|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 1, 2023 19:57:47 GMT
That is cool and was surely a badass leopard. But did you know the whole reason circuses had boarhounds was to shut down big cats that spazzed out? There's another case where they were used (very successfully) on a tiger that was attacking a horse and several people, and in that case it's mentioned that's the whole reason they are there. Circuses used to keep a team of boarhounds for any big cats that lost their shit, as a matter of course. That's pretty significant, it shows the dogo/puma situation is not some anomaly, along with other historical clues it shows big cats are standard viable quarry for boarhounds and have been since time immemorial. Sometimes exceptional quarry might kill their assailants, and full credit to that badass leopard again, but I'm still intrigued by the fact it was common knowledge you could shut down big cats with boarhounds. Certainly flies in the face of what a lot of people think today. edit; the article I was referring to -  Remember that "bloodhound" just meant "big boarhound" in the old days (no connection to modern bloodhound) and wolfhounds are basically hairy boarhounds. Its interesting that multiple times in historical literature "4" is mentioned as the magic number to "make masteries" of lions and tigers, and thats when they actually knew a lot more about animal combat (from close personal experience) than we do today. |
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Aug 1, 2023 21:32:14 GMT
That is cool and was surely a badass leopard. But did you know the whole reason circuses had boarhounds was to shut down big cats that spazzed out? There's another case where they were used (very successfully) on a tiger that was attacking a horse and several people, and in that case it's mentioned that's the whole reason they are there. Circuses used to keep a team of boarhounds for any big cats that lost their shit, as a matter of course. That's pretty significant, it shows the dogo/puma situation is not some anomaly, along with other historical clues it shows big cats are standard viable quarry for boarhounds and have been since time immemorial. Sometimes exceptional quarry might kill their assailants, and full credit to that badass leopard again, but I'm still intrigued by the fact it was common knowledge you could shut down big cats with boarhounds. Certainly flies in the face of what a lot of people think today. edit; the article I was referring to - Remember that "bloodhound" just meant "big boarhound" in the old days (no connection to modern bloodhound) and wolfhounds are basically hairy boarhounds. Its interesting that multiple times in historical literature "4" is mentioned as the magic number to "make masteries" of lions and tigers, and thats when they actually knew a lot more about animal combat (from close personal experience) than we do today. To be fair, for valid reasons, I strongly doubt that was an actual tiger, unless it was something of this size -  I think that 4 dogs being able to survive and subdue a "large tiger" that with a single paw swipe can literally break each dog's neck (they have done to buffalos) in a hour and half struggle is a great exaggeration, borderline scientific impossible. Unless that tiger was actually just a leopard whose name was again pronounced to be a tiger (that happens a lot in ancient literature) |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 1, 2023 21:50:12 GMT
That is cool and was surely a badass leopard. But did you know the whole reason circuses had boarhounds was to shut down big cats that spazzed out? There's another case where they were used (very successfully) on a tiger that was attacking a horse and several people, and in that case it's mentioned that's the whole reason they are there. Circuses used to keep a team of boarhounds for any big cats that lost their shit, as a matter of course. That's pretty significant, it shows the dogo/puma situation is not some anomaly, along with other historical clues it shows big cats are standard viable quarry for boarhounds and have been since time immemorial. Sometimes exceptional quarry might kill their assailants, and full credit to that badass leopard again, but I'm still intrigued by the fact it was common knowledge you could shut down big cats with boarhounds. Certainly flies in the face of what a lot of people think today. edit; the article I was referring to - Remember that "bloodhound" just meant "big boarhound" in the old days (no connection to modern bloodhound) and wolfhounds are basically hairy boarhounds. Its interesting that multiple times in historical literature "4" is mentioned as the magic number to "make masteries" of lions and tigers, and thats when they actually knew a lot more about animal combat (from close personal experience) than we do today. To be fair, for valid reasons, I strongly doubt that was an actual tiger, unless it was something of this size - View AttachmentI think that 4 dogs being able to survive and subdue a "large tiger" that with a single paw swipe can literally break each dog's neck (they have done to buffalos) in a hour and half struggle is a great exaggeration, borderline