Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedLions vs. Tigers

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 28>
Poll Question: If lions and tigers were to have a deathmatch, who would win?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
15 [38.46%]
24 [61.54%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Lions vs. Tigers
    Posted: 01-Dec-2013 at 19:05
Yup baroda is too similar in writing style to the gorilla an horse fight, funny that its accounts year has about 10 other animal fights such as that one, I think either someone found a illustrated fictional book of animal fights, cut out the parts where they say its fiction an send it in to newspaper stations to be published since they are highly detailed, probably the best writing style I have ever seen. Or it could have been a screen play for a tarzan like movie script that got mixed up with actual newspaper content.

As for the trainers you've mentioned, Pat anthony is still a wild card, dude I dont belive anything Pckts produces an I never will again, he lied over a 1,000 times on idiotic things, has even stated he faked a few an did it because he hates lions...w?t?f?... he doesnt have zero credability...he has negative 100 credability an his 100 aliases solidifies it...not one of us faked anything, maybe got the wrong details, an dident read the part it states novel, but we never manifested an faked one, theres a difference, some might not be as credible as others, but they come from reliable sources, not to mention I correct the faulty an un-reliable ones instantly a blog is not a reliable source where Pat anthonys quota is at, if its true, he would have gaven the book or newspaper location he got it from, who wrote it? Pckts did, by mimicing other circus trainers content. I'm sure Pat anthony didn't say that. Look at wiki, it states JV stated tigers will win everytime, Pckts is the moderator for that site, yet Jv's site says no such thing. But wiki is different from forums an blogs, he cant present any of the repeats because it is sorted out by others who snoop through it. The best he can do now an has to do when someone points it out loud an clear on wiki...he has to put (Citation needed)...thats all he has.

Kesri singh is the only person who goes into detail an backs the tiger, an hes not even a trainer hes a hunter, but he says he's seen fights...but as you say, its not really a legit opinion since in its same abstract jam saheb has seen 4 occaisons tigers lost. All the trainers that back the lion go into small through great detail in why the lion wins, but pckts doesnt care for substance, he cares about thats stupid since when their credentials are now being weighed in, they don't have any credability, thats why they are faceless, he never provides photos of them with lions and tigers, the direct quotas, an the quota saying what hes saying...he just twist's it. Thats why roman proske, an louis roths quotas arn't welcomed on wiki, since they need to be saying these things, not him speaking on their behalf just because on a unfair bout the tiger killed the lion an now hes putting words into their mouths, if they were alive an herd him ranting about there experinces an making things up, they'd slap the shit out of him. His other opinions come from two circus clowns, sherwoods an cooper, I had to correct the list a while ago upon finding out courtney was a clown, since all this time they bousted out he was a trainer...theres no photos of him with lions and tigers, he also was a play writer, the animals belonged to Lucia zora. He doesnt even have 5 experts with credentials that favor the tiger. saffoe is a joke, a kid at a petting zoo taking pictures an feeding them live chickens can have just as high credability as him. That goes the same with roy chapman, John S clark, samuel haughton an the others like his peots beast book, all mere critics, none are educated in watching both fight the other.

while I'm gone, I could offer up a hint to finding more quotas, go back to the team authority on page 1, an look at the names an circuses of mixed acts Ive put, then see if theres any books on them or if they are still alive...theres actually atleast 30 mixed acts of people we dont have quotas an their opinions atleast thats a lead in getting new content, I know you schamma King, Bold an Firestone are big in going to the library, so if you jot down all there names, next time you go you can scan through some of there books, I know Damoo has one.
pckts is a joke, he doesnt exist other then literally giving us people that favor the lion indirectly. lol frederich edlstien, is probably the next dave hoover, he has the biggest mixed act of today, so thats a lead.

An I agree trainers are constantly expoed to lions and tigers atleast the ones who mix the acts, so they are slightly higher than a biologist or zoologist...but again, no one is even putting in any time in the historical consenses of India, Iran, Turkey armenia ect places where they co-existed, just find their location an names of random zoos, sanctuarys that housed wildlife an look through names of each district...that would help identify other zoos, since it wont always have the word india in the text... calcutta, jamnagar, kanandan never shows when typing "india lion tiger fight" into google...yet lions have killed tigers there, some extra boot legin might be needed, but its easy if you know how to look.
Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Battlecat View Drop Down

Joined: 28-Nov-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 07:35

Yeah Pat Anthony did not mix his cats like Beatty, Nelson or Hoover and others.  It specifically says in a description he did the tiger act in the beginning of the show, and did the lions separately at the end.

He said lions will fight anything, anywhere, anytime without provocation, he did not say this about the tiger, which makes me think that is most likely why Pat Anthony kept his male lions separate from the tiger and lioness acts.  And btw, I read that Anthony emulated Beatty and copied him even dressing like him, yet he didn't even  come close to mixing the cats the way he did, nor the amount, Anthony once said using 18 cats in the cage was to much.

Here's the description.

Pat was one of America's finest "home grown" wild animal trainers. When you watched Pat, if you had never seen Clyde Beatty, you got a pretty good idea of what it would have been like watching a Beatty performance. Like many lion and tiger act's of that era, the tigers sat down low, and did the majority of the behaviors to open the act. Two tigers rolled two balls, roll overs etc. When the tigers were finished, although Pat had a lioness and tiger that rolled the barrel together, they went out, and the act was concluded with the lions doing laydowns, etc. with a lot of fighting and charging.

So did Pat Anthony really mix his lions with his tigers?  He most likely didn't mix them as much as Beatty did or Jacobs, and 18 cats at once was to much for him.

Most of the circus shots of Pat Anthony you don't see many male lions mixed with the tigers, usually its mostly tigers.  The most male lions you see in pics with Pat Anthony
are about 2 or usually just 1. 

Notice there are no male lions in this pic.

And here in this pic from above you can only see 1 male lion, most likely a good natured one used as just a show piece  he can trust not to start fights.


Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 18:51
Good pics, an interesting theory...I think I've seen a pic of him with a few male lions, not to sure at the moment, there was alot of rivelry between the two, but beatty is in the guiness book of records for the most lion/tiger mix act at over 40 one time, no one had that much, terrells bill boards says 50, but he had only 12 of each last time I checked, most of the time even less than that.

We both know that mabel is a lion hater, she stated it in her book, an multiple times that she dident like lions, she didnt understand them and early on droped them completely, heres yet another one that states she doesnt like lions:

"Miss Stark doesn't like lions. She had a lion act at one time in Japan and says lions fight with each other when they get together and might grab the trainer."

But since pckts likes to twist people who favors the lions words, lies and makes up false quotas...I'll use yet again one of his only sources that favors the tiger against him. I'm gona put mabel starks in the catagorie of testament of the wild saying this...

Even mabel starks cannot disagree with clyde beatty on one thing, starks a renown lion-hater...admits her self indirectly, that in the wild the lions unity, numbers and cooperation would have drove tigers out of there mits, and would have dispatched and killed even the largest record breaking tigers with a spartan spirit since strength is in numbers:

"lions have a sense of brotherhood and will pitch in and help a fellow lion in a fight It is also true that tigers have the code of every tiger for himself,

lol I even found a useful quote from Dave hoover that is similar to dave salmonis:

"Tigers won't fight until they are attacked.

So dave hoover and bert nelson is starting to pitch in clues an hints here and there, later it should all be combined in one paragraph of their cites and quotas, to show just how one sided there opinion is.

Clyde used more tigers than lions too sometimes:

He mostly used male tigers:

Again, Beatty is the record holder:

So I don't know what the hell pckts aka the idiot with a thousand aliases was crying about, that others have way more experince than clyde...break it down...

-Clyde has the record with the largest (Mixed) act of lions and tigers ever in a circus.
-Clyde has witnessed probably over 100 fights over his life time.
-Clyde has 40 years experince working with both.
-Clyde has a toll of about 50 tigers being killed by lions, an not even 5 of vice versa.
-Clyde states the average lion is bigger and heavier than the average tiger.
-Clyde states the obvious leverages in what we see in most videos an other abstracts.

Credability? The highest ever. If they insist their trainers are higher, than they have to match each bullet point with a higher stance. Since we have his book scans, we have articles, alibies, testimonials, video and more of that whole sha-bang, the only thing queen the fraud has is made up quotas and assumptions, he cant even play off he assumes they favor them, then it manifeses him into spreading lies and mis-information, but he doesnt assume they favor the tiger...he knows they favor the lion, but hes the biggest con artist, lying idenity theft scitso there is, everytime I look at their list it shrinks and exploits its self, in other words hes just a crybaby butt hurt loser.

He twist clydes statement since theres no visual specs in his gang up fights, but the tigers diden't fight all at once, or even directly, they just chased them up 7 foot pedestals, and fought with each other, hundreds of lion fights on video show when they are in close ranges there is many friendly fire and it results more into a free for all. An just because other lions were present, doesnt mean they pitched in or made contact.

Just found 10 accounts of lions killing leopards, and whats funny is, although we would assume the leopard is no match for the tiger since theres a few accounts of tigers killing leopards not to mention he has a huge size and weight advantage, I found a few more accounts where they evenly fought, and although the leopard was killed, so did the tiger succumb...that shows the lions mane absorbs enough damage that he wont have to worry about bleeding to death from numerous wounds, quite logical right? Since why is there tons of books that say the leopard attacks the tiger then fleas, and then returns for his onslaught to kill the tiger? Because the leopard has no real reason to fear the tiger completely, since the tiger is...

1.) Alone, the leopard visually will see lions usually in groups when they assess them, so even if they spot a lone adult lion, they wouldn't full on attack offenseivly since in the back of their minds, they know the troop will be summoned upon the noise an ruckus they will be making in the fight, the tiger will be vulnerable alone, since leoaprds kill wildabeast who are larger in stature to tigers, so the size will not be a complete fear factor, more so a intimidating one.

2.) Leopards always witness lions fighting and he understands the role of the lion toppled with the lions appearance, at equal weights the lion is much taller and much larger in size due to his mane, so right off the back the leopard half the time thinks he's fighting a giant bear with armor on and just wont risk it...after all leopards when confident takel 400 pound male gorillas, why is the male lion never attempted in the wild, even by ambush? Leopards study and asses almost everything from safe havens in tall trees, bushes, caves they have alot of time of observing first hand how tigers and lions think and act. So its another testament that the tiger is not the king of beast, since the leopard freely an openly attacks the male tiger defenisvly an offensively, he of course defensively will protect himself, but he does not attack the male lion offensively in the wild.

Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Battlecat View Drop Down

Joined: 28-Nov-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 20:05
Yeah for sure Maybel Starks quotes really don't mean a lot, as well Gunther Williams was an all tiger trainer.  I know Pat Anthony worked with several male lions at once, but he did not routinely work with multiple male lions and multiple male tigers.  It says he kept the 2 cats acts separate.  So there is no way he would of seen that many fights like that. 

Like many lion and tiger act's of that era, the tigers sat down low, and did the majority of the behaviors to open the act. Two tigers rolled two balls, roll overs etc. When the tigers were finished, although Pat had a lioness and tiger that rolled the barrel together, they went out, and the act was concluded with the lions doing laydowns, etc. with a lot of fighting and charging.

Notice it says allow Pat had a lioness and tiger that rolled the barrel together, they went out.  There saying allow Pat had a lioness and tiger together, why say that.  There saying that because that's all the mixing that was going on, other wise the tigers went out.  So the only cats Anthony really mixed were lioness's and tigers.

