Tiger vs Lion: This debate is wack

[StrymULTRA]

Ok, so the Lion and Tiger's respective profiles, it's been estabilished for some reason that the Tiger is generally stronger. However, I don't think that it's always the case.

I am not here to argue that the Lion wins either, but simply that both of them should be treated as comparable to each other with no clear winner.

Reason why, it's because the main article used for this is the Wikipedia page about Tiger vs Lions, which however was deleted due to it being mostly just a list of opinions and biased views than actual objective stances (and you can see some of the sources in the description of this video, which describes well why Lion vs Tiger is a pretty subjective topic with no real answer, by the way), other than the Wikia page itself apparently even interpreting in a wrong way some of said sources.

The second is this page, which however falls still in the issue I've mentioned above, and the stuff it says is also pretty questionable.

• Size: The problem here is that the page assumed Lions are always lighter than Tigers, while it just isn't always the case, as while Tigers have the peak weight, Lions have the minimal, and thus on the average, lions are 177.5 Kg, and tigers instead are 173.5 Kg. Not to mention that lions and other animals do deal with hunting and killing stuff that's larger than them, so that's not exactly a factor anyway.
• Paintings: Many artists aren't biologists, most of the paintings were simply propaganda as well, and we got other pictures of lions besting tigers (here, here and here as examples).
• Instances of tigers killing lions: As already said, there's never a real winner in these fights, if you wanna take examples of tigers beating lions, I can do the same for the opposite, as for every instance of a party beating the other, there's always the opposite in equal measure.

Because of this, I don't think that we should treat the tigers are "upscaling" from the lions in a vs debating term, as these are real animals, and not fictional characters, and we should just use their own information, given there's plenty of things for both animals. And of course, I don't believe much that either animal should be universally treated as superior to the other, either.

Edit: I've listed here all the records of tiger and lion fights that I could find around. These should be a fine reference to use, after we choose which to use and which to not.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There's also factors such as hunger actually can cause them to weaken. And a well fed lion fights a lot harder than a hungry one if it wishes. Though ones that aren't hungry normally avoid attacking unless its for defensive purposes.

But yeah, it's agreed to avoid upscaling for Real World profiles and have their feats be judged from their own calculated demonstrations.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

This is pretty interesting. I'll try to resee some of the scans here.since DarlingAurora and I had a major impact on them.

AP in the real world for IRL animals depends on the physics and physical builds of the animal. Both animals respectively have their feats of strength on the same level. The Tiger should be at least Class 1 in LS since they can also take down large animals several times heavier than themselves. A thing to note here is that unlike lions, they usually solo their prey with stealth.

Another thing to note for size is that we're not just refering to weight, we're also looking for how long the animal is (especially their limbs), and the more lengthy the animal, the higher the joules AP there is.

The Tiger as my memory recalls, is the largest cat in IRL, though either of us would need to get credible sources on their respective average sizes since the profiles should be a generalized species (learned that through experience, which I had more time to be on this forum to finish my own CRT on the IRL verse).

 

[H3110l12345I20]

But yeah, it's agreed to avoid upscaling for Real World profiles and have their feats be judged from their own calculated demonstrations.

Depends on the context. Why shouldn't we upscale from "X IRL animal" if they've demonstrated a feat/ has context that would make them stronger/faster than "Y IRL animal"? That would mean I would have to redo stuff with the lion's speed, IRL bear scaling, etc if that were the case.

 

[StrymULTRA]

This is pretty interesting. I'll try to resee some of the scans here.since Deleted Username and I had a major impact on them.

That'd be a good idea. Using simply recorded instances of tigers killing lions is definitely a biased way to look at it given there are as many of the contrary, the profile mainly used that as reason to say that.

Depends on the context. Why shouldn't we upscale from "X IRL animal" if they've demonstrated a feat/ has context that would make them stronger/faster than "Y IRL animal"? That would mean I would have to redo stuff with the lion's speed, IRL bear scaling, etc if that were the case.

