inherit
9
0
Feb 21, 2017 11:58:22 GMT
79
es1001
1,498
October 2013
es1001
http://www.youtube.com/user/Entersandman1001
esandman1001
TheSandman
Tyrannosaurus
Great White Shark
|
Post by es1001 on Jan 22, 2014 23:29:38 GMT
fuk sak
It wouldn't be an easy fight, but Spinosaurus would come out victorious more often than not. Tyrannosaurus has ways to win, and I don't doubt it won sometimes. But Spinosaurus is just too big and tough.
60-70% in favor of the Spinosaurus. (I agree with Theropod, 80% is an exaggeration)
That summarized it pretty well I think.
|
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 23, 2014 8:06:49 GMT
fuk sak
It wouldn't be an easy fight, but Spinosaurus would come out victorious more often than not. Tyrannosaurus has ways to win, and I don't doubt it won sometimes. But Spinosaurus is just too big and tough.
60-70% in favor of the Spinosaurus. (I agree with Theropod, 80% is an exaggeration)
That summarized it pretty well I think. How would it not be a relatively easy fight? Spinosaurus is over 60% larger, and Spinosaurus is considerably stronger due to its weight advantage. As well as Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus would have a strong bite force, due to its skull being much more robust than other Spinosaurids. 70-80% in favour of Spinosaurus sounds more likely to me. 60% is really an understatement... |
|
inherit
9
0
Feb 21, 2017 11:58:22 GMT
79
es1001
1,498
October 2013
es1001
http://www.youtube.com/user/Entersandman1001
esandman1001
TheSandman
Tyrannosaurus
Great White Shark
|
Post by es1001 on Jan 23, 2014 10:48:55 GMT
fuk sak
It wouldn't be an easy fight, but Spinosaurus would come out victorious more often than not. Tyrannosaurus has ways to win, and I don't doubt it won sometimes. But Spinosaurus is just too big and tough.
60-70% in favor of the Spinosaurus. (I agree with Theropod, 80% is an exaggeration)
That summarized it pretty well I think. How would it not be a relatively easy fight? Spinosaurus is over 60% larger, and Spinosaurus is considerably stronger due to its weight advantage. As well as Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus would have a strong bite force, due to its skull being much more robust than other Spinosaurids. 70-80% in favour of Spinosaurus sounds more likely to me. 60% is really an understatement...
I also didn't say 60%, and I also think that 60% is an underestimate, but I only said that because I was agreeing with Theropod that 80% is exaggerated. If I had to be exact, 70% give or take a few would be the most accurate win rate for Spinosaurus. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 23, 2014 15:48:55 GMT
How would it not be a relatively easy fight? Spinosaurus is over 60% larger, and Spinosaurus is considerably stronger due to its weight advantage. As well as Tyrannosaurus, Spinosaurus would have a strong bite force, due to its skull being much more robust than other Spinosaurids. 70-80% in favour of Spinosaurus sounds more likely to me. 60% is really an understatement...
I also didn't say 60%, and I also think that 60% is an underestimate, but I only said that because I was agreeing with Theropod that 80% is exaggerated. If I had to be exact, 70% give or take a few would be the most accurate win rate for Spinosaurus.Being more robust isn't going to be an advantage for Tyrannosaurus. Strength is an advantage, and Spinosaurus has the strength advantage. Tyrannosaurus' more powerful bite force isn't going to be that efficient against a larger theropod such as Spinosaurus. 80% in favour of Spinosaurus is not an exaggeration imo. |
|
#00be0f
10
0
1
140
thesporerex
"May the flames guide thee"
2,872
October 2013
thesporerex
Example 4
|
Post by thesporerex on Jan 23, 2014 17:02:14 GMT
If we use the current spinosaurus we think about now(15-16 metrers and 11-13 tons) then the Spinosaurus wins. But if we use the current in production Andrew cau Spinosaurus analysis then T. rex would win fairly easily.
|
|
inherit
21
Uhh... Ughhh..... Uggghhhh...... skypeusername 0
117
DJ Spinosaurus
just call me dj
1,113
Oct 21, 2013 20:15:32 GMT
October 2013
alexcarcharo5
What is a YouTube?
