UnderGround Forums
 

NatureGround >> TOP 10 TOUGHEST LAND ANIMALS


5/23/07 11:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15393
" A tiger locked in an enclosure with a brown bear, hippo, rhino, or elephant is going to be dead as close to 100% of the time as you can reasonably assume." well besides the brown bear I agree with you. But we're not talking about 1 on 1 in a cage, we are talking about 1 and 1 in the wild. The tiger's greatest weapon is its agility and the use of angles to attack its prey.
5/23/07 11:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mike willus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 79
In the WILD, not in an enclosure, i may have to agree with EVILYOSHIDA. My logic is as follows: A human being is capable of killing every single thing on this planet without a gun/bomb/etc. We humans were kicking ass and taking names with just spears. Humans with a spear kills almost anything...infact, human with a harpoon (read: water spear) can kill a blue whale! Why? The answer is intellegence and the unexpected nature of the attack. Maybe this is also what the tiget brings to the table.
5/23/07 11:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 759
There is a website that goes in depth about the lion vs tiger questions: www.lairweb.org.nz: "There are two films recording early lion and tiger fights, one in captivity and the other in the wild. *The first documents an event set up to entertain a prince. The fight took place in the pit of a palace compound with the entire encounter being recorded. The film showed that the tiger was at an immediate disadvantage. Tigers use a throat grip as their primary means of killing and the lion's thick protective mane prevented the tiger gaining a hold on the throat joint. On the other hand, the tiger had no special protection, so was vulnerable to attack. In this fight, the tiger was killed. *The second piece of film dates back to the 1930s and is still under investigation by this site. The documentary owner has yet to view more than a few portions of it and until the film can be converted to a more easily viewed format little more progress can be made on reviewing this piece. As far as can be ascertained, the film was taken during an expedition to capture some tigers in the Gir region of India. Again, the tiger was the loser. These films back up current expert opinion, including some from Leeds University, regarding the potential result of conflict between these two animals. It is considered that exactly the same outcome would occur given a modern battle between the lion and the tiger." "Despite the final appearance given by the movie, tigers were largely unsuccessful in the gladiatorial area. Lions were more popular as they put on an excellent fight display, whereas tigers were surprisingly reluctant to enter into battle. Placed in with lions, the tigers would often simply retreat." "Expert opinion is that the modern male lion has no equal in the cat world when it comes to his fighting ability. Lions evolved as fighters. Among the pride, their primary job is to protect their females from marauding males who would assume control of the pride and kill any cubs. As a result, the male lion spends the great majority of his time in combat situations. Nature has supported the lion in this, with the evolution of a thick heavy mane for added protection and to intimidate. " "Seated next to a tiger, the lion is composed. The tiger, on the other hand, is usually nervous and apprehensive. The tiger does not seem to have the lion's capacity for calm analysis and appraisal. This puts him at a disadvantage in a fight with a lion." Beatty recalled his experience with a lion named "Sultan the First" who once took on every tiger in his act and defeated them one after another. "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." " "Quite frequently the lion versus tiger question focuses on the Amur (Siberian) tiger. People mistakenly believe that the large size of the Amur tiger means a more aggressive animal and therefore a better fighter. The fact is, that when it comes to aggression, the Amur tiger lacks the ferocity of its cousin from the Asian sub-continent, which, in turn, lacks the ferocity of the lion by a significant margin. For most people it is easier to understand this by comparing dogs. I own Great Danes which weigh in at 60-70 kgs each, yet the significantly smaller and lighter Doberman down the road attacked and injured my Dane. The difference is one of ferocity. Also worth noting is that though the Amur tiger is slightly longer and somewhat heavier than the Bengal, the difference is less than popularly thought. Much of the Amur tiger's extra bulk is fat for warmth, and a false impression is also given by their thicker longer coat. The fights such as noted here are mostly historic ones. In the 1870s, the Purnea district of India (now north Bihar) was famed for its enormous tigers. Two shot during that period measured 11' 5" and 12' 4" respectively. To compare them accurately to modern Bengals it is necessary to subtract 7-8 inches as they were measured using a different system than is practiced today. Despite this they were massive animals, by any standard." "Conclusion: *The tiger has a longer body, and is usually more powerful in the back legs, having evolved this way for great speed and unmatched leaping power. The lion evolved primarily for fighting, with a larger head and more power in the forequarters. Paradoxically this has made him a poor predator. It seems obvious that there are a small number of tigers out there which are superior fighters to the lion, but across the majority of the animals, the lion would probably indeed be the King of the Beasts. The ultimate conclusion is up to the reader, and this article seeks not to give you a definite answer, only something to ponder on. Perhaps the final comment should come from animal trainer Louis Roth, who once said he had "seen enough fights to conclude that none of the theories is accurate; sometimes a lion would win, sometimes a tiger". "
5/23/07 11:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15394
5/23/07 11:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 760
However, the 1000 lb plus bear is king here and of a much more ferocious disposition. Two large male tigers were found killed by such animals in the year 2000, which is tragic, if natures way. Tigers will usually avoid such a powerful foe, but eventually these huge animals will run into each other. Often the bear is trying to steal the tiger's kill. The tiger gives a better account of itself in a bear fight than the lion. The bear does not go in for strangulation or nape biting, but uses his paws to rain blows to the head and shoulders. Possibly this removes any advantage of a mane. With no experience of bear fighting, a lion would probably be found wanting against such a foe, yet it appears to have great advantage against creatures which go in for blood letting at the throat (such as the tiger).