scientific impossible. Unless that tiger was actually just a leopard whose name was again pronounced to be a tiger (that happens a lot in ancient literature) I think the exaggerration is in "single paw swipe can break a dogs neck". It might do it to buffalos (though I have never seen truly reliable case), but they have a huge back stop of a heavy body for the force to be applied against, you can paw swipe a dog with 8000 lbs of pressure and you will merely send its whole body flying 70 feet away. It won't break the dog's neck, there's not enough resistance pushing back against the force of the swipe. These dogs are incredibly durable, thats the whole point of the robusticity figures. What they demonstrate clearly. They're designed to take huge collisions from bulls and boars which frankly far exceed the padded paw swipe of a tiger. The tigers paw swipe is literally no threat whatsoever. Its defensive claw rakes are potentially lethally damaging, and its pin-and-bite is immediately lethal with certainty, but paw swipes? No. Maybe in a cartoon. I'm satisfied that 4 is the number to subjugate tigers and lions, its too frequently mentioned, and in the lion baiting cases they were actually slipping less dogs than that (20-45 lbs dogs btw) at a time, to make it sporting. 4 is the number of gripping dogs to actually make sure of it (and all the better if they are large 100+ lbsers like these), which is what a ringmaster would be setting out to do (not have a sporting contest). You'll come around, your dog appreciation/knowledge is on the upswing for sure, but you are still underestimating them. |
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Aug 1, 2023 22:39:40 GMT
To be fair, for valid reasons, I strongly doubt that was an actual tiger, unless it was something of this size - View AttachmentI think that 4 dogs being able to survive and subdue a "large tiger" that with a single paw swipe can literally break each dog's neck (they have done to buffalos) in a hour and half struggle is a great exaggeration, borderline scientific impossible. Unless that tiger was actually just a leopard whose name was again pronounced to be a tiger (that happens a lot in ancient literature) I think the exaggerration is in "single paw swipe can break a dogs neck". It might do it to buffalos (though I have never seen truly reliable case), but they have a huge back stop of a heavy body for the force to be applied against, you can paw swipe a dog with 8000 lbs of pressure and you will merely send its whole body flying 70 feet away. It won't break the dog's neck, there's not enough resistance pushing back against the force of the swipe. These dogs are incredibly durable, thats the whole point of the robusticity figures. What they demonstrate clearly. They're designed to take huge collisions from bulls and boars which frankly far exceed the padded paw swipe of a tiger. The tigers paw swipe is literally no threat whatsoever. Its defensive claw rakes are potentially lethally damaging, and its pin-and-bite is immediately lethal with certainty, but paw swipes? No. Maybe in a cartoon. I'm satisfied that 4 is the number to subjugate tigers and lions, its too frequently mentioned, and in the lion baiting cases they were actually slipping less dogs than that (20-45 lbs dogs btw) at a time, to make it sporting. 4 is the number of gripping dogs to actually make sure of it (and all the better if they are large 100+ lbsers like these), which is what a ringmaster would be setting out to do (not have a sporting contest). You'll come around, your dog appreciation/knowledge is on the upswing for sure, but you are still underestimating them. There's a legitimate account listed here 
Accounted with a photograph. 
You see the tiger claws' signature on the neck of the bovid.
There's no underestimating there, you can find me having serious defensive and serious debates about the durability of a game dog, especially when I see the thing that infuriates me the most which is LGD fans shitting on them. But you get we are talking about a tiger, claimed to be a large one so probably above 240 kgs, whoose neck circumference is close to the dog's chest circumference likely (not an exaggeration as you can see from these picture)
pitted against 4 dogs whoose head can fit probably three times inside that of the cat Assuming the tiger is defending itself the best it can, it's just outright impossible for that to happen. No one is even trying to doubt that it's possible to discuss the dog's durability, because it isn't debatable since it's a fact. What it's being put in doubt is that these dogs in half a hour struggle survived getting impaled by these (bottom one is a female btw so even smaller than an apparent large male)   or getting their whole bones and organs ripped off by these repeatedly   Again look at the scale of the things, how actually are they ever going to survive these weapons and actually overcome the tiger when their mouths would probably barely tickle the much larger tiger's neck? While in the meantime being ripped in half or impaled by a much larger head that equals around 1/3 of their whole size?
This is what a single paw swipe could do to a man btw. 
