@Sword , this is too much ! are you trying to call Tiger a joke !? leopards killing Tigers ? leopard who runs away seeing a Tiger and almost 10 times light in weight (30 kg)will kill it ? it can be compared to a Dog killing a Lion. And if this is true then I can take it as a Leopard can also kill a Lion. Seriously man ! not only you are a Lion fanboy but a "Tiger-hater" in fact !
No, not the animal, the posters (the humans making the stupid remarks)...they're the jokes for making up stuff the tiger is incapable of portraying, which is some type of unbeatable, super aggressive, killing machine which slaughters thousands of bull elephants...
leopards killing Tigers ? leopard who runs away seeing a Tiger and almost 10 times light in weight (30 kg)will kill it ? it can be compared to a Dog killing a Lion. And if this is true then I can take it as a Leopard can also kill a Lion.
Yes, leopards have killed tigers, the weight difference means nothing, since the tigers throat is no more protected than any other prey item any big cat kills, its not a comparison of bigger claws, bigger fangs, bigger weight, its about how do you bring fourth scientific evidence that not...if...but...when... animal A (leopard) clamps on to animal B (a tigers throat) and not have the tiger die, the trachea, the carotid artery, the neck, the throat, is no different in the tigers than any living mammal on the planet, one doesnt need to exceed the tigers strength, and it only takes a few pounds of force to sever its neck...hence your rant about weight difference is disputed...and for your opinion about the leopard can kill a lion just the same, the burden of proof falls upon you, please show us a well maned lion having his neck ripped out by a leopard?
Seriously man ! not only you are a Lion fanboy but a "Tiger-hater" in fact !
So because other animals like rams, dogs, goats, boars and other less formidable ones have killed tigers, and me highlighting it, means that I hate tigers? lol Thats just me showing what the animal is capable and in-capable of doing, its just an animal, no different from most, I do not hold the lion is such a high place neither, as they have been killed by lesser formidable animals, but atleast I admit to certain circumstances...you guys are the ones heralding these animals as if some type of diety or god...The only people who show signs of hate are you guys, you portrayed them to be un-stopable forces of nature, then when showed they can be killed by things much smaller and weaker then them, you have a two-faced approach...
And, hater? Hmmmm....was I the one who faked videos and bullshit lies out of thin air? Nope, that was you tiger fans like calling clyde beatty british, calling castle films british, calling anything that showed a tiger losing a sick old female, was I the one to have said the tigers can sluaghter 1,500 kg animals regularly? Nope, again...you and your retarded groupies, was I the one who said tigers dwarf all lions, twisted data, cherry picked information for bias purposes? Nope, that was you guys, the haters are you clowns...I dont dislike tigers, I accept them for what they are, nothing more, nothing less.
.you guys are the ones heralding these animals as if some type of diety or god...The only people who show signs of hate are you guys, you portrayed them to be un-stopable forces of nature, then when showed they can be killed by things much smaller and weaker then them, you have a two-faced approach...
Two-faced approach ? really ? don’t you think you have gone too far to not be called a Lion fanboy and a Tiger-hater ?
None of the guys called a Tiger un-stoppable force or invincible here. Everyone has his own PoV some favoring Lion, some favoring Tiger, just like you, but no one here is spamming the thread with tens of links of various other forums and anonymous experts.
Let me use your logic:-
1. A skunk scared Lion (so Tiger is better)
2. Two female Lioness killed a Lion (so …)
3. A Crocodile killed Lion (so …)
4. A Hippo killed Lion (so …)
5. A Rhino chased Lion (so …)
6. A Lion got an accident, broke his legs then died (so …)
7. A Lion died natural death (so …)
8. A Lion attacks from behind so its coward (so Tiger is better)
I have seen almost all of the abovementioned scenarios on tv but never thought what I have written in the brackets. Does that prove Lion a weak animal, nope ! so how come your innumerable posts prove Tiger a weak cat ? they can’t.
And, hater? Hmmmm....was I the one who faked videos and bullshit lies out of thin air? Nope, that was you tiger fans like calling clyde beatty british, calling castle films british, calling anything that showed a tiger losing a sick old female, was I the one to have said the tigers can sluaghter 1,500 kg animals regularly? Nope, again…you and your retarded groupies, was I the one who said tigers dwarf all lions, twisted data, cherry picked information for bias purposes? Nope, that was you guys, the haters are you clowns...I dont dislike tigers, I accept them for what they are, nothing more, nothing less.
Calling me a retarded clown you have made yourself a clown. Do you know I have voted to Lion in this very thread ? If you want confirmation just ask any of the mods. @pmaitra or @Sakal Gharelu Ustad they will tell you whom I have voted. So far as Tiger killing a Gaur is concerned, yes Tigers kill Gaurs regularly, often they kill half grown Gaurs, but they have been reported to kill 1000kg to 1500kg Gaurs occasionally, that too alone. Google it.
So far as guys posting here for Tigers is concerned, none of the members posting here are a Tiger/Lion conservationist/expert/biologists nor you. Everyone is posting “second-hand” information including you. So none acquire the right to call other members a fool, retarded or a clown.
None of the programs/conservationist/expert/biologists I have ever seen on Discovery Channel, NGC, NGWild, Animal Planet etc underestimate the Tiger that much as you and your quotes are doing. John Varty , Craig Busch and many others Big Cat experts have praised the fighting ability of a Tiger over a Lion. But will you respect their experiences?
No one here hates Lion since Lion is an Indian animal, (Lion is a mount of Goddess Durga so highly revered here), but Tigers too are not a joke what your posts are continuously trying to say.
Yes, leopards have killed tigers, the weight difference means nothing, since the tigers throat is no more protected than any other prey item any big cat kills, its not a comparison of bigger claws, bigger fangs, bigger weight, its about how do you bring fourth scientific evidence that not...if...but...when... animal A (leopard) clamps on to animal B (a tigers throat) and not have the tiger die, the trachea, the carotid artery, the neck, the throat, is no different in the tigers than any living mammal on the planet, one doesnt need to exceed the tigers strength, and it only takes a few pounds of force to sever its neck...hence your rant about weight difference is disputed...and for your opinion about the leopard can kill a lion just the same, the burden of proof falls upon you, please show us a well maned lion having his neck ripped out by a leopard?
So what ? Tigers are not immortal, they too die. I am literally laughing at the bolded part of your post, you didn’t even notice the picture posted by @saty in which a dead Tiger and a Leopard were lying down and their size was being compared. The size difference is clearly evident but when I pointed the same it became a “rant”?
Lions live in groups, so which Leopard will take panga (risk its life) ? even young Lions kicked out of pride too wander in group of bachelors. So it is illogical and highly impossible to witness a Lion vs Leopard combat, so no dead Lions, only dead Leopards. So far as Leopard killing Tigers is concerned, I am sure 99/100 times Tiger will win.
