Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[Amnon242]

(05-04-2015, 12:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Stretched out tigers or one image picked out is not reliable to determine weight. Scaling them agianst human beings is usefull but not scientific. 
Especially when said humans stats are unknown i:e Height, weight etc.

In regards to posting captive body weights, you and I both look at the same table.
If you need me to post it here I will, but its easily found on this forum. That table is verified weights and measurements and most tigers are with in the normal range of their species. 

You also asked why I think they are overweight, 
A couple of reasons,
Most have a less defined muscle definition and have large bellys IMO.
They are robust but not as definied as a wild tiger. While siberians have a thicker coat you can still get a sense of their mass and muscle definition. 

Edit: Perfect example of captive specimen is the lion above
Large belly flap, and lack of muscle definition. I would also bet the female would have a large belly flap as well if she turned to the side, her chest looks droopy.

 

But those photos can give you at least some idea about the size of these animals. Or are those photos completely useless? :)

I know some tables made by Guate and Kingt. Current wild amurs: 190 kg. Older wild amurs: 216 kg. Captive amurs: 220-225 kg (if I remember). Yes, you are right. Captive specimen are basically the same size as older amurs :)

Why do you think that Duisburg tiger (or Baikal or that tiger from tiger oasis) are overweight? Your reasons are abolutely lame in those cases.
 
Lion: this lion has belly flap because its asiatic. I bet you wont be able to recognize the difference between wild and captive lion by photo (and even in persona). Reply