Pack of 10 gorillas versus one male lion

[WelshBloke]

Dude I'm not mad, in fact I'm happy that I get to put you in your place...

In what way?

Being randomly shouty isn't going to put me in my place, I'd estimate that you have no idea what anyone else is talking about and that makes you angry.

 

[BudAshes]

So glad I can continue my high school fantasies 13 years later. The cliques, the singling out, thanks ATOT! You remind me my differences are nothing compared to the difference I can belittle on other people!

Are you really going to deny us the simple pleasure of messing with idiots?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

considering that even a lowly leopards are known to kill gorillas, id pick the lion. the gorillas arent smart enough to gangbang the lion and they dont really have any weapons. how did king kong kill stuff? the only thing he could do was grab the upper and lower jaws of say, a dinosaur and rip them apart. a lion is just too strong for that to happen. the lion might not kill all the gorillas at once, but come back in a month and youd find ten gorilla skeletons and a fat axe lion

 

[mammador]

What are you talking about? on average siberians by over 15 census done by the R.F.E. responce team and numerous sources who weighed wild specimens, have amurs as 440 pounds as there average, they can range from 390-800, though historically speaking Mazak a well known amur tiger biologist already stated that those records of 800 pounders stemed from un-reliable hunters, that the aray of weights givin wasn't consistant, there fore estimated, not scientifically weighed.

White lions average 280 Kg they are larger than your average lion stated by 3 known zoologist. I'm aware of there are other lion subspeices, yet none of them are as small as the tiger subspeices like the javan, bali, indonisian, sumatran, all who stay around 250-350, 350 would be the smallest of lions, and they are the rarest, they average as a species 409, while tigers 350 pounds which is all that matters, I don't go cherry picking to make a point, I take the entire species averages.

A average african lion by mass will look larger than your average siberian tiger via mane, like-wise the worlds largest lion is larger than the worlds largest tiger by mass, a few kilos ain't anything to notice but a 40% larger mass is...compliments of the lions mane.

I've already jot down majority of the tiger weights on bengals and siberians in that link, and they stick around 420 as there averages when combining all records on hand not just finding the largest population, thats not what average means, the averages is when you take every known document and divide the amount of specimens weighed to the sum of them added together, thats how you reach averages.

er.. didn't I say that? If including all known subspecies for each species, then lions are bigger than tigers. Whilst the Amur is the biggest subspecies of feline period in all species and genus, the Sumatran tiger's size brings down the species' average. I agree that lions generally don't have that much size difference between subspecies.

Also, per the link you made, well yeah tigers couldn't exist in Africa since on the plains they'll stand out like a sore thumb. Lions are tawny for a reason. Even still, this and the fact that their roar is not as loud as a lions are the only drawbacks. Lions and tigers are obviously very similar morphologically.

 

[mammador]

chimps can still rip your arms out of your socket. they are crazy strong
'


what about 10 gorilla-sized hedgehogs vs the Lion? :hmm:

Gorillas are stronger than chimps, and not just based on a larger size. The issue would be temperament, but even then gorillas can be fatal when mad.

 

[mammador]

Lions are carnivores, gorillas are vegetarians. As long as each have been adequately fed their normal mealtime food, they may (for a while) just respectfully decline any kind of physical confrontation. Who knows what happens afterwards?, however.
Ancient Rome's Colosseum likely had something similar actually occur. Emperor Nero was infamous for staging all kinds of gruesome animal fights, even mock naval battles on an artificial lake inside the Colosseum, etc.

Horses can readily kill humans, as they are many times stronger than us, however I've never known or seen of a horse eat meat. As a matter of fact, horses tend to have a quite mean temperament, and the only docile ones largely are the broken/domesticated ones. To suggest then that being a carnivore makes one more mean is not true. Same as horses applies to many bovine species. If aurochs were alive today, they'd kick the arse and kill practically any human.

 

[natto fire]

Are you really going to deny us the simple pleasure of messing with idiots?

Wouldn't dream of it, but isn't the handicap tipped a bit in your favor with so many of them running around here? Seems a bit overwhelming at times, but I agree that idiots are here to mess with.

 

[Silver Prime]

er.. didn't I say that? If including all known subspecies for each species, then lions are bigger than tigers. Whilst the Amur is the biggest subspecies of feline period in all species and genus, the Sumatran tiger's size brings down the species' average. I agree that lions generally don't have that much size difference between subspecies.

