Tiger Vs Lion who will win in a fight?

[persiantiger]

When The Caspian tigers were around they reigned supreme. The persian lions were pretty awsome too. I have always wondered if these 2 lovely creatures were to duke it out which will come on top. I know it has been done before with bengal tigers and siberian tigers and other types of tigers against barbarian lions and african lions. Does anyone have any videos on them fighting that they can share?!

who do you think will win and why?

[persiantiger]

I also herd that the koreans used to pit them against one another do any of the korean posters have any info about this matter?

[Saudi64]

i always liked tigers more than lions, and no it has nothing related to persiantiger. Lions are probably huger and more powerful, but Tigers can always swim, so if it ever includes water...

[persiantiger]

actually saudi64 tigers are bigger and more powerful but lions have more fight experience....

[Premium Hamatachi redded]

how about cheetah?

[riceburner3508]

a cheetah would get azz raped in a fight with a lion or a tiger. Cheetah's can run 70 miles an hour, but they can't find worth sh!t

[PacMan]

A pack of Hyenas will ******** them both up.Their bite is so strong,it can break bones.Actually they even eat the bones of their kill.

[AmoebaCulture]

Koreanized Serbian Tigers will rip the living ******** out of your persian tiger, bitch

[AmoebaCulture]

A pack of Hyenas will ******** them both up.Their bite is so strong,it can break bones.Actually they even eat the bones of their kill.

you never saw Lion King you idiot?! the only lion they ripped up was scar but he was a dumbass.

[toohyper]

you never saw Lion King you idiot?! the only lion they ripped up was scar but he was a dumbass.

Lion King, lol...

[dreamer]

Liger wins.

http://lionshrine.topcities.com/otherlions.htm

[Elliad]

Bengal tigers are said to be generally smaller in size to Siberian tigers, which are supposed to be among the biggest cats in the world (after all, those live in the coldest of the environments, thus their constitution must be amazing) - and actually those Siberians can be MUCH bigger than your biggest lions (doubt if any of those monsters still exist in today's world though). Besides, tigers are more agile and faster, and being a loner (compared to the lions that often form prides) their fighting technique is quite different to lions. Also, while tigers are more hostile and aggressive, lions are generally more lax and lazy. It is said that comparing the two tigers are better hunters than fighters, while lions (males) are poor hunters but better fighters.

A zoo in Korea actually kept several of both animals (and managed to breed a hybrid between a male lion and a female tiger - a liger, in the late 80's~early 90's), and there were a couple of occasions where these animals fought against each other.

The first instance was when the head lion (from Africa) got pissed off at the head tiger (don't know from where) who was keep bothering a female lion that was its mate. The bout came to an unexpectedly short end however, the winner being the lion. The tiger was much faster, and used both paws to land numerous hits on the lion while supporting itself on the rear legs alone, but the lion endured the hits and KO'ed the tiger with just one counter punch, with one massive swipe while supporting itself with the other 3 legs. The lion was 10 kg heavier, in this case.

The 2nd bout was 3 vs 3 tag-match, and quite surprisingly the tigers won this one easily. The lions panicked, while the tigers showed great co-operation. One of the lions fled after getting bitten by all three tigers at once, and the other two just didn't know what to do and just lost their way. Btw, all these beasts had their fangs cropped and covered with stainless steel, so no animals were seriously injured :)

One interesting historical fact is that in the ancient Rome they often pitted lions versus tigers in the Colosseum. And apparently tigers won most of the bouts, but I don't know what variety of animals they had for those fights.

Personally I like tigers better and think that tigers will come on top of lions, just because tigers seem to be more ferocious and tenacious. But I also read from somewhere that when a lion and a tiger of around same size meet lions ALWAYS win... But it also depends on weather, as summer favours lions while winter is the dominant season for tigers.

Finally, I dunno if this is true or not but there was an incident where a lion, a tiger and an alligator was put in the same cage and were forced to fight (prolly an illegal bout) - and the lion and tiger joined forces to attack the alligator :eek:

[dreamer]

I think it depends on the terrain. Tiger wins in forest. Lion wins in plain. Croc wins in water.

Interesting the lion and tiger join force again the croc. Beats watching the Olympics. :)



Bengal tigers are said to be generally smaller in size to Siberian tigers, which are supposed to be among the biggest cats in the world (after all, those live in the coldest of the environments, thus their constitution must be amazing) - and actually those Siberians can be MUCH bigger than your biggest lions (doubt if any of those monsters still exist in today's world though). Besides, tigers are more agile and faster, and being a loner (compared to the lions that often form prides) their fighting technique is quite different to lions. Also, while tigers are more hostile and aggressive, lions are generally more lax and lazy. It is said that comparing the two tigers are better hunters than fighters, while lions (males) are poor hunters but better fighters.