You have to mix the cats to see the fights.  And yes I agree Beatty mixed the cats the most, and for sure the pics prove it, there are many pics showing loads of male cats all together, many male lions, many male tigers, more then anyone else.  Without a doubt the pictures prove Beatty was the greatest trainer, his cats were all huge too.

You've made a lot of good discoveries Prime, now there are over 20 trainers and mix cat sources for the lions side.

That's at least double there's.

But even that, there is a lot of holes in there list of trainers backing the lion, I don't think all the guys mixed the cats together.

I took apart some of this list, no doubt the more its looked into it will shrink, some of the quotes also backing the tiger sound more bias then real experience.

Tiger siders who have worked with both acts
Proske (100% states the tiger to be more dangerous)  Again he was tiger fan, he said that and
he ended up working with tigers more, its in the news archives, Dick Clemens had an all lion act, and Proske at the time had an all tiger act.

Starks        Stark's again became quickly an all tiger act, she didn't like lions and Terrell Jacobs had to save her life.
Capt Dutch  Was this guy that said a tiger can beat a lion quicker then say lets have a drink
Van Amburgh  Again show me the quotes on this guy.
Old Andrew   Was this guy that batted around a 2 3rds grown lion, and said the lion would lose because hes always lazy like a dog?
Andy Lacey     Is this Lacey of Ringingly bros.  They don't mix multiple male lions and male tigers.
Hans Brick
Bauman             Show me the pics where this guys has multiple maned males with male tigers.
Wade G. Burck   Same thing here, show me the mix cat pics.
Larry Alen Dean
Pat Anthony            I already proved this guy lets out his tigers first and does the lion separately last.
William H. Winner     Don't know this guy get the quotes.
Alfred Court             Where does Alferd court say he favors the tiger, he actually got rid of one of his lions because it was too dangerous.
Cal Riter                Again show me the info where it says hes a trainer.
Robert Edmund Sherwood           Don't know him get the quotes or pics.

After requesting to show links for some of these trainers I didn't know, he showed links to none.  A few I remember the links too in there list.

Here's most of the trainers and mixcat sources in favor of the lion,

1Terrell Jacobs, 2 Clyde Beatty, 3 Dave Hoover, 4 Jim Chiperfield, 5 John Helliot, the 6 Beatty Cole trainers, 7 George Conklin, 8 Bert Nelson, 9 Damoo Hohtre, 10 John Cox 11 Dr. Antle,  12 Joe Exotic, 13 Noel Marshall   14 Siegfried and Roy, 15 Kidd Bauer, 16 Dave Salmoni, 17 Marco Peters, 18 Trevor Bale, 19 Alan Gold 20 Luis Roth 21 Keith Evans, 22 Harrison Bobbie out of Africa,

 I mention mention Harrsison & Bobbie because they mixed the cats and tried to train the lions not to attack the tigers.  As well Noel Marshall and Tippi Hedren saw many fights on there property with trainers on the set as well, but they did most of the training themselves, and they saw the lion come out the toughest.  Siegfried and Roy said the lions was tougher, and they said they had to not use multiple lions in there act because they started to many fights. 

Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 21:14
Yeah the trainers list is getting improved ever so slightly while theres are shrinking they are going backwards due to being to bias, closed minded, dis-respectful, desperate, pathetic and deceptive. I put my bids in here and there, but we all had a hand in it, so the thanks should go more so to the gang, leofwin, schamma, bold, you and the rest of the nutreuls...I merely organized it and put it in a formating style where its well organized so neatly, that you can remember them easier just by the dates it should open up a chasim in your mind who and what the content provides, ultimately put it in a unbreakble, truthful manner and system of mathemtics, since can't cheat the system of chonological order, it will show, and once in catagorie form even more so you will eventually run across the same content if its the same occaison just used by another source, what made theirs deceptive of course, they dont present the whole abstract, in the scientifcal community that kind of niptucking would get you laughed at and your sources will be thrown into the trash by the professors you provide them to.

Again, thats also why I like the artifacts, theres almost no way you can fake art as much as queentheropod fakes and repeats accounts, how much do they have again? less than 10? lol We are pushing 100, and I will get triple that amount later.

But again, the list we have altogther is merely the beggining, c'mon think about it, that can't be even just 1/10th the amount of sources out there, 80% of them are in american circuses, a few in europe and thats about it...there are tons more in other countrys where they would have the same type of acts, so that means hundreds of more trainers over each few decades. The problem is, the newspaper archives wont be in english, theres hundreds of other languages that dont make it to the american/european stations, they will be of native to there countries langauges, take Ollioses post on the previous page, he posted things of turkish origins I could have never found by looking through google in english, halthough not of credability of a actual account, it just shows with the write resources, many things are out there to be un-coverd... so later when I have time, I will broadin other sources as well, I'm quite confident that theres atleast a hundred more quotas to be found easily when I have the resources to look, that goes for each catagorie like

...accounts...artifacts, historian consenses, quotas, photos, videos and more will be magnified 3x fold, as much as Bold champ says he has almost all the documents on weights of lions and tigers, that truely is an understatment, he doesnt even have 1/10th the amount out there, he has just the basics not to mention he is quite un-organized he should have everything in chrology, just like everything we have now, all we have is the basics, we have good stuff, and very viable quotas and accounts, but I feel its not enough to be conclusive on a scholary level such as the universal answer...but I belive by all of us working together in the near future, we can anwser the question every one wants to know, and we have broken a substanial lead in quanity and quality of our sources from the internets mainstream of repeating the same bullshit of misinforming, lying and twisting facts, but we have enough atleast to it points further to what most likely we will find. But thats for later, as of now, we have the basics.

But check this out, I'm adding in this lion:

along with a few others into the list of...

{"The Valhala lions"}

~1,000 pound lion named sultan:

(1962) Award given to animal trainer 'Fritz swede Johnson', riding his lion named Sultan who weighed 1,000 pounds...

454.5 kg=1,000 pound african lion

~Ethopian court housed a 1,000 pound lion

408kg=900 pound lion named Ali  owned by Charle’s mason of king’sbridge

~Two…950-1,000 pound lions

~900 pound lion,2398849

~900 pound lion named menelek

~800 pound lion named ponto fight’s off 2 tiger’s 1959 Rningling brothers

~826 pound lion named simba

~810 pound lion attack’s tarzan 1967, in Cleveland, OH; Tarzan was attacked in the ring by an 800-pound lion.

~Two… 800 pound lions 1 named Prince an 1 named clarence

~806 pound lion named Rutledge

~908 pound lion owned by Peter jackson

~800 pound lion

~800 pound lion in circus
Trump: The Art Of The Deal
But Irving was very much like a lion tamer. You've seen these guys, maybe I50 pounds, who walk blithely into a cage where there's a magnificent 800~pound lion

~800 pound lion named woody

~900 lbs
CBS News investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian speaks about the debate and what it was like doing an interview within feet of a 900-pound lion.

800+ pound lion

~800 pound lion named leo 1932

(Some say the lion in the booth could be a lion named Coffee),5537289&dq=800+pound+lion&hl=en

~800 pound lion Killed With One Shot Nero Slain As It Devoured Cow In...Daily Star - Oct 2, 1908

Nero was five years old, weighed 800 pounds and was valued at 1000 He recently . was imported from Africa, and was considered a perfect specimen.,5099819&dq=african+800+pound+lions&hl=en

~Two 800-900 pound lions escaped from the Ringling Bros. and Bar- num & Bailey Circus Saturday los Angeles Times - Jun 17, 1973
Logan and his 800 and 900 pound fighting lions:

850 pound splendid male (nutered) lion named Rhino
(Source)International Exotic Feline Sanctuary in Boyd, TX pic donated by Weighed confirmed by Zoo keeper gabe using a bar scale

~900 pound lion named Prince
hloroforming of an African Lion in Augusta Yesterday. HE HAD CONTRACTED RHEUMATISM And His Owner Decided on Ending the Animal's Sufferings--A Fight Near the Sibley Mills. a number of spectators witnessed his killing today. was twenty-two years old and weighed 900 pounds.

~Leeds african lion 903lbs/408kg 1973

~Anonymity african lion 900lbs/408kg

~Elvis african lion 800lbs Keepers of the Wild

Kingman daily miner Nov, 2001 Sanctuary Roaring To Open Near Kingman Inhabitants of Keepers of the Wild,3156839

Dave hoovers 714 pound lion/ son of a 800 pound lion…

My favorite lion was John-John. He was an extraordinarily big lion. He weighed seven hundred fourteen pounds. Fortunately, he was good-natured.

(To Lion) "Way up high! John-John, take it up easy!"
He wasn't the type of animal that you could pet, but he was the type of animal that would put up with you.

(To Lion) "John-John, take it up! Hold it! Sit!"
His father was one of Clyde Beatty's lions, a big animal named Pharaoh.
(John-John the lions father named pharaoh was said tto be larger than him, so we will see if he was 800pounds, this is just a alibie)

800 pound lion,507962

So the whole, tigers are the largest cat speices on the planet bit is becoming inconclusive and shines a light showing that lions are the bigger of the two even at max since if you simplify or define the words bigger and larger it will not be as accurate an defining as mass...yes for now the tiger has a measly 0.25% heavier mass than the lion at max obese weights, but two individual specimens being compared visually will not show that specimen as the larger if the one hes being compared to is just about a foot taller in height and wearing a big fur coat.

In conjunction, all of the 700-800 lb lions with full mounted manes, will look of equal to slightly greater dimensions of size compared to Jaipur the largest siberian tiger in the world. The 900-1,000 pound lions with manes would look expedetionaly much larger in what we see with our own two eyes if they were next to jaipur standing neck and neck...the heaviest lion will not always be the tallest lion and same goes for tigers, but lions on average already are 5.5 inchs taller at the shoulder even more so at the head compared to the largest of tigers, since sumatran javan, bali ect are just as short as the average labador dog. I'll no dought grow the list later too and maybe might find a lion that is heavier than jaipur, also I'll try and get photos for every specimen that will be mentioned. But to the maximum sizes so far, of lions and tigers, we have over 20 cases in its own right smashing the myth that tigers are the largest felidae speices of today, sultan with his barbary-like mane, would look a whopping 50% larger in size compared to jaipur, thats insanely noticeable visually.

In that sense, it should be noted these things on a more accurate scale: Tigers are the longest and heaviest cats in mass by 0.25%...lions are the largest in height and size of the panthera genus. When compared visually, there is no dought that the lion is the bigger and larger of the two

Because we have multiple other ways of implimenting lions are the biggest of felidaes, heres the facts that expolits and exposes that lions are truely larger than tigers.

-Gentically male lions pass on the growth inhibter, male tigers do not, the female tiger does, so male lions have a superior gentic coding to male tigers. Hence ligers are bigger than tigons by 400 lbs.
-Lions have sociality that supresses the amount of food consumption, if tigers had to share a single buffalo with some 20 tigers, they would weigh 20+% less on solitary diets.
-In captivity this is exploited since the average lion has now 20+% heavier mass than the average tiger.
-Nutering expands rapid growth in a short amount of time, and more tigers are nutered in captivity while they avoid castrating lions to save the mane, possibly jaipur was nutered x spoiled, Sultan might have been spoiled, but not nutuerd since he has a evident mane.
-Lions are taller on average and at max, toppled by haveing a mane on his head, shoulders and belly that increases his size almost 2x fold.
-As a species panthera tigris averages 350 lbs, as a species panthera leo 380 lbs. Ph.D (Kitchner and yamaguchi)

So no matter how you cut it, lions visually will be the larger of the two in pure size when compared smallest to smallest, on averages of all sub-speices and at max of individual sepcimens and in that case, the lion has the advantage in a fight of being the bigger felidae

Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Battlecat View Drop Down

Joined: 28-Nov-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2013 at 23:29
Well you did a great job coming up with the idea to put everything in Chronological order, Ive tried to add in any new sources that have come up.

