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?