"Noted tiger scientist and director of Centre for Wildlife Studies, K Ullas Karanth, said, “There have been cases in the past where a lion or a tiger have killed a leopard. This happens due to inter-specific competition. Usually a tiger finds it hard to catch a leopard as the latter climbs trees and escape. But once it gets hold of a leopard, the tiger kills it. This is because the leopards are 3-4 times smaller than tigers. Similar killings have been spotted in Khana and Ranthambore. Once a Y radio-collared tigress had held a leopard on a tree for an entire night, and the next day the leopard was found dead.”
Googling such incidents and posting in lump sum like spamming. We also can do that but what's the point ?
It's foolish to assume that only necks are vulnerable and attacked. At one place you have claimed that Tigers always attack from behind as if Lions always attack from the front !
BTW if Lions so badly need the neck protection ,
1.Why didn’t they develop thick scales (made up of material like human nails) like Crocodiles for protection from teeths ?
2.Why didn’t Lions develop neck-frills like Triceratops to avoid neck grab ?
3.Why did they develop poor hairs which cannot save their neck from penetrating canines and often fall ?
Latest research studies have concluded (links already posted in the thread) that Lion's mane is basically for sexual purpose and not for neck protection, it doesn't provide that much of protection as claimed by Lion fans. Lion's mane is neither made up of Kevlar nor of bony plates like a Crocodile, it can provide protection to the throat from the attacks of honey-bee but cannot protect if another Lion or Tiger attacks except one or two slips. The mane can not stop a Lion or a Tiger's attack, it is childish to think so. [http://animalvsanimal.yuku.com/topi...snt-protect-a-lion-from-a-tiger#.VpdDS0-p2z4]
So forget manes, any expert who knows how the body protection works will reject mane’s exaggerated qualities of protection. Just like the links you quoted suspect that Tigers who killed Lions had advantage and projected mane as bullet-proof, bomb-proof material, I am also suspecting the intellect and understanding of those experts since mane doesn’t provide decisive advantage and are made up of simple hairs, just like the Goats with fur who often and easily got killed by Pumas.
Just poke your own head (if you are not bald) with your nail-tips, how much protection your hairs provided you? Zilch. Nail-tips are not even comparable to the canines of a Tiger.
There is no point in pasting skirting information and numerous links, like this killed that, that killed that etc. It is making fun of you, what I see is that all others have stopped posting on this thread except you ! you are hell bent on proving Lion a King and Tiger a joke, your looong long posts and tens of links prove that , and I said the same thing but you called me a retarded clown. Lol!
Two-faced approach ? really ? don’t you think you have gone too far to not be called a Lion fanboy and a Tiger-hater ?
None of the guys called a Tiger un-stoppable force or invincible here. Everyone has his own PoV some favoring Lion, some favoring Tiger, just like you, but no one here is spamming the thread with tens of links of various other forums and anonymous experts.
You can call me what ever you want, doesnt bother me, again the difference between me and you is the proof, like all the british rants and claims of 6 lions killed by 1 tigresses made here...I showed the true source...of course this bothers all of you...which is only the truth, which only showed most of your agenda, bias. None of the guys here? Does that matter, its persona still co-exist with what the web emulates tiger fan rants are, an yes your comments are retarded, anonymous experts, they have names...how can a person with a name be anonymous? lol
Let me use your logic:-
1. A skunk scared Lion (so Tiger is better)
2. Two female Lioness killed a Lion (so …)
3. A Crocodile killed Lion (so …)
4. A Hippo killed Lion (so …)
5. A Rhino chased Lion (so …)
6. A Lion got an accident, broke his legs then died (so …)
7. A Lion died natural death (so …)
8. A Lion attacks from behind so its coward (so Tiger is better)
I have seen almost all of the abovementioned scenarios on tv but never thought what I have written in the brackets. Does that prove Lion a weak animal, nope ! so how come your innumerable posts prove Tiger a weak cat ? they can’t.
If you wanna use that as some sort of proof that, thats why lions shouldnt be king and tigers should now be adopted as the worlds most highest animal monarch, then go for it, I'd love to read that kiddie book.
Calling me a retarded clown you have made yourself a clown. Do you know I have voted to Lion in this very thread ? If you want confirmation just ask any of the mods. @pmaitra or @Sakal Gharelu Ustad they will tell you whom I have voted. So far as Tiger killing a Gaur is concerned, yes Tigers kill Gaurs regularly, often they kill half grown Gaurs, but they have been reported to kill 1000kg to 1500kg Gaurs occasionally, that too alone. Google it.
At this point you are a clown, as your avatar looks like one, and most importantly your denials, in one hand we have you constantly posting things in how the lions mane doesnt work and using payton wests fake assertions on the mane, like an opinion about how the lions mane doesnt work because lions dont attack there lol, that doesnt prove anything in fact it proves that it does protect since they are the only ones who adopt the avoidance of it and aim more for the rump while tigers an others rush blindingly towards it, but...in the other hand, I have linked almost a 100 sources that re-asure the manes function is for protection, 100 beats 1, since a vast majority of them have actually seen the mane work against harm. I didnt say tigers are incapable of hunting adult guar, go back and re-read, I stated they dont...usually...regularly, via the norm, or even once in a while, its a rare seen event, so rare there isnt even 10 documented cases reputable of proving so, other than a tiger eating a already downed animal or carcass.
So far as guys posting here for Tigers is concerned, none of the members posting here are a Tiger/Lion conservationist/expert/biologists nor you. Everyone is posting “second-hand” information including you. So none acquire the right to call other members a fool, retarded or a clown.
I dont have to be a expert to quote an expert and understand what they state. Of course I can call them clowns, because the data they brought was not just wrong, they were lies, anyone who perpetuates lies is a retarded clown.
None of the programs/conservationist/expert/biologists I have ever seen on Discovery Channel, NGC, NGWild, Animal Planet etc underestimate the Tiger that much as you and your quotes are doing. John Varty , Craig Busch and many others Big Cat experts have praised the fighting ability of a Tiger over a Lion. But will you respect their experiences?
Again, if you bothered to read, a person on this matter can only be called an expert if they have stated so that they have seen several fights between lions and tigers against the other species, do you have any excerpts of them stateing they have? Then by you bringing that up is only a ignorant assumption, out of the lot the only one who has seen something on topic was John varty:
Tragically, the lioness Savannah, as she was recovering from the drug, was attacked by the male tiger Seatao. Previously, Seatao had greeted the lioness with no aggression, then as she began to walk around the boma, he sensed that she was weak from the darting and he attacked her, knocking her down. With 1000 lbs per square inch jaw power, he pushed the 5 inch canines deep into her throat. Although she survived the night, she succumbed to massive internal bleeding.
