The original response can be viewed here, on the Wildfact googleplus site, under their post, "The largest individual species" thread.
Or the view the original message here in the link below, as its easier with all the video links synced up to the current times, when clicked on. https://plus.google.com/b/110520841421758443460/110520841421758443460/posts/RzHnxYyDe2e?sfc=false
Hey Peter, just to let you know, you don't have to be so paranoid of debating the lion vs tiger subject, I noticed you said it would be good for business, so why not open the debate back up, instead of banning anyone that post something in favor of the lion. I mean you're showing some ridiculous bias here.
Below is a response to this, its a bit long, but I'm being thorough for
the sake of accuracy. I have the data & links organized, and I type
decently fast, so its no problem to do a post like this.
You say lion fans cause the trouble, really...is trouble posting real facts backed up with real evidence from multiple sources, I always show the source and put the link to it, and I never called anyone names or used any offensive language. This cannot be said of many of the tiger fans on your site such as Pckts, Kingtherpod, Quate, Rolfcopters, ect. these guys have spammed up sites, hacked into other lion fansites destroying all the info. Lucky we had it backed up. And they do not post the accessible links to accounts, nor do they investigate the full background to the accounts, again we did that. I'm still investigating.
I can tell you, you don't have all the info, you have some modern trainers that you talked to, and anyone know's that has researched this such as I have, many current circus trainers do everything they can to avoid any fights or anything whatsoever including talking about it. They don't want to talk about it, or they'll do a down the middle thing to neutralize the conversation, such as both are equal, there's no winner.
You have contrived from those conversations your own un scientific theory, claiming there is no species related aggression. Back when they had fights, almost no mixed cat trainer agrees with that, you say well those guys were bias, or they have preference...really, all of them, and almost all saying the same thing. Bert Noyes, Peter Taylor,
How about Hoover, did you see the quotes where he says he doesn't like lions, he doesn't like working with them, he likes the tigers much better and they are far better to work with, the lions cause the trouble, but he said without a doubt, the lion wins in the fights, do you think a full grown man with a brain is only talking about gang ups, of course not, hes formulating that opinion because hes actually seeing the tiger getting whipped by single exchanges not just group fights.
Have you seen all the Hoover quotes available? Hoover prefers tigers, look at the quote at 47 minutes and 55 seconds in, ?t=2875 How is this mans opinion bias?
Did you know Beatty actually liked tigers more early in his act, and wanted his audience to watch them instead of the lions. Beatty didn't always have as many tigers early on, and when he got them, they were more of novelty to him than the cheaper lions. His early quotes reflect this, this is where he seems more neutral, and is very impressed with the difference in the speed at which the tiger strikes and defends itself compared to the lions which hes so used to looking at. In other words the tigers more springing attacks and energy was added new and different excitement for his act, he liked this and wanted the audience to see it.
"Add accident, two or three times a year. His next may come In Pampa tonight—or where no one can foretell. 'Tigers Vicious.' He likes for his audience to watch his tigers. 'Most people instinctively watch the lions which because of their roars and majestic bends, appear the more dangerous. But the tigers are but slightly smaller, much faster, and diabolical In their frenzied attacks. The lion crushes; the tiger tears and rips." Quote: Clyde Beatty 1932https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/9096727/
A few years later in his next book after he leaves Hagenbeck and Bert Nelson takes over that act, he states hes always thought the tiger was a more attractive animal, with a dancers grace in its stealthy step, the curving arch of its spine paints a prettier picture than the lion. Yet he is awed by the aggression and defiance of a lion named Detroit equally, how is this bias? Check the quote out, 49 minutes and 16 seconds in, ?t=2956
You say there is no species related aggression, again this flies in the face of nature, a wolverine is more aggressive than a large bear or wolf, a bobcat is more aggressive than a lynx and can beat the larger lynx in a fight sometimes. I suggest you check out this animal documentary of fights between animals of the same kind, You can purchase this cheap with paypal, fighting is a necessity in a wild animals life to survive. Yet you seem to be unable to discuss this with perhaps the most fight prone mammal in all the wild animal kingdom, the lion.
The documentary is called Family Feud, because the naturalist Marty Stouffer is telling us, fights happen most within the same families. Because they are the closest competitors within each others territories and prey on similar competition. What this means, is back when lions and tigers coexisted in India, they being in the same family with a similar prey base would absolutely be having conflicts, just as all these North American animals are proven to. And we have actual conflicts where the two big cats met, yet you've turned a blind eye to them. I suppose this was because the lion won, or perhaps because the tiger didn't fair that well. Go check out Marty Stouffer's spectacular Showdowns as well, you'll see a mountain lion and Lynx fight, if these two cats have conflict, why wouldn't lions and tigers have if in similar areas?