Also, per the link you made, well yeah tigers couldn't exist in Africa since on the plains they'll stand out like a sore thumb. Lions are tawny for a reason. Even still, this and the fact that their roar is not as loud as a lions are the only drawbacks. Lions and tigers are obviously very similar morphologically.

Well there's a draw back to that claim of amurs are the largest, or tigers are the largest in general even without there smaller sub-speices.

1.) Lions live in prides/groups that consist of a range from 8-30 lions, so there weights will fluctuate tremendously, while a solitary tigers will be consistant, lions have to split there pie via many ways, a 1,000 buffalo wouldn't even feed a large pride fully, while a buffalo that size would be weeks of food/supply=weight gaining for the tiger, ergo its easy to find a siberian/bengal tiger slightly larger than a lion.

(Food intake)

2.) In captivity Lions are less nuetuerd than tigers because when they are, the lions mane falls off, and majority of the sanctuarys to zoo's, circuses ect relys on his majestic aura to be kept, nuetuering increases there size almost 2 folds, almost every lion/tiger I've seen that has gotton spaid had been in the 800's...so since tigers don't have a un-nessecary ornimant to hinder, they nuetuer the tiger more often, much like the pablicity the lion gets from his mane, most would wanna see a large tiger in verse, so alot more tigers would be reported on the heavy end, yet its not the norm, since there averages are 300-500 as quite based.

(Nuetuering)

3.) Tigers are so similar in weight as for african lions/siberian/bengal that the weights fluctuating are so identical on any givin day either or can out weigh the other, so saying in general tigers are larger is just a understatement since the lion population is alot larger x there social patterns decrease the average intake...its debunkable because when in captivity and left as natrual non-nuetuerd, the tigers average in captivity is quite smaller an stays around 440 pounds and less, while male lions almost always average 500-600 as the most common number I found, so that alone proves that on a solitary diet since the lion doesn't have to share or split the pie, on average the lion is bigger than any sub-species of tiger including the three largest of bengal/caspian/siberian.

(Smaller vs Larger Population ranges)

But I guess in a way for now, thats all the tiger really has going for him , I mean if he didn't have that...what else would be speacial other than his stripes and length? Not much, Being equal wouldn't get him as much fame, but what I find funny is, the weights at max (since on average the lion is larger anyway) is only off by 25 pounds...lol...

Jaipur Fluctuated from 930-1,025:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3u...a=X&ei=CPUfUojZKKa5iwKcuoCwCA&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBA

Sultan fluctuated from 900-1,000:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Swed...s=ar:1&tbm=nws&ei=itkQUcikOLGxigLvvIGoCg&sa=N

Sultan by visual mass is larger than jaipur by atleast 40% since sultan had a large barbary like mane that increases his mass in what we see.

In fact, the title could have been strippen by any of the 800-1,000 pound lions on any given stuff'd day like:

-Lion named Louis the great
-Ali the lion
-Prince the lion
-Rhino the lion
-Leo the lion
-Simba the lion
-Elvis the lion
-Boo the lion

And much more lions that flew past 800 pounds, I bet checking for there fluctuation after meals they could have all reached heavier than Jaipur since lions/tigers can eat 20% there initial weight, which would mean 20% of 900-1,000 pounders would put them over the top and fly past jaipurs record on weighing them after a good sized meal, we don't know the stomach content upoun those weighed individuals.

And thats only because no census had been done properly recently, we only know of things when we look, if sultan the 1,000 pound lion was back in the 60's I'm sure some where along the way a lion was able to attain larger weights it just wasen't documented, since Jaipurs weights was only a few decades ago, the largest tiger looked to be insanely obese, infact he looks like he was nuetuerd, that changes everything, because Sultan still had his mane, if he was in verse nuetuerd, he could have packed on almost double that weight, since majority of the 800 pounders I seen exluding woody and rhino them all had there manes, while so far the only tigers that breached the 800 range were nuetuerd specimens. lol

I'm sure and confident with a little more investigating the lion can attain the title the largest cat in weight as well, since all creditable data points to the bengal/siberian being medicore at 420 pounds and some regions even smaller at 380 as their base. While with the data on hand already a co-enthusiast already had another method of showing how accurate methods of weighing should have been since adjusting the food content must be takin into consideration, they can eat up to 20% of there diet, so that must be documented as well since it could minus or add a clean 100-200 pounds.

But we'll see.