How are the dogs going to look after this fight? Like this?
I would believe this story of the tiger suddenly cur out and started behaving like Nero, but that doesn't seem the case. Again, I'm very sure that this tiger is just a leopard that got it's name mistaken.
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Bolushi on Aug 1, 2023 23:09:25 GMT
Gotta say, the spazzing out, knocking things over, randomly attacking horses etc. sounds like something that would happen when a leopard goes rogue in an Indian village. A tiger sounds more like the kind of animal to calmly grapple the first thing it sees near it, and kill it, and then move on or maybe run around killing. But not without any thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 2, 2023 0:13:32 GMT
I think the exaggerration is in "single paw swipe can break a dogs neck". It might do it to buffalos (though I have never seen truly reliable case), but they have a huge back stop of a heavy body for the force to be applied against, you can paw swipe a dog with 8000 lbs of pressure and you will merely send its whole body flying 70 feet away. It won't break the dog's neck, there's not enough resistance pushing back against the force of the swipe. These dogs are incredibly durable, thats the whole point of the robusticity figures. What they demonstrate clearly. They're designed to take huge collisions from bulls and boars which frankly far exceed the padded paw swipe of a tiger. The tigers paw swipe is literally no threat whatsoever. Its defensive claw rakes are potentially lethally damaging, and its pin-and-bite is immediately lethal with certainty, but paw swipes? No. Maybe in a cartoon. I'm satisfied that 4 is the number to subjugate tigers and lions, its too frequently mentioned, and in the lion baiting cases they were actually slipping less dogs than that (20-45 lbs dogs btw) at a time, to make it sporting. 4 is the number of gripping dogs to actually make sure of it (and all the better if they are large 100+ lbsers like these), which is what a ringmaster would be setting out to do (not have a sporting contest). You'll come around, your dog appreciation/knowledge is on the upswing for sure, but you are still underestimating them. There's a legitimate account listed here View AttachmentYou see the tiger claws' signature on the neck of the bovid. There's no underestimating there, you can find me having serious defensive and serious debates about the durability of a game dog, especially when I see the thing that infuriates me the most which is LGD fans shitting on them. But you get we are talking about a tiger, claimed to be a large one so probably above 240 kgs, whoose neck circumference is close to the dog's chest circumference likely (not an exaggeration as you can see from these picture) pitted against 4 dogs whoose head can fit probably three times inside that of the cat Assuming the tiger is defending itself the best it can, it's just outright impossible for that to happen. No one is even trying to doubt that it's possible to discuss the dog's durability, because it isn't debatable since it's a fact. What it's being put in doubt is that these dogs in half a hour struggle survived getting impaled by these (bottom one is a female btw so even smaller than an apparent large male) View AttachmentView Attachment or getting their whole bones and organs ripped off by these repeatedly View AttachmentView AttachmentAgain look at the scale of the things, how actually are they ever going to survive these weapons and actually overcome the tiger when their mouths would probably barely tickle the much larger tiger's neck? While in the meantime being ripped in half or impaled by a much larger head that equals around 1/3 of their whole size?How are the dogs going to look after this fight? Like this? I would believe this story of the tiger suddenly cur out and started behaving like Nero, but that doesn't seem the case. Again, I'm very sure that this tiger is just a leopard that got it's name mistaken.