(Seatao stalking Savannah)
(Seconds after this picture was taken, Seatao attacked Savannah)
But no one could hardly call a drugged lioness a fight, now could you? John varty knows little, hence his opinion flip flops, at one point he is assured the tiger would win every time (wiki) and when confronted with a more knowledgeable person, he then gives it a 50/50 and changes status in saying the lion is more aggressive: http://www.jvbigcats.co.za/newsletters68.htm
Why would any one who said...everytime...suddenly change their opinion? Because, unlike real experts they lack any empirical evidence, nothing on this planet would ever change Clyde beattys opinion, because as he states he judges his opinion off of experience:
First of all no one said tigers cant win, I know more accounts of tigers killing lions then you all combined have posted, and I know who craig busch is, would you care to show us where he favors the tiger over the lion in a fight? Because I call bullshit. Secondly, you can name all the wiki pseudo science experts, I didnt just highlight circus goers and tamers because they just handled lions and tigers, I specifically cited people who has seen both fight on many occasions, none of craig saffoe, or the others have stated they seen many fights, beatty had seen over 50 tigers killed by lions, how many...not in your own made up words, but a book abstract can you cite they saying they have seen many lions killed by tigers? Again, you lack comprehension, heres the understanding of an expert:
An expert (pronunciation (US) (help·info)) is "somebody who obtains results that are vastly superior to those obtained by the majority of the population".[1] Alternatively, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguisheddomain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert
The domain we are talking about is on them fighting, saffoe might be an expert and weighing them, careing for them, feeding them, but hes not an expert in the domain of them fighting each other, he would have to have seen them fight on more than several occasions. Do you have him saying that on any abstract? your answer is no. Science just means knowledge, a more indept understanding of that certain craft, Clyde beatty has 40 years experience working with both lion tiger simultaneously, theres no person on earth who has beat his Guinness book of records still to this day.
No one here hates Lion since Lion is an Indian animal, (Lion is a mount of Goddess Durga so highly revered here), but Tigers too are not a joke what your posts are continuously trying to say.
No one here hates lions? lol you could have fooled me, saty states repetitively that lions are stink, ugly scavengers, incapable of hunting on their own, weaklings and many other illogical bs rants...stop with the bullshit. Again, never said tigers are jokes, thats just you trying to twist things, I post things thats directly correlated with what they are capable and incapable of doing.
So what ? Tigers are not immortal, they too die. I am literally laughing at the bolded part of your post, you didn’t even notice the picture posted by @saty in which a dead Tiger and a Leopard were lying down and their size was being compared. The size difference is clearly evident but when I pointed the same it became a “rant”?
And thats where his stupidity and your retardedness lies...as he said the leopard looks like a rat compared to the tiger...XD A rat would be the size of the tigers one paw, the leopard is shown already at 3/4th the length of the tiger, and atleast 1/3 in its mass, the tigers throat and trachea would only need less than 50 pounds of force x in with fangs to sever it, leopards kill giant eland a animal 8 x heavier than a tiger, they kill hyena, they kill gorillas, all which the tigers throat is no more durable than.
Lions live in groups, so which Leopard will take panga (risk its life) ? even young Lions kicked out of pride too wander in group of bachelors. So it is illogical and highly impossible to witness a Lion vs Leopard combat, so no dead Lions, only dead Leopards. So far as Leopard killing Tigers is concerned, I am sure 99/100 times Tiger will win.
"Noted tiger scientist and director of Centre for Wildlife Studies, K Ullas Karanth, said, “There have been cases in the past where a lion or a tiger have killed a leopard. This happens due to inter-specific competition. Usually a tiger finds it hard to catch a leopard as the latter climbs trees and escape. But once it gets hold of a leopard, the tiger kills it. This is because the leopards are 3-4 times smaller than tigers. Similar killings have been spotted in Khana and Ranthambore. Once a Y radio-collared tigress had held a leopard on a tree for an entire night, and the next day the leopard was found dead.”
More retardedness, again, capable and incapable, please cite me in to where I said a tiger is incapable of killing a leopard? Obviously you do not understand either words.
Googling such incidents and posting in lump sum like spamming. We also can do that but what's the point ?
It's foolish to assume that only necks are vulnerable and attacked. At one place you have claimed that Tigers always attack from behind as if Lions always attack from the front !
Yes, and I have showed valid hunters, natives, experts and trainers who had made the distinction between the two as a normal occurrence, hence normally as they're base modem, the tiger is a fearful and cowardly animal, while the lion a more calm assertive and braver animal...we see this in the videos of tigers are the usual ones who run against lions, not the other way around.
BTW if Lions so badly need the neck protection ,
1.Why didn’t they develop thick scales (made up of material like human nails) like Crocodiles for protection from teeths ?
2.Why didn’t Lions develop neck-frills like Triceratops to avoid neck grab ?
3.Why did they develop poor hairs which cannot save their neck from penetrating canines and often fall ?
This sounds more like a cry baby rant to me, as your theme from the start was to deny the lions function, as you even cited packer, craig packer just said the health status and mating rights for the main is primary, and the protection secondary, he stated no where that it doesnt offer protection, and who would even care for that quote, primary and secondary doesnt evoke anything to its all around function.
Latest research studies have concluded (links already posted in the thread) that Lion's mane is basically for sexual purpose and not for neck protection, it doesn't provide that much of protection as claimed by Lion fans. Lion's mane is neither made up of Kevlar nor of bony plates like a Crocodile, it can provide protection to the throat from the attacks of honey-bee but cannot protect if another Lion or Tiger attacks except one or two slips. The mane can not stop a Lion or a Tiger's attack, it is childish to think so. [http://animalvsanimal.yuku.com/topi...snt-protect-a-lion-from-a-tiger#.VpdDS0-p2z4]
So forget manes, any expert who knows how the body protection works will reject mane’s exaggerated qualities of protection. Just like the links you quoted suspect that Tigers who killed Lions had advantage and projected mane as bullet-proof, bomb-proof material, I am also suspecting the intellect and understanding of those experts since mane doesn’t provide decisive advantage and are made up of simple hairs, just like the Goats with fur who often and easily got killed by Pumas.
Just poke your own head (if you are not bald) with your nail-tips, how much protection your hairs provided you? Zilch. Nail-tips are not even comparable to the canines of a Tiger.
There is no point in pasting skirting information and numerous links, like this killed that, that killed that etc. It is making fun of you, what I see is that all others have stopped posting on this thread except you ! you are hell bent on proving Lion a King and Tiger a joke, your looong long posts and tens of links prove that , and I said the same thing but you called me a retarded clown. Lol!
Ha ha, bringing in more exposed tiger fans? They provided nothing but more rants, of course there is science behind the lions mane, conturary to zero belief...yes, the lions mane is stronger than steel:
Hair is made out of protein. Proteins, by and large, are great at tension and awful at compression. For tensile strength, yes, hair is stronger than steel. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1693
Whats the difference between your link and mine? In one hand you have opinions, in the other you have facts, theres no way any scientist can show that the lions mane doesnt offer any protection...because it already did on more than a 100 occasions, protecting to a degree against grenades, shot guns, bulls horns, leopards, tigers and other lions claws and fangs, entangled them, sheath them, soften blows, made the attacker miss, attackers give up in exhaustion, made them supphocate, made them intimidated by its bigger appearances, so at that stand point the only question or answer science can contribute and attribute, is to what degree...as I already stated, its not impenetrable, there are rare cases the mane was by-passed, in comparison and the proof, lies in the mane being more protective than the tigers maneless neck lies in the accounts...