skypeusername
Train
Spinosaurus
Red Panda
i am cool
|
Post by DJ Spinosaurus on Jan 23, 2014 19:49:32 GMT
Jesus Christ 13 pages
|
|
#00be0f
10
0
1
140
thesporerex
"May the flames guide thee"
2,872
October 2013
thesporerex
Example 4
|
Post by thesporerex on Jan 24, 2014 17:11:11 GMT
Carnivora's T. rex vs Spinosaurus thread has almost 200 pages |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Jan 25, 2014 21:05:03 GMT
Mecha, stop saying 80% by pointing out hardly anything. Robustness is not favouring T. rex. Also, Mecha; Spinosaurus is not always 60% bigger, it depends on what specimens we use. Some specimen comparisons only have differences of about 30%. I would love it if you could point out a convincing reason to back up your exaggerated 80% winning rate. As for the biteforce, I don't get it how you consider T. rex's bite to be not so effective against Spinosaurus, when you actually consider a weaker biteforce for this spinosaurid that also has a less proper skull for applying stress to an object, meaning the spinosaurid's biteforce is also not effective. Considering BHI 3033 survived many pathologies, why wouldn't an average T. rex (which is larger than BHI 3033) survive getting bitten by this spinosaurid? I know you haven't said a bite from it would kill the smaller theropod, but you don't seem to mention the fact that neither of them will bite effectively in this battle. Spinosaurus relies on its strength, while T. rex relies on its agility advantage, although neither of them are even agile at all. Click here for a source that might be also helpful.I would say 80% is an exaggeration, given the fact neither of them are biting very effectively. Spinosaurus is not knocking T. rex to the ground so easily either. I would say 60-70% is better. |
|
#00be0f
3
0
1
Feb 24, 2019 19:15:10 GMT
415
themechabaryonyx789
Bowie Dave
4,993
October 2013
themechabaryonyx789
TheMechaBaryonyx789
Baryonyx
Tings
|
Post by themechabaryonyx789 on Jan 25, 2014 21:44:39 GMT
Mecha, stop saying 80% by pointing out hardly anything. Robustness is not favouring T. rex. Also, Mecha; Spinosaurus is not always 60% bigger, it depends on what specimens we use. Some specimen comparisons only have differences of about 30%. I would love it if you could point out a convincing reason to back up your exaggerated 80% winning rate. As for the biteforce, I don't get it how you consider T. rex's bite to be not so effective against Spinosaurus, when you actually consider a weaker biteforce for this spinosaurid that also has a less proper skull for applying stress to an object, meaning the spinosaurid's biteforce is also not effective. Considering BHI 3033 survived many pathologies, why wouldn't an average T. rex (which is larger than BHI 3033) survive getting bitten by this spinosaurid? I know you haven't said a bite from it would kill the smaller theropod, but you don't seem to mention the fact that neither of them will bite effectively in this battle. Spinosaurus relies on its strength, while T. rex relies on its agility advantage, although neither of them are even agile at all. Click here for a source that might be also helpful.I would say 80% is an exaggeration, given the fact neither of them are biting very effectively. Spinosaurus is not knocking T. rex to the ground so easily either. I would say 60-70% is better. I know Spinosaurus did not have a particularly effective bite in this fight either, but I was pointing out that Tyrannosaurus would not be able to use its bite effectively either. The latter is more obvious. 80% may be an exaggeration, but 60% is more of an understatement. I would now say 70% in favour of Spinosaurus. |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Jan 25, 2014 21:59:37 GMT
Mecha, stop saying 80% by pointing out hardly anything. Robustness is not favouring T. rex. Also, Mecha; Spinosaurus is not always 60% bigger, it depends on what specimens we use. Some specimen comparisons only have differences of about 30%. I would love it if you could point out a convincing reason to back up your exaggerated 80% winning rate. As for the biteforce, I don't get it how you consider T. rex's bite to be not so effective against Spinosaurus, when you actually consider a weaker biteforce for this spinosaurid that also has a less proper skull for applying stress to an object, meaning the spinosaurid's biteforce is also not effective. Considering BHI 3033 survived many pathologies, why wouldn't an average T. rex (which is larger than BHI 3033) survive getting bitten by this spinosaurid? I know you haven't said a bite from it would kill the smaller theropod, but you don't seem to mention the fact that neither of them will bite effectively in this battle. Spinosaurus relies on its strength, while T. rex relies on its agility advantage, although neither of them are even agile at all. Click here for a source that might be also helpful.I would say 80% is an exaggeration, given the fact neither of them are biting very effectively. Spinosaurus is not knocking T. rex to the ground so easily either. I would say 60-70% is better. I know Spinosaurus did not have a particularly effective bite in this fight either, but I was pointing out that Tyrannosaurus would not be able to use its bite effectively either. The latter is more obvious. 80% may be an exaggeration, but 60% is more of an understatement. I would now say 70% in favour of Spinosaurus. It is not an understatement, considering both animals cannot use their main weapons properly. |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Jan 27, 2014 14:10:08 GMT
I no longer consider the "ramming hypothesis" that much. I would like to see some evidence that actually supports it. Spinosaurus's skull is a fraction of the mass of that of Tyrannosaurus (according to Vobby), and it's not even comparably reinforced, if they're going to ram eachother, Spinosaurus' skull would likely be damaged. If Spinosaurus was actually that much larger than Tyrannosaurus, it would have too much mass on its back, resulting in a ridiculously high center of mass. And since you all know Spinosaurus is considerably taller, it would lose its balance, thus being the one to get knocked down.
