool...They have highly qualified scientific experts on wildlife on Animal Planet and Natioal Geographic and Discovery Channel, and the Science Channel all the time!!!!! ALL THE TIME!!!!! And every single thing they say is the complete opposite of what you say! I don't believe you! I DON'T believe you! Do you understand what I'm saying, when I say DON'T?
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:11 AM by Kenny
WHOA!!!! come on people, all of yall sound crazy! 
 
 
 
Brad, quit bein' an ass! ;) lol. 
 
 
 
....and kenny, I already don't like you that much, like I said if you want to fight, my info is on that shark vs orca deal! You're getting onto this damon guy for spreading his stuff on the internet, but the fact is, YOU do the same thing fellow. Not to mention, you've been caught lying your ass off several times. Why don't we all just get along and start off new! Can any of yall contact this Al guy and ask for more fights, because it's getting out of hand, alot of people are having aneurysms shouting at some other geek on the computer, and damon, you're really not helping the situation, there is 460 something comments on this blog, and a big majority of them are angry and long and..I just don't like readin' them. 
 
 
 
Alright, peace out!
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:02 AM by Frankie
lol damon what a big lie u r tellin about havin a real life 
 
ha ha ha 
 
u do have a life' a life that revolves round lions and tigers an nothing more  
 
notice u make more comment more than any 1 else and u lyin that u have a real life . if u want a real life get off ur computer. and get some fresh air
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 1:54 PM by ryan williwm
To damon: They did perform a strength analysis on all animals and the tiger came in 1st for strongest carnivore and fourth strongest animal on the planet.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:30 PM by Kez
Brad, i wasn`t attacking anyone. The point of this board, correct me if i`m wrong, is for discussion?....Lion vs tiger, to be exact. So, my comments are every bit as welcome as that of everyone else`s. Likewise, i do indeed have every modern document published upon the weights of these animals, and, i can prove it, if you want?...... 
 
And, what i 'believe' to be correct can be supported with actual evidence. And, i don`t give a DAMN what you think of me.....why the FUCK do you care what posts i comment on, or not?....
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:19 PM by damon
Kenny, i assure you the tiger will not win. And, i don`t care that you disagree with me. That`s cool. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. However, i can support my statements with actual documentation. Likewise, there are many records of lions defeating or otherwise killing adult male bengal tigers, so, your statement that lions will not win does not hold much in the way of fact.  
 
Lions are of greater stamina, can execute a more effective immediate attack, and are likewise more aggressive, certainly the more willing opponent. Studies also seem to suggest they are more practiced at fighting as well.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:24 PM by damon
Kenny, which of my documents don`t you believe in?....all of my documents are from reliable sources, such as those of scientists, or, in the case of those concerning the organ weights and gland sizes, from respected sources often quoted by many a scientist, as well documented cases of lion vs tiger accounts, from eyewitnesses.  
 
Discovery channel, as well as nat geo, though reliable in some points, sometimes quote estimates, or else well known figures in scientific literature, that has no basis as to it`s origin. I can prove every statement i have made. Can you prove a tiger would be the usual winner in a fight, with actual documents, and, not merely video evidence', which we all know can be edited in favor of one animal or the other. Im talking about documents concerning territoriality, fighting tactics often used by these animals, as well as behavioral differences and aggression, all of which may contribute to a win in any fight. Not to mention stamina. Also, rex, that animal planet 'countdown' to the top 10 strongest animals, is not an actual comparison of strength, as no studies has actually been done. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:34 PM by damon
We dont give a fuck what you post but its when some1 say a tiger can kick the fuck out of any lion then you start commentin against them , cuz if we cared we wud be sayin" yes u r rite the lion is the same size as the tiger" we dont care we just hate seeing you here cant u see no one cares? wat r u blind, stop lettin ur life revovle around lion and tiger get a real life not just a life a real one 
 
 
 
its not hard u know cuz it seems every1 here as one but u. ur here almost everyday dont u have a girl friend to pay attention to or a dog or work or something? and like u said if u dont care wat people think then dont comment against me u fuckin stupid jackass neard shit.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:00 PM by Dave
Dave, why comment if you don`t care?.....and, i`m not doing anything different that others do here. That`s the whole purpose of this blog, which is to discuss lion vs tiger topics. If you don`t want to discuss the topic, why offer your opinion?...... 
 
And, i study many different animals, not just lions and tigers. So, what are you talking about?.....and, i have a job. I only post here on my free time. and, as for your other question.....none of your business.  
 
and, i don`t comment against all post. I tend to stay away from the really unintelligent ones.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:09 PM by damon
Damon: “And, i study many different animals, not just lions and tigers. So, what are you talking about?.....and, i have a job. I only post here on my free time. and, as for your other question.....none of your business.“ 
 
That most be a very fast job, because he has much FREE time. He is spamming in “AVA forum”, in the “Indrijarit forum”, in this forum and even in the forum of the “lion vs bear”, with out counting Youtube and his own forum were he is spreading his lies. And about the studies, he just has misinterpretations of some studies. Actually, he say that he now about animals, but he just have VERY OLD pics from books, gathered form his eternal Google book searches. 
 
 
 
Damon: “and, i don`t comment against all post. I tend to stay away from the really unintelligent ones.” 
 
Another Lie, he answers to every simple post of anyone. He can’t stay with out say the last word!!!  
 
 
 
Again, Damon (A.K.A. BoldChamp, BrentonLion, etc, etc) is just spamming the web against the tigers. He is not best that the poachers.  
 
 
 
Conclusion, Damon is a liar and a deceiver, and the tiger is the real King of the felidae family. Better, impossible. 
 
 
 
Nobody give a cent for you or your words, ja ja ja, sorry for you. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:35 PM by Raul
Raul, i don`t have MUCH free time, as you say. It only takes but a minute or so to post a comment...and, after answering a few more comments, which still takes about 3 minutes, i`m usually done, though i occasionally check for replies every once in a while, if i`m still online. 
 
And, i also don`t give a fuck whether you agree with my words, or not. I`m not spamming any forums, nor have i ever spread false info....all i`ve stated can be proven via reliable records, many of which are quite a bit recent. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, August 19, 2009 11:50 PM by damon
Uhhh, bad language, I think that you are showing your real colors. 
 
 
 
And ALL your statements can be invalidated with a simple analysis of your own evidence. So, you haven’t proved anything.  
 
 
 
Finally, thanks for proving my point; you can’t stand with out the last word. Mmmmm, what weird. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:15 AM by Raul
Raul, i don`t care if i have the last word, or not....the thought never even crossed my mind. And, neither of my statements are invalidated. And, when i publish my new document (it`ll be professional looking) i`ll prove my points. And, as for the reason i lost my temper in the last post?...well, stop calling me a liar, and a fraud....i told you already i never lied on this or any other forum.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:23 AM by damon
Ok, I forgive you. 
 
 
 
Finally, here is my investigation about the size of the Bengal tiger. Is in Spanish, but I will make a translation into English in November, when I have vacations. If some one what a direct translation, I will do it gladly. 
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18228383/Valvert2009Tamano-y-peso-del-Tigre-de-Bengala 
 
This is the way that a professional work most be presented, not the copy-paste of images. Look that I only use the data which I have the complete reference. Incomplete references or simple pics with no reference are useless in a REAL investigation. I will make a complete presentation in the AVA forum, if I have the time, of course. 
 
 
 
About your document, let’s see it, after all it will contain the SAME data that you have posted everywhere, and that nobody had accepted, except just the “hard-core lion fans” obviously. 
 
 
 
Well, I am tire and I will go to sleep, after all, I most be awaked to the 6:00 am.  
 
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:04 AM by Raul
Just a little correction, I meant to say “if some one want a direct translation”, I will do it gladly.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:07 AM by Raul
Raul, i`ll show my document when i finish it, which may be today. But, i`ve seen you`re document, however, i understand very little of it.  
 
And, about my document?...There is also data i did not show, as well as a much better comparison.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:11 AM by damon
Damon, my document is NOT a comparison, after all, my goal was just found the real dimension of this subspecies (the Bengal tiger), not make fun in a comparison where I put whatever I want. If you make a comparison, let see if your data match with the already published information. And remember, you can’t put anything that the documents itself had not published. After all, when you write a scientific paper, you just can make conclusions in base of the data available; it’s almost like Wikipedia, just that in this case, you can put your conclusions.  
 
 
 
I know the proper way of writing a serious document, so I will evaluate your paper when you published. Look that I am not saying that I will judge it content, not, that will be latter, I am just saying that I will evaluate the form of the paper, and possible I can correct you some aspects if there is the need, with no retribution, ok? 
 
 
 
Damon: “But, i`ve seen you`re document, however, i understand very little of it.” 
 
But how this could be? As far I remember, in the AVA forum and even in some occasions here, you had say that you know some of Spanish and you even try to correct my in some grammar, so you where exaggerating in this to, mmmmmm, what weird!!! 
 
 
 
Happily, I understand both languages for equal, Spanish and English, and now some little of Russian, thanks for the constants translations of the documents of Slaght et al. and Curley et al. One learns a little every day!!! 
 
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:38 AM by Raul
This is what is wrong with you Damon any tinme we say the tiger wins or it is bigger and stronger and we give you our proof you say its wrong. Well I have a question for you how do you that all your Documents are correct?, were you there when these guys wieghting these cats? how do you know that they are not just exagarating the size of these cats? Whats your proof some vintage documents that you dont know if its correct because you weren't there.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:30 AM by BJ
Raul, yes, in do know some spanish...but, that`s it, just some. Like, por favor (please, gracias (thank you). De nada (you`re welcome). felicidades (congradulations). and a few others which i have learned. i`m currently learning spanish now, but, my knowledge is not yet extensive. i never said i was fluent in spanish, but, at the same time, i can construct a proper sentence. However, 'what weird' (which is what you stated) is not proper at all. You mean, 'how weird'. 
 
And, indeed, i know that i can`t put anything that the existing documents did not state......just as i did with my last one. But, someone is currently helping me with my spanish, and i`m trying to become conversational at least within a month, by learning about 10 words and phrases a day.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:37 AM by damon
Bj, the documents i have were of specimens of lions which were actually stated to have been weighed, the same with the tigers. that is confirmation of the documents within itself.  
 
But, how could you state to have proven you`re point, if you believed anything like that?...Likewise, i have every modern document published upon this subject, so, i`m sure i know what i`m talking about. Likewise, i have many records of lions defeating or otherwise killing tigers, as well as data upon organ and gland weights, muscle mass, ect.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:40 AM by damon
again like i said, you keep stating that! 
 
 
 
u wanna cuss at me damon? fuck you you chickenshit liar! 
 
 
 
It says post comment on this blog, not have a discussion or share ideas or anything like that, so you're fuckin' wrong you idiot. 
 
 
 
i'm not calling you a flat out liar, but i think you exaggerate things quite a bit, and you really seem like you're under a lot of stress, calm down. 
 
 
 
but don' t you dare cuss at me you little son of a bitch!! I'm a grandfather ok? I don't need to be talked to in such a way. It's disrespectful. I told you not to attack me and you did anyways, the reason i'm on here is i'm retired and i have nothing to do. My whole life I was a carpenter, so don't you dare disrespect me like you did! 
 
 
 
I always thought the tiger would win, that's just my opinion, you don't need to try and bully me, or you can just get your ass stomped! 
 
 
 
by the way, how in the world would u get all of those documents? where would u get 'em?
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:32 AM by Brad
.............damon........... 
 
I think that both of these animals are pussies, and they would both kill each other. And your stupid, nonsense comments are what's making everybody MAD at you, you scared little kid, do you have a stuffed lion toy? I bet you do. 
 
What's the matter damon, do you have a girlfriend? You didn't answer that guy's question, are you a loser damon? Is your dick too small? I bet it is. 
 
I think you're alone most of the time damon, comment something negative to me and i'll just laugh, because i think it's funny when someone gets mad, i laugh at stupid people that can't control their tempers, it's comical. 
 
 
 
You can lie to me damon, but I know the truth about you, in fact, you might've met me before, if not, you will one day.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:52 AM by Carl Black
Brad, i cussed because of what you called me in your previous post, such as a 'fucking kid', and, that i was crazy, and so forth.  
 
I never tried to bully anyone. But, this topic is called, lion vs tiger....so, that is, if i`m not mistaken, the main theme. That`s all i talked of.  
 
And, where did i get those documents?....well, i got a lot from google/google book search, the library (where i scan the images from books) and websites started by experts in the field.  
 
And, i believe the lion would win, and, while that is essentially an opinion, i can back my statements with actual, proven data, such as that upon stamina (which is in favor of the lion), explosiveness, aggression, willingness to battle, protection of the mane, ect. I also have many records of lions defeating or otherwise killing tigers. For more info, check out my new forum (and join) here; 
 
wildanimalelite.yuku.com.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:07 PM by damon
Carl black, i very rarely lose my temper, and then i only do so when people incessantly call me a liar, when i stated many times i did not.  
 
And, what do you mean, i can lie to you?....i`ve never lied on this, or any other forum. I can present the data for everything i`ve stated.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:11 PM by damon
come on Damon I posted here a few weeks or a month ago and my proof was that of Nat. geo and Disc. Channel which you say was wrong though it makes for more sence than you do. But then again you are the same guy that said a brown bear cant kill a moose with one blow to the back but then you changed your mind and said it can happen. want proof read some of your own post on the topics. that just prove that you have no idea or what you are talking about. and maybe you really are a fucking kid who dont know a fuck.
Posted @ Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:54 PM by BJ
go guyz change whatever is written in wikipedia.they r showing the truth dat tigers are larger, heavier and longer than lions, go change it and stop spreading the truth,people shouldnt know dat tigers are superior to lions.......... 
 
Posted @ Monday, August 24, 2009 6:32 PM by nayan
ok a male lion is lazy but when it comes to fighting the lion will when and of course in every video you see its a small lion vs a adult male tiger but if you put a adult male lion vs a adult male tiger the lion will WIN and thats why its called the king of the beast
Posted @ Tuesday, August 25, 2009 7:15 PM by arturo
Please the lion is only called the king of beast cuz of its mane, did u know that in some parts of africa where there are no lions the leopard is the king of beast, u even have a set of people that worship the crocdile and see it as a god and not the lion, also in most of asia it is the tiger that is known as king and guess wat lions also live in asia but u dont here it being called the king most of the time now do u.in south america the Jaguar gets that title so know some facts before u post also tiger kills lion 8/10 times. whether they r the same size, or the tiger is bigger or smaller it will win most of the time.
Posted @ Wednesday, August 26, 2009 11:59 PM by Vic
Vic...the lion would most usually win in any fight with a tiger. They are of equal mass (according to most records). Lions also have the greater stamina, as well as being more explosive (according to studies by george washington crile) and with a large protective mane as well. I also have many records of lions defeating/killing tigers.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:24 AM by damon
I really like this BJ person after he post its like damon just Diappeared from the lion vs tiger . but now hes back i wish BJ wud jus post agian and shut u up from the lion tiger talk by askin a ques u cant ans like the one about the bear killin d moose
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:36 AM by Dave
Dave..i can answer any question that might be put my way (at least, to the best of my knowledge) but, the reason i was gone for a while was that i was on another site, and also working on publishing an online document. I already published one before...
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:48 AM by damon
After reading a few comments I can see that many people approach this question without utilizing there brain.  
Some assume that the Male lion is lazy. Well they are out every day patrolling there territory and sent marking the borders making sure there are no other male Lion intruders. They fight off any intruding male Lions that come into there territory. they patrol the territory and fight off other males to protect the pride including the cubs. They also insist in taking down larger prey such as Buffalo, Hippo and sometimes even Elephant. The coalition Male lions (adult males) tend to stay on the fringes of the territory patrolling and thus hunt on there own when they need to, and have the opportunity to. If the females make a kill near by they usually barge there way in. But after protecting the entire pride they really deserve this. However they tend to share with the cubs, but if they make there own kill they usually never share. There is however allot of anger while eating, and the females I have noticed tend to push there way in.  
Male lions have more Stamina then Tigers, and have a thick mane making it allot harder for a devastating bite to be delivered by the Tiger.  
Tigers tend to be heavier and longer however Lions are taller and have more testosterone then Tigers making them more aggressive. One purpose of a mane is to intimidate rival Male lions. Tigers would also be intimidated by the Large mane, and makes the Lion appear bigger, and may cause the Tiger to back off even if it is slightly bigger.  
There is also a very good chance that there would be at least 2 males, as they tend to try and take over a pride in pairs or more. Coalition males are often brothers kicked out of the birth pride at the same time and stick together for there life. So the chances are great that the solitary tiger will run into 2 or more male lions. The females do sometimes back up the Males during fights, not so much against intruding males, but against other predators such as Hyena. Same may go with the Tiger. So the Tiger may be up against 8 or more lions and lionesses.  
This of coarse doesn't mean the Tiger would loose. the Bengal Tiger on average are slightly heavier and stronger. There solitary life style may give them more experience even though lions do end up in fights. Tigers are slightly faster though don't have as much stamina, and are also more agile.  
If the Tiger isn't intimidated by the Lion mane, and there is only one Lion the possibly heavier, stronger Tiger would win. Any other Tiger sub species would most likely lose.  
 
If the Bengal tiger is on average that slight bit heavier and stronger then the lion then it would win. Of course both are quite evenly matched in terms of weight and strength. It all depends on who delivers the first devastating bite or hit that ultimately results in the win for them and loss for the other.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:28 AM by Justin
What you are sayin is true but you need to look at the fact that tigers are solitary animals and cant afford to get injured so if a tiger was faced up against 1 or more lions the tiger wud run and the lion didnt have to relay on his mane to do the work but if it didnt have a chioce but to fite it can hold its own against 1 or 2 male lions regradless of age/size.The other fact is the way the animals fite, tiger tend to fite while standin on they're hind legs I'm not sayin lions dont fight like this but the tiger can stand on its hind legs for a longer times than lions can. I've seen in zoos where the lions used the trainers as support while they were on thier hind legs and the tiger didn't even need the trainer to get up on its hind. the lions wud more likely take more damage than the tiger wud not to mention the tiger is bigger, even thought the lion as a mane the tiger can attack esle where like the hind legs of the lion but the fite can go the other way puttin the lion on top but more likely the tiger wud win most of the time. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 10:20 AM by Vic
To Vic 
 
There is documented evidence that Tigers do get intimidated by a lion mane. One purpose of the Lion mane is to intimidate other animals by the size of it. Sure the Bengal Tiger won't always be intimidated, but in the Roman times when they would throw a Bengal and African Lion in a cage together it was noted that Lions with Bigger Manes the Tiger would almost always back down and try to retreat.  
Your saying a Bengal Tiger that averages 487lbs would loose against 2 male lions that average 420 lbs. Sure the lions are slightly lighter but they are allot more aggressive. Have you ever heard the saying "it isn't the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of fight in the dog". I know neither are dogs, but weight isn't the only factor, you have to consider every factor including testosterone levels which is higher in Lions.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:34 PM by Justin
Check PBS.org it said in the roman times the tiger usually defeated the lions get ur fact straight and stop twisting the data
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:20 PM by Dave
Vic, actually, the lion, just as the tiger, can fight upon his hindlimbs, and indeed, there is a case mentioned, where a lion fights with an adult male bengal tiger, using such tactics, and he ended up killing him. Here it is; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/41/master/1/ 
 
Also, studies by george washington crile, on the organ and gland weights of lions and tigers, show the great superiority in the lion, and, consequently, the greater stamina. Here is a link to one of his studies; 
 
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3110/1/V40N05_219.pdf 
 
Further studies also show the lion has the greater proportion of red blood cells, which suppiles needed oxygen to the body in a time of crises, such as of energy expenditure. Also, check out george washington`s book, intelligence, power, and personality, from pages 56 - 86.  
 
Tigers are also no larger than lions, contrary to popular belief, and of a less quarrelsome nature. When lions fight pride members, they generally slap at the head and face of the opponent. This seems to be to prevent serious injury, as an injured pride member cannot fight as effectively, and every member is much needed. In most cases, in fights between members of the same pride, they use mainly their claws, which is an easier option than the teeth, their most dangerous weapons, though schaller still indicates lions do not hesitate to use their teeth in battle, and many a lion has been seen with bite marks. Tigers, much like closely related pride members, fight by aiming at the head and face of their adversary, upon their haunches, and this seems to be to avoid the worst of injuries, as they must supply food for themselves, and in injured incurred during battle may hamper their hunting ability.  
 
When lions fight rivals, they generally avoid the mane area, attacking instead the hindquarters and rump, and the fights are serious. indeed, in injury in those areas may become infected, or, the lion may, in getting bitten in the spinal column, become lame, and apt to be killed.  
 
Studies indicate that in serious fights between tigers, they fight in a similar manner to that of lions. But, they are simply less practiced at it. the lion would, on most occasions, be the usual victor.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:40 PM by damon
Dave, there is only one recorded instance of a fight between a lion and tiger in the roman coliseum, by martial, and, the tiger won, but which was later quoted by manfredi as being 'surprising' suggesting such was not the usual occurrence. Likewise, there are many records of lions defeating tigers, as well as documented records of these animals fighting in the circus, and, the lion was the usual victor.  
 