 

[Silver Prime]

considering that even a lowly leopards are known to kill gorillas, id pick the lion. the gorillas arent smart enough to gangbang the lion and they dont really have any weapons. how did king kong kill stuff? the only thing he could do was grab the upper and lower jaws of say, a dinosaur and rip them apart. a lion is just too strong for that to happen. the lion might not kill all the gorillas at once, but come back in a month and youd find ten gorilla skeletons and a fat axe lion

Most likely.... all day long you hear of leopards killing gorillas regardless if it were ambush, since how many ambushes have leopards kill male lions, the animal he co-exist with more than any other predator?

Zero.

But it would be interesting to see how a single gorilla would defend himself against a lion, gorillas if shown a pic by himself would look opposing, but if he was next to a lion, he'd look rather small, since the lion is heavier on average and at max ranging from 100-200 pounds, also when on all fours the lion is taller by a foot and a half, toppled with if the gorilla stands on two feet he'd be 4-6 feet tall while the lion on his hind quarters would be 7-9 feet tall. Not to mention the lion has a mane that increases his mass by 20% on average and 50% at max, so in reality a gorilla will look half the size of the lion.

Gorillas wouldn't work together no matter what the occaison calls for, if there was a elephant vs 50 gorillas in there conflicting teritorys, they wouldn't attempt to work together and bring the mammoth down, yet small prides have been documented taking down even bull elephants.

No support/evidence shows that gorillas team up in large groups, at best maybe two matriachs or a pair of mates male/female will aid the other if its attacked, but any larger numbers and the gorillas wil be more prone/suspect to attack his own species than go after a superior predator. In fact no evidence is on hand to support the gorillas fighting capabilitys, just King kong fans thinking Fictional=Reality when comparing Kong vs Real Gorilla, they don't shatter bones, break limbs, necks, backs ect...even if some one can show a abstract (Which no one can) the lions bone density is just as hard/dense at ratio 1.28 as alaskan brown bears, so if any ones bones is being broken and or shattered its going to be the gorillas.

Most likely they will occaisionally fight until exaughsted or killed, and day by day the scenario will repeat, 1 by 1 the lion can win even 2 on one.

Since the lion has:

-Bigger canines fangs and mollars for a more devastating and effective bite.
-Bigger skulls for a more potent and stronger bite pressure.
-Is acustom to killing larger animals by 2-8x the gorillas size rutinely, even alone.
-Is Stronger in the frontal quarters having bigger, taller, longer, broader shoulders for better wrestling/grappling.
-Has Razor sharp claws/20 that can rip/tear skin like paper and cause shock to nerves paralyzing animals by pure pain.
-Is faster in dexterity, agility and pure speed.
-Has better acrobatics, manuverability and movements + skill in combat.
-Fights more often, more fighting=more fighting experince=better fighter
-Is an expert at killing and is a carnivore which tends to be prone to need to kill.

The gorilla is...

-Semi strong yet weaker than his oppenent the lion, even leopards have torn off gorilla arms in captivity.
-Diet consist of 90% vegatation=no conditioning as hunters/predators have.
-Hardly ever fights (Little to no documentation of them to show physical contact)
-Loses constantly to the lions kin (leopards) while lions don't lose to any ape/monkey/chimp.
-Quite slow due to his physiology

In terms increasing the amount of gorillas isn't going to increase the sucsses rate of killing the lion, a better scenario that gives the gorillas a chance is of a group housing 3 males 2 females and the rest there offsprings, a motivation to protect there children/family will be alot better than 10 males who would be more so determined to attack the other than the lion in a cage thats only 50 feet as its radius would automatcially have gorillas going for there kins throats on site, since the stress from that much tention will be a major factor.

If it were of the smaller cats, puma, leopard, jaguar ect, they would more have the will to oppose individual wise and have alot of other advantages, but against a lion or tiger, the scene the OP/TS layed down is just laughable, since over welhming them comes with a inctinct too do so, like wolves, wild dogs, hyena ect, a instinct the gorilla doesn't have.

Most likely this fight will end almost all the time like this:

A Raging lion and a gorilla with the ape in a bloody mess screaming in terror with mariah carey high pitch tones. lol

 

[WelshBloke]

Sultan by mass is larger than jaipur by atleast 40% since sultan had a large barbary like mane that increases his mass.

That's not how mass works, you're thinking of volume.

 

[arkcom]

That's not how mass works, you're thinking of volume.

Mass and volume came after averages in school. He had already dropped out by then.

 

[Silver Prime]

That's not how mass works, you're thinking of volume.

Hmm?

Good call, it will be harder to explain in my point of view but I do know that 2 same size objects can have two different weights...yes? Hence a 10 pound bag of feathers can have... lets say... a different volume, to a 10 pound rock...so the correct term would be radius and or volume not mass then...


