5 largest Theropods

Nice list. Do I completely agree with it? No. Does that matter? No, it's your list, if you did the research, so be it, this is how it is. 

Nicely done.

what parts of it do you not agree with?

The Spino weight, but that's just my opinion against your research. It doesn't matter, and I'm not trying to start anything.

no one said you were...? anyways, what do you think spino weighed? just curious :)

I was just saying. For weight, I usually have it about 7-8 tons, topping out at 9 tons, and for my fights Spino is in the 7-8 ton range.

Good list and hope to see more to come.

What about acrocanthosaurus, it was 40 ft. long and 5.5-7 tons. Just wondering.

I also found these very compelling images concerning Rex vs Spino sizes.

Here you can see a 40 ft. rex and a 60 ft. spino, it shows that rex only comes two-thirds the length of spino. That is a big difference of size.

Here spino is slightly smaller, but you can still see that spino is way bigger.

And here is an awesome drawing of a Rex vs Spino fight. :)

Jezza, I'm not sure what to say, but sixty feet is pretty much an absolute maximum for Spino, not an average. I myself see Spino averaging 50 feet in length, while Rex about 41 feet. Also, JP3 is about as accurate as my friends when the topic is guns. My friends don't know Jack about guns. Also, if that's the comparison, why do people get pissed off when we say the 37 foot Tyrannosaurus was a sub adult vs the 60 foot ADULT Spinosaurus. Wasn't the Spino ACTUALLY in the ball park of 45 feet long. The only image I actually agree with is the last one, and I'm going to stop this rant before I start cussing real bad.

Sorry if I seem angry, it's exam time here, I'm sick, and it's early in the morning, I don't even know why I'm awake.

You know what i agree with you on almost evrything except one thing, the Tyrannosaurus's weight which should probably be around 9-11.03 tons but i agree with the rest (including spinosaurus size)

Personally, here's my top 5

5. Acrocanthosaurus/Tarbosaurus/Mapusaurus/You get the idea

10-12 meters long and 4-6 tons

4. Carcharodontosaurus

11-12 meters long and 5-7 tons

3. Spinosaurus

14-17 meters long and 5-8 tons

2. Giganotosaurus

12-14 meters long and 6-8.5 tons

1. Tyranosaurus

12-15 meters long and 7-10 tons

Just my opinion/own research though

Jezza, I think these are more accurate size comparisons...

I personally can't see how a Carcharodontosaurus would weigh more than a Tyrannosaurus. Carcharodontosaurids were gracile and long animals, whilst Tyrannosaurids were extremely stocky and robust. The second picture shows a Giganotosaurus, but that one was very similar in terms of robusticity (it was actually even robuster, heck there is even a subgroup of Carcharodontosaurids, the Giganotosaurines, which only had two big differences: the wierd boxy ending of the lower jaw and that they were more robust than other Carcharodontosaurids. As of now, only Giganotosaurus and Tyrannotitan are in that group).

So here is my opnion on the topic first of all, giga spino and rex I consider them like this 

spino= Light weight 

giga =medium weight 

trex = heavy weight 

and here are my max lengths and weights all of these are based off my reserch/opnion

spino 55 feet long and 7.5-8 tons 

giga 50 feet long and 8.5-9.5 tons 

trex 45 feet long and 9-10 tons 

That first image I found was from JP 3, sure the guy who made the comparison used those specific models, that's it. I was using max sizes on them Mr. Happy. I also didn't get my research on spino from JP 3, I got it from, well, multiple places (except for wiki), in fact, my post had nothing to do with JP 3. You know what, just ignore that little box with rex's size on the chart. They probably could've made rex a bit bigger, but really not that much. A sixty foot spino would look similar to that in my perspective.

The second chart i posted is very agreeable, it's got good sizes for both animals, but spino's a tiny bit small in my opinion.

I don't think those charts you found were accurate Rex Fan, but you don't mine accurate either, so it really doesn't matter. I especially think it's weird how spino looks like a skeleton in your second chart, if your charts and sizes were correct, t-rex would easily take spino (I wasn't refering to your top 5, just spino and rex, I actually quite agree with it for the most part). I do agree with UCMP's post, except for carchar's neck, dang that thing is tiny. It's like a bobblehead. Also thank you Raptorexxx 700 for your support.

Sorry guys, I'm homeschooled, so I don't get your exams. Though I'm so behind it's not even funny. ;)

You know what, I just realized something, we're actually carying a spino/rex conversation rationally. 

HOORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY!!!!! :D

 (I believe that's andrewsarchus in Rex Fan's first chart, the one to the left with the curly tail)

Holy crap we are. 

I just don't see any reason for Spino to need to reach such massive sizes. The thing was most likely not an active land hunter for the most part, so it didn't need to have supercharged jaws and exceptional strength like Rex, who would be killing Hadrosaurs and possibley Ceratopsians and Ankylosaurs. 

Remember, I'm of the opinion that the one fossil found was from a rather large individual because it was the only one that was durable enough to survive the Sahara.

Like I said, sorry for kinda blowing up on you the other day. It was early in the morning, I wasn't feeling great, it's a stressful time of the year for me, and I'm a bit edgy when it comes to Rex vs Spino.

It's cool Mr. Happy. I get grumpy in the morning too.