I'd still like to see a paw swipe do anything like that. I've read the accounts, never seen it, and in that specific account they found the bull with a broken neck. They don't even claim to have seen it, they then pressume it was done with a paw swipe. I have seen tigers break a bovines neck by grabbing their head with their forelimbs and awkwardly twisting it with their weight against the natural bend. That would have been my speculation if I was in their shoes. Either way, there is no connection between breaking a bull's neck with a paw swipe and breaking a dog's neck with a paw swipe. It's simple physics, you yourself can do an experiment; get a toothpick and jam one pointy end into a potato, wedge the other into the ground, and then flick the toothpick. It will break. Now try and flip a tooth pick with no potato, just one end in the ground. It will fly away. It doesn't matter how hard you flick it, it will always just fly away. There's no resistance pushing back against the flick because it is too light. The same is true about a dog being paw swiped. It will simply be flung away, the force in the swipe will simply increase the speed and distance that it is flung. It would take a big heavy mastiff with a lot of body and a thin neck for a big cat paw swipe to break its neck, and this is precisely why big heavy mastiffs are useless as gripping dogs, whether it is a cat paw swipe or the jolting tusk-ruck of a boar or the devastating kick or head-smash of a bull (all frankly have far more blunt force than a tiger paw swipe), the dog needs to be light enough to have its whole body take the impact and be swatted away, rather than have the impact hit one part of the body (say the head) and separate it from the rest (which for example could break the neck). A gripping dogs neck can support the weight of its body, that is the whole point of them. So you can hit pull push on their head, and their whole body will simply fly wherever the head goes. With rakes it is totally different, because the claws are specifically pulling flesh away from a static animal that is being held in one place while the claws are ripping flesh away from that place. Yes, this is extremely dangerous and bad for a dog to endure from a tiger, hence why there are 4, and as described a dog can grab each forelimb while another two grab the head/neck area, neutralising the tigers ability to freely employ this lethal technique. As I've mentioned before, you can't catch tigers with free-running catch dogs, because one will meet the tiger first and be waiting for back up, and so the tiger will just rip that dog apart, probably pin it down and assassinate with it with a bite realistically, but hypothetically could also hold it still and claw swathes of flesh off it. If you are using free-running catch dogs on something they need to be able to safely go toe to toe 1 on 1 with the quarry. In this scenario however, and in a lead-in catch scenario perhaps, you can loose 4 dogs at once to all seize the cat simultaneously and neutralise its ability to effectively retaliate. Which is exactly what is described, with one 120 odd lbs dog on one paw and another on the other, and then two seizing each side of the cats head, its capacity to do damage becomes very limited. Gripping dogs are masterful not at killing anything, but at neutralising dangerous animals and incapacitating them so they are no longer dangerous. Thats what is described here and elsewhere. No the tiger was not being confused for the leopard at this time. This occurred in 1895 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Lions, tigers and leopards were distinctive circus animals at this time with famous lion and tiger tamers established and writing about the differences. There was still confusion about cheetah vs leopard earlier in the 1800s and 1700s. Tiger/leopard confusion would be much much older and is actually rare even going way way way back. I have seen ancient greek and roman literature detailing the differences. A leopard also doesn't require 4 big boarhounds to be subdued. 4 has always been the number given for lions and tigers specifically. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 2, 2023 0:53:51 GMT
Gotta say, the spazzing out, knocking things over, randomly attacking horses etc. sounds like something that would happen when a leopard goes rogue in an Indian village. A tiger sounds more like the kind of animal to calmly grapple the first thing it sees near it, and kill it, and then move on or maybe run around killing. But not without any thinking. Leopards are certainly more spazz-prone, with jaguars, tigers and lions all famously more calm, but tigers can still spazz. They are kind of intermediate in spazz level between lion and leopard. Either way, there's no way they are confusing a tiger for a leopard in this account. If you wanna suggest young tiger or something, maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 2, 2023 4:31:54 GMT
I did a thing, this is accurate if the wolfhounds and bloodhounds were between 32-34 inches tall at the shoulder (a fairly reasonable and conservative estimate).  |
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Aug 2, 2023 21:49:59 GMT
There's a legitimate account listed here View AttachmentYou see the tiger claws' signature on the neck of the bovid. There's no underestimating there, you can find me having serious defensive and serious debates about the durability of a game dog, especially when I see the thing that infuriates me the most which is LGD fans shitting on them. But you get we are talking about a tiger, claimed to be a large one so probably above 240 kgs, whoose neck circumference is close to the dog's chest circumference likely (not an exaggeration as you can see from these picture) pitted against 4 dogs whoose head can fit probably three times inside that of the cat Assuming the tiger is defending itself the best it can, it's just outright impossible for that to happen. No one is even trying to doubt that it's possible to discuss the dog's durability, because it isn't debatable since it's a fact. What it's being put in doubt is that these dogs in half a hour struggle survived getting impaled by these (bottom one is a female btw so even smaller than an apparent large male) View AttachmentView Attachment or getting their whole bones and organs ripped off by these repeatedly View AttachmentView AttachmentAgain look at the scale of the things, how actually are they ever going to survive these weapons and actually overcome the tiger when their mouths would probably barely tickle the much larger tiger's neck? While in the meantime being ripped in half or impaled by a much larger head that equals around 1/3 of their whole size?How are the dogs going to look after this fight? Like this? I would believe this story of the tiger suddenly cur out and started behaving like Nero, but that doesn't seem the case. Again, I'm very sure that this tiger is just a leopard that got it's name mistaken.
