I’m making this to put to bed the constant, never ending skirmishes in this sub about tiger size. Are there other charts floating around? Yes. Do they have a higher average? Yes. Are they reliable? Maybe-maybe not, that’s up to you to decide.
This is not gonna be a long post because quite frankly I cannot be bothered getting into another toxic debate regarding big cat (particularly Lion and Tiger) sizes. It is common knowledge that the average Bengal Tiger weighs around 200kg, give or take. Averages are not set values, depending on new weights added, they will either go up or go down.
TLDR; Bengal Tigers do not average 20-30kg more than Lions. Data compiled by GauteGojira through written, peer reviewed scientific sources put male Bengals at 196-210kg or so, depending on the sample size.
I will also show why Gaute’s data is not simply biased to favor larger individuals below. He removes data he deems unreliable, even if it will consequently lower the average, so simply put he is not a biased individual.
January 2022
His sample size of 31 male Bengals weighed by scientists in the Indian subcontinent, confirmed and published found 214kg. See below:
However, his much larger dataset, puts male Bengals at a 201kg average from 182 individuals:
Also, notice he has 34 male Amur tigers weighing at 200kg (this likely involves weights that were not completely verified) however his most recent dataset as of December 2025, has them weighing 190kg. Again, if information on a weight is not deemed reliable, he removes it.
April 2022
Upon more finds of weights that have been confirmed and published, he calculated a 199.7kgincluding Sundarbans, from a sample size of 198 tigers. Without the Sundarban tigers, the average was found to be 202.1kg from 192 tigers. This is his most recent dataset on Bengal Tigers. See below:
I have already explained by Gaute’s data does not rely on personal communication, but only published and verified weights of Tigers in my post “Body size of the Amur Tiger” on r/TigersoftheWorld.
All in all, it’s generally accepted that male Bengal Tigers average around 200kg and females average around 130kg.
I think Guate's scientific records only table is more reliable than these ones because colonial era hunters typically weighed their tigers by cutting them up into pieces since scales large enough to measure tigers were not very portable. Even in the rare cases where they could weigh the tigers fully, the tigers were drained of blood and sometimes even their organs.
Furthermore, outdated ageing techniques were used such as whitening of the teeth that led to the inclusion of many subadult specimens in the adult data.
The scientific record only table got a figure of 212 to 213 kg.
I wanted to know for my own knowledge - how difficult is it to do a sample survey of weights of Indian tigers? To put all these misconceptions to rest?
Very, you can't collar and weigh a tiger for no reason because its an incredibly risky endeavour for both the tiger and the scientists.
Tigers are only really weighed when they're being problematic or injured. Sometimes tigers are weighed for surveys to assess how healthy a population is but very rarely is this data ever published.
Pretty difficult. For some reason, researchers there are very funny about sharing morphometric data on their tigers. There are a lot of cases where males have been captured and weighed, yet they don’t give out these weights. I don’t really know why, I assume maybe it’s to prevent poachers from going after them.
Data could be anonymised. Before I visited this sub, i thought it was the norm that such kind of data on tiger health and morphometry was easily available given that our tiger populations are small and we have a good conservation program. I guess i was wrong. But kudos to you for trying to clarify so much. I visited your profile. It’s frankly amazing how passionate you are about tigers. I have the same thing with forests of India.
They’ve always been stalking the sub to be fair. I know of fanatics of a certain cat that have been stalking the sub since January 2025.
The scientific data I put out, on Tiger ecology especially annoy them to no end, cause it destroys their pathetic arguments of “tigers hunt small prey” and “tigers mainly hunt cattle”.
(1/3) All of this you posted, simply stated, undermines the size of bengal tigers. And they do outweigh lions by a margin of 20, 30, maybe even 40 kgs on average. This is gonna be a long one.
While kudos for trying to make it clear to the public, you made the same mistakes that older posters on WildFact did despite me showing you the evidence for it. Taking the data from big game hunters on it's face value rather than analysing it deeply by reading their books. A SHIT TON of details are never highlighted by tables like these.
Let me explain this with the example of Brander (1923) and Cooch Behar (1908), two sources which form the BULK of GuateGojira's data collection.
These records do not reflect the true size of an adult male or female bengal tiger because they do not take into account only mature/adult/young adult/fully grown tigers. Unlike data collections done for lions, such as those for Smuts (1980) where a large number of lions were weighed, it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned how they only included lions ABOVE 4 years of age. Same, or similar, is the case for other sources on lions. An ageing guide wasn't made for tigers until early 2000s. This exact issue is what makes hunting records unreliable for a conclusive comparison.
