Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2022 23:14:17 GMT
 vs  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2022 23:15:57 GMT
Leopard needs to be twice the size or close to it if it wants to win. 50lb EBT vs 100lb leopard is a tossup. If the leopard is under 85lbs you can forget about it, it is doomed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 5:09:51 GMT
@hardcastle what do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Nov 5, 2022 10:58:15 GMT
Honestly, even by my standards you go a little hard in the paint, lol. Twice the size seems like a pretty big advantage for the leopard. I mean on the other hand though I have seen leopards fail their predation on VERY meagre street dogs and then get actually get kind of beat up before fleeing the scene, so I can see an EBT being very challenging and hazardous for a smaller leopard to kill. I wouldn't feel good about sending my 50 lbs ebt in to a fight with a 100 lbs leopard though tbh. I think size differences like that supersede superior fighting abilities and traits. 60 lbs ebt vs 80 lbs leopardess? Yeah I think that's a reasonable time to definitely favour the dog. But 50 lbs vs 100 lbs? I'd probably lean leopard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2022 0:47:10 GMT
Honestly, even by my standards you go a little hard in the paint, lol. Twice the size seems like a pretty big advantage for the leopard. I mean on the other hand though I have seen leopards fail their predation on VERY meagre street dogs and then get actually get kind of beat up before fleeing the scene, so I can see an EBT being very challenging and hazardous for a smaller leopard to kill. I wouldn't feel good about sending my 50 lbs ebt in to a fight with a 100 lbs leopard though tbh. I think size differences like that supersede superior fighting abilities and traits. 60 lbs ebt vs 80 lbs leopardess? Yeah I think that's a reasonable time to definitely favour the dog. But 50 lbs vs 100 lbs? I'd probably lean leopard. I was just going off of what you said on carnivora, you said a gamebred APBT was a good match for wild predators twice their size or close to it, and I figured it wouldn't be any different with an EBT. What made you change your mind? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Nov 6, 2022 1:06:44 GMT
Probably not having to deal with Carnivora guys has softened my stance. They piss me off and just make me double down harder. It's not totally implausible for a bullterrier to beat a leopard twice it's size, certainly give it trouble, but to kill it more often than the reverse? I think I was probably getting carried away there, like I said carnivora will do that to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Nov 30, 2022 4:17:48 GMT
Probably not having to deal with Carnivora guys has softened my stance. They piss me off and just make me double down harder. It's not totally implausible for a bullterrier to beat a leopard twice it's size, certainly give it trouble, but to kill it more often than the reverse? I think I was probably getting carried away there, like I said carnivora will do that to you. English Bull Terrier would lose since they lost to a small Leopard.  |
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Nov 30, 2022 4:23:30 GMT
Probably not having to deal with Carnivora guys has softened my stance. They piss me off and just make me double down harder. It's not totally implausible for a bullterrier to beat a leopard twice it's size, certainly give it trouble, but to kill it more often than the reverse? I think I was probably getting carried away there, like I said carnivora will do that to you. English Bull Terrier would lose since they lost to a small Leopard. Found this on Carnivora.net |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2022 4:52:10 GMT
Probably not having to deal with Carnivora guys has softened my stance. They piss me off and just make me double down harder. It's not totally implausible for a bullterrier to beat a leopard twice it's size, certainly give it trouble, but to kill it more often than the reverse? I think I was probably getting carried away there, like I said carnivora will do that to you. English Bull Terrier would lose since they lost to a small Leopard. Congratulations, a leopard ambushed a 30lb bull terrier? It doesn't matter how tough a dog is if it's dwarfed in size. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Nov 30, 2022 11:01:46 GMT
Probably not having to deal with Carnivora guys has softened my stance. They piss me off and just make me double down harder. It's not totally implausible for a bullterrier to beat a leopard twice it's size, certainly give it trouble, but to kill it more often than the reverse? I think I was probably getting carried away there, like I said carnivora will do that to you. English Bull Terrier would lose since they lost to a small Leopard. You should register dude... you need to keep fighting the good fight against "shitbulls", if you don't no one will, lol. I'm an asshole but I will be a good admin. I won't use my admin powers in a debate (like Taipan) ever, no matter what. I'll just swear at you and call you a fag. You can do the same back, I don't give a shit. So... think about it. There's a certain size advantage where a leopard will definitely beat a bull terrier or any dog quite quickly and easily. As I've said many times it's simply a matter of being strong enough to hold a dog down with the forelimbs, if a cat can do that, victory is swift and decisive with a kill bite to the vertebrae, throat or possibly even through the skull. The cat can do what it wants at leisure, IF it has that size/strength advantage to subdue the dog completely and securely with it's forelimbs. On