(12-01-2019, 04:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:40 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:19 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:23 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:07 PM)peter Wrote:

(11-30-2019, 07:22 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(11-30-2019, 02:54 PM)Apollo Wrote: Tiger

That is an excellent to watch and see how same tiger can look like enormous or "just big" depending on angle etc. Looks like to be approximately 230 cm, when standing on hind legs and stretched nicely. If assuming, that the person standing next to him is 180 cm tall. Of course depending height of that guy, that tiger could be estimated to be anything in between 220-240 cm while on hind legs. Big tiger, could be about same size as famous Igor from Odense zoo who was a 250 kg tiger or slightly more in his prime. But in his prime Igor looked to be more fit, not so much loose skin swinging under chest and belly as this one has.

The tiger in the video is tall and long, but the captive male Amur tigers discussed in the tiger extinction thread some time ago were more robust. They also had larger and heavier skulls.

This photograph (Blackpool, UK) was posted a little over a decade ago in 'Tigers I look after' at AVA (now Tapatalk). Poster 'Eagle Raptor' said the male Amur tiger was 611 lbs. (277,15 kg.). The keeper (left) is 5.10 (177,8 cm.):

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Male Amur tiger 'Jeltzin' from the Braunschweig Zoo was 270 kg. (596-597 pounds):

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
This is the Duisburg Zoo tiger. At 320 cm. in total length (measured in a straight line) and 110 cm. at the shoulder while standing, he was a giant. Although never weighed, experts thought he was 280-300 kg. (618-662 lbs.) in his prime: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this is the Odense Zoo tiger 'Igor'. Although not measured or weighed, the photographs show he more or less compared to the Duisburg Zoo tiger in his prime:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This photograph was posted a long time ago by Grizzly in AVA. Grizzly said he was 770 lbs. (349,27 kg.). This tiger klilled a female in a zoo in South Korea: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

According to 'Eagle Raptor', the Blackpool male Amur tigers averaged 480-500 lbs. (217,73-226,80 kg.). In his opinion, they would outweigh an average wild male Amur tiger of similar size by 50-100 lbs. (22,68-45,36 kg.).  

Wild Amur tigers today are smaller than half a century ago, but the information I have suggests the situation seems to be changing.

For now, we have to make do with the info in the WCS-document published in 2005 saying 'adult' males average 389 lbs. (176,45 kg.). This average, however, is suspect for different reason discussed before.

More recent information suggests the average of healthy males of 5 years and over could be closer to 420-430 lbs. (190,51-195,05 kg.). Furthermore, I found 3 reports of wild tigers with a heel width exceeding 13 cm. Tiger 'Luk' still has the record at 212 kg. (469 lbs.), but he was a young adult and shortish. My guess is large males can reach 500-550 pounds in their prime today. 

I don't know if researchers will be able to capture and weigh them. It seems they are a bit more reluctant to use Aldrich foot snares. About 7 years ago, an article was published on a Russian forum. The authors concluded that some male tigers captured all but destroyed their teeth trying to free themselves, and two researchers have been attacked by male tigers who were able to pull the snare from its anchor. I'll do a post on the article in the tiger extinction thread soon.

Furthermore, it isn't easy to weigh a big male Amur tiger in difficult conditions. Same with big bears. This problem, just like in India and Nepal, can result in inaccurate conclusions on size. I agree records need to meet the threshold, but that doesn't mean big tigers never existed. There's no doubt that wild male tigers can exceed 600 lbs. today. Half a century ago, when the conditions were better, individuals well exceeding that mark have been shot. Would these exceptions, as some records suggest, have exceeded 700 lbs. (317,52 kg.)?. Captive Amur tigers say yes.

Anyhow. In the end, it is about the averages. Any wild big cat averaging over 400 pounds (181,44 kg.) is big.

When looking closer to weight information from different sources I have became somewhat cynical to what comes to extreme weights. I really don´t believe in fit big cats clearly over 300 kg unless there is some really hard evidence. Then again I have no doubt, that obese big cats can be very heavy, like about 350 kg. Some private owners claim huge weights, but when looking closer it´s impossible to find out good information verified by someone else.

I have more trust to zoos and what comes to Odense zoo tiger Igor, it was weighed there. I don´t know where you have heard, that it wouldn´t have been weighed, but it was. I asked from the zoo about it myself and if someone else wants to confirm, it´s easy to contact that zoo. They said, that he was 230 kg when weighed so, that tail wasn´t on the scale, so Igor was about 250 kg. They also said, that he might have been a bit more at some point. But not a 300 kg tiger, that was clear statement from Odense zoo.

Tiger and lion weights is interesting topic, but some examples have shown, that some information from different discussion forums have been unreliable, like what comes to for example that one case concerning tiger Baikal. It was said to have been over 800 lbs, but when asking from zoos where it lived, 250 kg in his prime was clear reply and they checked it from records, not giving estimations. That is 551 lbs. And what comes to this case, if someone wants to double check, it´s quite easy, those zoos are open all the time.

Based on what I have found out, when checking some claimed "monsters" has been, that a lot of unconfirmed or clearly false information involved and I am very skeptic when extreme weights are mentioned. Personally I see any big cat weighing 250 kg or more as a very big one. 300 kg means exceptional individual, freak if wanted to put in that way (if still looking fit). 

What comes to that tiger, claimed to be approximately 350 kg, is there name of that zoo? More photos maybe? Name of that tiger? I would like to get more information and contact that zoo myself too. I don´t by that weight just like that. And that one photo is frankly speaking useless if wanting to get any impression about that tiger. It could be anything in between 180-300 kg based on that photo.

Can I know which Baikal are you talking about ? Which zoo ?

There were two tigers named Baikal in Canada at the same time in different zoos. One was 250 kg (some thought/claimed over 800 lbs, approximately 365 kg) and another one was about 190 kg. This 250 kg Baikal was killed by another tiger after it was transferred to new zoo. This whole case has been posted already in thread concerning weights of captive tigers and lions. I can check those postings and thread, there are zoos too. Interesting paradox was, that it was son of this smaller Baikal, which in the end killed this bigger Baikal (in old age at that point).

