Carcharodontosaurus vs Tyrannosaurus

First off, I never meant to insult or challenge your knowledge of T. rex. What I said was, "the impression you're giving me is that of an idiot who doesn't know anything about dinosaurs". What I meant was, your saying that T. rex was better than everyone in everything was an opinion, though you stated it as fact. That sounded very fanboy-ish, and that was what my comment was about. (Though I apologize if you took offense to that. )

Also, the "deep guttural dark side" was something you made up. I said the Carcharodontosaurus won for vengeance, and a family to protect. Male bears, for example have their asses handed to them by females half their size because the mother bears are fighting for their cubs. Anger overcoming physical advantages in battles is a rather common thing, actually. I understand that (maternal) instinct in bears and dinosaurs is very different, but essentially they are fighting for the same thing. 

"Considering "an idiot who knows next to nothing about dinosaurs" is coming from a guy/girl who had a Carcharodontosaurus win because of its "deep, guttural dark side", is really funny. Haha. I'm laughing."

Trashing a topic because you didn't like the result? Not cool.

"Also "anky" does not beat all." 

Wow. Poking fun at my username? Really not cool. That comment probably wasted more of your time than mine.

Mostly my underlined point is I did not intend to insult you. I wasn't calling you an idiot, I was reacting to what you were saying, the context of it, and what felt to me like forcing an opinion on other people.

@Xenotaris, you need not side against me because you like T. rex. I have not said anything against T. rex; I haven't called it weak or anything. I'm not telling people they can't think T. rex is cool, just don't trash other people's opinions because you disagree. And yes, Wikipedia has become much more reliable, but just because it is reliable, does not mean all sites showing discrepancies in data are incorrect. I have found a Wikipedia article with estimates of a possible bite force of 47,000 pounds. Other Wikipedia pages claim Tyrannosaurus had a bite force of 60,000 newtons, or 6.8 tonnes. 

National Geographic's computer models suggest a bite force of 35,000 -57,000 newtons, or 7868.313 -12814.11 pounds of force.

Still very formidable jaws, but I think there is very little chance it is what GorillaGodzilla says it is.

Well I just don't think Carchardontosaurus could kill T. rex, I think just that Tyrannosaurus has more advantageous than disadvantageous. Stronger bite force, a more avian brain, possible more warm bloodedness, thicker teeth, and a robust body capable of surviving other tyrannosaurus bites would make it more than capable to win a fight against Carchardontosaurus. 

Also no offense but your two dinosaurs are too anthropomorphize, personality wise.

I do think i went a little too far with my first comment, I did indeed take it as though you were calling me an idiot. I did not insult your name, but merely used it in the context of what I was saying--which was involving then Ankylosaurus. Your name uses it as though it beats all, so I poked fun at that--considering you seem to disrespect Tyrannosaurus.

My estimates are not fake, nor over exaggerated--check Wikipedia and other sources for dinosaurs, the top specimens theorize that the Tyrant King could have exerted up to fifty-thousand pounds or more. Not to be a narcissist, nor a jerk, but I know my T.rex knowledge.

Carchardontosaurus may have been slightly larger but its jaws were comparatively weak, its teeth were shorter and thin unlike the T. rex's fatter and long bonecrushing teeth. Carchardontosaurus uses its jaws like a battle-axe a signature method for Allosauroids.

I did mention the Carc using its jaws like a battle-axe (actually a halberd, which is a spear with an axe blade). And, in my opinion, the Carcharodontosaurus would still have won (call me stubborn if you want, I'm not changing my stance on this) regardless of anatomical differences, for the simple reason that it had a family to protect. Wouldn't you fight a lot harder if someone was attacking someone you cared about, or several someones? Especially if the same thing had happened to your parents?

And I like giving human traits to animals, it makes the story more interesting.

I give humanization to my dinosaurs too. That, is not the issue with your fight. The issue with your fight, is that it seems too much like an attempt to show that T.rex is beatable--which it is, but when placed blatantly like this just becomes too much. If you were to have accepted it as fiction, for a Carc can't a kill a rex in pure combat, I would have been more accepting of the result. But no, instead you actually see it as fact, as true! That a T.rex would have been beaten by a mentally unstable, rage-filled, Carcharodontosaurus.

Also, regarding bite force, Carcharodontosaurus may not be at such a disadvantage as it seems. As Xenotaris mentioned above, Allosauroids used a hacking method where they basically drop their jaw on their target. This would make for a devastating attack, considering that the dinosaur would use less energy powering jaws and still achieve similar bite force to a dinosaur that did not use this method (I am not referring to Tyrannosaurus, not even close). Also, considering the 5-6-foot skull, even with fenestrae, would not be lightweight, the attack becomes all the more effective. The teeth were flatter and more suited for slicing, so they would not slow down the jaw force as much on impact. Lastly, even though Carcharodontosaurus, or carcharodontosaurids in general had weaker bites than tyrannosaurs, their skulls were far more lightweight. This made for easier, faster bites, to make an animal bleed out instead of killinbg it with one crushing blow. Tyrannosaur skulls were adapted to brute force, so their "rate of fire," so to speak, would be much slower. There were undoubtedly adaptations to negate the effects of such muscle-bound jaws, but they would not have completely smothered the effects of such powerful jaws. Think about it. If there ever was a dinosaur that could, as you say, apply 50,000 pounds of jaw-force to a quarry, the jaws must be extremely heavy. That's twice the weight of a dump truck, and an upper-weight-limit dump truck at that. No amount of neck muscles could completely relieve the weight of those jaws, if at all.