a strong dog of equal size (namely the bull/catch breeds) cats can't do this, because the body of a bull terrier, bulldog or boarhound is too powerful, and the dog is the one who will control and subdue the cat using it's mouth like a hand and whole body like one giant extremely powerful forelimb. We see this in basically every encounter between working gripping dogs and cats close to their size. The cat invariably is put on it's back in a matter of seconds (or less than one second, usually) where it is mauled and has to resort to defensive desperation rakes with it's claws. Which CAN do some damage, but usually not lethal damage. They'd rather be in control and using their forelimbs to secure and hold down the dog for a quick kill bite, but it's often (most often) not possible on a strong "fighting type" dog that is their size, especially without ambush. So they end up underneath and on the defensive 90 something percent of the time. Unless they are bigger. Bull terriers in british india (or just that era in general, the 1800s into early 1900s) were tiny. Their weights are often detailed in many pieces of literature from that time and place. Bull terriers have since become commonly larger, 50 lbs is modest and 60-70 lbs not uncommon. These days. But back then 40 lbs was fairly big for a bull terrier, 20 lbs not uncommon, 30 lbs probably most of the time. Even bullmastiffs were described as being as low as 40 lbs sometimes, 60 lbs a lot of the time, 90 lbs considered huge for a bullmastiff. In general dog weights from the past are always surprisingly low. The only exception being "bloodhounds" which is what they called large boarhounds trained to attack humans in the 1800s (slaves, natives, criminals/convicts). Some of them were described as weighing between 140-160 lbs  Seems size and weight was a useful plus on humans, and as such man-dogs had a fairly high ceiling for their still-functional sizes, the ceiling was lower for dogs that were required to tackle other animals. Bull terriers were often used to catch bulls (and gaur and buffalo in India) and you gotta keep dogs that do that job pretty compact and small to survive. So even when bulldogs and bull terriers were used on big cats, they typically ALSO were regularly used on bovines and had to be small to do that more important job (which they performed much more frequently). These dogs were also often sourced from pit fighting which also favoured smaller dogs. Dogs focussed on boars as their primary target (and large stags/elk) could be larger (dependent on height- but 80-130 lbs possible). Boarhounds were bigger than bulldogs/bull terriers, and bloodhounds bigger than boarhounds. When 1800s or pre-war 1900s guys are talking about bulldogs or bull terriers, they are PROBABLY talking about 25-35lbs dogs. A small leopard is at least twice that. Probably more like 90-110 lbs zone. Admittedly one up around 150-200 lbs would be noted as a very large leopard, so I'm not gonna say it's that, but the leopard here that killed the bull terrier quickly and the other "pointer sized" leopard that killed a bull terrier were killing dogs likely less than half their size. Nobody ever argued they couldn't do that. Again comes back to the ability to easily subdue and secure the dog in their forelimbs for a kill bite, if they can do that they absolutely win emphatically and easily. It's just way way way less possible in a face to face fight with a dog close to their size than cat fans want to admit, but with a dog half their size, absolutely a no brainer. |
|
|
|
Post by lincoln on Nov 30, 2022 16:53:46 GMT
I would say the leopard, it’s often double the size
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Nov 30, 2022 17:05:51 GMT
Yes. Double the size is probably gonna cut it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnson on Dec 2, 2022 6:49:12 GMT
English Bull Terrier would lose since they lost to a small Leopard. You should register dude... you need to keep fighting the good fight against "shitbulls", if you don't no one will, lol. I'm an asshole but I will be a good admin. I won't use my admin powers in a debate (like Taipan) ever, no matter what. I'll just swear at you and call you a fag. You can do the same back, I don't give a shit. So... think about it. There's a certain size advantage where a leopard will definitely beat a bull terrier or any dog quite quickly and easily. As I've said many times it's simply a matter of being strong enough to hold a dog down with the forelimbs, if a cat can do that, victory is swift and decisive with a kill bite to the vertebrae, throat or possibly even through the skull. The cat can do what it wants at leisure, IF it has that size/strength advantage to subdue the dog completely and securely with it's forelimbs. On a strong dog of equal size (namely the bull/catch breeds) cats can't do this, because the body of a bull terrier, bulldog or boarhound is too powerful, and the dog is the one who will control and subdue the cat using it's mouth like a hand and whole body like one giant extremely powerful forelimb. We see this in basically every encounter between working gripping dogs and cats close to their size. The cat invariably is put on it's back in a matter of seconds (or less than one second, usually) where it is mauled and has to resort to defensive desperation rakes with it's claws. Which CAN do some damage, but usually not lethal damage. They'd rather be in control and using their forelimbs to secure and hold down the dog for a quick kill bite, but it's often (most often) not possible on a strong "fighting type" dog that is their size, especially without ambush. So they end up underneath and on the defensive 90 something percent of the time. Unless they are