Tiger fan boy spotted. Ligers are the biggest cats. You are misinformed in this Lion vs Tiger question, cause when both lions and tigers are compared on average: tigers are slightly bigger by their slender body. But lions are bigger at the head and shoulders, and they come in different sizes depending on how well they eat. The largest lion recorded in 1970 weighed 826 pounds or 374.667 kilograms : https://youtu.be/Z7os3MpcBMU

You can't make ligers without lions AND tigers, though. Ligers are infertile, so they can't simply make more ligers. As far as a solitary lion slaying a full grown tiger, that's sort of ridiculous. Lions are adapted to hunting in prides. Tigers are solitary by nature. There have been a couple instances of tigers escaping from their zoo enclosures and getting into the lion pen and, in every recorded case, the lion confronts the tiger and is immediately or nearly immediately slain. In the wild, it might be a different story, but when you are thinking of a lion, you are probably thinking of African lions, which do not overlap with tigers, but are generally more threatening in size and strength. Wild tigers, though, are not known to prey on asiatic lions.

Ligers are part of the cat family. They are obviously not dogs. The largest living cat is Hercules, an adult male liger currently housed at Myrtle Beach Safari. He weighs 922 pounds or 418.2 kilograms. Quote: "As far as a solitary lion slaying a full grown tiger, that's sort of ridiculous." Tigers don't stand a chance against lions. If you notice most countries in the world, they use symbols as lions in their Coat of Arms flags. They know the lion is superior. Otherwise, they would use symbols of tigers. You have no evidence to prove those supposedly couple of instances of tigers escaping from their enclosures and killing lions. I've read it all. There is only one case BBC News reported of a tiger in the Ankara Turkish zoo killing a lion, but BBC News did not report if it was a male or female. Witnesses who have been visiting the zoo for years said the zoo only had 2 male lions and 2 female lions, and that one of the lionesses was transferred to another zoo, while the other lioness was too ill to move around, and was nowhere to be seen. The 2 male lions were still there. Evidently by the witnesses, the tiger in the enclosure attacked an ill lioness who was too weak to defend herself from the tiger. I am probably thinking of African lions? I am thinking of all lions in general, not just African, also Asiatic and Barbary lions that still exist in zoos.

"They are obviously not dogs." Who said anything about dogs?! "If you notice most countries in the world, they use symbols as lions in their Coat of Arms flags. They know the lion is superior. Otherwise, they would use symbols of tigers." The eagle is even more popular than the lion on flags. By that logic, the eagle is more formidable than the lion. But that's obviously not right, so either something is wrong with your logic, or something else crazy is up with that method of determining animal threat level. I'm not sure what your measures are here, but tigers have larger brains, more muscle power, are longer, are stronger, are more maneuverable, take larger prey, kill more humans, etc. than lions, on average or in general. Source for the lion being ill? The reports from BBC and WION and NBC all only mention that the tiger slew the lion with a single swipe of its paw.

Since you are aware that a liger is not a dog, a liger is a cat, and the biggest cat in the world, just as I've mentioned. Quote: "The eagle is even more popular than the lion on flags." Not precisely. Fun fact: the most common animal on a flag is a lion. Tigers are more agile than lions, although they are not as smart and strong as you think. There are no videos of tigers taking down larger animals than themselves. There's only one documentary of a tiger taking down an ill female Indian Gaur that could barely walk. 1 male lion can take down buffalos and hippos. And I have evidence to support my claims. Lions are smarter: https://youtu.be/8nXGxL9f_BI Lions take down bigger prey: https://youtube.com/shorts/1-8ENzShEgM?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/0ykwh5Z2pZo?feature=share WION and NBC got the report from BBC News and BBC News yet again did not report if the lion was male or female. I just showed you a short video clip too of a tiger landing 5 swipes on a lion, which are ineffective. 1 swipe from the lion dropped the tiger to the ground.

When you have time, please research the following two topics: red herring and non sequitur.

By definition, red herring means "misleading." Non-sequitur, "illogical." What you are doing is using the same illogical argument as tiger fans use. They are full of assumptions and emotions. It's the videos and the logical arguments that count. I showed you videos of lions dominating tigers. They are based on my logical comments of debunking the Ankara zoo incident. Again, 5 swipes from the tiger does nothing to a lion. Think of the lion's mane for a better understanding.

