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

[Pckts]

I think I was referring to the largest Amur weight compared to Madla skull weight.
Also according to the madla measurements, he has the largest recorded canines
" “Madla” that was estimated at 250 kg with a neck of 90 cm, had upper canines that were about 75 mm! (Page 213). This is a new record among Bengal tigers and taking in count that this was measured to the gum line, this means a length of no less than 80 mm in the skull, surpassing any wild Amur tiger canine recorded."
I wonder what the massive skull dimensions would be on the Kaziranga tigers as well as canine measurement. If madlas where that large, imagine the Kazirangas, Waghdohs, Hairyfoot etc..

In regards to the Amur and Bengal Averages. Yes they both average over 200kg, but you included the sunderban population which would bring down the Bengals average quite a bit. If we remove sunderbans, what would the difference be between bengals and amurs? Probably quite a bit.

Peter,
What would you say the average body length for a Lion is, and what do you think a Bengal would be?
If lions average 5'10'' in body length and tigers average 6'3'' in body length (for example) I would be curious as to what the chest size would be for both. I would then like to compare equal body weights, chest girth size, then finally, when both are at their prime, territory holding size. It would be more accurate to see exactly where/when the maturation of both happen and what is the usual size jump.
Also, great point about lions not wanting to fight from their back because of the multiple attackers and that is why they adapted the fighting style of 3 legs. But I will say this, when you watch everland fights, you see the tiger being attacked by multiple lion attackers, but it is the flexibility of the tigers spine that enables them to attack from its back and even gain the advantage and stand up from there at times, but it makes sense that a lion would be more weary of it and evolve a more upright fighting style. You are also make a great point about the ferocity of a tiger fight compared to lion. Lions are probably quicker to pull the trigger when it comes to fight, but they are also probably less ferocious in their attempts or even capabilities of killing each other, a tiger will often try to intimidate and have quick tests of strength to avoid a major fight more often, but when the combatents are not intimidated, the fights are often much more serious and and you can see that by the way the fights look. Tigers go for the throat and skull more often and almost treat their opponent like a prey item, they are looking for the kill. Lions also prefer to bluff their way out of a fight if possible, but I think they are quicker to engage but I think their mindset is more of a "I just want to assert my dominance and show the pride how tough I am" and a tigers mentality is "if this guy won't leave my territory than I am going to kill him."
  Reply