Search this Topic:
Thu, Apr 16, 2009 6:17 AM
Tags : None
Thu, Apr 16, 2009 9:02 AM
Fri, Apr 17, 2009 11:34 AM
Sat, Apr 18, 2009 9:21 PM
this is a fight of 'MISFITS' male lions are ALWAYS bigger then 300 pounds unless their not full grown, and a 300 pound Jaguar is too big to move.
Sat, Apr 18, 2009 9:29 PM
Sat, Apr 18, 2009 10:33 PM
Sun, Apr 19, 2009 12:40 AM
Sun, Apr 19, 2009 12:41 AM
Sun, Apr 19, 2009 11:12 PM
Mon, Apr 20, 2009 4:44 AM
Lions are truly the king of beasts, in both action, and looks!
Mon, Apr 20, 2009 4:19 PM
Tue, Apr 21, 2009 3:26 AM
Tue, Apr 21, 2009 4:24 PM
Thu, Apr 23, 2009 12:43 AM
Hmm, that is an interesting picture of the after effects of a fight between lion-jaguar. The jaguar literally got its leg bitten off.
The lion wins in this match up. There are the many factors to consider, such as evolutionary behaviour, whereby the lion will actively seek out rival cats or
predators and kill them, the mane factor, which acts as an efficient deterent to the jaguar as well as providing protection in the throat area.
I actually find the overdependence on bite force and strength argument an extremely weak case, almost pathetically so. Bite force is important but zealously
using it exclusively as a determinant to identify the winner is just narrow-mindedness. There are much more factors than merely biteforce when deciding the
outcome of a fight.
Based on Wroe's report provided courtesy of reddhole, the jaguar (83kg) has a bite force of only 1014 N as opposed to a lion (295kg) having a biteforce of
1768 N. What makes you think that the jaguar can catch up to the lion's bite force at parity, when even Raphael Heng doesn't think so. Are you for
real? Don't give me that lb for lb excuse, especially since some of you argued rather comically that the hyena's "much greater bite force"
would ensure it totally destroying a wolf at parity.
I can honestly say besides apollyon, perrault and bold champ, every other person who gave their opinion here lacks objectivity, just want the lion to lose at
every possible instance and really can't give an opinion that doesn't go straight to the dust bin. People, don't be hypocritical. If you argued
bite force at parity was an important consideration in a fight, then keep that view. Just don't turn 180 when the animal involved is one which you
don't particularly like.
Thu, Apr 23, 2009 2:34 AM
Thu, Apr 23, 2009 11:11 AM
Fri, Apr 24, 2009 11:34 AM
Are you sure that image is of a Jaguar? Its far too hairy for a Jaguar. Its more likely a Leopard according to me, though its just a speculation and it could
be a Jaguar too.
The reasons why I feel its a Leopard is because ; (a) It skin hair longer than usual for a Jaguar (b)Its rosettes are not large enough that are usual for
Jaguars (c) It looks small in size (more the size of a Leopard).
The reason why it could be a Jaguar is perhaps because of its front paw size and more stocky front leg. Even if its a Jaguar, its a smaller specimen.
Anyway, a Jaguar's rosettes are much larger and prominent compared to that of a Leopard; Check these:-
Whether it is a Jaguar or a Leopard, it most likely fought an average sized Lion which would be much larger than it. So, its still impressive for the Jaguar
to have survived.
Fri, Apr 24, 2009 11:35 AM
Fri, Apr 24, 2009 12:27 PM
Fri, Apr 24, 2009 1:55 PM
Sat, Mar 15, 2014 2:38 PM
© 2014 Yuku. All rights reserved.