Tiger or Lion- who is the king of beast?

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

@Sword - stop posting 3000 word articles from random websites, which have no head or tail.

Argue logically point by point with one or two links to support your claim.

Also, there is no point of posting random websites when it is proven scientific fact that-
- tigers are bigger (usually 40-50kg more than lions)
- have much more power in their paw

And these above two results are proven scientifically and not through some random blog article.

Although, I am not completely convinced which of the cats would definitely win. But please refrain from posting long disconnected articles.

 

[Sword]

@Sword - stop posting 3000 word articles from random websites, which have no head or tail.

Argue logically point by point with one or two links to support your claim.

Also, there is no point of posting random websites when it is proven scientific fact that-
- tigers are bigger (usually 40-50kg more than lions)
- have much more power in their paw

And these above two results are proven scientifically and not through some random blog article.

Although, I am not completely convinced which of the cats would definitely win. But please refrain from posting long disconnected articles.

Huh? you guys are the ones claiming these things, like stronger paws, ect...yet you have nothing to back it up? The lion has vastly more sources and feats show casing what has been discussed. A fact? lol a fact would be something universal, at this point most of indias media is oblivious to asiatic lions presence as if the lion there had just sprouted out of the ground a decade ago. Until you show me 1,000 tigers being weighed on video it is not fact...the fact is the lion and tiger only video to exist show casing both being weighed had the lion larger.

Its only disconnected when one cant understand the significance in themselves being proven wrong. Several times people like mad indian have stated its a fact, that chinese scientist (didnt even name one), its a fact that this tiger killed 31 lions, its a fact that a tigress killed 6 lions in the video, its a fact that the romans said the tiger always, won ...pft, nothiing so far has been factual on behalf of the tiger especially when it has been counter-weighed by 100s of other sources with original content...not hear say, cherry picking, edited versions or twisting of the truth from some un-heard of childish bias.

But I shall leave it as is, since I know what has been brought wouldn't have the slightest chance of being disproved, disputed or even matched...But thanks anyways. See you all laters and hope the data helped some of the others who are looking for the truth.

 

[Srinivas_K]

The throne Singhasan and Singh surname came from Lion ... long before british !

Already mentioned in 3rd page delete or restrict this psycho spammer.From past 300 years British/Some religious gays/Tourism industry/some lion fanatics propagated Lions are the 'Kings of the Jungle' and easily defeats cunning coward Tigers .

But thanks to internet from last 10 years (by polling 66%) majority are slowly realized Tiger has 42+kg weight advantage+Smarter+Quicker+Long canines+Long Jaws+High&Long Jumping capacity and so on favors the Tiger.

So these idiots don't have any option except SPAMMING.

 

[Mad Indian]

BTW one more thing- lion has the smallest heart of all the big cats. That is it has the smallest stamina of all the big cats. It cannot sustain the fight with tigers for long

 

[Illusive]

@Sword - stop posting 3000 word articles from random websites, which have no head or tail.

Argue logically point by point with one or two links to support your claim.

Also, there is no point of posting random websites when it is proven scientific fact that-
- tigers are bigger (usually 40-50kg more than lions)
- have much more power in their paw

And these above two results are proven scientifically and not through some random blog article.

Although, I am not completely convinced which of the cats would definitely win. But please refrain from posting long disconnected articles.

What would be a scenario, is it the best stock of lion vs the best stock of tiger. Bred in captive or their natural environment. What their age would be etc.

 

[Srinivas_K]

So as Nair&Naga etc King cobra... your point is?

Nair and Naga are tribes, check your logic and come with good argument !

 

[Razor]

@Razor brah, I am not making it up when I said Britshits pushed this lions are kings of the beast narrative . here see for yourself:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_versus_lion


See the heading mythical comparison. The britshit chutiyas had justified lion as the king for its pride and elegance while they dismissed tiger as being cruel and unkind. and it happens in 18th century too, right around the time they started encountering the tigers of India.


No dude, I know lions are important for Indian myth, but in this context britshits saw themselves as lions and tiger represented India and Indians at that time since it was unique to India at that time. So they pushed this narrative as lions being kinds of the jungles/beast. Think about it, how can you justify an animal as a king if its main selling point is it being sloth? Of course its not the reason they pushed that narrative. They cunningly pushed the narrative as tiger being evil slowly and then cruel and useless all the while claiming lion is pride and what not.


Also, lions are absent in China. But it forms a important part of their myth and more because the Buddhists who went there from India took it with them :bounce:. Awesome isn't it? We dominated China (and all of civlised asia.ie non barbaric ,non middle eastern asia) philosophically and culturally for a two millennia . Too bad we are stuck to aping western filth now.