I'd still like to see a paw swipe do anything like that. I've read the accounts, never seen it, and in that specific account they found the bull with a broken neck. They don't even claim to have seen it, they then pressume it was done with a paw swipe. I have seen tigers break a bovines neck by grabbing their head with their forelimbs and awkwardly twisting it with their weight against the natural bend. That would have been my speculation if I was in their shoes. Either way, there is no connection between breaking a bull's neck with a paw swipe and breaking a dog's neck with a paw swipe. It's simple physics, you yourself can do an experiment; get a toothpick and jam one pointy end into a potato, wedge the other into the ground, and then flick the toothpick. It will break. Now try and flip a tooth pick with no potato, just one end in the ground. It will fly away. It doesn't matter how hard you flick it, it will always just fly away. There's no resistance pushing back against the flick because it is too light. The same is true about a dog being paw swiped. It will simply be flung away, the force in the swipe will simply increase the speed and distance that it is flung. It would take a big heavy mastiff with a lot of body and a thin neck for a big cat paw swipe to break its neck, and this is precisely why big heavy mastiffs are useless as gripping dogs, whether it is a cat paw swipe or the jolting tusk-ruck of a boar or the devastating kick or head-smash of a bull (all frankly have far more blunt force than a tiger paw swipe), the dog needs to be light enough to have its whole body take the impact and be swatted away, rather than have the impact hit one part of the body (say the head) and separate it from the rest (which for example could break the neck). A gripping dogs neck can support the weight of its body, that is the whole point of them. So you can hit pull push on their head, and their whole body will simply fly wherever the head goes. With rakes it is totally different, because the claws are specifically pulling flesh away from a static animal that is being held in one place while the claws are ripping flesh away from that place. Yes, this is extremely dangerous and bad for a dog to endure from a tiger, hence why there are 4, and as described a dog can grab each forelimb while another two grab the head/neck area, neutralising the tigers ability to freely employ this lethal technique. As I've mentioned before, you can't catch tigers with free-running catch dogs, because one will meet the tiger first and be waiting for back up, and so the tiger will just rip that dog apart, probably pin it down and assassinate with it with a bite realistically, but hypothetically could also hold it still and claw swathes of flesh off it. If you are using free-running catch dogs on something they need to be able to safely go toe to toe 1 on 1 with the quarry. In this scenario however, and in a lead-in catch scenario perhaps, you can loose 4 dogs at once to all seize the cat simultaneously and neutralise its ability to effectively retaliate. Which is exactly what is described, with one 120 odd lbs dog on one paw and another on the other, and then two seizing each side of the cats head, its capacity to do damage becomes very limited. Gripping dogs are masterful not at killing anything, but at neutralising dangerous animals and incapacitating them so they are no longer dangerous. Thats what is described here and elsewhere. No the tiger was not being confused for the leopard at this time. This occurred in 1895 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Lions, tigers and leopards were distinctive circus animals at this time with famous lion and tiger tamers established and writing about the differences. There was still confusion about cheetah vs leopard earlier in the 1800s and 1700s. Tiger/leopard confusion would be much much older and is actually rare even going way way way back. I have seen ancient greek and roman literature detailing the differences. A leopard also doesn't require 4 big boarhounds to be subdued. 4 has always been the number given for lions and tigers specifically. So they didn't kill the tiger but just tire it out to make it out back in order by humans? Makes more sense because I barely believe that considering the abyssal size difference they could do even little of serious damage, considering also the fact that dogs of this type barely have teeth able to tear apart and that well the neck girth of a tiger is so large in comparison that a mouthful of it will give the tiger general tickles more than other.
By the way everything related to this story seems to be exagerrated in my opinion, do we for chance know how many dogs survived this encounter and how badly injured they were? There are two main factors that tell me it's very exagerrated.
