Lions have always held the somewhat legendary title as "King of the Beasts".
According to some reading (have not verified accuracy of material)I have done, the Romans would put a lion and a tiger together in the Coloseum and the outcome was almost always that the tiger was the winner. Yet it would almost seem as though this thinking about the lion being the more dangerous has permeated the hunting ranks, for the lion is a much more coveted trophy among big game hunters. Most discussions of dangerous game revolve around the "Big African Five."
Does lion hunting receive more notoriety than tiger hunting since it occurs in areas where there are large populations of other game (providing other opportunities)?
Is lion hunting considered more dangerous because of the possibilities of attack from the rest of the pride?
Is tiger hunting rare because they are protected in many areas or live in countries that are not hunter friendly?
It would seem to me that the tiger would be both a more difficult quarry to take due to their thick habitat and nocturnal habits and the more dangerous of the two in a one on one encounter because of their greater size and probably more ferocious demeanor.
What are your thoughts?

A tiger can outweigh a lion two to one or more. If mass is any indication, I would bet on the tiger in a toe-to-toe fight with a lion. However, tigers don't generally take on cape buff either. Tigers are more ambush hunters rather than brute force feeders. Of course the lioness in predominately the hunter in the lion kingdom - it�s good to be a male lion.

An average Siberian tiger weighs about 200 lbs. more than an average lion, while a Bengal tiger weighs about 50-100 lbs. more. If I were to bet on the fight, I'd put my bottom dollar on tiger. A tiger is probably the most cunning cat in the wild. He may not get to hunt Cape buffaloes, but there are accounts of tigers killing Gaur and water buffaloes, that weigh the same as cape's and he does it all alone.

In Sundarban forest of Bangladesh, some old tigers are known to stalk the local wood cutters in the forest. I can not think of a more dangerous hunt where both hunters are trying to stalk each other, can you?

My late father killed a Tiger in India before partition of India and Pakistan during a deer hunt with his younger brother. I didn't get to hear the account of that hunt from my father because I was very young when he passed away but I did get to hear it from my late uncle. It was a bone chilling account, which is written in his personal diary. I'll post it if I can get my cousin to find it. The tiger was shot when it attacked my uncle. I heard that story many times but everytime it was more interesting than before. I can just imagine two 20'ish amateur hunters hunting for deer and ending up killing a tiger. Pretty interesting.
BB

ZD -- It's good to be a male ANYTHING...

I think the reasons lions are more sought after is they are atinable. I never hear of a tiger hunt but just about anyone can hunt a lion.

Crosshair,
The reason you have never heard of a Tiger hunt is that they are protected species. Siberian Tigers in the wild are estimated to number around 600 to 800. Bengal tigers have shown quite a comeback in last three decades and now number close to 4,000.

The Cook's report mentioned some outfit in South Africa that will let you "shoot" a tiger or a jaguar in enclosure.
BB

The Cook's report mentioned some outfit in South Africa that will let you "shoot" a tiger or a jaguar in enclosure.

BB,
I am not framiliar with the Cook's report. Could you enlighten me?
Also, why the heck would anyone want to shoot a tiger or jaguar as described?
Steve

BB -- Thanks...
That was really my point. I appreciate the extra data.

Supposedly from some sources I have read the tiger will attack an Asian elephant by leaping upon its back and raking it with its claws.
The old glory days of hunting such as during the time of Jim Corbett produced some fascinating accounts of tiger hunting.

I've heard lions will do the same... in fact African Hunter Magazine showed a pictorial account of lions taking down an elephant.

Tigers are no longer hunted in the wild so this tiger hunting Vs. lion hunting discussion is pointless.

According to Robert Ruark who killed many tigers there was not much danger in the way tigers were "sport hunted".

The way that Corbett did it was quite dangerous indeed.

Jason

BB,
I am not framiliar with the Cook's report. Could you enlighten me?
Also, why the heck would anyone want to shoot a tiger or jaguar as described?
Steve

Hi Steve,
Cook report was an investigative report telecasted on BBC about the canned lion hunting operations in South Africa. You can read the full details of this story and about the people behind such horrible act ("cat farmers" and their clients.)
go to the following link
http://www.sn.apc.org/wmail/issues/981023/NEWS23.html

Obviously, from the hunter's point of view, the conditions under which the animal is hunted will determine which is more dangerous.
If you get a chance, try to read some of the old books where they go after man-eaters (lions, tigers, or leopards). They would often sit up at night over a kill with a carbide lamp and then "open" the shutters when they heard the animal on the kill. They were shooting black powder rifles and between the dim light and the smoke from the weapon they could see almost nothing but hear the beast thrashing about in the bush. Chilling reading. Makes what we do seem tame by comparison.

/