1. Yes, the brits did promote their throne as the "lion", but what I meant in that previous post of mine was, even before that (brit hijacking,) lions were associated with 1. bravery and 2. royalty.
The reason for this is probably 1. lions had less contact with humans than tigers in india, 2. the lions just sat their while the lionesses aka did all jobs unlike the tiger who was a loner.
From the top of my head, the South otoh had a better view of the tigers. Tiger was a royal symbol of the cholas and also if I'm not mistaken Tipu later.

But all this doesn't change the fact that the tiger will defeat a lion in fair combat, because the tiger is, as I said, evolution perfecting its murder skills.

2. Also I agree Western aping is becoming a pandemic; I know I used to be like that too.

 

[salute]

@saty @Razor @Mad Indian

why brits promote their throne as a lion ??? why they put lion as their symbol ???

they dont got lion or even tigers at england or uk.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

@saty @Razor @Mad Indian

why brits promote their throne as a lion ??? why they put lion as their symbol ???

they dont got lion or tigers in england or uk.

These guys have gone mad in their Brit hate. Singh is a common Hindi family name much before Brits made lions famous. Even Singapore i.e. Singh-pur is derived from Singh. So historically, Indians have loved lions. But just because Brits put it on their emblem, now they want us to hate lions.

And even after all the back and forth debate. I still do not see any other majestic laid back cat like Lion. It truly shows royal character unlike tiger, who is forever lurking in the dark.

 

[salute]

These guys have gone mad in their Brit hate. Singh is a common Hindi family name much before Brits made lions famous. Even Singapore i.e. Singh-pur is derived from Singh. So historically, Indians have loved lions. But just because Brits put it on their emblem, now they want us to hate lions.

And even after all the back and forth debate. I still do not see any other majestic laid back cat like Lion. It truly shows royal character unlike tiger, who is forever lurking in the dark.

no need to hate lions,

on youtube me quit the argument saying that india is natural home to both lions and tigers,
india got both lions and tigers,

both animals are marvelous,lion because of his mane and tigers because of their beautiful fur.

 

[dhananjay1]

Lions have been traditionally given royal treatment in Indian tradition, even in places like south-east Asia where there are no lions, the Indian culture has influenced their world view. As for who is 'really' king of the beast is a moot question.

 

[Razor]

@saty @Razor @Mad Indian

why brits promote their throne as a lion ??? why they put lion as their symbol ???

they dont got lion or even tigers at england or uk.

The lion as I have mentioned in earlier posts (which @Sakal Gharelu Ustad seems to have missed) is seen as a symbol of bravery and royalty since ancient times; the reasons for which I hinted in earlier posts. But it was not the only symbol of royalty (tiger too,) though probably the more popular one. The tiger was more associated with vigor and war and sometimes also royalty.

Now your Q: it is difficult to pin point a reason because it goes way back in history.
It might have spread to Britain by the Romans, who might have had plenty of encounters with lions. Or may be with the spread of xtianity/crusades
Or it might be a case of mistaken identity; singapore is named after a lion, but there weren't lions there at that time, and most probably a tiger was mistaken for a lion as per legend.
Anyway the association of lion with brits goes back at least to Richard the lionheart (12th century.)

 

[A chauhan]

These guys have gone mad in their Brit hate. Singh is a common Hindi family name much before Brits made lions famous. Even Singapore i.e. Singh-pur is derived from Singh. So historically, Indians have loved lions. But just because Brits put it on their emblem, now they want us to hate lions.

And even after all the back and forth debate. I still do not see any other majestic laid back cat like Lion. It truly shows royal character unlike tiger, who is forever lurking in the dark.

Two things :-

1. Lions really live life king-size, putting manes and harems on showcase, fearless due to group life, summarily enjoying life like a King. A big lion with matured dark mane is more attractive than a Tiger so anyone would like to be associated with the Lion than the Tiger because of the powerful looks, so it became the Singh is King. For fights, people who call it a King seldom know that Tiger is usually bigger and heavier than it, since Tiger is a master of camouflage with all its stripes and solitary life, so psychologically too people can not see it as a King

2. Tigers are more intelligent plus stronger and bigger, these facts alone make it the King de facto. With better brain and bigger heart it has all the rights to defeat any other cat subspecies. But being more intelligent Tigers avoid fights since they live alone.

So far as the Kingship is concerned just add a striped/plain mane to the tiger a lot of people will change their perspective. will do in leisure, Can someone find a pic?