And totally there are many more trainers out there, and with social media today some can even be asked on FB, could be a potential break threw in finding new info. 

But many American circus owners don't like to talk about fights, and many American cat acts now days do not mix the cats so much, the animal rights people are far more strick then they were when Beatty was around, and even then he had trouble with them.  But I think there is still some circuses in Europe that mix the cats, but again they speak another language so its tough to get any leads there.

Yeah Leofwin and Boldchamp worked together and added up all the data they had, and calculated something like the tiger is only 23 lbs more then the lion in the wild.  So I would say that is most likely food intake, as well as males being ousted from the pride every 3 to 5 years, injuries, droughts in Africa, the hotter weather also causes the lions to not gorge themselves they'll eat less, packs of hyenas vs a lone lion, or 2 lions fighting over kills, open land without the forest and cover that the tiger has, battling buffalo for the kills when one of there own is taken, standing ground against other animals in the open again without cover like Rhinos.  If you watch this documentary called something like Exiled lions, it shows all this happening, 2 young lions fighting for food, the buffalo's and the Rhinos and Elephants all try to run the young lions off there kill.  Even the Elephants and Rhinos see them as threat at a young age and don't want them eating.  And then you have the Bergmans rule, which even Packer mentioned, animals in the colder weather will be larger, so that gives some of the Northern Bengals an advantage in weight there over the hotter weather African lion.

Also among prime species according to Packer and Yamaguchi, the lion stands taller, has a larger skull and has a larger chest.

So that goes along with those huge lions you posted and as well the food intake argument and the lions unique and diverse life over the tiger.  Tigers are better solitary hunters then lions, there bodies are more athletic for that, so they should have a higher food intake vs a solitary lion.  I think Beatty mentioned as well his lions may be a little larger so in captivity it seems the lion may have an edge, for sure its a more compact thicker animal in its body, the tiger is more longer and its mass is thinner and more narrow.  But I don't think its accurate to say they have 5 inches over the tiger, its more like 2 on average, but at times it can be 5.  There are some tall mixed siberian tigers in captivity, Ive seen several of them.  But out of 2 dozen, not one had a larger chest then every lion I saw which was about 6 total male lions and up to 12 male tigers.  The lion has more weight up front in its chest and shoulders.

For a tiger to look thick in the mid section, from what Ive seen, there going to have to be stuffed and most of that will be the lower belly hanging down, not the actual chest and back, bulging out like it does on the lion.

I also found this pretty cool, here was this lion named Dynamite, it was an extremely vicious lion, along the lines of Beatty's lion Detroit, it actually is on record of killing 5 male lions.  That's quite an accomplishment, considering its going to be harder to kill a male lion then a tiger.  So this lion must have been one the toughest deadly lions around.  They were actually using it for an experiment with drugs tested on it to see if they could make lions easier to tame.
Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2013 at 13:51
Originally posted by Battlecat

Van Amburgh  <span style=":rgb255,102,51;">Again show me the quotes on this guy.</span>Old Andrew   Was this guy that batted around a 2 3rds grown lion, and said the lion would lose because hes always lazy like a dog?Alfred Court             Where does Alferd court say he favors the tiger, he actually got rid of one of his lions because it was too dangerous.

Yup, I agree, beattys lions were all top notch. We all chip in here an there so its cool to see just how much for now...its not bad, and yeah I know most trainers would'nt wanna talk about it, if I were them I probably wouldn't like the idea either, since now days they don't get'em wild...most are captive raised and they probably rasied them from cubs, so they will be very attached to them and no one wants others asking about what family member of yours would kill the other. But I've seen some stuff on Vanamburg:


Vanamburg, called himself The lion conqerer of Pompeii.

Its easy to comphrehend that either, he's seen lions dominated tigers in the arena as the conqurer or why not the tiger conquerer of pompeii, or he is emiting in Rome...Pomepii. via roman venatios, the lion was the usual victor.


It states he left one of the combatants of his lions and tigers for dead:

We dont know which one, but heres a source that states one of his lions attacked and inflicted a fatal wound on one of his tigers:

"The lion jumped on the tiger and took a strip of skin off his

So, we have that, but no direct favoring, but I'm sure he did mention something, since he states a 99 out of a 100 people have asked him whos superior, so I'm sure we can find out more on him later. There was also a fight between a lioness and a tiger, but it doesnt mention who won, all pckts is doing is using idicotic gestures and acts like that is his case in saying they favor the tiger...thats border line retarded, saying the tiger is cunning, more ferocious, more cautious, more willing to kill man has nothing to do with his fighting abilitys, its idioticaly not even in the same realm, tell many boxing fights do you watch with your freinds and start yelling out...ohh yeah, Mani paciau is one "cunning boxer", or how many times have you watched UFC and heard people say... Randy coture is one "ferocious" fighter? You dont, since they mean nothing in a open fair fight, those things are attributed to the sneaky, sly and coward ways of unfair fighting...hence all the trainers even clyde, bert, hoover them all say the tiger excells the lion in..being a coward backstabing killer, since the lion is honest and posses more genuine courage and bravery...not to mention thats what their ecology is like, the lion in the open while the tiger hidden in the thick jungle, the lion will attack you head on, straight foward and roar before he does, pckts would know this if he had the slightest knowledge of fighting, but he doesnt, hes a nobody and a racist's joke.

Alfred court also called one of his lions...The God of war, dont think any trainer has gaven a title to the tiger or lion of such a title that can be surpassed. I dont even think cal riter even exist, I've looked for him, but came up short.

Robert was like cooper, a circus...clown:

Not a trainer. We have 10 accounts of 2 or more lions killing single tigers, so his quota of a single tiger can hold his ground with three tigers is useless, not to mention we have an account (altoona mirror) that a lion killed three tigers lol as for roberts quota to what extent? You can throw 8 lions and 1 tiger that is there friend in one cage, and the tiger will come out alive from a free for all..all the tiger has to do is run long enough for the trainers to stop the fight, via polls, whips and water hoses, that goes the same vice versa in the wild or open grounds, no tiger would face that type of odds, since they already have a hard time full filling a to death match one on one against another tiger. Again, as I stated, if Pckts doesnt show the root article or doesnt exist...c'mon, you're telling me, the guy who flaunts his list even off subject, post his old list like before hundreds of times even when no body asks or wants to see the same bullshit repeated, is not gona show the root article? Yeah right, thats because its root source doesnt exist.

Ours are basically new, and will be retived for its actual full article via Pdf later.
Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Battlecat View Drop Down

Joined: 28-Nov-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 10:32
Those Vanamburg quotes look pretty convincing, it sounds like for sure the lion fought tigers and mostly likely won.  The thing is, these animals don't change there the same now as they were thousands of years ago.  If Beatty said that the lions hated the tigers, and wanted to attack them any chance they could get, and usually won, then it would of happened hundreds of years ago and its still going to happen now present date, like in Everland.  There isn't one clip in Everland of a male tiger chasing a male lion.  Actually Ive never seen one clip period.  Yet there is loads of clips of male tigers running from lions, and the lion chasing after them.

The tiger doesn't like the idea of a fight the zoologist I talked too at the big cat sanctuaries mentioned this, and usually an animal that is more afraid its because there more in danger in the particular situation. The fear is warning them, its protecting them to get out, to flee.  When a tiger faces a lion, its afraid, even if its large.  In nature that is the way it works, lions have no fear of tigers, there is no way nature would be making a mistake.  In other words, if lions were in danger fighting tigers, they'd have a built in fear mechanism to protect them, but its usually the opposite, they have an instinct to persue the tiger and attack it chase it, and kill it any chance they get.  This is because this is the lions main job, its not just to fight off other lions, but its to fight off any invader that puts the pride in danger.  Leopards, hyenas, Rhinos, buffalo, elephants, crocs, hippos and that would also include tigers.  The lion is an animal skilled to mainly fight and protect, and its not just its boldness that allows it to not be afraid.

But its mind and reflexes are different then other cats.  If paws start flying, the lion isn't frazzled, its not startled, its wired to be able to react instantly and calmly to multiple opponents strikes coming at it or bites.  The tiger has the faster twitch in the whole body, but its not mentally wired to be able to handle complex combat, where you attack, parry, dodge, then retaliate and counter attack back, and then continue that for minutes straight, attacking evading, then counter attacking then back to evading.  As Beatty said, when the tiger is once checkmated, it assumes a defensive position and usually resorts to flee.  Its mind short circuits, it gets confused when the lion aggressively attacks it, then instantly at the same time evades, and then attacks right back.  It takes a more sophisticated fighting mind to be able to be on offensive but at the same time be on defensive.  Lions are built to be able to remain in combat, to stay in the fight. 

Lions are constantly with there mind observing the opponents body language, and reacting accordingly to it.  There are countless clips of lions with there heads and necks alone dodging opponents strikes, there is virtually none of the tiger nor other cat species doing this.

Just ran into this, there is a new interview I hadn't seen from Beatty, he talks of a large Nubian lion that almost killed a large bengal, saving his life.  This fight was one on one.  The lion won.

There is 5 pages in the interview, he also talks about retiring as early as the 30s because people didn't respect how difficult and dangerous it was to do these mix cat acts.

Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 17:56
Wow check that out, thats some cool photos of clyde beatty, and yeah...thats spot on, what would change? They would remian that way through the ages, the only thing that could differ is the sub-species themselves, but even that is still minor in conjunctionto its over all speices, panthera leo are warrior like spartans via unity fighting barbarians, while the tiger is a loner like all other cats, nothing special but size and stripes with an even poorer fighting style to most cats, in fact what I keep reading up on of big cats vs bears, the puma, leopard lion ect have all did quite well against large bears and tigers for there sizes not so well, they lost more than any big cat...even mountain lions have taken out 1,000 pound grizzly bears:

Tigers seem to get dominated almost everytime from a large brown bear, roman proske had a bear kill two tigers, clyde beatty had a she-bear kill two tigers, gengis kahns records say the bear always defeated the tiger, sanfransico the bear always won, I mean the list is pretty long of them being dominated and chased off kills by asiatic bears too with little return of the tiger taking on the more formidable bears other than the sloth rutinely, lions have their share of losing too to bears, but what I have read, majority of them says Female lion...lionesses...the bear attacked the lion unaware, most are exactly like all the tiger victorys over the lion either grossly un-fair, or males vs females and cubs...not all that much male lions have been defeated by any carnivore in a fair fight, and tigers co-exist much more with more vareity of bears, if bears were in the same regions of lions in the 19th an 20th century we would have hundreds of accounts, not just less than 10. The tiger could possibly be because of his fighting style the poors't pound for pound fighter there is.