5/23/07 11:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 761
Grizzly bear pit fights: The Californians of the late 19th century staged well-documented pit fights with grizzlies and spanish bulls. The grizzlies, using their paw as a club, shattered the unfortunate bull's skull or shoulder bones so easily that the betting became poor. Eventually, and at considerable cost, African lions were brought in to raise the stakes. The most fierce of the adult males was sent in whilst the grizzly was already waiting in the pits. The lion was known for bravely charging straight in and looked good for the money, but the grizzly killed a male lion almost as easily as he'd killed the bull. The Californians never understood why. We now know that it was enormously strong bone density meeting a low density skull. At a range of 4 feet the blow crashed in before the lion could apply the wind pipe lock, which is lion and tiger learnt behaviour for taking down prey animals. The ferocity of this animal easily matches that of an unsettled African lion.
5/23/07 11:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 762
The polar bear: There is obviously no way tigers and polar bears can conflict, however comments regarding the grizzly usually lead to inevitable questions about the power of the polar bear. The polar bear is a larger, but less robust creature than other bears. Compared to the grizzly, it has a thinner, longer and more delicate skull, along with narrower forequarters. This streamlining is an adaptation for an aquatic life style. The grizzly has a shorter, thicker neck, heavily built skull and more powerful shoulder structure. Despite being a good foot shorter, the grizzly has a trump card. Their claws, having evolved as digging tools, are also unmatched at opening body carcasses. Claws of 6" aren't uncommon (9" record) while the polar bear has small hook-like 2" claws. Sometimes, when the ice melts, polar bears have been known to be driven off by grizzlies, when they move south into the grizzlies feeding area. A grizzly will defend his barren ground patches jealously as he races to pile on enough fat for the end of summer denning.
5/23/07 11:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
mike willus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 80
Ok. How much does a tiger cost? Lets all pitch in an get an OG tiger...lion...grizzly...maybe a hippo. I've got $5 towards this.
5/23/07 11:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15395
Anek, the stuff you are posting is from lairweb, which is known pro-lion site. The fact is they have their opinions and stories, but the Tiger has newspaper articles supporting it's victory over the Lion, Charles Darwin reported the Tiger's victory himself and not to mention all the videos on the internet showing Tigers dominating the Lion. The only video with a supposed lion victory was a proven fake. The Tiger kills alone with no backup what the Lions need a whole pack to achieve. Tiger is superior to the lion.
5/23/07 11:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 764
"Anek, the stuff you are posting is from lairweb, which is known pro-lion site. " No, it's actually a tiger site. The info I posted was from the Tiger territory part of the site. And it doesn't say lions are the ultimate predators, it says grizzly bears are.
5/23/07 11:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15396
"No, it's actually a tiger site. The info I posted was from the Tiger territory part of the site. And it doesn't say lions are the ultimate predators, it says grizzly bears are." Lairweb is famous among lion vs. tiger debaters to be on the Lion side of the argument. they are hardly reliable and rely on speculation and stories. they can't even come up with one reliably documented case of a lion killing a tiger. I have shown 2 reliable sources already and tons of video. Grizzly bears are tough, but would not walk over the Tiger easily. They have very dull claws and their main strategy is brute force while the tiger is much more wily and can hold its own strength wise. Again, Tigers have killed rhinos and large brown bears before.