Intent on finishing the fight, the bull gores his adversary twice, but the shaggy mane and tough hide protect the lion, and instead of being killed he regains his feet. http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...d=ivns&strip=1
there are almost a 100 accounts illustrating the tigers neck was severed, broken, lacerated ect with abstracts, photos and even video, if you wish to show the lions mane offers minimum, you would have to provide double to even triple the amount there is on well maned lions with their necks torn out compared to what there is on tigers so far. To my knowledge there isnt a single video of a maned lion being killed at the neck, a single photo of the action, or even 10 incidents in all of history that showed a huge maned lion killed by a throat grab, yet theres hundreds upon hundreds of bears, tigers, leopards ect all with the abstract high-lighting their necks was torn out.
Illustrates how easy it is for a tigers neck to be gripped compared to lions, and to be honest, john varty is a joke, hes suppose to be saving tigers, not waging wars amongs all of them, thats not conservation:
And finally, why havent they come back to the debate? Ummmm? Maybe because they are embarrassed that every thing they brought was PROVEN to be lies, made up, fakes and pure bull shit...like the british which were actually americans, the non-scientific, which showed all their credentials of being pure science via biologist, zoologist, archaeologist ect, the cherry picked weights, the out landish claims of hunting feats and capability's, the entire run down had been shown them to have humiliated them selves with wrong info, thats the main reason why they havent come back, and second, the info that does back the lion, is still unmatched, theres only less than 20 accounts of tigers winning on record, most are sleeping, drugged or young lions, yet theres almost 100 accounts of lions defeating and killing tigers in every possible scenario, yes...even in the wild...even with the indian lion being supposedly the smaller weaker one...the tiger lost. I couldn't care less what you rant about, facts are the facts.[/quote]
All the storys of lions killed with a bite to the throat, is either in the fictional section, made up completely, or abstracts that didnt show the whole thing, zoologist buckland quoted the london fight, but when we look at the original article it states it was a young lion: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NA19140702.2.11
Again, the ankara zoo incident showed the zoo only had 2 cubs and a female in the cage, the jim tully book is fictional, the buckland quote is a young lion which means no large mane or nearly maneless, the other account even states the lion was a juvenile, lions only attain a large mane from 5 years and up, and again, packer changed his assertion from no protection to secondary. All the other evidence was lions with almost no manes, do you know how a maned lion looks like?
Again, video proof in how easier it is for a tigers throat to be torn compared to a lions:
Theres nothing you haters havent showed that was true...just rants and bias, who have to pretend and swap the lions mane in on the tigers body, jealousy. lol So what do you have that shows the lions mane doesn't offer a degree of protection?
You can call me what ever you want, doesnt bother me, again the difference between me and you is the proof, like all the british rants and claims of 6 lions killed by 1 tigresses made here...I showed the true source...of course this bothers all of you...which is only the truth, which only showed most of your agenda, bias. None of the guys here? Does that matter, its persona still co-exist with what the web emulates tiger fan rants are, an yes your comments are retarded, anonymous experts, they have names...how can a person with a name be anonymous? lol
Oh! That is why you are calling everyone a clown ? even if I am not biased for any animal,
If you wanna use that as some sort of proof that, thats why lions shouldnt be king and tigers should now be adopted as the worlds most highest animal monarch, then go for it, I'd love to read that kiddie book.
I just gave you examples on how you were using your logic (ill logic). I never said that because that Lion/Tiger should/shouldn’t be the King. I just said that such comparison and incidents are useless/irrelavent in proving who is the King. !!
At this point you are a clown, as your avatar looks like one,
Ohh, so you started personal attacks too ! if someone puts some arguments which you find tough to reply he becomes a clown ! ?
and most importantly your denials, in one hand we have you constantly posting things in how the lions mane doesnt work and using payton wests fake assertions on the mane, like an opinion about how the lions mane doesnt work because lions dont attack there lol, that doesnt prove anything in fact it proves that it does protect since they are the only ones who adopt the avoidance of it and aim more for the rump while tigers an others rush blindingly towards it, but...in the other hand, I have linked almost a 100 sources that re-asure the manes function is for protection, 100 beats 1, since a vast majority of them have actually seen the mane work against harm. I didnt say tigers are incapable of hunting adult guar, go back and re-read, I stated they dont...usually...regularly, via the norm, or even once in a while, its a rare seen event, so rare there isnt even 10 documented cases reputable of proving so, other than a tiger eating a already downed animal or carcass.
You failed to reply what I asked you on mane, mane is made up of hairs not scales like Crocs, so their so called protection is @Zilch %. I never said it doesn’t provide advantage at all, but the so called protection is @Zilch %.
I dont have to be a expert to quote an expert and understand what they state. Of course I can call them clowns, because the data they brought was not just wrong, they were lies, anyone who perpetuates lies is a retarded clown.
Do you have a first hand information on this ? are you a trainer or a person who worked with TIgers/Lions ? Nope. So using your own logic can't I call you a clown? But did I break any forum rule ?
Again, if you bothered to read, a person on this matter can only be called an expert if they have stated so that they have seen several fights between lions and tigers against the other species, do you have any excerpts of them stateing they have? Then by you bringing that up is only a ignorant assumption, out of the lot the only one who has seen something on topic was John varty:
Tragically, the lioness Savannah, as she was recovering from the drug, was attacked by the male tiger Seatao. Previously, Seatao had greeted the lioness with no aggression, then as she began to walk around the boma, he sensed that she was weak from the darting and he attacked her, knocking her down. With 1000 lbs per square inch jaw power, he pushed the 5 inch canines deep into her throat. Although she survived the night, she succumbed to massive internal bleeding.
(Seatao stalking Savannah)
(Seconds after this picture was taken, Seatao attacked Savannah)
But no one could hardly call a drugged lioness a fight, now could you? John varty knows little, hence his opinion flip flops, at one point he is assured the tiger would win every time (wiki) and when confronted with a more knowledgeable person, he then gives it a 50/50 and changes status in saying the lion is more aggressive:
Why would any one who said...everytime...suddenly change their opinion? Because, unlike real experts they lack any empirical evidence, nothing on this planet would ever change Clyde beattys opinion, because as he states he judges his opinion off of experience:
Ouch ! and it proved that people favoring Tigers are a clown ! no ? None of your arguments proved that Varty has no first hand experience with Lions/Tigers, forget Varty “I” never said that Tiger will win all the fights with a Lion, but you are hell bent on calling me or any person who respect Tigers a clown or a retarded. Well done !
