There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
Peter presents a great point. To add to that, the second male that was also 272+ kg was allegedly larger than Sauaraha. Say Sauraha was around 272 kg, then this other male could've been 280-290 kg easily, and honestly, based on my data I posted in the extinct species forum, a few inch of a different can easily put the male 30 kg heavier than Sauraha.
Furthermore, Bamera could be smaller in frame than Aslan but weigh just as much or more, especially considering this is a lion and tiger comparison. Lions are significantly lighter built. To put it into persepective, a wild male lion 301.1 cm in length weighed 234 kg, while a male Bengal tiger length 279.6 cm weighed 238 kg. Furthermore, he's a captive specimen, lacking the dense muscle of wild specimens. A captive tiger logged in the Copenhagen museum the same length and greater height compared Sauraha weighed only 230 kg, while we all know Sauraha bottomed a 272 kg scale. Dense muscle doesn't show superficially, but surely on the scale it does. I understand where your estimate comes from as you've worked with captive specimens, which probably have similar frames, but the weight is proportionately very different.
Also Peter, did you ever have a chance to compare captive and wild Bengal skulls? I know you stated they were denser than other species, was there any different between captive and wild?