5/23/07 11:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BarkLikeADog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 10/11/2005
Posts: 3904
lol @ "known pro-lion site." Surely the Russians are in on this, too. The grain deal proves it. COMEDY GOLD
5/23/07 11:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15397
"I believe the other way around has happened more often." I have not heard of a documented case of a rhino killing a Tiger. From what I could gather about Tigers and Brown bears, they usually avoid each other. But both have been said to win against each other. However smaller bears (sun, sloth, black bears) were always killed by the Tiger.
5/23/07 11:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 765
"Lairweb is famous among lion vs. tiger debaters to be on the Lion side of the argument. they are hardly reliable and rely on speculation and stories. they can't even come up with one reliably documented case of a lion killing a tiger. I have shown 2 reliable sources already and tons of video. " They are famous to be on the lion side of the argument why? Because they say lions would win? Fine. All your sources are biased towards tigers for the same reason, so they don't count. The fact is it is a tiger based website. The dude's email is "tiger@lairweb.org.nz" for crying out loud. Some people can have a favorite animal and yet admit others can beat it. Lairweb does list three films with lions beating tigers, and a famous big cat trainer, Clyde Beatty, after seeing hundreds of fights, says the lion will usually win. The romans also used lions instead of tigers. A few cases of a tiger beating a lion doesn't mean a lion won't usually win. And your videos are pathetic.
5/23/07 11:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 766
"But both have been said to win against each other." According to lairweb, Tigers will only prey on sub 600 pound bears, and never a 1000 pound, fully grown male.
5/23/07 11:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15398
" lol @ "known pro-lion site." Surely the Russians are in on this, too. The grain deal proves it. COMEDY GOLD " Umm. you're a tard. Lairweb's arguments for the lion are purely hypothetical and not based on fact. if you have followed the lion vs. tiger debate you would know about Lairweb's biases in the subject, but you're a moron so of course you wouldn't know. While on the Tiger side there is documented evidence and shitloads of video to prove the Tiger's superiority. again you know nothing.
5/24/07 12:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07 12:04 AM
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15399
"They are famous to be on the lion side of the argument why? Because they say lions would win? Fine. All your sources are biased towards tigers for the same reason, so they don't count. The fact is it is a tiger based website. The dude's email is "tiger@lairweb.org.nz" for crying out loud. Some people can have a favorite animal and yet admit others can beat it. Lairweb does list three films with lions beating tigers, and a famous big cat trainer, Clyde Beatty, after seeing hundreds of fights, says the lion will usually win. The romans also used lions instead of tigers. A few cases of a tiger beating a lion doesn't mean a lion won't usually win. And your videos are pathetic. " BWAHAHAHA. This argument is pathetic, Lion vs. Tiger is the most ridiculous argument ever because there IS NO ARGUMENT. you quote some idiotic unsourced webpage, while i'm quoting journals, newspapers and respected books. Here's another one from University of Chicago: "In the Middle Ages a few lions were kept in European menageries in Germany, England France and Italy. The best known of these early zoological collections was one belonging to Henry I of England that was eventually moved to the Tower of London, where it remained until 1840. Occasionally lions where forced to fight tigers, but apparently the tigers always won." - Wild Cats of the World by Mel and Fiona Sunquist and lol @ my videos being pathetic. The Lion gets punked every time and by female Tigers, imagine a male tiger. SHOW ME THE VIDS of the Lion beating the tiger. Post them here. And please don't post the gir forest because that is a proven fake. Show me documented cases of lone LIONS killing 3000 lb. Indian Bison or Adult Rhinos. seriously, there is no debate. The lion king was just that a cartoon, please realize that. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?
5/24/07 12:06 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15400
and lol @ my sources being biased towards tigers. Yeah Charles Darwin, i'm sure he was really biased towards tigers. Chicago University press. Sure. the Gettysburg Compiler. yeah I guess they are in on the conspiracy too eh? yeah and my video evidence is biased too, it must be CG! lol. The facts are here: Leaping ability: TIGER (2nd only to Puma) Climbing ability: TIGER swimming ability: Tiger agility: TIGER Sum the above 4 and we get TIGER IS MORE ATHLETIC. Size: TIGER by a factor of 2 Strength: TIGER Canine length: TIGER and on the lion side, we have: ummmm. the MANE! lol.
