Theropod vs modern mammal

At parity, leaning towards theropods. IMO, they had better jaws for combat, more tooth sticking out, and thicker hides.

That's just my opinion, so feel free to disagree.

I'm not done gang on for a bit.

Sorry

It's ok. I want people to post their opinio, just when I'm done.

I wouldn't mind seeing some older mammals involved in this, like Smilodon, Dire Wolf, Cave Bear, the pig from hell, etc; IMHO the felines would stand the best chance of any mammal in this scenario given their inherant speed and agility, not to mention intelligence but the bite force obviously favors the theropods. Still, Jaguars, for example, have been known to hunt and kill crocs which have among the most powerful bite forces of any living animals. So assuming equality of size I would suggest that the cats would be a force.

Spinofan, let's not forget that theropods are significantly more agile than crocodiles on land. 

I will make a thread like that later.

and jags kill small caimains from ambush.

And there arms are much stronger.

Are you done now? If not, I agree with this so far. If yes, I agree with this, nice job.

I'm tired. Im not done yet.

Theropods are absolutely more agile than crocs on land. In fact I would suggest that Raptors would rival the cats in agility. I also realize that Jags kill crocs from ambush because they are natural ambush predators as are most cats. Mind you, I am not saying that the cats are the clear winners. I am simply trying to say that is no rollover for the dinosaurs.

Understood Spinofan. They wouldn't be a pushover by any means, but the theropods would still most likely come out on top more often than not.

Ok.

Done.

Tyrant, you did jack-for research on the Abelisaurs, as well as the Dilophosaurs. 

The Only Abelisaur that is as weak as you say here would be Rugops which is the only Abelisaur that was a pure scavenger. The other Abelisaurs have since been studied by Robert Bakker whoose findings have suggested that the Abelisauridae were Sauropod hunters. Likely useing either swift repeated bites,or strong gripping bites (depending on how the skull was built). Both bites would have been very deadly and effective, but to elaborate what these two come down too. The swift biters would have been equivlent to the Allosaurs and Charcharodontosaurs, and the gripping biters would be equivlent to the Dromeosaurs and Tyrannosaurs. And I only meen what I just said in context of how they would have likely used there jaws, not that they were exactly the same as their references.

Now onto the Dilophosaurs... I just dont know where to begin with this one.

Ok, to start off with, yes there is alot of controversy surrounding the Dilophosaurus and if it was a hunter or a scavenger. In my personal opinion from what I have read and seen on this topic, it is not as impossible as the scavengers say it is for the Dilophosaurus to hunt useing its jaws. Because while the front of the jaws wernt esspecialy sturdy, the back of the jaws were very sturdy and could take the strain of holding onto prey. So it is my personal opinion that the Dilophosaurus was without a doubt a hunter because it also had speed, and those lethal claws and talons. And when it comes to Cryolophosaurus... I shouldnt even have to make a case for them.  

Abeliosaurids like carnotaurus and ruogops were scavengers or hunters of small prey. They could fight. The heavy hitters like rajasaurus, ekrixinotosaurus and others who actually hunted sauropods would be at an advantag. Don't put words in my mouth.

i never said dilophosaurids were scavenger. I said they would have a decent chanxe against mammals. 

Where are you getting your info on carnotaurus. As I already stated earlier, Rob Bakker has analyzed the carnotaurus and has concluded that it hunted sauropods. From his findings it would appear that on massive prey, the carnotaurus would have bit into prey with it's upper jaws. Then would pull on it's prey, which given its teeth were slender and serated, meant attacking prey in this style would be devastating to both large and small prey.

The only abelisaur that is as weak as you claim is rugops. The only part of the carnotaurus skull that is as weak as you say is the end of the lower jaw. The upper jaw is extremely sturdy, which means it could take alot of strain, such as the strain of struggling prey.

If after all of this info you still believe your original statement to be true. Then I will have to question your ability to do proper research and make scientifically accurate debates.

You dont have to be mean.

I'm not mean, I'm a scientist who is just about in college for this exact field. I only speak in this manner because it is getting harder and harder to take the accuracy of your debates seriously. 

It seems as if you calculate these debates off of your personal opinion more than actual scientific knowledge.

Call me mean for saying this if you will, but as a no-nosense and blunt person. I'm not going to sugar coat the reality of the situation at hand.

I do my research just like everyone else. Now all I said is that some abeliosaurids like ruogops and carnotaurus weren't adapted for fighting. Hunting is a different story. 

How do you feel about all the other animals I have put into this thread? Or is that incorrect Too?

I will edit this with a response once I decipher what you just said into unbreken english, so say an hour-hour and a half.