I don't remotely think that bears being stronger than lions is as controversial than with tigers ngl.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Another thing to note for size is that we're not just refering to weight, we're also looking for how long the animal is (especially their limbs), and the more lengthy the animal, the higher the joules AP there is.

About this, iirc Lions should generally be more robust than Tigers given them being generally shorter length-wise while having similar mass, thus their bodies have higher density.

But yeah, it's agreed to avoid upscaling for Real World profiles and have their feats be judged from their own calculated demonstrations.

Can you ping the irl verse supporters please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@CrimsonStarFallen @Colonel_Krukov @KLOL506 @Elizhaa @ElixirBlue @IdiosyncraticLawyer Was asked to ping staff who are supporters of RL. And I saw your names. Any of you have thoughts?

 

[StrymULTRA]

Bump

 

[H3110l12345I20]

About this, iirc Lions should generally be more robust than Tigers given them being generally shorter length-wise while having similar mass, thus their bodies have higher density.

That would mathematically mean that Tigers should have more AP output. Your main point is that Tigers and Lions should be comparable because we don't know who would actually win. However, another thing to note when scaling lions and Tigers is that the latter is generally bigger and should be more physically stronger. Even though there are cases of lions beating bigger tigers (will get into this reasoning later in this reply).

This part of the scan here (which originally came from here) is why I or DarlingAurora put Tigers as stronger than lions "
The University of Minessota’s Lion Research Center says that the plan has been delayed for fear that the native tigers would kill the lions. But in the wild, they say, tigers and lions fight quite differently:

Coalitions of male lions usually fight as a group against territorial rivals, so a tiger may have an advantage in a one-on-one encounter, since this is the typical mode of combat for a tiger. However, a lion coalition of 2–3 males would have a clear advantage over a lone tiger. A group of 2–4 female lions would have a similar advantage over a lone tigress.

They conclude that while one on one, a tiger would certainly best a lion, in the wild the lion pride could hold their own against the solitary tiger.
"

This would make sense mathematically considering that the Tiger is bigger, and that would translate into more AP. However, it's important to note that lions do have experience 1v1ing each other (as shown in the durability scans on the official IRL Lion profile). Not to mention that a Tiger's bite is stronger and would be capable of doing more damage to a lion's mane.

Now, I've seen a couple of scans in the comic vine thread showing that lions can beat bigger tigers. The cases can actually be explained by the lion hitting more vital points (as it's in-character for them to do that, just like tigers). Shown in my examples here

• For example (this example may get extreme, though it should get it's point across), if monkey A is 10% weaker than monkey B in terms of strength or size, and both have the same mass. And if monkey A punches monkey B in the windpipe and monkey B dies, does that mean that monkey A is equally strong as monkey B? Even if both monkeys have equal skill and equal cases where they win against each other, that doesn't stop monkey B from being physically stronger, as otherwise it would cause a logical contradiction. And we can also apply this logic when scaling lions and tigers, am I correct?

 

[StrymULTRA]

This would make sense mathematically considering that the Tiger is bigger, and that would translate into more AP. However, it's important to note that lions do have experience 1v1ing each other (as shown in the durability scans on the official IRL Lion profile). Not to mention that a Tiger's bite is stronger and would be capable of doing more damage to a lion's mane.

Found also this explaining the Tiger's side, which is also pretty detailed, if I have to say.

Honestly, I made this thread mostly to get rid of the Wikipedia page being used as reference.

I'd make something like compiling evidences of both victories between lions and tigers, while still showing the Tiger's superiority in pure physicals, at least. Shit is extremely long though, so I dunno how to choose.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Found also this explaining the Tiger's side, which is also pretty detailed, if I have to say.

Honestly, I made this thread mostly to get rid of the Wikipedia page being used as reference.

I'd make something like compiling evidences of both victories between lions and tigers, while still showing the Tiger's superiority in pure physicals, at least. Shit is extremely long though, so I dunno how to choose.