bigger. Bull terriers in british india (or just that era in general, the 1800s into early 1900s) were tiny. Their weights are often detailed in many pieces of literature from that time and place. Bull terriers have since become commonly larger, 50 lbs is modest and 60-70 lbs not uncommon. These days. But back then 40 lbs was fairly big for a bull terrier, 20 lbs not uncommon, 30 lbs probably most of the time. Even bullmastiffs were described as being as low as 40 lbs sometimes, 60 lbs a lot of the time, 90 lbs considered huge for a bullmastiff. In general dog weights from the past are always surprisingly low. The only exception being "bloodhounds" which is what they called large boarhounds trained to attack humans in the 1800s (slaves, natives, criminals/convicts). Some of them were described as weighing between 140-160 lbs Seems size and weight was a useful plus on humans, and as such man-dogs had a fairly high ceiling for their still-functional sizes, the ceiling was lower for dogs that were required to tackle other animals. Bull terriers were often used to catch bulls (and gaur and buffalo in India) and you gotta keep dogs that do that job pretty compact and small to survive. So even when bulldogs and bull terriers were used on big cats, they typically ALSO were regularly used on bovines and had to be small to do that more important job (which they performed much more frequently). These dogs were also often sourced from pit fighting which also favoured smaller dogs. Dogs focussed on boars as their primary target (and large stags/elk) could be larger (dependent on height- but 80-130 lbs possible). Boarhounds were bigger than bulldogs/bull terriers, and bloodhounds bigger than boarhounds. When 1800s or pre-war 1900s guys are talking about bulldogs or bull terriers, they are PROBABLY talking about 25-35lbs dogs. A small leopard is at least twice that. Probably more like 90-110 lbs zone. Admittedly one up around 150-200 lbs would be noted as a very large leopard, so I'm not gonna say it's that, but the leopard here that killed the bull terrier quickly and the other "pointer sized" leopard that killed a bull terrier were killing dogs likely less than half their size. Nobody ever argued they couldn't do that. Again comes back to the ability to easily subdue and secure the dog in their forelimbs for a kill bite, if they can do that they absolutely win emphatically and easily. It's just way way way less possible in a face to face fight with a dog close to their size than cat fans want to admit, but with a dog half their size, absolutely a no brainer. It did say the Leopard was English Pointer Dog sized, which means the Leopard was 35-75 pounds. Anyway, I have also read about accounts of leopards killing Mastiffs, bulldogs and those hounds. If I am being honest, I do think that the top tier catch dogs would put up a better fight against a Leopard in comparison to Wolves and other Dogs. However, I would favor the Leopard just a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Dec 2, 2022 8:19:06 GMT
They never said they weighed it. Pointer sized is used as a "to the eye" casual statement. Leopards weigh more than dogs of equal dimensions, a pointer height leopard is a pretty big leopard. Safe to say it was probably slim and not a burly monster leopard or they would have said so, to give a pointer size impression it was probably pretty sleek, but still sizable. In the same segment they mention much larger leopards that "kill cattle", which would be the very big mature males around 75-80+kgs. I'd speculate the significantly smaller "pointer sized" leopards killing bull terriers were still around 35-40 kgs, full grown, maybe female. If they were pointer weight they wouldn't look pointer sized at all. They'd say "a small baby leopard killed a bull terrier, it was wild". I'd say just regular average leopards of around 35-40 kgs are what they are talking about. Still much bigger than the tiny bull terriers, and again this victory does not actually conflict with my stance on the match up at all. I've always been consistent with giving cats the advantage when they are big enough to control the dog with their forelimbs, and I say a 80 lbs leopard is definitely big enough to control a 30-40 lbs bull terrier. I also, for the record, give leopards the victory at equal weights when said weight is up around 60+ kgs. Equal weights in weight classes ranging from 10 kg up to 55 kg, when we are talking about working gripping dogs, I think the dogs win against wild cats more often than not. That's specifically all I contend.
I think leopards and mountain lions both beat wolves, handily. In fact I think wolves are significantly better at fighting gripping dogs than they are at fighting big cats. Big cats school them IMO. Cautious dogs do badly against cats. Whether wolf or scenthound or even LGD(even though yes some LGDs have killed big cats, the reverse has happened also - real legit working LGDs. I don't feel confident about LGDs against big cats). Gripping dogs in particular are a cats worst nightmare. Provided the dog isn't too big, is a switched-on working specimen, and is fighting a cat around the same size as it.
BTW as the admin I'm the only "mod" who can potentially punish or discipline you, and I definitely won't. And if I do, let the record show you won and I'm a fag (like taipan). I'm far too proud to ever do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2022 12:51:01 GMT
Leopard needs to be twice the size or close to it if it wants to win. 50lb EBT vs 100lb leopard is a tossup. If the leopard is under 85lbs you can forget about it, it is doomed. 50lb ebt vs 100lbs leopard is a toss up lol? That's an interesting opinion. Imo I would call that a huge mismatch. |
|