1)The dogs surviving in a 1 and half hour struggle against a cat that outsizes them by like 350 lbs if not more. But who knows, they said "large" tiger. I assume that's above the average of 450 lbs.
Note, I'm being very doubtful 90% because they said large tiger. Against a tiger the size of an indochinese tiger around 300-400 lbs I could see that happen, still not without dogs looking like zombies in the aftermath.
But with large tiger I assume a very large tiger around 500-550 lbs and over 42 inches in height.
Maybe I'm overestimating the capability of these people about average and large cats and they simply called a 300 lb tiger as large? 2)The dogs being able to immobilize the lbs of the tiger one by one.
The second one especially, first one is viable of the tiger curs out and stops fighting and starts ramming around scared like Nero the pampered lion, that's the only way dogs can subdue a cat of this size , but the second one damn, something just isn't right. You do have an idea that a 110-140 lb dog with the small head it has in comparison to the size of a "large" tiger (whoose forelimb alone probably corresponds 1/3 of the dog's weight) cannot in any way hold still the whole arm of a tiger? It's not like one dog goes on a paw, 1 arm is immobilized, one goes on one hindlimb, 1 hindlimb is immobilized etc etc. Note that the tiger will shake its limbs exagerrately to set itself free and then jab or hook them but at such size difference one swing will have the dog being lifted almost entirely in the air, there's no way a dog can hold still the limb of a large tiger, it would be like what? This 20 lb fox 
trying to hold still the whole arm of this 190 lb guy by biting his hand 
He has over 600 lbs as deadlifting max, you can see the fox is not even controlling his arm in any way will get trashed in the air and moved as if it was nothing.  Or like this working sbt , what is it? 40 lbs? 
Holding still the limb of this guy  the size difference is literally just too much, even more in this case because we are talking about 110-140 lb dogs compared to a probable 500 lb cat. Even more when you're telling me there were wolfhounds on the scene, for as much as I prefer wolfhounds over a good majority of working dogs (though he ain't outclassing the top 3 which you know by whom it's occupied) they are just scaled up deerhounds, they ain't somewhat robust or powerful enough to literally hold still this.  
While being like this, I just see this impossible 
And all of that while surviving getting ripped in half by those the size of tiny steak cutting blades and impaled by teeth the size of literal knives? While being over 350 lbs lighter? See, I have a lot of doubts of this story.
Do you have by chance a way to find out the condition of the dogs in the aftermath? If you told me some died and some were critically injured I would believe the story, because I find it impossible to believe of they were fine. A tiger gets on rampage mode, attacks and critically injures a horse in a single attack, attacks men, kills a dog, re-attacks the horse, gets attacked by 4 dogs 4 times smaller. Gets dominated, the dogs are unharmed and win after 1:30 hour struggle.
You see how very awkward that sounds? You may tell that to literally everyone in the AvA community, both to delusional retards, both to haters of both tigers and lions that will probably even start defending it's reliability due to the childish rivalry they feel. But about serious people, as long as we all have in our minds that with "large" tiger you mean something like this. And not this.   (Side note, the last ones are adult sumatran tigers compared to an adult jaguar, gives you an idea of how these species can overlap) I assure you everyone serious will be seriously doubtful about it.
I think you'd require 2 to 3 boarhounds to subdue a "large" male leopard, one is an overkill 2 can do it but they can end up getting torn very badly considering the fact that the leopard will be considerably larger and more powerful than both, unless they are the same size of the leopard at lower 100-120 lb weights where they clearly 100% can .
Yea that leopard that killed two fighting boarhounds in separate fights (the cheetah isn't even a match lol, a Czechoslovakian wolfdog takes on one as well) was badass, still I don't reward him as a very badass leopard, I think that title goes to the cape leopard resisting for one hour and half against three boarhounds (Boerboels) his size and almost mortally injuring one. I think leopards if successfully trained to be arena fighters like Victor can become proportionally even better than most lions or tigers, I heard a while back you only respect jaguars, lions and tigers as fighters. I hope that all these leopard accounts of killing gripping dogs including the leopard killing that Bully Kutta despite likely not dominating the brawl (but the leopard could very much be the smaller one in that instance since it happened in a region where mature toms average 115 lbs according to newest captures and bully kuttas get around 130-150 lb most of the time) made you award them more than you did before. Obviously as a whole, I didn't forget the comment you made about mature males with a macho attitude that shows you clearly see them as respectable formidable opponents.
