Post by A.G. on Sept 5, 2008 12:19:03 GMT -5
This has to be one of the most debated questions I've seen online. It's insane! People go nuts over this, just check the wars on YouTube!!!
There seems to be A LOT of people that ask about this topic but VERY few actually know what they are talking about. First of all, the question itself CAN’T be answered for 2 reasons:
1. The two cats are very evenly matched. If there was a distinct winner then this would not be such a highly debated question.
2. Any filmed fights are between captive animals and do NOT reflect what would actually happen between wild counterparts. Behavior is just as vital in a fight as size and strength, thus captive animals are not an accurate indication.\
Now let’s look at size as it is easily the most misunderstood/misquoted issue. In these debates people often say something like, “Well the Siberian tiger goes up to 700 lbs while an average lion is 400 lbs”. That’s is a very poor statement! First you are comparing an extreme size for a tiger with an average size of a lion. The fact is that no wild cat is over 700 lbs unless it’s a freak case. And yes, there have been rare instances when 700 lbs tigers were found, but for example the largest wild lion was measured at 690 lbs. So get your facts straight here, people. First of all, the Siberian tiger isn’t the giant it was made out to be in old documents, which were largely based on hunting stories. The officially research on Siberian tigers (started in 1992) states that the biggest males are only 520 lbs. The largest of the Bengal tigers, from Nepal, were measured around 530 lbs.
The bottom line here is that it doesn’t matter if you take a Siberian tiger or a Bengal, the largest of both are roughly the same size. Average male lions weigh in the low to mid 400 lbs range. The average male tigers (Bengal/Siberian) weigh in the mid to upper 400 lbs range. So, in terms of size you are looking, on AVERAGE, about 50-70 lbs difference. That’s not much in 400 lb cats. And as I said, larger size to occur and both cats have been recorded to surpass 600 lbs in the wild.
If you had lions and tigers live together in the same area, the lion would likely be the apex predator since it is a pack hunter. A solitary tiger would not be able to compete against a pride of lions. Nor would he be willing to fight a male lion one on one and risk getting injured. An injured male lion has his pride to provide him with food. An injured male tiger will starve.
So I say stop this silly debate. One on one, the winner is a 50/50 split. But in terms of coexisting in the wild the numbers game influences behavior. A male lion has no problem getting into a brawl and risk injury. A tiger can’t afford that and will likely back down, even if he’s bigger. It is also vital to factor in the lion’s mane, which makes him look much bigger from the front than he really is. It’s an intimidation technique and will work well against a solitary tiger.
What do you guys think?
There seems to be A LOT of people that ask about this topic but VERY few actually know what they are talking about. First of all, the question itself CAN’T be answered for 2 reasons:
1. The two cats are very evenly matched. If there was a distinct winner then this would not be such a highly debated question.
2. Any filmed fights are between captive animals and do NOT reflect what would actually happen between wild counterparts. Behavior is just as vital in a fight as size and strength, thus captive animals are not an accurate indication.\
Now let’s look at size as it is easily the most misunderstood/misquoted issue. In these debates people often say something like, “Well the Siberian tiger goes up to 700 lbs while an average lion is 400 lbs”. That’s is a very poor statement! First you are comparing an extreme size for a tiger with an average size of a lion. The fact is that no wild cat is over 700 lbs unless it’s a freak case. And yes, there have been rare instances when 700 lbs tigers were found, but for example the largest wild lion was measured at 690 lbs. So get your facts straight here, people. First of all, the Siberian tiger isn’t the giant it was made out to be in old documents, which were largely based on hunting stories. The officially research on Siberian tigers (started in 1992) states that the biggest males are only 520 lbs. The largest of the Bengal tigers, from Nepal, were measured around 530 lbs.
The bottom line here is that it doesn’t matter if you take a Siberian tiger or a Bengal, the largest of both are roughly the same size. Average male lions weigh in the low to mid 400 lbs range. The average male tigers (Bengal/Siberian) weigh in the mid to upper 400 lbs range. So, in terms of size you are looking, on AVERAGE, about 50-70 lbs difference. That’s not much in 400 lb cats. And as I said, larger size to occur and both cats have been recorded to surpass 600 lbs in the wild.
If you had lions and tigers live together in the same area, the lion would likely be the apex predator since it is a pack hunter. A solitary tiger would not be able to compete against a pride of lions. Nor would he be willing to fight a male lion one on one and risk getting injured. An injured male lion has his pride to provide him with food. An injured male tiger will starve.
So I say stop this silly debate. One on one, the winner is a 50/50 split. But in terms of coexisting in the wild the numbers game influences behavior. A male lion has no problem getting into a brawl and risk injury. A tiger can’t afford that and will likely back down, even if he’s bigger. It is also vital to factor in the lion’s mane, which makes him look much bigger from the front than he really is. It’s an intimidation technique and will work well against a solitary tiger.
What do you guys think?