I'm sure this has probably been discussed before. I did a search, but, didn't come up with much. So, I apologize if this is a repeat.

Here is the clip:A Real Lion vs Tiger Fight (Not staged)

And here is the description:
The well-known Clyde Beatty film, "The Big Cage", documents a circus on the verge of bankruptcy. Beatty's attempted performance erupted into a shocking fight which was recorded on film.
In the story, Beatty tames the cats and continues in the tradition of 'the show must go on'. Privately Beatty admitted even he had no possible hope of separating the big cats and the lion went on to maul the tiger to death.
For over 50 years the scene was thought by viewers to be a well-staged dramatic scene, but is now recognised as a documentary showing an actual killing.

Here is a link giving more information regarding the clip: Interspecies Conflict: Which animal is the ultimate carnivore?
A very good read and makes the most sense to me


What is even more bizarre is that I later found these video clips:

Tiger vs Lion Interspecies Conflict lairwebs Analysis Pardon the bad spelling and grammar in this "documentary".

Tiger vs Lion, Tiger domination

Tigresses vs Lions (Tigress defeats Male Lion 6 times)

Some people obviously disagree over the outcomes of the fights.
I just found this stuff interesting to share and I am looking forward to people's opinions about Tigers VS. Lions

Very interesting! Sad to see that so many of those videos were staged or in zoos/circuses where the animals could have been prevented from interacting and fighting, but at least the majority were from a long time ago. Definitely interesting to see fighting behavior I've read about and recognize in my own cats.

I'm still wondering how the lion got out of the hold the tiger had on his neck.....thats crazy after the lion got out of that hold the tiger looked like it lost its will to fight

I think the lion got out of the hold the tiger had on him because of his thick mane. Chances are the tiger only had a mouthful of fur and not skin.
The link I posted explains why in this circumstance that the lion would be the ultimate carnivore. Here are some excerpts from that link:
"In the case of a lion killing another maned male many have learnt to attack beyond the mane, usually at the back of the front leg.
This happens particularly in southern areas where the lions have very thick manes. It is a purely learnt behaviour and the tiger would not know this technique, having never needed to use it."
And here again is the link itself:Interspecies Conflict: Which Animal is the Utimate Carnivore?
It also talks about other animals, a good read

I'm definately going to read those links later.

I'd assume a lioness could beat a lion because she is more experienced in hunting.

But the Tiger/Lion thing.... Not sure. I guess I'd still pick Lion, but like any fight if someone's got a little luck, or someone's having a bad day... it Will affect the outcome...

I wonder how a Tiger *trained* to hunt lions would fare?

eh a lions mane isnt so much a shiled as it is a threat mechanism. tigers are more peaceful then lions who fight all the time. tigers in the wild even will share big kills. no need to fight and possilby hurt yourself. these cats were probly agetated before they were place together to trigger the fight. or elevate it. just like bulls are proded and poked in bull fights and rodeos to get them mad. if u put a regualr bull into an arena it will be relativly calm. u need to spark the rage. a fully grown siberian tiger pitted against a lion the tiger would usualy win. its strong and has thick fur too. they have bene known to kill brown bears. but pound for pound the best fighter of the cat would would be the jaguar. its horrible that they woudl put these big cats into fights though.

GRRRRRRrrrrrrr!

From what i know. Lions travel more in packs, and the males guard the family and territory, while the females hunt for food. The male lion would be able to kill a female, but this would never happen.

Tigers travel more in a solo fashion. Lions stick together.

Ding ding ding! You are correct! That is one use of the mane

haha male lions definalty kill female lions. and them ane does not do much in the defence department. it helps a little but its more for making them look bigger and badder.

http://media.putfile.com/Tiger-owns-male-lion
http://media.putfile.com/tiggg
http://media.putfile.com/Tiglr
http://media.putfile.com/Tigerowns
http://media.putfile.com/Tiger-vs-Lion-2 (tigress)
http://media.putfile.com/Never-shows-this-lion-get-up

An this lion in the big cage it never shows it get up. the one by the bars. it cuts scenes cleverly

