That.
I stated how that's partly true in this thread. An obese/gigantism man aren't entirely stronger than regular people, but does that mean that a T. Rex, Apatosaurus, etc aren't stronger than a regular person? Why bother having the larger size page at all if larger doesn't mean stronger is 100% true?
We are not basing on size alone, but many sources of Tigers being stronger than Lion. And there nothing that says that's just fat, it's because their dense bones and muscular body.
Btw, an large Southern African Lion is smaller than the average Bengal Tiger that's an big difference, uh-hu.
I am just trying to point out one of the sources used to say that they are stronger and superior only says that they are larger. I agree lions are weaker but it doesn't seem like either profile says they are just comparable it always references some fight between the two and those are not the best way of proving strength given a lion can potentially win at least once in a 100 fights or something.
proportionally the difference is smaller but yes a difference of 26 kg is more than 7 and a half kg
And do you have proof that the tiger's larger size doesn't mean superior strength? DarlingAurora gave scientific evidence that a tiger's strength is stronger than a lion's.
That sounds more interesting than whatever this is. Link? Please
I didn't mean to use that as an argument I mean we literally cite the wikipedia list for: "In the wild they're superior to & stronger than lions & can fend off a pride of them" that is not said on the page cited that is my sole problem with it, how it is worded. The tiger's larger size supports the idea it is stronger.
I am not trying to say lions are stronger than tigers I am saying we can probably find proof of that without using fights between the two for example tigers have a higher Bite force quotient despite their larger size and this for example
Eeeeh that's not necessarily true. A lioness and tigress or subadult males for either are still typically slightly larger and that doesn't necessarily mean it'd be able to beat them anyway.
Per body weight as well, jags don't have the strongest bites overall. Plenty of bite force measurements and studies that play tigers as having higher ones.
Probably true for most sub populations but sumatran tiger has insular dwarfism and the length and weight range for wild adult male tigers is so wide some are less lengthy then high end jaguars and weigh less than one outlier jaguar. That page doesn't even consider the sumatran tiger when it comes to weight it just uses the bengal tiger. As for lions some lioness fall into the weight range of jaguars.
I guess, it is weird, my basic search into the topic indicates jaguars are said to have a psi of 1500 while tigers are said to have a psi of 1100 however the tiger has a larger mouth meaning they can apply more force but less pressure.
Sumatran Tigers are completely different subespecies much smaller than Bengal or Siberian, ye.
That is already on the page tho
They are part of a different subspecies yes however Sumatran Tigers considered a subpopulation of Panthera tigris sondaica rather then a subspecies themselves technically
That refers to particularly heavy Jaguars weighing over 135 kg, my comment refers to particularly light Lionesses "Females average 83–165 kg (183–364 lb) in Southern Africa and 90–167.8 kg (198–370 lb) in East Africa." The largest cat list uses 104.5 kg as the peak of Jaguars' normal weight range.
If there are bite force studies out there that use psi, a measure of pressure, rather than newtons (hence bite force), it's probably super dubious.
Nope, it's just that everyone either has a life, or is trying to get one. This also applies to staff like you.
No need for a passive aggressive answer considering my question was evidently jokey in nature.
Tigers generally have stronger bite forces yes, though the tigers in these studies are also bigger than the lions featured alongside them so it's to be expected.
Oh. It was passive aggressive? I apologize for my lack of social intellgence here.
It felt that way. Not sure if you're being sarcastic on top of that here as well, but regardless we're getting off-topic.
I don't have much social intelligence in some areas and I wanted to be more cautious in my response to try to be neutral like I usually try to be. Yes. Let's get back on topic.
Tigers are still stronger and bigger per studies, there nothing to back Lion being strong/comparable to Tigers more than unreliable cage fights.
That's another point to be taken.
Most animals run before fighting even crosses their mind. Even bulls (And herbivores are very aggressive contrary to popular belief) and I am talking from experience. There was this time when a Buffalo at our farm got lose and Charged at us. Uncle pretty much made him freeze up by just yelling.
There are certain situations where this applies, and the scaling based off of scaring off animals or ones that run away is usually weak or one-sided. For situations where both intentionally animals fight or one overpowers another with both animals at full strength, that's when scaling can be done.
Yes Lions vs Tigers has happened quite a lot. This debate will go on like Coco Cola vs Pespi.