While I think spino was spent a lot of time in the water, I also think it got on land to hunt as well. It didn't have those long therapod legs for nothing. Spino's jaws actually did have to be quite strong, they had to keep massive slippery fish under control. Another way I think spino could have hunted was ambush, he'd sneak up on a drinking dinosaur by swimming underwater. Then, at the right moment, he'd strike forward with his jaws agape to grab the victims neck and pull it under to drown it. As you can see, that is exactly what crocs do. Another reason that I say spino had a very strong bite force is that he had the head of a crocodile, and everyone knows that crocs have to strongest bite force of today. Here's also another reason, that hunting tactic I used  earlier would need a strong bite force to grip a large animal, drab it under, and drown it while crushing its wind pipe. Spino would need a large body to compete with other dinos, survive in a land of giants (bahariasaurus, carcharadontosaurus, parililititan, etc.), and hunt on land. More evidence for spino actively being on land are those giant claws. Those claws didn't just stay tucked up next to his body 24/7. They were massive and had to have had some use.

I know this is off topic, what do you guys think of velociraptor climbing trees? It had all the right tools, its claws even face in the right direction for it.

It would appear some paleontoligists think they did...the juveniles anyway. Read this paper...pretty cool stuff

Clicky click here

Nice Carnosaur, thanks. :)

I'm completely disagree. Gig's holotype wasn't shorter than Sue, it was longer (by a slighty margin), but lighter. Carcharodontosaurus wasn't likely anything bigger than Giganotosaurus. Carch's skull was 156 cm long, around as long the one of Gig's holotype. SMG din-1 was likely beween 12 and 13 m, as big as or even slighty smaller than Giganotosaurus' largest specimen (but given that both are fragmentary, I treat them as two same sized animals), so there is no evidence that suggest us that Carch is the largest. And how can an average T.rex be 12.2 m long, when the largest is 12.3 m long? 

The comparison you posted is also wrong. Gig's skull is greatly exagerrated, it was closer to 1,4-1,6 m long. Mapusaurus' skull should be similar to that of Giganotosaurus in lenght. C.iguidensis wasn't even closer to that huge size, it was actually 83% the size of C.saharicus, so less than 11 m. Torvosaurus skull is also exagerrated, it was more like to 1,1-1,2 m long, the 1,58 m measurement was wrong. T.rex's skull is also too big, the largest one belongs to Sue and it's slighty over 1.4 m.

A good list would be, for me:

1. T.rex: 10~12,3 m; 4~8 t +

2. G.carolinii, M.rosae, C.saharicus: 12~13 m, 7~8 t

3. S.aegyptiacus: 12~15 m, 6~7 t

4. T.chubuitensis: 11,4~12,2 m, 6~7 t

5. D.mirificus: 11 m, 6~6,5 t

I know it's old, but I wanted to share my opinion.

Agreed with your list Gigadino, even though further analysis and new findings could regularly change the position between the big carcharodontosaurids and Tyrannosaurus.

It's quite impressive how much Giganotosaurus body mass and proportions have been revised. In the late 90's it was supposed to weigh 30 % more than Tyrannosaurus and have a 1.95 m skull, now it is considered just in the same size range than Tyrannosaurus (with several Tyrannosaurus individuals slightly bigger) with a 1.56 m skull.

Unsurprising though when one compare an allosaur grade built and a barrel chested animal.

I m pretty sure too that Tyrannosaurus has the heaviest skull among theropods. I ve read McHenry dissertation about Kronosaurus queenslandicus biology, at one moment it compares the volumetric mass of its skull with others predatory reptiles.

It appears that Sue's 1.5 m skull is more voluminous than the 1.8 m skull of one of the known Kronosaurus individuals (of course the largest 2.3 m Kronosaurus skull are bigger). I d be interested in seeing the volumetric mass of the skull in large carcharodontosaurids.

Sue's skull is actually closer to 1.4 m long than to 1.5 m long (from what I read). Agreed that T.rex's skull is the most volouminus between the Theropods. Giant Carcharodontosaurids' skull are likely longer but more slender and definitely not as wide.

I think it depends the measurement. I'll check that.

I mostly agree, you did really good points 

But I have still some doubts on carcharodontosaurus is larger than giganotosaurus, even a skull is larger, we have no carcharodontosaurus skeletons and it is more difficult to determine a size if you have no skeletons as reference, we just use imagination while looking at giganotosaurus.

The only wrong thing you said is that sue is longer than the giganotosaurus holotype, the height and size you showed is correct.

Sue is taller ( sue is 4 meters tall while giga holotype is 3.5 meters ), bigger and larger than giganotosaurus which was just longer .

The " giganotosaurus paratype " is just based on a piece of jaw, which is nothing to prove that it is larger than the holotype while Celeste the rex is based on a skullis larger than Sue's one.  Until we don't find any other bones i would exclude the giga paratype, with the holotype as the largest .

Sue is taller , bigger and heavier that the largest giganotosaurus 

5. Oxalaia quilombensis

Length: 39-46 ft

Weight: 5-7 tons

4. Spinosaurus aegyptiacus

Length: 40-50 feet

Weight: 6-7 tons

3. Giganotosaurus carolinii

Length: 40-43 feet

Weight: 7-8.2 tons

2. Carcharodontosaurus saharicus

Length: 40-44 feet

Weight: 8-9 tons

1. Tyrannosaurus rex

Length: 36-50 feet

Weight: 8-10 tons