There is no mystery here. WHat we have is a fake made up site by a biased lionfan fanatic
maxine annabella. All was was cut off. Until the whole was uploaded. SO every body repeat made up internet site for idiots to take and go uhhhhhhhhh yah im an idiot. An a video of a tigress victory cut off by crooked lionfans. Maxine is brainless a horrible horrific debater. A lion has never killed a tigress or tiger on film. I have watched a lion die. On ramar of the jungle old tv series. etc. But there is no mystery here. a made up site. an let me tell you something none of that on maxines fairy tales interspecies conflict is correct. its obious she hates the tiger it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure that out. did you know that you could not find one source saying a lion had any success against tiger. its rare i mean rare. a male tiger from nepal siberian tiger. kaziranga park etc would just it wouldnt be a fight. it would cruel and unusual punishment for the lion.



NO LION IS EVEN A CHALLENGER. EVEN A CHALLENGER TO A LARGE MALE TIGER. IT IS SO LOPSIDED WORDS CANNOT DESCRIBE. I MEAN ITS NOT EVEN WORTH DEBATING. LETS GO DOWN TO TIGRESSES AND SMALL TINY TIGERS. BECAUSE A LARGE MALE BENGAL AND SIBERIAN TIGERS MOVE ONE. YOUR LION GETS ITS SKULL CRUSHED. NOW THESE ARE SOURCES. NOT SOME MADE UP FAIRY TALE SITE. YOU SEE YOU CANT JUST LINK A SITE FOR A REFERENCE. I COULD MAKE A THOUSAND. SOURCES BACKED UP PBS A SOURCE PER EXAMPLE SAID LIONS WERENT EVEN A COMPETITOR TO A TIGER. BIG CAT EXPERTS ALL SOURCES SAY LIONS WHERE SLAUGHERTED AND GUTTED BY TIGERS.

BUT LET THAT STOP YOU NEANDRATHALS WHEN YOU SEE LIONS AGAINST TIGRESSES AND SMALL TIGERS, THAT A LION CAN STAND TO A LEGITIMATE SIZE TIGER. BECAUSE IT CANT, IVE SEEN IT, AND LION NO MATTER THE SIZE IS A TENNIS BALL TO PLAY WITH FOR THE TIGER.

SOURCES
____________________________
1)Tiger
The Ultimate Predator
http://www.wildlywise.com/tiger_predator.htm

2)The Tiger is the ultimate predator
http://www.robertefuller.com/RobertEFullersite/bigcats.htm

3)This observation was confirmed more recently in the 1950’s by a keeper in the Bronx Zoo, where a lion cub named Zambezi and a young tiger named Ranee were raised together. There occasional fights always resulted in a victory for the tiger. Alfred Martini, the keeper, described the tiger as being the better fighter, “like a clever boxer against a heavy hitter, shrewder and trickier.â€� (Mel and Fiona Sunquist, 2002 page 287)"

4)“When the ancient Romans set tiger against lion in the Coliseum, the tiger invariably won…”
- The Living Edens

5)“ The lion is a less active animal than the tiger, and apparently not so powerful; in every case of a fight between the two in a menagerie the tiger has invariably killed his opponent.” (Referring to the Asiatic lion) (pg. 212)
- Big Game Shooting by Clive Phillipps- Wolley

6)“In fights between a tiger and a lion in the wild, the tiger is usually the winner.
- The Rudiments of Wisdom Encyclopedia by Tim Hunkin

7)They have accidentally gotten into each otherÂ’s cages, and the tiger has killed the lion. As regard to their comparative courage in the presence of man, all evidence is in favor of the tiger. Yet the poets nearly always insist on having it the other way." (pg 497)
- A Handy Book of Curious Information

8)The tiger is a rare jewel in a treasure chest of truly spectacular Indian wildlife. When the ancient Romans set tiger against lion in the coliseum, the tiger invariably won. In some ways, the tiger is the ultimate predator.
-PBS.ORG