Choosing to do a large sample size is a good idea. Can give you an idea of who's more likely to win.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Choosing to do a large sample size is a good idea. Can give you an idea of who's more likely to win.

I'm not a big fan of using old quotes from animal trainers, actually. I checked better and the site I've used seems to also not use some pro-Lion stuff (even from Beatty himself, ironically enough), which I genuinely find the most problematic thing here, as using quotes from these people only causes an endless amount of counters with "actually in this circus the opposite happened!", so I'd rather just search for more solid stuff.

I'm pretty sure both the Comicvine and the Blog have enough stuff to use as reference, but rn I'm tired af, so maybe later ig.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I've basically tried to get all the evidence I could find acceptable. Some rules I've imposed to myself, so we get as fair stuff as possible:

• No simple statements of "X beats Y", as they most of the time can be biased and it's just from impressions most of the time (other than being always clashing with the other and I don't want a debate on who is more reliable than the other).
• Only stuff that directly has happened and documented/testified was used.
• Using only things that can be properly linked, this of course excludes articles that have paywalls.
• Avoided unfair fights such as gang-ups or other situations where the loser was already in a difficult situation since the start.

The list is:

LION WINS:

1. Lion attacks a female tiger, and kills her through biting her neck.
2. Lioness kills old tiger (source).
3. Lion kills three tigers after a 20-minutes long fight, though he died later due to wounds (source).
4. Lion eats tiger (source).
5. Lion kills two tigers in the course of two months (source).
6. Lion kills tiger after a 3-minutes long fight through attacking his throat (source).
7. Lion kills older a tiger that's 11 years older (source).
8. Lion kills tiger through getting on his back and holding on his throat (source).
9. Lion kills tiger through biting his neck after jumping on him from far above, with Beatty claiming that he saw around 50 tigers dying like this (source).
10. Lion killed 3 tigers over the course of his life (source).
11. Lion who's 10 years old kills a 17-years-old tigress (source).
12. Lion kills two tigers during a movie's recording, though according to recorder a tiger would always win if it gets first on the lion's throat (source). However it should be noted that I am iffy about using this, as according to the indrajit blog, the movie was staged to make the lion win. This is the fight in question if you're curious.
13. Lion kills tiger in two fights that happened in India, one in captivity, another in the wild.
14. Lions were more popular than tigers in roman arena fights due to the former being far more aggressive and not retreating.
15. Lion overpowers tiger, and kills him through grabbing his neck and opening his belly (source).

TIGER WINS:

1. Tiger kills a two-years old lion after a hour long fight through breaking his neck (source).
2. Tiger kills lioness (source).
3. Tiger manages to kill a lion through opening its belly (source).
4. Tigress kills lion (source).
5. Bengal tigers invariably won against african lions according to the Roman Arena fights (source).
6. Tiger killed over 30 lions in the course of his lifetime (source).
7. Tigress kills lioness after a 10-minutes long fight (source).
8. Tiger overpowers a lioness after a 20-minutes long fight (source).
9. Tiger instantly crushes a young lion (source).
10. Tiger leaves lion in a dying condition after a fight (source).
11. Tigers apparently always won against lions in the Roman Arena fights, with this observation being confirmed in a zoo where confrontations between a lion and a tiger that grew together always ended in the victory for the latter (source).
12. Tigers apparently were pitted against lions in a 4v5 fights, and a tiger called Ben had eaten a lion called Bill. From then, Ben was called "the lion killer" (source).
13. Tiger was able to hold his own against 3 lions that ganged up on him (source).
14. Tiger kills lion in a fight of few minutes after attacking his throat (source).
15. Tiger overpowers lion in a cage fight.

DRAWS:

1. Male tiger and lioness kill each other in a fight.
2. Koreans in cage fights found out that lions won more often against siberian tigers, but almost always lose against bengal tigers (no idea where this would fit tbh).

An interesting thing I've found is that while a lion was being ganged up from 2 tigers, he still could deal enough damage to one of the aggressors to the point the latter lost a tooth.

This is basically the best I could find about both sides.