I mean there could be more than 10 occaisons on hand a leopard killed a tiger in the wild and in captivity, thats border line sad, lions on the other hand have one way always dominated leopards:

Lions killig leopards:

1955 one stroke breaks leopards back and 5 lions then maul him to death

1953 Lion kills leopard in hotel

1939 lioness defeats leopard

1934 lioness rips out leopards tounge, then it dies later:

1922 lioness badly injured leopard:

1915 7 lions kill leopard,%201915&author=&pub=The%20Atlanta%20Constitution&edition=&startpage=&desc=3%20Leopards%20Fight%20With%20Seven%20Lions;%201%20Leopard%20Killed

1877 lioness kills leopardess:

full grown lion attacked and killed a panther

lion kills leopard

lion kills leopard

lion kills leopard

Leopards who lead solitary life easily fall prey to lions' plundering. However, there have been also instances of role reversal when leopards tried to steal lion's prey. But these attempts usually result in calamity. Recently, a leopard was killed by a pride of lions when it tried to steal their kill.

I dont know whos saying this, but later I'll find out, looks similar to what the normal trainer would say:

In spite of all this nonsense about buffalo and tigers, the lion is really the king of beasts. He not only ... A lion s mane is made of heavy, greasy hair. It is so thick that an assailing brute gets a mouthful of "'matting" and misses the vital spot.

~Los Angeles Times - Nov 4, 1934

I also found a little more info on a article that did a review of the fight in one of indias zoo's, it states this:

Lion vs tiger

A royal bengal tigress and a fully-grown african lion fought to the death the other day in a small zoo at Agratala, Bengal. The lion dodged the first attack, but soon leaped into close quarters and killed the tigress outright.

Ordinarly a tiger can whip a lion, although the lion is protected somewhat by his mane--which grows longer in captivity--he must use one front paw to balance him self, while the tiger can balance on his hindlegs, using both front paws as weapons. The lion weighs about a hundred-pounds more than his rival, bt the added pounds only slow him up. The tigers speed also discounts the more powerful punch in the lions shoulder muscles.

Since the beast appear evenly matched, Asiatic natives have paired them off as ring-mates for centuries--usually to the lions chagrin.

(You can see a drawn illustration of a tiger biting the lions mane on the top left near the center of the page),1380537&dq=lion+fought+tigress&hl=en

So he points out that:

1.) The mane protects the lion
2.) The lion has a hundred pound weight advantage.
3.) The tiger can use two paws an has greater speed but is a weak striker.
4.) The lion has much more powerful shoulders via a stronger punch.

Yup, thats about right, I like how they drew a tiger trying to get through the mane an failed, its a very good looking illustration so its a must get later. I'm a bit confused on the asiatic natives chagrin, but it comes clear, most articles I've seen about the romans or india which pckts uses too, don't have any citer's, they are going by hear say, so most likely one account is behind what makes most hear say turn into many...or if none at all since they could be citing novel acts and misinformation, after all majority of the accounts of the lions winning are accounted for then and there all the datails then and there, the exact place, the combatants details, the people who were there, time, date, everything, not oh...I heard these people, this happened...yet no specifics whats so ever, no location, no names, nadda.

I like the articles with the drawn illustrations they look more compelling, interesting and more explainatory. So all together when we get those articles we are looking at 4 so far thats not in the list and have a drawing of a lion and tiger in combat that I've seen. yeah and the defeating accounts might not be as grand as the death accounts, but more quotas like those from clyde who stated the lion nearly killed the tiger is just as valuable, since we could make two seperate catagories, one the death accounts the other the defeating accounts. We oughta be on the look out for more like those too... So good job.

Edited by Prime - 05-Dec-2013 at 19:35
Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Battlecat View Drop Down

Joined: 28-Nov-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 19:39
Great account on the big circus fight breaking out.  Notice it said the lion shook the leopard back and forth then gnawing it to pieces. That is another fighting technique the lion has that is different then tigers and all other cats, yet very similar to dogs.  Lions will often bite rapidly in multiple places, and then grab hold of the opponent and shake it back and forth tearing it a part whip lashing it with its neck.  This is a deadly technique used to kill the dog like hyenas lions main competitors. And its a technique almost all dogs use when fighting, yet you never see cats using it, nor even house cats.  I'm not saying they can't move there neck, they can, but they don't know to instinctively do it like dogs and lions.

Great find though Prime, that is pretty incredible, the lion making short work of both leopards at once, then after that who knows what would of happened if it would of killed the bear, most likely would of.
I have seen bears in person, and I can tell you that the ones I saw were these Asian bears, and they were very thick and powerful looking, more so then any of the big cats there.  But I think if lions have open room to move, its possible they can kill the bear, as well they could even kill bulls, but they need a large arena to do so.  I think that's why Cleopatra said the lion usually won, which counted fighting against bulls.  The coliseums were far bigger then the circus trainers cages, that gives the lion a far greater advantage, even against tigers, my money would far higher for the lion vs tiger if the size of the area was big.  I'm convinced the tiger wouldn't be able to do hardly anything in that size arena.

Yeah that is interesting about the tigers loosing to leopards, maybe some of them are tigress's, or smaller tigers, but the leopard really should be similar in fighting style, and just as fast as the tiger, so perhaps its possible the tiger can't dodge the leopards fast strikes and attacks.

But on the whole, I can't say tigers are poor fighters, simply because Beatty has stated at times they can fight very fast and well, and are the best scrappers.  All cats can be vicious when threatened, the tiger is no different just far larger and more muscular.  But I have heard the black leopard is the most vicious.  Its possible that tigers as a species really maybe wired to avoid fights, I think most cats are, but I can't say the tiger would be a worse fighter then other cat species.

Tigers are faster then lions, which gives them an advantage that way, as well they are more coordinated on there hind legs, giving them an athletic advantage.  The tiger also should have more gripping strength with its slightly more muscular shorter lower and middle arms.

But I like that newspaper article, some of the stuff was wrong in there, but its interesting they said the lions stronger shoulders giving a harder punch.

The greatest boxer ever Rock Marciano wasn't that fast, but he had amazing power punching talent.  There is so many different kinds of talents in punching, a guy can be slow, but it doesn't mean he can't knock you out.  Its a mixture between hand eye coordination, arm coordination and strength.  You can have the fast twitch muscles like Manny Pacquiao but it doesn't mean you have as great a power punching talent like Marquez does.  Both are different skills.

Lions obviously as a species don't just have greater muscle in there back and shoulders, but they have greater coordination in throwing power strikes, designed to knock out the opponent and stun it into submission.  An interesting observation someone made at yuku was, the reason the lion's strikes could be so hard, is because there trying to strike opponents with mane protection.  In other words, striking a maned foe in the manor normal cat species do isn't going to be sufficient to do damage to indicate a clear win.  Beatty said most of the time the tigers strikes did no damage to lions.  There not thrown with the back and shoulder winding up generating power, there thrown more in a paddle like motion like your just kind of trying to claw the opponent.

The clawing and paddle swiping just isn't going to do much out in the open against 2 lions fighting, so its possible over years and years of fighting lions developed harder and harder strikes, hitting right through the mane.  Either way, no cat swings like lions do, the evidence accounts videos prove it.  It would actually look odd to see a tiger swing that way, and I can't find one video of them doing that.

I agree as well, I have seen a lot of accounts of tigers dying to bears, I saw one recently I forget which account it was from, some tiger escaped and was killing some animals, then it got into a black bears enclosure and was killed by the black bear.  I have a hard time believing a lion would die from a black bear.
Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Dec-2013 at 20:11
Yeah, I didn't mean tigers are poor fighters in general, I was more so comparing them to the other felidaes, cats, pantheras, felines ect for their weight you'd think they'd stand more of a chance to bigger bears, but it shows they are just a bigger target to hit easier, and yeah...all black, brown and polar bears are insanely huge and powerful, but their fighting tactics dont always pan out well against the pantheras:

Check this one out, looks like a black bear was chasing a puma up a tree, but the mountain lion from even up there apllied a death grip:

~Phillip R. Goodwins~Book of hunting records

an some other ones:

Even before the ramadan and parnell fight, parnell already killed possibly a mammoth sized grizzly bear:

Lions due to there stronger shoulders, are insanely strong cats:

Yeah tigers are good hunters and not bad fighters compared to other animals, but when we talk pound for pound, the jaguar would have a much harder bite, exceeds him in aquatic hunting/fighting, the leopard is by far the most cunning opturmistic animal so he will ambush the tiger if hes near the same size, also being a superior climber. The lion gets all his fighting experince through being social and has a anatomy ornament specifically made for shielding him, and the puma has one of the most effective rapid movements and tactics there is against larger bears...all pound for pound in my opinion now analyzing the swappping in there shoes, the tiger could be with more studying...the poorst pound for pound fighter of the felidae family, in other words I think a puma, jaguar and leopard would just wreck a sumatran, javan and bali tiger even if its near parit with teh tiger having a slight weight advantage, the tiger would fair badly.

Yeah as for the boxers, people who think flurys are more effective then haymakers...(from people who know how to throw them) are stupid, the greatest boxers of all time like iron mike, the most knock out highlights ever, are all comprimised of haymaker upper cuts, haymaker hooks, lions use one at a time, but that doesnt mean they only use one paw, thats stupid, they use both paws but in a tactics of an extreme tourqe that propells out of a 3 point stance, thats the same as a human whinding up and just blasting someone with all their might, you cant really get concusions from some one whos throwing as fast as they can in rapid motion, dazed yeah, but haymakers are made to knock you the f**k out.

Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Battlecat View Drop Down

Joined: 28-Nov-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2013 at 20:33
That account about the lion pulling the carcass and the car not being able to move is stunning.  That is astounding strength, who knows how truly the strong the lion really is, if someone reads that account they'll think twice about saying the tiger is automatically stronger. 

For sure I know, the lion has the stronger shoulders and the stronger back chest and trapezius muscles.  Tigers have a lot of strength in the arms, but not so much in the shoulders and back.  The lion does exceed all other cats in those areas, so its hard to judge just what effect that would have on a cat species being tops in those areas of the body.  It could produce the ability for some stunning feats, and there is evidence of such things happening.  There was several accounts of single male nomadic lions killing adult giraffes on there own tackleing them and knocking them over, and hanging on them for many yards.

There is also an account I heard of a nomad lion that actually charged into a grown elephant and knocked it over.  In a sense lions are designed to also help with taking down larger prey then tigers, so they need the added jaw stamnia and strength to do so.  As well they have the larger heart and lungs increasing the endurance for a longer hunt, not just a quick ambush kill like the tiger.  Since the lion hits harder, it would obviously be able to strike a prey with its paw far harder then the tiger knocking it over.  With its stronger shoulders and back, and added endurance the lion should be able to hang on buffalo and take down and wrestle larger prey better then the tiger.

Don't know if you know this but the lion also may have stronger jaws, Bold showed me the data on this.  The lions lower jaw is more rounded and stronger, its zygomatic arch bones come out farther, and its sagital crest of the skull goes back farther, all these things increase bite force, as well the lion has stronger thicker teeth then tigers designed not to break in fights, there are reports of tigers teeth actually breaking far more then lions.

The neck too seems to be thicker from what Ive seen on many lions, but its hard to see a lot of lions necks, because there manes cover them, you can't judge the thickness by a few Tsavos or some younger lions, even though there are plenty of young lions with thicker necks then many adult tigers.  As well the lions neck and head is far more mobile and coordinated then the tigers, which increases its strength as well.

A problem when showing many lions necks, often there not full grown,
here is a young lion at everland with a very thick neck showing.  Part of that hunch you
often see is also the trapezius muscles, they fit over the back of the neck and over the shoulders.

You can see the neck is obviously quite large on this neutered lion, as well again where the lion excels you can see its back and mid section are very thick.