9)“ George Stubbs, the most famous and original animal painter of his time who was just reaching his peak in 1759, liked to display combats of lion versus tiger, though he did not commit the egregious mistake made in James Ward’s animal pictures painted later in the century where the lion symbolizes Britain and the tiger India; in reality, as we know very clearly from the obscene animal fights staged by the Ancient Romans in the arena, the tiger would win in such a sight every time.” (pg. 163)
- 1759: The Year Britain Became Master of the World

10)“In the Middle Ages a few lions were kept in European menageries in Germany, England France and Italy. The best known of these early zoological collections was one belonging to Henry I of England that was eventually moved to the Tower of London, where it remained until 1840. Occasionally lions where forced to fight tigers, but apparently the tigers always won.”
- Wild Cats of the World by Mel and Fiona Sunquist




ILL SAY IT AGAIN AGAINST TIGRESS AND AGAINST SMALLER TIGERS. YOU HAVE A CASE FOR THE MALE LION. BUT AGAINST MALE BENGAL AND SIBERIAN TIGERS YOU DONOT HAVE A CASE. ITS NOT EVEN WORTH DISCUSSING IT. ALL THE SOURCES IN THE WORLD UNANYMOUS TIGER. YOU CANNOT FIND A REAL SOURCE SUPPORTING THE LION.

I have yet to understand why this has become such a controversy that people can get all worked up over it.
Cool pictures, although it looks like in the second one the tiger is interacting with a much smaller, and very frightened looking, cougar.

Hello everyone.
I am new here and I have stumbled into the legendary argument of lions vs tigers. I am an American zoologist and I study and observe big cats ant their interaction with each other. I have been to Africa, India, America, Siberia and more places where big cats abound.
As for the matter of lions against tigers, I support neither. I rather like the Jaguar. But from my personal experiences while filming and observing, I would put my money on the lion.
A myth that must be cleared is that the Siberian tiger is the largest tiger but the Bengal tiger is the strongest and most ferocious.

Lets put the strongest of each animal against each other, namely the African Lion and the Bengal Tiger. (Both males)
-The tiger is heavier, longer, faster, more agile with stronger back leg muscles and a MUCH better swimmer.
-The lion is taller, stronger at the front legs and shoulder muscles, more ferocious, aggressive, stubborn and a better fighter than the tiger. Its mane almost totally eliminates a tigers ability to choke hold it.

NOW, in battle, speed is not even a factor. It is only useful in escaping the fight. Agility, however, is important. The tigers hind legs will allow it to move about faster than the lion. However, the swipe force of a lion is MUCH stronger than that of the tiger. In a clawing or swiping contest, the lion would always land the killer blow. Now, remember, the lion is more lazy and inactive than the tiger which is more fit. Their stamina and bite force is roughly equal. But here is where the fight comes to an end. The most dangerous and special move of both cats is the choke hold. The tiger is at extreme disadvantage here. It would swallow a mouthful of mane in its choke hold attempt whereas the Lion with impressive bite force would only have to grip the tiger tightly on the neck to kill it. It is important to understand that the lion is stronger than the tiger where it matters most, in the font legs that are used in clawing.

My personal observations of each animal separately and together support this.
-In a large circular cage in Mexico city I have seen an African male lion maul a larger Siberian tiger and an adolescent male Siberian tiger to death. The adolescent was a year old. It is extremely sad that these fights are used for entertainment but at the same time I was awed to see one lion defeat two large tigers with all 3 animals in the cage at the same time.
-My teammates and I were transporting a male African Lion into a cage neighboring a Bengal Tigers cage in Kenya. There was a small opening in between the two cages for intermingling of neighboring animals. It was supposed to be closed at the time but someone forgot to close it. The lion sprang from the transportation container through the opening and mauled the tiger of similar size. We tranquilized the lion but it was too late. Two days later, the tiger died due to fatal wounds. It was a very one sided fight where the lion spent much time chasing the tiger.

Please, do not believe any videos you see on the internet. They are all altered to favor either the tiger or the lion. And please, do not get so worked up on things such as tigers vs lions. I am not saying a lion will always beat a tiger. Tigers have been seen defeating lions. Individuals are different. But all other conditions being constant, the lion, according to observed statistics would win 7/10 of the time.