I`ve seen a few sources state that martial said the tiger 'always' won....but, that was not the case, as he only mentioned one fight.
Posted @ Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:46 PM by damon
you peole r simply spreading the propaganda that lion is superior to tiger. all these bullshit that lions have greater stamina and they r not smaller than tigers . u guyz r simply spreading lies. and u guyz are real loosers who doesnt wanna face the ralities of life. u guyz live in fantasy land .go read some good books related to facts and not fiction.u can also search the web . theres no point arguing out here. simply TIGERS are bigger and stronger. there are instances tigers killing brown bears which are known to have much higher stamina. plzzz... guyz who are supporting the lion educate yourself
Posted @ Friday, August 28, 2009 3:59 PM by nayan
to nayan  
 
Your telling us to educate ourselves. Your the immature idiot that thinks the only important thing is weight. A Bengal Tiger on average weighs 487lbs, 67 lbs more then the average weight of a Lion.  
It isn't always about weight, you have to include stamina, testosterone, and physical features and defenses such as a mane. I am not saying the Lion will always win I am just saying that you can't assume that just because the Tiger weighs 67 lbs more it is going to win. The purpose of a mane is to intimidate any challengers as it makes it look bigger. Plus it is rather thick giving it more protection. The Lion also has more testosterone making it more aggressive, and more stamina to keep it up longer.  
 
I totally agree that the Bengal Tiger the majority of the time will probably win, but you can't just assume the Lion will lose because of a slight weight difference.
Posted @ Friday, August 28, 2009 6:55 PM by Justin
To nayan 
 
The last paragraph in the last message I posted was sent by my idiot brother when I left the room. He really thinks the Tiger will always win.  
 
I don't agree, I still think the Lion will win. Like I was talking about Lion testosterone is what is going to push it. Lions have one of the highest levels of testosterone in the animal kingdom.  
Also nayan you seem to be grouping all Tigers together. You do realize there are 6 survivng subspecies of Tigers in the world of which only 2 are heavier then a Lion, and the Bengal only by a bit.  
Your probably comparing the brown bears Bengal Tigers have killed to that of a N.American Brown bear. The Brown bears that Bengal tigers would run into are significantly smaller then the N.American ones and only weight maybe 200lbs more then a Bengal Tiger not much more then that. A N.American brown bear exceeds 1000lbs, and Kodiaks can reach 1500lbs. Your also contradicting yourself. First you say the Tiger would beat the lion simply because it is heavier and stronger, yet the Tiger beat the Brown bears even though the Brown bears are heavier and stronger.  
Your just thinking like a 6 year old. How about you try some research think a little more about it rather then just weight and muscle then come back and argue so you don't appear to be a mental patient.
Posted @ Friday, August 28, 2009 7:14 PM by Justin
Nayan, the lion would indeed be the usual winner in any fight with a tiger. I have actual records from scientists in the field, and i`ve found little, if any differences in the size of these animals.And, lions do indeed have greater stamina. Look at this article, which shows the organ and gland sizes of many animals, including the lion and tiger (by george washington crile); 
 
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3110/1/V40N05_219.pdf 
 
Also, check out crile`s book titled 'intelligence, power, and personality', which you can find on google book search, and which shows the lion, compared with any other large carnivora, has the most complex celiac ganglia of any animal yet compared, and the most fulminating form of that 'instantaneous' outburst of energy of any animal of comparable size, including the tiger. They also have the larger lungs, adrenal and thyroid glands, which would most certainly equate to higher stamina. In that latter mentioned book, go to pages 56 - 86 (intelligence, power, and personality). 
 
The lion also has that protective mane of his, and greater levels of testosterone as well. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, August 29, 2009 5:42 AM by damon
Tiger Rules Always win
Posted @ Saturday, August 29, 2009 6:38 PM by Alu
Damon can you not read U said the lion can fight just like a tiger can,Did u not see that I wrote that, What are you blind? But the tiger can stand like this for longer I've seen it my self, And Justin did you not see that I had agreed with your statment I just added the fact that these animal fighting style are different and I would still put the tiger on top not because it is bigger or stronger but because of the different figthing style. And it is more based on the individual itself.
Posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 12:31 AM by Vic
I agree with Vic you guys in an Africa zoo there was a case where they had put a 150 kg tigress in a 223kg lion's cage in hopes of produing a liger but the tigress was really easy to piss off the lion was of mild nature ,every time the lion went near the tigress she burst out with roars and started swipping madly at the lion and all the lion did was back done and hid in a corner, and as you can see this male lion had the potential to easily cause serious damage and could proberly even kill the tigress but he didn't he instead stayed clear of her until zoo keepers had to separate them, but the same thing could have happen if it were a 150 kg lioness with a 223 kg male Bengal tiger, so it is more based on the nature of the animals.
Posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 12:40 AM by Hadarri
To Vic  
You say that the Tiger is more likely to win based on it's stance. The Tiger is fighting in a Bipedal position, but they can't maintain a bipedal position, and it isn't as natural for them. Tigers like Lions are suited for Quadrupedalism, and thus are more comfortable in this position and are more balanced. A Tiger being able to hold a bipedal position longer then a Lion doesn't give it an advantage, it give a Lion more of an advantage as the Lion is more stable the Tiger isn't.  
 
Bears and Tigers both fight in A bipedal position allot of the time, but the thing is both of the fighting animals are in this position using both front paws. A tiger in a bipedal position is going to have trouble hitting a Lion in a quadrupedal position.  
You also mention that a Lion would take more damage because of this supposed advantage the Tiger has over the Lion with Bipedalism. The Tiger in this position is leaving its chest and stomach open for attack to the quadrupedal Lion, not to mention the hind legs. Also you mention this bipedalism as an advantage to attack the hind quarters of the Lion, how when the Tiger is in a upright position, with less agility and mobility as it would on all 4's.
Posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 2:46 AM by Justin
Hadarri- you got to remember that is just one case, you can't base any scientific proof on just one case. You need thousands of cases with similar or the same results to classify that as proof.  
However you did mention it was a mild Lion. This shows that it has probably been with humans since the time it has been born, so it isn't going to be as angry, ferocious, and aggressive as it would be in the Wild. Therefore would be a tame Lion, that is constantly calm.  
Also how old was the Lion. You can tell by there mane, was it a short light colored mane, or was it full and dark.  
I don't know what was up with the Tigress though, she may have been in heat and was acting aggressively,s the Lion may not have been suitable, or she didn't want the Lion to be her mate. She may have also realized a difference in species and acted on that. But the Lion backing down would most likely be due to constant contact with humans.  
 
I'm not trying to be a ass, but there are explanations to why this would occur in a Zoo. It would likely be different in the Wild.
Posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 2:56 AM by Justin
Vic, the tiger is neither larger nor is it any stronger. Likewise, to which studies do you base the statement that tigers can stand upon their haunches longer than lions?....well, that technique did not due much in this fight, though it helped the lion; 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/41/t/Lion-kills-a-tiger-in-a-circus.html 
 
 
 
And, you should know that all cats generally fight in a different manner, though i do agree that lions and tigers often employ different tactics when fighting rivals, and this actually favors the lion. The lion, when fighting pride mates, generally slaps at the head and face area, with little use of the teeth. This makes sense, as their teeth, the most dangerous weapon, can cause serious injuries, and so the claws are an easier option. Likewise, they attack the head and face where little injury is likely to result. 
 
 
 
However, when lions are fighting rivals, they generally aim for the rump and hindquarters, and the fights are serious. An open wound to the lower spinal colmun can get infected, which would most certainly spell death for the injuryed animal. Likewise, a bite in the hindlimbs may cause his adversary to become lame, resulting in his getting killed, as mobility, and indeed his ability to hault his opponents attack is reduced. 
 
 
 
Tigers, by contrast, fight by standing upon their haunches, much like pride mates. And, like lions, it seems to be to avoid the worst of injuries, as a lame tiger cannot hunt as effectively. Tigers can, and do, employ such tactics is seem in rival lions, though less frequently, and really they are less adept at it. 
 
 
 
The lion also has that protective mane of theirs. If a tiger should go for a bite, he may, in certain instances, misjudge the distance, and, instead of biting the neck, as intended, gets a mouthful of mane. Likewise, his claws may get tangled in the lion`s wiry bush, as the lion vs tiger fight account that i linked to shows. 
 
 
 
The lion would be the usual winner.
Posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 9:05 AM by damon
Both cats grew up along side humans the tigress was 4 yrs old and the male lion had a big mane. Well in Africa we dont use the mane as a method of telling how old lions are but we use the color of the animals nose, a lion with a pink nose is most likely to be 2 years are younger, a nose that is half black means the lion is older that 2 years but younger that 5 , the male lion had a full black nose meaning he cuold be 5 years old or older. I still base my theory on the nature of the animals.
Posted @ Monday, August 31, 2009 10:35 AM by Hadarri
justin 
 
U ASSHOLE MIND UR LANGUAGE WHEN U SAY SOMETHING AGAINST ME. I AM RELYING ON FACTS N NOT FANTASIES ... ....TIGER WOULD ALWAYS WIN THATS IT...... NO POIN ARGUING WITH U ASK ANY DAMN CAT SPEACIALIST N CLEAR UR DOUBTS
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 7:57 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN< the lion would be the usual winner in this fight. From eyewitnesses who has actually seen many liomn vs tiger fights, they favor the lion. Clyde Beatty, lion-tamer, states one of his lions, named sultan, took on and whipped every tiger in his act. 
 
 
 
Another of his lions, named duke, accomplished a similar feat, as he tore up nearly every tiger in his act, male or female.  
 
 
 
He also mentions the lion was invariably the aggressor in any copnfrontation between these two, and that the tiger would usually run....this was based upon 40 years observation. 
 
 
 
I also have many records of the lion killing or otherwise defeating the tiger.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:37 AM by damon
Don’t you get tired of saying the same bullshit again and again Damon? 
 
 
 
First, the great mayor part of scientist believes that the tigers are the top cat in the world, but just for not enters in this stupid game they give a 50/50. Reeling your statements in the evil murder of Beaty show how biased are you. Your dark agenda hade failed already, no matter how many times you put your lies, nobody believes in you, just those stupid “hard-core lion fans” which don’t see that they “god” has been ALWAYS in the second place. 
 
 
 
Second, that thing of the stamina is a myth from you, based in the silly study of Cryle. Every REAL expert will say to you that the lions, together with ALL the cats had the worst stamina in the world. They can’t stand a fight for much time; dogs and bears had the best stamina and the best set of energy among the carnivores. Look the documentaries and you will see, not just read OLD books with non-updated information. 
 
 
 
Finally, your thing about that the lion had more testosterone is a complete LIE. Look this: 
 
http://tigerkingoflion.webs.com/apps/blog/show/313618-reality-check-for-lionfans-busting-the-myth-and-false-propaganda-spread-by-liarweb-tigers-are-more-agressive-than-lions-with-concrete-proof- 
 
The male Amur tiger had more testosterone that the male lion!!! That comparison between the Bengal and the Asiatic lions were of CAPTIVE animals, so, it is obvious that they conditions were abnormal. 
 
 
 
You see, you are basing your statements is pure misinterpretations. Easy to correct you, the tiger is larger, and will win this fight. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:19 AM by Raul
DAMON 
 
CLYDE BEATTY ONLY PREFFERED LIONS OVER TIGERS, DONT TRY TO ALTER THINGS COZ IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT  
 
TIGERS USUALLY WON MOST OF THE TIMES WHEN DRAWN INTO FIGHT WITH LIONS.SEARCH SOME REPUTED WEBSITES WHOM U CAN TRUST N C WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE BEAST.WHEN ALL BIG CAT EXPERTS HAS AGREED Y U GUYZ KEEP ON SPREADING LIES
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:24 AM by NAYAN
I THINK THERES NO POINT ARGUING OUT HERE WHEN PEOPLE R NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT FACTS.ONE LAST THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ON THAT PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN THAT TIGERS ONLY HUNT SMALLER ANIMALS AND LIONS KILL ZEBRAS, WILDERBEAST,WILD BUFFALO AND EVEN ZEBRAS IN COLLABORATION OF THEIR SO CALLED PRIDES 
 
ACTUALLY THE TIGERS HUNT THE LARGEST PREY AMONG TIGER AND LION THE GAUR WHICH IS THE LARGEST WILD CATTLE AND MUCH LARGER THE BUFFALLOES KILLED BY LIONS.TIGERS HAVE KILLED LARGE BULL RHINOS N EVEN BULL ELEPHANTS."AND THEY KILL THIS ANIMALS ALONE WHEREAS LIONS DEPEND ON THIER PRIDES" 
 
I GUESS I DONT HAVE TO PROVE THAT TIGERS R SUPERIOR IN TERMS OF THESE.IF PEOPLE STILL WANNA STICK TO LIONS ....ITS THEIR FIXATION WITH LIONS. BUT FACTS R FACTS THAT TIGER IS THE ULYIMATE CAT STRONGER ,FASTER,HEAVIER.....U CAN ADD ANY OTHER.....IER TO THE LIST. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:44 AM by NAYAN
Raul, you are wrong on this on. For starters, i was the one who posted those testosterone studies....that of the lions was based upon inbred populations. Here`s more studies (though it should be noted the asiatic lion and bengal tiger study was of studbook tigers); 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/43/master/1/ 
 
 
 
And, stop calling me a liar...the study i showed upon african lions was higher than that of the siberian tigers, but within the range of those mixed bengals. And, that does not show tigers are more aggressive, which is based upon more than just testosterone, even though the studbook specimens had relatively low testosterone levels.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:09 AM by damon
Also, nayan, Beatty actually seemed to like tigers a bit more. His statements upon the lion vs tiger discuission was not merely an opinion, but instead based upon long observation. And, where have i lied?...i have actual studies, as well as eyewitness accounts, to prove my statements. 
 
 
 
 
 
i could mention many a person which favors the lion in a fight...but, what good`ll it do. Just because one person should favor that particular animal, doesn`t mean that animal would win in a fight. Instead, i base my statements upon actual, concrete studies. Also, that study by george washington crile (which is not the only study i have) shows the superiority of the organs and glands of the lion, as compared with the tiger, and indicates an animal slightly more adapated to stamina, as well as an animal more designed for an effective immediate attack.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009 10:30 AM by damon
Lion vs Tiger 
 
Tiger wins: 
 
7-8 out of 10 fights
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:48 AM by Dave
Nayan  
Like hell you are basing yours on fact. you are basing your decision simply on the fact that a Bengal Tiger weighs 67 lbs more then a African Lion. First that is very little weight difference, and second weight isn't the only factor to consider. Like I and others have mentioned, Testosterone, defenses, Stamina, all play a vital role in determining a winner not just weight. A simple definition of testosterone, higher the testosterone level the more aggressive the animal will be. Stamina is simply endurance, how long the animal can go before tiring. Tigers have poor Stamina, they tend to chase prey no further then 120ft before giving up, now lions aren't exactly A high level of Stamina but it is higher then a Tiger, and if your to tired to fight you die.  
You appear to be a terrible speller so I can only assume you are 10. How about you pick up a book do some reading other then just on Wikipedia, learn that weight isn't the only important deciding factor then come back and argue.  
I am not saying that the Lion will always win because nature doesn't work that way, you can never be certain what nature has in store, and you can never be 100% positive on what to expect from nature, But you can also say the same about the Tiger they aren't necessarily always going to win either.  
Weight does play a role in many fights, but that is only if there is a significant difference in weight. In this fight there is a small difference.  
 
Now if it was a Amur Tiger and A African Lion I would definitely be siding on the side of the Amur Tiger because they are much bigger, and in that fight weight would play a major deciding factor.
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:01 AM by Justin
Ah come on people this is a site about animal fight why is spelling so important here?
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:20 AM by Ace
justin, actually, tigers are no bigger than lions, according to most reliable records, and indeed i have every modern document ever published upon this subject. 
 
and dave, you actually believe that site?...well, how about this one; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/37 
 
one more; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/35 
 
also, siberian tigers actually weigh less than most lion populations. Here is a list of the weights of 11 adult male amur tigers, from the siberian tiger project; 
 
http://s277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/?action=view&current=anexo71averageweightkga.png
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:43 AM by damon
JUSTIN 
 
FROM WHERE U GOT 67 POUNDS DIFFERENCE I DONT KNOW. BUT STILL IT IS ALMOST 30 KGS . BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW THE DIFFERNCE IS BOUT 50 KGS NEAR BOUT 110 POUNDS. SO I DONT KNOW WAT BOOK OR WEBSITE U R FOLLOWING. ( ITS ARGUABLE) KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK (ASSAM) 'S TIGERS R CONSIDERED TO BE LARGER THAN ITS SIBERIAN COUSINS.IF U HAVENT GONE TO KAZIRANGA GO THERE N WATCH THOSE GIANTS. THEY HAVE THE REPUTATION OF KILLING ADULT RHINOS. I GUESS U MIGHT BE KNOWING THAT. GREAT INDIAN RHINOS R JUST A BIT SMALLER THAN THE LARGEST SPECIES OF RHINOS FOUND IN AFRICA . U CAN GUESS THAT THOSE RHINOS R ALSO NOT SMALL.WAT BASIS U R TELLING THAT LIONS HAVE LARGER THIS N THAT AND HIGHER STAMINA. U SHOULD BE KNOWING THAT ON THE CONTRARY LIONS HAVE THE LEAST STAMINA AMONG THE WILD CATS. THESE R SCIENTIFIC FACTS NOT INTENDED TO COUNTER U. CAN U PROVE THAT LIONS HAVE MORE STAMINA THAN TIGERS?JUST NAME ANY REPUTED WEBSITE MENTIONING UR SO CALLED FACTS. I NEVER CAME ACROSS......I GUESS NO ONE OTHER HAS...EXCEPT U LION FANATICS.DONT MIND U GUYZ R SIMPLY HOPING AGAINST HOPE TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT LIONS R SUPERIOR.
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:12 PM by NAYAN
Attila, i did not mention any starving weights on grizzlies, and i told you this, many times before. The grizzlies were weighed THROUGHOUT the year, not merely during a specific time of year. 
 
 
 
That would give a more accurate characterization of the average weight of these animals. here are the records at my forum (sign up); 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/39 
 
 
 
also, lions have reached 900 lbs, at least in captivity. Peter jackson, big cat expert, mentions, on the animal planet website, a male lion of 930 lbs. 
 
 
 
In those studies which i have shown, even the largest bears were about 930 lbs or so, perhaps a bit more. 
 
 
 
and, the tiger isn`t the biggest of the big cats......people has believed a lot of misconceptions about the grizzly, and such abnormal sizes are one. Most of those records stem from unreliable measurements from hunters, or age specific groups measured at their largest.......which is biased.  
 
 
 
Grizzlies are no larger than lions, and they also do not regularly reach 850 - 900 lbs...that would be an overlarge specimen, though they are certainly capable of such weights. No reliable expert will state grizzlies are twice the size of lions......
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:21 PM by damon
NAYAN, the kaziranga tiger`s has never been measured. Likewise, lions actually have more stamina than tigers, due to their larger organ and gland weights, which can be noted here; 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/14 
 
 
 
also, tigers aren`t larger than lions, according to most records, and indeed i have every modern document published upon this subject...all from experts in the field. Likewise, the siberian tiger actually averages less than 170 kg, according to studies by the siberian tiger project....here are the measurements of the males (weights at the top of the forum); 
 
 
 
http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/reply/28245#reply-28245 
 
 
 
So, what are your excuses now?....
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:28 PM by damon
Actually damon I will believe anything that disagree with you because you are just a bias nerd. 
 
Except Justin I might not be on the same term as him but he brings a far better arguement that you do.
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:25 PM by Dave
NAYAN That really is the avg size and there really is only a 67 lbs diffrence between the 2 cats shown by only the most recent studies. Now don't get me wrong I'm on your side I do Believe a tiger can beat a lion in most fight 
 
7/10 for the tiger.
Posted @ Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:54 PM by Ace
Nayan  
You just can't seem to accept the fact that the Tiger isn't the best at everything. Here is a link that states the average weight of an adult male Bengal Tiger is actually less then what I have been saying:  
http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/bengal-tiger-pc.cfm  
 
Here is another one, again a average weight less then what you are claiming:  
http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/rainforests/bengaltiger_about.html 
 
Here is a link of the African Lion weight  
http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/lions-pc.cfm  
 
Here is another link showing the average African lion weight range:  
http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/P/Panthera_leo/  
 
As you can see it is falling right on the dot or pretty close to that of a Bengal Tiger.  
The heaviest CONFIRMED weight of a African lion was 699.6 lbs, while the heaviest CONFIRMED weight of a Bengal tiger was 568lbs. Both those weights were wild animals as captive animals doesn't count. Of coarse those are just single animals which don't prove nothing, you just seem to enjoy basing your results on pathetic meaningless information.  
 
As for Stamina I am also referring to the same link Damon provides:  
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/14  
 
The larger the heart the more red blood cells filled with oxygen can get pumped around the body, and faster to as it is a bigger heart. A Lion also has bigger lungs meaning bigger lung capacity so more oxygen can get to those blood cells. This all means that the Lion has more stamina then the Tiger. The reason why Tigers live in forested areas with lots of bush is because they can't run far for long, so this type of habitat allows for them to get allot closer to prey and not have to chase it for long. This lack of stamina the Tiger has is what has caused it to not be able to migrate into Africa. So even though the Tiger is powerful, that means jack shit if it tires much easier and sooner then the Lion does. The Tiger will get to tired slow down not be able to fight as effectively, as the Lion continues pounding away at the Tiger.  
There has been previous attempts at seeing how well a Tiger fares at catching prey in Africa. Well Tigers fail horribly at catching prey. The open Savannah of Africa doesn't favor the Tiger at all, so prey is able to spot it easier and get away from the Tiger without even trying.  
 