A tiger is heavier? Obviously you did not read a book by a supposedly wildlife animal expert, since you don't know what a big lion looks like. Here you go so you can get educated. 2 large African male lions are compared to a Siberian tiger: https://youtu.be/npIsgySOpq4

BTW, there are no records of tigers winning fights over lions. On the contrary, there are numerous accounts of lions killing tigers in history. Google it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12669308 - Tiger kills lion in Turkish zoo with a single swipe. (Paywall) https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002947/19140508/093/0010 - fight between lion and tiger in Bronx in front of zoo patrons, tiger wins. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/130120683 - Tiger breaks lion's neck at zoo. The only article I could find about a tiger being killed by lions was one of those tabloid-type sites, and it was so poorly written that I couldn't make much sense of it. But, at any rate, you are incorrect about there being no records of tigers killing lions, and it was indeed a very quick google search that proved it.

The link has been debunked in my comment above. BBC News who reported the incident did not confirm whether the lion was male or female. It's the witnesses from the zoo who testified that the Ankara zoo had only 2 male lions by which the 2 male lions were seen again after the incident.

Here is proof that a tiger cannot kill a lion with 1 swipe: https://youtube.com/shorts/hCe8Vyijh40?feature=share 5 tiger swipes to the lion and they do nothing. But 1 swipe from the lion and the tiger gets knocked down. *Facepalm*

And here are numerous news articles of lions killing tigers: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/wildanimalwarfare/lion-kills-male-tigers-t6.html *Double Facepalm*

"And here are numerous news articles of lions killing tigers: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/animalfightclub/lions-defeat-and-kill-tigers-male-and-female-t171.html *Double Facepalm*" Read the whole thing, the page you posted debunks all of the claims that lions are stronger than tigers. *Facepalm*

You must have been redirected to another page in the forum. Tiger fans are mostly kids who can't rationalize. They can't debunk anything, simply cause the historical records are written in newspapers. You will also find photos and videos of the incidents. Check the link again.

Scroll down LOL

Scrolling down leads to other arguments. That's the whole idea of a forum, were people can feel free to participate. It doesn't change the fact of all the historical records, photos and videos posted by people who are able to "dig up historical information." It's just like me, I dig up old questions on Answerbag that perhaps the AB'ers who are active will never, ever see if I don't dig them up to be displayed on the AB homepage.

Again, you are posting someone else having the same argument, but where the side of the argument counter to the side with which you agree debunked the majority of arguments and had the last word. That entire thread is useless as a source to back you up, and, in fact, hurts your argument more than helps it.

Don't get too concerned with the arguments tiger fans make, cause they are excuses. Be more concerned with the historical records and how the incidents happened. The newspapers are clear, as well as the photos and videos. In today's technology, we have tons of videos to see what's happening in the wild and in zoos. We can understand the nature of lions and tigers when they are kept together as if being there in person. Quote: "in fact, hurts your argument more than helps it." Not one bit, cause actually, if it weren't for numerous videos being spread on the internet, I would never have known that tigers are cowards.

Quote: "One on one the tiger would win." Not quite, tigers are intimidated by lions: https://youtu.be/wcYXLR_QyGE As you see 1 lion intimidating 3 bengal tigers, there is no way tigers could live in Africa, because if hyenas don't make "solitary tigers" go extinct, lions definitely will.

Actually, Asiatic lions live in tiger territories of India's jungles. Here is a video of an Asiatic lion that killed a Siberian tiger: https://youtu.be/b-JQ3_TZVAw

My Korean is not very good, but it sounds like a) both cats were adolescent, with the lion being older. Even thought the headline says male/male, the reporter refers to the tiger as female. Further research shows that the tiger was already injured when she fell into the pen.

Nope, that dead tiger is an adult. The story is covered throughout Korean news. In this video, you can clearly see what the Asiatic lion looks like, including the Siberian tiger: https://youtu.be/X2niagslnvQ As you see what they look like, you can also see the fall was short. Therefore, any agile person can jump in the pen and not injure themselves.

"Nope, that dead tiger is an adult." Not according to the news article. IDK, though, I wasn't there and I'm not sure how accurate the Korean news is - just going off of what you posted. If you spend too much time arguing with your own sources, you'll lose the argument either way. *Shug*

You didn't have to be present at the Korean zoo. The Korean news filmed the Asiatic lion and the Siberian tiger. I can't and I will not lose my argument cause the difference here is that the Korean news has film coverage on both animals. The BBC News coverage of the Ankara zoo is not in detail.

