P Tigris

Apr 20 2012, 09:34 AM

boldchamp

Apr 20 2012, 09:23 AM

P Tigris

Apr 19 2012, 11:43 AM

boldchamp

Apr 19 2012, 08:53 AM

P Tigris

Apr 19 2012, 05:41 AM

boldchamp

Apr 18 2012, 06:20 AM

P Tigris

Mar 24 2012, 04:54 AM

And regarding bold champ's comparison


Looks good, yes?

Not only is the lion longer, and taller then the tiger


His head is almost double as big

Is there any particular reason you added that part about me? They were talking of your comparisons, not mines. And....the head of the lion and tiger is near equal in size. Are you blind? The tiger is longer, also.

Yeah, there is a reason, he posted it right before I did.

And the tiger isn't longer, nor is their heads 'near equal'

The top of the lion and tiger`s head is almost at the same point....so is the tip of the mouth. From the beginning of the ear, to the end of the nose is almost equal between the two.

The 3rd and 4th pic. explains it all, do I need to say more?

Please measure the length of their heads and show me where the lion`s head is almost twice the size.....like you said. Both heads being side by side....they look near equal. Lions do have an advantage in head length....and this pic only shows a VERY slight advantage. And, in your second pic, the rump of the lion and tiger is not on the same line. The tiger is slightly farther back then he should be. But....if he were to straighten his head (which is turned ever so slightly away from us) and tail, he`d be shown to be longer than the lion.

It's head was roughly 1/3 bigger..never said it was double as big. Even if you turned the tiger's head, he would not be longer..if you want, I could move the images and show you.

boldchamp

Apr 20 2012, 02:34 PM

P Tigris

Apr 20 2012, 09:34 AM

boldchamp

Apr 20 2012, 09:23 AM

P Tigris

Apr 19 2012, 11:43 AM

boldchamp

Apr 19 2012, 08:53 AM

P Tigris

Apr 19 2012, 05:41 AM

boldchamp

Apr 18 2012, 06:20 AM

P Tigris

Mar 24 2012, 04:54 AM

And regarding bold champ's comparison


Looks good, yes?

Not only is the lion longer, and taller then the tiger


His head is almost double as big

Is there any particular reason you added that part about me? They were talking of your comparisons, not mines. And....the head of the lion and tiger is near equal in size. Are you blind? The tiger is longer, also.

Yeah, there is a reason, he posted it right before I did.

And the tiger isn't longer, nor is their heads 'near equal'

The top of the lion and tiger`s head is almost at the same point....so is the tip of the mouth. From the beginning of the ear, to the end of the nose is almost equal between the two.

The 3rd and 4th pic. explains it all, do I need to say more?

Please measure the length of their heads and show me where the lion`s head is almost twice the size.....like you said. Both heads being side by side....they look near equal. Lions do have an advantage in head length....and this pic only shows a VERY slight advantage. And, in your second pic, the rump of the lion and tiger is not on the same line. The tiger is slightly farther back then he should be. But....if he were to straighten his head (which is turned ever so slightly away from us) and tail, he`d be shown to be longer than the lion.

It's head was roughly 1/3 bigger..never said it was double as big. Even if you turned the tiger's head, he would not be longer..if you want, I could move the images and show you.

The head is not 1/3rd the size, either. If those were the actual sizes of the animals....i doubt there`d be more than an inch`s difference in the lengths. And....you said it was near twice the size, or something like that. As a matter of fact, here is what you said;

"His head is almost double as big"

You did not specifically say the word 'twice' (i was quoting on memory, after all), but double also means 2. And.....i could make it so that the tiger has his head and tail extended....to prove that he is longer....

Notice that the difference in the height of these animals was only very slight. From a distance....it isn`t noticeable.

FelinePowah

Apr 21 2012, 07:05 AM

Tigers always seem to look far more massive and muscular compared to lions and also just seem more agile imo

I watched a programe about Sumatran tigers and the female tiger that featued in it not only looked immensely strong but seemed like she had the agility of a leopard.