I would have to say that yes neutered lions have more fat and fur, but there is no doubt there is a massive neck here.  I mean it looks like some kind of unknown bear species.


I heard about that lion that beat the bear or it came close to and survived, then they put it against a bull, and it would of beaten the bull too, but they tied up the lion partly I thing so it eventually died, other wise it would of won, or at least survived, lions just need open room if they have that they can handle bulls.
Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2013 at 22:00
Check out that lion compared to the tiger, his shoulders and neck is huge...yeah thats the problem, when comparing tsavo lions, altogether they look malnorished, it could be there food supply, eco and geo that has something thats off and comtaminated, they look somewhat sickly half the time. Yeah and comparing teen lions without a full head of mane to a full grown lion is like comparing a high school football player to a NFL player, they already concluded on if the lion has a black mane, then it will indicate he is in good shape, so testosterone is connected to his mane, more testosterone, would mean more muscle as well... tiger fanatics like to act like if they can find a weak looking srawny lion without a mane, they can trick people in thinking a full belly maned lion is too scrawny underneath, thats just not happening, since the sub-adults when flush next to a tiger is much larger, just look at the photos on page 1.

lol and some lions have just as thick if not thicker fore arms than tigers too, it will depend on the individual, not every black man is cut to shit and has wash board abs, can run lightning fast and is strong, same goes with any race, not every china man is gonna be short and look like bruce lee, not every japanese is gona look like a sumo wrestler, not every white guy is gonna be a chuck norris ect, tiger fans cherry pick the shit out of their pictures and there distance effect is probably the most hilarious, the tiger is usually around 9 feet away from the camera, while the lion 20 feet away... at those distances I could look taller than yao ming. Thats why I only like photos of them both in the same pic. They dont have any to match vice versa, since theres more than 50 photos already with a lion much larger, so large is hilarious in how any one could think the tiger is the worlds biggest cat speices, theres some where bengals and siberians are dwarfed in height and over all size, so what does that say about the Sumatran, javan, bali ect in the whole conjunction? They look like comapring adults to children.

As for lions and giraffes, yup, you'd need some strong shoulders to pull somthing down of their sizes, at almost 3,500 lbs...they are one of the largest land animals on earth, and unrivaled in height:

{Lions Predation on Giraffes}

lone lions killing giraffes:

Sub Adult lion killed a giraffe:

That ends the question if lone lions can kill giraffes, since it only took the power of a sub-adult lion to kill a bull giraffe, so larger more powerful males can replicate what was done.

More lone lions killing adult giraffes:

Lions takle the largest animals on the planet, almost everything in india is dwarfed compared to africas wild. Again, bold champ doesnt properly adress the weight statistics, he constantly incorectly terms tigers are larger than lions, as in its species...thats pure bullshit, just because 2/9 sub-species gets slightly...slightly... heavier by a less than 10% weight fluctuation, doesnt mean he should use the specifics as tigers are larger, since that 2/9 of the sub-speices is both shorter in height by 5.5 inches at the shoulder, and is paralyzingly smaller because of the lions mane...

Realistically people will judge size in what they see with their own two eyes, both from us, and what the animal will see, so the tiger will not be as confident as the lion since he...the tiger...sees a much larger opponent...the lion... he doesnt know that the manes compactness and denseness weighs lesser than muscle, he just sees a animal that looks a foot taller in height and in width a animal thats in the front double his own, in swapping scenarios (animal * human) it be like the siberian the tallest of the tigers maybe a 6 foot man that weighs 300 lbs, going up against a lion, hwo is represented as a 7 foot guy with a fur coat making him look bigger than shaque oneil in mass/size you would be intimidated if a person a foot taller with a fur coat making him appear 500 lbs is coming at you with the intent to kill, afraid...maybe not, but intimidated? Definitely... since what would that say about the sumatran and other subspeices that make up the word majority? Hes not a 6 foot man, hes the 4 foot philipino going up against shaque oneil. So scientifically adressing these guys, correct terms of using their sub-speices should always be emited when comparing weight to be more accurate, people who say tigers on average are heavier, bigger and larger compared to the lion, dont know what the hell they are talking about. Leofwin does this too, he adresses it as what case you are adressing, in terms specifics, it also lets the tiger fanatic you are debating think logically, not dream up fantasy's that every tiger on earth weighs 800 lbs, 7/9 out of the tiger subspeices are generally much smaller, weaker, weigh less, is much shorter by nearly double in everything. Look at the smallest to smallest, a sumatran tiger would be out of this world if he breaches 450 lbs even in captivity, while asiatic lions in the wild have been toppled in at 680 at max, and posibly 800 in captivity, thats twice the the correct terms would be, in general panthera tigris is the smaller compared to panthera leo, since when all sub-species are taken into account the lion is heaver on paper, thats not including what we would have seen if those two individuals were next to each other, since the lion has a bigger front frame, taller, bigger head and a anatomy the tiger doesnt have, that just so happens to magnify his size if he has a belly mane as well... by over 50%, 500 lb lion x a full head and belly mane = an appearance of atleast 700 lbs, tiger at 500 lbs no mane = an appearance of 500 lbs...nothing that much much is changed on paper when people think of size, but off paper visually, the tiger looks as is compared to his written weight, the lions mass/size is enhanced expedentionally by his mane, so inverse...1,000 lb tiger (jaipur) and 1,000 lb lion (sultan), the lion will look 50% larger, roughly the size of a 1,500 lb kodiak bear.
Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Battlecat View Drop Down

Joined: 28-Nov-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 14:42
Yes if there are pics of of Tsavos with no mane at all, they may be un healthy, a healthy Tsavo should still have some mane.  As well Tsavos are only one small sub group, that is not a lot of specimans to choose from, so of course not every one is going to be huge, there are loads of skinny bengals adults, I can post tons of pics of them, with very narrow thin spines and backs and shoulders.  Small necks, small heads and chest. 

But even this Tsavo who may be an old lion past its prime, still the neck area and jaws and head shoulders look stronger then the average tiger.

With that said there are still some very impressive Tsavos.

Again the lions lower limbs are often longer there for thinner then tigers, but the shoulders and
back, and chest are built like a bulldozer on this one.

Very powerful looking Tsavo here.

Here's a young lion, no mane, showing a long powerful neck thicker then most tigers of similar age.
There are countless pics of young lions with huge necks, I can post them.

Of course a healthy full grown lion can develop huge shoulders, necks and chest, biceps as well like these, that are tops for all big cats.

Here's some other young lions necks, no mane, its bigger then most adult tigers.

The shoulders very large and muscular on this one.

This lion in Everland knocked this tiger to ground and the tiger bounced off the ground from the force of the strike.  Its a male tiger, but notice the tiger makes its self look far smaller by crouching low to the ground, lions don't crouch as low, except if they dive in for a low attack, lions stand taller and as your saying yes a full bodied mane makes them appear much larger.

Here's a lion showing very large shoulders.

Here's a pic that really shows the lions back muscles and stomach muscles, exceeding most tigers on average.

Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2013 at 18:58
Yup. lions need more powerful shoulders because their prey are larger and more formidable, I've found a few more cases lions have taken rhino:

Dr. Mervyn Cowie witnessed:

Adult male rhino was injured by lions runs near humans to find protection.

Although not a direct quota, some say Cowie mentioned that it was a single lion that injured the male bull rhino, I will see if I can get a scan of Cowies quota for credability later to see if it was a single lion or multiple lions.

Lions kill yet another rhino!
Phinda's north pride has managed to kill their fourth white rhino in as many years. The prides dominant male, we believe him to be around 250kg , with the weight and power to accomplish such a feit. One of these kills was witnessed, and started out with the sub-adults chasing and almost "playing" with the rhino . When the dominant male got up and grabbed the rhino over its muzzle, the rest of the pride subsequently took interest and started to jump on the rhino's back, untill the animal was brought down. The male took half an hour to then suffocate the animal. Lets hope they don't start taking interest in our black rhino!!    

Lions Kill White Rhino The coalition of male lions at Exeter has finally killed again, this after numerous failures earlier in the week. Amazingly, four of the six males killed a sub-adult White Rhino last night.

Lions were seen moving away from rhinos which had deliberately advanced when they had become aware of the presence of the pride (Goddard 1967). Goddard further reported that, in August 1967, a sub-adult lion attempted to attack an 11 month old rhino calf. The mother was close at hand and engaged the lion. The lion bit the females hock and clawed its thigh but was gored twice by the rhino in the centre of the ribs and then in the centre of the neck followed by a blow through the base of the jaw that killed it.

A freshly killed, black rhino carcass was found with an adult male lion by Elliot (1987) in Umfolozi Game Reserve. There were signs of a struggle and well defined claw and tooth marks on the neck of the rhino which had a horn length of 18-20 cm making it probably two year old. It was concluded that there was strong circumstantial evidence that the lion had killed the rhino.

The article offers information on the predation of the African Black Rhinoceros by lions and its effects on the population performance of the species. The decline of their population growth rate since 2009.
lion’s kill 3 rhino’s in 1995

Young mature rhino was killed by a pride of lion near Lerai Forest. The rhino had been battered around its neck which was lacerated by lion claws; as there was no evidence on the ground of a fight or struggle I can only

On the other hand, the Swedish naturalist, Wahlberg, once had an opportunity of watching several lions attack a rhino. The fight was terrible, and finally the big beast succumbed to the aggressors.

Lions have been known in a few exceptional cases to attack and kill a rhino.

The black and white rhino are by far much more formidable then there asian counterparts, both in size and weaponry, even the largest indian rhino outweighing the smaller black rhino would be less formidable since his horn is about half the size and sharpness,

(Indian rhino)

And look at its ranges:

That means the asiatic lion hunted these smaller less formidable rhinos as well before the 18th century, pckts and his delusions that tigers have the more formidable stock is rendered disputed, since everything the tiger has hunted so has the asiatic lion (leo persica), everything the lion has hunted cant even be attempted by the tiger by location nor capabilitys of being a loner and ambusher…which most other animals in africa live in the open fields, the tiger has not the stamina nor the balls to attempt buffalo when they cooperate in unity (herds), the lion dominated before a mass production of fire arms on 3 continents, asia, europe and africa, and speaking pre-hestorically even leo atrox dominated america, that’s 4 coninents panthera leo has ruled over, tigers are isolated to only asia, and barely breached russias european parts and some other near eruasian districts probably by importations, they were an apex predator so they could have spread farther, but the lions sociality would have halted that attempt, since there isint a single account of a wild tiger killing whole sale lions, just opinions from idiots who defy logic and kindergarden math.

So that nulifys basically anything queen of frauds says, asiatic lions have been found farther east of india in the 17th century before, all the way to bengal, look at asads pictures of lions near tourist jeeps and cars, they are not afraid of confrontation with humans on a base level, their curiosty has caused them to be picked off by the british hunters much easier in the open, much easier in large groups, while harder to even find a hiding and lone tiger.

Speaking historically, as I previously posted a few back…the historians, they all have Masters degrees in history, jackjacksonjs list of india and romans don’t even have one person with even a Ph.D, he just has zoo keepers like the bronx zoo quota, wtf can a zoo keeper know about something a thousand years ago? I own pitbulls, doesn’t mean I can tell you their origins, what exact blood line from what district they came from, and how many other dogs their heritage has beatin in the blood sport of dog fighting just by owning them, the same way mel and fiona sunquist (biologist), not historians...mere quotas…from fictional books means absolutely jackshit, the same with his news articles, books ect all state on its criteria…fiction…novel…and these people don’t even have credentials either.