This is the link you posted? https://youtu.be/b-JQ3_TZVAw Just about 1:00 in, the tiger is referred to as adolescent. Also, in the footage of the tiger (assuming the one shown is the tiger that was killed), it's clearly smaller than the two men in lab coats examining it, much too small to be a full grown adult tiger. But anyway, we're getting off track. The OP's point was that if a tiger is in a lion's territory, the lion would likely win, your response was basically, "no, you are wrong, here's a video of a lion killing a tiger in its own territory" and the video is about a tiger who fell into a lion's pen and was injured by the fall and then killed by the lion. My point is that your video makes no point counter to what the original answer said. But I've seen you around here long enough to know that you will just double down when you are wrong about something, especially if it's trouble comprehending someone else's message, and then throw in a red herring or two as if it distracts from how wrong you are about whatever it is that you are doubling down on.

Since you want to get technical by adding minutes of the video, 0:47 shows the tiger is bigger than the 2 medical doctors put together. *Facepalm*

When you speak of territories, a King of Beasts has no boundaries. It simply dominates the opponent. *Another Facepalm*

These arguments have no logical boundaries. If YOU make a point and YOU post a video to prove that point, then it's up to YOU to make sure that the circumstances support the point you are trying to make. Coming back later and saying that it is irrelevant makes you look like you are struggling to keep up with the discussion.

Quote: "These arguments have no logical boundaries. If YOU make a point and YOU post a video to prove that point," I have to show reference by using videos other people from all over the world are capturing on film to back up my claims. It is totally logical that a superior animal would not back down to an inferior animal. You have not made any logical remarks nor have you supported your claims with videos. The year is 2023, people want to see videos and not assumptions and emotions. The *Facepalms* keep coming.

The closest we can see lions and tigers living together in the wild is in India, in particular the Gir forest. Now I'm sure you know Indians worship tigers in their Religion of Hinduism. Buddhists also worship tigers. So by no doubt, they are going to favor tigers. Any reports of Asiatic lions killing tigers in India will not be reported. Favoritism causes Asians to be biased against lions. Do take the time and check out the cruelty that goes on in Asian countries. They defang lions and use old, unhealthy, injured and even pigmy lions against their biggest and healthiest tigers to give tigers the advantage. And Asians fail every time to make the tiger come out victorious: https://youtu.be/cI0_6SXUFJ0

This is some QANON level conspiracy stuff about lions and tigers. Look, I don't even have a proverbial cat in this fight. I don't care which is more fearsome. But Hindu's don't worship tigers. It's one of few animals they historically hunted. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but I think you are just slightly off the mark half the time, but then you seem to like to double down 100% of the time you are wrong. I'm 100% against cruelty to big cats, like defanging or whatever, BTW. That is disgusting. I don't doubt that has happened. People are far more cruel than any big cats or any other predators for that matter.

The lion is the National symbol in Europe and in Christianity, and Europeans hunted lions when the lion population got out of control. India is the country that has the highest population of tigers in the world. The tiger is associated with the goddess Durga. In Buddhism, you will see many temples of tigers. In any way Asians can give tigers the advantage, they will play dirty to deceive people. In other words, Asians don't put healthy lions and especially the 300kg lions enclosed with tigers.

If a tiger being a symbolic animal in Hinduism means that Hindus worship tigers, then, by your logic, the lion being a symbol of Christianity means that Christians worship lions.

Exactly, Christians worship Jesus who is described as a Savior, a Lion and as a King of kings and Lord of lords.

Ok, this entire discussion has gone off on so many irrelevant tangents now, but the fact that you are saying that Christians indeed worship lions is really kind of destroying your credibility. Maybe it's time to walk away from this one.

You are taking my comment out of context. To worship Jesus is to admire lions who symbolize strength, courage, power, royalty, protection, pride, authority, majesty and wisdom. My credibility just keeps getting stronger and stronger.

Is there any scripture comparing Jesus to lions? Not an old testament comparison of something other than Jesus with a lion nor a new testament passage comparing Jesus to some other animal, but an actual scripture comparing actual Jesus to and actual lion? If the answer is "no," then I think you might want to reconsider who is the one making assumptions, but, if so, let's see it.

According to the Bible, Jesus is known as the Lamb of God who was slain (Philippians 2:9-11), and a Lion who conquered sin and death so that we could share in the glory of His Eternal Kingdom. (Revelation 5:1-14).

"...but an actual scripture comparing actual Jesus to and actual lion?" Want to try again, or are we done here?

Revelation 5:1-14 is an actual scripture of Jesus being the Lion of the tribe of Judah. It's not my fault you didn't read the verse carefully. 1 Peter 5:8 describes Satan like a roaring lion who walks the Earth, seeking someone to devour. If you read it in context, Satan walks the Earth like a roaring lion, but Jesus is an actual lion.