As far as I know there are several Baikals.

This is the 190Kg Baikal from Calgary zoo
https://www.facebook.com/thecalgaryzoo/videos/103628006335945/?v=103628006335945




This is the 250Kg Baikal from Assiniboine Park Zoo

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

There was another Baikal at ZOO PLzen (Czech republic) that weighed 250Kg

There was two Baikal in France. As far as I remember one was said to be average sized and the other one was big (dont remember the weights though).
I think Grizzlyclaws as more info on the big Baikal, this is the image of him below.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Yes, Baikal is quite common name for tigers. I was interested about that one, which was claimed to have been over 800 lbs and now I noticed and remembered that actually 850 lbs. And it was specifically this tiger from Cherry Brook Zoo and later transferred to Assiniboine Park Zoo. And that Baikal in reality was then 551 lbs.

It was one typical case from different discussion forums, a lot of inaccuracies, photos from different tigers etc. It takes time to check and double check certain things, but with a little time reality gets clear usually. I have been thinking like this before, but this is what one person from Colchester Zoo said to me, when I was discussing with her about this tiger Baikal and lion Simba: "Don´t believe all you see in internet" :)

Yeah thats true.
Its hard to trust stuff in internet unless its been properly verified.
I think the Big Baikal from France was said to be 700lbs+ I guess. If possible we need to try verify it from the zoo.

Yes, it´s always good to ask information. What comes to this Canadian Baikal, there were some things in the zoo making it possible to have misunderstandings to happen. I used more time to even triple check those things from places involved in some way. Long story and I don´t put it all here.

It would be very interesting if able to find out that zoo from France and get information from there. From photos it´s so difficult to be sure. Already a 550 lbs tiger look so huge, that many give estimations of 660-700 lbs, like is the case with Igor. It looks (and it is) huge in photos etc. I have learned to be careful after finding out real weights of some of these "monsters". That tiger in last photo of your posting looks like to be a robust and big one, that is clear.

Here is one reply from Colchester zoo concerning Baikal.

(12-01-2019, 05:16 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:40 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:19 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:23 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:07 PM)peter Wrote:

(11-30-2019, 07:22 PM)Shadow Wrote: That is an excellent to watch and see how same tiger can look like enormous or "just big" depending on angle etc. Looks like to be approximately 230 cm, when standing on hind legs and stretched nicely. If assuming, that the person standing next to him is 180 cm tall. Of course depending height of that guy, that tiger could be estimated to be anything in between 220-240 cm while on hind legs. Big tiger, could be about same size as famous Igor from Odense zoo who was a 250 kg tiger or slightly more in his prime. But in his prime Igor looked to be more fit, not so much loose skin swinging under chest and belly as this one has.

The tiger in the video is tall and long, but the captive male Amur tigers discussed in the tiger extinction thread some time ago were more robust. They also had larger and heavier skulls.

This photograph (Blackpool, UK) was posted a little over a decade ago in 'Tigers I look after' at AVA (now Tapatalk). Poster 'Eagle Raptor' said the male Amur tiger was 611 lbs. (277,15 kg.). The keeper (left) is 5.10 (177,8 cm.):

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Male Amur tiger 'Jeltzin' from the Braunschweig Zoo was 270 kg. (596-597 pounds):

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
This is the Duisburg Zoo tiger. At 320 cm. in total length (measured in a straight line) and 110 cm. at the shoulder while standing, he was a giant. Although never weighed, experts thought he was 280-300 kg. (618-662 lbs.) in his prime: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this is the Odense Zoo tiger 'Igor'. Although not measured or weighed, the photographs show he more or less compared to the Duisburg Zoo tiger in his prime:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This photograph was posted a long time ago by Grizzly in AVA. Grizzly said he was 770 lbs. (349,27 kg.). This tiger klilled a female in a zoo in South Korea: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

According to 'Eagle Raptor', the Blackpool male Amur tigers averaged 480-500 lbs. (217,73-226,80 kg.). In his opinion, they would outweigh an average wild male Amur tiger of similar size by 50-100 lbs. (22,68-45,36 kg.).  

Wild Amur tigers today are smaller than half a century ago, but the information I have suggests the situation seems to be changing.

For now, we have to make do with the info in the WCS-document published in 2005 saying 'adult' males average 389 lbs. (176,45 kg.). This average, however, is suspect for different reason discussed before.

More recent information suggests the average of healthy males of 5 years and over could be closer to 420-430 lbs. (190,51-195,05 kg.). Furthermore, I found 3 reports of wild tigers with a heel width exceeding 13 cm. Tiger 'Luk' still has the record at 212 kg. (469 lbs.), but he was a young adult and shortish. My guess is large males can reach 500-550 pounds in their prime today. 

I don't know if researchers will be able to capture and weigh them. It seems they are a bit more reluctant to use Aldrich foot snares. About 7 years ago, an article was published on a Russian forum. The authors concluded that some male tigers captured all but destroyed their teeth trying to free themselves, and two researchers have been attacked by male tigers who were able to pull the snare from its anchor. I'll do a post on the article in the tiger extinction thread soon.

Furthermore, it isn't easy to weigh a big male Amur tiger in difficult conditions. Same with big bears. This problem, just like in India and Nepal, can result in inaccurate conclusions on size. I agree records need to meet the threshold, but that doesn't mean big tigers never existed. There's no doubt that wild male tigers can exceed 600 lbs. today. Half a century ago, when the conditions were better, individuals well exceeding that mark have been shot. Would these exceptions, as some records suggest, have exceeded 700 lbs. (317,52 kg.)?. Captive Amur tigers say yes.

Anyhow. In the end, it is about the averages. Any wild big cat averaging over 400 pounds (181,44 kg.) is big.

When looking closer to weight information from different sources I have became somewhat cynical to what comes to extreme weights. I really don´t believe in fit big cats clearly over 300 kg unless there is some really hard evidence. Then again I have no doubt, that obese big cats can be very heavy, like about 350 kg. Some private owners claim huge weights, but when looking closer it´s impossible to find out good information verified by someone else.