Choosing to do a large sample size is a good idea. Can give you an idea of who's more likely to win.

Can you check these documented fights I've linked? I'd need to double check 'em just to be sure.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I've basically tried to get all the evidence I could find acceptable. Some rules I've imposed to myself, so we get as fair stuff as possible:

• No simple statements of "X beats Y", as they most of the time can be biased and it's just from impressions most of the time (other than being always clashing with the other and I don't want a debate on who is more reliable than the other).
• Only stuff that directly has happened and documented/testified was used.
• Using only things that can be properly linked, this of course excludes articles that have paywalls.
• Avoided unfair fights such as gang-ups or other situations where the loser was already in a difficult situation since the start.

The list is:

LION WINS:

1. Lion attacks a female tiger, and kills her through biting her neck.
2. Lioness kills old tiger (source).
3. Lion kills three tigers after a 20-minutes long fight, though he died later due to wounds (source).
4. Lion eats tiger (source).
5. Lion kills two tigers in the course of two months (source).
6. Lion kills tiger after a 3-minutes long fight through attacking his throat (source).
7. Lion kills older tiger (source).
8. Lion kills tiger through getting on his back and holding on his throat (source).
9. Lion kills tiger through biting his neck after jumping on him from far above, with Beatty claiming that he say around 50 tigers dying like this (source).
10. Lion killed 3 tigers over the course of his life (source).
11. Lion who's 10 years old kills a 17-years-old tigress (source).
12. Lion kills two tigers during a movie's recording, though according to recorder a tiger would always win if it gets first on the lion's throat (source). However it should be noted that I am iffy about using this, as according to the indrajit blog, the movie was staged to make the lion win. This is the fight in question if you're curious.

TIGER WINS:

1. Tiger kills a two-years old lion after a hour long fight through breaking his neck (source).
2. Tiger kills lioness (source).
3. Tiger manages to kill a lion through opening its belly (source).
4. Tigress kills lion (source).
5. Bengal tigers invariably won against african lions according to the Roman Arena fights (source).
6. Tiger killed over 30 lions in the course of his lifetime (source).
7. Tigress kills lioness after a 10-minutes long fight (source).
8. Tiger overpowers a lioness after a 20-minutes long fight (source).
9. Tiger instantly crushes a young lion (source).
10. Tiger leaves lion in a dying condition after a fight (source).
11. Tigers apparently always won against lions in the Roman Arena fights, with this observation being confirmed in a zoo where confrontations between a lion and a tiger that grew together always ended in the victory for the latter (source).
12. Tigers apparently were pitted against lions in a 4v5 fights, and a tiger called Ben had eaten a lion called Bill. From then, Ben was called "the lion killer" (source).

DRAWS:

1. Male tiger and lioness kill each other in a fight.

This is basically the best I could find about both sides.

Can you check these documented fights I've linked? I'd need to double check 'em just to be sure.

Wow, this list is worthy of a respect thread. I'll check out the scans if I have time.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Added some more stuff for both sides which I could find.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Can't seem to pin point the instance in this scan:

1. Lion eats tiger (source).

I tried rereading it, and it's just 2 animal trainers from what my brain has gathered. Can you direct me to a location and/or quote in the scan?

 

[Deleted member 11410]

That would mathematically mean that Tigers should have more AP output. Your main point is that Tigers and Lions should be comparable because we don't know who would actually win. However, another thing to note when scaling lions and Tigers is that the latter is generally bigger and should be more physically stronger. Even though there are cases of lions beating bigger tigers (will get into this reasoning later in this reply).

This part of the scan here (which originally came from here) is why I or DarlingAurora put Tigers as stronger than lions "
The University of Minessota’s Lion Research Center says that the plan has been delayed for fear that the native tigers would kill the lions. But in the wild, they say, tigers and lions fight quite differently:


They conclude that while one on one, a tiger would certainly best a lion, in the wild the lion pride could hold their own against the solitary tiger.
"

This would make sense mathematically considering that the Tiger is bigger, and that would translate into more AP. However, it's important to note that lions do have experience 1v1ing each other (as shown in the durability scans on the official IRL Lion profile). Not to mention that a Tiger's bite is stronger and would be capable of doing more damage to a lion's mane.

