brentlion

oh, and the heaviest wild lion weighed 702 lbs.

Brentlion just read the article I posted on page 2 It has detailed analsys and clearly says that 7 out of 10 times in favour of tiger.You are just giving statitics of bengal tigers.please remember siberian tigers are much bigger than bengal tigers or lions, <9> “In 1857 a tiger at Bromwich broke into the cage of a lion and a fearful scene ensued: ‘the lions mane saved his head and neck from being much injured, but the tiger at last succeeded in ripping up his belly, and in a few minutes he was dead. -The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Charles Darwin So winner will be siberian tiger i was giving statistics of both bengal and siberian tigers. a recent study has beed done of more than 50 male siberian tigers, and not a single individual weighed over 475lbs. mazak, a big cat specialist, claims he knows of no wild siberians anywhere near the 650 lbs people claim. siberians in the wild find it difficult to find prey in that harsh invironment, and i doubt they get regular meals. check this out: http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb231/L...heAmurTiger.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb231/L...20Tiger/440.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb231/L...r/385pounds.jpg http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb231/L...eny450pound.jpg the heaviest lion and tiger on record both weighed 930 lbs, while the heaviest wild bengal tiger weighed only 568 lbs, confirmed by big cat expert peter jackson. all other records are pronounced as estimates according to mazak. i know about that fight of the lion and tiger at bromwich, but that seems to be only one of many in which the tiger has won, and all other accounts point to the lion as the usuall victor.

lions actually have a better fighting style than tigers. first off, lions swing while staying on three, as this gives the animal more stability for those davastating hits. also, they have been known to mimic an animals fighting style. so if the tiger tryed a certain technique, the lion would most likely do the same. tigers are awesome animals but are no match for the mighty lion.

From the above article In 10 fights between the two in any natural setting and in non-extreme climate, I'd bet a Bengal tiger will own an African lion 9 times provided there is no bias in choosing the animals. I'd expect an average Bengal tiger of the Terrai (see above) with 530 lbs and 10′, to make a short work of an average South African lion (~410 lbs and 8.5′). Even pound for pound, a tiger is stronger. If it's a smaller-than-average Bengal tiger, with size and wight similar to the lion's, it should be 7-3 in favor of the tiger. ok bruv, u the man,lol as i said there was a study done on this. the lion was supposed to have won cus its naturally more aggressive. im not sure if it was against a bengal tiger tho. tigers are not stronger than lions. that`s a myth. both lions and tigers have a muscle mass of about 60%, and at weights above 416 lbs, muscle mass decreases, producing a slower, less agile animal, because it is literally impossible to have a muscle mass over 60% at weights above 416 lbs. people mistakenly believe that since lions live in africa that they can`t grow to large sizes. africa grows some of the largest animals. i.e. elephants, giraffs. rhinos. ect. also, people seem to think that since tigers live in a colder climate, they are likely to grow more fat. that`s just not true. a change in climate doesn`t cause a change in size. growing to large sizes has something to do with mainly prey availability and the amount of food they consume, and the fact of the matter is that siberains find it hard to find prey in that harsh invironment, and i doubt they get regular meals. think of it in terms of bears. before bears go into hibernation, they have to pack on a lot of fat in order to survive the winter, though it should be noted that usually only the female of the species of bear hibernates, and they eat lots of fish and other fat enriched foods to grow to such huge sizes. tigers, however large they grow, are just not adapted to grow much fat in the wild, as this could hamper it`s ability to hunt, producing a much less effect hunter. even bears have to occasionally dine on plant matter to gain enough fat. the book "big cats of the world" states wild tigers as having 4.5-5.5 lbs of fat, a very low percentage. the reason for that is simple: speed. with such a low fat percentage, tigers are capable of the greatest possible speed, without much energy cost. here`s some lion vs tiger vids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3tYWJ_Xx60

lions will win. lions average about 416lbs with about 600 muscles in it`s body. they have a muscle mass of about 60%, a number which is 1/10 the amount of muscles in it`s body, which science tells us is the highest amount of muscle possible for an animal that size. with muscle mass of 60%, lions have 250 lbs of muscle, and are as strong as 10 men, the same as tigers. recent reports from zoologists have found that a study of about 15 male siberians captured and released in the wild much smaller than previously thought, and not one tiger was found to weigh over 420 lbs. lions, living in prides and having to protect the territory, are taller with big manes, as this aids in intimidation and helps to prevent a fight by conveying the message of being strong and powerful. even so, lions fight often, and 50% of all males die in fights with rivals. such fighting, over time, has made the lion a more aggressive animal. tigers, living alone, have longer teeth and claws, an adaptation that suits a lone hunter. also, they have shorter legs. shorter legs produce more speed. Example: sticks, when dropped from a standing position, fall in a curve pattern, and smaller sticks have a smaller curve and so takes less time to reach the ground. the same is true of tigers. with their shorter limbs, they are capable of great speed and agility and are exellent athletes. they are, on average, 15% faster than lions. tigers, with their shorter limbs, use up more energy quicker, so they tire easily. that`s one of the reasons they live in forests; it provides the perfect cover for a shorter chase. also, here`s some info from zoos and documentaries; a lion named moran from “planet carnivore” was said to weigh 500 lbs. it was said on ‘explorer that a male siberian weighed 500lbs. on ‘awesome pawsome’ it was stated that tigers usually weigh about 500 lbs in zoos. from a zoo mentioned in a previous post had a siberian tiger that weighed 600 lbs, and was very fat looking. a lion, similarly, at another zoo, weighed 600 lbs. one of clyde beatty`s lions weighed 650 lbs. a fight between a lion and tiger was mentioned that stated the lion weighed 500 lbs while the tiger weighed 450 lbs. as you can see from my above statements, tigers are no bigger than lions. people only claim so based on estimates made by hunters, which may or may not have been true. and in fact, the largest bengal tiger on record weighed 567 lbs or so, while a lion was 702 lbs it wouldn`t make any sense for a tiger to grow larger, as this would be defying nature, making the tiger a slower, less agile animal. have further proof to suggest that tigers are no longer than lions. Largest Lion found in the wild: 702 lbs (318 kg) and 11′ (3.35 m) Largest Bengal Tiger found in the wild: 857 lbs/ 389 kg,unconfirmed. 3.22 m 10 ft 7 in between pegs (3.37 m 11ft over the curves) (The largest tiger ever held in captivity, and the heaviest ‘natural big cat’ on record, is a nine-year-old male Siberian named ‘Jaipur’, owned by animal trainer Joan Byron-Marasek of Clarksburg, New Jersey, USA. This tiger measured 3.32 m 10 ft 11in in total length and weiged 423 kg 932 lb in October 1986) the above statements say that the largest lion found in the wild was 11 feet long. the bengal was 10 ft 7in, 11 ft over curves, and the siberian was 10 ft 11in: that doesn`t sound to me as if tigers are longer on average. also, the heaviest lion on record weighed 930 lbs, confirmed by big cat expert, peter jackson: http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/wildk...t/expert_1.html lions will win 7/10 times.