I have more trust to zoos and what comes to Odense zoo tiger Igor, it was weighed there. I don´t know where you have heard, that it wouldn´t have been weighed, but it was. I asked from the zoo about it myself and if someone else wants to confirm, it´s easy to contact that zoo. They said, that he was 230 kg when weighed so, that tail wasn´t on the scale, so Igor was about 250 kg. They also said, that he might have been a bit more at some point. But not a 300 kg tiger, that was clear statement from Odense zoo.

Tiger and lion weights is interesting topic, but some examples have shown, that some information from different discussion forums have been unreliable, like what comes to for example that one case concerning tiger Baikal. It was said to have been over 800 lbs, but when asking from zoos where it lived, 250 kg in his prime was clear reply and they checked it from records, not giving estimations. That is 551 lbs. And what comes to this case, if someone wants to double check, it´s quite easy, those zoos are open all the time.

Based on what I have found out, when checking some claimed "monsters" has been, that a lot of unconfirmed or clearly false information involved and I am very skeptic when extreme weights are mentioned. Personally I see any big cat weighing 250 kg or more as a very big one. 300 kg means exceptional individual, freak if wanted to put in that way (if still looking fit). 

What comes to that tiger, claimed to be approximately 350 kg, is there name of that zoo? More photos maybe? Name of that tiger? I would like to get more information and contact that zoo myself too. I don´t by that weight just like that. And that one photo is frankly speaking useless if wanting to get any impression about that tiger. It could be anything in between 180-300 kg based on that photo.

Can I know which Baikal are you talking about ? Which zoo ?

There were two tigers named Baikal in Canada at the same time in different zoos. One was 250 kg (some thought/claimed over 800 lbs, approximately 365 kg) and another one was about 190 kg. This 250 kg Baikal was killed by another tiger after it was transferred to new zoo. This whole case has been posted already in thread concerning weights of captive tigers and lions. I can check those postings and thread, there are zoos too. Interesting paradox was, that it was son of this smaller Baikal, which in the end killed this bigger Baikal (in old age at that point).

As far as I know there are several Baikals.

This is the 190Kg Baikal from Calgary zoo
https://www.facebook.com/thecalgaryzoo/videos/103628006335945/?v=103628006335945




This is the 250Kg Baikal from Assiniboine Park Zoo

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

There was another Baikal at ZOO PLzen (Czech republic) that weighed 250Kg

There was two Baikal in France. As far as I remember one was said to be average sized and the other one was big (dont remember the weights though).
I think Grizzlyclaws as more info on the big Baikal, this is the image of him below.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Yes, Baikal is quite common name for tigers. I was interested about that one, which was claimed to have been over 800 lbs and now I noticed and remembered that actually 850 lbs. And it was specifically this tiger from Cherry Brook Zoo and later transferred to Assiniboine Park Zoo. And that Baikal in reality was then 551 lbs.

It was one typical case from different discussion forums, a lot of inaccuracies, photos from different tigers etc. It takes time to check and double check certain things, but with a little time reality gets clear usually. I have been thinking like this before, but this is what one person from Colchester Zoo said to me, when I was discussing with her about this tiger Baikal and lion Simba: "Don´t believe all you see in internet" :)

Yeah thats true.
Its hard to trust stuff in internet unless its been properly verified.
I think the Big Baikal from France was said to be 700lbs+ I guess. If possible we need to try verify it from the zoo.

Yes, it´s always good to ask information. What comes to this Canadian Baikal, there were some things in the zoo making it possible to have misunderstandings to happen. I used more time to even triple check those things from places involved in some way. Long story and I don´t put it all here.

It would be very interesting if able to find out that zoo from France and get information from there. From photos it´s so difficult to be sure. Already a 550 lbs tiger look so huge, that many give estimations of 660-700 lbs, like is the case with Igor. It looks (and it is) huge in photos etc. I have learned to be careful after finding out real weights of some of these "monsters". That tiger in last photo of your posting looks like to be a robust and big one, that is clear.

Here is one reply from Colchester zoo concerning Baikal.

So this is another Baikal from England.
Its hard to judge size based on pictures due to angles.
Hence I prefer videos, coz it as less angle effects than pictures.
Most of the people overestimate captive tigers and lions weight when they have that thick coat in cold climatic regions.
Another problem with captive tigers and lions is, they can be big but they lack pure muscle development and muscle mass. They carry more fat.
But wild Bengal tigers are built like muscle tanks.
Fat is lighter than muscle. Muscle is much denser than fat, which means muscle occupies less space (volume) in the body compared to fat. Muscle has a leaner appearance due to its high density whereas fat occupies more space (volume) in the body.

(12-01-2019, 05:16 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:40 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:19 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:23 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:07 PM)peter Wrote:

(11-30-2019, 07:22 PM)Shadow Wrote: That is an excellent to watch and see how same tiger can look like enormous or "just big" depending on angle etc. Looks like to be approximately 230 cm, when standing on hind legs and stretched nicely. If assuming, that the person standing next to him is 180 cm tall. Of course depending height of that guy, that tiger could be estimated to be anything in between 220-240 cm while on hind legs. Big tiger, could be about same size as famous Igor from Odense zoo who was a 250 kg tiger or slightly more in his prime. But in his prime Igor looked to be more fit, not so much loose skin swinging under chest and belly as this one has.

The tiger in the video is tall and long, but the captive male Amur tigers discussed in the tiger extinction thread some time ago were more robust. They also had larger and heavier skulls.