A zoo in Korea actually kept several of both animals (and managed to breed a hybrid between a male lion and a female tiger - a liger, in the late 80's~early 90's), and there were a couple of occasions where these animals fought against each other.

The first instance was when the head lion (from Africa) got pissed off at the head tiger (don't know from where) who was keep bothering a female lion that was its mate. The bout came to an unexpectedly short end however, the winner being the lion. The tiger was much faster, and used both paws to land numerous hits on the lion while supporting itself on the rear legs alone, but the lion endured the hits and KO'ed the tiger with just one counter punch, with one massive swipe while supporting itself with the other 3 legs. The lion was 10 kg heavier, in this case.

The 2nd bout was 3 vs 3 tag-match, and quite surprisingly the tigers won this one easily. The lions panicked, while the tigers showed great co-operation. One of the lions fled after getting bitten by all three tigers at once, and the other two just didn't know what to do and just lost their way. Btw, all these beasts had their fangs cropped and covered with stainless steel, so no animals were seriously injured :)

One interesting historical fact is that in the ancient Rome they often pitted lions versus tigers in the Colosseum. And apparently tigers won most of the bouts, but I don't know what variety of animals they had for those fights.

Personally I like tigers better and think that tigers will come on top of lions, just because tigers seem to be more ferocious and tenacious. But I also read from somewhere that when a lion and a tiger of around same size meet lions ALWAYS win... But it also depends on weather, as summer favours lions while winter is the dominant season for tigers.

Finally, I dunno if this is true or not but there was an incident where a lion, a tiger and an alligator was put in the same cage and were forced to fight (prolly an illegal bout) - and the lion and tiger joined forces to attack the alligator :eek:

[riceburner3508]

A pack of Hyenas will ******** them both up.Their bite is so strong,it can break bones.Actually they even eat the bones of their kill.


Hyenas are scavengers, they don't hunt. But they do have a powerful bite. But if you put one hyena against one lion, the lion would wipe the floor with the hyena. Same thing would go for a pack of lions and a pack of hyenas.

[persiantiger]

Koreanized Serbian Tigers will rip the living ******** out of your persian tiger, bitch

LOL hahahaha I pity you. I thought maybe by creating this thread I could learn some more info about the battles that have taken place between lions and tigers but looks like I already know more than anyone else here. Caspian tigers were the most fierce brand of tigers they were the 2nd biggest after the siberian tiger but siberians suck at fighting and lack the ferocity where as caspian tigers as well as beglas didn't/don't. I already knew of the battles in which Caspian tigers absolutly destroyed the lions they were pitted against in england.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/persiantiger/s03602.jpgAs elliad said these battles used to take place in ancient rome as well with tigers usually winning. In those battles it is said that they had to train the siberians in order to fight but the caspians and bengals didn't need training same with the lions. The site lairweb.org.nz however gives accounts of lions having won more fights and the discovery channel made the lion win in a little show they have called "animal-face off". http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/animalfaceoff/challenge/challenge3.html
There is no clear answer to which animal is superior as both have known to win fights against each other I guess the safest answer would be to say it depends on the animal...
I haven't heard of the story of the tiger and lion teaming up on an alligator but tigers have been known to hunt on crocs on their own.

As for the dude who said hyena is stronger than both of them.... hahaha :) check this video out and tell me if you still think the same

http://www.unf.edu/~demm0006/lion-hyena-war.wmv
warning this is a gang war :p between lions and hyenas so lion king fans don't watch this isn't a disney video.

RoAr!

[riceburner3508]

hahahaha holy ******** man that hyena-lion battle thing is fukcin bad a$$. I didn't know lions could get me so pumped up.

[persiantiger]

hahahaha holy ******** man that hyena-lion battle thing is fukcin bad a$$. I didn't know lions could get me so pumped up.

cool wasn't it? I think the music helps with the "pumping up" :o too. SMACK essvee I mean my bitch (same thing) Up!

[Elliad]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v75/persiantiger/s03602.jpgAs elliad said these battles used to take place in ancient rome as well with tigers usually winning. In those battles it is said that they had to train the siberians in order to fight but the caspians and bengals didn't need training same with the lions. The site lairweb.org.nz however gives accounts of lions having won more fights and the discovery channel made the lion win in a little show they have called "animal-face off". [url]

RoAr!