 
Now that I have given you evidence how about you start providing me with some. It seems that your just pulling this information out of your ass. You claim that the Tiger has more Stamina, and weighs 110lbs more yet you haven't backed it up and your telling me to back my info up.  
 
 
I am a zoology student, I have seen both of these cats in the wild, seen both of them hunt, and both of them fight. I spent 6 months in Kenya, and 3 months in India. I know what I am talking about and I have read my Professors research papers on these cats, as well as scientists from Africa and India who also published research papers.  
 
I am not saying the Lion will win all the time, Of coarse the Tiger is more powerful, and on average heavier but not by much. You seem to think the Tiger will always win simply because of a slight weight difference, but you aren't including all of the factors your just concerned about weight.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 3:19 AM by Justin
No there really isn't a weight difference at all. All average weights for both cats are the same. There are instances where a Bengal tiger does weigh more but that is also dependent on where you find them. In northern India the Bengal tiger weighs more then any other population.  
I am trying to get Nayan off of the weight topic but that seems to be the only thing he is concerned about.  
But yes there really is no difference in weight. When I was in Africa for 6 months studying the Big cats the Big cat expert over there had information of multiple males exceeding the weights of male Bengals in India. I went to India for 3 months to study and the Tiger expert there had the info on multiple weights as well, which many were less then the Lions.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 3:27 AM by Justin
JUSTIN 
 
WHERE U FROM ? I JUST WANNA TELL U GUYZ R REAL LOOSERS THATS IT.PEOPLE OF THE WEST SOMEHOW R THE OTHER WANNA BACK ALION UP WITH BASELESSS THEORIES BOUT LION N TIGER COMPARISON.I DONT WANNA PROVE ANYTHING TO U. I JUST WANNA TELL U WON. BUT THING IS THAT FIRST OF ALL VISIT INDIA N WATCH THE TIGERS IN THE WILD . I GUESS THOSE 3 MONTHS U R CLAIMING IN INDIA I GUES IN SOUTHERN PART OF INDIA. THEV TIGERS OUT THERE R REALLY SMALL IN COMPARED TO KAZIRANGA, GO N VIST.I TOLD YA GIVE ME SOME NAMES OF SOME REPUTED WEBSITES.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 5:33 AM by NAYAN
Dave, regardless of your comments, i produced the data to prove my claims....did you?....not only do i have every modern document upon the weights of both lions and tigers, and indeed a great many documents upon bears, but, i also have many lion vs tiger records, and a few lion vs brown/polar bear records as well. Do you? 
 
i have data upon the organ and gland weights of these specimens also, and which further confirms my statements that lions will be able to execute a more effective immediate attack. I presented my argument, and produced the data as well. 
 
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 8:38 AM by damon
Tigers are no larger than lions....here are some reliable documents; 
 
From G.L smuts, on the average body mass of lions; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/5981xe1lqg-1-1-1.gif 
 
Now, from Dunbar Brander, who had been a member of the zoological society of london; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-14.jpg 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/Image-104.jpg 
 
Even though i do have more records, and populations of both lions and tigers have exceeded the above mentioned weights, they are the most reliable, as they are based upon a wide range of specimens weighed. 
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 8:52 AM by damon
NAYAN  
 
Again where is your evidence to back up your claims. You continuously tell me to give you proof, but then you try to make a completely opposite claim without even trying to back it up.  
Yes Bengal Tigers will weigh more in different geographic locations, same thing happens with lions, bears, mountain lions, Moose, Sharks. That is why you do a average weight of the entire subspecies not just the ones in a particular region. It it African lion vs Bengal tiger, not African lion vs the Bengal Tigers of Kaziranga.  
Give me reliable proof that Tigers are indead bigger then Lions. The Amur tiger still considered the largest big cat in recent studies on average weighs less then 500lbs.  
 
There is very little proof out there of average body weights, because there hasn't been allot of weights taken. Look up anything by Peter Jackson, he is a big cat expert and even says himself that there is no difference in weight between a African Lion and a Bengal tiger.  
 
You also got to look at it this way. It is very doubtful that if both cats did indeed meet up in the wild, the Bengal tiger would come across a single male lion. The Tiger would more then likely come across a group of nomadic lions, a coalition of lions, or even a pride of lions. If it ran into a pride, then the Tiger would have to deal with males and females. Remember One single lion makes clans of Hyena as large as 20 members run away, while there are several reports of Bengal and Amur Tigers getting killed by a dozen or so dogs.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 6:47 PM by Justin
Damon don't you realize I don't care what you have to say, you can come back with the same thing over and over again I don't care about your post my mind will never be changed.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 10:51 PM by Dave
Justin Dhole dogs will more likely attack a tiger than Hyenas would attack lions. Tigers are salitary animals and the dhole dogs know that but lions are almost never alone, Just like you I've been to both africa and india but I have been in India 2 times and in Africa 5 times. The guide told me that where is is one male lion there is likely to more not far behind and the Hyenas know this so thats why they run. And I have seen it for myself more than once.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 11:05 PM by Andre'
The hyenas are feeding then one male lion runs up to the clan, some of the hyena leave but some stay then not long 2 or 3 males join the First male and the rest of the clan leaves, Tigers don't have back up like that.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 11:09 PM by Andre'
JUSTIN  
 
U MIGHT BE QUITE PROUD DAT I HAVENT PROVIDED U ANY PROOF. I WONT. I AM ASKING ANYBODY WHO HAS BEEN BE WRITTING THIS AND DAT BOUT THE GREATNESS OF LIONS, JUST SEARCH THE NET N TYPE WHICH ONE IS A BIGGER CAT THE BENGAL TIGER OR THE LION. AUTOMATICALLY U WILL FIND NUMEROUS SITES .GEENUINE HA. DISCOVERY CHANNEL OR NATINAL GEOGRAPHIC. AND JUSTIN WAT U WANNA PROVE UR RESEARCH IS CORRECT N WORTH N THOSE BIG GUYZ OUT THERE R FAKE . WHEN THESE GUYZ IS GONNA SAY DAT BENGALS R EQUAL IN SIZE COMPARED TO ALION . I WILL BLINDLY ADMIT DAT.PLZ STOP ALL THESE . THERES NO POINT ARGUING. U URSELF KNOW DAT BENGAL TIGERS R BIGGER THAN LIONS. I JUST WANT TO ADD ON ONE LAST THING WHICH I ADMIT,THE CLAIM U R MAKING MAY BE TRUE TO CERTAIN EXTENT NOT BEYOND DAT LIONS R OF EQUAL BODY WEIGHT COMPARED TO A TIGER AS WE ALL KNOW DAT SOUTH INDIAN TIGERS R MUCH SMALLER THAN THE NORTH INDIAN ONES.IT MAY B APOINT WHICH I ADMIT."BUT" IF U TAKE THE LARGEST OF THE LIONS AND LARGEST OF THE TIGERS FROM THE WILD U WILL CERTAINLY C THE DIFFERENCE. DO U AGREE ON THAT
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 4:21 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, just searching on the net to find out which animal is bigger is a poor way of search....i have data upon these animals, from scientists in the field, not some website which may have been likely started by someone who knows little about these animals. 
 
 
 
 
 
Note that i have every modern document related to the size of both lions and tigers...and, if you have a youtube account, i can send them to you, as this site only allows me to post about 3 links at once......But, i assure you tigers are no larger than lions. 
 
 
 
I also already showed a source, in one of my previous posts, on the weights of lions and tigers. Siberian tigers, weighed by the siberian tiger project, averaged 160 - 190 kg......the average actually being 169 kg, which is actually smaller than most lion populations. Likewise, it is based upon recent studies.
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 8:28 AM by damon
Justin, first of all, the heaviest wild Bengal tiger CONFIRMED was a male of 857 lb hunted in India, the next one was a male of 705 lb hunted in Nepal, and most recently, two captured males of 600 lb in Nepal weighed by scientist; the real figure is not 568 lb, but 570 lb and came from a tiger hunted in the Terai by John P. Hewett, however, like you can see, this is by no means the heaviest Bengal tiger. The heaviest wild lion was of 690 lb, not the number that you post. So, like you can see, the tiger was, is and will be the heaviest cat in the world!!! 
 
 
 
The pages that you post here present just estimates, and don’t show REAL studies, even Damon accept this. 
 
 
 
About the stamina, this link shows that the Amur tiger have MORE stamina than the African lions, which put the theory of the aggressiveness of the lion in to the garbage.  
 
http://tigerkingoflion.webs.com/apps/blog/show/313618-reality-check-for-lionfans-busting-the-myth-and-false-propaganda-spread-by-liarweb-tigers-are-more-agressive-than-lions-with-concrete-proof- 
 
Do you see now??? Or is a lion closing you eyes??? 
 
 
 
About the “famous” comparison of organs, you simple forget that this guy “Washington Crile” use just ONE male tiger and ONE female for the comparison, against more than 10 lions. Do you think that this is a FAIR comparison? You are totally biased. And by the way, some tigers run more than lions, so your analysis is not correct, after all, it will depend of the individual, and you can’t guess this variable. 
 
 
 
You say that you are a Zoologist student; well I think that you are not a good one IF you are a real student, after all, there are many deceivers here telling lies. Tiger are, normally, about 40 lb heavier on average than lions, they don’t have the same average. According with my research (which I had published already here), the lowest average for the Bengal tiger came from the Southeast of India, a region with low prey base and reach the 182 kg, the Sundarbans tigers could be lower, but there are only two cases in the literature, so it is not a reliable figure. For the lions, the great bulk of the population, which is in Kenya-Tanzania, had an average weight which fluctuates between 170-180 kg, and the only average recorded of more than 200 kg came from Zimbabwe. So, like you can see, the Bengal tiger is heavier in every sense, with out mentioning that there are HUGE tigers live right now in India, which have been estimated up to 300 kg!!!  
 
Here is the link to my study, is in Spanish but I will translate it in to English when I have the time: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18228383/Valvert2009Tamano-y-peso-del-Tigre-de-Bengala 
 
 
 
Justin: “But yes there really is no difference in weight. When I was in Africa for 6 months studying the Big cats the Big cat expert over there had information of multiple males exceeding the weights of male Bengal’s in India. I went to India for 3 months to study and the Tiger expert there had the info on multiple weights as well, which many were less then the Lions.” 
 
This is really convenient for you, but you simple forget the fact that there is no real proof for this, just your biased word, sorry but you are not best than Damon-the deceiver!!! 
 
 
 
Don’t mess with the Amur tiger, they had an historical average weight of at least 215-225 kg, according with Slagth et al (2005) and Sunquist & Sunquist (2002) and even 233 kg according with Mazak (1996). The accepted average in these days is of 176.4 kg, not the 165 kg posted by the liar of Damon. The body measurements show that the Amur tigers are STILL the longer of the cats, according with Curley et al (2005). Here is a recompilation of the size of the Amur tiger. 
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18230302/The-Size-of-the-Amur-Tiger 
 
This is the OFFCIAL data for the moment. 
 
 
 
Damon: “Note that i have every modern document related to the size of both lions and tigers” 
 
You had say this so many times that nobody believes in you, and the last time that you post all this “modern” data, you only put your biased OLD hunting records of UNCONFIRMED large lions and some little Bengal tigers. Damon, don’t lie and don’t change the real data, you are not serving well to the real science. I do have every single modern record of weight and size, and there is NO ONE adult male Bengal tiger weighing less than 200 kg, while there are just two lions weighing more than 230 kg, with out mention that from 600 lions weighed by Smuts, just ONE reached the 225 kg. This says a lot of the size of these animals. 
 
 
 
In conclusion, the tigers are the largest of the cats and will win against the lions in a fight. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:25 AM by Raul
“About the stamina, this link shows that the Amur tiger have MORE stamina than the African lions, which put the theory of the aggressiveness of the lion in to the garbage.  
 
http://tigerkingoflion.webs.com/apps/blog/show/313618-reality-check-for-lionfans-busting-the-myth-and-false-propaganda-spread-by-liarweb-tigers-are-more-agressive-than-lions-with-concrete-proof- 
 
Do you see now??? Or is a lion closing you eyes???” 
 
 
 
This link shows the TESTOSTERONE, not the stamina of the Amur tiger; my mistake. However, this shows that the hypothesis about the higher aggressiveness of the lions is false, as the male Amur tigers have more testosterone levels. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:30 AM by Raul
Raul, first off, the heaviest comfirmed lion was over 750 lbs, actually; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/boldchamp/boldchamppics024-1.jpg 
 
 
 
and, here`s more records; 
 
 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/boldchamp/boldchamppics023-1.jpg 
 
 
 
And, those documents you showed of testosterone were first posted by me...and, it only shows the testosterone of inbred lion populations. here`s more, which shows that african lions, and healthy populations, have higher testosterone than amur tigers; 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/43/t/testosterone-of-lions-and-tigers.html 
 
 
 
Also, the ones you showed were of captive lions, although the one i have of the african lions, was from wild specimens. No records exist of the testosterone of wild tigers....the ones i showed of the bengal tigers, in comparison to the asiatic lions, was of studbook specimens, data taken from indian zoos, and hormonal data indicate they are not inbred. The asiatic lions had the larger testosterone, as do the african lions. 
 
 
 
Only the Mixed bengal tigers had testosterone similar to that of the wild african lions, but then, they are not studbook specimens, and there average testosterone, if we are to conclude from the average range given, is 1.44 ng/ml, less than that of the african lions. 
 
 
 
So, who has more testosterone?...
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:45 AM by damon
Also, Raul, you stated that i do not have every modern document published upn these specimens...well, i do. 
 
 
 
The records i have were those of Smuts, which showed records of 4 lion populations, from rhodesia, kalahari, kruger, and east africa. I also have records of the measurements of zimbabwe lions, from smithers and wilson, through 1975 - 79. 
 
 
 
I also have data of the measurements of the Etosha lion, from Hu Berry, as well as data upon the serengeti lion, and more of the kruger lion from reputable sources as reported by scientists. 
 
 
 
I also have those records of the kenya lions, from the kenya wildlife service, and of transvaal (which was the only hunter`s records, and those were verified) as given by pitman, who confirms the reliability of these measurements. 
 
 
 
As for my data upon tigers, i have records from Sunquist of chitwan tigers, from Dr. Karanth of those from nagarahole, as well as those old hunting records of siberian lions as reported by sunquist, and even more data, recent in fact, of those records from the siberian tiger project. I also have the records of deinerstein......those are all scientifically proven documents.....and were the ones that i showed. 
 
 
 
also, Raul, karanth mentions the weight of a male tiger of 175 kg, and i have many more reliable data of adult male bengal tigers of less than 200 kg.....and, though they were of hunted specimens, there is proof as to the measurements of these animals, as they were actually stated to have been weighed. Lions have also been measured at 272 kg in scientific records, and, whether you agree or disagree, is unimportant...the record stands, and that male, post prime, had an empty stomach as well. and, it should also be noted that both sunquist and karanth baited there tigers, and i have proof for both. So, what are you excuses now?..... 
 
 
 
and, as for stamina?...check this out; 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/14/t/lion-vs-tiger-stamina.html 
 
 
 
So, any more excuses?....
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:57 AM by damon
We are talking of WILD Amur tigers, and if you are saying now that those lions were inbreed, why you don’t say this before haaa? You see, you are a liar. 
 
 
 
This lion of 750 lb was NOT confirmed, just mentioned like MANY other records, is it is not recognized by Guinness!!! So the record of 690 lb (which was a freak) stands. 
 
 
 
The other records are of exceptional males, after all, the male lions seldom exceed of 500 lb, according with Tom Brakefield, no less. 
 
 
 
Damon: “Only the Mixed bengal tigers had testosterone similar to that of the wild african lions” 
 
Probably for the influence of the Amur genes. 
 
 
 
Damon: “have many more reliable data of adult male bengal tigers of less than 200 kg.....and, though they were of hunted specimens,” 
 
You have said it, HUNTED RECORDS!!! They are reliable but I say SCIENTIFIC records, and there is no ONE of less than 200 kg. The tiger of 175 kg came from Pocock. We had a previous discussion upon this; it is strange that you simple forget it!!! 
 
 
 
About the bating, you can ask to Dr Karanth and you will see that he adjusted his tigers for stomach content, which show the accuracy of his records. About Dr Sunquist, not all tigers were baited and I have the proof of this and I had showed all this already in this same place. 
 
 
 
About the stamina, I don’t know why you say this again and again, the cats have the WORST stamina levels, only you are spreading this myth that the lion is a mighty creature. Bears and dogs have much more stamina, even when your pitiful book of Crile suggest the contrary. 
 
 
 
Finally, the lion of 272 kg is just another hunting record to, or you simple ignore the original source??? However, this is the only lion of 272 kg really confirmed. The others are more likely ESTIMATES”. 
 
 
 
I don’t say that you don’t have the records; I say, that you had say, that you have the records, but you don’t post them, you select only the records that you LIKE and serve for your dark agenda. By the way, I (and many other) have the same data to, so don’t flatter your self. 
 
 
 
So, any more lies??? 
 
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 11:17 AM by Raul
Raul, the study of those crater lion and seregeti populations was indeed inbred...and, i didn`t say it because the study i showed already had that info.  
 
 
 
Likewise, those sources you showed of the amurs was of captive specimens....i know this, as i was the first one to post them, and, they still had lower testosterone levels then wild african lions. And, guinness probably did not know of that 750 lb lion, it being reported in a recent document, according to that book, and the figures not well known. But, all those other records i have were reliably proven, via reliable sources, and verified by eyewitnesses. And, whether you believe the figure of that 272 kg lion is unimportant, it is reliably reported, and Kock confirmed the figure. And, the 272 kg lion was a problem lion, and had to be shot, by the kenya wildlife service, scientists, not merely a hunter. 
 
 
 
Also, i did post those records of the lion and tiger weights..all of them.....do you remember when i posted all those sources, one after the other?.....those were my records of the lion and tiger weights.....i even have the entire document (sent to me by sunquist) of the paper which shows all the info concerning the measurements of the lions weighed by smuts. 
 
 
 
and, i do not select only the records that i like...i showed all that pertained to the study....i was the first one, for example, to post the chitwan tiger records...i was the first to show the whole haughton study.....need i say more?...... 
 
 
 
and, i never said that lions, or even cats in general has great stamina....i stated that they have higher stamina levels than tigers....and, i showed the data in proof of this.
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 12:02 PM by damon
Damon, please, the lions reported by Pitman, in 1942 by the way, comes from a SECOND HAND source, a letter that came to him, so you are saying that those figures are reliable??? Ja ja ja, even the same Pitman doesn’t really know!!! He just reports it in the book, but true figures? Just God knows. 
 
 
 
About the lion of 272 kg, I never say that it is not important, just that it was a freak, like the 313 kg lion in South Africa. Freaks are just that, and don’t represent the entire population, especially in an area were the normal full grow male lions average about 170-180 kg. 
 
 
 
You say that Dr Sunquist send to you the document of Smuts??? Damn, I will ask him to; after all, I love to read this class of studies. 
 
 
 
Damon, you wasn’t the first in show the document of the tigers in Chitwan, that study was know in the web since 2006 in the old AVA forum, I remember it because I read the entire stupidities of “Evilthough”, and like him, you will be forgotten to. 
 
 
 
Finally, even if the lions will have more “stamina” than the tigers, that will be no difference, as the tiger will beat him more quickly. Like the Colonel Kenri Shing say, the lion attacked first, but soon, the tiger beet him. Tiger dominance man, they avoid problems, but avoid is not cowardly, simple!!! 
 
 
 
Tigers rule!!! Yeahhhh. 
 
Posted @ Saturday, September 05, 2009 11:02 PM by Raul
Raul, yes, pitman was not there for those measurements, but, he obviously had personal knowledge of the records. When a particular person weighs an animal, and records the measurements, whether through documentation, or letter, it is confirmed. And, did Evilthought actually show the chitwan tiger document, or did he merely mention it?...there`s a difference.  
 
and, kesri singh actually stated, and, these were his exact words (i have the entire book), that the lion was always first to attack, but had to retire after a few smacks from the tiger.....how does that constitue a win, other than perhaps a physchoclogical one, at best?..... 
 
But, in that respect, indian ruler jam sahib of nawanager, mentioned 4 fights between lions and tigers which he has witnessed, and the lion won all of them. So, you were saying?....not to mention, there was also a case in the book, lions `n` tigers `n` everything, where a tiger, stated to have been the better fighter, to the lion opposite him, bullied his maned companion, and often was stated as sending him running to his cage whenever he came in the tiger`s proximity. However, that very same lion ended up killing him. 
 
Not only do lions have more stamina, but, they can execute a more effective immediate attack, as well. 
 
So, who rules?..... 
 
and, you are wrong about me being forgotten, even though evilthought wasn`t....as i`ll be in this discussion a while.
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 12:39 AM by damon
NAYAN  
 
So you think by doing a simple google search will prove which one is bigger. Just so you know the internet can be edited, anyone can write anything, and many sites out there stating the weights are written by elementary students doing a school project, journalists or any other person with no real idea of how much they weight.  
You can't just use the internet you need books written by experts in the field, and most importantly scientific research reports of recent research done in the field about the animals.  
You clearly do not have any recent research papers or you would realize that not only does the Bengal Tiger not weigh nearly as much as you claim, but also that a Lion has higher Stamina.  
 