So I guess I'll expand my vocab on that subject, and find other or similar words that can mean volume or radius, since mass=weight.

I think thats better.

It Pains me to agknowledge it, but... *_- Thanx lol

 

[WelshBloke]

Mass and volume came after averages in school. He had already dropped out by then.

Before or after random numbers and estimates?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Most likely.... all day long you hear of leopards killing gorillas regardless if it were ambush, since how many ambushes have leopards kill male lions, the animal he co-exist with more than any other predator?

Zero.

But it would be interesting to see how a single gorilla would defend himself against a lion, gorillas if shown a pic by himself would look opposing, but if he was next to a lion, he'd look rather small, since the lion is heavier on average and at max ranging from 100-200 pounds, also when on all fours the lion is taller by a foot and a half, toppled with if the gorilla stands on two feet he'd be 4-6 feet tall while the lion on his hind quarters would be 7-9 feet tall. Not to mention the lion has a mane that increases his mass by 20% on average and 50% at max, so in reality a gorilla will look half the size of the lion.

Gorillas wouldn't work together no matter what the occaison calls for, if there was a elephant vs 50 gorillas in there conflicting teritorys, they wouldn't attempt to work together and bring the mammoth down, yet small prides have been documented taking down even bull elephants.

No support/evidence shows that gorillas team up in large groups, at best maybe two matriachs or a pair of mates male/female will aid the other if its attacked, but any larger numbers and the gorillas wil be more prone/suspect to attack his own species than go after a superior predator. In fact no evidence is on hand to support the gorillas fighting capabilitys, just King kong fans thinking Fictional=Reality when comparing Kong vs Real Gorilla, they don't shatter bones, break limbs, necks, backs ect...even if some one can show a abstract (Which no one can) the lions bone density is just as hard/dense at ratio 1.28 as alaskan brown bears, so if any ones bones is being broken and or shattered its going to be the gorillas.

Most likely they will occaisionally fight until exaughsted or killed, and day by day the scenario will repeat, 1 by 1 the lion can win even 2 on one.

Since the lion has:

-Bigger canines fangs and mollars for a more devastating and effective bite.
-Bigger skulls for a more potent and stronger bite pressure.
-Is acustom to killing larger animals by 2-8x the gorillas size rutinely, even alone.
-Is Stronger in the frontal quarters having bigger, taller, longer, broader shoulders for better wrestling/grappling.
-Has Razor sharp claws/20 that can rip/tear skin like paper and cause shock to nerves paralyzing animals by pure pain.
-Is faster in dexterity, agility and pure speed.
-Has better acrobatics, manuverability and movements + skill in combat.
-Fights more often, more fighting=more fighting experince=better fighter
-Is an expert at killing and is a carnivore which tends to be prone to need to kill.

The gorilla is...

-Semi strong yet weaker than his oppenent the lion, even leopards have torn off gorilla arms in captivity.
-Diet consist of 90% vegatation=no conditioning as hunters/predators have.
-Hardly ever fights (Little to no documentation of them to show physical contact)
-Loses constantly to the lions kin (leopards) while lions don't lose to any ape/monkey/chimp.
-Quite slow due to his physiology

In terms increasing the amount of gorillas isn't going to increase the sucsses rate of killing the lion, a better scenario that gives the gorillas a chance is of a group housing 3 males 2 females and the rest there offsprings, a motivation to protect there children/family will be alot better than 10 males who would be more so determined to attack the other than the lion in a cage thats only 50 feet as its radius would automatcially have gorillas going for there kins throats on site, since the stress from that much tention will be a major factor.

If it were of the smaller cats, puma, leopard, jaguar ect, they would more have the will to oppose individual wise and have alot of other advantages, but against a lion or tiger, the scene the OP/TS layed down is just laughable, since over welhming them comes with a inctinct too do so, like wolves, wild dogs, hyena ect, a instinct the gorilla doesn't have.

Most likely this fight will end almost all the time like this:

A Raging lion and a gorilla with the ape in a bloody mess screaming in terror with mariah carey high pitch tones. lol

if a water buffalo is bigger than a gorilla and has horns to defend itself, and yet is easily killed by a lion, a lion would be able to kill a gorilla for sure. it wouldnt matter whetehr it was one or ten gorillas, they wouldnt band together to fight anyway. a gorilla really doesnt have anything to defend itself with. what could it do, wrap its penis around a lions neck?

 

[WelshBloke]

Hmm?

