Tyrannosaurus rex vs giganotosaurus carolinii

55-45 Rex IMO.

Personal bias? I guess. That's just me. 

Your back apparently. 

But it do you have reasons to favor rex besides the typical "rex has a stronger bite" junk I hear constantly?

IM A MOTHER *BEEP* T-REX

Actually your a kaijusaurus. 

Bulkier, possibly a bit tougher. Giga was big, but it needed to be agile. Whatever weight evolution could take off, it probably did. Fair to say Giga couldn't take a hit like Rex (not saying Giga couldn't take a hit).

what makes you say rexy is gonna take a hit better then gigy?

Don't worry, Vader, here I come to save the day!

60/40 in favor of the Rex. The tyrannosaurus has nearly two tons more of muscle and bulk packed onto it, plus a intellectual strategic advantage. Not to mention, one bite and the Giganotosaurus goes down, while it would take a pretty strategically placed bite from the carcharodontosaurid  to bring down the Rex in one bite. The arms are nearly useless in this scenario, and have less mobility than even the Tyrannosaur's. 

HA! You are here to save vader? If he can't beat me what chance do you have?

1. Rex is not two tons heavier the giga, where did that nonsense come from?

2. Giga's bite can take out giant chunks of flesh and sever arteries and veins. Why shouldn't it kill in one bite? And besides, it's got a bigger and better gape. 

3. These are two COMPLETLELY different animals, you can't comoare their intelligence. And most of Rex's brain is dedicated to the olfactory bulbs. Not intellegwince. Besides, intellegence is not a factor in a fight.

4. The giga has far more mpavement then rex in terms of arms. If you think it is unimportant rgen why did you say rexes was better.

First of all, that was a joke. Someone feeling a bit brash today?

1. Yes, it most certainly is 1 1/2-2 tons heavier. Even attachments on the tops of the ribs support muscle, not to mention the fact that the rib cage was much deeper and thicker than that of Giganotosaurus. Don't let previous knowledge and bias get in the waya nd just look at the skeletons.

2. It cannot take out chunks. It can slash as you stated later in this point. And arteries are not filling every point of any animals body. We all have a select few arteries and coronories inside our bodies. Also, if it slashes veins that is not big enough of a deal to keel the Tyrannosaur over. Again, a select bite. I never said it was impossible, I said it was very precise.

3. Only the front section was. Much of the rest was a problem solving component. And intelligence definitely has to do with fighting. To quote you, "where'd you get that nonsense from?"

4. No it does not. Tyrannosaurus had about 70 degrees of movement in its arms. Giganotosaurus has about 45 degrees. I don't think the Rexes' arms are better in any sense of the word. My point is that in this fight, with the limited movement and short length, there was no way they could be a big factor.

first off, that was a joke. Someone a bit sensetive today?

1.Proof for rex being so much bigger? If anything, giga is bigger. Two specimens if giga have been found, both are bigger then most rex specimens, she is the only the matches or outsized them. So your point is invalid.

2. as I said, you can't compare their intelligence, their too different. And we don't know how smart either are so lets not compare them. And so what if its bigger? A dog has a bigger/ body  ratio then a whale but a whale us most likely smarter. and intelligence has VERY LITTLE to do with fighting. i got my nonsense from scientist and research and peer review.  Where did you get your nonsense?

3. Giga is MADE for slicing and tearing off huge chunks just look at their skull. and their teeth are blade like, like Sharks. So why can't they cut? And I never said arteries filled every part of the body. And giga has a far wider gape then rex so it has much more places to bite. Where are you getting your nonsense from?

4. Proof?

I agree with PK. 

I would have answered, and I was in the process of typing a response when my iPad froze. The SOB has been acting up on me lately. 

I hate typing on iPads.

you agree with him? You can join in the debate at any time.

Oh, my bad. And yeah, I actually had a bunch of personal problems today, so yes. My bad again.

1. It doesn't matter about length. The Giganotosaurus specimens were longer than most Tyrannosaurs. Not taller or heavier. Tyrannosaurus is much bulkier and has quite longer legs. I'll see if I can find an accurate size comparison I saw that pretty well sums it up.

2. Mine isn't nonsense. Mine is from working at a zoo where we see scuffles between two male lions ALL the time. Their names are Baron and Vulcan and although Vulcan is smaller than Baron, Vulcan is smarter and manages to plan out what he will do better. Therefore, in most fights, Vulcan wins. We aren't talking about two animals at opposite size spectrums, we are talking about two similar sized theropods.