Yes I can agree that Northern Bengal Tigers tend to be on average larger then other Bengal Tigers in different regions.
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 1:46 AM by Justin
Andre  
 
I have seen a clan of Hyena run off when they see a single male Lion. They came in and pushed 4 females off of a kill. There was only one Male lion in the Pride and scared off all of the Hyena after killing 3.
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 1:53 AM by Justin
JUSTIN 
 
I TOLD YA M NOT GONNA ARGUE ANY MORE,I ADMIT DAT U WON I MEAN THE LION WON, RIGHT NOW M IN THE FANTASY LAND. AND BOUT SEARCHING THE NET U SAID THOSE R WRITEN BY INEXPERIENCED PEOPLE DOING THEIR SCHOOL PROJECTS ON THE TOPIC TIGER VS LION.N THOSE SITES N PEOPLE U SAID R ALL MAKING FALSE CLAIMS WITH FALSE DOCUMENTS N LINKS OF BOOKS REFFERED BY THEM. MR RAUL HAS PROVIDED U GUYZ WITH ENOUGH PROOF N LINKS WHICH ARE ANYWAYZ NOT B ACCEPTED BY GUYZ LIKE YA. ONLY ONE QUESTION AM GONNA ASK U WHY N WHEN BIG GUYZ LIKE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC N DISCOVEERY CHANNEL GONNA ACCEPT UR REASEARCH OR THE GUYZ LIKE U WHO HAS GOT GENUINE RESEARCH DOCUMENTS,DAT LIONS R BIGGER?I AM WAITING FOR DAT DAY..
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 4:46 AM by NAYAN
Raul, i already have smut`s document on my scribd account.....
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 4:46 AM by damon
NAYAN, i disproved some of Raul`s links with a few of my own....did you not see them?.......
Posted @ Sunday, September 06, 2009 4:51 AM by damon
NAYAN  
 
So you think it has to be on tv before it can be taken truthfully. The fact is National geographic makes some of the worst documentaries out there with bias common belief facts just to keep simple minds happy. You tell someone that the Lion is in fact a far better in even the littlest detail and people such as yourself freak out. If your going to base your claims on tv at least go with BBC documentaries.  
TV documentaries still say that the Amur tiger is the biggest cat out there, and even you said that they are quite a bit smaller then made out to be. I am not saying completely ignore documentaries, just make sure they are providing actual information on recent studies, and not just trying to make a quick buck.  
I also never said any of it was my research, and why would a film company rush out just to make a documentary every time something new is discovered. It would be a pretty boring documentary if they just said, well we used to think the Bengal tiger weighed 500lbs but we were wrong it averages 420lbs. You will eventually here new average weights brought up in a documentary, it will just have to go along with something else.  
 
In the future be a little more open minded instead of just thinking that what you think is true really is true.
Posted @ Monday, September 07, 2009 4:12 AM by Justin
Damon: “NAYAN, i disproved some of Raul`s links with a few of my own....did you not see them?.......” 
 
Damon, you have what??? For the contrary, I have disproved ALL your claims and showed that you are a factual deceiver. For the other, I will see your account for the document latter. 
 
 
 
Damon, the letter just mentions measurements, but you can’t believe that ALL this data is exactly and truly REAL. That’s not science, that’s faith. Again, I have show that you are terribly biased toward lions. 
 
 
 
Kesri Shing says this: “On three separate occasions when arranging public beast fights I have put a lion and tiger into the arena together. In each instance the result was the same. The lion attacked and soon got the worst of the encounter. After one or two blows from the tiger's forepaws it would retire, and since the tiger never followed-up, the performance would be over. However, it cannot be argued from this that the tiger would not, in a state of nature, take the offensive. Wild tigers that have been captured and put in a ring are usually most reluctant to attack any other large creature except, very reasonably, a man in front of spectators. But in the jungle they fight each other ferociously, as their wounds testify.” 
 
So, where is stated here that the tigers don’t win??? They dominate the lions, and this is the whole point. About the Indian ruler Jam Sahib of Nawanager, he was of Mogul origin, so he was biased toward the lions; that’s why his report is doubtful. You see, easy to say. 
 
 
 
You mention se SINGLE case in the book, lions `n` tigers `n` everything, well, I can mention the case reported by Sterndale, when a tiger and a lion of EQUAL size fight each other, and the tiger kill his opponent. And remember, I have a HUGE list of records of tigers owning lions. So, yes TIGERS RULES!!! 
 
 
 
About the stamina, the tiger will quickly dominate the tiger, because its more agile than the lion, so the stamina will not be important. Even the “edited” videos of the lion fans in the web show how fast the tiger jump over the lion. 
 
 
 
You can be in this discussion, but like the other liar of “Evilthough”, you will disappear. You are like the “Da Vinci Code”, just the stupid people believe in that, but now, WHO REMEMBER IT????? 
 
 
 
Sorry for you Damon, no matter how many times you put your lies, you will never change the true. 
 
Posted @ Monday, September 07, 2009 10:10 AM by Raul
JUSTIN 
 
U JUST WANNA TELL US THAT NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC'S DOCUMENTARIES R FAKE N BIASED TOWARDS TIGERS N DISCOVERY CHANNEL COMES UP WITH FACTS. ON THE CONTRARY WHATEVER I VE HEARD N GONE THROUGH, PEOPLE (EXPERTS)THINK N ADMIT JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WAT U THINK. JUSTIN I JUST WANNA TELL U ONETHING, THE AVERAGE WEIGHT OF TIGERS IS 420 CAN BE TRUE IF U R SELECTING ONLY THE WEAKER N LESS HEAVIER ONES.IT IS REALLY A JOKE MAN TIGERS WEIGHING ONLY 420 LBS.U SAID M JUST RELYING ON DOCUMENTARIES WHICH IS NOT TRUE.M NOT BLIND..N EVEN DUMB.I CAN FIGURE OUT WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH N WHO S MSGUIDING.I HAVE REPEATADLY TOLD YA M NOT NARROW MINDED BUT HOW CAN SUCH THING BE POSSIBLE LIKE THIS ONE TIGERS AVERAGING LESS THAN LIONS. IT CAN BE TRUE ONLY IN THIS WAY ,TAKE THE LIGHTER TIGERS N COMPARE THEM WITH THE HEAVIEST LIONS ON EARTH.ONE LAST QUESTION WERE THOSE PEOPLE ( I MEAN) EXPERTS WHO HAVE CLAIMED THAT BENGAL TIGERS R HEAVIER THAN LIONS WERE FANATICS OR BIASED?OR WERE THEY NOT INTELLEGENT LIKE U ? COMEON MAN ANSWER MY LAST QUETION .
Posted @ Monday, September 07, 2009 11:20 AM by NAYAN
Raul, why the FUCK do you keep calling me a liar?...i told you, many times, i did not lie. I certainly support a different opinion than you, but, why is it that you state i lied?....i showed that lions had the higher testosterone than the amur tigers....only the mixed bengal tigers had a similar testosterone level.  
 
and, of course the letter to charles just mentions the data....that`s what makes it reliable....as, it was documented, in some way. 
 
And, i also stated that those fights staged by kesri may be a phsychological win, but, you also cannot think that was much of a fight, either, as the animals did not fight to the death. 
 
And, that one fight from 'lions `n` tigers `n` everything' was to show that, even in cases where tigers supposedly get the upper hand in confrontations, doesn`t mean they cannot be killed, in a full struggle, and that is precisely what happened in this case. 
 
and, i have an even bigger list of lions winning...just my records from clyde outnumber those from the tiger side...and, i have at least 25 more cases of lion victories. Clyde mentions a case where one of his lions defeats every tiger in his act, and he notes a similar figure for another lion, named duke, whom he states tore up nearly every tiger in his act, male or female. 
 
and, if anything, kesri was biased towards tigers....at least, that is the impression i`ve gotten, from reading his books....but, of course, you should know that being biased doesn`t mean a person would lie. Merely, he reported the fights as he saw them. 
 
and, i`ve seen a lot of posts from evilthought, but, i`ve yet to see him lie.....like you seem to state. 
 
Name the instance where he lied?....why does everyone conclude someone is lying?..why can`t they just be 'mistaken'?...isn`t that better than calling someone a liar?..... 
 
But, of course, i don`t think i`m mistaken on this part......
Posted @ Monday, September 07, 2009 2:35 PM by damon
Justin you still don't get what I'm saying even if the pride was only ruled by one male lion the hyenas would have still retreated. Past experience with more than one male lions will eventually make the hyenas expect more males to come, or the whole pride to back him. 
 
Posted @ Monday, September 07, 2009 7:40 PM by Andre'
NAYAN  
 
I can't believe how ignorant you are about this. You just can't seem to accept the fact that Bengal Tigers just aren't as heavy as your dreams play them out to be. It is like how everyone says there is 1500lb 10ft Polar bears, but there is no proof to back that up. Just because some guy said Bengal Tigers average 500lbs doesn't make it true. You seem to continue to think that because the common belief is that Tigers weigh more then Lions then that is that and you should always think that.  
 
Once again and I believe I have mentioned this before, this isn;t a battle between The heaviest population of one of the animals vs the smallest population of the other, the weight is based on a average weight of the entire population, meaning the lightest and heaviest populations are included in the average. I hope you get that through your head this time.  
 
"ONE LAST QUESTION WERE THOSE PEOPLE ( I MEAN) EXPERTS WHO HAVE CLAIMED THAT BENGAL TIGERS R HEAVIER THAN LIONS WERE FANATICS OR BIASED?OR WERE THEY NOT INTELLEGENT LIKE U ? COMEON MAN ANSWER MY LAST QUETION ."  
 
Look at your last sentence I just quoted, notice how you say and I again quote "EXPERTS WHO HAVE CLAIMED THAT BENGAL TIGERS R HEAVIER THAN LIONS WERE FANATICS OR BIASED?OR WERE THEY NOT INTELLEGENT LIKE U"  
You clearly messed that sentence up, and along with your many spelling mistakes, and ignorant uneducated opinion then continue to say I am unintelligent.  
 
You really aren't helping yourself look like an intelligent being.
Posted @ Friday, September 11, 2009 3:29 AM by Justin
JUSTIN 
 
WAT I HAVE WRITTEN HAS GOT MANY SPELLING MISTAKES, OK, JUST CORRECT THOSE AS U R AN INTELLIGENT GUY.WHEN SOMEBODY IS POSTING SUMTHING THE IDEA IS TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE AND NOT TO CARE BOUT THE BASIC SPELLING MISTAKES . 
 
AGAIN M GONNA ASK U THAT SIMPLE QUESTION IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE (IN QUOTES)" WHEY THOSE EXPERTS R REPEATEDLY TELLING THAT BENGAL TIGERS R BIGGER THAN AFRICAN LIONS.R THEY FANATICS OR BIASED TOWARDS TIGERS ?OR THEY R NOT INTELLIGENT LIKE YA?" I GUESS U CAN UNDERSTAND MY LANGUAGE NOW 
 
 
 
BOUT "UNEDUCATED OPINION" I JUST WANNA TELL U DAT I HAVE ALSO WATCHED LIONS N TIGERS VERY CLOSELY. I AM NOT IN A DREAMLAND JUST LIKE YA. WHEN EVERYBODY HAS GOT THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS TO PROVE Y SHD I PROVIDE ANY MORE DOCUMENTS . GO EDUCATE URSELF BEFORE GIVING ANY SORT OF OPINION BOUT ANYONE.U R NOT AN EXPERT DUDE Y SHD I BELIEVE YA?I HAVE ALREADY SAID DAT I DONT WANNA ARGUE WIT U GUYS,SIMPLY COZ U GUYZ R JUST SPREADING PROPAGANDA.THATS IT............... 
 
Posted @ Friday, September 11, 2009 5:41 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, your argument is poor.....just because a certain scientist makes a claim, doesn`t mean it is accurate. 
 
For starters, most only make a comparison based upon the records they have actually come across, which may be limited. Schaller, for example, only compared those lions of east africa (his area of expertise) to those tigers measured by brander, which were larger. However, that is a very poor comparison....the only truly accurate comparison is of many different lion and tiger populations weighed, with a sampling of at least 10 specimens, with studies upon the external measurements and food intake as well. 
 
I`ve found that externally, lions and tigers are rather equal in size...... 
 
The largest group of those (those from southern kenya) averaged 221.5 kg (n = 4) while 7 chitwan tigers averaged 235 kg, though they were baited, and there weights, adjusted for food content, was 221 kg, as they ate a total of 14 kg a day, feeding upon baits....this would most certainly inflate there weights.
Posted @ Friday, September 11, 2009 8:56 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
I ALWAYS SAID THAT I DONT WANNA ARGUE COZ I AM LACKING KNOWLEDGE LIKE WAT MR.JUSTIN SAID BOUT ME. SO I CANT PUT UP A PROPER ARGUEMENT.OK 
 
N BOUT EXPERTS I AM NOT TELLING BOUT ONE PARTICULAR EXPERT THERE ARE MANY.I AM NOT RELYING ON ONLY ONE EXPERT . SPARE ME .................THERES NO POINT ARGUING,LIKE WAT I SAID ONCE BIG GUYZ LIKE NATINAL GEGRAPHIC OR DISCOVERY WILL SAY THAT LIONS R INDEED LARGER THAN TIGERS I WILL CERTAINLY AGREE WIT U GUYZ
Posted @ Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:43 AM by NAYAN
Lions look graceful and appear huge mostly due to their large manes. But tigers have a far better, stronger muscle structure. As someone mentioned that tigers have stronger hind leg muscles, which is quite true. Plus lesser height makes it easier for the tiger to stay planted on the ground without toppling over unlike the lion.
Posted @ Saturday, September 12, 2009 9:59 PM by TiGris
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8132/liontiger7hddi6.jpg 
 
this says alot about the tiger hind leg thing, and there is only a 50lbs difference. even though its just one fight it still says alot.
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 12:01 AM by No Name
No name, that account is fake....i`ve seen it many times, and this has been discussed on quite a few forums. Not only are there many spelling mistakes in that account, such as 'comming' 'cleverley', delievering', and lighting-quick', none of which are actual words. 
 
And, who writes, the tiger swiftly swiped out the lion`s head?....that makes no sense....not to mention, the account said 'lions', rather than 'lion`s', as that is one lion, not many.  
 
also, tigris, tigers don`t have stronger hindlegs, nor do they have a stronger muscle structure. Use a better choice of words....there is no accurate study to show tigers are any stronger than lions, and, i disagree.
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 12:40 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
U SEEM TO DISAGREE EVERY DAMN THING THAT IS BEING SAID ABOUT LIONS.TIGERS INDEED R "MUCH" LARGER ANIMAL THAN LION .PLZ STOP TELLING LIES ........EVERY EXPERT WILL AGREE ON THAT TIGERS R REALLY BIGGER.Y DOES THOSE BIG GUYZ LIKE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC N DISCOVERY CHANNEL SAYS THAT TIGERS R BIGGER,I HAVE PUT UP THIS QUESTION TWICE N REPEATING AGAIN JUST ANSWER ONLY THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:01 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, where did i lie?....i gave an opinion, but one which i have the data to support....indeed, i have every modern document related to this subject. If you doubt me, give me your email, or youtube account, and i`ll send them to you, because, for some reason, i cannot post more than 3 links on this site sometimes. 
 
And, national geographic often quote well known estimates upon the weights of these animals, rather than actual weight figures. 
 
But, here is a bit of data from experts; 
 
"The team also looked at the popular idea that tigers are ‘bigger’ than lions (which could mean that the tiger’s relatively bigger brain size simply reflects its bigger body). However, careful re-evaluation of original field data and relatively well-documented hunting records does not support this idea. 
So the team concluded that the tigers have a relatively bigger brain (around 16 per cent larger) than lions, given their very similar average body sizes." 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090911145030.htm 
 
I have been in contact with many a expert, and most agreed with me.....so, what are you talking of?.....
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 10:06 AM by damon
Hey Damon, 
 
 
 
Just Chill. We are just discussing. And let me decide which words to choose and which ones not to. I believe i have been quite understandable, inspite of 'English' not being my native language. I read a lot of posts by you, Kenny and Atilla regarding Grizzly Bears and Lions and i thought you have studied these animals a lot and i had started respecting you somewhere. But from the reply i got from you, you seem to be quite arrogant. Anyways, i dont give a shit about it. here is some more for you:  
 
Largest Siberian Tiger found in the wild : 845 lbs/ 384 kg.  
 
Longest Siberian Tiger found in the wild: 12′9″/ 3.9 m  
 
Largest Bengal Tiger found in the wild: 857 lbs/ 389 kg. 3.22 m 10 ft 7 in between pegs (3.37 m 11ft over the curves)  
 
Largest Lion in captivity: 806 lbs (366 kg)  
 
Largest Lion found in the wild: 702 lbs (318 kg) and 11′ (3.35 m)  
 
Average size (mode) of African Lion: 410 lbs (186 kg) and 8′10″ (2.7 m)  
 
(The largest tiger ever held in captivity, and the heaviest ‘natural big cat’ on record, is a nine-year-old male Siberian named ‘Jaipur’, owned by animal trainer Joan Byron-Marasek of Clarksburg, New Jersey, USA. This tiger measured 3.32 m 10 ft 11in in total length and weiged 423 kg 932 lb in October 1986)  
 
Relative Advantages Over a Lion: 
 
 
 
Longer and often larger size. Now this is often posed by the people who pick a tiger to win, as a serious threat to a lion. A larger yet more agile body of a tiger is really a serious threat to a lion. But this alone can not be a decisive factor.  
 
More powerful back legs. This helps a tiger to leap more, to spring from a disadvantageous position and to make sudden moves. This is of tremendous advantage to the tiger. This gives the tiger the ability to rest its weight on the hind legs and make swipes with both of the front legs. Plus, the strong hindquarters allow them to attack from the side and spring from unexpected/disadvantageous corners. Moreover, a tiger makes faster swipes than a lion. Tigers are more agile than lions.  
 
Skills of ambush attacking, tree-climbing, swimming etc are handy if the going gets tough. Plus, tigers are faster runners. These are all defence mechanisms for a tiger just as the mane is for a lion.  
 
Longer canines, longer claws and larger paws. These are the ultimate weapons of a cat. Tigers have considerable advantage here. 
 
And here’s a video showcasing tigers. And I found this video to be very interesting. Here is more of Siberian tigers.
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:32 PM by TiGris
Myths About (and Against) Lions and Tigers: 
 
 
 
Myth 1: [The lion has a stronger forequarter] The fact is, the lion has slightly more massively built shoulders and the tiger has more developed legs. Overall a tiger is more massively built than a lion. Even pound for pound, a tiger has anatomy-advantage over a lion in the forequarters. 
 
 
 
Myth 2: [The tiger hunts larger preys] The fact is, both these cats generally hunt similar sized preys (the size of wildebeast) and both these cats may go for larger preys once in a while. In some areas, these cats get ’specialized’ in hunting certain kinds of preys. In Nagarahole National Park in India, the tigers prefer to hunt the large gaurs. 
 
 
 
Myth 3: [The lion has more bite force] The fact is, pound for ponud, a tiger has more bite force qutient, though the difference is not huge. 
 
 
 
Myth 4: [Tigers are more ferocious] The fact is, There has never been such a claim by any scientist or noted animal observer. This is a bizare claim with no base. Both these animals show similar ferocity (of course, ferocity is not quantifiable) when drawn into a fight. 
 
 
 
Myth 5: [Lions have larger heads] The fact is, an average lion has (surprisingly) the same size of head as an average Bengal/Siberian/Indochinese tiger. The tiger’s head is just a little wider and shorter, allowing it to have more bite force. 
 
 
 
Myth 6: [Lions just fight and tigers just hunt] The fact is, nomadic male lions hunt regularly and skillfully. Even resident male lions hunt sometimes. On the other hand, tigers fight, often to death, with other tigers. Tigers fight fairly often, so much so that around 30% of tiger deaths (for Bengal tigers) occur due to territorial fights. Also, tigers fight with leopards, bears, wild dogs, elephants etc. Most of the tiger vs tiger and lion vs lion fights end after one combatant escapes while some fights in both the cases may result in severe injury or death. 
 
 
 
Myth 7: [The lion has better fighting techniques] The fact is, the tiger shows better ’skills’ of fighting. It can swipe much faster than a lion, can use both the front legs at the same time for making swipes, is faster and more agile than the lion. 
 
 
 
I think this will take some time for you to digest... All the best...!!!
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:35 PM by TiGris
Damon, 
 
I think you havent checked this out yet..Its been posted before. 
 
 
 
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8132/liontiger7hddi6.jpg 
 
 
 
No hard feelings, but Damon its high time that you learned to accept the possibility that the things you so strongly disagree with, can actually be true facts..
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:57 PM by TiGris
Tigris, i did not take your post personally, just did not agree with it, so, i pointed that out. I`ve seen that site quite a few times, in fact, i used to post there religiously, up until very recently, anyway. 
 
and, that 845 lb amur tiger was never verified, and, that record of the siberian tiger, in terms of length, was 'over curves', rather then between pegs, which is the more accurate form of measurement. 
 
According to peter jackson, the largest lion in captivity was 930 lbs, and, i also have the record of a 826 lb lion, named simba. 
 
Tigers are also no longer than lions, nor are they any larger. In scientific studies, lions have reached the mass of tigers. And, both lions and tigers can ambush, and the tiger does not have stronger legs than the lion. there is no accurate study in proof of this, and it is not proven. 
 
The average size of lions, also, is about 190 kg. Here are some actual documents, reported by scientists in the field; 
 
I`ll just copy one of my previous posts; 
 
"And, while the tiger is often claimed as being the largest, this is merely a well thought assumption based upon limited data.  
 
