Say that to a drunken Millwall fan who's just lost 4 - 0 to West Ham.

How about a wolverine ( and I don't mean the comic book guy) they're pretty
nasty animals.
Man from atlantis.

I don't think human is even animal [perhaps technically], even if humans were once animals at some point in the evolutionary process, that was then and this is now and now it's obvious that humans are separate from animals generally [not all humans], what else in the animal kingdom is similar? however... humans are easily the most dangerous being in the world. Nothing else comes close.

By the stars! Humans develop weapons of war and mass destruction, and kill/destroy outside of a basic... singular, simple instinct.

oh yes, you're quite right - Patrick Duffy was Man from Atlantis - he had webbed feet and hands didn't he ?? and Marine Boy was the cartoon

- sqooooose me , hard to remember back as far as AD51

Danger is relative so the problem is what do you mean by dangerous? A tiger isn't dangerous to a fish now is it? so do you mean to Humans? and if so many other animals kill far more humans than tigers..for example...DOGS.

Can't say I've ever seen a non human animal with a nuclear bomb or releasing carbon that is destroying our entire planet.... Humans are by far the most dangerous of animals. And that's all we are. Animals. With a huge superiority complex.

Humans - because out of stupidity they can cause most harm.

I've had this debate somewhere else before I'm sure. I reckon this would be a pretty even match up. Having seen a bit of both, I'm still going with Honey badger despite being slightly smaller. A pretty even fight between 2 pound for pound bad asses, this is the Mayweather vs Pacquiao of the animal kingdom.

Humans are the cause of all problems. We ruin and wreck everything. People like Liz will always be branded bonkers, but she's actually got it figured out pretty well.

I read a few comments.

Firstly, a Polar bear has a 100% losing rate to tigers. A tiger has killed a Polar bear but not once on record has it been the other way around. As for a tiger not beaing able to cope on ice, Siberian tigers are used to the snow and live in Russia Far East, have you seen their hooked claws grip in snow.

The idiot which thinks a Polar bear will knock your head off in a single swipe is very strange. They have very weak swipes, their claws weren't designed for dealing out damage. If you done some research you'd find it's actually the tiger who was scientifically proven to be able to kill with one swipe. I'd love to see a Polar bear fight where it actually throws a swipe, because when they actually have a scrap they usually bite only.

Secondly, tigers and lions may be very close...in their skulls. Experts say it's hard to tell them apart. But in a fight a tiger holds every advantage, that's why they won 91% of the Colosseum fights.

Holding advantages in size, weight, claws, canines, bite force, speed, strength, brain size, etc. they even have larger penises (I had to ). One of the biggest advantages a tiger holds over a lion is that it can stand on it's hind legs and swipe with it's two front paws, unlike a lion who must stand on three legs and swipe with the fourth. It doubles the number of swipes, increases the reach, increases the force, and allows a tiger to defend a swipe and make an offensive swipe at nearly the same time. The BIGGEST though is that a tiger fights to kill, a lion fights to show dominance.

I don't see lions leaping 6 meters forward or jumping 5 meters high, swimming, climbing trees, stealth-hunting, etc.

I could go on all day, I'm the EXPERT of Tiger Vs Lion debating . You can't claim they are almost equal now can you?

I'm in no way 'anti-human' even though i'm going to sound like i am but humans have spoilt this 4.5 billion year old planet in barely 100 years, countless plant, animal and insect species go extinct every year because of us and Agent Smith from 'The Matrix' said it best when he said humans beings are a virus to this planet.

I do love my fellow man but it doesn't change the truth.

The most dangerous animal is not man but wo-man. She harbours in her brisket a factory for making men. And she can be a right cow if she wants to. And play the tambourine.

Has Gareth Keenan joined Digital Spy?

Insects are animals.

Where was the qualifier "unarmed" in the statement Liz made?

If you have to move the target by adding unspoken qualifiers to something someone said... you've already lost the debate.

The human is most dangerous because they can arm themselves and the overwhelming majority of other species in the animal kingdom can't. They can also make and improve those weapons at need. So... sure, maybe a monkey could also pick up a stick and bash someone with it, but that's all they can do. A human can always build a bigger better weapon.

watch out for the Meerkats, as we speak they are developing the industrial catapult

What's with all these "Has bla bla joined the forums".

are you sure you don't mean a drunken West Ham fan who's just lost 5 - 0 to Nottingham Forest .