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 06:29 AM

boldchamp

Apr 20 2012, 02:34 PM

P Tigris

Apr 20 2012, 09:34 AM

boldchamp

Apr 20 2012, 09:23 AM

P Tigris

Apr 19 2012, 11:43 AM

boldchamp

Apr 19 2012, 08:53 AM

P Tigris

Apr 19 2012, 05:41 AM

boldchamp

Apr 18 2012, 06:20 AM

P Tigris

Mar 24 2012, 04:54 AM

And regarding bold champ's comparison


Looks good, yes?

Not only is the lion longer, and taller then the tiger


His head is almost double as big

Is there any particular reason you added that part about me? They were talking of your comparisons, not mines. And....the head of the lion and tiger is near equal in size. Are you blind? The tiger is longer, also.

Yeah, there is a reason, he posted it right before I did.

And the tiger isn't longer, nor is their heads 'near equal'

The top of the lion and tiger`s head is almost at the same point....so is the tip of the mouth. From the beginning of the ear, to the end of the nose is almost equal between the two.

The 3rd and 4th pic. explains it all, do I need to say more?

Please measure the length of their heads and show me where the lion`s head is almost twice the size.....like you said. Both heads being side by side....they look near equal. Lions do have an advantage in head length....and this pic only shows a VERY slight advantage. And, in your second pic, the rump of the lion and tiger is not on the same line. The tiger is slightly farther back then he should be. But....if he were to straighten his head (which is turned ever so slightly away from us) and tail, he`d be shown to be longer than the lion.

It's head was roughly 1/3 bigger..never said it was double as big. Even if you turned the tiger's head, he would not be longer..if you want, I could move the images and show you.

The head is not 1/3rd the size, either. If those were the actual sizes of the animals....i doubt there`d be more than an inch`s difference in the lengths. And....you said it was near twice the size, or something like that. As a matter of fact, here is what you said;

"His head is almost double as big"

You did not specifically say the word 'twice' (i was quoting on memory, after all), but double also means 2. And.....i could make it so that the tiger has his head and tail extended....to prove that he is longer....

Notice that the difference in the height of these animals was only very slight. From a distance....it isn`t noticeable.

Do you want me to show you how the lion is longer..? The 2nd/3rd pic. is enough to say..but need me to prove it?

FelinePowah

Apr 21 2012, 07:05 AM

Tigers always seem to look far more massive and muscular compared to lions and also just seem more agile imo

I watched a programe about Sumatran tigers and the female tiger that featued in it not only looked immensely strong but seemed like she had the agility of a leopard.

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 08:33 AM

"In the second and third pic.....the tiger is slightly too far back.....which i`ve already told you. And....note that the lion`s head size is near equal to that of the tiger. I could show you (and, it`ll look quite real when i do it) that the tiger, is indeed longer?"

Show me..because I have no clue where you are coming from.

"Looks can be deceiving. There is but a slight difference in the weights of these animals, with a slight advantage in favor of the tiger (only in the wild), due to a higher food intake. Body size evens out between the two. Lions are slightly taller, but tigers are slightly longer in head-to-body length."

I know it's hard to accept tigers as the largest cat....but shape up, man. Tigers are larger in captivity and in the wild..Guate already gave you all data regarding captive Siberians.....but it's hard, when your favorite animal is put down in the dump.

boldchamp

Apr 21 2012, 08:40 AM

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 08:33 AM

"In the second and third pic.....the tiger is slightly too far back.....which i`ve already told you. And....note that the lion`s head size is near equal to that of the tiger. I could show you (and, it`ll look quite real when i do it) that the tiger, is indeed longer?"

Show me..because I have no clue where you are coming from.

"Looks can be deceiving. There is but a slight difference in the weights of these animals, with a slight advantage in favor of the tiger (only in the wild), due to a higher food intake. Body size evens out between the two. Lions are slightly taller, but tigers are slightly longer in head-to-body length."

I know it's hard to accept tigers as the largest cat....but shape up, man. Tigers are larger in captivity and in the wild..Guate already gave you all data regarding captive Siberians.....but it's hard, when your favorite animal is put down in the dump.

