T-rex/Spinosaurus confront

@Godzillasarus i think most poeple know that spino didnt have a weak jaw it was powerful enough, however T rex blew it out of the water (Dum dum dish :p) realtivly in bite power, if spino bit down apon t rex's large robust and powerful neck it would hurt like hell but it would not kill the rex, if T rex bit the spino on its rather slender neck it would kill it! :) 

Some very misleading information here. It the Rex fanboy's aren't helping out but imbracing it making this a joke. Give credit where it is due:

Spinosaurus:

1. Yes Rex has the bigger bite force but this does NOT mean that Spino is a pushover. It was pretty darn sturdy and has a bite force of 3 tons on average. Which is enough to kill Rex is grabbed by the neck. The fish it preyed upon were half as long as Spinosaurus and weight 1.5 tons. Let's not forget that prehistoric fish had MUCH harder scales back then. Look at todays aligator gar for proof. 

2. Dinosaurs did use their claws as well as todays animals. Spinosaurus USED it's claws for preys and self defense. Rex can lift 1.5 tons with its arms. Acrocanthosaurus had arms 4x more powerful than Rex's. Now imagine this on Spinosaurus. One swing is like a 9 ton swing. Which is overkill. 

3. 17-18m long and weight 11-13 tons on average. Rex was 13m long and weight 9 tons. 

Spinosaurus wins 9/10. With Rex having a bigger bite force. Spino is just more well rounded with more weapons in it's arsenal. Please read everything Rex fanboy's before you attack me. 

What I'm getting out of this is that since we have different thoughts than you, we're fanboys. Going off that logic, you're a Spino fanboy. 

That said, we have little proof that Spino even existed, so we can't say much about the damn thing. Sure, we can scale up from relatives, but that can be a bad idea. 

@Mr.Happy9097

I'm not a fanboy. I just give credit where it's due and base my post on statements that are highlighted. But just from your posts I have read, you really do discredit Spino the most and need to research on it. 

Is this so? Please elaborate and i'll give you responses as to why. Scaling up is not that far from the original size. It has happen how many times? If this has been proven wrong, then it would not have been mentioned. 

In this case, Spino is on a different league. 

There was a post by Carnosaur a while back about Tyrannosaurs. He said something about Rex having some bone that was only a few cm longer than the same bone Daspletosaurus or Gorgosaurus, but it was much larger than both, give me a few minutes and I'll post a link. 

Maybe I don't give Spino enough credit, I dont know. Is it crazy or irrational to even consider that the individual bombed in WWII was a freakishly large individual? I mean, the thing was found in the Sahara desert. Deserts aren't easy on anything. The average sized bones were probably destroyed by erosion, while only a few bones were found from one individual. 

Got the link, it's one of the paragraphs between the middle and end.

Click here

It's a Spino discussion, so I figure you'll read the whole thing anyway. 

It was pretty darn sturdy and has a bite force of 3 tons on average.

Funny, because the bite force of S. Aegyptiacus has never been mentioned in any bite force study i'm aware of. Try again.

The fish it preyed upon were half as long as Spinosaurus and weight 1.5 tons

Mawsonia and Onchopristis got 30 feet long? news to me.. A quote from the website Paleodirect: " attaining maturity in about 10 years. Females give live birth and pup sawfishes are around 2.5 ft long at birth, reaching a maximum length of 23 ft!"

Mawsonia was about the size of the coelocanth, around 15 or so feet maximum.

Rex can lift 1.5 tons with its arms. Acrocanthosaurus had arms 4x more powerful than Rex's. Now imagine this on Spinosaurus. One swing is like a 9 ton swing. Which is overkill. 

As much as i adore rexy, it couldn't lift 1.5 tons with its arms. More in the range of 400 lbs. When did Acro get that estimate? and where? point me to this paper, as well as the lifting capacities of Spinosaurus.

17-18m long and weight 11-13 tons on average

Funny how you find an 'average' when we have two, maybe three decently fossilized individuals. Smells like fanboyism to me.

The size of Spinosaurus has been argued for decades now. Nothing has been disproven, and nothing has really been credibly pronounced forward.

In this case, Spino is on a different league. 

Again, smells like fanboyism to me. You seem intent on hyping a creature we have so little knowledge about, with your so called 'facts' that you have not given a source for what so ever.

Spinosaurus: The Internet's most overrated dinosaur.

1. Sakamoto's papers are proof enough. Look/read it on google. Try again and learn.

2. The fish it preyed upon grew 8m long and weight up to 1-1.5 tons.

3. Oh there is no denying that you adore Rexy. Hell, a big biased fanboy would put it nicely. Like I said in another post, it was a typo and I got something else in the mix. it's around half a ton.

4. Planet dinosaur has him on a average 11 tons for a 17m Spinosaurus. This is without the muscular spine and it's full growth.

5. Giving credit where it's due. Unlike the may users who joy ride Rex without any scientific evidence. This goes to Spinosaurus as well since you degraded him numerous time along with the moderator.

PS: Respond here since I hate going back in there and here. Lets just make it on one topic.

Well, for your request, sure. Here's what I said somewhere else, but I'll post it here as well.

Alright, you've made a point. Now, if this could go to a friendly debate, that'd be great. We don't need a repeat of last night. 

Sakamoto's papers are proof enough. Look/read it on google. Try again and learn.

 "In order to estimate bite force with any reasonable confidence, we'd need to have a rough idea of how much jaw muscles Spinosaurus had. Unfortunately there are no good cranial materials to reconstruct jaw muscles in Spinosaurus - the bits at the back of the skull where the muscles would have attached are not known for Spinosaurus. Therefore we won't know for sure

However, we can fairly confidently assume that Spinosaurus would have similar skull proportions to those of close relatives like Baryonyx or Irritator. These theropods had long narrow skulls with not much space for jaw muscles. From what we know of Spinosaurus skull materials, we can be sure that it also had smallish jaw muscles (for an animal of that size).

Extrapolating from size estimates (I presume body size, e.g. body mass, body length, whatever) would not give you a good estimate for Spinosaurus, for the very reasons I outlined above, i.e., spinosaurs had smaller jaw muscles compared to other theropods of similar sizes. Using body size will grossly overestimate bite force."

Where in there does it say three tons?

 Planet dinosaur has him on a average 11 tons for a 17m Spinosaurus. This is without the muscular spine and it's full growth.

 There is no possible way to get an average off of three individuals. Sorry, but the term 'average' has been flaunted by you rather loosely.

Carno, seriously, simmer down, and eat the waffles.

(>'.')>#