Even if he had a hundred newspaper articles that say in roman times the tiger won, if he doesn’t have their credentials, then just one source in return from a licensed historians quote is all that is needed to dispute it, and we have pushing almost 40 historians of each cultures past history. Again when the credability is weighed, he doesn’t have anything, and almost 90% of his sites credability is in the negative intergers, since he:

-Faked articles he him self photoshoped
-Edited and doc’ed things
-Doesn’t show the whole quota.
-Doesn’t even link you to its root source let alone any source to be verified.
-Cherry picks photos.
-Repeats the same occaison hundreds of times.
-Uses more fiction and novels then science, logic and facts.
-Speaks and lies on others behalfs and puts words in their studys and mouths, twist’s facts.
-Hides the truth.

All which adds up to his intentions and overall persona…hes just a bias loser, a lion hater that can’t handle facts, a lying manipulative rat, a crybaby who cant keep a straight face or else why does he have over exactly 100 aliases? Why the need to have so many repeats, fakes, lies and pure bullshit anaologys and formalitys? Why so many inscriptive bashing and trying to tarnish the lions rep with hundreds of youtube videos of sickly old lions and cubs being killed by other wildlife then making fun of them? Because hes a desperate pathetic pece of shit. He cant say that about any one hes debated with, since no one stoops to those levels, but he merely parrots others who expose and exploits his mental disorder, everything he insults is just mirror’d back to who and what he really is.
Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2013 at 01:13
Okay D, last night on the subject and its a long lunch break. I hope to see more info from you and the yuku team when I get back of accounts, artifacts, experts opinions and statistics. So as for this topic... Lets do a over-view, step back an up a hundred thousand feet and look down on both of their lion/tiger empires and Kingdoms from above.

God & Gaia

When we speak of God and Gaia given titles, it means we examine who/what, where and this case, who has the more higher rank and superior ecological status, why would they be given the title, to where did they actually rule, looking at their past historical ranges, it would help us understand who actually deserved to be called and held higher than the other in the historical title known around the world as King.

Lets look at the lions historic ranges:

The tigers historic ranges:

(As posted before) This is essential to know...Clearly theres no animal more used in heraldry than the lion. The GEO (famous german science magazine) has examined which animal is used how many times in heraldry for each continent (in general). These were the results (Black=big cats):

Lion dominated 5 continents in healdry and history. (Afrika, Europa, America, Asien, Ozeanien)

Tigers are barely even recongnized on 1. (Asien.)

This answers a whole lot, the lions genus, Panthera leo, has attained the title King of the beast, because like Kingdoms, they have control over a vast amount of land, the lion has ruled for 2,000 years on and was indegenous to 3 continents, europe, africa and asia, even pre-historically on america.

The tigers range has been supressed by the lion, halted and controlled around the borders of eurasia, and indias breaching to africa, guns the main down fall of lions gave the tiger a better chance to move more south towards the indian sub-continent. The lion has ruled any and every where the tiger has, from near the eastern caspian sea down to western and central india, the same cannot be said of the tiger, since hes entire genus comprimises only that of asia, in that sense, tigers rule over nothing, in his home land of asia, the lion out-strips him in healdry, and in combat.

Honestly, in chronological order, examining the amount of times the tiger has killed the male lion in a fair fight through out all of history, theres less than 10 accounts worth, in a span of 2,000 years, thats petiful...that leaves no room for any educated gesture and opinion that tigers should be called king for, since vice versa we have a 100 accounts the lion has defeated, beatin and killed the tiger of both genders in the wild and in captivity, so weighing in those numbers, it emits that for a male tiger to beat a male lion is almost a fluke, since one would need hundreds upoun thousands of accounts to determine a superiorty over the other, in this case...we dont even have 10, so to all the tiger fanatics on yuku can be hit with the final truth, I hate to shatter your dreamns, but its beyound obvious why the tiger isn't the King of beast:

As goes, just because you find these flukes, novels and fictional books you rely on, saying the tiger killed the lion the rightful and true King of beast, don't make the tiger, the King of beast.

* Tigers are not social, he has nothing that resembles a Kingdom, as lions have Prides.
* Tigers being loners will be frequently chased off by, wolves, hyenas, wild dogs, and bears, dispicable for a monarch.
* Lions have a anatomy (Mane) that resembles a kings crown, tigers only have moton chops.
* Prides can take down earths largest bull mega faunas, hippo, rhino, elephant, the tiger being solitary doesn’t have the muscle.
* The lion like nobel kings are, honest, brave, leneint, while the tiger is cruel, savage and unforgiving.

IN the class of carnivorous animals, the lion holds the first rank, and the tiger the second. As the first of a bad genus is always the largest, and has often the best dispositions, the second is generally the most rapacious and destructive. To pride, courage, and strength, the lion adds dignity, clemency, and magnanimity. But the tiger is grossly ferocious, and cruel without necesity. The same thing takes place in all nature, where rank is the offspring of strength. The first, in which all power resides, is less tyrannical than his immediate inferior, who, unable to obtain unlimited power, avenges himself, by abusing that portion of it which he enjoys. Thus the tiger is more to be dreaded than the lion. The latter often forgets that he is the sovereign, or the strongest of all animals. He moves forward with tranquillity and steadiness, and never attacks man, unless when provoked. He never runs with precipitation, nor gives chace… but when pressed with hunger. The tiger, on the contrary, though satiated with carnage, seems to be perpetually thirsting for blood. His fury has no intervals, but during the time he is obliged to lie in ambush for prey at the sides of rivers. He seizes and tears to pieces a fresh animal with the same rage that he exerted in devouring the first. He desolates the country which he inhabits, and fears neither the aspect nor the arms of man. He puts to death whole flocks of domestic animals, and all the wild beasts which come in his way: He attacks the young elephant and rhinoceros, and sometimes even ventures to brave the lion.

* The tiger is just upset all the time because he is not numero uno.
* Sluaghters only weaker animals, and takes it out on gental giants off springs (whom he’d get in return polverised by adults.)
* Is inferior, less tyrannical and is jealous of the lions placement and testament.
* An sometimes…( not all the time)…sometimes braves the lion.

So, the lion yet again is…

-The braver, posses more pride and courage.
-Is stronger, has more diginity and magnamitity
-Is ranked the highest in carnivorous animals.
-Not so much he forgets, hes just so powerful hes humble.

And it states here that the lion was known specifically for their strength and courage for the chinese.

Of the feline tribe, the lion claims the first place. He is considered as the lord of the brute creation; and his whole appearance, the flowing and shaggy mane, the ample forehead, the kindling eye, and the muscular strength and compactness of the whole frame, so powerfully armed by nature for the purposes of destruction, concur to give an idea of majesty and power, which is further strengthened by the boldness and courage with which, instead of seeking a dastardly retreat in the forest or the jungle, he rushes forth to confront his enemies in the open plain, where he is generally shot by the hunters. But, in the event of his being only wounded, he is extremely formidable, from his vast strength and fierceness, and the immense weight of his body, especially towards the head, and the power of his tremendous claws.1 The lion is not nearly so common in Asia as in Africa, and is only found in the northern provinces of Hindustan.2 The tiger is the more common animal of India, abounding in all the forests and jungles, from the mouth of the Ganges to the Himalaya Mountains. He is not quite equal in strength to the lion, though superior in activity; and his undulating movements have more of ease, grace, and bounding elasticity; whilst his bright-yellow, tawny coloured skin,

But we must be more specific, since turtles, rats, bulls and other animals like the tiger can have historic value of being the most powerful, the highest rank/god entity ect, these are known as cultrual idenity, so we must find things that directly compare both:

Heres one from europe specifcally stating the lion stripping the crown away from the tiger:

Crest — A tiger's head erased, crowned with an imperial crown, with a lion's paw issuing from a cloud grasping the crown from the tiger's head

~The General Armory of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales: Comprising's+head+erased,+crowned+with+an+imperial+crown,+with+a+lion's+paw+issuing+from+a+cloud+grasping+the+crown+from+the+tiger's+head&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aWmlUq_QM8jCoATewIG4BQ&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA

Hmm, quite similar to the chinese of the Hungwo of ming dynasty in 13-16th century, the lion was the highest ranking badges, honors and healdry monarchs specifically over the tiger:

(Hongwu Emperor of Ming dynasty)

In Ming times, the lion was for the first rank and second rank officers, but after 1662 the First Rank had this changed to a Qilin. A leopard indicated third rank; tiger for fourth rank; bear for fifth rank; young tiger

(The Holy Bible)
The lion, which is mightiest among beasts, And turneth not away for any

So far in the pages 1-6...imperial courts, to dynastys, armorys, totems, honorary statues of government, royal kingdoms and artifacts the lion reigned supreme as the highest ranked animal specifically over the tiger when compared.

-Biblical records the lion is the uncontested ruler over the tiger.
-In Royal reseims, kingdoms and government socioty, the lion is held higher in rank.
-The scientifical community’s of ecology and biology, the lion is more powerful and supreme in almost all land ownership and prowess of earth while the tiger isolated and inferior.
-The spiritual world the lion is at a greater significance and authority.
-In archaeology blood sports of human made settings, arenas, aphitheaters, pit fights, the lion came out the victor through artifacts consistancy’s.
-In the atheism world of modern appliable documentation, via videos, and newspapers the lion still has beatin the tiger more than vice versa.

More will be brought later, take care, and aloha nui loas.
Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Battlecat View Drop Down

Joined: 28-Nov-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2013 at 13:15
Great info, yeah there is no doubt that historically the lion is far more heralded, and it would be for a good reason.

Most every modern day trainer and trainers of the past at least say the lion is more aggressive and wants to start fights much more then tigers.  The 2 species are wired differently.

James Clubb, Tony Huges, Gary Ambrose, and many others stated by Peter.

2 - Lions are more agressive. Do you agree?

Every trainer would agree with that observation. But there is attitudes and fights. And no positive correlation. In wild encounters in the RFE, brown bears initiated fights more often than tigers. But tigers won more fights. Gary Ambrose stated brown bears like to fight and go for the kill. But he also stated they often overestimated their capabilities.  

Same for lions and tigers. Every trainer would agree with the statement a lion is more dominant and more agressive than a tiger. Even those favouring a tiger in a one-on-one invariably stated fights invariably were initiated by lions. But the outcome of a fight is unpredictable. It can go either way.

Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2014 at 05:47

The Legend Still Lives

Clyde beatty's story and life experinces echo in eternity, from what we find of the missing puzzles for the whole picture, comes the documents and memoirs that hold a time capsule sharing another era, where we can retrive our answer to the endless question of subject of lions and tigers:

CLYDE BEATTY FACING BOSS TWEED Munitions Probe Mas a Kick-Back <•> Though some of the prettiest girls in the circus diped a tear away, and told Clyde Bcatty how much they loved Boss Tweed in life and how much they'd love to have his hide, the lion trainer turned them all down. Boss Tweed, the handsomest, fighting lion in Bealty's string, recently pasted on to the animal heaven. And as a result will roon be showing his beautiful teeth in the light of the Cole Roosevelt Incident

Traveling aboard three special trains the Cole Bros.-Clyde Beatty Circus will reach Hope Saturday, October 31 at West Pond Street Circus grounds for performances at 2 and 8 p. m. An immense street .parade will be seen on the downtown streets at 11 a. m. "I never had so many requests for a certain lion's hide in my life," said Clyde, "but after all the management comes first. I can understand it because he was the best-looking lion 1 ever had and he'll made a beautiful rug." Clyde himself was attached to the cat, but he was giving the skin away, he explained, because he already had several mementoes to remember Boss Tweed by.