Now, I've seen a couple of scans in the comic vine thread showing that lions can beat bigger tigers. The cases can actually be explained by the lion hitting more vital points (as it's in-character for them to do that, just like tigers). Shown in my examples here

• For example (this example may get extreme, though it should get it's point across), if monkey A is 10% weaker than monkey B in terms of strength or size, and both have the same mass. And if monkey A punches monkey B in the windpipe and monkey B dies, does that mean that monkey A is equally strong as monkey B? Even if both monkeys have equal skill and equal cases where they win against each other, that doesn't stop monkey B from being physically stronger, as otherwise it would cause a logical contradiction. And we can also apply this logic when scaling lions and tigers, am I correct?

I agree with you here, because especially Siberian Tigers are considered the biggest and they are very much robust. Largest cat is the Tiger, not the Lion.

So no, I disagree with the thread. Though, I agree with using an better source for this and add note explanation for these cases.

 

[Oscar]

I think I agree a little with Aurora's opinion herself.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Can't seem to pin point the instance in this scan:

1. Lion eats tiger (source).

I tried rereading it, and it's just 2 animal trainers from what my brain has gathered. Can you direct me to a location and/or quote in the scan?

The first column of text that you find under the images. It mentions that sometimes lions eat tigers, and that's bad economy due to how the latter cost compared to the former.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I agree with you here, because especially Siberian Tigers are considered the biggest and they are very much robust. Largest cat is the Tiger, not the Lion.

So no, I disagree with the thread. Though, I agree with using an better source for this and add note explanation for these cases.

About this, I've found more studios for tigers being stronger physically, like this (only about muscle, but lions' bones are more robust).

Also updated the OP.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with you here, because especially Siberian Tigers are considered the biggest and they are very much robust. Largest cat is the Tiger, not the Lion.

So no, I disagree with the thread. Though, I agree with using an better source for this and add note explanation for these cases.

Technically Ligers (The hybrid of a male lion and female tigress) are the world's "Largest" cat. Also, Largest =/= strongest or best fighter.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Technically Ligers (The hybrid of a male lion and female tigress) is the world's "Largest" cat. Also, Largest =/= strongest or best fighter.

Ligers are hybrids, which aren't counted in the page as they're hybrids, which are not treated as actual species.

But regardless, just being larger doesn't mean absolute superiority, as lions did showcase to win against tigers after all.

 

[Deleted member 11410]

Technically Ligers (The hybrid of a male lion and female tigress) are the world's "Largest" cat.

Ligers doesn't count as they are hybrid.

But regardless, just being larger doesn't mean absolute superiority, as lions did showcase to win against tigers after all.

It depends on the Tiger subspecies, since Siberian Tigers are much more bigger and I don't think some cage fights can count. It's hard to see an real fight between these two since the animals lives on different places ans the most of it are rigged tho.

About this, I've found more studios for tigers being stronger physically, like this (only about muscle, but lions' bones are more robust).

Even if Lions have an percentage of robustness more than Tigers, these felines have an much more denser bones than Lions.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

It depends on the Tiger subspecies, since Siberian Tigers are much more bigger and I don't think some cage fights can count. It's hard to see an real fight between these two since the animals lives on different places ans the most of it are rigged tho.

I mean, the instances of either species winning all have them in captivity as a factor, it's something to take note.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Almost done reading the scans.

 

[Flashlight237]

Technically Ligers (The hybrid of a male lion and female tigress) are the world's "Largest" cat. Also, Largest =/= strongest or best fighter.

This. The thing about Ligers is although Ligers are larger than both lions and tigers, their size actually makes them quite cumbersome much unlike lions and tigers. At least that's what I recall seeing on Youtube.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

This. The thing about Ligers is although Ligers are larger than both lions and tigers, their size actually makes them quite cumbersome much unlike lions and tigers. At least that's what I recall seeing on Youtube.

