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.