This photograph (Blackpool, UK) was posted a little over a decade ago in 'Tigers I look after' at AVA (now Tapatalk). Poster 'Eagle Raptor' said the male Amur tiger was 611 lbs. (277,15 kg.). The keeper (left) is 5.10 (177,8 cm.):

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Male Amur tiger 'Jeltzin' from the Braunschweig Zoo was 270 kg. (596-597 pounds):

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
This is the Duisburg Zoo tiger. At 320 cm. in total length (measured in a straight line) and 110 cm. at the shoulder while standing, he was a giant. Although never weighed, experts thought he was 280-300 kg. (618-662 lbs.) in his prime: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this is the Odense Zoo tiger 'Igor'. Although not measured or weighed, the photographs show he more or less compared to the Duisburg Zoo tiger in his prime:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This photograph was posted a long time ago by Grizzly in AVA. Grizzly said he was 770 lbs. (349,27 kg.). This tiger klilled a female in a zoo in South Korea: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

According to 'Eagle Raptor', the Blackpool male Amur tigers averaged 480-500 lbs. (217,73-226,80 kg.). In his opinion, they would outweigh an average wild male Amur tiger of similar size by 50-100 lbs. (22,68-45,36 kg.).  

Wild Amur tigers today are smaller than half a century ago, but the information I have suggests the situation seems to be changing.

For now, we have to make do with the info in the WCS-document published in 2005 saying 'adult' males average 389 lbs. (176,45 kg.). This average, however, is suspect for different reason discussed before.

More recent information suggests the average of healthy males of 5 years and over could be closer to 420-430 lbs. (190,51-195,05 kg.). Furthermore, I found 3 reports of wild tigers with a heel width exceeding 13 cm. Tiger 'Luk' still has the record at 212 kg. (469 lbs.), but he was a young adult and shortish. My guess is large males can reach 500-550 pounds in their prime today. 

I don't know if researchers will be able to capture and weigh them. It seems they are a bit more reluctant to use Aldrich foot snares. About 7 years ago, an article was published on a Russian forum. The authors concluded that some male tigers captured all but destroyed their teeth trying to free themselves, and two researchers have been attacked by male tigers who were able to pull the snare from its anchor. I'll do a post on the article in the tiger extinction thread soon.

Furthermore, it isn't easy to weigh a big male Amur tiger in difficult conditions. Same with big bears. This problem, just like in India and Nepal, can result in inaccurate conclusions on size. I agree records need to meet the threshold, but that doesn't mean big tigers never existed. There's no doubt that wild male tigers can exceed 600 lbs. today. Half a century ago, when the conditions were better, individuals well exceeding that mark have been shot. Would these exceptions, as some records suggest, have exceeded 700 lbs. (317,52 kg.)?. Captive Amur tigers say yes.

Anyhow. In the end, it is about the averages. Any wild big cat averaging over 400 pounds (181,44 kg.) is big.

When looking closer to weight information from different sources I have became somewhat cynical to what comes to extreme weights. I really don´t believe in fit big cats clearly over 300 kg unless there is some really hard evidence. Then again I have no doubt, that obese big cats can be very heavy, like about 350 kg. Some private owners claim huge weights, but when looking closer it´s impossible to find out good information verified by someone else.

I have more trust to zoos and what comes to Odense zoo tiger Igor, it was weighed there. I don´t know where you have heard, that it wouldn´t have been weighed, but it was. I asked from the zoo about it myself and if someone else wants to confirm, it´s easy to contact that zoo. They said, that he was 230 kg when weighed so, that tail wasn´t on the scale, so Igor was about 250 kg. They also said, that he might have been a bit more at some point. But not a 300 kg tiger, that was clear statement from Odense zoo.

Tiger and lion weights is interesting topic, but some examples have shown, that some information from different discussion forums have been unreliable, like what comes to for example that one case concerning tiger Baikal. It was said to have been over 800 lbs, but when asking from zoos where it lived, 250 kg in his prime was clear reply and they checked it from records, not giving estimations. That is 551 lbs. And what comes to this case, if someone wants to double check, it´s quite easy, those zoos are open all the time.

Based on what I have found out, when checking some claimed "monsters" has been, that a lot of unconfirmed or clearly false information involved and I am very skeptic when extreme weights are mentioned. Personally I see any big cat weighing 250 kg or more as a very big one. 300 kg means exceptional individual, freak if wanted to put in that way (if still looking fit). 

What comes to that tiger, claimed to be approximately 350 kg, is there name of that zoo? More photos maybe? Name of that tiger? I would like to get more information and contact that zoo myself too. I don´t by that weight just like that. And that one photo is frankly speaking useless if wanting to get any impression about that tiger. It could be anything in between 180-300 kg based on that photo.

Can I know which Baikal are you talking about ? Which zoo ?

There were two tigers named Baikal in Canada at the same time in different zoos. One was 250 kg (some thought/claimed over 800 lbs, approximately 365 kg) and another one was about 190 kg. This 250 kg Baikal was killed by another tiger after it was transferred to new zoo. This whole case has been posted already in thread concerning weights of captive tigers and lions. I can check those postings and thread, there are zoos too. Interesting paradox was, that it was son of this smaller Baikal, which in the end killed this bigger Baikal (in old age at that point).

As far as I know there are several Baikals.

This is the 190Kg Baikal from Calgary zoo
https://www.facebook.com/thecalgaryzoo/videos/103628006335945/?v=103628006335945




This is the 250Kg Baikal from Assiniboine Park Zoo

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

There was another Baikal at ZOO PLzen (Czech republic) that weighed 250Kg

There was two Baikal in France. As far as I remember one was said to be average sized and the other one was big (dont remember the weights though).
I think Grizzlyclaws as more info on the big Baikal, this is the image of him below.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Yes, Baikal is quite common name for tigers. I was interested about that one, which was claimed to have been over 800 lbs and now I noticed and remembered that actually 850 lbs. And it was specifically this tiger from Cherry Brook Zoo and later transferred to Assiniboine Park Zoo. And that Baikal in reality was then 551 lbs.

It was one typical case from different discussion forums, a lot of inaccuracies, photos from different tigers etc. It takes time to check and double check certain things, but with a little time reality gets clear usually. I have been thinking like this before, but this is what one person from Colchester Zoo said to me, when I was discussing with her about this tiger Baikal and lion Simba: "Don´t believe all you see in internet" :)

Yeah thats true.
Its hard to trust stuff in internet unless its been properly verified.
I think the Big Baikal from France was said to be 700lbs+ I guess. If possible we need to try verify it from the zoo.