Guate did not give me all of the data. He gave me all of the data he could find. I have twice as much data, and mines show quite similar weights. Limited data.....often brings limited results. I could point out 10 random humans, that might average 300 lbs. That does not mean that the people where they live, actually average that much.

The only way the tiger could be LARGER...is if it had a LARGER body. They might grow slightly HEAVIER in the wild (Bengals, not Siberians), but that is only due to food intake. Since i was like 14, or so, i`ve been searching and finding quite a lot of data on the weights and body measurements of these animals, and i remember the majority by heart. Trust me.....i know about the sizes of lions and tigers....it is quite equal, especially where, in hunting records, i consistently see similar numbers. That is no coincidence.....

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 08:56 AM

boldchamp

Apr 21 2012, 08:40 AM

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 08:33 AM

"In the second and third pic.....the tiger is slightly too far back.....which i`ve already told you. And....note that the lion`s head size is near equal to that of the tiger. I could show you (and, it`ll look quite real when i do it) that the tiger, is indeed longer?"

Show me..because I have no clue where you are coming from.

"Looks can be deceiving. There is but a slight difference in the weights of these animals, with a slight advantage in favor of the tiger (only in the wild), due to a higher food intake. Body size evens out between the two. Lions are slightly taller, but tigers are slightly longer in head-to-body length."

I know it's hard to accept tigers as the largest cat....but shape up, man. Tigers are larger in captivity and in the wild..Guate already gave you all data regarding captive Siberians.....but it's hard, when your favorite animal is put down in the dump.

Guate did not give me all of the data. He gave me all of the data he could find. I have twice as much data, and mines show quite similar weights. Limited data.....often brings limited results. I could point out 10 random humans, that might average 300 lbs. That does not mean that the people where they live, actually average that much.

The only way the tiger could be LARGER...is if it had a LARGER body. They might grow slightly HEAVIER in the wild (Bengals, not Siberians), but that is only due to food intake. Since i was like 14, or so, i`ve been searching and finding quite a lot of data on the weights and body measurements of these animals, and i remember the majority by heart. Trust me.....i know about the sizes of lions and tigers....it is quite equal, especially where, in hunting records, i consistently see similar numbers. That is no coincidence.....

I don't care what age you've been studying this at..that means nothing.

It's something called favoritism..and I'll just quote apollyon's response for that:

"The two words are synonyms.

The Siberian is longer than the Lion and heavier. Hence it is larger and/or bigger.

The Lion may be 'taller'. One can't say the Tiger is not larger unless one defines the terms. One can say 'they are both comparable is size in terms of dimensions, but the Tiger is heavier. "

boldchamp

Apr 21 2012, 09:03 AM

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 08:56 AM

boldchamp

Apr 21 2012, 08:40 AM

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 08:33 AM

"In the second and third pic.....the tiger is slightly too far back.....which i`ve already told you. And....note that the lion`s head size is near equal to that of the tiger. I could show you (and, it`ll look quite real when i do it) that the tiger, is indeed longer?"

Show me..because I have no clue where you are coming from.

"Looks can be deceiving. There is but a slight difference in the weights of these animals, with a slight advantage in favor of the tiger (only in the wild), due to a higher food intake. Body size evens out between the two. Lions are slightly taller, but tigers are slightly longer in head-to-body length."

I know it's hard to accept tigers as the largest cat....but shape up, man. Tigers are larger in captivity and in the wild..Guate already gave you all data regarding captive Siberians.....but it's hard, when your favorite animal is put down in the dump.

Guate did not give me all of the data. He gave me all of the data he could find. I have twice as much data, and mines show quite similar weights. Limited data.....often brings limited results. I could point out 10 random humans, that might average 300 lbs. That does not mean that the people where they live, actually average that much.

The only way the tiger could be LARGER...is if it had a LARGER body. They might grow slightly HEAVIER in the wild (Bengals, not Siberians), but that is only due to food intake. Since i was like 14, or so, i`ve been searching and finding quite a lot of data on the weights and body measurements of these animals, and i remember the majority by heart. Trust me.....i know about the sizes of lions and tigers....it is quite equal, especially where, in hunting records, i consistently see similar numbers. That is no coincidence.....

