Tiger vs Lion: This debate is wack

[Lou_change]

I mean these animals don't even live in the same environment as each other we could just not use the fights between them to say one is superior to the other in strength their other feats should likely be able to prove that without such examples

 

[DarlingAurora]

I mean these animals don't even live in the same environment as each other we could just not use the fights between them to say one is superior to the other in strength their other feats should likely be able to prove that without such examples

That.

And I don't see any source or study that says about Lions being stronger than an Bengal Tiger, while I see many for the later.

• Tigers are larger.
• They are stronger.

These cage fights doesn't count at all, in the wild the Lion can have their own protection but the stronger and bigger between both is the Tiger by far.

 

[Lou_change]

I mean being larger doesn't necessarily mean stronger it usually does but I am not exactly sure number 9 is stronger than number 10 who can jump 3 meters high on the first list just because size

 

[H3110l12345I20]

I mean being larger doesn't necessarily mean stronger it usually does but I am not exactly sure number 9 is stronger than number 10 who can jump 3 meters high on the first list just because size

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?

And the official IRL Tiger page on VSBW says they leap 12 ft (3.658 m), a few inches higher than lions.

 

[DarlingAurora]

I agree with you here, because especially Siberian Tigers are considered one of 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.

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 and the most of it are rigged tho.

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

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.

 

[DarlingAurora]

but I am not exactly sure

Btw, an large Southern African Lion is smaller than the average Bengal Tiger that's an big difference, uh-hu.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

So where's the devil's advocate? Do we have evidence that wild tigers have more fat than muscle if Tigers' size aren't always stronger? DarlingAurora's reasoning and scans seem more convincing for an extra note still scaling Tigers above lions

 

[Lou_change]

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?

And the official IRL Tiger page on VSBW says they leap 12 ft (3.658 m), a few inches higher than lions.

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.

Btw, an large Southern African Lion is smaller than the average Bengal Tiger that's an big difference, uh-hu.

proportionally the difference is smaller but yes a difference of 26 kg is more than 7 and a half kg

 

[H3110l12345I20]

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.

The winning fight arguement is a strength and weakness since while it can demonstrate raw power, the method of raw power is problematic. In this case, a normally smaller animal winning a fight against a larger one can happen. We have feats of at least a person killing a grizzly via it's vitals, or a man ripping out a leopard's tongue. We have feats of lions killing tigers by neck bites because of this.

 

[Livinmeme]

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...

That sounds more interesting than whatever this is. Link? Please

 

[DarlingAurora]

That sounds more interesting than whatever this is. Link? Please

nya

 

[Lou_change]

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.

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.

The winning fight arguement is a strength and weakness since while it can demonstrate raw power, the method of raw power is problematic. In this case, a normally smaller animal winning a fight against a larger one can happen. We have feats of at least a person killing a grizzly via it's vitals, or a man ripping out a leopard's tongue. We have feats of lions killing tigers by neck bites because of this.

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

 

[Therefir]

In a vacuum and comparable conditions, Tigers should win more times than they lose against the Lion.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Apparently there's a statement that comes from an organization dedicated to animals. Tigers have higher muscle mass percentage than lions. And the latter has higher fat percentage for it's body. Evidence is really mounting to where Tigers should be more physically stronger.

 

[Lou_change]

Again I agree. My thoughts here are that if we are able to prove a tiger's greater strength without relying on using fights that helped lead to a wikipedia page getting deleted then we probably should. I hope that makes sense. Stuff like them being able to jump higher despite weighing more, having a higher bite force quotient which accounts for the tiger's greater size, and even just having proportional greater muscle mass, all of these things support the idea that they are stronger than lions.

 

[H3110l12345I20]

Bump.

So the conclusion here currently is that Tigers are physically stronger than lions? If accepted by most people here, who's going to do the revisions. If no one else will, then I'll do it.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

Most staff members here evidently haven't agreed with that, H3, so wait a moment.

OP really should have an "Agreed"/"Disagreed"/"Neutral" or "Lion better/Tiger better"It's 50/50" list in the first message for all the users who left their opinions, 'cause plenty of people have settled on it being fairly 50/50.

 

[Lou_change]

I mean could we probably justifiably upscale them from all 5 other big cats with Jaguars possibly being a partial exception seemingly being considered the strongest pound for pound and having the highest bite force. The high end Jaguar likely beats the lower end of healthy adult lions and tigers.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

The high end Jaguar likely beats the lower end of healthy adult lions and tigers.

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.

and having the highest bite force.

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.

Lions and tigers are naturally stronger than the other big cats though, but I don't think that needs to be put on any profiles 'cause it's kinda obvious

 

[Lou_change]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[DarlingAurora]

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.

Sumatran Tigers are completely different subespecies much smaller than Bengal or Siberian, ye.

As for lions some lioness fall into the weight range of jaguars.

That is already on the page tho

 

[Lou_change]

Sumatran Tigers are completely different subespecies much smaller than Bengal or Siberian, ye.

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 is already on the page tho

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.