 

[Sword]

Two things :-

1. Lions really live life king-size, putting manes and harems on showcase, fearless due to group life, summarily enjoying life like a King. A big lion with matured dark mane is more attractive than a Tiger so anyone would like to be associated with the Lion than the Tiger because of the powerful looks, so it became the Singh is King. For fights, people who call it a King seldom know that Tiger is usually bigger and heavier than it, since Tiger is a master of camouflage with all its stripes and solitary life, so psychologically too people can not see it as a King

2. Tigers are more intelligent plus stronger and bigger, these facts alone make it the King de facto. With better brain and bigger heart it has all the rights to defeat any other cat subspecies. But being more intelligent Tigers avoid fights since they live alone.

So far as the Kingship is concerned just add a striped/plain mane to the tiger a lot of people will change their perspective. will do in leisure, Can someone find a pic?

I figure I get one more in for laughs, its been stated the tiger is bigger? On what statistics, all that has been shown is cherry picked data, comparing large tigers against small regional lions (and those large tigers arnt even alot, less tha 50 exceeded 200 kg lol)...looking at the biggest there is on record you have:

TIGER 857 lbs, source hunter:

Consensus from biologist George schaller:

If we were to take that tiger as above 800 lbs, then your science is truly laughable, the photo shows a tiger who doesnt even look to exceed 500 lbs, let alone 6 7 or 8 hundred pounds.


LION 900 lbs, Animal trapper:

ATTACKED BY A LION A Thrilling Experience Which Colonel Boone Had in Africa Colonel Daniel Boone the well known performer with trained lions wan a member of the French soldiery in Africa during the 70s His regiment was stationed just outside of one of the worst jungles known in that part of the country and had G number of very thrilling adventures In 1876 said he while our regiment of CnasseursdAfrique was quartering in southern Africa a lion hunt was organized by some of the officers Accompanied by the native beaters and necessary accouterment we started into the jungle Several lions had been killed and we were on the point of returning when a lion was started as I thought back of mo I turned and waited for him to come out of the jungle when I heard a cracking of twigs in the rear and I turned just in time to see a tremendous i fellow about crouching for a spring I i threw my gun up and gave it to him right I between the eyes A lions skull instead of being round is angular with the forehead more or less pointed A ball striking full in the face will glance either one side or another Thats just what mine did It ran along under the skin and cut the skin at the neck I knew that my last chance was gone and dropping my gnu I tel into a position kneeling on one knee with my left arm thrown up to shield my face When he came at me all I could see was a brown streak and then he struck He caught my arm just above the elbow and braced as I was he turned a complete somersault over my head He held on chewing and growling while I tried to reach my hunting knife Suddenly with a lightning Jke motion the lion let go my arm and throwing me on I my back opened his huge jars and gripped me on the left side 1 felt the ribs give way Then I gave myself up a A goner7 I The other members of the party had come up in the meantime but the lion and I were so closely mixed up that a shot was impossible Finally when I had lost consciousness ono of the party sneaked up and placed the muzzle of his gun at the lions ear and let her go killing him instantly I was three months recovering and then three of my ribs were crushed and this arm was a reminder The lion weighed 900 pounds and measured over seven feet
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/80867453/

As stated before, only record we have of them being weighed on video has the lion as the heavier (proven), as a species, (all -subspecies combined) the lion is much heavier (proven), comparing the smallest versions of regions both lion/tiger get, the tiger is much smaller, almost 1/3rd that of the lion, (proven), on text, wheather hunter, trapper, biologist, or any type of source...the lion is heavier than the tiger in the wild...(proven).

Tigers arnt even the tallest of living species of big cats, that would be yet again, the lion:

Your term biggest is flawed, the tiger on extreme cases is only longer, not taller or heavier. Again your heart size BS is just being making up out of thin air:
http://animaluntamed.yuku.com/topic/1474/Lion-and-tiger-heart-and-lung-sizes#.VoclwRUrLIU

Brain size? How does that compare intelligence, whales brains are 10+ x's bigger than ours, can they invent all the things we do? yet again...another fail attempt to say and make up anything to hide the bias'ticty. The sole fact that people arnt dubbed king just for being the biggest, shows how illogical and butt hurt the post radiates with. In the olden days, Kings would be in charge of Kingdoms who over threw other people, hence lions have prides (similar to a kingdom), what do tigers have thats similar to a Kingdom? Nothing, hence no title king for tigers, (lions have manes similar to a crown), (lions have morals of war and forgiveness, similar to a noble king) who ever heard of the lonely king who rules no one, as shown as well the King in all cultures has the male as the monarch and the head of order, via Tsar, chief, monarch, King, ect...the male dominates the lionesses even against odds, for tigers its the opposite, the females are the ones who dominate the males:

