Leopard vs Puma - definitive thread.

[Hardcastle]

vs




Don't need to get bogged down in any bullcrap subspecies distinctions, which is better for real? Best vs best? Who kills larger prey? Who performs better in interspecific conflicts with their rivals? Who is more dangerous to people? Harder to hunt? etc etc... 

[Deleted]

Leopards.

[Deleted]

The best leopard can take out an adult male wild boar, the best cougar evidently can't take out a large sow. The best cougar can't kill a dairy cow, the best leopard can (a bison in poor condition is fair game for best leopard, best cougar? Not a chance.) The best leopards are comparable to some jaguars, cougars are comparable to no jaguars without a massive size advantage. The best cougar takes a lot of shit from other carnivores who don't respect it at all, like bears, wolves and jaguars. The best leopard certainly doesn't, even just larger male African leopards are fairly bold. Leopards are superior in nearly every way, with combat being close but with a clear leopard edge.
Leopards are harder to hunt, the boergreyhound/maritsane guys in Africa don't hunt them and likely for good reason. Meanwhile 4 spanish greyhounds will stretch a cougar...

[PumAcinonyx SuperCat]

Jan 25, 2023 13:58:28 GMT Hardcastle said:

vs




Don't need to get bogged down in any bullcrap subspecies distinctions, which is better for real? Best vs best? Who kills larger prey? Who performs better in interspecific conflicts with their rivals? Who is more dangerous to people? Harder to hunt? etc etc... 

The Puma is superior in just about everything. Let's not just talk, "an average of X can climb a mountain", "Y at its level best can not climb a molehill". 


Cougar Superiority 


▪︎ Size: Cougar is bigger at both average and max 


▪︎ Speed: Cougar runs faster (80 km/h against 60 for the leopard) 


▪︎ Jumping Ability: Cougar, both horizontally and vertically (undisputed best jumper in Felidae ✌). No need to post figures. 


▪︎ Agility: You bet 


▪︎ Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer: Well, here they disappoint me 😔😔😔. Extensive research has shown that there has never been a single record of a cougar attacking a piglet of domestic pig. Forget about boar 

▪︎ Performance against other predators: The Lion of the Mountains. Wolves are their breakfast, wolverines will ultimately die should they (cougars) have their time. Even grizzlies give them respect: 



(So much for Ted Bundy).

▪︎ Predation feats: Cougar again. Items that are potentially on the menu: bull moose and bull bison (not ones with stage 5 bone cancer, AIDS, a fractured leg, broken rib cage and most certainly not a testicular torsion). Remember, they have killed some of these animals and potentially (can be argued in their favour) can kill some, but they still cannot kill a 4 day old wild boar. Leopards have killed bull elands, wild boars and cattle. They're basically equal (like exact same level) in predation feats, there's absolutely nothing one can kill that the other can't.


▪︎ Forelimb Strength: Sorry leopard 


▪︎ Aggression: Debatable. 

So yes, there is no doubt that Cougar > Leopard

[Hardcastle]

Some decent points PumAcinonyx SuperCat . I have flip flopped on puma vs leopard over the years. I see a fairly good argument for both. 

For the puma-

• The size advantage
• Proportional limb robusticity advantage (at least in the limb robusticity study, possibility of limitations with sample size in the study? Unsure - but it's otherwise considered a big deal for combat discussions)
• Possibly larger prey on average
• There used to be a fairly strong concensus that pumas were more aggressive with rival predators, and leopards more submissive (I feel like this argument has been abandoned, possibly even reversed) 

For the Leopard-

• Possibly target prey that has been established as more formidable which puma avoid - suids and bovines (conversely puma seem to perform better against equids for some reason- which is significant. Horses are impressive dangerous prey, and leopards don't like them)
• Testimonies from hunters indicating leopards are more dangerous and aggressive to their dogs, including hunters who hunted both and directly compared them (and I personally don't dismiss such testimonies, In fact I hold them very high). 
• Leopards with a far higher number of kills on human beings (which we all love to disrespect, but actually are considered  a "formidable prey item" as far as wild predators are concerned). 
• "Pantherine" status (may be meaningless, may not be, limb robusticity IMO went a long way in smashing that "problem" for the puma). 