If there is a valuable territory such as a river where prey source is abundant in India, do you think a lion wouldn't battle a tiger in that territory in India? It just so happens that in 3 of the wild accounts that we have, all 3 are at rivers, two the lion killed the tiger, and one was a tie.
The lion is far more aggressive to fight, so in that sense, your statement is completely wrong, there is species related aggression differences to fighting in the lion compared to the tiger, and actual wild studies also show this. Boldchamp has a whole host of info on this.
Pat Anthony liked tigers more, yet what did he say, the lion will fight anything, anytime, anywhere, without being provoked. He doesn't say that about a the tiger. Siegfried and Roy said there was a total difference, you've seen those quotes.
The lion is a bit bigger because of his mane," says Pat, "but the tiger is almost the same size...the male lion will fight anything, anytime, any where without provocation. Quote: Pat Anthony
The trainer Alan Gold has said instinctively the tiger wants nothing to do with the lion, they're afraid, so does this confirm Beatty's statements, in the bigcat world in which he operates in the tiger avoids the lion, and it has an innate fear of it?
"Instinct is telling tigers they want nothing to do with lions," he said. "The cats are so afraid the lions are going to jump down on their backs. I Hope I Get Out Alive" Quote: Alan Gold
Important to note, Gold had more tigers than lions, he had Siberians, and he seated the tigers with the odds in their favor, I have the footage of his mixed act at that time. At 1 hour and 11 minutes and 21 seconds in. ?t=4281
Now not only that, but I can absolutely prove you're wrong in saying there is no species related aggression, because in the North Korean pit fights, they had to actually find Nepal tigers that were living closer together with greater aggression in order to give the lions a better fight. The North Korean bias for the tiger were pitting Siberians against who knows what type a lion, and guess what, the Siberians were losing, they couldn't get through the mane, and they were reluctant to fight, they didn't like it. This was from lairwebs researchers, they were not bias, the site was a tiger conservation site.
Now likewise, the Koreans would then to make it equal have to match 600lb lions with the highest aggression of their species vs the Nepalese tigers, and I think the lion would win. But what this account shows, is even a bias country, using the largest tigers Siberians most likely against smaller lions, could not get them to win, they could only win when finding the largest more aggressive tiger subspecies available. And can we even trust them on that?
Anyways I could go on and on, aggression to fight matters, lions by species are more aggressive to fight, and at home doing so, tigers as a species do not like fighting, and are not as mentally equipped to do so. This puts them at a huge disadvantage, because the mental game is as important as the physical, any athlete or human fighter would admit that. Beatty saw this pan out in his acts, but there are reasons some people have more mental confidence, and its often because they are actually more talented, so the fight is easier for them to carry out. Confidence doesn't just come from practice, but it comes from an innate ability, the lion is a more confident fighter, because its actually a great fighter. The tiger has more hindleg agility, but it doesn't mean its better as a species dukeing it out for a living and exchanging blows on the head from other cats.
The other thing you said, is you can't debate the fight accounts, again you're wrong on that, you actually can easy if you do it categories with strict rules. For instance, for fights, break it down, one thread would be fights to the death only, male vs male only, another thread would be fights not unto death, male vs male only. Each fight must have the accessible links to it, so everyone can click on it themself, every account posted must show the date and year, so it cannot be repeated, every account must show the full background to it, in another words if another account has further info on that account, it must be posted, to which I could easily do, because we have all the accounts with much more new added background info.
If you do that, there will not be flame wars. You also can do a separate thread of fight accounts within their categories posted in chronological order, again to avoid repeats, the tiger fans on your site like Pctks, Kingtherpod others will not do this, they lie and make stuff up and exaggerate accounts. I guess my question is, can you do this? Do you think there hasn't been a fair fight between two of these cats through history, both adult healthy specimens, because I know there has, just scrutinize the accounts.
You can even make a separate thread, that only post the most valid fight accounts, the ones where you have enough convincing valid background info, that both cats were strong and healthy, and both had a fair chance of winning the fight.
So far, we are the only ones to do this, putting in the full background to all the accounts available in chronological order, with accessible links. If you review all the most credible accounts, you will see, yes the lion comes out on top considerably. There are very few adult healthy male lions that have lost to tigers in even fights. Most are not adults, or some other advantage aided the tiger in the win, if you don't believe me, than check the accounts out yourself for both sides, its not even close. You couple that with fights not unto death, and the lion wins by a margin that is almost identical to Beatty's quotes, 9 times out of 10. Yeah it sounds bias, but is it, the fights unto death show this, the lion is going to likely get to the tigers throat before the tiger gets to its.