Amazing how bears were a top carnivore to Silver Prime just below lions until suddenly he now thinks all cats rule everything with lions at the top. Not counting tigers of course who somehow are not able to compete with any other big cat or even the small cats.
I actually went in thinking bears, more specifically brown and polar's were undisputed, atleast the exceptionally large ones, I even went in thinking siberian tigers were the head honcho of pantheras...appearntly with the facts showing the whole info...its far from the truth, and as goes tigers in terms being the less combative and formidable...I wouldnt be making that claim (now) that the data actually emits it.
If I am wrong about lions>tigers and it actually was Tigers>>>>>>>>>>>Lions. Then why did sites like jackjacksonj, yuku, wiki all go through great lengths to erase anything that was in favor of the lion? Why is there less than 20 acounts...Through all of history...showing a lion losing to a tiger, and yet 80% of that small list was of female lions losing to male tigers and young lions: via John vartys savannah (who John said him self she was druged), alipores zoo (the lioness was sleeping said so in the article), the male lion huerta was 2 years old while rajah an adult bengal, ankara theres no indication or proof of the lion having a mane or any gender/age.
You want me to belive that tigers/bears can whoop lions, than prove it with facts...not this fanboy bullshit, being subjective, non-essential, cherrypicking, lying and twisting facts...I mean, is it that hard? I can name right off the back 15 lions killing tiger names:
Clyde beattys animals (as he said were wild)
-Bosstweeds killed 3 tigers in one fight
-Caesar killed 3, 1 tiger Bobby (for the movie) and 2 in performances
-Sultan who whipped all his tigers, beat up lion nero and killed tiger Tommy.
-Detroit who killed 2 bengals and 1 siberian.
-Prince killed 3 bengals
-Memphis who killed one
-Tarzan and henry who killed 13 year old tiger toona.
-Nero who killed pasha.
-Duke and his mate kills 2 tigers
Other lions who killed tigers:
-Jugglar who killed rajah (George conklin)
-Nero killed tiger named tim (Perth zoo)
-Romeo Killed anne (Cental park)
-Roger a 1,000 lb tiger was killed by leo (Barnum and baile trainer Kose)
-Cheongi kills siberian Hobi (Jeonju zoo)
-Sultan kills isabella (Czech zoo)
-2 lionesses kills Zubikta (Nandankana zoo)
-King edward the lion kills dan the bengal (Lucia zora)
Why can I name a single lion that defeated multiple tigers at once, like (Clyde beattys) Sultan, Duke, Boss tweeds, (Terrell jacobs) Sheba and Dutch, (Pete taylor) Emperor....why cant anyone name with (credability of photos) a tiger defeating multiple lions at once? C'mon, this is just the basics, why are there only 3 historical artifacts...through out all time...of a tiger beating a lion, and yet theres 120+ artifacts of a lion defeating a tiger in more than 6 fdifferent centurys. Why is there more genuine (credible) historians who said the lion usually always won 10+, yet no historian ever said the tiger always won.
Come on, wheres the facts? Why is there such the effort to conseal just the basics?