First of all no one said tigers cant win, I know more accounts of tigers killing lions then you all combined have posted, and I know who craig busch is, would you care to show us where he favors the tiger over the lion in a fight? Because I call bullshit. Secondly, you can name all the wiki pseudo science experts, I didnt just highlight circus goers and tamers because they just handled lions and tigers, I specifically cited people who has seen both fight on many occasions, none of craig saffoe, or the others have stated they seen many fights, beatty had seen over 50 tigers killed by lions, how many...not in your own made up words, but a book abstract can you cite they saying they have seen many lions killed by tigers? Again, you lack comprehension, heres the understanding of an expert:
An expert (pronunciation (US) (help·info)) is "somebody who obtains results that are vastly superior to those obtained by the majority of the population".[1] Alternatively, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguisheddomain
Ouch again ! I lack comprehension skills ? Mr. Sword so John Varty or any one quoted here is not an expert in your view ? only Clyde Beatty is since it suits your PoV right ? Craig Busch has openly praised Tiger’s fighting ability in a program “The Lion Man” only few days back which I have seen by own eyes, and I don’t have the links for the video program, but here you can sense some info (http://animalvsanimal.yuku.com/topic/288/Craig-Busch-lion-vs-tiger-interview#.VpiT10-p2z4)
If I quoted your idiotic points on Leopards killing Tigers etc. then on it proving Tigers weak, I started to lack comprehension skills ?
seriously are you trying to troll here !??
The domain we are talking about is on them fighting, saffoe might be an expert and weighing them, careing for them, feeding them, but hes not an expert in the domain of them fighting each other, he would have to have seen them fight on more than several occasions. Do you have him saying that on any abstract? your answer is no. Science just means knowledge, a more indept understanding of that certain craft, Clyde beatty has 40 years experience working with both lion tiger simultaneously, theres no person on earth who has beat his Guinness book of records still to this day.
1. Is Clyde Beatty the sole judge on the matter ? No.
2. Have other experts favored Tigers ? Yes, some have e.g. Johan Varty, John Smith Clarke, Craig Busch etc.
3. Did they became Clowns/retarded (Jokers) ? No.
4. Does it prove Lion/Tiger is better ? No.
National Geographic Channels has shown many more programs than any other channels on Big Cats, it has contracts with many more wildlife experts than anyone, and they on their own website have shown Tiger as the biggest and heaviest Cat of the world, then I would take it as an authoritative information and not of one or two experts. And please don’t try to prove me that National Geographic Channel has no knowledge or a clown.
No one here hates lions? lol you could have fooled me, saty states repetitively that lions are stink, ugly scavengers, incapable of hunting on their own, weaklings and many other illogical bs rants...stop with the bullshit. Again, never said tigers are jokes, thats just you trying to twist things, I post things thats directly correlated with what they are capable and incapable of doing.
I am not relying on what @saty stated or shown except the size comparison of Leopard/Lion ia a pic, and I by my own eyes have seen both the animals in the zoo near my city, Leopard looks like a Tiny Doggy in front of a Bengal Tiger. Whatever saty said doesn’t give you license to call others a clown.
Don’t abuse others.
And thats where his stupidity and your retardedness lies...as he said the leopard looks like a rat compared to the tiger...XD A rat would be the size of the tigers one paw, the leopard is shown already at 3/4th the length of the tiger, and atleast 1/3 in its mass, the tigers throat and trachea would only need less than 50 pounds of force x in with fangs to sever it, leopards kill giant eland a animal 8 x heavier than a tiger, they kill hyena, they kill gorillas, all which the tigers throat is no more durable than.
Seriously, is this you have to say on size comparison ?: Let me add a Leopard can kill a Lion since it only needs force less than 50 pounds to sever it !?? now what ? mane ?
Again, its not what you can opin. its what you can provide/prove, 99/100 didnt happen in lucknow btw. Lol
What I said is 100% correct, Lions live in prides, Tigers live alone !! Now should I spam the thread with 10s of links of that? Are you ready for that ?
More retardedness, again, capable and incapable, please cite me in to where I said a tiger is incapable of killing a leopard? Obviously you do not understand either words.
Liar !!! when did I say so in that quote ?? I was pointing your way of spamming the thread !! you are Lying to my face !!
Yes, and I have showed valid hunters, natives, experts and trainers who had made the distinction between the two as a normal occurrence, hence normally as they're base modem, the tiger is a fearful and cowardly animal, while the lion a more calm assertive and braver animal...we see this in the videos of tigers are the usual ones who run against lions, not the other way around.
So finally you have spoken what lies in your heart, your bias.
This sounds more like a cry baby rant to me, as your theme from the start was to deny the lions function, as you even cited packer, craig packer just said the health status and mating rights for the main is primary, and the protection secondary, he stated no where that it doesnt offer protection, and who would even care for that quote, primary and secondary doesnt evoke anything to its all around function.
I repeat myself, Lion’s mane is not made up of scales like Crocs, so it cannot protect its neck from piercing canine bites. Period.
yes, the lions mane is stronger than steel:
Hair is made out of protein. Proteins, by and large, are great at tension and awful at compression. For tensile strength, yes, hair is stronger than steel.
You are forcing me to cry and laugh all animals have hairs made up of Proteins including you and me !!
Whats the difference between your link and mine? In one hand you have opinions, in the other you have facts, theres no way any scientist can show that the lions mane doesnt offer any protection...because it already did on more than a 100 occasions, protecting to a degree against grenades, shot guns, bulls horns, leopards, tigers and other lions claws and fangs, entangled them, sheath them, soften blows, made the attacker miss, attackers give up in exhaustion, made them supphocate, made them intimidated by its bigger appearances, so at that stand point the only question or answer science can contribute and attribute, is to what degree...as I already stated, its not impenetrable, there are rare cases the mane was by-passed, in comparison and the proof, lies in the mane being more protective than the tigers maneless neck lies in the accounts...
Intent on finishing the fight, the bull gores his adversary twice, but the shaggy mane and tough hide protect the lion, and instead of being killed he regains his feet.
Oh !! Come on! You are on a Defence Forum , I never expected such Idiocy from you, I bet even if I shot a bullet from a tiny pistol at a Lion’s neck on mane he WILL DIE within minutes forget Grenades. You don’t even know how a Grenade works.
At least use common sense before posting, you are proposing mane as a bullet proof thing by quoting the above link of “shotgun at Lion’s mane” such idiotic fan-boyish newspaper reports have a Zilch weight of evidence.
there are almost a 100 accounts illustrating the tigers neck was severed, broken, lacerated ect with abstracts, photos and even video,...
Illustrates how easy it is for a tigers neck to be gripped compared to lions, and to be honest, john varty is a joke, hes suppose to be saving tigers, not waging wars amongs all of them, thats not conservation:
Now John Varty a big cat expert became a Joke to you ? 100s of accounts of centuries old Lion-fanboy age Newspaper reports ?
And finally, why havent they come back to the debate? Ummmm? Maybe because they are embarrassed that every thing they brought was PROVEN to be lies, made up, fakes and pure bull shit...like the british which were actually americans, the non-scientific, which showed all their credentials of being pure science via biologist, zoologist, archaeologist ect, the cherry picked weights, the out landish claims of hunting feats and capability's, the entire run down had been shown them to have humiliated them selves with wrong info, thats the main reason why they havent come back, and second, the info that does back the lion, is still unmatched, theres only less than 20 accounts of tigers winning on record, most are sleeping, drugged or young lions, yet theres almost 100 accounts of lions defeating and killing tigers in every possible scenario, yes...even in the wild...even with the indian lion being supposedly the smaller weaker one...the tiger lost. I couldn't care less what you rant about, facts are the facts.