I don't care what age you've been studying this at..that means nothing.

It's something called favoritism..and I'll just quote apollyon's response for that:

"The two words are synonyms.

The Siberian is longer than the Lion and heavier. Hence it is larger and/or bigger.

The Lion may be 'taller'. One can't say the Tiger is not larger unless one defines the terms. One can say 'they are both comparable is size in terms of dimensions, but the Tiger is heavier. "

The Siberian is what....2-3 inches longer? And that lion is at least that much taller (trust me...i have more data than Guate showed, which i`ve told you a billion times), and even more, in some cases, on average. The adult male lions of the Addis Ababa zoo, for instance, averaged 110 cm in shoulder height. Where are they bigger?

In the wild, the Siberian weighs, on average, from 183-185 kg, which is about the same as the african lion. Bengals average 196.5 kg in the wild....not a great deal more. Bengals, in the wild, enjoy a higher food intake....hence, they grow slightly heavier. They have no such luxury in captivity (though in some places, the zoos feed the tigers more).

This is not favotitism, but instead a gathering of ALL the available data, and making a judgement that way.

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 09:11 AM

boldchamp

Apr 21 2012, 09:03 AM

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 08:56 AM

boldchamp

Apr 21 2012, 08:40 AM

P Tigris

Apr 21 2012, 08:33 AM

"In the second and third pic.....the tiger is slightly too far back.....which i`ve already told you. And....note that the lion`s head size is near equal to that of the tiger. I could show you (and, it`ll look quite real when i do it) that the tiger, is indeed longer?"

Show me..because I have no clue where you are coming from.

"Looks can be deceiving. There is but a slight difference in the weights of these animals, with a slight advantage in favor of the tiger (only in the wild), due to a higher food intake. Body size evens out between the two. Lions are slightly taller, but tigers are slightly longer in head-to-body length."

I know it's hard to accept tigers as the largest cat....but shape up, man. Tigers are larger in captivity and in the wild..Guate already gave you all data regarding captive Siberians.....but it's hard, when your favorite animal is put down in the dump.

Guate did not give me all of the data. He gave me all of the data he could find. I have twice as much data, and mines show quite similar weights. Limited data.....often brings limited results. I could point out 10 random humans, that might average 300 lbs. That does not mean that the people where they live, actually average that much.

The only way the tiger could be LARGER...is if it had a LARGER body. They might grow slightly HEAVIER in the wild (Bengals, not Siberians), but that is only due to food intake. Since i was like 14, or so, i`ve been searching and finding quite a lot of data on the weights and body measurements of these animals, and i remember the majority by heart. Trust me.....i know about the sizes of lions and tigers....it is quite equal, especially where, in hunting records, i consistently see similar numbers. That is no coincidence.....

I don't care what age you've been studying this at..that means nothing.

It's something called favoritism..and I'll just quote apollyon's response for that:

"The two words are synonyms.

The Siberian is longer than the Lion and heavier. Hence it is larger and/or bigger.

The Lion may be 'taller'. One can't say the Tiger is not larger unless one defines the terms. One can say 'they are both comparable is size in terms of dimensions, but the Tiger is heavier. "

The Siberian is what....2-3 inches longer? And that lion is at least that much taller (trust me...i have more data than Guate showed, which i`ve told you a billion times), and even more, in some cases, on average. The adult male lions of the Addis Ababa zoo, for instance, averaged 110 cm in shoulder height. Where are they bigger?

In the wild, the Siberian weighs, on average, from 183-185 kg, which is about the same as the african lion. Bengals average 196.5 kg in the wild....not a great deal more. Bengals, in the wild, enjoy a higher food intake....hence, they grow slightly heavier. They have no such luxury in captivity (though in some places, the zoos feed the tigers more).

This is not favotitism, but instead a gathering of ALL the available data, and making a judgement that way.

We've gone over this so many times...but I'm just going to call it quits.

Go get a dictionary, look up the term bigger, larger; etc.

Then, tell me how one applies the same for each...And I'll await your new pic.