This one here," he said, pulling up his sleeve of his shirt. He paused over the criss-cross of scars. "Well,, any- way, one of those is from Boss Tweed as well as a deeper one in my leg. "Boss Tweed," Clyde said, "was one of the greatest fighters I've ever seen, in addition to his noble looks. He did some of his cleverest fighting in the Rochester Massacre. That was this spring. When two score of lions and tigers were in the arena for a dress rehearsal. One, on a high seat, reached down to take a cuff at the cat below. They frequently do that without much happening. But in this case the cat on the- high scat fell off and landed on the one below. The one below, thinking he was attacked, started to fight. In a second it was a free-for-all. In such a fight the lions have two distinct advantages. Their first is their thick mane which prevents the tigers from getting to their throats. Their second is their clannish way of ganging up on a tiger. A tiger will just watch another tiger being attacked. The lions join each other. An animal attendant excitedly raised a gate into the shoot so the beasts could return to their cages. Into the shoot ran three Bengal tigers with Boss Tweed in pursuit. "For twenty minutes they battled. Boss Tweed killed the three tigers, but himself was almost torn to ribbons. He recovered but somehow he never seemed to be the same. His spirit or his fighting nerve was gone. The other morning I opened his cage door and he was dead, for seven years I trained him, the longest of any of my cats. I was greatly attached to him,2734591

Name withheld by request tigers meet—and fight—is in circus cages, and Mr. Ballantine produces convincing proof that in such contests lions are generally victorious. Clyde Beatty had to contend with many mortal lion- tiger brawls in his big cage, and, to quote the book, "the • corpses were never lions." Beatty believed that lions and tigers hated each other, which is probably true

~Clippings on 7 July 1959 › Page 4

He has been in the hospital more than a dozen times as the result of maulings received from the animals he trains and on the last occasion it was a siege of sixteen weeks. The average life of the tigers in , his show is about three to four years. This is due not to any in-ability of the animals to acclimate themselves but the fact that in these fights which frequently occur between the lions and tigers, the 'tigers are almost invariably killed. While Mr. Beatty has twenty-four lions and tigers as well as three elephants in Hagerstown, he has appeared in the cage with as many " as 42. This number was reduced not because of the danger but because with so many of the huge cats in the cage the spectators could see nothing of their trainer. Their diet consists of seventeen pounds of, raw meat daily with milk and eggs once a week. This together with the fact that a tiger costs, about $1200 dollars, elephants about $3000 and lions while much cheaper than tigers, still represent a considerable investment

~Clippings on 19 October 1939 › Page 2

"She was the whole act," he said. "I loved that cat. I wouldn't have taken $10,000 for her." He explained the tiger was a "roll-over cat." "To get a good spinning tiger," he said, "you have to get an animal that is temperamentally suited. They have to be irritable and quick and nervous." He said he would watch the killer lion very closely from now on, but indicated he felt there was nothing too unusual about the fight. "The biggest expense I have is tigers killed by lions," he said. "They are natural enemies but then, that makes the show better." [color=red]He said lions have killed "probably 50" tigers in the years he has been working with the big jungle cats.[/color=red]

~The News-Herald 20 February 1951


The Primary killing method of the tiger, is evident to be that of the throat grab:

According to John varty, he mentions the lion in this case (of fighting) has a protecting factor:

"The manes on the male lions make them look larger and more fearsome. They protect the neck from blows from the opponent.

Accroding to records on hand, the male tiger, although stronger, bigger in size, heavier in weight, taller in shoulder height and the all around more powerful gender over the female tiger, the tigers throat is still vulnerable to attack:

But it is common knowledge as provided with trainers alike that the lions mane is benifical in a fight to an extant, it is also to other walks of professions by natrualist who share the same experince/observation/testimonial:

Lions: By Kathy Darling

"A hairy headdress makes its owner look larger and protects his head and neck in battle"

Lions: By Tammy Gagne

"It isn't just a lion's size that makes it look like royalty. Like everything else about a lion, its head is huge. Adult male lions have manes. This long, thick fur surrounds the animal's head and makes the lion look even larger than he is. A male lion's mane isn't just for looks. It also protects the lion's neck from the claws of other animals during fights."

Lions: By Sarah Albee

Manes may look heavy, but they are mostly fluff. A mane can protect a lion's head and neck from bites and scratches during fights with other lions.


Kailash sankhala

Upon observation, the tiger does not fight as frequent:

States again: "Tigers whos solitary life style (Un-like lions)...does not fight for territorial rights"
~The Sydney Morning Herald - Sep 10, 1978

Valmik Thapar

It is also upon observation, that Thapar is aware of storys that tigers kill do each other, but in all of his years he has never observed a tiger kill another tiger and eating it, this would mean the tiger fights and death moralitys are not as frequent as the lions as records are plentiful of the opposite as stated in the same consenses:

Biologist George schaller B

Along with other biologist such as Mcdougal and Siedenstickers, it is verified upon there observation of wild tigers more so avoid the others and they are passive/less agressive indicating less of a fighter than the lion:

Lions have well established territorys:



(Lion with a neck grip on tiger ~ Russian/sythian artifact)




It seems that gender is not of relevance to a beast born in wild nor captivity, in the wild a tigress would hard-pressd to raise her cubs, since the father of the cubs abondins them to every danger in the jungle, this would mean compitetion of their past co-existed locations of india... indicates odds would have been heavily against tigers on a natrual and frequent basis, female lions work in groups, and with unity comes power, they can and do ward off the occaisonal murading male lion, something the tigress being alone won't have a chance in doing, with this and other records providing sub-proof of what a tigress would face on a bad day, and how formidable would she be:


Adelaide Zoo:

Lion named leo kills tigress in 90 second fight


It also seems the birth place of the roman venatios Rome/Italy, the lion still retains his title as King of the beast, as a tiger was reported killed by a lion in the town of turin:

(Buffer'd past account showing more details)


Madras Zoological Gardens now named Arignar Anna:

"A Tiger 13 year old tiger presented to the Corpo ration zoo by Jamnagar State In 1949 died on Monday Injuries sustained in a deadly combat with Leo. a seven year-old lion at 8 on Wednesday last. Leo, who came to the zoo In 1947 and were kept In different cages side by side. Owing. It Is said, to a mistake of the attendant who was on his morning round of washing the cages, the two neighbours happened to meet In the outing yard and been badly mauled by the younger beast, retreated to Its cage which was kept open by the be wildered attendant. Vikram later succumbed to the wounds despite medical help and the 'post mortem' examination revealed that It had died of serious injuries. Including one affecting the thigh bone. Vikram was buried behind the zoo and proud Leo continues In captivity."

~Indian Press and here:

What have we learned?

-Clyde beatty has lost about 50 tigers to lions, and his lion named boss killed 3 tigers at once.
-Lions mane is agknowledged by multiple professions to provide the lion with a protection around his throat/neck/belly.
-Tigers (Ninjas) are not as combative as their cousins the lion (Spartans).
Psycologically, the tiger is hard wired to be passive, while the lion is evolved to be agressive.
-Tigers lack the social structure trait/element that would allow better survival against odds.
-Lions fight more often than tigers, which would implement, more experince = better fighter.
-Almost every catagorie supports the lion is the superior animal.

Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2014 at 21:33
Just wanted to point out the credability, and just how reliable wikipedias sources are, since you can see countless of people in its Talk page, try and keep it as a fair assesment, there is a memebr there as Bigcat82, trigger happy trying to promote his bias propaganda, by erasing anything that heavily supports the lion:

Thats the same person who made his site over 7 years ago of the repeats as you can scroll down and see its refference as jackjacksonj, with its other fake information, photoshop data and repeated content of fiction, novels ect; consealing full abstracts that we covered a page back, but lets see how reliable the merits are to what the cherry picked info he has so far:


In the circuses of Ancient Rome, exotic beasts were commonly pitted against each other. The contest of the lion against the tiger was a classic pairing and the betting usually favoured the tiger.[4][5] A mosaic in the House of the Faun in Pompeii shows a fight between a lion and a tiger.[6] Titus, the Roman Emperor, had Bengal tigers compelled to fight the African lions, and the tigers always beat the lions.[7] A tiger that belonged to the King of Oude killed thirty lions, and destroyed another after being transferred to the zoological garden in London.[8] A British officer who resided many years at Sierra Leone saw many lion and tiger fights, and the tiger usually won.[9] At the end of the 19th century, the Gaekwad of Baroda arranged a fight between a Barbary lion and a Bengal tiger before an audience of thousands. The Gaekwad favoured the lion, and as a result had to pay 37,000 rupees as the lion was mauled by the tiger.[2][10]

So the problem with this is...its credability, lets look at its first source and where it comes from which states the betting ususally favored the tiger:

Okay, so its a zoo keeper, this is flawed in many ways, since a Zoo keeper doesn't speacialize in history, Historians do, zoo keepers only job is to look after captive raised individuals, wikipedias consenses stated, since william bridges knows tigers and lions then he is credible, this is highly un-true, (Example) 90% of people who own pitbull dogs (without papers) do not know the leinage, blood line, fighting history, temperments of the dog, they just know its a fighting breed (some don't even know that the Pit bull is only P4p a good fighting dog as other larger dogs have been recorded winning almost invariably), Historians do...they know pin point accuracy. Historians go through a academic process through scholar knowledge, via attaining a Ph.D and Masters degree only through a course at a University...which takes years of studying to obscure and elude from bias, cherry picking and a subjective consenses, as explained before:

Secondly, experts opinions are reserved for people who has witnessed them fighting or via worked with both animals specifcally Simultaneously, working with both seperate doesn't cut it, you need to be witnessed to the actual fight to know, hence we have william bridges with a back and forth statement, he says a tiger might win, and he states a lion might win (in their own den), this shows he has no observation of the subject, which is a fight, as we cannot assume, anything the actual quota or cite of him mentioning a fight has to be included, no cite = no observation = not reliable.

Now on to its second source which says, in the rule of titus, the tigers always beat the lions, the source comes from martial:

"Lambere securi dextram consueta magistri
Tigris ab Hyrcano gloria rara jugo
Steva ferum rabida laceravit dente leonem:
Res nova, non ullis cognita temporibus.
Ausa est tale nihil, svlvis dum vixit in altis,
Postquam inter nos est, plus feritatis habet."

Which in english it states:

The rare-seen glory of the' Hyrcanian land,
A tiger, wont to lick his master's hand,
In pieces tore a lion in his rage,
A thing not known before in any age.
He durst not this attempt in forests high:
Beasts among men learn greater cruelty

So multiple mis-translations were involed by the people who re-edited its content, this is due to ignorance of having no Ph'd in the field of scholar knowledge, as 5 authors of editing its content, Had said the tiger was a female, without actually knowing that Tigris in latin, Persian ect, all mean just tiger (Male gender), as they thought since it had an riS, it ment the english related Tig(ress) (Female gender), and its specifics is flawed yet again since Martials exact words do not have it as the tiger won everytime, he mentions only one account, and he more so states it was un-known for a tiger to win, so everytime cannot be anywhere near valid, further looking into other scholary remnents of that occaison, it states that it could have been sabatoged/programmed for the tiger to win:

As that same event, a woman defeated a lion as well, we all remember the scene from the movie, "Gladiator", where maximus was stabed before even fighting the emperor to have a better chance, being that the tiger was tamed (owned by the emperor), it is ony obvious that a tamed tiger, can't hold any merits of defeating a lion and especially a average lady winning against a 500 lb killing machine throws highly into question.

