Jump to content

Talk:Animal Face-Off

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More Episode Pages

[edit]

Sorry I have to request pages.


Those episodes aren't even real. If they were, everybody would know. Radical3 15:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole topic is interesting but silly. It is so unproveable & in any case depends on so many variables. I ended up here when I was looking for the psi of various animals' bite forces. Also a grey area it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.3.82 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting the results?

[edit]

Does anyone else think that it would be cleaner if the results were on the same line as the episode rather than a separate list?

e.g. Saltwater Crocodile vs. Great White Shark (winner: Great White Shark)

Rayasmith 03:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Dora Nichov 09:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagle vs California Condor

[edit]

Was there really such an episode? Dora Nichov 00:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (Winner: Califonia Condor) (Loser: Bald Eagle)[reply]

No. Weaselpie (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Nobody has apparently cited a source for the episodes or winners before now. I found one and removed the {{unreferenced}} template. Any further additions that do not provide a citation can be considered vandalism. --Ginkgo100talk 20:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Face-Off Episodes

[edit]
[edit]

I would like to remind editors that we do not link Wikipedia articles to YouTube videos unless the particular YouTube channel can credibly claim that it isn't infringing someone's copyright. The clips that had been inserted should not be readded. See Restrictions on linking for more information. --Sturm 20:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

This page is getting vandalized a lot; I see people altering the results frequently. 70.58.172.195 (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- I fixed all this stuff as best as I could; all the fabricated episodes are gone now (according to my SOURCE, that is--now there's a novel concept!). AdRock (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Tons on vandalism today, someone should fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.188.74 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


More vandalism as of today (2013-08-08). Sorry no time to fix it myself, but a heads-up that people are still rewriting results. (I saw some of the show, and I believe the results in the comments, unlike the main article, are correct.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.26.66 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Animal Face-Off/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
tigers are not larger than lions, and i`ll explain why. i check out a reliable source that states that bengal tigers in the wild grow larger than siberian tigers, due to the fact that siberians have a hard time finding prey in their harsh invirnment while bengals have lots of prey to eat. but what i want to talk about is an average weight, rather than something based on how well fed or underfed an animal is. tigers average about 416 lbs, the same as african lions.

their have been reports of tigers pulling 400lb animals a distance of 1000 feet. the tiger would need to be as strong as 10 men to achieve such a feat. lions have been known to drag a 1000lb animal a distance of 416 feet, which also requires the strength of 10 men. to be that strong, lions and tigers would need 250 lbs of muscle. both big cats muscle mass is about 60% of their full weight, which would have to be about 416 lbs. if tigers weighed more on average, they would be as fast, or slower than lions.

it is true that tigers are faster than lions. tigers are normally shorter and have longer spines, meaning the big cat is more stable on it`s feet and has longer running strides. it`s a fact that shorter limbs produce more power, which is also why tigers are faster and slightly more agile. tigers evoled this way for excellent hunting ablity, but that wouldn`t make a difference in a fight. a tiger can strike faster with it`s shorter limbs because short limbs have less distance to travel to reach their target, as longer limbs travels in a longer arch. tigers also climb slightly better, again due to the fact of it`s shorter limbs and longer spine, a characteristic common to all expert tree climbers, such as the squirrel.

lions are expert fighters. living in groups lions are more likely to be exposed to fighting then would a tiger. also lions have to guard their territory against other males who might take over and kill their cubs. that`s why lions have manes. it serves to intimidate, which is also why it`s taller. lions also roar louder than tigers. tigers, living alone, wouldn`t want to attract too much attention with a louder voice, however, in lion society, a louder voice keeps intruders out. lions also have more force in their paw strikes. longer limbs have longer distances to travel so has enough time to gather a lot a speed and force.

tigers have longer teeth and bigger claws, because this suits a solitary hunter. lions on the other hand hunts in pacts so don`t need as big a tool in hunting. group living is also a better survival strategy, which is why their are more lions then tigers. lions spend most of the time protroling their territory and guard against rivals, and they occasionally help out with hunting the larger animals. lions sleep a lot more than tigers because they are usually exposed to a lot more heat than a tiger, and if conserves their energy for the hunt.

lions are also more aggressive than tigers, because they are more exposed to fighting, and fighting another big cat is far more life treatening than hunting.

tigers in the wild would also want to avoid fighting, as an injury could prevent hunting. and indeed, they have evoled this way, with their less intimidating roar.

lions have more experience at fighting. that plus the animals aggression, could make all the difference in a fight. in my opinion, lions would win 7/10 times.


What about a Liger ? They're pretty much my favourite animal, you get the best of both worlds with a Liger, IMHO the Liger would take it, probably in the rear from a mythical Unicorn, a big horny one. seriously..


So mate, you have been ranting quite a lot in the absence of tiger supporters keeping you company, huh? Well now that I have come across it, let me put up my point of view on some of the points you make: 

*tigers are not larger than lions

Really? Every single source says otherwise...I also came to know a new thing - Tigers are the largest land animals that eat only meat! 

*bengal tigers in the wild grow larger than siberian tigers

There is much dispute regarding this. Many Bengal tigers in North Bengal and Nepal are larger than Siberian tigers, but there are many Siberian tigers too that are bigger than their Bengal counterparts. 

*tigers average about 416 lbs

False. Tigers average 550lbs. 

*if tigers weighed more on average, they would be as fast, or slower than lions.

False again. Tigers average 30-35kmph while lions 25-30kmph. 

*it`s a fact that shorter limbs produce more power, which is also why 
tigers are faster and slightly more agile. tigers evoled this way for excellent 
hunting ablity, but that wouldn`t make a difference in a fight.

Whoa! I didn't know that power does not make a difference in fights! 

*lions also roar louder than tigers.

Man, have you ever heard a real tiger (not those small kittens you call tigers in America) roar? Lions' roar longer...but louder? 

*group living is also a better survival strategy, which is why their are more lions then tigers.

Leopards stay alone, Jaguars stay alone, even domestic cats stay alone. Are they less common than lions? No. There are lesser number of tigers than lions because tigers have been hunted for their magnificent coat, and for their bones which are used in traditional Chinese medicines. 

*lions are also more aggressive than tigers, because they are more exposed to fighting,
 and fighting another big cat is far more life treatening than hunting.

Lions do have more hunting experience, but they are more aggressive? I once saw on TV, a documentary featuring a lion where a Masai boy managed to scare off a lion just by pretending to be larger. As for tigers being less aggressive, there are many videos available on Youtube showing how a tiger attacked a man with a gun, sitting on the back of an elephant! That's aggression for you. 

*tigers in the wild would also want to avoid fighting, as an injury could prevent hunting.

Shows how less you know about tigers. Tigers fight others at least once a year during the mating season. They also have to fight other predators like leopards, crocodiles, black bears and hyenas. Not that lions don't have to, but tigers too have to fight.

In my opinion, both the cats are great fighters and great hunters. A fight between them could go either way. The lion's thick protective mane is a great defence while the tiger has the largest canines amongst all cats. Still, I would put my money on the tiger.TTCat 11:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 11:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 07:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Animal_Face-Off&oldid=1204871788"