Yes, it´s always good to ask information. What comes to this Canadian Baikal, there were some things in the zoo making it possible to have misunderstandings to happen. I used more time to even triple check those things from places involved in some way. Long story and I don´t put it all here.

It would be very interesting if able to find out that zoo from France and get information from there. From photos it´s so difficult to be sure. Already a 550 lbs tiger look so huge, that many give estimations of 660-700 lbs, like is the case with Igor. It looks (and it is) huge in photos etc. I have learned to be careful after finding out real weights of some of these "monsters". That tiger in last photo of your posting looks like to be a robust and big one, that is clear.

Here is one reply from Colchester zoo concerning Baikal.

So this is another Baikal from England.
Its hard to judge size based on pictures due to angles.
Hence I prefer videos, coz it as less angle effects than pictures.
Most of the people overestimate captive tigers and lions weight when they have that thick coat in cold climatic regions.
Another problem with captive tigers and lions is, they can be big but they lack pure muscle development and muscle mass. They carry more fat.
But wild Bengal tigers are built like muscle tanks.
Fat is lighter than muscle. Muscle is much denser than fat, which means muscle occupies less space (volume) in the body compared to fat. Muscle has a leaner appearance due to its high density whereas fat occupies more space (volume) in the body.

(12-01-2019, 06:12 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 05:16 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:40 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:19 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:23 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:07 PM)peter Wrote: The tiger in the video is tall and long, but the captive male Amur tigers discussed in the tiger extinction thread some time ago were more robust. They also had larger and heavier skulls.

This photograph (Blackpool, UK) was posted a little over a decade ago in 'Tigers I look after' at AVA (now Tapatalk). Poster 'Eagle Raptor' said the male Amur tiger was 611 lbs. (277,15 kg.). The keeper (left) is 5.10 (177,8 cm.):

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

Male Amur tiger 'Jeltzin' from the Braunschweig Zoo was 270 kg. (596-597 pounds):

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
This is the Duisburg Zoo tiger. At 320 cm. in total length (measured in a straight line) and 110 cm. at the shoulder while standing, he was a giant. Although never weighed, experts thought he was 280-300 kg. (618-662 lbs.) in his prime: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

And this is the Odense Zoo tiger 'Igor'. Although not measured or weighed, the photographs show he more or less compared to the Duisburg Zoo tiger in his prime:

*This image is copyright of its original author

This photograph was posted a long time ago by Grizzly in AVA. Grizzly said he was 770 lbs. (349,27 kg.). This tiger klilled a female in a zoo in South Korea: 

*This image is copyright of its original author

  

According to 'Eagle Raptor', the Blackpool male Amur tigers averaged 480-500 lbs. (217,73-226,80 kg.). In his opinion, they would outweigh an average wild male Amur tiger of similar size by 50-100 lbs. (22,68-45,36 kg.).  

Wild Amur tigers today are smaller than half a century ago, but the information I have suggests the situation seems to be changing.

For now, we have to make do with the info in the WCS-document published in 2005 saying 'adult' males average 389 lbs. (176,45 kg.). This average, however, is suspect for different reason discussed before.

More recent information suggests the average of healthy males of 5 years and over could be closer to 420-430 lbs. (190,51-195,05 kg.). Furthermore, I found 3 reports of wild tigers with a heel width exceeding 13 cm. Tiger 'Luk' still has the record at 212 kg. (469 lbs.), but he was a young adult and shortish. My guess is large males can reach 500-550 pounds in their prime today. 

I don't know if researchers will be able to capture and weigh them. It seems they are a bit more reluctant to use Aldrich foot snares. About 7 years ago, an article was published on a Russian forum. The authors concluded that some male tigers captured all but destroyed their teeth trying to free themselves, and two researchers have been attacked by male tigers who were able to pull the snare from its anchor. I'll do a post on the article in the tiger extinction thread soon.

Furthermore, it isn't easy to weigh a big male Amur tiger in difficult conditions. Same with big bears. This problem, just like in India and Nepal, can result in inaccurate conclusions on size. I agree records need to meet the threshold, but that doesn't mean big tigers never existed. There's no doubt that wild male tigers can exceed 600 lbs. today. Half a century ago, when the conditions were better, individuals well exceeding that mark have been shot. Would these exceptions, as some records suggest, have exceeded 700 lbs. (317,52 kg.)?. Captive Amur tigers say yes.

Anyhow. In the end, it is about the averages. Any wild big cat averaging over 400 pounds (181,44 kg.) is big.

When looking closer to weight information from different sources I have became somewhat cynical to what comes to extreme weights. I really don´t believe in fit big cats clearly over 300 kg unless there is some really hard evidence. Then again I have no doubt, that obese big cats can be very heavy, like about 350 kg. Some private owners claim huge weights, but when looking closer it´s impossible to find out good information verified by someone else.

I have more trust to zoos and what comes to Odense zoo tiger Igor, it was weighed there. I don´t know where you have heard, that it wouldn´t have been weighed, but it was. I asked from the zoo about it myself and if someone else wants to confirm, it´s easy to contact that zoo. They said, that he was 230 kg when weighed so, that tail wasn´t on the scale, so Igor was about 250 kg. They also said, that he might have been a bit more at some point. But not a 300 kg tiger, that was clear statement from Odense zoo.

Tiger and lion weights is interesting topic, but some examples have shown, that some information from different discussion forums have been unreliable, like what comes to for example that one case concerning tiger Baikal. It was said to have been over 800 lbs, but when asking from zoos where it lived, 250 kg in his prime was clear reply and they checked it from records, not giving estimations. That is 551 lbs. And what comes to this case, if someone wants to double check, it´s quite easy, those zoos are open all the time.

Based on what I have found out, when checking some claimed "monsters" has been, that a lot of unconfirmed or clearly false information involved and I am very skeptic when extreme weights are mentioned. Personally I see any big cat weighing 250 kg or more as a very big one. 300 kg means exceptional individual, freak if wanted to put in that way (if still looking fit). 