I should know....i have every modern document that has been published upon the subject.....not many can say that, even scientists. But, i can show you, if you disagree?.....  
 
The heaviest lion on record was over 750 lbs, while peter jackson mentions a lion of 930 lbs in captivity.  
 
Here are some records of the body mass of lions;  
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/comparativegrowthofwildmaleandfe-5.jpg  
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/comparativegrowthofwildmaleandfe-2.jpg  
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/etosha3-1.jpg  
 
and, i have also seen that fight....it is faked. here is a previous post of mine, talking of that very record (i`ve seen that years ago); 
 
"No name, that account is fake....i`ve seen it many times, and this has been discussed on quite a few forums. Not only are there many spelling mistakes in that account, such as 'comming' 'cleverley', delievering', and lighting-quick', none of which are actual words.  
 
And, who writes, the tiger swiftly swiped out the lion`s head?....that makes no sense....not to mention, the account said 'lions', rather than 'lion`s', as that is one lion, not many.  
 
also, tigris, tigers don`t have stronger hindlegs, nor do they have a stronger muscle structure. Use a better choice of words....there is no accurate study to show tigers are any stronger than lions, and, i disagree." 
 
I have many lion-tiger accounts, where the lion has defeated and or/killed the tiger, many times. The lion is also of greater stamina, and more aggressive as well, and certainly the more willing opponent in any fight.
Posted @ Sunday, September 13, 2009 10:22 PM by damon
DAMON 
 
WAT U CONSIDER IS RIGHT IS RIGHT.ACCORDING TO YA EVEN THE EXPERTS OF NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIP R MAKING FALSE ASSUMPTIONS N UR EXPERTS R MAKING THE ACCURATE ASSUMPTIONS .COMEON MAN NOBODY IS GONNA BELIEVE UR CLAIMS UNTILL N UNLESS U R WILLING TO LISTEN TO OTHERS.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 3:35 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, i am quite willing to listen to others, however, when you make a particular statement, specifically one i do not agree with, i`ll make note of that. 99% of the time, i have the data to back it up, and, it`s from experts in the field. 
 
Nat geo is a tv channel (who`s producers also started a website).....it`s the people on it that you must mention.  
 
But, like i told you before, i have every modern document upon this subject, and, i`m not lying. There is not a study about lions and tigers which i haven`t already heard of, or already have, whether it`s from Hu berry, Melvin sunquist, Schaller, Brain bertram, the IUCN, Smuts, Karanth.....EVERY one of them are experts in the field, with the most knowledge of these animals.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 4:01 AM by damon
I say Tigers because lions rarely bring down really big game alone where as tigers always do. So they have the upper hand. Plus they are the biggest felines.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 6:28 PM by Dark_Wolfxoxo
Dark_Wolfxoxo, lions quite frequently bring down large prey, in fact, more frequently than do tigers, even when alone. Likewise, lions are of greater stamina, more combativeness, and certainly the more willing opponents in any fight. They have that protective mane of theirs as well.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 8:25 PM by damon
Damon you only say its fake because the tiger was wining if you were not such a bais lion fan I would have beleiveed you. 
 
 
 
That 750 lbs lion was never confirmed and the heaviest tiger died while he wighted a bit over a 1000 lbs. When lions get that big then I will be impresed. 
 
Average lion-190 kg 
 
Average bengal tiger-221 kg 
 
Not only that the tiger would win most of the time.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 8:45 PM by No Name
Shit Damon what the hell is wrong with you. Can't you leave the people who post alone, I bet most of the even read the comments before posting and most of them still say the tiger is bigger and stronger and will win most of the time 
 
. What do you want people to say'oh damon you are right and I completely agree with you'. Most of them won't say that so stop letting this thing rule your life, what ?is your life so borong that you have to post here most of the week just to get some joy becuase it sure seems that way, no even Raul or Justin have time like you.You keep posting here but no one gives a shit about you and your old ass records man. Just give the people a break. I bet they all thing this 
 
"Damon don't you realize I don't care what you have to say, you can come back with the same thing over and over again I don't care about your post my mind will never be changed. "
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 9:04 PM by Dave
No name, i`m not a biased lion fan...i love both lions and tigers, but, that account you showed has so many mistakes in it.......even the most biased tigerfan cannot fail to see it is fake. 
 
And, that 750 lb lion was indeed verified....likewise, you are comparing captive tigers to wild lions....that tiger over 1000 lbs was captive, and a siberian.  
 
The heaviest captive bengal was 866 lbs, while a lion weighed 930 lbs, according to big cat expert, peter jackson. 
 
Both lions and bengal tigers average 190 kg.....in fact, 42 adult male tigers weighed by Dunbar brander averaged 190 kg...... 
 
Lions weigh the same. Over 50 tigers weighed by behar averaged close to 190 kg....... 
 
Also, 4 lions from kenya, weighed by the kenya wildlife service, averaged 221.5 kg...... 
 
So, which is heavier?.....they are equal in mass.....and, studies support this.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 9:05 PM by damon
dave, for starters, i do not spend a great deal of time here.....i spend most of my time working, or at the AVA and carnivora forums. In fact, i only just got finished working, today. 
 
However, who cares if you care about the data i produce, or not?...they are not old, and they are reliable....in fact, as i`ve said, i have every modern document upon this subject........i have them at hand. 
 
Tigers are no bigger than lions, nor are they stronger, and, whether people agree or not, is unimportant, so long as they at least recognize the studies.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 9:10 PM by damon
Shit damon I didn't ask you where you spent most of your time I'm just saying you can give this thing a rest, no one is here like you, is your life really that boring? 
 
some people will recognize the study and don't care. 
 
And while I believe you are lying about not caring what other people think for you constantly keep postong those records, I'm not here to argue with just to tell you to find somthing else other than work and the net or AVA and carnivora forums and get on with life.  
 
you post those thing here like a hundred times someone is bound to see it.
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 9:29 PM by Dave
dave, no, my life isn`t boring at all......however, all these posts from her keep appearing to my email, and, when i see a particular comment i disagree with, i`ll answer. 
 
And indeed, i do not care what others think......however, i do care that they at least take my point into consideration. i am not merely offering an opinion...i make my statements based upon a well though out process, based both upon old and new data. 
 
If i`m wrong, i`ll be the first to admit it. But, as long as i`ve been on this topic, i doubt it. 
 
Posted @ Monday, September 14, 2009 9:38 PM by damon
DAMON  
 
I SUGGEST U ONLY ONETHING,PROVE UR CLAIMS IN SOME REPUTED WEBSITE (ACCORDING TO YA) N PUBLISH THOSE,AFTER THAT I WILL DEFINATELY AGRREE THAT LIONS R REALLY BIGGER THAN TIGERS.DATAS R COLLECTED BY MANY EXPERTS N DATAS DO VARY.BUT MOST OF THE TIME TIGERS HAVE WEIGHED MORE.OTHERWISE THIS THING WOULDNT HAVE COME THAT TIGERS R HEVIER ,STRONGER ,LONGER N MORE AGILE THAN THE LIONS.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009 8:37 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, where did i say that lions were bigger than tigers?......i never said anything like that. In fact, i believe they are equal in mass. And, i already published the data....here it is; 
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15574755/Relative-Body-Mass-of-the-Lion-and-Tiger 
 
and, here is even more data; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/21 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/33 
 
And, tigers are indeed more agile than lions...i have never doubted that, but, they are not longer....both average 9ft in length. Likewise, no scientist, other than from a very old record, from a guy who in my opinion cannot be considered an expert, has ever compared the strength of a lion and tiger.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:36 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
U MENTIONED IN UR LAST PARA THAT SOME GUY HAS COMPARED THE STRENGTH OF A LION AND A TIGER.ONE PARTICULAR GUY'S CLAIM WOULDNT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.IT IS NOT ABOUT A PARTICULAR EXPERT .IT IS REGARDING "EXPERTS" WHO HAVE COLLECTIVELY CLAIMED THAT TIGERS R INDEED THE UNCONTESTED SUPER CAT.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:06 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, very few big cat experts have claimed the tiger a stronger animal, when compared with the lion. There is no modern studies on the strength of these animals, but lions do have a muscle percentage of roughly 60%, based upon an actual study. I doubt that of the tiger`s, at equal mass, would be any different.  
 
I emailed a lot of experts, and most agreed with me.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:20 AM by damon
Damon 
I saw about 20-25 tiger-Lion fight videos, and every time the tiger seemed to be more dominant, even though its not used to fighting as much as the lions(who are supposed to be more experienced in fighting since they fight quite often with other males) Every time the lion seemed to initiate the fight, and every time the lion is the one who seemed to back off. Tiger's swipes may not be as powerful as the lion's, but they can deliver them much faster. Lion's deliver slower swipes but maybe they've got more weight in their swipes and can therefore cause more damage. Regardless of that, the lions still seem to retreat during a fight with a tiger.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:04 PM by TiGris
Tigris, i`ve seen all those lion vs tiger videos, but, very few where the tiger apparently gained the advantage, as you say. A lot of vids only show part of a fight, where the tiger manages a few lucky blows to an unwilling opponent. 
 
And, i`ve rather seen tigers run in most vids. Just check these vids out; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/48/master/1/ 
 
Studies by george washington crile indicate the larger organ and gland weights of lions as compared with tigers, as well as the fact they have the greater red blood cell count, all of which would equate to greater stamina. Let`s not forget the protection the mane of the lion offers in a fight.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:32 PM by damon
Hi Damon 
As for the Lion's mane, i found this mentioned in The first video found on the link you provided. "One nomadic male was killed presumably by another male in a brief but violent battle: The nomad had been bitten through the nape, breaking his neck, and there were tooth punctures in his throat,..." Well, I don't think the mane is of much use. If another lion can puncture his throat, so can a tiger. Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INK87vx6AEA the tigers grabs on to the Lion's neck and the lion is totally helpless.. and this  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZZQX2_li7k 
Tigers, unlike Lions, also seem to be quite decent when it comes to food. The same video mentions that they have priority rights to its own food supply even in the presence of a larger and stronger animal. Once a male tiger waited for two and a half hours at a kill until the tigress and her cubs had eaten before he proceeded to eat and on another occasion the male did not feed at all though he had not eaten much the previous night. We all know how male lions behave at a kill. When its time to eat, they do not think twice before attacking their own family members. No need to mention that. This video also mentions that Lions, though accomplished hunters, find it difficult to capture a meal.. so they eat what the females have captured..  
In the second video link, i agree that the white tiger does run away from the lion and it seems like all these videos links you posted have been uploaded by some Lion fan. A very biased choice of videos. And it seems like whenever a lion attacks a tiger there’s always a lioness(or two) who tries to attack the tiger from behind, which is not fair. Lions (like always) have a backup whereas the tiger fights alone. 
However, watch this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1X9XeWY6s&NR=1&feature=fvwp and this one  
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMXIFaH5ELU&NR=1 
 
Damon, what i feel is that it all depends on many factors. Both are powerful predators, fierce, brave, majestic, well equipped with killer weapons. I think it depends on any individual Lion or any individual Tiger, how aggressive, fearless and well equipped it is. That’s how it will prove itself in a fight. 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:36 AM by TiGris
TiGris, first off, in that first video you showed, which i`ve already seen, a countless number of times, the lion was 'jumped' by several tigers, which is not usually in their nature. Likewise, the lion held his own for a while, and, i saw no dead lion at the end of the vid, in spite of the title. 
 
So, what is that suppose to prove? 
 
Likewise, my vids showed fights between one lion vs one tiger, on numerous occasions, and, your second video was actually one i uploaded and which i showed to you...did you even look at the vids i showed? the lion won that fight, according to eye witness, Clyde beatty...likewise, the tiger ran several times during the fight. Why run if you`re winning? 
 
And, the video you talked of was the one i made (i`m brentlion) so, i already know the details. And yes, the males do occasionally get meals from the females, but, they actually get more food from what they themselves hunt, even though the lionesses hunt more often. This is because they usually hunt larger prey. 
 
And, i fail to see how those videos by me (brentlion) was biased, as i gave note to actual studies, when making a point.....in one vid, i showed where the lion and tiger`s strike speed wad measured, and, despite the claim by many tiger fans that the tiger can strike faster than the lion, the results were the same, in that case. 
 
And, i agree that the fight depends on the individual....however, i believe the lion would be, on average, the more usual winner, as they are certainly the more combative animal, and more willing to engage in battle. And, it is indeed true that lions can be killed with a bite to the neck....the mane does not always offer protection. But, it can, and does occasionally protect his neck, as a cat, when going for the neck, may misjudge the distance, and, instead of biting the neck, as intended, gets a mouthful of mane. Also, in the book 'lions `n` tigers `n` everything, a lion managed to kill a healthy adult male bengal tiger, in a menagerie, and it was stated his mane snagged the tigers paws, preventing an effective attack on his part. 
 
Also, that vid which says the tiger destroys the male lion twice does not even show a full battle, but edited scenes where the tiger dishes a few quick blows....how does that constitute a win?..... 
 
And, that part where the tiger knocks the lion down....he did not break his ribs, like some vids say, as i saw the full fight, and that very same tiger turned away from the lion, who walked up to both those tigers that were fighting (which were actually two males fighting, when the lion came up)and they turned to leave.  
 
If you view all of my vids (brentlion) you`ll see why i believe the lion would be the usual winner.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:35 PM by damon
Hmmm... I see, there's no point in arguing. As I said it all depends on that individual Tiger/Lion. The more powerful, aggressive and fearless one will scare the other. There is no established fact that every time(or most of the time) a Lion/Tiger wins. End of the story.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:53 PM by TiGris
TiGris, i never stated the lion would win every time....but, all the same, they would be the more likely victors, in my opinion, with a more aggressive nature, and certainly the more willing to battle. Likewise, they have that mane. When a tiger should go for a bite, he may misjudge the distance, and, instead of biting the neck, as intended, gets a mouthful of mane.  
 
Likewise, there is an account which indicates another quality of protection afforded by the mane....the tiger may snag his claws in it, in which case his fighting would be greatly restricted.  
 
The lion is also of greater stamina, according to studies by george washington crile......certainly they are the more practiced fighters, as well.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:04 PM by damon
DAMON 
 
CLYDE BETTY WAS A BIASED LION FAN.HE ALWAYS WANTED THE LION TO WIN.IT HAS BEEN AGREED BY MANY .SO WATS THE POINT TALKING BOUT HIM.U JUST CANT SEEM TO AGREE ..ITS UPTO U BUT THE HISTORY SAYS SO ,THE EXPERTS SAY SO,ANY GUY WHO COMES ACROSS THE QUESTION WHO WILL WIN A FIGHT BETWEEN A LION N TIGER ? THE ANSWER WOULD BE ALWAYS THE TIGER.UR CLAIM THAT MOST OF THE EXPERTS SAY THAT LION IS NO SMALLER OR WEAKER THAN THE TIGER IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.ONLY A FEW BIASED EXPERTS WOULD AGREE THAT LION IS STRONGER N WOULD WIN ANY FIGHT AGAINST THE TIGER. U SAID THAT THE LION KILLS THE LARGEST PREY BUT ON THE CONTRARY TIGERS REGULARLLY KILL GAURS(THE LARGEST WILD CATTLE)IN A NATIONAL PARK IN THE NORTHERN PART OF INDIA.U SAID LIONS OFTEN KILL LARGE PREY THAN TIGER. IT MAY BE TRUE BUT THEY TAKE DOWN THEIR PREY IN PRIDES.BUT THE TIGER ALWAYS HUNTS LARGE PREY ALONE....
Posted @ Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:52 AM by NAYAN
Where did i say the lion was stronger and would win any fight?.....i`ve never stated that, nor would i except any such statement from a scientist, as it is biased. 
 
And, i have every modern document published upon the weights of both lions and tigers, and indeed, this is not an exaggeration...i`ve found little, if any difference in the size of these specimens. They are equal in size as in weight. 
 
And, Beatty actually appeared to like the tiger more so than the lion....however, he made a statement not upon biased, but based upon his experiences in the cage.  
 
And, lions hunt lkarge prey whether alone, or in groups, and i have actual evidence.......i never make a statement without the data top back it up....otherwise, why bother?..... 
 
And, tigers usually hunt medium sized prey, and the average prey size taken by tigers is 91 kg, according to sunquist.
Posted @ Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:52 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
AVERAGE WEIGHT OF PREY KILEED BY TIGER MAY BE LESS .BUT THEY PREY ON GAURS SO WHICH ANIMAL HUNTS THE BIGGER PREY.DONT TRY TO ALTER THE TRUTH CLYDE BETTY HIMSELF ADMITTED ONCE THAT HE WANTED THE LIONS TO WIN. U R TALKING BOUT FACTS SO HOW CAN U MISSED OUT ON THIS ONE? 
 
TIGERS PREY ON LARGE AS WELL AS SMALL SIZED PREY.TIGERS EVEN PREY ON LANGURS .THEY KILL WHATEVER THEY COME ACROSS. I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHO KILLS THE LARGEST PREY AND IT IS THE TIGER WHO HUNTS THE LARGEST PREY. 
 
IN UR LAST POST U NEVER ADMITTED THAT TIGERS TAKE DOWN GAURS ALONE WHICH ITSELF SHOWS HOW BIASED U R TOWARDS A LION
Posted @ Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:25 PM by NAYAN
NAYAN, lions hunt giraffe...which are bigger than gaur. And, they`ve hunted them alone, as well. 
 
And, Clyde never admitted once that he wanted the lions to win....so, what are you talking about?.....i`ve read all his books, and i assure you he never mentioned any such thing. 
 
And, tigers do indeed hunt gaur, but not regularly...the average size of prey killed by single male lions, is over 300 kg....i can show you the study on this, if you want?....
Posted @ Thursday, September 17, 2009 2:23 PM by damon
This is why I would never beleive you damon, you said you are a fan of both lions and tigers but at the same time you never appear in any other tiger fight but this one, but you always appear where there is a lion fight and that makes you a liar. 
 
I've never heard of a any reports of lion/lions killing rhino but I have seen a report of a tigress killing a rhino and not just any rhino and indian rhino you know sightly smaller than a the white rhino which is the second heaviest land animal, and using a giraffe is just stupid a giraffe can bearly defend itself against any thing it even sees a lone hyena as a treat even when it as no calf, but single gaurs and cape buffalo can kill both lions and tigers so using the giraffe is kind of piont less here. 
 
 
 
Well in any case you say the lion win most of the time and I say the tiger. You can't change my mind and I can't change yours. 
 
I'm not a fan of any of these guys, I'm more into snakes anyway.
Posted @ Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:11 PM by No Name
DAMON 
 
U SAID LIONS KILLS GIRRAFFS ALONE. 
 
COMEON MAN .IF U STILL SAY LIONS TAKE DOWN GIRRAFFES ITS UPTO U. BUT THERE R INTANCES OF TIGER KILLING BULL ELEPHANTS IN KAZIRANGA.ALTHOGH INDIAN ELEPHANTS R SMALLER THAN AFRICAN ONES, BUT STILL ELEPHANTS WILL BE ELEPHANTS MUCH HEVIER THAN A GIRRAFF .THIS ARGUMENT IS BASED ON FACTS NOT MY FANTASIES.
Posted @ Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:10 PM by NAYAN
DAMON 
 
THIS THE VERY 1ST LINK I AM PROVIDING,I DONT WANNA POST ANY LINK ASI SAID BEFORE ,BUT AS IT IS REQUIRED I AM POSTING IT. 
 
http://worldanimalfoundation.homestead.com/AdoptATiger.html
Posted @ Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:32 PM by NAYAN
no name, the reason i don`t usually post in other topics is that this one (lion vs tiger) is the more interesting....this, and the bear vs lion topic, too.  
 
But, you stated i lied....i didn`t. And, those reports of tigers killing rhino`s consist mostly of them killing subadults, and, the animals never died on the spot.....likewise, this is extremely rare.... 
 
and, there are indeed reports of lions killing rhino`s, and adults, at that. I can show them, if you want?..... 
 
and, for what reason do you state the tiger would be the usual winner?..they are not larger, like most would like to believe...i have every modern study upon this subject, and i assure you....i`ve found little difference in the size of these specimens. 
 
Likewise, the lion, again based upon actual studies, has the more higher stamina, is also the more combative specimen, and certainly the more willing to do battle. Let`s not forget that protective mane of theirs.  
 
Here is a document i wrote, that explains it all; 
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12664042/Lion-and-Tiger-Interactions 
 
There you go.
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 4:29 AM by damon
NAYAN, there is no indication that tigers killed elephants outright....in fact, those cases of elephants dying were of specimens dying of starvation, due to their injuries. That does not prove your statement that tigers hunt larger prey, as, not only were the tigers NOT hunting the elephants in those instances, but, they did not die outright.  
 
 
Those animals were fighting, and the tiger managed to injure the animal enough, where his feeding became greatly compromised, and the elephant/s died.  
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 4:42 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
THERES NO POINT ARGUING WIT U ANYMORE.U R ABIASED LION FAN.TIGERS HAVE INDEED KILLED ELEPHANTS WHICH HAS BEEN PROVED.U JUST SEEM TO BELIEVE TO WAT HAS BEEN TOLD BOUT LIONS. U CANT SEEM TO AGREE ANY DAMN THING SAID BOUT TIGERS......BYE 
 
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 7:49 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, i assure you, i`m far from biased. I don`t just 'believe' everything i`ve heard about lions...i have the actual studies to prove my case. And, while elephants have died due to encounters with tigers, they did not die outright...they died later, most likely of starvation...and likewise, the tigers were not hunting them...... 
 