Zoologist, welcome to UM. Yours was a very interesting, informative posting. As a youth, many a year ago, I read an article somewhere or other that addressed the subject of lion versus tiger. The gist of that article mentioned historically the Romans conducted such battles in the Coliseum, centuries ago. The author of the article concluded in most cases the tiger would be victorious, and his logic was that the lion would retain a three-point stance, and "swing" with one paw. The author claimed the tiger would squat on its haunches and utilize both front paws.

I'd be curious your thoughts on that. Was it erroneous info? Thank you!

Am I the only person who is disturbed by this topic? What's the point of discussing which feline would win? It smacks of bloodsports to me.

Man ,all I can say is,This is the same as dog fighting and you all know where that topic can lead,Another thread that can be locked off, Me I dont care what anyone thinks but showing this stuff is wrong,still my money is on the tiger.Why dont they get along and make some ligers,Make love not war.

Hey is that a picture of your dog?Handsome looking fellow.I love dogs.

Yup, that's my boy. There are more pictures of him the the pets photo thread.

Thank you Incorrigible 1.
Firstly, let me also say that I in no way support animal fights. They are inhuman, inconsequential and only barbaric. But there is no harm in hypothesizing.

Yes that is true, the tiger would usually defeat the lion. I have discussed this with my historian friend. But there is a reason to that, you see. The Romans revered the tiger. It was somewhat holy to them, it was like an avatar to them. Uncovered sources say, my friend tells me, that the lion was weakened. It was stabbed in certain places in the lower side of the body and on the inside part of their legs. This was enough to weaken them and not kill them. By the way, the same was done in a man vs man fight to the man that was least liked or favored.

And yes, the 3 point stance you mentioned is very true. That is the lions most favored position. But note this: the lion has a characteristic in which it will mimic its opponent action. If the tiger were to utilize both paws, the lion would too. Of course, the lion stood less taller than the tiger. This smaller height of the lion while both lion and tiger are locked in a two legged brawl however favors the lion. It can get a lock on the underside of the neck or the area between the tigers front legs. The tiger, standing above the lion would be facing only a mane. Let it also be noted that the three point stance causes the one arm swipe to carry more force and weight behind a deadly blow. The 2 point stance of the tiger is good for wild slashing without much force behind it.

By the way, speaking of lions here is a very interesting fact:
In the time of the sabre-tooth there lived another cat, the ancient American lion. Like many animals it was much bigger than its descendants. A male then was 1.5 times as large as the present day male African lion, the largest cat ever to have walked the Earth. In times of desperation and lack of food, it would predate on sabre-tooth tigers. (Though well known for their teeth, sabre tooths are actually small body wise).

The male lion is generally proud, stubborn and obnoxious. It will fight to the death. The tiger, however, will avoid this. Tigers, I would say, therefore lack this ferocity. Lions have been known to kill hyenas that bother them and then throw away the carcass. This shows at times, they do not hunt for food, but to maintain the status quo, to show whos boss.
I hope this answers your question Incorrigible 1. Please feel free to ask again. I must say this forum is quite something.

Being a lifelong Nebraskan, I'm well aware of the prehistoric megafauna that covered the plains of my state, in the not-too-distant past. I've visited my state's Natural History museum, Morrill Hall. Nebraska is a treasure-trove for mammal fossil seekers, and smiledon remains have been recovered here.


The world's largest exhibited elephant skeleton, a 14-foot male mammoth, can be found on display in Morrill Hall. It is from the Late Pleistocene Era. The giant mammoth was found in 1922, in Lincoln County, Nebraska, by a rancher and his wife. They turned the fossil over to the Museum for exhibit and research.

I agree........... but a lion would win.


Welcome to UM The Zoologist you seem
more informative than most users and I
acutally enjoyed reading your posts.