What comes to that tiger, claimed to be approximately 350 kg, is there name of that zoo? More photos maybe? Name of that tiger? I would like to get more information and contact that zoo myself too. I don´t by that weight just like that. And that one photo is frankly speaking useless if wanting to get any impression about that tiger. It could be anything in between 180-300 kg based on that photo.

Can I know which Baikal are you talking about ? Which zoo ?

There were two tigers named Baikal in Canada at the same time in different zoos. One was 250 kg (some thought/claimed over 800 lbs, approximately 365 kg) and another one was about 190 kg. This 250 kg Baikal was killed by another tiger after it was transferred to new zoo. This whole case has been posted already in thread concerning weights of captive tigers and lions. I can check those postings and thread, there are zoos too. Interesting paradox was, that it was son of this smaller Baikal, which in the end killed this bigger Baikal (in old age at that point).

As far as I know there are several Baikals.

This is the 190Kg Baikal from Calgary zoo
https://www.facebook.com/thecalgaryzoo/videos/103628006335945/?v=103628006335945




This is the 250Kg Baikal from Assiniboine Park Zoo

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

There was another Baikal at ZOO PLzen (Czech republic) that weighed 250Kg

There was two Baikal in France. As far as I remember one was said to be average sized and the other one was big (dont remember the weights though).
I think Grizzlyclaws as more info on the big Baikal, this is the image of him below.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Yes, Baikal is quite common name for tigers. I was interested about that one, which was claimed to have been over 800 lbs and now I noticed and remembered that actually 850 lbs. And it was specifically this tiger from Cherry Brook Zoo and later transferred to Assiniboine Park Zoo. And that Baikal in reality was then 551 lbs.

It was one typical case from different discussion forums, a lot of inaccuracies, photos from different tigers etc. It takes time to check and double check certain things, but with a little time reality gets clear usually. I have been thinking like this before, but this is what one person from Colchester Zoo said to me, when I was discussing with her about this tiger Baikal and lion Simba: "Don´t believe all you see in internet" :)

Yeah thats true.
Its hard to trust stuff in internet unless its been properly verified.
I think the Big Baikal from France was said to be 700lbs+ I guess. If possible we need to try verify it from the zoo.

Yes, it´s always good to ask information. What comes to this Canadian Baikal, there were some things in the zoo making it possible to have misunderstandings to happen. I used more time to even triple check those things from places involved in some way. Long story and I don´t put it all here.

It would be very interesting if able to find out that zoo from France and get information from there. From photos it´s so difficult to be sure. Already a 550 lbs tiger look so huge, that many give estimations of 660-700 lbs, like is the case with Igor. It looks (and it is) huge in photos etc. I have learned to be careful after finding out real weights of some of these "monsters". That tiger in last photo of your posting looks like to be a robust and big one, that is clear.

Here is one reply from Colchester zoo concerning Baikal.

So this is another Baikal from England.
Its hard to judge size based on pictures due to angles.
Hence I prefer videos, coz it as less angle effects than pictures.
Most of the people overestimate captive tigers and lions weight when they have that thick coat in cold climatic regions.
Another problem with captive tigers and lions is, they can be big but they lack pure muscle development and muscle mass. They carry more fat.
But wild Bengal tigers are built like muscle tanks.
Fat is lighter than muscle. Muscle is much denser than fat, which means muscle occupies less space (volume) in the body compared to fat. Muscle has a leaner appearance due to its high density whereas fat occupies more space (volume) in the body.

And what comes to muscle and fat, that is of course clear, that muscle weights more. Still there are some very fine individuals in captivity too, like Igor in his prime or let´s take lion Aslan in his prime. Those two can be seen in videos and very good looking. Some people think, that difference between captive and wild specimens would be significant. What comes to weight, I don´t share that opinion at least in too extreme levels. A fit tiger is a fit tiger, no matter if captive or wild. Neither of them won´t actually work out too much, wild ones of course have to use their strength in hunting and territorial fights, but muscle is muscle inside both, wild ones just have more use for those muscles.

I believe, that they would have some edge in fight, if captive and wild one meeting for some reason, but also captive animals show every now and then, that they are able to do astonishing performances when needed or enraged. Naturally in captivity there are more obese animals which is sad. 

Everyone can have opinions, this is how I see it. There can be some differences, just not huge ones. Also in wild a 300 kg tiger should be  h u g e. Already 200-250 kg tigers are looking very big.

(12-01-2019, 07:59 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 06:12 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 05:16 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:56 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:40 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 04:19 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:31 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 03:23 PM)Apollo Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 02:56 PM)Shadow Wrote: When looking closer to weight information from different sources I have became somewhat cynical to what comes to extreme weights. I really don´t believe in fit big cats clearly over 300 kg unless there is some really hard evidence. Then again I have no doubt, that obese big cats can be very heavy, like about 350 kg. Some private owners claim huge weights, but when looking closer it´s impossible to find out good information verified by someone else.

I have more trust to zoos and what comes to Odense zoo tiger Igor, it was weighed there. I don´t know where you have heard, that it wouldn´t have been weighed, but it was. I asked from the zoo about it myself and if someone else wants to confirm, it´s easy to contact that zoo. They said, that he was 230 kg when weighed so, that tail wasn´t on the scale, so Igor was about 250 kg. They also said, that he might have been a bit more at some point. But not a 300 kg tiger, that was clear statement from Odense zoo.

Tiger and lion weights is interesting topic, but some examples have shown, that some information from different discussion forums have been unreliable, like what comes to for example that one case concerning tiger Baikal. It was said to have been over 800 lbs, but when asking from zoos where it lived, 250 kg in his prime was clear reply and they checked it from records, not giving estimations. That is 551 lbs. And what comes to this case, if someone wants to double check, it´s quite easy, those zoos are open all the time.

Based on what I have found out, when checking some claimed "monsters" has been, that a lot of unconfirmed or clearly false information involved and I am very skeptic when extreme weights are mentioned. Personally I see any big cat weighing 250 kg or more as a very big one. 300 kg means exceptional individual, freak if wanted to put in that way (if still looking fit). 