They have realized that you are spamming and calling everyone who favors Tiger even if he is an expert, a clown and a retarded, that is why no one is replying to you.
Theres nothing you haters havent showed that was true...just rants and bias, who have to pretend and swap the lions mane in on the tigers body, jealousy. lol So what do you have that shows the lions mane doesn't offer a degree of protection?
Idiocy & trolling continues… you are lacking most important thing for a debate my dear, and that is “common sense” which a prudent mans enjoys. And I know what you will do post (repeat) 10s of links of centuries old Lion-fanboy age newspaper/expert opinions, without replying sensibly to any of the valid question posed herewith.
My debate with you ended at the moment when you called that "Lion's mane is made up of protein and stronger than steel"
@saty I replied to him, since his idiocy has become intolerable, crossed all the limits of spamming, He will call any expert you quote a Clown and give you old Lion age newspaper reports, put Clyde Beatty's opinion as a Conclusive proof. WTH !!
@Sakal Gharelu Ustad please have a look at his abusing language and spamming patterns.
Crocs developed scales because its specifically correlated with their adaption to the water, not evolved for fighting purposes, the tensile strength of crocs skin is not better than a lions mane in combat, since as already shown lions have killed many crocodiles showing their hide being bitten through:
Musango’s surroundings are saturated with wildlife and over 400 species of birds. Wendy Edwards told of a recent exhilarating wild sighting near camp. She said, “This croc thought it would try and steal the impala that the lions had killed near camp early one morning. After a lot of noise and a fight, the lions killed the croc and ate it too. http://www.classicsafaricamps.com/blog/2012/10/an-island-hideaway-safari-at-musango-lake-kariba/
The link pages ago, showed over 20 crocs from 8-15 feet long being killed by lions, some being bitten through their so called armored throats, yet you, nor anyone has ever brought fourth in the scientific community a photo or a video of the lions mane being by-passed and having his throat shown to be torn out...not 1...in all of history. No one says lions can tank the full blast of bullets and grenades, as it would even kill a blue whale at the right placement, but it did sheath the blast...to an extant...and lol, you dont know what tensile strength even is, of course its not as solid as a steel plate, as it stated strand for strand hair is stronger than steel the lion has strands not a solid plate but it does protect to an extant, its a scientific fact.
Theres a difference from showing proof of these animals with their windpipes gone or armor by-passed...and you just saying...no no no...period, period, period...thats not proof no matter how much times you repeat yourself.
And no...as you mentioned craig busch, I know all of his posts and videos, he stated no where he favored the tiger over the lion, I reviewed that fanatical site way before you posted it, most of it was exposed of being made up stuff hence alot of it is erased...you then not knowing this went on in and quoted it as if you looked up the original sources. lol And Clyde beatty conclusive? No, but him, times in with the other 30 or so experts who has similar things to clyde, the other 100 or so accounts lions have killed tigers, the 100 or so artifacts showing lions defeated tigers, and the whole sha-bang of all the statistics shows the average lion would beat majority of all the tiger sub-species almost no problem...with bengals a little bigger, harder and tougher than most, still would lose more than vice versa as the accounts would suggest.
And finally, if I was bias I would have no problem saying I dont like the tiger, but I do like the tiger as this has nothing to do with the animal its self and is more of the debate...but as I can see, nothing has brought up substantial on the tiger fan side for being conclusive of the initial question, which deserved, earned and has attributes of being called King of the beast, (the threads initial debate) sarvinasK already highlighted most of it as saying theres is more than just how big a being is to being called king, it takes alot more honorable Kingly (human) quality's...and nothing that I brought was refuted, probably deny'd lol...but not disputed...as again, I dont see anything here worth the while and by the looks of things I'll leave it as that...sorry if I hurt any of your feelings, went towards personals ect...the debate is the debate, and I'll leave it be...
@saty, you have a habit of resorting to namecalling without any provocation. Please be advised, that you run the risk of being subjected to pre-emptive restrictions, if you do not curtail your ill habits.
Crocs developed scales because its specifically correlated with their adaption to the water, not evolved for fighting purposes, the tensile strength of crocs skin is not better than a lions mane in combat, since as already shown lions have killed many crocodiles showing their hide being bitten through:
Musango’s surroundings are saturated with wildlife and over 400 species of birds. Wendy Edwards told of a recent exhilarating wild sighting near camp. She said, “This croc thought it would try and steal the impala that the lions had killed near camp early one morning. After a lot of noise and a fight, the lions killed the croc and ate it too.
A Crocodile's scales on the upper portion of the body is not just a scale it is called "Armour" since it’s an armour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilian_armor) they developed Armour to protect from the attacks on their upper part of body since while they hunt the same part is often exposed to the attacks of the dangerous animals or injuries by the hooves of heavy animals ; a hair’s structure is different than that of scales, a hair is basically a cone of keratin.
Large Crocodiles have a bite force of almost 3700 lbf per square inch so they need Armoured scales to distribute the piercing and crushing pressure equally on the skin (which hairs/manes cannot do), hence they developed Armour to defend themselves from rival Crocs. Tensile strength is not so important here as Armor acts by equally distributing the force and not stretching the force.
You gave an example of a Lion killing a Croc, yeah, in Amazon even a smaller Jaguar kills such reptiles by holding their head between the eyes, regularly, have seen it many time on tv.
The link pages ago, showed over 20 crocs from 8-15 feet long being killed by lions, some being bitten through their so called armored throats, yet you, nor anyone has ever brought fourth in the scientific community a photo or a video of the lions mane being by-passed and having his throat shown to be torn out...not 1...in all of history. No one says lions can tank the full blast of bullets and grenades, as it would even kill a blue whale at the right placement, but it did sheath the blast...to an extant...and lol, you dont know what tensile strength even is, of course its not as solid as a steel plate, as it stated strand for strand hair is stronger than steel the lion has strands not a solid plate but it does protect to an extant, its a scientific fact.
Crocodiles are killed by big cats mostly when they attack the weak part (bottom - throat, belly etc.) , it’s hard to do so by attacking the upper Armored part of the scale.
Theres a difference from showing proof of these animals with their windpipes gone or armor by-passed...and you just saying...no no no...period, period, period...thats not proof no matter how much times you repeat yourself.
the picture you posted above is of a Croc torn apart at the throat or the bottom where they don’t have Armour but just weak thin white scales, although predators explore all the part of the prey after killing it.
And no...as you mentioned craig busch, I know all of his posts and videos, he stated no where he favored the tiger over the lion, I reviewed that fanatical site way before you posted it, most of it was exposed of being made up stuff hence alot of it is erased...you then not knowing this went on in and quoted it as if you looked up the original sources. lol And Clyde beatty conclusive? No, but him, times in with the other 30 or so experts who has similar things to clyde, the other 100 or so accounts lions have killed tigers, the 100 or so artifacts showing lions defeated tigers, and the whole sha-bang of all the statistics shows the average lion would beat majority of all the tiger sub-species almost no problem...with bengals a little bigger, harder and tougher than most, still would lose more than vice versa as the accounts would suggest.