3.I said they could cut and slash. Also, both theropods could stretch their jaws to the point of nearly unhinging them, so there is no point to the gape argument.

4, Finding the article now.

1. giga was not that slender compared to rex. And their weight was very similar and since some specimens are longer they could be heavier.

2. Cool story. Now why you compared two extant "small" mammalian canivora that are the same species and bulk to two extinct and vastly different reptiles the aren't the same species. Is beyond me. That was highly irrelevant to the debate.

3.its common sense, really. if you have a very strong bite you have a small gape and vice versa, it's called evelotionary trade offs.  Giga had to get its mouth around the huge concave sides of sauropods, rex had to get its mouth around prey its size.

4. I'm patiently waiting. 

Sorry again if I offended you.

1. It really was  though. Just look at the skeletons. Also, muscle accounts for a lot and by my standards, Tyrannosaurus was a "mountain of muscle" among theropods.

2. Thanks. It was to show how intelligence really does help in a fight. The smaller, albiet smarter, lion wins.

3. I'm aware of evolutionary trade offs, but that is not what the skull suggests. The mandibles and maxillaries (jaw bones) are very similar to a ball in socket joint, suggesting both could open their jaws extremely wide.

you didn't offend me. 

1.mountain of meat? As if other theropods are just walking skeletons with skin. 

2.you still can't compare them. 

3.eveolutinary tradeoffs primal, evolutionary trade offs.

Good.

1. Mountain of muscle is what I said. But I did not say they were skeletons. They were all quite muscled and fit, but Tyrannosaurus was especially muscular and bulky, even for a theropod. Giganotosaurus was lean and quick, perfect for reaching and clamping onto sauropod's flanks. T. rex was robust and muscular, perfect for taking on armored prey. That is why many studies (and my personal belief) suggest the Tyrannosaur having more mass.

2. These are actual studies, so yes I can.

3. I understand, however, Tyrannosaurus' gape was about equal (although, i will admit slightly less) to Giganotosaurus' but not enough to cause a big difference. A better example of trade offs between the two is the Tyrannosaur giving up knife like teeth for a crushing bite.

1.nany studies also show giga as being the heavier. And taking a trike will not compare to taking a giga. 

2. Actual studies in irrelevant animals.

3. It's a widely known fact that rex has a small gape while giga has a larger one.

1. Many old studies. New ones show the opposite. THose earlier were based on length, not actual mass. It is more referrable to fighting a Giganotosaur than a sauropod.

2. Actual studies on the animals we are speaking of right now, therefore relevant animals.

3. That is definitely not a fact. Both had extremely wide gapes. Here is a study saying exactly what I am. Link

1.I have seen many studies stating the opposite. 

2.we are talking about theropods not mammals.

3. I've seen studies that prove the exact opposite.

Tyrant you cant just hide behind a defensive wall of "I have studies that prove otherwise" because if you look at the studies for the leaner Giga, then you would realise that those studies come from paleontologists that are devoted to the Charcharadontosaurs and so have a far more influential position on the subject at hand. 

PK is pretty spot on when it comes to intelligence and fighting, the more intelligent animal will have the upper hand because it wont have to rely soley on instinct to fight, because in the end any fight between any animals is a game of chess. And the more intelligent always wins at chess, unless luck happens but this should be a luck free zone.

Almost all Tyrannosaurs going back to Raptorex have had jaws that act like ball and socket joints, and the reason that is important (and in PK's favor) is because all modern day snakes have a roughly similar jaw configuration and they can completely unhinge their jaws ( I mean the ball and socket like joints, not the jaws and skulls themselves).

Doing this from a phone so proper english is hard.

1. Put your money where your mouth is. ;) Show me those. Also, again, I am talking about the most up to date studies on the topic, conducted by Scott Hartman.

2. I am talking about theropods. I was just using the lions as an example.

3. once again, I produced a study, now your turn to do the exact opposite. Also, that was published a year and a half ago, so yours should be newer than that to disprove it.

I would say Rex...

If it's 1 V 1...Rex 55 to 45 Rex's favour

If it's a pack? Giga 90 to 10...

I stil, back Rex as the facts stated by PK and Vader...

But I'm not going agaisnt Giga, and if you think they're being bias, well you know Im not Im a Spino Fan...I still think Rex would win...but sometime being bias is part of a debate...

Me being bias? 

Giga smashes Rex 10000000 times, Rex stand no chance, etc.

But face the facts... like I have, Rex would win.

;D good to see you PK, and you to Happy.