What comes to that tiger, claimed to be approximately 350 kg, is there name of that zoo? More photos maybe? Name of that tiger? I would like to get more information and contact that zoo myself too. I don´t by that weight just like that. And that one photo is frankly speaking useless if wanting to get any impression about that tiger. It could be anything in between 180-300 kg based on that photo.

Can I know which Baikal are you talking about ? Which zoo ?

There were two tigers named Baikal in Canada at the same time in different zoos. One was 250 kg (some thought/claimed over 800 lbs, approximately 365 kg) and another one was about 190 kg. This 250 kg Baikal was killed by another tiger after it was transferred to new zoo. This whole case has been posted already in thread concerning weights of captive tigers and lions. I can check those postings and thread, there are zoos too. Interesting paradox was, that it was son of this smaller Baikal, which in the end killed this bigger Baikal (in old age at that point).

As far as I know there are several Baikals.

This is the 190Kg Baikal from Calgary zoo
https://www.facebook.com/thecalgaryzoo/videos/103628006335945/?v=103628006335945




This is the 250Kg Baikal from Assiniboine Park Zoo

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

There was another Baikal at ZOO PLzen (Czech republic) that weighed 250Kg

There was two Baikal in France. As far as I remember one was said to be average sized and the other one was big (dont remember the weights though).
I think Grizzlyclaws as more info on the big Baikal, this is the image of him below.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Yes, Baikal is quite common name for tigers. I was interested about that one, which was claimed to have been over 800 lbs and now I noticed and remembered that actually 850 lbs. And it was specifically this tiger from Cherry Brook Zoo and later transferred to Assiniboine Park Zoo. And that Baikal in reality was then 551 lbs.

It was one typical case from different discussion forums, a lot of inaccuracies, photos from different tigers etc. It takes time to check and double check certain things, but with a little time reality gets clear usually. I have been thinking like this before, but this is what one person from Colchester Zoo said to me, when I was discussing with her about this tiger Baikal and lion Simba: "Don´t believe all you see in internet" :)

Yeah thats true.
Its hard to trust stuff in internet unless its been properly verified.
I think the Big Baikal from France was said to be 700lbs+ I guess. If possible we need to try verify it from the zoo.

Yes, it´s always good to ask information. What comes to this Canadian Baikal, there were some things in the zoo making it possible to have misunderstandings to happen. I used more time to even triple check those things from places involved in some way. Long story and I don´t put it all here.

It would be very interesting if able to find out that zoo from France and get information from there. From photos it´s so difficult to be sure. Already a 550 lbs tiger look so huge, that many give estimations of 660-700 lbs, like is the case with Igor. It looks (and it is) huge in photos etc. I have learned to be careful after finding out real weights of some of these "monsters". That tiger in last photo of your posting looks like to be a robust and big one, that is clear.

Here is one reply from Colchester zoo concerning Baikal.

So this is another Baikal from England.
Its hard to judge size based on pictures due to angles.
Hence I prefer videos, coz it as less angle effects than pictures.
Most of the people overestimate captive tigers and lions weight when they have that thick coat in cold climatic regions.
Another problem with captive tigers and lions is, they can be big but they lack pure muscle development and muscle mass. They carry more fat.
But wild Bengal tigers are built like muscle tanks.
Fat is lighter than muscle. Muscle is much denser than fat, which means muscle occupies less space (volume) in the body compared to fat. Muscle has a leaner appearance due to its high density whereas fat occupies more space (volume) in the body.

And what comes to muscle and fat, that is of course clear, that muscle weights more. Still there are some very fine individuals in captivity too, like Igor in his prime or let´s take lion Aslan in his prime. Those two can be seen in videos and very good looking. Some people think, that difference between captive and wild specimens would be significant. What comes to weight, I don´t share that opinion at least in too extreme levels. A fit tiger is a fit tiger, no matter if captive or wild. Neither of them won´t actually work out too much, wild ones of course have to use their strength in hunting and territorial fights, but muscle is muscle inside both, wild ones just have more use for those muscles.

I believe, that they would have some edge in fight, if captive and wild one meeting for some reason, but also captive animals show every now and then, that they are able to do astonishing performances when needed or enraged. Naturally in captivity there are more obese animals which is sad. 

Everyone can have opinions, this is how I see it. There can be some differences, just not huge ones. Also in wild a 300 kg tiger should be  h u g e. Already 200-250 kg tigers are looking very big.

While some captive cats can of course be healthy and fit they are not near their wild counterparts and the same cat would be more fit if they were in the wild. There is no replacing lifestyle, a wild cat hunts every day, they fight, they mate, they patrol, etc..  a captive cat does none of those things on a regular basis. 
It's like anything else, you will be more fit if you work at it. Some people genetically can eat like crap, work out little and still be in good shape but if they had a healthier lifestyle they'd be in better shape. 
The best captive cats I've ever seen are here 
https://instagram.com/jaguarsintothewild?igshid=1498s2bouw56q
And they make sure to give them tons of stimulus and little to no human contact, but again their goal is to simulate the wild as best they can because nothing replaces it.
You'll never see a captive Cat that can compare to the best wild versions. With lions like Ceasar and Tigers like Umarpani, I've yet to see anything close to that in Captivity. Aslan and Igor included.


In regards to a wild 300kg cat, the closest verification we have in modern times is Umarpani. His son was verified to be 193kg and right when he was weighed he was dominated by Umarpani in a video and you can easily see him dwarfed. @Pantherinae  mentioned that he thought Uma was easily 80kg larger and I agreed. Panth. Used Aslan as his measuring stick since he said he noticed the same size difference between him and another cat who was 80kg less.

(12-01-2019, 09:22 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not talking about weight, I'm talking about physique and like @Apollo said, wild cats are filled to the brim with muscle, a 250kg wild cat is much more impressive than a 250kg captive cat,you can see it in their definition, muscle mass and vascularity.

(12-01-2019, 10:26 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 09:22 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not talking about weight, I'm talking about physique and like @Apollo said, wild cats are filled to the brim with muscle, a 250kg wild cat is much more impressive than a 250kg captive cat,you can see it in their definition, muscle mass and vascularity.