For what it's worth I guess that 6 to 7 dogs can take on a tiger/lion, but like 2 to 4 of them will range from dead to badly injured. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Aug 2, 2023 21:54:17 GMT
I did a thing, this is accurate if the wolfhounds and bloodhounds were between 32-34 inches tall at the shoulder (a fairly reasonable and conservative estimate). View Attachment That doesn't look like a large tiger, seems scaled at 1 meter tall barely and that's the average, also Bengal tigers average around 465 lbs , that comparison doesn't give the idea of a 465 lb cat compared to two 110-120 lbish wolfhounds and 130-140 lb bloodhounds. Looks more like 350 lbish |
|
|
|
Post by Bolushi on Aug 2, 2023 22:04:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 2, 2023 22:10:27 GMT
I did a thing, this is accurate if the wolfhounds and bloodhounds were between 32-34 inches tall at the shoulder (a fairly reasonable and conservative estimate). View Attachment That doesn't look like a large tiger, seems scaled at 1 meter tall barely and that's the average, also Bengal tigers average around 465 lbs , that comparison doesn't give the idea of a 465 lb cat compared to two 110-120 lbish wolfhounds and 130-140 lb bloodhounds. Looks more like 350 lbish The scale is right there, conveniently came with the tiger pic. The tiger is 100 cm tall at the shoulder, and the dogs are 80 and 85 cm, which is actually very very conservative, especially for the wolfhound which I kind of accidentally made 80 cm when it should probably be 85 or even more. The "bloodhound" too, you and I saw those old cuban bloodhounds listed at 36 inches or 91.4 cm, I have dropped it to like 33 inches. But hey it was old working dogs, so maybe they weren't near the max height, I'm fine with the comparison, but to say it is misrepresenting the tiger as small or the dogs as big is not true. Maybe the tiger is ALSO conservative, I just got the size comparison of a Panthera Tigris Tigris and they have it 100 cm tall. Looking now they apparently range from 90 to 110, so... All are somewhat conservative. I'd say the wolfhound is the most conservative, at 80 cm, it is 15% smaller than its potential. The tiger is only 9% smaller than its potential. |
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Aug 2, 2023 23:25:10 GMT
That doesn't look like a large tiger, seems scaled at 1 meter tall barely and that's the average, also Bengal tigers average around 465 lbs , that comparison doesn't give the idea of a 465 lb cat compared to two 110-120 lbish wolfhounds and 130-140 lb bloodhounds. Looks more like 350 lbish The scale is right there, conveniently came with the tiger pic. The tiger is 100 cm tall at the shoulder, and the dogs are 80 and 85 cm, which is actually very very conservative, especially for the wolfhound which I kind of accidentally made 80 cm when it should probably be 85 or even more. The "bloodhound" too, you and I saw those old cuban bloodhounds listed at 36 inches or 91.4 cm, I have dropped it to like 33 inches. But hey it was old working dogs, so maybe they weren't near the max height, I'm fine with the comparison, but to say it is misrepresenting the tiger as small or the dogs as big is not true. Maybe the tiger is ALSO conservative, I just got the size comparison of a Panthera Tigris Tigris and they have it 100 cm tall. Looking now they apparently range from 90 to 110, so... All are somewhat conservative. I'd say the wolfhound is the most conservative, at 80 cm, it is 15% smaller than its potential. The tiger is only 9% smaller than its potential. I remade it, using real bloodhound model though images.app.goo.gl/pT3xgTKYoAcjDzFY9 |
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Aug 2, 2023 23:42:48 GMT
This one's even funny, to be fair I'm not able to see the dogs subduing this thing without getting critically injured in the process...  |
|
|
|
Post by Bolushi on Aug 3, 2023 1:00:39 GMT
This one's even funny, to be fair I'm not able to see the dogs subduing this thing without getting critically injured in the process... View AttachmentThat one could skin them with its claws, pry them off its head and then it's a wrap for at least one of them. The one in the other comparison is more doable. |
|