And, i don`t agree with statements which i know to be false, concerning tigers. As compared with lions, tigers are the more agile specimens, and are certainly the better lone hunters (although they usually hunt smaller prey items). They can also run faster......and they have larger brain sizes and canines as well...and indeed, i have sources for ALL of the above mentioned points i took note of.
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 9:02 AM by damon
Also, to prove my point that the tigers did not kill the elephants outright, here is one such case of a tiger killing an elephant; 
 
http://citynewslive.com/fullstory2k5-insight-news-status-29-newsID-6008.html 
 
"An elephant is suspected to have died of wounds inflicted by the same tigress that attacked a man at the Corbett National Park in Uttaranchal. 
 
Park officials confirmed that the pachyderm, which was found dead Friday night, had fought with the tigress that had mauled a man at the Dhikala tourist complex on the previous night." 
 
"According to a park official, "The elephant had been spotted with wounds, visibly inflicted by a tiger about five or six days back. 
 
"We were keeping track of the animal. Finally we found him lying dead in the forest quite close to the Dhikala complex." 
 
The elephant was found to have suffered multiple wounds on its trunk and it was amply evident that these were sustained in a battle with the tigress, which is suspected to have also suffered wounds." 
 
You see my point?...it took at least 6 days for the elephant to die, of wounds to it`s trunk and so forth, which likely prevented him from eating.
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 9:09 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
U R JUST STICKING TO JUST ONE INCIDENT.THERE R MANY.I ALSO HAVE HEARD OF THE INCIDENT U MENTIONED
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 11:46 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, i`m not sticking to that one incident....i`ve never heard of a case, and, i`ve heard of many, of a tiger killing an elephant outright....indeed, a lion is not capable of this feat, either.  
 
 
 
but, you stated that tigers 'hunted' elephants, which is incorrect......and, i also have a few accounts of lions and tigers fighting in the wild....care to see them?......As far as i know, there`s only 2 or 3 in existance (i have two at hand) and, the fights were rather interesting, to say the least.
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 1:22 PM by damon
Yes damon you are just a lying bias lion fan and you can't be anything else. 
 
Well I dont have time to waste on some lonly guy. 
 
Tiger will still win most of the time any way you take man 
 
See ya 
 
Thank you 
 
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 6:34 PM by No name
it takes a pride of lions to kill an adult rhino but it takes one tiger to do the same thing to a sudadult(which is still very big) rhino. 
 
Tiger vs lion 7-8/10 fight goes to the tiger.
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 6:39 PM by Larry
Hey Guys, 
 
Why are we arguing so much when we know that we are NOT going to have a common opinion about Lions n Tigers. I agree to some things Damon mentioned about Lions and some, I totally disagree. But thats quite OKAY. We are humans and are bound to have different opinions about any particular subject. Specially this one ;o) Those big cats out there are most probably having a good time (maybe even laughing out at us) Both cats are well adapted and built to suit the habitat they live in. Thats all to it. im sure we all got better things to do. People who have this as their study subject, please carry on... (It'll help you research more)
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 7:37 PM by TiGris
no name....where have i lied?...why call me a liar....i have sources, reliable ones, at that, to prove my claims......so, in what way have i lied?....i can offer evidence for every single one of my statements....i never let my liking of an animal influence may statements, otherwise, i wouldn`t bother with the topic.
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 7:47 PM by damon
larry, a lion is capable of everything a tiger is...likewise, the tigers never killed those rhinos outright....nor is it a usual occurrence......a great majority of records of these animals killing rhinos consist of young rhinos, even calf`s, for the most part. Lions are the more practiced fighters, with a large mane as well....and, they are certainly the more willing to do battle, with greater stamina as well....they are the more likely candidate to win.
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 7:50 PM by damon
TiGris, you are right....we shouldn`t be arguing.......but, i never make a statement without first thinking it through....likewise, i have actual studies that agree with my statements.
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 7:53 PM by damon
Points to Ponder, 
 
 
 
hello thr, I just found something.. "Of all the land carnivores, the tiger is the only species that has been known to charge and take down a full-grown male elephant, one-on-one. The killing of the elephant was called "Death by a Thousand Claws" by Colonel Kesri Singh. The killing for centuries in Asia, especially in Indochina, where elephants used to be utilized in military as weapons, minor ethnic tribes, who are specialized in capturing and training elephants, have the traditions of testing captured male elephants by pressing one against a tiger. If an elephant survives the fight, it is considered ideal for battles. Today, however, due to the depletion of both species, these extraordinary confrontations become exceedingly rare and are hardly ever witnessed by humans in the wild." Wt say...
Posted @ Friday, September 18, 2009 8:39 PM by Sabre
I really doubt any of these cats are laughing. There are about less that 1500 bengal tigers out there and 13000-20000 lions left. 
 
A tigress had once killed a mother rhino and although this is just one case. Not because it isn't recorded that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, both rhinos and tigers are rear so interaction between the two animals would also be rear. I doubt lions can do the same thing tigers can because if they could lions wouldn't relay on a pride so mush. 
 
Though the tigress killed the elephant indirectly a lion as yet to do that by himself/herself, even though african elephants are bigger, the lions still have yet to take down a sudadult elephant by itself whether directly or indirectly. 
 
I still say: Tiger vs lion 7-8/10 fight goes to the tiger.
Posted @ Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:35 PM by Larry
larry, i saw an account on google book search where a lion managed to kill an elephant...i`ll try to find it again, and post it here.......lions are every bit as capable as tigers....but, certainly, you do not think that a tiger killing an elephant, and you, knowing of no cases of lions doing the same, means they can defeat the lion?....that is a completely poor argument..... 
 
based upon actual accounts of these animals fighting, as well as eyewitness accounts of lions usually getting the upper hand, in a lot of fights, leads me to believe the lion would be the usual winners....they are the more combative animal, and has that protective mane as well.....likewise, they have been proven to have the greater stamina.
Posted @ Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:50 PM by damon
Funny thing damon you haven't said anything about "the death by a thousand claws" yet. 
 
I've seen a long time vedio where a lone male african elephant scared off a pride of 22 lions including 3 big male lions. While I have seen a tiger charge at two elephants but they were domesticated, and I am pretty sure that you are familiar with that tigress attacking a tourist while riding an elephant, she acted like it was'nt even there. And then that man that killed a lion with his bare hands. 
 
And you were saying that lions hunt the larger prey which I haved proved you wrong even though tigers do not hunt rhinos an average neither do lions, not even giraffe/rhino but thats just one case and won't prove anything. 
 
 
 
I still say: Tiger vs lion 7-8/10 fight goes to the tiger.  
 
 
 
Also I will be waiting for that lion killing an elephant record you claim you will get.
Posted @ Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:48 PM by Larry
Points to Ponder 
 
http://www.redorbit.com/education/reference_library/mammalia/lion/1912/index.html 
 
The lion (Panthera leo) is a mammal of the family Felidae and one of four "big cats" in the genus Panthera. The lion is the second largest cat, after the tiger.  
 
Posted @ Saturday, September 19, 2009 8:36 PM by Sabre
Points to Ponder 
 
http://www.digital-images.net/Gallery/Wildlife/SDWAP/Animals/body_animals.html 
 
The lion is the second largest living cat behind 
 
the tiger, with large males exceeding 550 lbs. 
 
They live in savanna and grasslands, but can 
 
live in bush and forest as well.
Posted @ Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:02 PM by Sabre
larry, i`ve also seen elephants scare off tigers....so, what`s your point?...tigers don`t hunt elephants at all...that case where a tiger managed to kill an elephant (which it did not kill outright, by the way) was of two specimens which had merely gotten into a fight.....the tiger didn`t try to kill the animal for food, and certainly you do not think it is a usual occurrence? 
 
and, lions quite frequently hunt giraffe....and, there is proof for this.......don`t come to any conclusions without knowledge on the subject... 
 
their is actual records of these animals fighting, at least two in the wild, and a great many cases from captivity, and Clyde Beatty, witness to many lion-tiger brawls, states the lion is frequently the aggressor, while the tiger habitually tries to avoid him. 
 
He also mentions a case of a powerful tiger, normally fearful of these creatures, attacking a lion from behind. The lion, the victim of shock, slumped to the floor on his belly..... 
 
The tiger held the lion in that position, steadily increasing his bite upon the back of the lion....until, by chance, the tiger, thinking he had conquered his adversary, slackened his grip, and the lion, quick as lightning, stumbled to his feet, and dealt the tiger a blow which sent him banging into the bars of the arena. The fight was over. That tiger never again wanted to tangle with that lion, and in fact did everything he could to avoid him, just short of hiding behind a pedestal. 
 
The indian ruler, jam sahib also mentions a case of witnessing 4 fights between lions and tigers, and on all of which the lion won. 
 
The lion has more stamina, and a protective mane as well, and is certainly the more willing opponent in any battle....the lion would be the usual winner. 
 
also, saber, lions can, and do, exceed 550 lbs in the wild...one specimen was measured at 750 lbs, according to charles pitman......the tiger is no larger than the lion, according to most accurate records.
Posted @ Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:14 PM by damon
I still say: Tiger vs lion 7-8/10 fight goes to the tiger. 
 
best comment I've seen so far!
Posted @ Saturday, September 19, 2009 9:32 PM by Anthony
DAMON 
 
PLZ STOP ALL THESE SHIT.Y THE HELL U KEEP TELLING THAT THE LION WOULD BE THE WINNER ,FOR US WHO KNOWS TIGER WOULD WIN WONT CARE BOUT UR COMMENTS. BUT Y U R SPREADING LIES OR UR FANTASIES.TIGERS R LARGER, MORE AGILE,N STONGER THAN A LION.SO HOW DOES IT APPEAR TO U THAT A LION WOULD WIN.COMEON MAN STOP SPREADING PROPAGANDA ..........N BOUT THE LIONS ONLY FIGHT N TIGERS HUNT IS NOT AT ALL TRUE.TIGERS DO FIGHT REGULARLY N EVEN MORE FEROCIOUSLY THAN A LION.PLZ MAN U R THE ONLY ONE WHO IS SAYING THAT THE LION WOULD WIN DESPITE ALL THE ODDS.PEOPLE OUT HERE DIDNT POST WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING BOUT TIGERS.
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:57 AM by NAYAN
DAMON 
 
ONE LAST THING Y U THINK THE LINKS N FACTS PROVIDED BY TIGER FANS R FALSE N WHTEVER U CLAIM IS TRUE.
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 4:46 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, igers are not bigger than lions, and there is no accurate study to conclude they are any stronger. I have every modern document published upon the weights of these animals, and i`ve found little, if any difference in their weights. 
 
And, where did i say that lions only fight and tigers only hunt?.....Lions, as well as tigers, fight and hunt, though tigers fight less frequently, but likewise are the more accomplished lone hunters. 
 
Read this; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/35 
 
and, check these scans from clyde Beatty`s book, facing the big cage; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/49 
 
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:19 AM by damon
NAYAN, only those links from websites which were not written by experts do i have a problem with.....i myself only look at documents published from scholarly journals, and books published by experts in the field or well known figures in the scientific community. 
 
In the lion vs tiger discussion, for instance, i would much rather agree with a person who has witnessed many lion-tiger battles, than a scientist who hasn`t an instead merely supports an opinion. At least the former base`s his opinion upon observation. 
 
I also have studies upon the organ and gland sizes of lions and tigers, and which shows the lion would have the greater stamina levels.....likewise, records show the lion is the more combative of the two, certainly the more willing participant in a battle. Not to mention they have that protective mane as well.....
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:31 AM by damon
Damon 
 
 
 
1. 
 
You told Nayan that lions are incapable of killing adult elephant by itself, then you say to me you have seen a record of a lion killing an elephant.(which I believe you do not have or will get). 
 
What was that damon a lie or a simple mistake? 
 
 
 
2. 
 
I never said it was rear for a pride of lions to kill a giraffe, I said it was rear for a single lion/lioness to take down a giraffe.  
 
 
 
3.  
 
"A tigress had once killed a mother rhino and although this is just one case, both rhinos and tigers are rear so interaction between the two animals would also be rear. I doubt lions can do the same thing tigers can because if they could lions wouldn't relay on a pride so much.  
 
 
 
Though the tigress killed the elephant indirectly a lion as yet to do that by himself/herself, even though african elephants are bigger, the lions still have yet to take down a sudadult elephant by itself whether directly or indirectly."  
 
 
 
Now damon point out where I said it was a common occurrence for lone tigers killing adult elephants and rhinos and where I said the tiger had directly killed any of these animals, Please You have to show me. 
 
 
 
4. 
 
You seem to have a problem on whether people agree with you or not, I made a simple comment and then you jump down my throat, I commented again and then you bite my head off, I made another comment and now you want to hack me to into bits. Not because I don't agree with you means the world is coming to an end, you dont need to take it so seriously. 
 
 
 
It is after all just an animal fight, you take this way to personal and in the end I always say the same thing: 
 
 
 
I still say: Tiger vs lion 7-8/10 fight goes to the tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 12:34 PM by Larry
DAMON 
 
HOW CAN U SAY THOSE LINKS OF WEBSITES R NOT WRITTEN BY EXPERTS.YOUR SO CALLED EXPERTS R EXPERTS N THOSE GUYZ WHO HAVE POST THOSE LINKS R NOT.COMEON MAN Y SHOULD U BELIEVE DAT CRAP. PEOPLE R NOT FOOLS TO BLINDLY ADMIT THAT TIGERS R BIGGER N........IF U DONT GIVE ANY CREDIT TO THOSE LINKS THAN Y SHOULD WE BELIEVE WHATEVER U SAID N THE LINKS U POSTED TO BE TRUE .ITS OVER MAN NO ONE IS GONNA LISTEN TO U.
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:38 PM by NAYAN
THERE IS AN ERROR IN MY EARLIER POST. THE THIRD SENTENCE IS HAVING A "U" WHICH SHOULD BE "WE"
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 3:47 PM by NAYAN
Clearly, larry, you misunderstood my point.....it is indeed possible for a lion to kill an elephant, but, not usually.....in other words, it`s rare. In most encounters, the elephant will come out on top....the same with the tiger. 
 
Get it, now?..... 
 
And, it`s not rare for single lions to hunt giraffe....and, indeed, i was referring to both single lions and a pride regularly hunting these specimens....in fact, about 70% of lion hunts occur alone, according to schaller, in his book 'the serengeti lion'. 
 
Also, why point out a case of a tiger killing an elephant, or rhino, as 'proof' that they could defeat a lion (even though that has NO relevance what-so ever) if you did not believe it was at least a semi occurrence?.... 
 
and, i`m not taking this discussion too seriously...merely pointing out my disagreement with your statement...not only is the experiences involved with killing an elephant different than when fighting a lion, i also have data, from eyewitness accounts, of lions usually coming out on top. 
 
They also have the greater stamina, and they have that protective mane as well. 
 
And, NAYAN, the links i showed was from experts in the field, or respected figures in scientific journals, such as George Schaller, melvin sunquist, Dr. Karanth, Hu berry, Brain c. bertram, Smuts, Smithers & wilson, Clyde beatty (lion tamer), George washington Crile, and a few others....everyone of those people are respected in scientific documents, most reporting their data straight from the field..... 
 
Now, let me show you an unreliable site/document, as compared with a reliable one; 
 
Unreliable website; 
 
http://www.lionlamb.us/lion/lionfact.html 
 
In the above website, there is no mention of references where they recieved those records of the lion....now, here is a reliable document from a scientist who actually weighed lions, or took note of reliable documents from which measurements were made; 
 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19461483/Comparative-Growth-of-Wild-Male-and-Female-Lions-Panthera-Leo 
 
...this document is from smuts, and, it is reliable as to the measurements of lions....
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 6:25 PM by damon
And damon I am like you just merely pointing out ny disagreement with your statement. And making my own statement as well. 
 
 
 
I still say: Tiger vs lion 7-8/10 fight goes to the tiger.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:00 PM by Larry
The record of the lion killing the elephant, where is it? 
 
 
 
I still say: Tiger vs lion 7-8/10 fight goes to the tiger.
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:05 PM by Larry
damon please give it a rest, you say you don't care if someone agrees with you or not but you keep posting here. 
 
You also said you only want people to recognize the study and all you do is post them over and over again like larry said the world is not going to end if someone disagree with you, people will always disagree with you no matter what. And most of the people read all the post here before they decide to comment so in other words some of them would read the links you post and still disagree with you. So what is your problem? 
 
is this why you droped out of high school because you focus more on these animal fight and that you did your work?(reallly non of my business) 
 
I do not care whether or not you answer this post but you need to give this thing a rest. 
 
I've read all the post and looked at all the links you post here and links of others and I still disagree with you, I've also noticed that the conversation was going just fine untill you showed up, but I am a stranger so what I say should not bother you, I'm just really sick and tired of seeing you here when I visit this site, 
 
You are making this thing run you life too much. And you take it way too seriously. And don't say you don't because everytime you post here you are proving yourself wrong.
Posted @ Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:39 PM by Anthony
Anthony, I dropped out of high school because i did not like it (at that time, i wasn`t even engaged in the lion vs tiger subject).  
 
and, where did i repost those studies over and over?...i only posted them, what, 2 times?.....with those last two links i showed, only one of them i had actually shown before.....so, what are you talking of?....did you actually LOOK at them?... 
 
and, this is not running my life....i barely spend a more than 20 minutes at a time on this blog....it only takes but a minute to post, or less....so, this scarcely takes up any of my time. 
 
And, you asked what is my problem?....well, when someone posts a particular statement, one which i know to be incorrect, i`ll point that out.....of course, you may think that i`m wrong, and so forth....that`s fine...but, i`ll defend my point, nonetheless, otherwise, why bother mentioning a point i won`t even defend?.... 
 
If i state that a lion would defeat the tiger in a fight, i`m not merely expressing an opinion....i have the data to back it up......from eyewitness accounts, with studies upon stamina, combativeness, willing to battle, protection of the mane, ect, as well as size.  
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, September 21, 2009 9:10 AM by damon
And larry, when i find that record of the lion killing the elephant, i`ll post it...i saw it quite a while ago, and, i don`t yet have it saved.........
Posted @ Monday, September 21, 2009 9:17 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
NO ONE IS LISTENING TO UR FANTASIES ANYMORE.......Y U ALWAYS CLAIM LION HAS PROTECTIVE MANE .MAN IT GIVES JUST A LITTLE PROTECTION.N EVERYBODY KNOWS DAT TIGERS CANNINES R ALMOST 4 INCHES LONG.MOST OF THE EYE WITNESSES HAVE CLAIMED THAT TIGER IS A BETTER FIGHTER. 
 
"If i state that a lion would defeat the tiger in a fight, i`m not merely expressing an opinion....i have the data to back it up......from eyewitness accounts, with studies upon stamina, combativeness, willing to battle, protection of the mane, ect, as well as size. "  
 
GO AHEAD WITH UR BULLSHIT AGAIN N AGAIN.TIGERS HAVE PROVED THAT THEY R BETTER FIGHTERS.PLZ DONT TRY TO SPREAD THESE SHIT AGAIN N AGAIN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 1:27 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, when has tigers proven to be better fighters than the lion?.....name one instance?..... 
 
Here is quotations from Clyde Beatty, who has actually witnessed many fights between these animals; 
 
"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." 
 
he has also said; 
 
"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."  
 
I also have many cases of lions killing/defeating tigers......
Posted @ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:27 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
EVERYONE KNOWS CLYDE BETTY WAS ABIASED LION FAN.HE HIMSELF ONCE AGREED THAT.PLZ KEEP UR CASES WIT URSELF N STOP ALL THESE SHIT.U R REALLY A SICK GUY .PLZ I DONT WANNA LISTEN TO UR LIES ANYMORE ..PLZ MAN SPARE ME 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:24 PM by NAYAN
NAYAN, where/when did Beatty state he was a biased lion fan?...in fact, if you read his books, it would seem he likes tigers more.  
 
And, besides, Beatty did not merely make a biased comment.....rather, he supported/stated an opinion based upon long experience....that is reliable.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:41 PM by damon
The tiger would be the usual winner thats for sure. 
 
tigers are an average bigger and stronger than lions not to mention they hunt bigger prey items on there own,over 90% of lions hunt together 
 
And whats even more surpriaing 89% of kills made by hyenas are actually eaten by lions, now what would be the percentage if one were to add other kills that were stolen from leopards,cheetahs and jackels. 
 
While it is estimated that only 4% of killes made by other animals are stolen by hyenas.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:02 PM by Zeroman
thats true zeroman, actually when lions hunt in packs they have a strike rate of only 30% and when they hunt alone only one in every 50 hunts is sucesful, and that hynaes have a higher succes rate that lions and african hunting dogs succes rate is 60%
Posted @ Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:33 PM by larry
hey larry and zeroman 
 
i know that a fight between a lion and a tiger is unfiar to the lion because tigers are bigger and stronger and that would make the tiger win most of the time, but how much of a mitch match fight do you thing it would be if it were a puma vs a jaguar?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:40 PM by Anthony
Larry, you are completely wrong. For starters, lions have a success rate, when hunting alone, of about 17%, according to scahller, and, when hunting in groups of two or more specimens, of about 30%, as you stated. 
 
However, in some cases (and, i do have these records) the success rate has been as high as 70%...... 
 