I was and am talking about overall size and weight. And I don´t see there major differences between captive and wild. Biggest individuals look like to be quite same sized and weights are also close to each others when animals look fit.

(12-01-2019, 10:52 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 10:26 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 09:22 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not talking about weight, I'm talking about physique and like @Apollo said, wild cats are filled to the brim with muscle, a 250kg wild cat is much more impressive than a 250kg captive cat,you can see it in their definition, muscle mass and vascularity.

I was and am talking about overall size and weight. And I don´t see there major differences between captive and wild. Biggest individuals look like to be quite same sized and weights are also close to each others when animals look fit.

Overall size, Wild cats are far more impressive. They're way more muscle dense, body frame is similar although Tigers were significantly larger in frame and robustness, Wild Lions are also larger in frame and robustness but I've seen a Taller cat in captivity than I have in the wild, but that was a S. African Lion compared to a E. African wild Lion. 
But in terms of impressive specimens, I've never seen anything close in captivity that compares to their wild counterparts, that goes for smaller cats as well. 

You dont see cats like these in captivity for the most part.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

(12-01-2019, 11:08 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 10:52 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 10:26 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 09:22 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not talking about weight, I'm talking about physique and like @Apollo said, wild cats are filled to the brim with muscle, a 250kg wild cat is much more impressive than a 250kg captive cat,you can see it in their definition, muscle mass and vascularity.

I was and am talking about overall size and weight. And I don´t see there major differences between captive and wild. Biggest individuals look like to be quite same sized and weights are also close to each others when animals look fit.

Overall size, Wild cats are far more impressive. They're way more muscle dense, body frame is similar although Tigers were significantly larger in frame and robustness, Wild Lions are also larger in frame and robustness but I've seen a Taller cat in captivity than I have in the wild, but that was a S. African Lion compared to a E. African wild Lion. 
But in terms of impressive specimens, I've never seen anything close in captivity that compares to their wild counterparts, that goes for smaller cats as well. 

You dont see cats like these in captivity for the most part.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Nice looking animals, but doesn´t change the way I see this. I said, that there can be some difference, but I see no reason to think, that major differences. Well, of course 20 kg is a lot of muscle if wild animal with same shoulder height and body length has that much more. It also can look a lot more impressive when a little less fat and muscles can be seen better. 

But it doesn´t change for instance it, that lion Aslan is one of the biggest known lions ever, when we talk about fit looking lions and weighed properly. There is only one wild lion known to have weighed more than him and that lion was... was it 272 or 273 kg(?).

What comes to Caesar, there is only speculation. It could have been close to 300 kg or maybe "just" 250 kg. If someone gets some confirmed information one day it will be very interesting to see. 

I am not debating here really about this matter, but giving more reasoning why I see this matter how I do. Looking more ripped doesn´t mean automatically, that bigger or weighing more.

(12-01-2019, 06:12 PM)Shadow Wrote: Already 200-250 kg tigers are looking very big.

(12-01-2019, 11:47 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 11:08 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 10:52 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 10:26 PM)Shadow Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 09:22 PM)Pckts Wrote: I'm not talking about weight, I'm talking about physique and like @Apollo said, wild cats are filled to the brim with muscle, a 250kg wild cat is much more impressive than a 250kg captive cat,you can see it in their definition, muscle mass and vascularity.

I was and am talking about overall size and weight. And I don´t see there major differences between captive and wild. Biggest individuals look like to be quite same sized and weights are also close to each others when animals look fit.

Overall size, Wild cats are far more impressive. They're way more muscle dense, body frame is similar although Tigers were significantly larger in frame and robustness, Wild Lions are also larger in frame and robustness but I've seen a Taller cat in captivity than I have in the wild, but that was a S. African Lion compared to a E. African wild Lion. 
But in terms of impressive specimens, I've never seen anything close in captivity that compares to their wild counterparts, that goes for smaller cats as well. 

You dont see cats like these in captivity for the most part.

*This image is copyright of its original author

*This image is copyright of its original author

Nice looking animals, but doesn´t change the way I see this. I said, that there can be some difference, but I see no reason to think, that major differences. Well, of course 20 kg is a lot of muscle if wild animal with same shoulder height and body length has that much more. It also can look a lot more impressive when a little less fat and muscles can be seen better. 

But it doesn´t change for instance it, that lion Aslan is one of the biggest known lions ever, when we talk about fit looking lions and weighed properly. There is only one wild lion known to have weighed more than him and that lion was... was it 272 or 273 kg(?).

What comes to Caesar, there is only speculation. It could have been close to 300 kg or maybe "just" 250 kg. If someone gets some confirmed information one day it will be very interesting to see. 

I am not debating here really about this matter, but giving more reasoning why I see this matter how I do. Looking more ripped doesn´t mean automatically, that bigger or weighing more.

I never said they were heavier,  some captive cats have large weights but they carry far more fat. You can easily see it in their belly folds, captive lions have them often and almost never have them in the wild outside of the Gir and Tigers belly folds are usually low hanging and sway while in the wild their folds are tight and close to their body.

Aslan being 250kg and in fairly good shape is a large lion but his weight has still been surpassed in the wild with more fit Lions as well. You can guarantee that a Lion like Earless would most likely be in the 280kg category as well.

(12-02-2019, 12:12 AM)Ashutosh Wrote:

(12-01-2019, 06:12 PM)Shadow Wrote: Already 200-250 kg tigers are looking very big.

Not really. This tiger is ST1 or Rajour from Sariska who was earlier translocated from Ranthambore. He weighed in at 220 kilos (he was killed by poisoning). He is a decent sized male, but is nowhere as intimidating as a Jai. Just for reference, the tigress in the video is Baghani, a daughter of Machli and she weighed in at a very impressive 170 kilos.

(12-02-2019, 01:36 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: I just showed you a tiger that weighs 220 kilos, and no he isn’t a big tiger. Ask anyone who has seen big males from terai or kaziranga, every single one will tell you that tigers from those landscapes are much bigger. So, your statement that tigers weighing between 200-250 kilos look “very big” is disproved. You can argue all you like, but your statement is based on nothing but conjecture.