Those are the points that stand out fresh in my mind.

I right now feel like they are close enough where the 10% weight advantage would be enough for the cougar to win, BUT I still possibly flip back to leopard when the question is "at parity". A 90 kg puma (which is still a huge male puma) vs 90 kg male leopard... I'd probably bet on the leopard, just. Between the targetting of more "fighty" prey (like boars), and the testimonies of big game hunters from the 1800s/turn of the century, I feel like the leopard has a slight edge. My main source of caution are the puma's forelimbs, which LOOK big and also the robusticity study seems to support that observation. I actually think this is a hugely significant factor in this fight, or any cat fight. Controlling the fight and gaining the upper hand is everything, and they do that with their forelimbs. However the possible higher "ferocity" level of the leopard could also play a part, which is unusual because it often doesn't play a part in fights. But in THIS fight, I think the puma may be disturbed and troubled by that ferocity (having a very high self preservation instinct, like all cats) and this may diminish it's comfort and confidence in the fight. IF it's even true that leopards are more ferocious, that may not be true (and like I said many people used to argue the opposite). 

Overall, I'm pretty much undecided and very open to being persuaded either way. 

[PumAcinonyx SuperCat]

Jan 26, 2023 13:43:45 GMT Hardcastle said:

Some decent points PumAcinonyx SuperCat . I have flip flopped on puma vs leopard over the years. I see a fairly good argument for both. 

For the puma-

• The size advantage
• Proportional limb robusticity advantage (at least in the limb robusticity study, possibility of limitations with sample size in the study? Unsure - but it's otherwise considered a big deal for combat discussions)
• Possibly larger prey on average
• There used to be a fairly strong concensus that pumas were more aggressive with rival predators, and leopards more submissive (I feel like this argument has been abandoned, possibly even reversed) 

For the Leopard-

• Possibly target prey that has been established as more formidable which puma avoid - suids and bovines (conversely puma seem to perform better against equids for some reason- which is significant. Horses are impressive dangerous prey, and leopards don't like them)
• Testimonies from hunters indicating leopards are more dangerous and aggressive to their dogs, including hunters who hunted both and directly compared them (and I personally don't dismiss such testimonies, In fact I hold them very high). 
• Leopards with a far higher number of kills on human beings (which we all love to disrespect, but actually are considered  a "formidable prey item" as far as wild predators are concerned). 
• "Pantherine" status (may be meaningless, may not be, limb robusticity IMO went a long way in smashing that "problem" for the puma). 

Those are the points that stand out fresh in my mind.

I right now feel like they are close enough where the 10% weight advantage would be enough for the cougar to win, BUT I still possibly flip back to leopard when the question is "at parity". A 90 kg puma (which is still a huge male puma) vs 90 kg male leopard... I'd probably bet on the leopard, just. Between the targetting of more "fighty" prey (like boars), and the testimonies of big game hunters from the 1800s/turn of the century, I feel like the leopard has a slight edge. My main source of caution are the puma's forelimbs, which LOOK big and also the robusticity study seems to support that observation. I actually think this is a hugely significant factor in this fight, or any cat fight. Controlling the fight and gaining the upper hand is everything, and they do that with their forelimbs. However the possible higher "ferocity" level of the leopard could also play a part, which is unusual because it often doesn't play a part in fights. But in THIS fight, I think the puma may be disturbed and troubled by that ferocity (having a very high self preservation instinct, like all cats) and this may diminish it's comfort and confidence in the fight. IF it's even true that leopards are more ferocious, that may not be true (and like I said many people used to argue the opposite). 