For example, just because you're strong doesn't mean you can move a hammer like a toothpick. Strength isn't everything, it's the momentum. Tyrannosaurs would need a few seconds at best (and that's already really stretching it) to counteract the downward momentum of its strike,  especially in case of a miss. Precious seconds while the carcharodontosaurid moves out of range and attacks somewhere else.

Tyrannosaurus necks were massive, muscular, and their jaws were five-six feet long. That powered by their muscular tail and back would, maybe with a one or two second delay, open the jaws and be able to clamp down with 50,000 pounds. I do find it funny that you are acting as though the Carc is a nimble speedster like dromaeosaurs, this is a 13-16 foot tall powerhouse that hunted in what would become Africa--it is not gonna zip by a T.rex with fast lightning strikes.

Carcharodontosaurus isn't that fast, but one or two seconds is probably not enough time for a Tyrannosaurus to re-position itself. Also counterbalancing after an attack could throw the T. rex off balance, while the Carcharodontosaurus attacks or moves out of range. It isn't just the jaws but the dinosaur itself- Carcharodontosaurus was slenderer, more agile and probably faster. It wasn't that Carc was extra fast- T. rex is just slow for an animal its size, with all the muscle needed to balance out its massive head.

Then there's the claws. Carcharodontosaurus' claws were much better developed than those of T. rex. The tyrannosaur's arms, though muscular, would have been virtually useless in a fight; I find it much more likely that it used its tiny forelimbs to.. uh...Well, what practical uses are there for Tyrannosaurus' arms? Whatever use there was for them, it would be the same for Carcharodontosaurus but 2 or 3 times more effective. The claws on a Carcharodontosaurus would be a much better weapon than Tyrannosaurus claws, though the still relatively small forelimbs for each of them would probably not have influenced the fight. If it did, it would most definitely be in the Carcharodontosaurus' favor.

Don't forget T.rex wouldn't have solely used the jaws. Ramming, skull ramming, slicing with the teeth, knocking over and clawing with the talons, all of these would have been used.

Carc claws are about as useless as rex claws. They were probably used, similar to T.rex, for holding onto mating females, or holding onto the torso of their prey whilst they clamped onto the neck in a hunt.

All the attacks mentioned above would involve throwing body weight around, and when you're an 8-10 ton creature getting pushed around by another 8-ten ton creature, that's pretty risky. In other words, each of those was a gamble. If it hit, good for the Tyrannosaurus. If it missed, it would unbalance its ten tons, get hit by another ten tons, fall and get very injured.

Both of you have good points but I dislike humanized dinosaurs when it comes to versus match since it alters the playing field and drives the dinosaur question beyond its normal capabilities I mean that is the reason why you decide to humanize them rather than going in with a more natural scenario where the two beasts are just driven by instincts.

Regardless Tyrannosaurus has a more advanced brain than Carchardontosaurus there for would have a greater capacity to understand the world around it. Tyrannosaurus would of been a genius compared to Carchardontosaurus. Applying that to the humanized dinosaur personalities, I think Tyrannosaurus would of observed that the Carchardontosaurus was enraged and would of turned its rage against him.

"Your emotions have clouded your judgement and for that you have made a fatal mistake" Tyrannosaurus said coldly, "You were 10 million years too late to defeat me"

Damn straight Xenotaris.

Also Tyrannosaurus has perfect binocular vision something Carchardontosaurus lacks, hint Carchardontosaurus's eyes are on the side of its head rather than in front like T. rex.

@Xenotaris- Where in the fight do you think binocular vision would apply? (I don't mean to sound sarcastic, just can't figure out where.)

Also, the Carcharodontosaurus being less smart does not make Tyrannosaurus smarter. The Tyrannosaurus' intelligence would not do much good; intelligence usually only make a big difference if an animal is a genius- Tyrannosaurus was not. It wasn't going to set traps or anything, or create tools, especially a tool capable of bringing down a pissed-off 13-16 foot tall powerhouse. And even if the Tyrannosaurus was intelligent, I highly doubt emotional sensitivity would be included in its array of mental advantages.

I will keep coming back to this example- male bears lose their faces when they anger a female bear with cubs. It doesn't matter how smart the male is, or how much stronger or faster or better vision; unless it has a gun it's not going to win. The smartest decision would be to flee.