Good call, it will be harder to explain in my point of view but I do know that 2 same size objects can have two different weights...yes? Hence a 10 pound bag of feathers can have... lets say... a different volume, to a 10 pound rock...so the correct term would be radius and or volume not mass then...


So I guess I'll expand my vocab on that subject, and find other or similar words that can mean volume or radius, since mass=weight.

I think thats better.

It Pains me to agknowledge it, but... *_- Thanx lol

Try density.

 

[Silver Prime]

Try density.

No.

I know where my mistake lay'd, it was incorrect how I stated it, but what I mean't was to enphinsize that even at equal weights/mass the lion will still look larger. Hence a feather is larger than a finger nail-size'd pebble, yet the pebble weighs more.

So as I stated, I will broadin my vocab on the words Volume/radius...still what I stated/mean't is un-disputable...at equal masses the lion is larger,

In fact I could still say the lions mane makes the lions mass Look larger.

 

[Silver Prime]

if a water buffalo is bigger than a gorilla and has horns to defend itself, and yet is easily killed by a lion, a lion would be able to kill a gorilla for sure. it wouldnt matter whetehr it was one or ten gorillas, they wouldnt band together to fight anyway. a gorilla really doesnt have anything to defend itself with. what could it do, wrap its penis around a lions neck?

The gorilla doesn't have that much feats to go by, I don't even know there morality rates where they kill each other if its medium or at all, no large land predator kills there own kind more than the lion does in combat, the mapogo coalition-lion-brothers has records of killing hundreds of there rivals, surely no bear, tiger, gorilla..what ever...killed there kin as much as those lions have even a whole life times worth can't cover a years worth of the mapogos carnage, leopards and cheetahs go by the golden rule, when confronted they run, since the mapagos can kill other prides, coalitions, no record bear, cunning tiger, or massive gorilla would be wise to be in the same vicinity as those murderer's, since one lion is more than a match.

 

[WelshBloke]

No.

I know where my mistake lay'd, it was incorrect how I stated it, but what I mean't was to enphinsize that even at equal weights/mass the lion will still look larger.

Because the lion is less dense.

Hence a feather is larger than a finger nail-size'd pebble, yet the pebble weighs more.

Because the pebble is more dense.

So as I stated, I will broadin my vocab on the words Volume/radius...still what I stated/mean't is un-disputable...at equal masses the lion is larger, lol

Its good to broaden your vocab, you still mean density however.

 

[Silver Prime]

Because the lion is less dense.



Because the pebble is more dense.



Its good to broaden your vocab, you still mean density however.

Alright, but its still not wrong if I re-phrase it by saying the lions mane makes the lions mass visualy look larger than a tiger.

For the moment I think I'll stick with size, since volume doesn't sound right, nor does density...since density means more so how hard it is, steel is harder than led, yet weighs less and can be smaller at the same time.

 

[Gibsons]

Because the lion is less dense.



Because the pebble is more dense.



Its good to broaden your vocab, you still mean density however.

I think "dense" is a particularly appropriate word in this thread.

 

[WelshBloke]

For the moment I think I'll stick with size, since volume doesn't sound right, nor does density...since density means more so how hard it is, steel is harder than led, yet weighs less and can be smaller at the same time.

Density doesnt mean harder.

 

[Silver Prime]

Density doesnt mean harder.

In a way it is:

(First colume down #6)

Thickness of consistancy, Impenetrability

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/density

Hence a pencil sized led is heavier than a pencil size'd peice of steel, yet the steel size'd pencil is harder/densar.

 

[poohbear]

came in here expecting a video.

left disappointed

This!

Seriously wtf OP??? u actually wanna discuss this??? Man i wish i was a kid again with oodles of time to waste discussing things like that. Popped in here to procrastinate & this is what i get!

 

[Gibsons]

This!

Seriously wtf OP??? u actually wanna discuss this??? Man i wish i was a kid again with oodles of time to waste discussing things like that. Popped in here to procrastinate & this is what i get!

Just read along, it's a different kind of entertaining. Maybe not to everyone's taste. Join in even. You get exttra poince for misbelling words that ushually don't got misbelling.

 

[WelshBloke]

In a way it is:

(First colume down #6)

Thickness of consistancy, Impenetrability

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/density

They are talking about the thickness of a fluid there not about its mass/volume.

Hence a pencil sized led is heavier than a pencil size'd peice of steel, yet the steel size'd pencil is harder/densar.

Conversely a pencil sized piece of gold is heavier than a pencil sized bit of lead but still harder.