Overall, I'm pretty much undecided and very open to being persuaded either way. 

Yes, it's probably the closest big cat fight there is, even closer than "lion vs tiger" because the weight difference percentage is smaller (less than 10%) than in lion vs tiger (which can be up to 25%). Lots of points can be made for both sides, but I personally say 51-49 in favour of the cougar. 

Aggression is more of a bluff (not saying it is, it actually counts for something) than it is an asset. Aggression is more like trying to say "see how tough I am" instead of physical body characteristics doing that for you. That's different from your opponent seeing your forelimbs (without you displaying any form of aggression) and being like "whoa, not gonna be an easy fight, I better back down".

Basically, one is like you feeling the need to do something yourself before a message can be sent, or maybe even just "felt", while the other is your body speaking volumes without words. That's why a hyena needs to show some sign of aggression (making noise and unnecessary laughter) for it to steal a leopard’s kill, why a lion doesn’t need to do anything. All he needs to do is show himself, he doesn’t need to shake his mane or even growl a bit. Just show up, and the leopard knows dinner time is over. The lion's presence alone sends the message. 

In fact, from a reverse psychology point of view, aggression may actually be a sign of lack of composure. It's similar to frilled-neck lizards trying to make themselves look bigger and more intimidating when deep down they know that a human needs to just step on them to end them and that if their tactic doesn't work, they better be able to run.

[Hardcastle]

I actually 100% agree with you that aggression is a bluff, and an indication of insecurity.

My only problem here is, I actually think BOTH of these competitors are susceptible to being persuaded and intimidated by aggression. They are "bluffable". These aggressive bluff displays exist because they serve a purpose. They "trick" most animals, and it especially is effective at tricking animals that are especially wary of being injured. As such, I see a more impressive bluff actually being a "weapon" in this fight, even though I wouldn't consider it a weapon in many other fights. Gaining a psychological edge in this fight in particular could be crucial. These are two of the most highly specialised expert assassins in the history of the animal kingdom, they don't like to fight unnecessarily in macho dick-measuring contests. They are cunning and calculated and they strategically plan their assassinations from the shadows, they are compelled to be assassins by having a naturally strong aversion to being seen and being persecuted. They want to be unseen, and they want to persecute. When something is up close and personal to them and snarling and frenzying in an impressively convincing bluff display, I think they will be rattled and rocked more than many animals, because it just really isn't their scene to waltz into danger and injury like that. Therefore, perhaps the more impressive bluff display, could leave the other competitor shrinking and gulping and loosening his proverbial collar and not feeling up to a fight, which in turn may result in a poor compromised performance.
Wanting to fight and being psyched up and ready is a huge advantage in a fight or any kind of competition according to anyone who knows anything about any kind of competition. Conversely not wanting to be there and being unsure and nervous and half-assed and wanting out is hugely detrimental to your performance. I'm proposing that the better bluffer, in this fight only, could actually psyche out the other cat, and give themselves a psychological edge.

[lincoln]

It is implied that they only used 1 individual for each animal in the robust test, so take it with a grain of salt

[Hardcastle]

Jan 26, 2023 15:46:07 GMT lincoln said:

It is implied that they only used 1 individual for each animal in the robust test, so take it with a grain of salt

I wondered, but was never sure. If so that's unbelievably stupid. It's amazing the "ranking" holds up relatively well otherwise (though IIRC the tiger gets screwed also).

We can be fairly confident about the wolf's score being basically correct, because the vindolanda dog study did the same thing with a large variety of wolf bones (both modern and pleistocene). The limb robusticity for the wolf offered in the limb robusticity study is basically a solid "average" for the results in the vindolanda study.

[PumAcinonyx SuperCat]

Jan 26, 2023 14:39:03 GMT Hardcastle said:

I actually 100% agree with you that aggression is a bluff, and an indication of insecurity.