Lastly, I think (and this may have been partly my fault as writer) that you are over-understanding the feelings. What I mean is that thoughts seem very simple to you, but that's because you don't think in words. The thoughts were not nearly as complex as I made them sound; they were more of feelings that I converted into words, which made them sound more complex and human-like in the process.

"And I like giving human traits to animals, it makes the story more interesting." -ankybeatsall2468

You admitted to anthropomorphizing your dinosaurs, but also The T. rexes keen vision would alter the outcome of the battle, it can see right in front of itself while the carchardontosaurus would of relied heavily on its scent of smell; Vision is more reliable in direct confrontation than smell. Also I said Tyrannosaurus is the smartest of all Large theropods, it not been able to build traps nor create tools but intelligence doesn't mean out-right sapience but a tyrannosaurus would still coordinate better than a carchardontosaur would due to its slightly higher intelligence, but you gave your dinosaurs human personalities there for your dinosaurs are sapient with sapient goals like revenge. 

Your Bear hypothesis, the female bear doesn't always win either; The male bear's goal is to kill off the female bear's cubs so she could mother his children and sometimes this happens. 

Well Xenotaris, thanks for agreeing with me on this.

T.rex simply has the evolutionary advantage.  And Carcharodontosaurus's eyesight is terrible.  It can't see jackshit when looking straight ahead.

GG,

I'd say that an Ankylosaurus would win against a T.Rex 60% of the time

Well Lord Tyrant, Dinosaurs are my passion.

Ankylosaurus is one tough cookie, when not thrown on its back.

^Yep.

When you say "T-rex is the greatest predator of all time", what about Megalodon, or Mosasaurus? Orcas? Even blue whales can technically be considered predators, they predate on tiny animals that eat plankton making them carnivores, and can easily be 2 times as long, and many more times in weight. Also, rex wouldn't be able to use its full bite force (which was matched by Dunkleosteus, and far exceeded by multiple Pliosaurs and Megalodon, as well as probably at least C. chubutensis) on the Carch's neck, as it was too thick and wouldn't fit at the back of the rex's neck, where most of the bite force came from. It barely would have fit in its mouth at all. The carc has an advantage where it could sever the jugular with ease using the teeth that are its namesake. It could sever many other blood vessels in the body as well, yet you don't see everyone saying a Carc would one shot a rex. They're both incredible predators worthy of our respect, and one being more evolved than the other doesn't mean jack ****. Humans came into existence much later than these to, and with just our natural defenses we wouldn't stand a chance. Also, an anky could take out a rex with a swing that can break bone, and they were rare in their environment so it would not have been very useful for rexes to adapt to hunt them in the first place, and there is no actual evidence of Tyrannosaurus eating Ankylosaurus besides them living together. The more evolved thing is a product of an outdated look on Darwin's theory of evolution, evolution isn't linear, it branches, and so nothing is really more "advanced" than anything else, they are just more specialized for something else and only focus evolving what needs to be evolved. Also, Tyrannosaurus being smart is false, it was smart for a large Theropod, but at best would only be about as smart as a chicken. It still wouldn't be smart at all. And "the most heavily evolved predator to have ever existed"? Bull ***. Mosasaurs spent much longer evolving, crocodiles and sharks have evolved for much longer and are still around, showing their success over Tyrannosaurus. And a Megalodon would crush it, at least in water. Many other creatures would as well, mainly water creatures though. You also should say "that we know of", because there could have been many creatures much more fearsome than a rex that we don't know about. Maybe a descendant of the rex itself, wouldn't that be ironic? And doing all that for some other apex predator and not researching the others with the same vigour would lead you to the same conclusion, many people say it was Megalodon or orcas that were the best, some say Mosasaurus, and so on. So if someone wants a Carc to beat a Rex, let them! It could have done so! And a rex taking on and beating a fire breathing demon dinosaur that can regenerate because it became "the Tyrant Lord" is not accurate. Don't get me wrong, I have always loved your work and the amount of effort you put into it. However, you shouldn't bash on the guy, and I realize he could have worded his first response better. And Dakotaraptors hunting Ankys? Even if they were somehow pack hunters, that is extremely far fetched, and even if they did it would be incredibly rare for them to attack, let alone win. They would have to be desperate. Tyrannosaurus was not the strongest creature ever, look at the aforementioned water predators that surpassed it. You know a lot about Dinosaurs, but you focused most of your energy on one and almost disregarding the others, so it seems the most advanced and best to you, but if you put enough research into others you would realize that T-rex had contenders for the most successful predator ever. Sorry if it seemed a bit personal, I tried not to be, I'm just sick of the overhype of the rex and might have taken it out on you, so I apologize. I am sure you are a great person and I thoroughly enjoy your works, they being among the main reasons I joined this site. So, sorry about that. But my points do hold up, and I hope I have conveyed that Tyrannosaurus may not be the most amazing predator ever. 

I totally agree TheLazyFish

I totally agree TheLazyFish

I loved the way you capitalized the feelings as if they were things in the story. Really adds a certain depth to the story.