Likewise, lions do not steal up to 89% of hyena kills.....where`d you get that from, Zeroman?.... 
 
also, anthony, tigers are not larger than lions, according to most records, nor are they any stronger, and indeed, i have many records of lions defeating/killing tigers.
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:28 AM by damon
DAMON 
 
Y DA HELL U KEEP WRITTING ALL THESE SHIT. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT UR CLAIMS .Y DA HELL KEEP POSTING THESE THINGS AGAIN N AGAIN.N ABOUT TIGERS N LIONS ,TIGERS R THE BIGGEST CATS ON EARTH WHICH IS A PROVEN FACT. 
 
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:39 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN......You didn`t answer the question i gave you in my last post to you...where did Beatty mention or state that he was biased towards lions, as you stated?.....i`ve read all his books, and, i don`t remember that...... 
 
Likewise, i don`t care whether you care about my info or not....but, what i state is based upon actual, proven studies as well......and, i have every modern document ever published upon the weights of lions and tigers, and tigers are not larger than lions....and they certainly aren`t the biggest cats on earth....ligers hold that title.
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:53 AM by damon
DAMON  
 
U R REALLY A SICK GUY.THERES NO POINT SHOWING THINGS TO GUYZ LIKE YA. U DISAGREE DISCORY CHANNEL AS WELL NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.U SHOULD OPEN UP A CHANNEL AND SHOW UR BULLSHITS.  
 
CLYDE BETTY HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE ARENA WAS DESIGNED TO SHOW THE LIONS AS WINNERS.
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:16 AM by NAYAN
Again, NAYAN, you are misquoting clyde.....In the big cage, Clyde lets his lions in first, usually more lions than tigers.....tigers is not only because he has more lions than tigers (which he does) but also because the tigers fear the lions, and this is his prop for working them in the big cage, according to Beatty himself. His is a fighting act, and it creates a tense atmostphere in the cage...though of course he does not want his animals to fight....in fact, he seems to like tigers more, if you ask me....but, of course, you ignore those statements, though you probably never read clyde`s books.....
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:09 PM by damon
Here`s an account of a lion killing a tiger; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionkillstigeratzoo.jpg
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 4:03 PM by damon
sorry for the long wait Anthony and I know the fight between lions and tigers is unfair for the lion same case with a puma and jaguar, the smaller cat(lion and puma) would lose most of the time when fighting bigger and stronger members of the cat family not to mention pound for pound the jaguar is the strongest member of the cat family, I know pumas are brave enough to take on bears , whereas the jaguar isn't really challenged by other hunter unless you are counting predators like the anaconda and rearly the cayman, but just like the tiger fighting the lion and coming out on top most of the time the jaguar would be the usual winner when facing the puma.
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:22 PM by Zeroman
Thanks Zeroman, but I personally think they sould make an Indonesion tiger fight an african lion to make it almost an evenly match for the lion mainly because these tigers are only a few pounds lighter than lions, you know with bengal tigers being bigger, amd winnig most of the time when fighting a lion and all. 
 
 
 
 
 
How about a fight between a puma and a leopard, this fight is far more evenly matched and I think pumas are like only a few more pounds heavier that leopards an average so what do you think?
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:02 PM by Anthony
This fight I'm a little unsure of: 
 
 
 
Leopards don't really fight any animals for the fear of getting injured and being on able to hunt(like all other salitary big cats) while pumas can scare off grizzly bears which are usually bigger than Africa's largest land predator(lion). 
 
 
 
They usually retreat to the trees with there kill to discourage theives like lions and hyenas who are usually trying to steal the leopard's kill. 
 
 
 
They only really attack predators smaller that themselves,lone hunting dogs and jackels. While leopards also have more muscle mass than pumas and I belive are the stronger cat because they can carry their prey which can sometimes be more than twice their own size and still have enough strenght left to carry that prey item high up in a tree. 
 
 
 
Pumas like I've stated before can take on bears and though they do not kill them, it's the bear that is trying to scare the puma off its kill. 
 
Whereas pumas avoid wolf packs they are more that capable of killing a lone wolf while leopards avoid hyenas even a lone hyena can get the better of a leoperd. 
 
 
 
 
 
While there isn't much defference in size though it is estimated that the largest puma is bigger than the largest leopard, so I wouldn't put size as a factor in this fight. 
 
mostly I think the puma would be the usual winner but like only 55/100 fight, but anything can happen.
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:07 PM by Zeroman
you guys should check out "clyde beatty word vs visual clips" on youtube.didn't feel like posting the link. the guy was a lion fan and not because he SEENED to like the tiger more make him actually like the tiger more. 
 
amd Any guy that sprays chemicals in a tiger's face to save his lions from losing and don't do the same to save his tigers is nothing more than a bias lion fan. 
 
Tiger wins 7-8/10 fight with lion.
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:29 PM by Admin.
*SEEMED
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 9:30 PM by Admin.
Admin, that video has NOTHING to do with what clyde wrote in his books, because he rarely commented on it. Likewise, the vid, in my opinion, was very poorly made.....by a biased tigerfan. Beatty did indeed seem inclined to like tigers more...he just happens to support the lion in a fight. He is not merely making a baseless claim either....it is based upon years of experience in the big cage with these animals.  
 
Check my video out; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFli--lSKVk 
 
Here`s another; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rN4Oy86l9g 
 
and, as for Beatty`s words on this matter?....well, here they are; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/49
Posted @ Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:23 PM by damon
First let me address zeroman. A lone male leopard will chase off and rarely kill a lone hyena. Plus a puma on average are larger than leopards and is capable of killing animals weighing more than itself. Although leopards are capable of the same. A puma is less aggressive than a leopard. A hunters dog can scare it up into a tree even though the puma would make short work of the dog. On the other hand, when hunters have sent a lone dog to seek out leopards, the leopard will has attacked and killed dog. And that instance the leopard was a male and only 18 months old. In fight between the two providing there is no escape for either animal, the puma would come out on top being the larger cat and the most athletic of all the cats. Although being to much of a lightweight to compete with the heavyweights, the tiger and the lion.  
 
Now as regards the tiger vs. lion fight. In is a well known fact that that when pitting a full grown healthy male tiger vs. a full grown healthy male lion, the tiger has been the victor. In ancient times the romans pitted the lion vs. tiger and tiger won invariably, so much so that they would send in 5 lions against 4 tigers. As regards clyde beatty. Clyde beatty was a lion lover. Mable starks a world renown tiger trainer was a tiger lover. Mable starks challenged clyde beatty that she would put any one of her tigers against his lions. Clyde beatty declined to rise to the challenge. If he truly believed his lions could beat a tiger in a fair one on one fight-he would have risen to the challenge. Mabel Starks firmly believed that and thats why she issued the challenge. Lions have a sense of brotherhood and will often gang up on tigers. While tigers have the mentality that its every man for himself. While clyde liked tigers he loved lions and stated in his book that they were the stars of his show. Thats why he would send in 20 lions and 5 tigers. So that the lions could establish their dominance. And in his book he state skirmishes within his show were a tiger would be fending off several lions. He never sent in his show one full grown male tiger and one full grown male lion. It would be suicide for the lion. His biased gang up accounts of lions defeating tigers show that he is a lion lover. But when confronted by starks the truth came out that deep down inside-he knows that lions will not defeat a tiger in one on one fair fight. History has shown the tiger to victorious in such a matter.
Posted @ Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:41 AM by Kez
Kez, you are completely wrong...for starters, clyde seemed to like tigers more so than lions....and, he did not have his lions fight with those of mabel starks because it is cruel, and that does not fair well with the public....does fights staged in his movies was not his idea, either....they were in the script, and likewise were semi controlled, in that he would stop the fight when one animal was clearly the winner...however, in one fight, he was not able to stop it, and the lion ended up killing the tiger. 
 
mabel has never witnessed a lion-tiger fight....and in fact she stopped working with lions early in her career...as she couldn`t understand them, and had already had a few close calls...she also stated she didn`t like lions, and that tigers were her most favorite animals..... 
 
Clyde, instead, based his statements upon years of observation in the arena, and concluded the lion would be the usual winner. And, there is no truth whatso-ever to the statement that 5 lions were used against 4 tigers....i`ve seen that written before...didn`t believe it then, don`t believe it now.... 
 
There is only ONE recorded 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, suggesting that perhaps it was not a usual occurrence.  
 
However, studies seem to suggest the lion would be the usual winners, as they have a greater amount of stamina, as well as being the more combative of the two, certainly the more willing to engage in combat. 
 
The lion also has that mane of his....he would be the usual winner.
Posted @ Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:56 AM by damon
Also, Kez, you obviously haven`t read Beatty`s books....he speaks constantly of a battle between a single lion and tiger, and mentions many cases of a single lion defeating a single tiger, and that his tigers fear his lions. 
 
He has stated that, next to the tiger, the lion is composed, while the tiger is usually nervous and apprehensive.
Posted @ Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:58 AM by damon
but clyde was also cruel he intervened in his lions vs tigers fight so that his lions would be the usual winner. evertbody that isn't biased on this subjuct would now that. how fair is a fight when someone did something to one animal to make the other win? 
 
not very fair and only really bias lion fan would turn to clyde for answers. 
 
he mighted have only stated it once but to me he could have done it all the time to make his lions win. 
 
clyde's after all only a business man. 
 
 
 
the tiger would be the usual winner in a fair fight.
Posted @ Saturday, September 26, 2009 6:26 PM by Admin.
Admin, Clyde Beatty only intervened in one lion vs tiger fight, and, it was not to make the lion win but was because the animals were not, at the time, displayng any action.....after all, that scene was to be shown in a movie....and, what good`ll the scene do if the tiger merely held the lion`s mane in his jaws?...... 
 
 
 
So, in that one instance, he used ammonia to get the tiger to release his hold (he did not want to muddy the arena floor with water, as that would have ruined their filming for the day)....but, soon thereafter the tiger again attacked the lion....but, the lion ended up killing him, though it seemed the ammonia had little effect. I have the scan of the entire fight directly from the book...... 
 
 
 
If you actually read his books, you`ll see his statements that lions would be the usual winner is based upon long experience....i have many scans from his book....if you care to see them?....
Posted @ Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:37 PM by damon
No i did not read his book for i am not obsessed with this fight like you seem to be and i do not want to read your scans, the fact that he did it once can give the assumtion that he did it more than once it might not be in his book but he might not put it there so he could not look bias. but even so he was cruel once he started using these animals as entertainment 
 
 
 
Posted @ Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:58 PM by Admin.
http://www.idph.state.il.us/Bioterrorism/factsheets/ammonia.htm  
 
thats what the chemical can do to the eyes
Posted @ Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:02 PM by Admin.
also, beatty didn`t appear cruel to me....he disliked the mistreatment of animals......and, he did not use the ammonia on that tiger to get the lion to win, like you seem to believe, but instead did it to get some action out of the two animals, who weren`t moving much.... 
 
And, being of the circus, yes, you could say he used those animals for entertainment....but, is that wrong?...they get plenty of exercise in the process, and it is obviously something they want to do.....as they don`t do anything which they wouldn`t want to do.... 
 
Posted @ Saturday, September 26, 2009 11:22 PM by damon
Admin, the site you showed only talked about the effects ammonia had on humans.....animals are different. but, who said beatty sprayed the ammonia in the tiger`s eyes?...... 
 
It was stated Beatty dashed a little in the tigers face, and, that the tiger, rather than claw at his eyes, which he would have done had that been Beatty`s target, clawed at his nose, due to the strong fumes. But, after a few seconds, he again initiated an attack upon the lion, which suggests the ammonia had little effect. And, the description of the battle indicates just that.... 
 
Posted @ Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:17 AM by damon
Ok im sorry to say this but all you tiger lovers are wrong!!! the lion is and always has been the largest big cat you just didn't see it. The largest tiger was at 700lbs. And the largest lion was also 700lbs. but there are lions that people see and they say that they are massive!! About 800lbs!!! They witnessed one of these lions take out 3 other males at once. But people are to scared to tranqulize it because they have tried and it attacked and killed them and had no effect on the lion.
Posted @ Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:23 AM by lion man
Besides the lions ansestor the american lion is the largest cat that has ever lived. it weighed about 1060lbs on average. the tigers ansestor the saber toothed cat weighed 750lbs max!
Posted @ Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:29 AM by lion man
ANOTHER STUPID LION FAN KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT THE FIGURES.THE LARGEST TIGER WEIGHED 857 POUNDS WHICH WAS ABENGAL TIGER.TIGERS R NOT ONLY HARD TO TRANQULIZE BUT ARE VERY HARD TO SPOT.TIGER WAS ALWAYS BIGGER THAN LIONS.
Posted @ Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:33 AM by NAYAN
NAYAN, yes, the largest bengal did weight 857 lbs....however, the night before it had gorged on a buffalo carcass, and estimated to weight, without food contents, about no less than 715 lbs, according to the guinness book of records..... 
 
also, there was a lion mentioned By charles pitman, in his book, a game warden takes stock, which weighed over 750 lbs..... 
 
tigers are no larger than lions.... 
 
I also have the original document of the measurements of that 857 lb tiger, who was hunted by david hasinger.
Posted @ Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:44 AM by damon
NAYAN......the guinness book of records stated that perhaps the tiger had eaten 142 lbs of food, not me....i merely repeated it here. Do i agree with it?....i can`t say.....it is certainly possible, just as it is every bit as possible he did not.....and, i believe the latter, however, he was gorged, and he likely did eat a large amount.  
 
and, i never stated that 750 lb lion had an empty stomach or anything of the sort....however, there was no mention, by charles, of whether or not that male had a full stomach, or not, and, it is unwise to assume.....however, i did point out the fact the tiger had eaten something, as the study stated. 
 
And, here is a recent document from scientists which agrees with what i stated; 
 
"The team also looked at the popular idea that tigers are 'bigger' than lions (which could mean that the tiger's relatively bigger brain size simply reflects its bigger body). However, careful re-evaluation of original field data and relatively well-documented hunting records does not support this idea." 
 
http://www.sciencedaily.c...2009/09/090911145030.htm  
 
and, i agree with that study....indeed, i have every modern document upon the mass of these animals, and i`ve found little, if any difference in their weights.  
 
also, nat geo and discovery channel often quote well known estimates upon the sizes of these animals, rather than actual facts....for example, they stated that male siberians average 660 lbs....which does not agree with either modern or old data..... 
 
In recent studies, siberians weighed between 160 - 190 kg, the largest being 206 kg, the average; 176 kg. even in old documents, the highest average ever given for these animals was 225 kg, for 9 specimens which were hunted, as mentioned by sunquist.  
 
I have the actual studies to prove my statements, not a website merely saying 'tigers are much larger than lions', which is not a study at all....but merely a statement based upon limited knowledge of the different studies of the body mass of these animals, across several populations.
Posted @ Sunday, September 27, 2009 5:42 PM by damon
Tigers can eat up to 200 pounds of food for god sake, but I don't give a damn. I believe tigers will win 9 out of 10 times. But can anyone tell me how long the fight could last? My guess is 3 minutes.
Posted @ Sunday, September 27, 2009 9:46 PM by nomad
nomad, here`s a lion vs tiger figth that lasted 3 minutes; 
 
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk45/brentlion_2008/brentonlion/lionkillstigeratzoo.jpg 
 
There you go.....
Posted @ Monday, September 28, 2009 6:35 AM by damon
First of all, lets get some facts straight. It is a historical fact that romans used to pit lions against tigers and other animals. It is a historical fact that tigers won invariably. Romans used both bengal and the now extinct caspian tiger which according to modern science was nothing but a smaller siberian tiger. Stamina has little to play in fight with a more powerful fighter. Comparison. A dog has more stamina than a lion. Does that mean that 400 pound saint benard is going to beat 450 pound lion? Hell no. Weaponery of the lion its claws its teeth will make short work of that dog. The tiger has longer teeth, is more agile, larger, able to swipe with both front forelimbs and has more massive forelimbs and hindlimbs. Have you ever seen a lions hindlimbs? They belong on a cheetah. Lions also have longer slender forlimbs compared to a tiger. The mane offers little if any protection in a fight because both animals may attack the hindlimbs of attempt to rip the belly open. And dont feed me any crap about a lion using both forelimbs in a fight. Because I have seen both animals fight their own species and lions in general attack with one forelimb and they have to because they can not sucessfully for any short extended period of time balance their weight on their weak hindlegs. Thats why when lions attack each other they go for the weak hindlegs to disable their opponet. Tigers also have sharper fully retractable claws and greater more evenly distributed muscle. This is what allows them to take large bull guars by themselves regularly. Female tigers also have been known to take them also. I have never seen a male lion or female take down even the smaller cape buffalo without any assistance. Clyde beatty in his book whips tigers and lions to keep them in control, is that natural or humane? No. Mabel Starks was a world renown big cat trainer and her observations where based what she witnessed. And thats why she challenged clyde. Spraying ammonia in a tiger eyes or nose is manipulating the variables no matter what way you look at it. And if he did something like that who knows what else he during the skirmishes between the two to make his lions come out victorious. He states in his book, I like tigers but lions are the star of my show. That why would only send out 5 tigers and 20 lions. To say he is not a lion lover is plain ridiculous. Plus to add to the point of your bias damon. Its funny that you mention the 857 pound tiger in guiness book of records and you dont mention that the biggest natural cat on record in the same book was a 1025 pound siberian tiger. No food content to adjust that was how big it was. And it is becoming a well known fact that the northeastern tigers are the largest and more reportedly tipping the scales at 700 pounds plus. Plus the largest known wild lion was 690 pounds and the largest in captivity ever was 823.3 pounds. Both weights smaller than the largest indivials of bengal and siberian tigers. History has shown that tiger is not only larger but invariably the winner of such confrontations between the two cats. In fact you base alot of your information off clyde beattys biased opinions and biased accounts. It would be nice if you got the facts other resources to and you might learn to accept the truth. Posted on youtube where you have also infiltrated, someone as Dr. karanth who would win in fight between a Siberian tiger and a African Lion. You wouldnt believe the answer but I will paraphrase it for you. The siberian tiger is largest of all cats(this question is from the mid to late 90's before the habitat loss and prey depletion) In a one one fight the siberian tiger would be the winner. But lions usually fight in groups up to 4 males and would have the advantage.Clyde beatty, mabel starks, big cat trainers, Dr.Karanth, IS A SCIENTIST. Who has studied both lions and tigers for a scientific purpose. All the facts that you attempt to twist have been proven false. Tigers cross the 500 pound barrier more often than lions do thats a fact.That why their given the title as the largest of all cats. It is true that occasionally their maybe a individual lion that maybe larger than another individual male tiger. But on average and in even in the most extreme cases the tiger is larger. Siberian tigers in captivity have regularly tipped the scales at 750-950 pounds. And its not all fat. And thats after not feeding them for a couple or more days. Biggest tiger 1025 pounds, biggest lion 823 pounds. Biggest in the wild Lion 690 pounds also displayed in a museum and was one the lions protrayed in the movie the Ghost and the Darkness. Biggest wild tiger 857 pounds, extreme cases. On average, Lions weigh 400-450 pounds. On average tigers weigh 440-485 pounds. Northern bengal tiger average 518 pounds. Point: Tigers are larger that the facts. Your words and documents carry no weight cause you are not a scientist. To say that the lion is larger and is the usual winner in a fight is like calling the ACTUALL scientist and historians liars,people who have put more time,work,effort and who have actually studied both animals up close in their natural habitats. The closest you have probaly been to these animals is at zoo. And for a side note when you take these animals out of their natural habitat and force them to coexist-thats inhumane. So its funny that clyde was challenged by starks he all of the sudden decided to have a heart.
Posted @ Monday, September 28, 2009 12:15 PM by Kez
Kez, first off, yes, it is indeed a historical fact that the romans often pitted tigers against lions in the coliseum. But, those battles were not recorded, other than by one fight mentioned by martial, as i took note of in my previous post. 
 
and, tigers are not more powerful than lions.....and yes, in this case stamina will play a significant role, as the lion will be able to last longer in a fight....likewise, they are the more combative of the two...certainly the more willing opponent. and lions can indeed fight upon their hindlimbs for a long period of time...in fact, that is the method is protrayed in the book, lions `n` tigers `n` everything', where the lion ended up killing the tiger. So, i would suggest that lions can, as easily as tigers, fight with both paws at the same time....and, i`ve seen many wild fights, and also seen many lions display this technique, rather in fights with tigers or other lions. Not that fighting with two paws is an advantage....it`s not...it only works to tire the animal more quickly, and the tiger, who`ll likely throw a plethora of blows, often at least twice as much as the lion, is also more likely to miss more often. 
 
and, there is no proof the tiger has sharper more fully retracted claws...and, i`ve never heard any such statement from a scientist, least of all a credible one. And, the muscles are evenly distributed in both the lion and tiger....how`d you get the notion they weren`t?......there is no study for this, so, you cannot make that statement. 
 
and, tigers also do not take large bull gaurs by themselves regularly.....in most areas, tigers rarely hunt them.....in others, they usually target the young animals, though they can, and do sometimes hunt the adults, but certainly less frequently than single lions hunting giraffe, which are bigger. 
 
and, beatty NEVER mentioned whipping tigers or lions...so, what the hell are you talking of?...you`ve obviously never read his books....i have scans directly from his books, where he tells of his training methods, and i assure you it had nothing to do with whipping them....would YOU whip a lion or tiger, and expect to get away with it?....i don`t think you would....and, apparently, beatty thought so too, as he stated in his book. It would be suicide to whip these animals. 
 
and yes, lions are indeed the star of his show, though if i remember correctly, those were not his exact words.....rather, he has more lions then tigers, and it makes for a more tense atmosphere and likely a more crowd aweing performance to have lions come in first.  
 
why don`t you check this out, which tells of clyde`s training his big cats, directly from his book; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/6 
 
and, i am far from biased.....in fact, it is you that appears to be biased. Also, the largest wild lion was stated as being over 750 lbs according to charles pitman, while the largest tiger was 857 lbs, but likewise was gorged, and estimated (by guinness) to weigh at least 715 lbs.  
 
and, siberians do not regularly tip the scales at 750 lbs or more in captivity...i have many records which suggest just the opposite...though i do believe that, proportionately (i.e. length, ect), siberians are slightly larger than lions.  
 
and, lions average 420 lbs...the same as tigers...though populations of lions have averaged 221.5 kg (those of southern kenya) which is as large as chitwan tigers, when their weight is adjusted for food content, as they ate a total of 14 kg of food, feeding upon baits. 
 
and, i NEVER stated the lion is larger...where`d you here me say that?.... 
 
and yes, beatty did decline starks challenge....because, in the publics eyes, as well as his own, that likely would seem cruel....he never really stage any battles between lions and tigers, other than less than a handful in two of his movies, and then that was only because it was in the script, and of course not his idea.  
 