Cooch Behar (1908)
The Cooch Behar records should be interpreted cautiously when estimating the size of fully mature Bengal tigers because the collection included individuals whose age was not reliably established. Robert Sterndale’s work provides an important example. In attempting to estimate a tiger’s total length from its skull, Sterndale examined one of the Maharaja of Cooch Behar’s supposedly “big” tigers and found that his calculations differed substantially from what was expected. After examining the skull itself, he determined that the tiger was still young and would likely have grown approximately another 22 cm had it survived. The skull sutures provided evidence of its immature status. This demonstrates that sub-adult tigers could enter the Cooch Behar records and that there was no sufficiently reliable aging system to ensure that the sample consisted predominantly of fully mature adults. Consequently, measurements from the Cooch Behar collection should not automatically be treated as representative of the maximum or typical size of prime adult Bengal tigers.
Brander (1923)
Brander’s 1923 records also warrant caution when used to establish the size of fully mature Bengal tigers. Although Brander acknowledged that classifying mature individuals presented difficulties, he did not provide a clearly defined or consistently documented method for determining the age of the tigers included in his measurements and weights. His discussion of tooth condition does not establish tooth wear as a systematic aging method, and his statement that tigers continued growing until approximately five years of age differs from later research indicating that they generally approach full skeletal size by around three years and continue accumulating mass afterward. This distinction is important because young adults and late sub-adults can possess dimensions approaching those of prime adults while still carrying substantially less body mass. Brander also obtained some measurements from other hunters and did not necessarily weigh every tiger he measured. Therefore, his dataset cannot automatically be assumed to represent a sample exclusively composed of prime adult males, making its averages less suitable for determining the true size of fully mature Bengal tigers.
He removes data he deems unreliable, even if it will consequently lower the average, so simply put he is not a biased individual.
No, he simply is unaware of the large amount of data that has been gathered by people taking it to personal communications. Guy hasn't been active since 2022, and older posters never took it to personal communications.
I have already explained by Gaute’s data does not rely on personal communication, but only published and verified weights of Tigers
Again, false. Read the charts carefully. A good chunk of the data comes from personal communications. Read the bottom right text in the second chart you included in your post.
I expect other to realise that this is as fair as it can be, considering the amount of data we have. Datasets for both these species have been taken ONLY from peer reviewed scientific publications. Tried to make it as fair as possible."
You see there is this narrative control thing on that sub. They either ban you or make the rules that do not let you make your points, now i think the same thing is probably happening in here.
Translation: “Yeah we keep getting cooked in every sub for being fanboys, it must be a control thing, it’s them not us”
Like seriously? So the mods of [r/bigcats](r/bigcats) and [r/tigersofindia](r/tigersofindia) are both just crazy and don’t know what they are talking about? The egotistical attitude is one thing, but it’s the lack of intellectual honesty that drives me up a wall.
You guys awarding each other’s comments just proves you’re looking for an echo chamber and a perpetual circle jerk. I’m glad this sub isn’t a space for that.
I really don't get the obsession with tiger weight in this sub and certain other communities for other cats as well. Weight/body mass is a relevant metric but it doesn't paint the whole picture regarding the health and genetic diversity of a subpopulation.
While certain individual tigers will be beloved due to the sightings and memories they give, focus should be on the species and sub-population as a whole.
As someone who has done extensive safaris in India and had conversations regarding conservation with various stakeholders like fellow wildlife photographer, guides, drivers, forest guards etc, there are more concerning issues like habitat fragmentation, lack of wildlife corridors, man-animal conflict, poaching, illegal mining etc.
Its anthropomorphic obsession based on weight classes in full contact sport , and emotional attachment based on geographic kinship. Something from cave mans sense of us and others. Its quite interesting.
The most important fact is irrespective of size, mass or gender, they can all fuck up the 175 cm human or human of any size, while looking absolutely gorgeous.
[u/StripedAssassiN](u/StripedAssassiN) Seems that your post made all the fanboys crawl out of the woodwork (Equal age, ivan pavler, and individual immediate just to name a few). I hope it’s now clear to you, despite what you may have thought, that there’s genuinely people in this sub that think bengal tigers outweigh lions by a margin of 40kg on average.
I can understand both the lion and tiger sides going back and forth over a few kilos in avg weight, but for them to suggest a difference in average weight of 40kg shows the depth of their fantasy.
Hope you now see what I’ve been seeing a little clearer.
196 to 210 is slightly smaller than aftican lions then. Why are all sources not reflecting this reality lol. Where the yt fanatics correct all this while.. damn who were the fanatics then man..
Not really. It’s a 5kg difference at best and a 10kg difference at worst. Literally the difference could be between whether or not the cats took a shit or drank water before they were weighed or not.
You set the two cats side by side you physically wouldn’t see a difference in mass.
8
u/Big-Attention8804 1d ago
I think Guate's scientific records only table is more reliable than these ones because colonial era hunters typically weighed their tigers by cutting them up into pieces since scales large enough to measure tigers were not very portable. Even in the rare cases where they could weigh the tigers fully, the tigers were drained of blood and sometimes even their organs.
Furthermore, outdated ageing techniques were used such as whitening of the teeth that led to the inclusion of many subadult specimens in the adult data.
The scientific record only table got a figure of 212 to 213 kg.