1967 tigress kills male tiger protecting her cubs george schaller
1896 tigress kills male tiger in the london zoo and eats its body charles cornish
1985 tigress kills male tiger S kumar sanctuary of asia volume 5
1967 wild tiger defeats male tiger sher jung tryst with tigers
2001 saw a fight between a tiger and tigress later found the male tigers dead body J.C daniels natraj
1984 tigress named princess kills imported wild male bengal tiger rhode island
1981 valmik thapar sees a tiger killed by a tigress protecting her cubs
2001 tigress kills male cage mate in elpaso zoo
1913 tigress kills male tiger in the wild, cinncinati enquirer
2013 chennai tigress kills mate male white tiger
1956 two tigresses kill male bengal named rajah cinncinati zoo
2010 Shenzen safari park tigress kills male tiger
2012 ranthambore park male tiger steals tigresses meal and loses fight


But I get it, it has nothing to do with facts, even if there were a thousand to one accounts of lions killing tigers, tigers still would be gods, unbeatable (even though leopards and wild dogs have killed them), and have never lost to anything. As for the mane, again...explain to me, why male tigers have over 50 scientific articles and photos of them having their neck wound punctured by tigresses and leopards, and yet not even 10 cases of a well maned lion having shown his throat was ripped out by any animal in all of history...and explain why an ambushing tigress (yes tigress, the matriarch of the tigris species), couldnt even get pass the lions mane and was killed in the process:

In the eyes of the public, the mis-informed, a tiger who is suppose to be bigger, heavier, stronger ordinarily can whip a lion, yet the tiger is none of those things proven, you saying science has proven it, doesnt mean science has proven it. lol All that has brought fourth on behalf of the tiger has been:


Pseudoscience: is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method.[1][2] A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

But please go on as how things brought was fact, and that the british is responsible for the entire planet to have chosen the lion higher than the tiger, in heraldry, looks and action. No animal that loses to leopards and wild dogs almost a hundred times is worthy for the title King.


Archaeology: The asiatic lion was known to kill the siberian tiger when they roamed farther north of india:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85066387/1911-07-30/ed-1/seq-39/print/image_681x648_from_1851,6445_to_4432,8903/

Its truly sad that the modern people of india knows absolutely nothing of their own history:

Coming straight from an indian historian:

“many familys adopted the title singh to symbolize power and strength… the tiger was never considered as a title in india…raises the question of predominance of the lion over the tiger"

Indian....not British.

Asiatic lion, bengal tiger, leopard

The only thing thats bigger for tigers are the text that can be made up, the skulls dont lie in showing which animal was bigger.

 

[The Last Stand]

The only thing thats bigger for tigers are the text that can be made up, the skulls dont lie in showing which animal was bigger.

True, perhaps your favoured lion was bigger in pre-historic times.

It's sort of an undisputed fact in modern times that the Tiger IS BIGGER.

I'm not going to argue with you on your superiority claims.

 

[Sword]

True, perhaps your favoured lion was bigger in pre-historic times.

It's sort of an undisputed fact in modern times that the Tiger IS BIGGER.

I'm not going to argue with you on your superiority claims.

Than show me a video (as I have showed) if its considered modern?

And to what extant? There is some 20,000 lions, and only 4,000 or so tigers...you are telling me, that every single one of those tigers are heavier than 4,000 of the largest lions? In the 20th century there isnt a single wild tiger that exceeded 270 kg, not one...or else show it...everything so far has been empty post, just saying scientist, doesnt mean you have shown any. The latest data published it even states amongs the top scientist it is debatable:

Tigers of the World: The Science, Politics and Conservation of Panthera tigris

on average the lion is the biggest living cat:
https://books.google.com/books?id=XFIbjBEQolMC&pg=PA54&dq=indian+tiger+larger+than+lion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_qSRUKbXDua8igKLr4CYBw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=indian tiger larger than lion&f=false

how can something by a scientist of modern say, its debatable, and yet you say its undisputed, do you even know what the word undisputed means?

The tiger is inferior in size to the lion
http://books.google.com/books?id=tR...a=X&ei=Ei81UZfPKov2qwGmhoHoDg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw


The bengal tiger is thinner an lighter than the lion
The Illustrated Magazine of Art, Volumes 3-4
http://books.google.com/books?id=BR...X&ei=aZQGUOiWEIHg2gWah9S6BQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgK

The Tiger is almost as large as the Lion, but he has the most elegant dress.
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA...ie=ISO-8859-1&ots=sGh2DHpF3s&output=html_text


You act as if every book in science says the tiger is bigger. Unisputed would mean 100%...

