Giganotosaurus Runs The Gauntlet

I am also not biased in this discussion. I'm basing my claims on studies made by Emily Rayfield, and RaptorX should have the link to the studies.
Emily Rayfield's study basically implies that Baryonichines may have had stronger bite forces than Spinosaurines at parity. I may of misinterpreted what she exactly said, but she does definitely state that Baryonichines had bite forces comparable to that of theropods of similar size.
And anyways Giganotosaurus would win against Baryonyx and Spinosaurus at parity so this 'Spinosaurus VS Baryonyx at parity' thing is rather irrelevant to this discussion.

When were those studies published? There are many studies out there that are just plain disasters. The thing is, Baryonyx had a very thin and gracile snout, its angular and surangular were pretty small. The dentary and the maxilla were very enlongated, and the skull itself was very gracile. It had an enlongated, slender neck, and its parietal didn't suggest an impressive spinalis capitis. The enlongated skull and the small length from the angular to the parietal suggest a large stress area, which means it applies stress in many areas, thus meaning that it would not apply too much stress on one square inch. Its small teeth, like on any other theropod with this dentition, were built for slight slicing. The membrane between the jugal, quadratojugal and the surangular was quite large, suggesting a bigger gape. We all know a small gape suggests a strong bite, and a large gape suggests a weak bite. I really doubt of Emily Rayfield's studies and her conclusions.

And I don't see why not debate about this; It is not so off-opic, it is, overall, a debate about which of the two dinosaurs were superior in a certain department. Both of these two are foes for Giganotosaurus carolinii in the scenario, and we are deducing which of them would be a tougher opponent.

I will talk to him about that. Still, I have shown a lot of arguments that pretty much put her studies on a very dubious state.

We are using what Baryonyx is supposed to be like, most dinosaurs don't have enough remains to get any conclusions about them on any department. Spinosaurus did have a gracile skull, but nowhere near as gracile as that of Baryonyx. Spinosaurus also had a more powerful spinalis capitis, according to what it might've looked like. on Scott Hartman's work. And once again, I would not put them at an equal level of combat effectiveness at parity - They were much more different than people think, and they are in different subfamilies.

imo it stops at the t.rex

Baryonyx and Spinosaurus do not have a far different skull shape. Spinosaurus' jaw is stockier yes, but not MASSIVELY stockier. And as I have said the gracile skull thing is likely associated with the immaturity of the only Baryonyx specimen found. Many theropods have gracile skulls when not fully grown. 

"Baryonyx and Spinosaurus do not have a far different skull shape". Oh my god Mecha... Yes they do:



The quadratougal, lacrimal, occipital, squamosal, parietal and postorbital are totally different. The dentary, angular and surangular are very different in shape. The fact that both have enlongated skulls makes both seem similar, but they are not. The inferior temporal fenestra, mandibular fenestra, antorbital fenestra have their differences. Apart from the skull, the spinalis capitis, trapezius, latissimus dorsi and many other muscles are different by logical skeletal differences. 

The skull, mandible, cervical vertebrae, illium, femur, fibula, and tibia have their differences, and they are only similar at some points of what I mentioned because the Spinosaurus skeletal had parts restored after Irritator, Suchomimus and Baryonyx, and I still see many differences in skeletal anatomy, thus meaning they were totally different in overall anatomy. They are very different.

Now to the skull, the stockier structure gives it less stress areas, meaning one square area will suffer more stress. The larger muscle placement areas for the larger angular and surangular indicate more opening/shutting power. And as I have already said, a large gape is a synonym of a weaker bite, while a stronger bite leads to a smaller gape. The membrane between the jugal, quadratojugal and surangular on Baryonyx is much larger than the one observed on Spinosaurus (considering that from Hartman's reconstructions, which are very accurate), meaning a larger gape. 

Don't bring the immature specimen up, it's all we have, so we should not mindlessly speculate a stockier Baryonyx skull. We have no information on Baryonychine growth rate what so ever.

And last but not least, the teeth. Scott Hartman's skeletals above clearly depict Spinosaurus with bulkier, longer teeth. You are basically defending Baryonyx, saying it would be a tougher opponent than Spinosaurus, when it would not really. Its main weapon would be its biteforce, which would not be as effective as that of an animal which has good reasons to have a superior biteforce, plus its deadlier teeth.