But is there any evidence to challange it besides the obvious? Of course, we have here, Scholar fact that these sources have been subjective and have people without credentials opinionating on things they know not of, to challange William bridges poor academics is:

Ken spiro:


“Next, the arena was lowered to feature combat between them  as lions tore apart tigers, an went up against bears, croc’s leopards against wolves. It goes without saying that the Romans had never heard of animal rights.”

~M.A In History from The Vermont College of Norwich University

Is there anything to back up Ken spiro with tangible proof? Of course there is, wikipedia already did half the work in being bias, subjective and consealing, yet still foolishly showed a source, it states in the house of Faun...lets look at Scientist and Archaeologist Jemensiki's find:

"In the House of Faun showed a lion standing over a prostrate tiger"

So in rome, there is a actual artifact of a lion defeating a tiger which it is no longer an opinion, its a fact, but it doesn't stop there, there isn't only a Historian with a Masters degree on subject, but also a Archaeologist excatavtion of a root artifact, there is another profession on the topic, A Theologian:

Adolf Hausrath

And this yet again is back to back (Professional Scholar) x (Artifact), this artifact is of course later of the less common colosieum matches, but the location is still the same and the artifacts creator was born in the same empire, which is the roman empire:

"This Exhibition was organized by the Napoleonic authorities in the Capitol in Rome."

But how substantial is the merits that pro-claimed these lion victorys and how often was it? According to another native Historian and Archaeologist, someone who has studyed both pre-history of written and artifacts of that vicinity, it was highly:

Martin Seyer's

"Another subspecies very closely related to the Asian lion - the Barbary lion or Panthera leo leo - became extinct in the wild in 1922 (in Morocco). This animal the Barbary lion had been the dominant animal in the blood sports of the Roman arenas."

~Historian and Archaeologist (Ph.D of Classical Archaeology, Egyptologym at Vienna University)

And it seems Back to back, to back, a Historian x Archaeologist x an actual artifact of origins emits and is consistant in having the lion as the usual victor:

Copper engraving by the well listed Italian artist Pietro Aquila (1650-1692 Rome). Pietro Aquila was an Italian painter and printmaker of the Baroque period. He was born in Palermo. He mentored his nephew, the printmaker Francesco Faraone Aquila.

And there are other consistancys that follow the notion that the lion dident only win a few fights as well, but was the usual victor over all for the romans/greeks:

Theolgian Edward Beecher

And slew before their wond'ring sight, A wild beast conquered in the fight. A tiger who confronting stood And from this lion sought for blood; But in this sanguinary strife The tiger sacrificed his life. While with flesh torn from slaughtered prey
~Lost Atlantis Or the Great Deluge of All, 1897

Historian and Poet Thomas Gray

Historian John gays study of Aesop

A TIGER roaming for his prey,
Sprang on a traveller in the way;
A lion came to claim the prize
And soon the greedy tiger dies.
The man then knelt, his life to crave;
His life the lion hero gave,
And him bespoke,—" You saw the fight
And must confess my power and might,
Within these woods I reign alone,
All other beasts my sway must own."
"True," said the man, "the strength 1 saw, All kinds of beasts full well might awe,,105,680,511

Now these historical basis, do speak for themselves in terms quanity and quality over the only two sources that supports the tiger, William bridges (un-educated opinion on subject), and Martials empigram/poem, but we will need more than historical anecdotes, and more evidence that solidifys the origin/location of rome, that the lion was the usual victor, via modern documentation to confirm a consistancy factor, if lions were in fact the usual victors specifically of rome, then documentation today would have similar substance...right? According to newspaper archives, indeed the lion has been recorded still killing tigers of modern age:

Tangible Proof


Lion kills tiger in turin:

Another incident in the same year:



"The question whether or not a lion is the superior of a tiger in battle was recently settled during the course of a circus performance at Turin. The scene occurred while tamer Kose was putting Four lions and four tigers through their daily dozen in the middle ring high-spirited Bengal tiger suddenly attacked the lion and the gang having sounded tamer Kose became referee pluckily standing his ground while he attempted to seperate the struggling beasts...

Round 1 went to the tiger but the second, tan than gave his assailant blow had Signor Carnera been present would have made him look sick. With one stroke the lion had almost torn off one of the Bengal's hind legs meantime the other tigers and lions who were attentive ringsiders the bout began to show...

making the tamer-referees position all the more critical Firemen were summoned with earnest pleas to bring along the hose and finally the combatants were subdued by means of violent jets of water Circus vets took care of the wounded tiger and the crowd lustily cheered, the courageous tamer Klose told the local police that he was not going to part with the lion whose Intellirence was well any element of personal risk he him self might be taking.",%201930&author=&pub=Daily%20Boston%20Globe%20(1928-1960)&edition=&startpage=&desc=LION%20BEATS%20TIGER%20IN%20ONE-ROUND%20CIRCUS%20FIGHT


Rudolf Kludsky trains this mixed group of lions and tigers in the stadium or Turin. In the same year each group of species had to be separated as the lions oftentimes attacked the tiger and even killed several specimens.


Lion kills tiger and bear in one fight in arena:

~Sir Thomas Lawrence, Elizabeth CroftG. Allen, 1906 - Painters - 296 pages


Diary of a literature lion defeats tiger. In verona Rome

So there you have it, there is a consistancy, that matches each criteria, from multiple walks of science; Historians, to Theologians, Archaeologist, Artifacts, and actual modern documentation via books and newspaper archives, specifcally in the vicinity of the romans through out all the ages, from A.D times to the 19th century, the evidence supports the lion was the usual victor of the Roman venatios. Moving on, I would like to state again, I am not against anything that supports the tiger, just pointing out its credability and reliability, as I already stated to Battle cat, that Baroda's author was a fictious writer, as not only were there numerous storys written of similar content by him, you can also tell by reading its substance that he has a 3rd person viweing of the story, he is on multiple perches and locations of the story at the same time, impossible for a actual account, and the account where a single tiger killed 31 lions is flawed by the fact no evidence can be provided (the writer was not a eye witness), no photos of the kings having that much lions in the first place, in fact another eye witness has contested the King of oude had only a few lions, and was rarly brought fourth:

As for the rest of the content on wikipedia, Bigcat82 has its substance as incredibly obvious that it is subjective, bias and cherry picked, as its statistics of size comparison is just laughable:

Physical comparison

Comparative profiles of the lion and tiger

The Amur or Siberian tiger is the largest subspecies of the Panthera genus, known to weigh up to 360 kilograms (800 lb),[15] while large African lions weigh up to 250 kilograms (550 lb).[16] The average weight of males is 175 kilograms (390 lb) for the Asiatic lion, 200 kilograms (440 lb) for the African lion,[17][18][19] 221.2 kilograms (488 lb) for the Bengal tiger and 230 kilograms (510 lb) for the Siberian tiger.[20]

Cherry picking only two of the sub-species, gives the impression, that the lion is the smaller cat overall, a straight contradiction of what wikipedia has as its own sources:

Yet wikipedia itself has 9 subspecies of tigers, the editor of this subject implys in the talk section, to be historically accurate, yet refuses to let people be aware that the average lion is heavier, taller and larger than the average tiger, so he hides the bali tiger, the javan, sumatran ect, since they are only around half (190 kg) the weight of a lion, as stated by Ph.d biologist on the last two pages, not even bengals and siberians are significantly larger than african lions, his experts as I stated have none with experince working with tigers and lions simultaneously, so they amount up as un-educated guesses, as for experts who'm I've named on the past previous pages are some of the only ones that have the credentials to opinionate....upon observation.

And as for the final important subject on the topic, the accidental fights in captivity, its beyound hilarious, how Bigcat82 has to hour to hour safe guard the accounts section, and erase any and every occaison a lion defated a tiger that supports the lion, without posting the entire, list...(Since it would be way to long) I'll just show how funny it is to point out, one mans life man has accumilated more accounts of lions killing tigers than Bigcat82's entire sum up of the topic:

Clyde beattys Chronological order accounts


Lion Nero kills tiger saving clyde beatty in Kokomo
~ HANDBOOK -Fulton County Public Library


In 1949 a memoir of Clydes incidents of 1929, mentions 6 tigers were already killed:


2 tigers killed, In the the bigwhich was aired on 1933 in this 1962 article Clyde mentions 3 tigers were used an 2 were killed by his lion -
This is a piece of the movie:


Clyde beatty Sikestonians saw a lion named Detroit, kill a siberian tigeress named Alice in sikeston, two weeks Prior Detroit killed another tiger in muskegon:


One of clydes best fighting lion named Boss tweed kills 3 tigers at once:

~Hope Star 19 October 1936 › Page 6"> url]


One of clydes best fighting lion named Boss tweed kills 3 tigers at once:

~Hope Star 19 October 1936 › Page 6


Clyde beatty 18 tigers killed by lions 1936 Clydes wife witnesses a lion killing a tiger

"One day I saw a lion kill a tiger in my husband's act, and I'll admit that for several days I hated to hear the overture for my act." L IONS and tigers are quite apt to stage a fight killing at any time”… He has lost 18 tigers and two lions in such battles.


Caesar the lion kills another tiger


Clyde beatty 25 tigers were killed by his lions since 1925, so 1925 was his first incident:


And again a year later: Clyde beatty 25 tigers were killed by his lions 1939 stated that 4 were siberians


3 lions nearly kills tiger named rouge


“This is due not to any inability of the animals to acclimate themselves but the fact that in the fights which frequently occur between the lions and tigers the 'tigers are almost invariably'killed”


Clyde beatty’s Lion kills Puna the male tiger


Caeser kills 2 more tigers Twice sprang upon tigers, killing each one almost instantly 1944


Clyde beatty 2 lions kill tiger 1947


Clyde beatty a new young lion named prince kills sleika the tiger


[size=10]Clyde beatty lion kills tiger 1951

Clyde beatty lion named Prince (lll) kills, sleika then rosie, then sheba, it was his fifth incident, he also fought three other lions at once:

Two lions kill tiger

Mentioned lion-killing-tigers in his act:


Mr. Ballantine produces convincing proof that in such contests lions are generally victorious. Clyde Beatty had to contend with many mortal lion- tiger brawls in his big cage, and, to quote the book, "the • corpses were never lions

{Unknown date}

Thats more than 50 tigers killed just from one man, there are over 100 different sources that shows a lion killing a tiger, against only the few bigcat82 has on wikipedia, and yet he must be logged in at all times to obstruct and erase anything of such, his other sources of brain size, poetics views, wild encounters (Opinions) are all useless and protain nothing to the fight, only bias moding so that the world doesn't know the truth, which is the data on hand supports that the lion would win in a fight with a tiger nearly everytime.
Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
Prime View Drop Down


Joined: 20-Mar-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2014 at 19:34
interesting lion bear conflict, it seems the web is filled with fight stated the bear killed the lion in the california gold rush book, which is basically hear say and lies, heres some info on that fight:

1st Bear Siskiyou 850lbs:

2nd Bear smaller than lion:

(Click the Pdf)

3rd Bear Ramadan 750 lbs:

Some compilations of lion and bear fights:

Edited by Prime - 03-May-2014 at 18:18
Be honset to thy self!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 28>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.