My only problem here is, I actually think BOTH of these competitors are susceptible to being persuaded and intimidated by aggression. They are "bluffable". These aggressive bluff displays exist because they serve a purpose. They "trick" most animals, and it especially is effective at tricking animals that are especially wary of being injured. As such, I see a more impressive bluff actually being a "weapon" in this fight, even though I wouldn't consider it a weapon in many other fights. Gaining a psychological edge in this fight in particular could be crucial. These are two of the most highly specialised expert assassins in the history of the animal kingdom, they don't like to fight unnecessarily in macho dick-measuring contests. They are cunning and calculated and they strategically plan their assassinations from the shadows, they are compelled to be assassins by having a naturally strong aversion to being seen and being persecuted. They want to be unseen, and they want to persecute. When something is up close and personal to them and snarling and frenzying in an impressively convincing bluff display, I think they will be rattled and rocked more than many animals, because it just really isn't their scene to waltz into danger and injury like that. Therefore, perhaps the more impressive bluff display, could leave the other competitor shrinking and gulping and loosening his proverbial collar and not feeling up to a fight, which in turn may result in a poor compromised performance.
Wanting to fight and being psyched up and ready is a huge advantage in a fight or any kind of competition according to anyone who knows anything about any kind of competition. Conversely not wanting to be there and being unsure and nervous and half-assed and wanting out is hugely detrimental to your performance. I'm proposing that the better bluffer, in this fight only, could actually psyche out the other cat, and give themselves a psychological edge.

While it can be settled that aggression could play a relevant but still minimal role in a fight (this fight), there are still other weightier outcome deciding factors like overall skill and physical strength.

But even if we decide to talk about aggression (which I still want to dwell on for a bit), the question becomes which of these 2 cats would bully the other cat on a mental level. Based on that video I posted and other known facts, I'm tending toward cougar.

People many times claim that leopards face tougher challenges than cougars, but it's actually not true. They're kinda even, though you could give a very slight edge to the cougar (not the leopard). In fact, they're challenges are similar:

▪︎ Top Canid in respective habitats (1 v 1 combat)

Leopard: Kills African Wild Dogs
Cougar: Kills Grey Wolves

- Win goes to cougar as wolves are stronger than African wild dogs even though both cats kill the dogs easily.


▪︎ Lower ranking Canid in respective habitats

Leopard: Kills Jackal
Cougar: Kills Coyote

- Win goes to Cougar again cuz Coyote > Jackal. Logic for this: Caracal can beat Jackal, even steal food from 2, while Coyote kills Canadian Lynx that are arguably ~ Caracal.


▪︎ Top Ranking Mustelid

Leopard: Kills Honey Badger 


Cougar: Kills Wolverine (might be tough, but the cougar would win so long as it's a death battle and not a fight over food) 


- Win goes to cougar as Wolverine are bigger and physically stronger than Honey badgers. As to who wins, that’s it's own thread, but basically a wolverine is a scaled up version of the Badger (though it's slightly less badass) 



▪︎ Second strongest predator in respective Habitats (1 v 1)

Leopard: Fights against Spotted hyenas and almost always yield prey 


Cougar: Fights against Black bears and same story with Leopard, but will sometimes stand its ground and chase away the bear.

- Win for Cougar again. It’s self explanatory that American black bear > Spotted hyena



▪︎ Top Crocodilian in respective habitats

Leopard: Can be killed by Nile crocodiles

Cougar: Can be killed by American crocodile, but can predate on sub-adult American alligators

- Win goes to Leopard as Nile Crocodile < only Salty and superior to all other crocodilians. Not really a win as it's not like any of the cats kills the crocodilians, but the leopard’s crocodilian foe is stronger which is why it takes a win.



▪︎ Top Big Cat (1 v 1)

Leopard: Loses to Lion (Food or ultimate death battle) 


Cougar: On par with jaguar in the places they coexist in within North America. Can't talk about Pantanal jaguars and the cougars that coexist with them cuz that would be unfair. But in places like Mexico and the Central American countries, Cougar ~ Jaguar.