Eh, I admit that I don't know much about Caspian tigers, but where did you get the info that Siberians suck at fighting?

Anyways, about Rome, I have to doubt that story about Siberians and stuff. Think about it, it's Rome, about 2000 years ago. Where was Rome, and where's Siberia? And it is said that often dozens of these animals were killed from each day of fighting - I can understand about Caspians and Bengals, but how the hell did they capture enough Siberians (let alone bringing them across that amazing distance) to fight in Rome?

[persiantiger]

Eh, I admit that I don't know much about Caspian tigers, but where did you get the info that Siberians suck at fighting?

Did you check out Lairweb? The author said that Koreans chose bengal tigers because Siberian tigers had a bad performance in pit fights. Her conclusion is that Siberian tiger is a coward animal. Now I personally don't agree with that Recently I read a post about Korean pit fights. It seems that African lions and bengal tigers used in pit fight are all wild animals. Usually when Koreans tried to get wild Siberian tigers they have failed. It was much easier to get wild lion and wild bengal tiger due to their habitats. It is probalby true that captive siberian tiger is less aggressive than wild lion and wild bengal tiger, but wild siberian tiger is probably just as aggressive as the bengal and lion but again no match for the caspian. Don't get me wrong siberian is my 2nd fav breed after caspian I favor them over bengals.

Anyways, about Rome, I have to doubt that story about Siberians and stuff. Think about it, it's Rome, about 2000 years ago. Where was Rome, and where's Siberia? And it is said that often dozens of these animals were killed from each day of fighting - I can understand about Caspians and Bengals, but how the hell did they capture enough Siberians (let alone bringing them across that amazing distance) to fight in Rome?

dude if anything they had easier access to the places where the siberians lived than to india and nepal where bengals live. They never reached Iran(well each and every time they got close they got their ass whooped and retreated) so the caspians were gifts from the persian kings to the romans in return of the gifts the roman emperors sent them. The first tigers in euorpe were the siberians in armenia and if you look at a map you see that armenia is way closer to italy than iran or india. Anyways back to the lion vs tiger topic I have found a forum in which some experts talk about the roman pit fights: http://p083.ezboard.com/fsharks77551frm2.showMessage?topicID=393.topic

some quotes from the first page(im 2 lazy to read all of it at the moment :D) : "Look for "Roman Times", this book talks about how the Caspian dominated the Barbary Lion at will."
"Matter of fact its says the Barbary Lion was no match for the Caspian Tiger. They seem to suggest that Bengal Tigers were not as fierce as Caspians."

Note: barbary lions are extinct like the caspian tiger and they were said have had had black manes and were stronger than the african lions.

[Elliad]

[QUOTE=persiantiger]Did you check out Lairweb? The author said that Koreans chose bengal tigers because Siberian tigers had a bad performance in pit fights. Her conclusion is that Siberian tiger is a coward animal. Now I personally don't agree with that Recently I read a post about Korean pit fights. It seems that African lions and bengal tigers used in pit fight are all wild animals. Usually when Koreans tried to get wild Siberian tigers they have failed. It was much easier to get wild lion and wild bengal tiger due to their habitats. It is probalby true that captive siberian tiger is less aggressive than wild lion and wild bengal tiger, but wild siberian tiger is probably just as aggressive as the bengal and lion but again no match for the caspian. Don't get me wrong siberian is my 2nd fav breed after caspian I favor them over bengals.


dude if anything they had easier access to the places where the siberians lived than to india and nepal where bengals live. They never reached Iran(well each and every time they got close they got their ass whooped and retreated) so the caspians were gifts from the persian kings to the romans in return of the gifts the roman emperors sent them. The first tigers in euorpe were the siberians in armenia and if you look at a map you see that armenia is way closer to italy than iran or india. Anyways back to the lion vs tiger topic I have found a forum in which some experts talk about the roman pit fights: http://p083.ezboard.com/fsharks77551frm2.showMessage?topicID=393.topic
QUOTE]

Uhh, I don't think there have been enough Siberians observed to make a judgment like that, but I think it's just down to personal preference. But about the habitat of Siberians itself, sorry, I didn't know that a tiger found in Armenia can be called Siberians. I was thinking of Siberians that lived in Korea, Manchuria and generally the northern region of Far East (which is practically as far as one can get from Armenia), so I thought it would've been quite unfeasible for Romans to have those tigers for their pit fights.