Likewise, mabel stark actualy stopped working with lions early in her career, and even stated she does not like them.....nor could she understand them....check out my new video i just made; 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YImg7LKjZVg 
 
and, also, check this out, on mabel stark; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/44 
 
there you go....
Posted @ Monday, September 28, 2009 1:27 PM by damon
also, the largest lion in captivity was 930 lbs, according to peter jackson, while the largest captive bengal tiger was 866 lbs......
Posted @ Monday, September 28, 2009 1:29 PM by damon
Cyled was a cruel man the moment he started using these animals as entertainment, damon he would not appear cruel to you because just like him, you are a lion fan,how would you like to be placed in a cage and whiped to do tricks damon?  
 
Don't anwser that because I know what your answer would be but What you can answer is this, isn't being whiped to do tricks cruel to animals? 
 
To say that the effects of ammonia is different on a tiger compared to a human shows just how ridiculous you really are. 
 
When scientist run experiments of new chemicals they first test them on certain animals first and not humans if it affects the animals in a bad way then the chemical is considered dangerous but if it doesn't have any major effects then they test it on humans. 
 
The tiger must have let go of the lion for a reason, like you said Clyde wanted to separate them because nothing was happening and no matter what the lion did it could not escape from the tiger showing when the ammonia hit the tiger it had to have some effects on it for the tigge to let go.  
 
If you know so much about these animals you should know that a wild lion weighting well over 400 pounds is very fat and a wild tiger weighting well over 500 pounds is also fat. That size is very un natrural for these animals. 
 
And that wild lion over 750 pounds was never confirmed so why do you keep bringing it up? 
 
Until I see it on records then I will believe you but until then 690 pounds still stands. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Monday, September 28, 2009 1:49 PM by Admin.
I've seen in his vedios where he used his whips, and you also have yet to me that lone lion killing that adult elephant?
Posted @ Monday, September 28, 2009 1:59 PM by Larry
Larry, i never said Beatty didn`t use whips, i stated he did not use them to whip them....he made this clear in his books.....he used the whips to cue the animals, such as by tapping a certain area (like a pedestal) to get them to mount the chair, or else use the sound to cue them...but, he doesn`t actually hit them with it....in fact, you can see in the full big cage movie how he uses the whip the cue his animals, even in the lost jungle movie (i have the full movie) as he is seen cueing his big lion, caesar, directly before the fight scene in the movie, to mount the pedestal...in the movie, the lost jungle, he uses it to cue his 'spinning' tiger to, of course, spin. 
 
Admin, i have every modern document upon the weight of lions, and i assure you, they average 420 lbs...though some populations average close to 500 lbs....as i have indicated. Also, larry, i could not yet find the account of the lion killing the elephant, when i do, i`ll post it.....trust me, i haven`t forgotten.  
 
also, Admin, charles pitman states the figure is reliable, and he himself is quite a reliable source upon this..... 
 
also, my opinion that beatty was not cruel has NOTHING to do with his liking lions.....i could care less about which animal he likes most. If a person reports a particular statement about which animal would win in a fight...i`d rather they give an honest opinion, no matter which animal they actually like more. That being said, he appeared to like tigers a stint more than lions.... 
 
when i get enough time, i`ll post the full big cage book, and perhaps one or two of his other ones... 
 
and yes, i also agree that a 500 lb lion is a bit fat, but it is also not far from their average body mass....then again, a tiger of that size is fat as well.....
Posted @ Monday, September 28, 2009 3:54 PM by damon
to all 
 
you guys are really wasting your time arguing with mr.damon.i ve been going through this site quite a long time now and noticed one thing that this guy mr.damon always want to alter facts. "The largest tiger ever held in captivity, and the heaviest 'big cat' on record, is a nine-year-old male Siberian named 'Jaipur', owned by animal trainer Joan Byron-Marasek of Clarksburg, New Jersey, USA. This tiger measured 3.32 m 10 ft 11in in total length and weiged 423 kg 932 lb in October 1986" 
 
this guy will try to alter it(the above qouted) by saying all these ....ts. 
 
to all who are falling in the trap of mr damon i just want to suggest you that stop wasting your time and energy while typing the posts.this guy mr.damon will alter everydamn thing with his ......ts. 
 
according to him whatever he has heard about lions is correct.he always says that he has all the modern documents.he does not even know that whether modern or old (documents)tigers were and will be hevier n stronger than lions. 
 
damon is a lier and a biased lion fan. 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:22 AM by tridip
tridip, what records have i tried to alter?...i didn`t even say anything about the jaipur record.....and, the largest tiger in captivity was actually 1025 lbs......and, that was a siberian tiger..... 
 
But, the largest BENGAL tiger in captivity, according to the guinness book of records, weighed 666 lbs..... 
 
and, in both modern and old documents, i`ve found little difference in the weights of lions and tigers.....what documents do you have?..and, i`m not talking of some website which just says that tigers are heavier......i`m talking about actual publications from scientists in the field.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:35 AM by damon
I'd just like to clarify one thing about tigers and the prey they go after.  
 
First of all tigers, like all carnivores, tend to go for the weak, the sick, they young and the old. Just because they occasionally tackle large prey like buffalo doesn't necessarily mean they always do. If given a choice, they will go for a younger weaker animal that's less likely to cause serious injury.  
 
As for tigers tackling rhinos and elephants, this is certainly NOT true. They may on occasion go for calves, but they don't try to take on the adults. Elephants and rhinos are massive creatures that have no natural enemies. The only predators they need to fear are humans.
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:54 AM by Jordan Vetter
JORDAN VETTER 
 
THERE ARE INSTANCES OF BENGAL TIGERS KILLING ADULT BULL RHINOS IN KAZIRANGA N EVEN ELEPHANTS. 
 
MAN IF U HAVENT READ THOSE ARTICLES Y DA HELL U SAY ONLY ON UR ASSUMPTIONS. 
 
IN KAZIRANGA THE FOREST OFFICIALS ARE FACING THE PROBLEM OF SAVING THE GREAT INDIAN RHINOS DUE TO HIGH DENSITY OF TIGERS .I HAVE PERSONALLY MET THOSE OFFICIALS. 
 
BE SURE BEFORE U SAY ANYTHING 
 
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:35 AM by NAYAN
tridip, the heaviest wild lion was over 750 lbs, while the heaviest captive specimen, according to peter jackson, was 930 lbs. 
 
And yes, i do agree with that record of the 857 lb tiger, as i have the record of his capture and measurements....however, just as you stated, the animal was baited and his weight actually estimated to be 715 lbs.....where`d you get 685.6 lbs?..... 
 
But, none of those specimens are average sized, so it is of little use......
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:41 PM by damon
Damon, you get around; I knew I would find you here LOL... I think both animals are amazing. 50/50; a toss up!
Posted @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:27 PM by Ted
wow. this argument still isn't resolved?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:02 AM by Serov (a pen name)
Where are we getting that lions have more stamina? Lions do not have more stamina than tigers. Schaller states that the lion has legs and forelimbs that are more closely related to that of a cheetah. But not the stamina. After a several hundred feet they are panting. It is true that tiger typically has to creep within 80 feet to have a chance at being successful, but they have been known to chase prey for long distances. National geographic even shows a male hunting deer at a water hole and chasing through the water which take exceptional strength, back to land in then back to the water again. It is true that intially in encounters that I have seen personally, that intially the lion seems ready to fight, but after a couple of swipes from the tiger or a brief altercation it does not seem interested in pressimg the issue. what people dont realize is that a lion hales from a place where it is the ultimate predator, not having any predators that are larger than itself other than other lions. So it explodes into a fight. A tiger has to deal with predators as big or bigger (sloth bears, black bears,pack of dholes) than itself so it analyze's the situation first. When lion explode or bull rush into a fight with a tiger its usually to their detriment, the tiger side steps, swipes and then will pin the lion. Lions waist alot of energy in their first attempt to bull rush the enemy and usually when these cats do fight according to trainers and zookeepers its usually over in a matter of minutes. And most of the time its the lion on the losing side. Sometimes depending on the situation and the individual the lion is capable of winning. But all variables aside, if you take to fit adult individuals from either side, it is the tiger that will prevail. This has been the case for hundreds of years and published in history books and on the national geographic websites. That when the ancient romans pit lions verse tigers the tiger invariably won. P.S. the tiger is the only cat with fully retractable claws and they are sharper than the lions. One expert noted that if lion got a piece of clothing through a cage it would have to release its grip and apply it again everytime it wanted to draw you close. a tigers claws are individually retractable hint the term fully retractable so it doesnt have to loose its grip to pull you closer. Once its gets a piece of your clothing your done it will pull you closer like your on a conveyer belt. The interesting thing that I recently found out is that in these acient colliseum fights they used both bengal and caspian tigers. Caspian tigers were about the size of bengal tiger and was rencently discovered that the caspian tiger was a slightly smaller siberian tiger, not a seperate subspecies. It should also be known that the tigers in rathombore almost strictly consist of guar. Gaur makes up the bulk of their diet. The sizes of each they may kill does vary. But taking down bull gaurs is more routine than most may think. Even females have been seen taking down bulls. And damon that 420 pounds that you are posting as average is incorrect. The 420 pound average is for the southern africa and kenya population where the largest lions dwell. The average for those lions is actually 423.3 pounds for those populations. However the average lions in general is 413.5 pounds. that is for all wild lion population. Its is also interesting to note that if you take a lion, bengal tiger, and siberian tiger, put them together. The siberian tiger is more massive than both bengal and african lions even at the same weights. Plus the bullrush technique that lions use when engaging in fights is what led to them also being masacared by the californian brown bear in their pit fights. Its not smart to use a direct frontal attack on a 700-800 pound bear.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:03 PM by Kez
Hey guys I know this is off topic but why do lions and hyenas fight so much?
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:04 PM by Anthony
They are mortal enemies. The reason: Food and Territory. 
 
 
 
Check out the video "Eternal Enemies."
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:10 PM by Ted
Kez, do you even read my posts?...apparently not...for starters, lions are indeed of greater stamina than the tiger...and, here are a few studies in proof of this; 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/14/t/lion-vs-tiger-stamina.html 
 
 
 
...i would conclude the lion has the greater stamina. neither animal can run for long periods....yet, guggisberg (wild cats of the world) mentions a case where a lioness ran for 1600 ft, and then, directly afterwards, ran for 60 ft more. here`s the text "To my amazement, the lioness, on leaving the high grass, fell into a gallop and raced straight at the gazelles. They fled immediately, but she kept up the pursuit and it became apparent that she was after one of the fawns. The chase covered a distance of some 400 (1300 ft) to 500 m (1600 ft), the largest stretch i have ever seen a lion run flat out. The distance between the predator and quarry gradually narrowed."......he further mentions, after a particularly sharp turn by the young gazelle, the lioness chasing the animal for some 65 to 98 ft, an amazing performance.  
 
 
 
a tiger, in the book 'tiger' by steven mills, ran a distance of 275 m, or 907.5 ft. the text goes as follows;  
 
 
 
"perhaps the deer stopped for a moment to check whether he`d shaken off the tiger. If so, he made a fatal mistake because chips was right behind him and caught him. The tiger had covered at least 275 m (900 ft) flat out. In fact he was so tired that he just toppled the deer and lay on top of it for five minutes until he recovered his strength. Then he throttled it."  
 
 
 
...it would seem the lion has greater stamina.  
 
 
 
Also, lions do indeed average 420 lbs...the average of 116 adult male lions, according to G.L smuts, one of the leading experts on wild lion research, gave an average of 189.08 kg....which is about 420 lbs. 
 
 
 
Likewise, 4 southern kenya lions weighed by the kenay wildlife service, averaged 221.5 kg...5 adult male lions from transvaal, according to charles pitman, who stated they were reliably documented and proven via eyewitnesses, averaged 217 kg. 
 
 
 
Those lions of rhodesia average 193.3 kg, while 18 specimens from zimbabwe, in a study by smithers and wilson, averaged 202 kg....and, here are those records by smuts; 
 
 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/45/t/Comparative-growth--wild-male--female-lions-panthera-leo.html 
 
 
 
There you go....
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:12 PM by damon
Damon, 
 
 
 
The report focuses on the Adrenal Glands which I am well aquainted with. Both the Lion and Tiger have large Glands; the opposite of humans. However, this report you cited wrote of a female Lion and a male Tiger.  
 
 
 
Point: the Female Lion has a lot more stamina then the Male Lion as well. 
 
 
 
1 on 1 in my opinion the male Tiger can out last a male Lion because it does not have females to help hunt. Also, the Adrenal Gland can work both ways; too much adrenaline output will leave Lions, Tigers, Humans exhausted after the event. 
 
 
 
Adrenal Glands are only one component in regard to stmina. Individual Tiger & Lions will rate differently according to the individual animal. 
 
 
 
I did not see anything about Lung capacity & performance. 
 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:32 PM by Ted
Also, it seems the author of this report does not know the gegraphical location of Lions and Tigers. The author mentioned Lions & Tigers running from Hyenas.  
 
 
 
IMPOSSIBLE! We know Tigers and Hyenas never come into contact.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:36 PM by Ted
Ted, the studies i showed did not only focus on the adrenal glands, it focused upon heart size and lung size as well as the celiac ganglia, among other things...did you just glaze through them?...and, only the portion from guggisberg`s book talked only of female lions...my other studies were mostly of males... 
 
female lions are only but of slightly more greater stamina than a male lion.....they being the same species of animal, after all. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:37 PM by damon
And, george crile was only talking of the lions when he stated these animals are chased by hyenas...you merely missread his quote...and, as i said in my previous post, that study focused upon adrenal gland size, heart size, lung size/capacity, the caeliac ganglia, and the red blood cell count, all of which plays a role in stamina, as well as the animal`s ability to effectively launch an immediate attack, with great vigor. 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:40 PM by damon
Yes I admit it was a quick glance. My apologies. However, one thing I find interesting is how well Tigers can dive into the water and swim a good distance and still take down animal and human prey. That takes real stamina! 
 
 
 
I have never seen a Lion swim after it's prey and catch it. 99% of Lions don't even like water. 
 
 
 
We know swiming is a great test of endurance!
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:41 PM by Ted
Ted, have you seen the documentary, relentless enemies?...well, in that documentary, the lions, of the ngorongoro crater, and more specifically, the tsaro pride, frequently hunted in water, as majority of their homeland was surrounded by it....and, they were well adapted for it, with deep chests and huge forequarters, acording to the author, dereck joubert. 
 
Likewise, the lionesses were described as....well, here is the exact wording "the tsaro pride is made up of 9 lionesses of enormous bulk. Thick necks and heavy chests define them" 
 
That documentary also showed a part where a lioness managed to take down an adult buffalo cow unaided.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:46 PM by damon
Damon, 
 
 
 
If you can email me that report so I can do a more detailed study. 
 
 
 
Thanks!
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:47 PM by Ted
Ted, i have no idea of your email......
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:49 PM by damon
Yes! That is why I qualified my reply with 99% of Lions :). I knew there was at leats one pride. However, they had no choice but to adjust to the situation; Tigers regulary dive into the water after prey. 
 
 
 
Well I am not taking sides on this one. As I commented earlier; I see these two amazing animals as pretty much a draw.
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 7:54 PM by Ted
Damon, 
 
 
 
If you can; just repost the website you sent earlier. 
 
 
 
Thanks!
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:02 PM by Ted
Here it is, Ted; 
 
http://wildanimalelite.yuku.com/topic/14/t/lion-vs-tiger-stamina.html
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:08 PM by damon
Damon, Exact quote, "The less fit Lions AND Tigers will finally be taken by Hyenas"(Pg.12). I thought I got it right!  
 
 
 
Sloppy mistake; still informative! 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:54 PM by Ted
Damon do you read my post? Of 344 male lions studied of ages 4 and above, males protrayed a average (all populations together)of 187.5kg (413 pounds). The population of the transvaal lions averaged 432.3 pounds. Where you come up with this 420 pounds for the entire population is beyond me. The 930 pound and 750 pound lion are not viable. Though they were confirmed by eyewitnesses and officials they were not gathered for a scientific purpose and considered questionable by scientist. Also I did read your post and the female does have slightly more stamina than the tiger. Slightly. But we are talking about the male lion and a male tiger. And the male lion does not have more stamina than a male tiger. Plus distances of chasing prey you posted were a female lion chasing prey not a male lion. If you read my previous post of what schaller a SCIENTIST stated on the male lions stamina. And if you were to observe the video at the top of this page, that is a female lion, and tell how her stamina won her the fight. It got her dazed by a two piece that took her will to fight away and she then submited. Stamina, heart and lung capacity, are not a good way to measure a fight. A cheetah has a bigger heart and lungs in comparison with the size of its body, then both tiger and lion, but that does not mean that it will help survive a fight against either one. In fact it would get destroyed in a matter of seconds. Rather its the way each cat applies its energy that will infuence the outcome of the fight. Also size, fitness, and age play a role in determining the outcome. The lion waist alot of energy bull rushing its opponet, if the tiger can weather the storm early it will outlast the lion. In most cases the tiger will use the lions energy against him. This is common because thats how tigers take down larger prey. They use the momentum from the creature to bring it down. In any case it will depend on the individual fitness, age, size that will determine the fight. If there are no variables and you fight a traansvaal lion (432 lbs)vs. a nepal or nothern tiger of (518 lbs) provided their are no variables for either creature. The tiger will win convincingly. If you take animals of the same weight size age fitness the outcome would probaly be in favor of the tiger 7/10 times. Also it is no amazing feet for a lion to take a buffalo cow which similar in size the size of a zebra. It is amazing for a female tiger to take down a bull gaur which is larger than a bull cape buffalo of africa. Almost more than 6 times her size. Dr. karanth has alos observed 5 times where a crocodile has killed a male lion. Its has recently been observed of tiger female and male kill 16 to 18 foot long bull mugger crocs. Their is even a 1988 national geographic of a male tiger swimming 60 feet or so and reclaiming his kill from several crocs and then swimming with the 250 pound bloated sambar back to land. And for ted hyenas and tigers do coexist in india though rarely. In india the rare spotted hyena inhabits a small area in tiger country. They are not like african hyenas because they are solitary and thus do not clash much with tigers because they are rare and a confrontation one on one would be deadly for the hyena. They used to be widespread but were hunted to the point of near extinction. Also the rare royal cheetah inhabits a preserve in india not in tiger country. Plus the rare Asian lion inhabits a small preserve in Gir, india also 200 miles away from tiger country. Slightly smaller than their african cousins and have a shorter mane some are practically maneless.
Posted @ Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:08 AM by Kez
Kez, you obviously did not read the study properly....there was not 344 male lions measured....there was a total of 344 lions weighed, which included females and cubs, from kruger park. Out of those 344 lions, 41 adult males were measured, and they averaged 187.5 kg, adjusted for food content. 
 
However, if you further read the study, you`ll see he gave an average of 189.08 kg for a total of 116 adult male lions. 
 
and, the cheetah does not have a bigger heart in comparison to the lion.....for more on this, here is the study; 
 
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3110/1/V40N05_219.pdf 
 
One cheetah, of 40.82 kg, had aa heart size of 159 grams, and a lung size of 360 grams. 
 
A lion, for comparison, of 124 kg, had a heart size of 1163 grams, and a lung size of 2600 grams 
 
The tiger had a heart size proportionately smaller than that of the cheetah`s, but, only slightly, but his lungs was larger, proportionately. The tiger was 209 kg, and had a heart size of 698 grams, and a lung size of 1888 grams.  
 
and yes, i know indeed a male lion cannot run for long...i never stated the stamina of the lion was exceptional, but, it is better than that of a tiger`s...steven mills, tiger expert, stated that tiger usually does not chase his prey for more than 100 m. 
 
also, you are clearly not reading my posts hardly at all......4 southern kenya lions averaged 221.5 kg, while 5 transvaal specimens averaged 217 kg, according charles pitman, who states they were reliably proven figures, and documented via eyewitnesses. 
 
Liekwise, zimbabwe lions average 202 kg, according to a study by smithers and wilson on 18 male lions. 
 
Etosha males, in a study by Hu beryy, averaged 190 kg, while those of the serengeti averaged 189 kg.  
 
$2 adult male tigers weighed by dunbar brander averaged 190 kg.....tigers are no larg