- Win goes to Leopard as Lions are stronger than jaguars even as a single unit (even without a pride). But cougars put up a better fight against their top big cat foe, but only because they're close in size to said foe.



Cougars have 4 wins while leopards have 2. I myself have argued that intensity of competition faced in natural habitat doesn’t mean much in a fight and I still stand by it, so I'm not saying this is automatic W for the cougar, just that the cougar is actually the one that faces tougher versions of what leopards face and not the other way round.

Take for example the cougar-grizzly video, it could be asked whether a leopard would have done the same. How would a female leopard with cubs have done in that mother cougar’s position? That's a big question. The cougar wasn't intimidated by a grizzly, a leopard would have to show me the same or something higher for me to say it can defeat the cougar in a mental battle.

I believe that the fact that a cougar could stand up to a grizzly is enough proof that it shouldn't feel too nervous against a similar sized cat and that it might even have the edge in mental warfare.

[PumAcinonyx SuperCat]

Jan 26, 2023 15:46:07 GMT lincoln said:

It is implied that they only used 1 individual for each animal in the robust test, so take it with a grain of salt

Antonio should have also put a 50-50 option since that’s what you'd say, that it could go either way. And I admit it's a possibility.

[Hardcastle]

Pretty good argument... I mean when it's broken down the cougar does arguably have tougher competition from rival predators.
The question then though is if this is a good or bad thing?

What I mean is, if you have very dominating rival competition it might behoove you to actually become more meek and submissive. We see this with leopard populations in general. The nastiest leopards actually exist where there is LESS competition and threat from rival predators. Iran and Sri Lanka have the baddest leopards, and they also have no tigers. The congo would be third, and they have no lions. Lions very close by in the central african republic, and maybe congo leopards extend into that zone, I don't know, but I think the largest congo males were specifically where there were no lions. It seems with less competition you can actually be your "best self" in many ways. I think the jaguar actually benefits from being the baddest guy in town. It lazes around on it's back on the forest floor fully relaxed and has this certain swag knowing it can't be messed with. Leopards and pumas both often seem nervous as hell a lot of the time.

Further evidence for this would be the canis genus in Africa. They can't seem to really make in-roads and we just get especially meek and small canis species- the ethiopian wolf and the african golden wolf. Somewhat close relatives in the other jackals- black backed and side-striped. Then a more distant relative in Lycaon, but generally speaking it's almost like canines need to stay humbled a little bit in africa specifically BECAUSE there are many tough rivals. AWD, despite lanky appearance actually DID figure it out and was a top player at the highest level before it became endangered and lost pack strength, but yeah there's a distinct inclination for wolves in particular to be be lesser and be like "don't mind me" and find lowlier niches.

So yeah, I just don't know if having tougher meaner competitors is even a good thing. It would be if you rose to kick their ass, but if it just makes you retire into your shell and be more elusive it's not really a plus. Remember the cape fox at around 9 lbs lives in Africa, doesn't mean it's a badass butt-kicker, it's not, it just avoids conflict.

[Hardcastle]

Jan 26, 2023 15:54:00 GMT PumAcinonyx SuperCat said:

Jan 26, 2023 15:46:07 GMT lincoln said:

It is implied that they only used 1 individual for each animal in the robust test, so take it with a grain of salt

Antonio should have also put a 50-50 option since that’s what you'd say, that it could go either way. And I admit it's a possibility.

Should have definitely... trying to see if I can edit the poll.. possibly not??

[Deleted]

Imo Persian leopards (and possibly Sri Lankan and Congo leopards) are a cut above cougars. African leopard and cougar is close though.
An immature female Persian leopard killed a full grown eurasian wolf, I doubt any female cougar could do that

[Deleted]

Cougars get beaten up by everything they live with if they cannot ambush them. Even coyotes have ravaged them. Have jackals ever done that to leopards?