The myth that a Tiger is superior to the Lion

It seems, that for some time, many have the idea that a Tiger will always beat the Lion and is genuinely superior. The Wikipedia page is also massively biased towards that view; however, personally I've felt it could go either way --- there is genuine evidence of Lions proving superior, contrary to internet belief. The evidence as below:

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=8748

65 accounts of Male Lions killing Male Tigers; with some of those Tigers being Siberian (the vast majority Bengal) and the Lion's fighting experience / mane proving an advantage. The evidence is compelling to the point where a University Professor cites it so (though.....make what you will of his opinion). Though, it's sad that there are so many accounts of the fight, it's interesting to wonder what would happen to a degree.

Lion >>>> Tiger

I figure it's a battle of stats (Tiger) vs skill (Lion) which ultimately comes down to the individual fighter. Although honestly I favour the Tiger, they seem more agile, have better damage output with their claws/bite (I think), and have a few pounds on the lion.

@i_like_swords: If it's the Siberian Tiger, then the Tiger will most likely win, though the link cites sources which have accounts of Male Lions savagely mauling Siberian Tigers.

In the case of an African Lion vs Bengal Tiger; it could go either way really, however the Lion has distinct qualities which make it such an event fight. The Lion's large mane will protect it from neck-bites, it's greater agility will allow it to grapple better and male Lions spend the first 4 years of their lives learning how to fight, in preparation for future prides.

I'm not sure if they're more agile though, the Tiger's are heavier and stronger.

I will always back my Leo brethren. However, I'd rather leave the answer unanswered for the same reason I want to deny that people fight dogs illegally.

That is fair but interestingly, many of the accounts aren't even forced. Some of the accounts from the link are literally just Lions attacking Tigers for no reason, or breaking into their area.

It's debated among Zoologists, but most seem to side with Tigers overall due to them being faster stronger etc and being solitary animals, and never having any reliance on a pride. Male lions don't hunt as often or are as active as females, but that doesn't help their case.

There are of course cases of Lions fighting off Tigers, but there are of the opposite as well. That's nature and combat. Even the best trained and best equipped soldier can still be killed.

There are cases of that, of course; however, the cases cited in the link are much harder to find as their documentation is weaker, but they exist. Male Lions have been documented to maul Male Tigers.

Some of the sources are interesting because there are accounts of African Lions killing Siberian Tigers, which is rarer than African Lions killing Bengal Tigers.

Tigers aren't faster either. I don't know how that works because Lions are adapted to the long and open terrain of Africa. They have to chase down their prey. Tigers are instead stealthier and are less reliant on chasing down prey.

The title is a little broad. Both are superior in different aspects.

If we mean in a head to head match both can hypothetically win. It all depends on the situation.

@frozen: Female Lions, but males no. Males don't hunt nearly as frequently.

I assume this is in response to my comment of speed.

Both Lions and Tigers sleep for around 20 hours per day. Male Lions do not hunt as often but they do join in, and often help in taking down much larger prey: they are in the majority of cases superior to a Lioness, unless the Lioness is protecting it's cubs.

I think it could go either way, can't really say which one is superior..

The Lion is superior to the tiger.

No question. No doubt.

This sums up what i wanted to say perfectly, though I personally back the Tiger in this fight

@frozen: The Smithsonian has this to say about it, and considering their credentials and scientists, I'll go with them.

In Kruger Males actually hunt quite frequently, but just after different prey.

@laflux: See my above post.

*drops mic*

Saw it. I was Whelmed.

I think most people genuinely think tigers are superior to lions due to the fact they are solitary hunters in comparison to lions. While its debatable between male lions and male tigers in solo fights, female tigers seem superior to female lions in that aspect of them taking down large prey by themselves rather than working as a team. There have been reports of single tigers taking down water buffalo, bears, crocodiles, rhinos or elephants by themselves when an entire pride can sometimes fail to catch a zebra. I think in this aspect many would think of a tiger being superior to a lion. Plus the fact, lions are considered royal and royalty is considered snobby and arrogant while tigers are lonesome badass and considered cooler.

I think the word is 'humbled' =P

And you aren't Nightwing, you can't steal 'whelmed'!

Upon review I decided humbled wasn't the proper word. It was a decision I've made after a near 12 hour training day though, so you'll understand the poor word choice. My 5 mile run cleared my head of that. My wits burnt out about 4 hours ago, so I've got no witty reply.

If it helps at all I asked the wife, she sides with tiger as well more often than not.

@granitesoldier: I side with the Tiger too. And not just because your Nubian White Queen said so too (although it does help).

Also, does your wife offer private tution for Undergrads?

I feel like male lions are superior. Sure, they don't hunt, but their mane (pun) job is fighting off other lions, to protect the pride. They have fighting experience.

@granitesoldier: I see marriage jokes coming your way.

MY FEELINGS FOR HIS WIFE ARE NO JOKE!!

Who really cares??

Most lions and tigers are endangered for sh*tty reasons, instead of speculating which animal would win in a fight like 8 year olds you should be doing what you can to help preserve them. Save dem animalz!!

There was a show a while back that examined fights like this. They did Lion vs Tiger and the tiger's instinct to aim for the neck was countered by the lion's mane which is too big to get a grip on. Assuming we're talking about adult males.