You cannot speak for the entire species from only a hand full of cases, is that how debates work with humans? Because the white guy has the tallest recorded height whites are the most superior, strongest, biggest race?

whats prehistoric about this?

6 year old Bengal tiger named detonator and nala lioness:

lion 3 x bigger upper body

Clyde beatty circus, lion just as tall as tiger on a foot loer pedastal:

completelt different circus, lion still taller by a foot:

edlstien circus, still taller:

lions upper body 3x bigger:

lol

 

[Peter]

@saty @Razor @Mad Indian

why brits promote their throne as a lion ??? why they put lion as their symbol ???

they dont got lion or even tigers at england or uk.

Actually the British took their emblem from the French royal houses who ruled them. The rampant lion on their emblem was started way after their conquest by the French dukes.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Actually the British took their emblem from the French royal houses who ruled them. The rampant lion on their emblem was started way after their conquest by the French dukes.

It was Romans who civilized the Britons, the language, religion etc ... Etc came from outside.

But these are the guys who claim Greek civilization which is thousands of miles away from their Island.

They are ruled by Romans and Germanic tribes. They were repeatedly conquered by the outsiders.

 

[Sword]

Actually the British took their emblem from the French royal houses who ruled them. The rampant lion on their emblem was started way after their conquest by the French dukes.

Speaking of the french, heres a french old piece of a lioness biting a tiger:

http://www.journaux-collection.com/fiche.php?id=221269

lol funny it even says science on it. Still waiting for this scientific claim that tigers are bigger than lions:

lions 3x the size of tiger

lion still taller

still taller

terrel jacobs lion as tall as a tiger a foot higher than him

I guess the british told the spanish and portugese to re-write their views as well then:

Question, what is it with most of you and the british, you falsely called all your sources british, and I proved they were either american or other wise. I dont see why you have the get the cultures point of view into the debate, the flag link I showed had lions a part of 100's of cultures centurys to millenniums before the british came along while the tiger was only associated with 2. Anyone who stated a tiger is bigger than a lion obviously hasnt seem them two next to each other.

 

[Sword]

Ctrl C+V

As we already know, Male lion looks bigger because of his mane, while
on the other hand, tiger's stripes serve a very definite purpose, to help them hide.
so what would happen if we swaps them?
1. let's start with this male lion compared to Banda of Kanha
Banda is a huge tiger but not as huge as Waghdoh or Kaziranga guys


2. now remove the background so we can get a better look
notice both are in the same distance to camera with similar body angle



3. next lets remove lions mane and tiger's stipes

starting to see the difference?
lion's head is bigger compared to his body, while tiger's head looks relatively smaller compared to his huge body. tiger's forearm is bigger and more muscular than lion's. not only that, tiger hindlegs also looks more well built than lion's (remember tiger stand up with good balance in fight)
notice the big front area of lion compared to his rear area,
maybe that is the reason why lion looks clumsy when standing on their hind legs

4 final step, lets swaps the stripes to lion body and the mane to tiger's shoulder


its completely different story. the lion became a medium sized tiger with a bigger head
while the tiger became a 'giant' lion even with relatively smaller head.
completely different to the first photo isn't it?
remember there's no reduction or exaggeration on this,
if you guys don't believe me then check it using ACDSee program
if Banda can transform to a giant lion, what would happen to Waghdoh or Kaziranga guys?
so what do you think guys?

Wagdoh

lol none of your comparisons are in the same shot, any one can manipulate stuff like that, saty retarded logic, as you can see, we compare a mouses stature, muscle and bulk and the mouse is taller, bigger, stronger looking than the puny tiger who looks feeble, skinny and weak:

lol

Yet in the same shots even lionesses have slightly bigger neck muscles than tigers:

Saty, you should listen to your elders of india:

~Arjan Singh

"They are low slung to the ground and closer to the true cat than the lion, who compares them in size and weight, he stands taller than the tiger."

so much for the mane not working. lol and you wanted science, more like you needed desperation. yes, desperation like comparing two animals and scaling them to any size the photo shop person wants. lol kaziranga? I bet your average asiatic lion would handle them just fine. And how about showing a maneless lions shoulders comapred to a tiger when they are in the same shot, like this lion:

Looks like the tiger has zero shoulder muslces, its like a straight line, while the lion has a huge hump of muscle, noted for breaking the tigers back, as already happened:

how about you show us where a tiger had killed a lion with a blow from the paw