The problem with using Ligers as a case study is that they're hybrids, and that can be genetically disadvantagous for the offspring involved.

Largest =/= strongest and most skilled combatant only has the first part partially true. While we do have cumbersome Ligers, we have the largest land animals physically, Elephants. Elephants have been consistently shown to be stronger than any land animal currently, and that would mean that the "=/=" should be "doesn't always equal" instead. I wanted to clarify that since an animal can be more muscular, or fatty for their weight. Size/weight has been a major factor to why either lions or tigers have lost as I'll get to in the next reply.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Ok, I'll list each win and the cause of all of them. I did archive nearly all scans in http://web.archive.org/save and https://archive.ph/. I'll underline the 1v1 battles where both animals are at their peak skill/strength and skill-based victories. If the lions aren't 8+ years old or the tigers aren't 4+ [female] or 5+ [male] years old, then they're not at their physical peak since they're not adults. Max/old age will be taken into account

It should be noted that a lot of them take place in captivity, so the animals may or may not be treated well to be at their physical peak. But that point can be countered if both animals are in captivity.

Spoiler: LION WINS

1. Lion attacks a female tiger, and kills her through biting her neck.
   1. Lion was heavier
2. Lioness kills old tiger (source).
   1. Self-explanatory
3. Lion kills three tigers after a 20-minutes long fight, though he died later due to wounds (source).
   1. This is quite the impressive feat, considering lions are usually instinctually in groups. From the details gathered, one of the lion's major defensive advantages is their superhuman stamina and mane, so I presume that's why the lion killed 3 tigers and had a pyrrhic victory
4. Lion eats tiger (source).
   1. I've located it in these words: "But new lions - there are so many of them -are only $600-700 a piece. Tigers run about $2,500. Sometimes you'll have a lion eating a tiger, and I say that's bad economics." The statement here doesn't have too much context behind it. There can be countless reasons why a lion eating a tiger during the 70s is rare. Human control over the animals? Tigers being usually bigger? The cause of the win here is just unknown.
5. Lion kills two tigers in the course of two months (source).
   1. The cause is unknown, but at least the lion should've caused total organ failure in the tigers.
6. Lion kills tiger after a 3-minutes long fight through attacking his throat (source).
   1. The tiger was in between the bars. And one possible thing to note is that the lion attacked first, possibly surprising the tiger
7. Lion kills older tiger (source).
   1. Self-explanatory.
8. Lion kills tiger through getting on his back and holding on his throat (source).
   1. Self-explanatory; though lots of animals can kill bigger animals via neck bites (like leopards). And the lion has their mane too.
9. Lion kills tiger through biting his neck after jumping on him from far above, with Beatty claiming that he say around 50 tigers dying like this (source).
   1. Same reasoning as in "8."
10. Lion killed 3 tigers over the course of his life (source).
    1. The lion was noted to be extremely aggressive and possibly could've aimed for the necks of the tigers separately.
11. Lion who's 10 years old kills a 17-years-old tigress (source).
    1. Lion bit into the tiger's neck and the latter was reaching old age.
12. Lion kills two tigers during a movie's recording, though according to recorder a tiger would always win if it gets first on the lion's throat (source). However it should be noted that I am iffy about using this, as according to the indrajit blog, the movie was staged to make the lion win. This is the fight in question if you're curious.
    1. Could be skill, aggression or a staged fight. Or a combination of either.
13. Lion kills tiger in two fights that happened in India, one in captivity, another in the wild.
    1. The first fight's [captivity] cause of winning could be staged, or the fact that the lion had it's mane.
    2. The second fight's [wild] cause of winning is more natural, details are unknown since the footage is only able to be seen in a select few clips.
14. Lions were more popular than tigers in roman arena fights due to the former being far more aggressive and not retreating.
    1. Self-explanatory; though the scan also did state that pit fights in Korea had lions or tigers winning a lot more via aggression. And if the Lion won, it was because of their mane.
15. Lion overpowers tiger, and kills him through grabbing his neck and opening his belly (source).
    1. This comes from the book "Perils and pleasures of a hunter's life; or, The romance of hunting" if anyone is wondering. Both animals were of similar size and the lion was considered to be stronger while the Tiger was noted to be faster (should be put in the main IRL CRT for the Tiger's speed lol). How the lion won is self-explanatory.