What, no Napoleon Dynamite refference?

Jmarshmallow

True words :)

@granitesoldier: I was going to say that I always assumed the "myth" was true due to male lion being lazier and generally less active/rusty in comparison to tigers.

@cattlebattle: How do you make a Superman movie sell? Have Batman fight him. Same logic applies here. ;)

Of interest is there is actually an Asian subspecies of lion, that has a smaller mane among other things. It only has 411 numbers, however, but zoos are competing for breeding programmes and they all live in a single sanctuary. Still, it's a miracle they're not extinct.

Oh man. Granite's gonna call for fire.

I think Lions are one of the most fearless cats in the family. Those guys are fighters.

Oh anyone who believes male Lions to be "lazy" is most definitely incorrect. They are pretty well active, however they are just not as active as others, especially a solitary creature like a Tiger.

The Smithsonian article touches on that a bit, as do the links they provide in their article. I think the most interesting thing was just comparing how aggression and "1-shot 1-kill" Tigers are comparatively.

I'd personally favor the lion, which is usually underrated, but the tiger probably wins. This generally depends on the type of each, of course, but in general, tigers have more strength and stamina.

This is a decent fight:

Lions usually don't chase down their prey so much, as it's usually a lioness, but of course that doesn't entirely mean lions aren't capable of doing the same, which has been recorded before, IIRC. Tigers do have rather remarkable speed but they do tend to get first strikes as well because of their hunting nature.

Interesting because the experts have their facts mixed up. It states a Tiger weighs up to 800lbs: that's clearly wrong (they are actually about 200lbs lighter than what it states), only the largest Tigers in captivity have gotten to that weight, and if we take that standard, the Lion has exceeded 530lbs in captivity.

The vast majority of the sources in your link are detailed in wikipedia: which is countered by the link I posted, which provides detailed accounts and evidence of Lions actually killing Tigers. Just demonstrating that a Lion killing a Tiger has happened many times.

Tigers are generally superior due to increased size. Doesn't mean all tigers beat all lions.

@frozen: Well considering the link you provided is essentially a blog (ask a biologist) and that the Smithsonian is one of the most respected scientific institutions on the planet, I doubt they would simply just throw something up without doing thorough and viable research. Doing anything but could be detrimental to their reputation. So I think I'll side with them.

As for your second point, sure, they admit Lions have killed Tigers. However it would seem history sides with Tigers winning more often than not.

My link was not just a blog written by a random user with the driving point being his subjective opinion. Your link may have established credentials but it cited incorrect information, Tigers do not reach 800lbs unless in captivity for prolonged period of time and massively over-fed.

My link was a blog, which linked to official news articles, videos and documentaries of Lions killing Tigers. There is a difference between a simple blog and a blog which gives you credible sources of the fights happening.

Real evidence > scientist interpretation of who would win.

Mmmh, depends on the sub-species. Sure, a Siberian Tiger could win MORE OFTEN than not (though, the blog cites sources of Lions killing Siberians), but a 500lb + African Lion vs a 500lb + Bengal Tiger is tricky.

@granitesoldier: Oh just to expand on my earlier point, Lions hunt in Kruger because the area has more Woody fauna, which enables Lions to creep closer to Prey despite thier manes. They also tend to Hunt different Prey too. Females tend to favor Gnu and Zebra, while Males hunt among other animals, Warthogs and Buffalo.

@frozen: Up to meaning some of the heaviest were recorded there. They average differently depending on species but on average weigh more and have more muscle.

How is it not real science? BBC, Live Science, CBS, references to books on Roman history aren't real? You're basically claiming confirmation bias, but there is none apparent and have no evidence to back confirmation bias up. This is as real, more so, than what you posted. Seems you have some confirmation bias.

On average, like this and other articles state, Tigers are just more aggressive and go for killing blows instantly. Just like they say. The article is sound and if you think they are biases then take it up with the Smithsonian.

Edit: check out bigcatrescure.org as well, an organization dedicated to the research, study, and preservation of big wild cats like lions and tigers. They have the same conclusion.

Tigers are the GOAT big cats. Lions can't compare.

@granitesoldier:

1. If the blog is using the heaviest recorded weights then it is wrong. The heaviest recorded Tiger was 1,000lbs + and the heaviest recorded Lion is more than 530lbs.

2. That is NOT what I said. I claimed that the evidence >>> a subjective interpretation. I never said the accounts weren't real, I simply retorted by telling you that the evidence in the OP blog is what makes the blog credible, not simply saying ''it's a blog''

Obvious bias is obvious :)

Jaguars are GOAT.

Maybe something to do with the tiger's mindset?

@frozen: There's not a subjective interpretation. The writer uses actual events, scientific backing, and credible organizations' research to support her own. She made an average generalization on high end weight, and you're nitpicking over it. Look at the other article as well. It's short but makes it's point.

These are credible organizations who research these animals for a living, I'm inclined to side with them.

@laflux: Hey he may be biased but he isn't wrong haha :p even my wife agrees! (Although she also prefers wolves over big cats but whatever lol).

Hey, I agree Tigers win, but Saren is from India, so the bias is there to see :P

@laflux: I did not know Saren was from India. I've learned something today.