Theropod vs modern mammal

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. 

TK, observe the ostrich:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUNeF7TG6sQ

could theropods even catch themseles in falls? i doubt it. and even if they tried, the humerus would pobably snap under the stresses of their weight.

Don't compare theropods to ostrichs.