Spoiler: TIGER WINS

1. Tiger kills a two-years old lion after a hour long fight through breaking his neck (source).
   1. Self-explanatory. Though the fact that they fought for an hour should be on the tiger's profile.
2. Tiger kills lioness (source).
   1. The tiger was stated to be 2 years old, and yet, it's likely that either neck bite or other lethal injury/condition could be the cause of death, as lionnesses don't have manes.
3. Tiger manages to kill a lion through opening its belly (source).
   1. Self-explanatory
4. Tigress kills lion (source).
   1. (More directly to this area of the book) Likely superior aggression is the factor to why the lion lost
5. Bengal tigers invariably won against african lions according to the Roman Arena fights (source).
   1. Numidian Lions (which are Barbary Lions since Barbary lions live in North Africa; the same areas as Numidia) routinely lost to Bengal Tigers.
      1. The former weighed 230 kg on average and 3.5 m in length.
      2. The latter weighs 181-295 kg (mean weight is 238 kg) and is 2.7-3.2 m long.
   2. Through out the previous scans besides win 5. by the Tiger, the Bengal Tiger was noted to be very aggressive. So aggression and weight advantage were likely the factors that made the Tiger won.
6. Tiger killed over 30 lions in the course of his lifetime (source).
   1. N/A cause of lethal condition.
7. Tigress kills lioness after a 10-minutes long fight (source).
   1. Tiger probably started the first wave of attacks and as regarded in some of the scans between the lion+tiger wins/draws, Bengal Tigers are regarded to be more aggressive.
8. Tiger overpowers a lioness after a 20-minutes long fight (source).
   1. The lionness was ill, and had been bitten in the neck.
9. Tiger instantly crushes a young lion (source).
   1. Self-explanatory
10. Tiger leaves lion in a dying condition after a fight (source).
    1. The zookeepers decided to put them together, though any major factors in the fight's outcome is unknown. It should be noted that both zookeepers were biased in their positions.
11. Tigers apparently always won against lions in the Roman Arena fights, with this observation being confirmed in a zoo where confrontations between a lion and a tiger that grew together always ended in the victory for the latter (source).
    1. N/A causes of victory, though the 2 cats that grew up together could be that they knew each other and weren't really bloodlusted.
12. Tigers apparently were pitted against lions in a 4v5 fights, and a tiger called Ben had eaten a lion called Bill. From then, Ben was called "the lion killer" (source).
    1. Neck bite despite the tiger's weight disadantage.
13. Tiger was able to hold his own against 3 lions that ganged up on him (source).
    1. Skill.
       1. On a side note, the newspaper regarded that the conditions in captivity are a major reason why lions can win against Tigers. And it's stated that another Tiger managed to beat 7 lions in a fight in captive conditions.
14. Tiger kills lion in a fight of few minutes after attacking his throat (source).
    1. Lion didn't have the time to prepare and defend itself, as the fight was just the Tiger crushing the lion's neck despite it's mane.
15. Tiger overpowers lion in a cage fight.
    1. The lion's leg broke, enabling the Tiger to get a crushing grip on it's neck.

Spoiler: DRAWS

1. 1. Male tiger and lioness kill each other in a fight.
      1. The lionness was the aggressor and bit the tiger in the neck, but the tiger inflicted a lethal blow to the lioness afterwards.
   2. Koreans in cage fights found out that lions won more often against siberian tigers, but almost always lose against bengal tigers (no idea where this would fit tbh).
      1. LION WINS: The lion had it's mane and the Siberian Tigers were less aggressive.
      2. TIGER WINS: The Bengal Tiger was more aggressive.
2. An interesting thing I've found is that while a lion was being ganged up from 2 tigers, he still could deal enough damage to one of the aggressors to the point the latter lost a tooth.
   1. The lion lost since it was far smaller than the main Tiger (the decisive one in the fight). The former was a 7-year old Asiatic lion while the latter was stated to be larger than the lion despite being 4-years-old.