Rex 55 %

Giga 45 %

T.rex is most definitely heavier and stronger built. Scott Hartman already proved it in his latest comparison. In fact if you view both animals from the top you can see a much bulkier animal T.rex is compared to Giga.

http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/mass-estimates-north-vs-south-redux772013

T.rex takes this 70/30 for more effective one bit one kill bone crushing bite, more durable and stronger.

KINGZILLA Although I agree with you, I think 30 for Giga is a little low, but I get you.

Ganging up on me again? Huh, expected.

 The most recent and convincing size estimate (and at that probably the only one that gave a rigorous, quantitative estimate for both of them) would be Scott Hartman’s (2013) one, which estimated the largest known T. rex (FMNH PR 2081) and Giganotosaurus (MUCPv-95) specimens at a very similar volume and  the Giganotosaurus specimen is the larger one in two, while the T. rex is the largest in 30 or more adults, and an exceptionally old one at that.. you can easily notice how the smallest Giganotosaurus (MUCPv-Ch1) is indeed far larger than the smallest adult T. rex (MOR 1125: according to Schweitzer et al. 2008, its femur is only 107cm long, which suggests that it is likely about 10m long), demonstrating that on average and as a species, Giganotosaurus is indeed likely the larger of the two, although to what extent is tricky to determine.

2. Giga is very closely related to allosaurids and theye have a gape of nearly 90 degrees. Giga has a similar tooth design. Among the factors that will constrain an animal’s gape angle are the placement of the muscles: If for a given jaw the muscles need a large in-lever, they have to attach more anteriorly, which in turn means that to open the jaws to the same angle, the muscles have to stretch more. If a muscle is thick, that will also mean it is rostrocaudally long, which will again mean that the front part has to be stretched more strongly. Additionally, a more pennate muscle will contract over a shorter distance and thus allow a lower range of motion. 

EVERYONE - Please, go easy on one-another. Each of you is exceptionally intelligent and capable of presenting and defending your arguments with exemplary skill! Do not waste this chance to conduct an interesting and in-depth dialogue on squabbling or harsh feelings; civil discourse is best when practiced in a peaceful atmosphere! This is an exceedingly compelling topic; one that has been discussed on many occasions. We could bring to light all manner of information - and perhaps even discover new possibilities!

TYRANT KING - This is a very fun topic! I happen to feel that Tyrannosaurus might be the heavier hitter with regards to combat against Giganotosaurus. However, my assessment is based primarily on lineage and evolutionary continuation. Tyrannosaurus' bloodline advanced further than that of the Giganotosaurus, ergo it was a stronger and more capable predator. However, I also happen to think that a battle between these two animals - regardless of genetic viability - would have been extremely dangerous for both. Each massed in at weights heavier than an African elephant, and both were armed with true weapons of mass destrutcion! I have a feeling that a battle between T-rex and Giga would have been something like two men fighting each other with high-powered rifles; the first one to get a good shot wins! :)

I'm afraid you're not understanding this correctly Tyrant King. First of all Sue is the largest T.rex specimen confirmed by the most reliable fossile remains, but not necessarily the largest in theory.

You see Hartman made the weight estimate of Giga specimen MUCPv-95 based on the assumption of a linear size increase corresponding to the Type specimen. But in actuality this could well mean that the MUCPv-95 specimen simply had a particularly big lower jaw bone, 10% bigger to be exact. There are similar cases in T.rexes too where individual body parts of some T.rexes are bigger than Sue's corresponding ones, but still smaller in overall size. So if you wanna play that card, then the T.rex UCMP137538 specimem had a toe bone 20% longer than Sue's so that'll make it 13-16tons if scaling up linearly. Also C.rex is another specimen that has many corresponding bones bigger than Sue's.

Now since we only have a single lower jaw bone of MUCPv-95, it's far from conclusive that it actually reached the weight Hartman has given to it. It's just a hypothetical estimate based on the best case scenario, wherease Sue's weight is most reliable due to very complete skeleton and to some extent the Type specimen of Giga.

So for now the most reliable data shows T.rex is the beavier animal, also you can't make any meaningful average weight for either animal based on a handful of specimens, you need hundreds and thousands of speciemns to come anywhere close. But based on the proportion, we can easily see who's the stronger, heavier theropod at equal length or even at a length disavantage.

^

Agreed :P

1. That size that you gave was older than Hartman's most recent one. Also, although Giganotosaurus was longer, Hartman proved Tyrannosaurus weighed much more, even on average. This is the very recent post that proves it Linkity link link

2. Both animal's jaws attached anteriorally. All theropods did. That proved nothing.  Not sure where you found that info.