I'm not sure about the polar bears swipe or if it would win in a fight with a tiger ( although I did see what seemed a fairly small bear, once angrily dart out of the undergrowth in the forest to frighten a tiger away, but that might just have been a startled tiger) but have you seen when the polar bear breaks through thick ice, whilst'fishing' for seals? Not a swipe but a lot of power.


Also lions tend to have a lot more experience when it comes to fighting as they have to fight an awful lot more than tigers( against other lions when defending their territory and pride whereas tigers tend to stay away from each other).

Lions have the ability to fight on their hind legs if need be. I don't know about the stats but I heard that tigers always back down when confronted with a lion; although that's not to say that they would lose if they were to fight.

I heard of one case where two tigers were fighting against one lion; they killed the lion but only after one and a half hours; that's quite a long time for two against one.

Also when you're talking about the male lion his mane affords him protection to some degree. I say it depends on the particular animal that is fighting on the day, as to which one will win.

Polar bears go for the thin ice, and headbutt through with their snout. An old man punched a Polar bear on the nose and had it stunned for a couple minutes. In the 1900s tigers destroyed Polar bears in circuses.

EXPERIENCE: Tigers have far more experience than lions, I don't blame you for thinking this though, lion fanboys spread rumours around. These are the facts.

Tiger deaths by other tigers - 25%
Lion deaths by other lions - 5.5%

Cubs fight growing up, tigers fight other tigers, sometimes even to death to win over the heart of a female. Tigresses fight off hungry males to protect their cubs. Less tigers, less habitat, means less territory which both males and females fight in.

STRENGTH: Show me one video of a lion fighting on it's hind legs, it's not possible. They haven't got any strength in their back legs that's why they never jump or leap. Look at this then if you think the mighty lion is strong.

S. fatalis (78.9) and P. tigris (82.4) = 3.5
S. fatalis (78.9) and P. leo (89.5) = 10.6
A. jubatus (100.1) and P. tigris (82.4) = 18.7
A. jubatus (100.1) and P. leo (89.5) = 11.6

Tiger is closer to S. fatalis (smilodon) and lion is closer to A. jubatus (cheetah).

Tigers muscular joints are closest to smilodon, lions are closest to cheetahs. This should speak for itself, smilodon were also known as sabertooth tigers or cats if you're wondering.

MANE: Lions manes don't offer protection, Craig Packer is the leading lion expert and he claims "A lion's mane offers no protection from throat bites, and is infact a disadvantage". A lion has a mane to attract females, the darker the mane the more testorone.

I don't know if I missed anything else to counter reply. But where did you read two tigers taking one lion for hours, their stamina doesn't last nowhere near that long. You have some truth in that tigers don't always square up for the fight, they are fearless though. The reason they hesitate to fight is that if they're injured then they can't hunt, unlike lions which rely on the pride, and women to get their food because they're useless at hunting.

Tigers are solitary and independent, if the tiger chooses to fight he will go all out and fight to the death unless the opponent backs away at any point.

Everything I've written has been from my own knowledge, and my own words except for the studies I pasted.

I don't think polar bears headbutt the ice; they use both their paws and launch at the ice.

As I've said where the lion and Tiger are concerned , it's dependant on the particular animal that is involved.

Strength does not always play a part in the outcome of a fight.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_versus_lion

I only brought strength up for the fact a lion can't stand on their hind legs to maul with their front paws. That wikipedia page favours the tiger, I know the guy who edits it. Anyone could edit that page, I could right now. His name on Yuku is P Tigris aka WolverinesClaw.

As sad as this sounds, this kind of pub chat (coupled with my love since a child for all nature programs esp Attenborough, and esp the big cats/ major predators etc) is one I have been in before. Whilst I'd never advocate animals being pitted against each other for entertainment there are enough reports from the days of old where this was common practice, so we are able to have a fairly good idea who who would 'win' each match up.

I'm with iamrightok re his take on both the polar bear and the old Lions vs Tiger thread and yes it's pretty even between the 2 (although certain reports DO slightly favour the Tiger, this is from a rather limited number of reported incidents as opposed to stating it as fact that a tiger will always beat a lion).

Hard as bloody nails those things plus they're also a little bit mad...

Until you can prove a Polar bear to be superior in any kind of way, your points are invalid. I can post some accounts of tigers killing Polar bears, but none of the other way round.