Cryo, easy. You're coming off as a bit hostile. I see that TK is ticking you off, but just take it easy. Not everyone is expert. Some people do research and build their own opinions off that research. 

The deciphering bit though, not cool. 

the ticking off is going both ways but i will not argue.

hmm, i dunno why we would call R. primus 'weak' when we only have material from a juvenile animal. Seems a bit unbalanced, to me at least.

@Cryo, while i do agree some sources backing the info would be nice,  i do believe the way you're going after TK seems a bit harsh.

anyway, let's take a look at your argument.

"As I already stated earlier, Rob Bakker has analyzed the carnotaurus and has concluded that it hunted sauropods. "

Bakker also suggested that C. sastrei was a small game specialist due to its jaw mechanics due to how kinetic its skull was (Mazetta 1998)

I've seen no recent literature regarding C. sastrei as a sauropod hunter. In fact, another member on a different forum said this about the supposed "sledgehammer" feeding mechanisms you seem to be alluding to. Here's what he has to say:

" I’ve got some doubts about the proposed "sledgehammer hypothesis".
When people use it (e.g. Bakker 1998), usually Allosaurus comes up as an analogy, but this is problematic, because they are actually very different in a number of features:

Firstly, Carnotaurus doesn’t have downturned paroccipital processes to enhance the ventroflexive ability of its head and neck as is the case in Allosaurus (Bakker 1998, Antón et al. 2003, Snively et al. 2007, 2013). Rather its paroccipital processes are directed laterally (Bonaparte 1990) as is the case with basal ceratosaurs. Naturally, that alone already implies major differences in muscle arrangement between the two (but there’s far more to it than that).

Secondly, the proportions of their skull. It is true neither of them has a particularly large head and both are deep-skulled, but the similarities end there. Compared toAllosaurus (Madsen 1976), the skull of Carnotaurus is completely differently proportioned, being almost as tall as it is long, having a much shorter rostrum and being proportionately wider. This is not a design that would be particularly suitable for relying on impact feeding as it reduces the velocity which can be reached at the toothrow.

Thirdly, their necks:
That of Allosaurus has been described as particularly flexible (Snively et al 2007, 2013), that of Carnotaurus was likely rather rigid due to tis very robust osteology (Méndez 2014). The supposed slashing and striking for Allosaurus is a motion that would require a fair degree of flexibility–this was even one of the key points of criticism brought forth against it (Antón et al. 2003).
That’s not everything though. The neck of Carnotaurus is a highly unusual structure with huge, dorsally tall epipophyses but tiny, atrophied neural spines. 

So with all these differences I would highly doubt we can really compare them. There is more of course, for example the entire postcranium, but I’m focusing on the head and neck here.

Carnotaurus’ wide, robust neck, proportionately shorter and more brevirostrine skull, differences in basicranial muscle insertions and the large epipophyses suggest it held onto prey with its jaws, not that it slashed at it. It is plausible it did that in a very explosive motion of course, but I don’t think it was suited for dealing considerable damage with a powerful strike alone."

i'd say i have to wholely agree with him.

Given the fact that carnotaurus was probably a rather fast animal (Mazzetta 998) it's entirely plausible that it was a small to mid game specialist, but that's just my own hypothesis.

as i have said time and time agin, i cant post links!!! which means i cant post sources. so please stop asking.

Carnosaur, while I was only pointing out Carnotaurus for my previous statements, I find that the Abelisaurs were not given fair representation. And yes, I realise that Carnotaurus may not have had the skull for such hunting. But with how little the Carnotaurus has examined, and the fact that we only have a single specimen that may have a skull/neck deformity that dosnt represent the whole species. As a fellow scientist that is far more informed than myself, you must realise that there is necessary room for such doubt.

No pathologies were described in Bonaparte 1985 in the cranial region, so i don't see any reason to think such.

what we have of C. sastrei is a reasonaby, an pretty darned well preserved single skeleton. what that does is give us a clear insight onto how it was shaped, how it moved, etc. We have more of carnotaurus then we do for a lot of other taxon, so i do believe what we have, and what has been put through the wringer via multiple scholarly articles, is quite solid.

I don't see how you say carnotaurus hunoted sauropods with its small teeth and very short jaws and lack of arms.

TK,, "lack of arms" doesn't denote abelisaurs as not sauropod hunters -- in fact any animal of appropriate size could theoreticaly do so,if it was driven to i supppose. Allosaurs just have better weaponry to desl with them (at least it has been proposed) then other theropods do.

when you are hunting a sauropod and it knocks you over your gonna wish you had arms. And of course most preds could hunt a sauropod of approprivate size.