I still find the ramming hypothesis pointless, since those habits have not ever been proven in either of those theropods. If I'm not mistaken, only Carnotaurus and Majungasaurus have been proposed to ram. Their stockier skulls also have no similarities with Spinosaurus' skull, so there is no evidence suggesting the spinosaurid would ram.
|
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Apr 25, 2014 16:13:36 GMT
who said anything about the head being used to ram? body mass alone should be quite sufficient to provide blunt trauma. I consider looking at the possibility of theropods being able to body collide. spinosaurus arms would be a primary weapon that would create massive gashes to the face, neck, or flanks of a tyrannosaurus, so the possibility of theropods being able to utilize their body masses towards their advantage. also the act that both creatures are not very maneuverable. once they close the distance between one another, physical contact is almost unavoidable. modern large mammals such as elephants also use these transactions. don't see why a theropod just as large and another even larger couldn't.
I view this fight about around 60% in favor of spinosaurus
|
|
inherit
95
0
Nov 21, 2016 16:13:36 GMT
173
spinosaurus1
┌∩┐(^o^)┌∩┐
710
April 2014
spinosaurus1
fredrick alexander
spinosaurus
komodo dragan and tegu
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Apr 25, 2014 16:25:19 GMT
I no longer consider the "ramming hypothesis" that much. I would like to see some evidence that actually supports it. Spinosaurus's skull is a fraction of the mass of that of Tyrannosaurus (according to Vobby), and it's not even comparably reinforced, if they're going to ram eachother, Spinosaurus' skull would likely be damaged. If Spinosaurus was actually that much larger than Tyrannosaurus, it would have too much mass on its back, resulting in a ridiculously high center of mass. And since you all know Spinosaurus is considerably taller, it would lose its balance, thus being the one to get knocked down. I still find the ramming hypothesis pointless, since those habits have not ever been proven in either of those theropods. If I'm not mistaken, only Carnotaurus and Majungasaurus have been proposed to ram. Their stockier skulls also have no similarities with Spinosaurus' skull, so there is no evidence suggesting the spinosaurid would ram. I also might want to add that even though spinosaurus was taller, it was reconstructed with proportionally smaller legs due to the belief that shorter hind limbs would be a better adaptation to optimist weight equilibrium all around. those legs are supporting 12-13 tons of weight, so I doubt spinosaurus is at some balance disadvantage. |
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Apr 25, 2014 16:30:37 GMT
We don't really know if it was that heavy, it might've been closer to our estimate of FMNH PR2081 than we actually think, but still larger. It was likely that it was about 11-12 tons, but we don't have an actually accurate evaluation on its mass.
|
|
#00be0f
1
0
1
Sept 19, 2022 0:50:28 GMT
1,130
Theropod
12,650
October 2013
admin
Theropoda Entertainment
Ask through PM
Thero
Genyodectes
Eagle
{"image":"https://66.media.tumblr.com/bec0264f6aea4d9a0137ba0694abea69/tumblr_mmae6u05vY1relrdqo1_1280.jpg","color":"000000"}
460000
ff9900
Example 1
|
Post by Theropod on Apr 25, 2014 16:36:45 GMT
Wow, I was just gonna post something about the ramming behaviour thing, and that's the first thing you talk about.  I really don't think the spinosaurine would ram, in order to cause any considerable effects it would have to ram with a good amount of force, which could damage its skull. Since we don't know the actual siz of this theropod, we can't be really sure, but there's a thing about our largest Tyrannosaurus rex specimen, FMNH PR2081: 0.913kg/l (8400kg/9200l) That seems a little high for my taste. By comparison, Hutchinson et al. arrived at a total density of 0.791 for the same specimen, tough of course with a different model. I think that’s mainly because he assumed the torso and neck to have a specific gravity of 0.9. By comparison, the Bates et al. model of Allosaurus has the thorax at a density of 0.715 when an abdominal airsack is assumed (and T. rex did have abdominal airsacks, judging by the pneumatisation of its sacrum and posterior dorsal vertebrae), and even when the tigh is included it is still 0.778. If anything, T. rex would have been more pneumatic, considering it is more pneumatised than Allosaurus. So I think a net density of 0.8 is saver to assume for T. rex. It might be safe to say FMNH PR2081 was about a ton smaller, Hartman used a quite high density for his GDI on the specimen. With a 12-metre tyrannosaurine weighing about 7 tons, a 15-16(?) metre spinosaurine might as well not weigh that much, given spinosaurids are generally not as robustly built as tyrannosaurids. I think the size advantage concept has been extremely misunderstood here. |
|