5/24/07 12:08 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BarkLikeADog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07
Member Since: 10/11/2005
Posts: 3905
*postures up to thread like in a Clint Eastwood movie*
5/24/07 12:16 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15401
lion runs away from tigress after getting bitch slapped, pathetic: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eZCr___Plyw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param></object>
5/24/07 12:18 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15402
lion getting tossed onto its back by a Tiger, 2nd sequence shows the incredible agility and hand speed of the Tiger: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oZ-jRoFuxHY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param></object>
5/24/07 12:20 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 767
"and lol @ my sources being biased towards tigers." That was sarcasm, my friend. You have no reason for suspecting a tiger website of being biased towards lions other than the fact it says lions win. The analogy is that your sources are biased because they say the tigers would win (and for no other reason). I am not actually saying they are biased. Do you understand now? "In the Middle Ages a few lions were kept in European menageries in Germany, England France and Italy. The best known of these early zoological collections was one belonging to Henry I of England that was eventually moved to the Tower of London, where it remained until 1840. Occasionally lions where forced to fight tigers, but apparently the tigers always won." There was ONE fight at the tower of london between one tiger and TWO lions that is documented. The lion was killed, but it was two to one. I've never heard of any other lion-tiger fights there. Have you? "The Lion gets punked every time and by female Tigers, imagine a male tiger." They aren't even fighting back. The Lions aren't attacking them because they're female. This happens in prides as well. Lions mate with tigers and likely view the tigresses as potential mates. "Show me documented cases of lone LIONS killing 3000 lb. Indian Bison or Adult Rhinos." Tigers are superior hunters, no doubt about that. Lions are evovled for fighting, tigers for hunting. "Size: TIGER by a factor of 2 Strength: TIGER Canine length: TIGER" Bengal tigers are better fighters than Siberian tigers. They weigh 600 pounds, not too much more than a lion. The lion is stonger in front, for fighting; the tiger stronger in back, for leaping.
5/24/07 12:33 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07 12:38 AM
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15403
"They aren't even fighting back. The Lions aren't attacking them because they're female. This happens in prides as well. Lions mate with tigers and likely view the tigresses as potential mates." The lions do fight back , but they stop fighting once they get hit in the face or slammed. just by the fact that the tiger is naturally much larger and even then faster and more athletic gives the obvious advantage to tiger. 'Tigers are superior hunters, no doubt about that. Lions are evovled for fighting, tigers for hunting." yeah Lions fight with other lions, they don't have experience fighting something nearly twice their size. Also those lion vs. lion fights are not to the death, more to establish dominance. and tigers often fight amongst each other too when they overlap each other's territory. and sometimes it even leads to death, that's how ferocious they are. There is a vid of a dead tiger that got killed in a territorial dispute. just with common sense alone, the size/strength factor alone makes the tiger the heavy favorite.
5/24/07 12:42 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Anek
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 768
"just by the fact that the tiger is naturally much larger and even then faster and more athletic gives the obvious advantage to tiger. " A tigress is not bigger than a male lion, so it makes no sense that if the lion was actually trying to win it would lose. There's a reason you can only find videos of tigresses fighting lions. If a male tiger tried that it would be in a real fight. "Also those lion vs. lion fights are not to the death, more to establish dominance." Yes they are, I've seen lions get mortally wounded on Discovery. Fact is if an old lion is defeated and loses his pride he's probably dead, so he'll fight to the death to keep his spot. "Clyde Beatty (born June 10, 1903 in Bainbridge, Ohio, USA; died July 19, 1965) was a big game hunter who became famous as a lion tamer and animal trainer." "At the height of his fame, the act featured 40 lions and tigers of both sexes." This man says lions win. 'nuff said.
5/24/07 12:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
EVILYOSHIDA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-May-07
Member Since: 12/03/2003
Posts: 15404
"A tigress is not bigger than a male lion, so it makes no sense that if the lion was actually trying to win it would lose. There's a reason you can only find videos of tigresses fighting lions. If a male tiger tried that it would be in a real fight." In the video where the male lion runs away, it was actually slapped by the male tiger. Also in the video where the lion gets slammed it's by a male tiger who is protecting his bitch.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.