Forget that site, I by own eyes have seen the program where Craig Busch favored Tiger.
Did I say that the Tiger in unbeatable? No. I just want to say they are highly competitive animals and if a wild full grown Tiger vs a wild full grown Lion combat happens it will be almost a 50-50 fight. I am not talking about results I am talking about the capabilities.
And finally, if I was bias I would have no problem saying I dont like the tiger, but I do like the tiger as this has nothing to do with the animal its self and is more of the debate...but as I can see, nothing has brought up substantial on the tiger fan side for being conclusive of the initial question, which deserved, earned and has attributes of being called King of the beast, (the threads initial debate) sarvinasK already highlighted most of it as saying theres is more than just how big a being is to being called king, it takes alot more honorable Kingly (human) quality's...and nothing that I brought was refuted, probably deny'd lol...but not disputed...as again, I dont see anything here worth the while and by the looks of things I'll leave it as that...sorry if I hurt any of your feelings, went towards personals ect...the debate is the debate, and I'll leave it be...
i think a tigers are much stronger than lions . they are much more powerful and ferocious . they can also camouflage themselves really well while stalking their prey . lions always hunt in a group while tigers hunt alone . lions also tend to be a little clumsy as compared to tigers . tigers by nature are much more aggressive than lions .
my parents work in wildlife conservation so i learnt quite abit about wildlife while growing up . in fact i know of a guy who was attacked by a tigers but luckily he lived to tell the tale .
here is a video of a tiger attack . note how well camouflaged the tiger was and how high he jumps .
Underneath the drawing of the lion, you may see, in the distance, a rather slylooking animal stealing along gently, which is called the Tiger. This animal is said to be much more cruel and cowardly than the lion, and to be even more bloodthirsty; but all writers do not agree on this subject. In India the tigers are the terror of man, and the animals ofthe jungle. The jungles of India, where sometimes the grass grows to nearly the height of an elephant, is the tiger's sleeping place. In the evening, the tamer animals wander down to the side of the river, to drink and refresh themselves after the heat of the day; then the tiger is found there too, waiting for them. Many fierce and bloody combats with lions, tigers, and crocodiles are said to take place near the Ganges and other rivers of India. https://books.google.com/books?id=1JsDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA244&dq=%22india%22+lion+tiger++%22ganges%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqgby0_uPKAhUQ0GMKHaAiDjcQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=%22india%22%20lion%20tiger%20%20%22ganges%22&f=false
That siberians and bengals average 850+ lbs, and are twice as big as a lion. Most go off of second hand accounts which ends up just misinforming people in thinking tigers drove lions out of inida:
Double edged sword: Both the tiger and the lion population would be affected
The NGO claims that the prey base of Kuno is limited, and is not sufficient even for the lions that are to be shifted. So, there would be intense competition between the lions and tigers, straying from Ranthambore, for the same prey. However, it is not just the relocated lions that would be at a disadvantage, as the tigers in Ranthambore could be equally impacted. As competition for prey increases, the lions may venture out of Kuno in search of food and enter Ranthambore through the shared corridor. This would then reduce the prey base of the tigers. Not only that, lions may even attack and kill tigers.
A Crocodile's scales on the upper portion of the body is not just a scale it is called "Armour" since it’s an armour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodilian_armor) they developed Armour to protect from the attacks on their upper part of body since while they hunt the same part is often exposed to the attacks of the dangerous animals or injuries by the hooves of heavy animals ; a hair’s structure is different than that of scales, a hair is basically a cone of keratin.
Large Crocodiles have a bite force of almost 3700 lbf per square inch so they need Armoured scales to distribute the piercing and crushing pressure equally on the skin (which hairs/manes cannot do), hence they developed Armour to defend themselves from rival Crocs. Tensile strength is not so important here as Armor acts by equally distributing the force and not stretching the force.
You gave an example of a Lion killing a Croc, yeah, in Amazon even a smaller Jaguar kills such reptiles by holding their head between the eyes, regularly, have seen it many time on tv.
Crocodiles are killed by big cats mostly when they attack the weak part (bottom - throat, belly etc.) , it’s hard to do so by attacking the upper Armored part of the scale.
the picture you posted above is of a Croc torn apart at the throat or the bottom where they don’t have Armour but just weak thin white scales, although predators explore all the part of the prey after killing it.
Forget that site, I by own eyes have seen the program where Craig Busch favored Tiger.
Did I say that the Tiger in unbeatable? No. I just want to say they are highly competitive animals and if a wild full grown Tiger vs a wild full grown Lion combat happens it will be almost a 50-50 fight. I am not talking about results I am talking about the capabilities.
I too am not convinced about the Mane argument of you, and without that it becomes a tough competition for both.
The mane is mentioned as armor too, by expert antle:
Antles explanation is pretty much spot on, thats all there is too it really, the hair instead of flesh will come out, to me its better than rhino hide, croc hide ect, since we actually see countless of accounts of crocs being devoured almost entirely by all big cats from jaguars, leopards, tigers lions ect...hence its not about how thick it is, but its main function, if the hide of thick skin animals is penetrated, than its a done deal...its over, if the mane is bitten, pulled on, slashed at, gripped ect...it just falls out, no harm done to the lion...and big maned lions have alot, of hair.
Croc hide one of the most noted armors in the animal world
Hence the lions mane is a well guarded armor against natural weapons of carnivores at the vital areas, the trachea for instant killing of the throat and some times it extends down the lions belly protecting against disemboweling, even if it is capable of being bypassed to an extant, it is still an armor his adversary completely doesn't have.
As my initial response was towards which is better, croc hide or lion mane, I said lion mane, because if the croc hide is bitten, the croc still runs the risk of succumbing, if the mane is bitten no wounds or injuries will be fatal.
Again, the lion has the advantage, because the tigers neck is highly vulnerable, while the lions is not, I dont have to convince you or anyone of anything, its what you can provide that actually shows what you're talking about is true, tigers are without manes, hence there is evidence that shows their neck area is vulnerable:
"The tiger was found dead with a deep wound around its neck yesterday near a drain in Khapa range of Kanha, situated in eastern Madhya Pradesh," State additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests T R Sharma said.
But forest officials ruled out poaching and said that the autopsy reports have revealed canine marks on the tiger's neck and samples have been taken for forensic tests.