 

[Lou_change]

It seems many of these fights are decided by who attacks first. The average male tiger is probably stronger then the average male lion, but with in both species there's variation both have two living subspecies with several different populations this lead a bunch of minor degrees of diversion from the average beyond individuals being outliers for each species it is not unlikely different subspecies and populations would on average fair slightly differently from each other against different subspecies and since this fights can be decided very quickly in some cases that leads to a potentially meaningful of variation in the results for example it has been suggested in several casing being a Bengal tiger a population of P. t. tigris to clarify there is one living population of the other currently accepted subspecies which is in Sumatra of the Sunda Islands. That said I am looking at this from the point of view that there are probably some other minor factors in this and checked the Wikipedia pages for subspecies, so grab a salt shaker before you take anything I say seriously.

 

[Livinmeme]

Paintings: Many artists aren't biologists, most of the paintings were simply propaganda as well, and we got other pictures of lions besting tigers (here, here and here as examples).

wat

 

[StrymULTRA]

wat

I mean, would you trust fictional paintings as sources?

 

[Livinmeme]

I mean, would you trust fictional paintings as sources?

No, but I wouldn't call them propaganda

 

[Lou_change]

Are we done here?

 

[H3110l12345I20]

The thread challeged the basis for Tigers being stronger. However, amidst all the feats of lions besting tigers vvv

Even if Lions have an percentage of robustness more than Tigers, these felines have an much more denser bones than Lions.

That's another thing to consider, since Tigers are on average larger than Lions, though the feats have shown that the Lion can still win a fight against them. And size has been a determining factor in many of the Lion v Tiger feats.

So as a short summary for our current conclusions, both cats are even in fighting skill, making them comparable, albeit with one being stronger than the other physically.

 

[KLOL506]

This needs more CGM and staff input. Me personally, I'll wait for the others to have their say.

@Mr. Bambu @DMUA @DemonGodMitchAubin @CloverDragon03 @Therefir @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Dark-Carioca @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @TheRustyOne @SunDaGamer @Armorchompy @SeijiSetto @Chariot190

 

[Dark-Carioca]

Hopefully this doesn't end like the lion vs tiger debate at the Carnivora forums where the thread for that literally went on for nearly 1000 pages...

There are so many accounts with both animals winning even at parity or at max sizes, it's hard to tell an exact winner. Both animals are extremely similar anatomically speaking (from their bones to their muscles to their senses or intelligence, etc) and it's never really as conclusive as one would like in a versus discussion. One may be larger, the other may be older, there's the protective mane of one and the larger canines of the other... They've both shown the ability to kill the other and that's enough for me to think they're about 50/50 as it gets.

 

[SunDaGamer]

The outcome of fights between lions and tigers doesn't immediately determine whether one is stronger at face value since there's multiple factors when in the wild that can come into play like fatigue from hunting throughout the day, being ambushed, being able to get a lucky attack in, natural variation and whatnot within their respective populations leading to numerous cases where a lion has taken out a tiger and vice versa which makes being able to conclusively declare one big cat to be stronger than the other pretty difficult

 

[KLOL506]

I'm inclined to agree with SunDaGamer and Dark on this. Just pit the two up as comparable to each other.

 

[Deleted member 11410]

There many sources of Tigers being stronger than Lions due to their size, and the fights between both (as SunDaGamer says) doesn't prove one being stronger than the other.

It doesn't mean who wins in an fight, what I mean who is the stronger between the two animals and I see more sources & reliable studies about Tigers being stronger and having much more dense bones than Lions and not the otherwise.

So, I don't agree at all with the arguments.