Wow - the arguments set forth for the tiger videos, ring a familiar, bias bell. There was a Tiger fan running around the discovery forums, prattling about how tigers are 'FASTER QUICKER SMARTER MORE STRONGER BETTER THAN ALL CATZ THEY ARE THE BIGGEST HAVE THE LONGEST FANGZ AND REALLY SHARP CLAWZ SO NO ONE COULD BEAT THEM NOT EVN IN THE COLOSIUM (coliseum, mind you) WATCH THE VIDZ THERE ARE SIX TIGRESS KILLING MALE LIONZ THEY ARE LOOZERZ AND NOT FIGHTERZ THEY LAY AROUND ALL DAY AND DO NOTHING FEMALEZ HUNT MANES MAKES THE LIONZ OVERHEAT AND PASS OUT TIGERS ARE WINNERZ NO QUESTION AND ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFRENT IS A STUPID LION FAN, so on and so forth.
It was very annoying, immature, and clearly, persists to this day.
The failed debater's favorite line:
IT WAS A TIGRESS, IT WAS A TIGRESS! I DONT C BALLZ TIGER IS MORE SUPERIOR FIGHTER!

After seeing several videos that placed this theory in question, the Tiger devotee then raced about the net, hungry to find clips and data that would refute his/her ultimate fears - that Lions and Tigers were substantially equal, that one was not indeed better than the other - that combat was purely circumstantial. Having stripes didn't give you magic powers, and a mane didn't cause your head to drag on the ground (seriously, someone once tried to hide behind the idea that the Lion's mane was 'too' heavy for it to carry, without getting tired. Yeah. I need a rest when I wear a hat and hood too.). The result was wounded pride and empty-bellied trolling that eventually brought about the discussion's intellectual ruin.
Following the individual's humiliating realization, Lion vs. Tiger videos began cropping up on Youtube and Geocities, with comments similar to those stated above. Evidently, this person could not find any new films that boasted the Tiger's might, and had to demolish and demean existing clips by trying to convince naive onlookers that what he/she said, was Truth. Not surprisingly, any rational person watching the segments would see that the battles - their questionable filming and disdainful fragmenting set aside - were rather indecisive. In every case, the creatures are distracted, captive beasts, altered from their original state. The health, age, and genders are unknown. I have seen what looks like tiger-testes in the humorous 'Clyde' skirmish - but come on - it's a choppy black and white film. I love it when people spit IT WAZ A TIGREZZ ARE YOU BLIND???? It shows the simple level upon which they found their thoughts. The footage is crap in a debate. One could say that it proves the mane's ability to deflect blows - you can see hair flying all over the place when the stripped cat tries to land a blow - but then the opposing side could claim 'NO THAT WAS SOME IDIOT THROWING HAIRZ INTO THE RING LIKE A PROP TO MAKE IT LOOK MORE REALZ. LION GETZ TOTALLY DESTROYED'. Yeah. Real convincing. But who is to say it wasn't?
A lot of it comes down to how you WANT the video's outcome to be. I just viewed a segment where a Lion and Tiger met one another in a clawing dispute. It lasted less than two seconds. The hefty Tiger retreated, and the Lion turned around, but there was another Tiger lying behind him (who did not rush to the aid of his species, mind you). When the Lion abruptly swerved still growling discontent, the second Tiger, obviously confused and thinking the Lion to have turned his aggression towards it, sat upright and swatted the Lion’s face. The maned cat then trotted off down the slope, visibly perplexed. Tiger fans will say, 'Yeah - that tiger owned the lion!' and lion fans will say 'No - the lion owned the tiger'. The fight looked like an uncertain misunderstanding and was -maybe- twenty seconds - what a vicious blood bath! Now we've got them! Let's base all of our future decisions, on this one clip! We can use it as evidence!
The Gir tape is also questionable. The Lion did well - but at the end, we just see the Tiger roll over. The lion's body is practically missing from the shot. Everyone deems that 'it is written' - the Tiger died. I consider this movie, like all others, inconclusive.
A good rule of thumb. Unless you shot the film, raised the animals, and have proof of the deed - don't vouch for videos. They are extremely unreliable and always disputable.
Aside from that, watch what you read. Just because someone typed a pile of garbage and submitted it to a website, doesn't mean its true. Do your own research, draw your own conclusion - and most importantly, remember that others are entitled to an opinion, even if it is different from yours.

After reading that, I feel like I'm 16 again.

I agree with you on that. But it's really not a bloodsport unless Michael Vick is involved.