There was some damage to the windpipe and a blood clot was found in the heart region. The veterinarians who conducted the post-mortem suspected that it died of starvation, shock and internal injury to the windpipe sustained during the fight.Sources ruled out the possibility of poachers' involvement. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/185879/marathoner-tiger-killed-territorial-fight.html
The carcass of another male tiger with injury marks on the neck was found near Lonkur Chapor
Mar 8, 2015 - The cat has suffered injuries on its neck and was badly wounded, they stated. Bandipur tiger reserve director H C Kantharaju visited the spot
“The tiger suffered multiple fractures on both its forelegs and hind legs. It also sustainedclaw and canine injuries on the neck and other parts of the body. During the fight, both the animals have rubbed against each other. Since the ground is wet due to monsoon, we could see a lot of pug marks,” he explained. He said the post-mortem report had revealed that the tiger was healthy and able to hunt before it died.
We have found injuries on its neck. This indicates the tiger was attacked by another tiger that wanted to stamp its supremacy in the territory," said Sanjay Thakre, Chief Conservator of forests (CCF), Chandrapur forest circle.
Again they separated, and then, with a charge which see me 4 to me to carry all the wfld deviltry of which her frantically savage nature was capable, her jaw wide open and grinning, the angles of her mouth drawn back, the, tigress hurled herself upon her companion, and. seizing him by the throat, left him dead, http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/33384513/
(2011)
“The tiger suffered multiple fractures on both its forelegs and hind legs. It also sustained claw and canineinjuries on the neck and other parts of the body
The carcass of a tiger was found inside Kaziranga National Park February 19 evening, a day after the recovery of a carcass of another big cat. A forest official said the carcass of a male Royal Bengal Tiger was found near Tarzan camp in Kohora range, adding it may have been killed during infighting of the animals. Local villagers claimed to have heard gun shots inside the park and eyewitness saw the dead animal with its teeth removed. The carcass of another male tiger with injury marks on the neck http://www.write2kill.in/wildlifewatch/section/crime?page=4
(2009)
He Reserves last January 18 in Kisli a tiger was found dead. Investigation revealed that the tiger was killed in the battle between two tigers. Four-year-old tiger's teeth marks on the neck were a big tiger. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=hi&u=http://hindi.in.com/showstory.php?id=393582&prev=search
(2009)
NEW DELHI: A 12-year-old tiger has been found dead in the Ramnagar forest division adjoining Corbett national park by Uttarakhand forest officials.
The tiger, whose body parts have been found intact, apparently died due to injuries inflicted by porcupine quills in its neck
(1902)
"Puss was watching him. As he jumped upon her she jumped aside. Then she sprang. Her teeth were In his throat and as he rose on his hind legs she dug her claws into his chest and clung like a bulldog. We used the bars again, but she paid no attention to them. She would not let go. She hung on with teeth and claws until the tiger gurgled and fell over, dead. 'Then came the polar bear. He was one of the best we had all but his bad temper. He did not like to do as he was told. Puss was ready, when the time came, for a quarrel. 'The bear thought it was so easy just to give this little one a cuff and send her across the cage. But Puss went at the throat again. We beat her with bars, the dogs -went at her and bit her, but she clung until she had killed him https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/61552920/
Could you share to me, where a well maned lion was killed with showing a few photos, a few videos and alot more abstracts? I dont think so...and I also dont think you can produce any documentation of your claim that criag busch favored the tiger...its more of a 100% hunch, that I know you wont be able to...you cant compare expert a with expert b, if expert B has no credentials to show for...Clyde beatty has stated himself, he has worked with about 2,000 lions and tigers:
Can you show me how many lions and tigers experts who favor the tiger have worked with? I dought even half that amount, as Clyde still today holds the guiness world record of mixing upto 43 wild bred lions and tigers in the same cage. Hence he knows more about lions and tigers than any one else...hes seen over 200 fights, and 50 tigers killed, none of the other experts have even seen 1/10th that amount because they never mixed their animals together nor has worked with wild bred lions and tigers.
Clyde beatty, has proven inadvertently that the african lion is superior to the bengal tiger, as most of his tigers were bengals, and he said him self, that only 2 of them that were killed were siberians...so I guess the debate is still out on the siberian tigers prowess, because even the asiatic lion has mastered the bengal more than vice versa both in captivity and in the wild. So Siberian tigers are a wild card. I think if any big cat can hold the title, it will then be the olden day big Siberians.
Which animal do u think is more beautiful? A lion has a certain majesty that tigers can never have. But a tiger has grace that lions can never have. Both animals are unique and beautiful.
There is no dought that the tiger is the more beautiful and attractive animal, the more stealthy, better swimmer and some what greater in acrobatical movements via agility, leaping, swimming ect...I like the tiger because I thought shere kahn was more of a sly lord of the jungle. And lions for their Kingly attitude and persona to dominate and rule, and protect his cubs, females and pride...more so than any other large apex predator.
Thats easily explainable, some one a foot from a micro phone just whispering into it, will have a louder booming effect than some one yelling from farther away as loud as they can into the micro phone far away... as they suggested they were at different distances.
1945 - Snippet view - More editions
Sound level meter shows Gargantua's grunt beaten by a chirp; lion's roar is still loudest; snake's hiss hardest to hear. ... The Bengal tiger, usually considered second only to the lion, could emit a roar worth only 89 decibels, likened in volume to noise of a pneumatic drill at 10 feet. The https://www.google.com/search?tbm=b...worth+only+89+decibels,+likened+in+volume+to"
Hence as stated, the tigers roar is about the same as a power drill going off next to your ear, the lions roar is almost that of a jet plane booming in front of you....the tigers roar is not even close compared to the lions. lol
and wild tigers and lions...lol more than 5 accounts showed a fight between a asiatic lion killing a bengal tiger in the wild...please show us a single case of the opposite happening...just 1.
3 dead lions? Yeah, in the made up and fictional world of saty, nah, 3 wild bengal tigers were killed by lions in 1 fight, as I showed, you know that already..and lol and dates? Yeah, thats because if I provide something of 5 minutes ago, and you provide something of 4 minutes ago, then the 5 minute one doesnt exist...lol sorry, you should go back to false propagating fake british rants, you were pretty good at that...lol its still not going to mean these kinda accounts never happened:
Poor saty, still believes tigers kill exclusively adult bull guar in prime of life, yet all the biologist showed they only kill animals of 200-600 lbs as average, yet the lions I showed killed eland more than any other prey item, even single lions have killed bull giant eland, and elands and giraffes are bigger than guar:
Yes, and screeching bats can hit 140 decibels, doesnt mean they are louder over all compared to lions, the same way tigers arnt heard as far as lions, about half the distance only.
Tigers are not immortal, they too die. I am literally laughing at the bolded part of your post, you didn’t even notice the picture posted by @saty in which a dead Tiger and a Leopard were lying down and their size was being compared. The size difference is clearly evident but when I pointed the same it became a “rant”?
pronunciation (US) (help·info)) is "somebody who obtains results that are vastly superior to those obtained by the majority of the population".[1] Alternatively, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain
pronunciation (US) (help·info)) is "somebody who obtains results that are vastly superior to those obtained by the majority of the population".[1] Alternatively, an expert is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain
and laugh 
the picture you posted above is of a Croc torn apart at the throat or the bottom where they don’t have Armour but just weak thin white scales, although predators explore all the part of the prey after killing it.
