Are bulls more dangerous than buffalos and wilderbeast? Why did humans choose the Bull over those 2 animals?

Question

I am thinking of whenever people do those Bull riding contest and whenever people hold those red towells up as Bulls run through them. Bulls, seem to be very dangerous. I wonder however, how dangerous. Why did humans pick the Bull over other animals that look similar such as the Buffalo and the Wilderbeast? It can't be because those animals would be less fast and therefore not as entertaining. I've seen Buffalo run extremely fast to get away from a pride of lions (Why, they would at that size, I have no idea). I've also seen a group of wilderbeast who as resemble the Bull somewhat with it's horns and black body do the same thing. My dad told me the Bull is more dangerous than both of those animals so it's more entertaining to watch a human being mess with a Bull unlike a Buffalo or wilderbeast. I would think a Buffalo or wilderbeast is more dangerous just by the looks of it. They are out in the wild. Humans have never chosen to play games with them unlike the other animals. Why not?

Answer 1

The relative dangerousness of an animal can not
be judged by its appearance, or even by its usual
behavior. There are so many variables involved in
the danger to a person of a specific circumstance
that it is almost impossible to predict what the result of the situation might be. To zookeepers,
the most dangerous zoo animal is the elephant.
The second most dangerous, in terms of number
of attacks per man-hour of contact with the animal,
is one that came as a great surprise to me, the
giant panda. The problem here is that the sample
size for giant panda-human contact is so very
small that the statistic may not be significant.

Bulls vay in their dangerousness depending on
their breed. Dairy bulls, such as the Guernsey and
the Holstein, have the worst reputation for attacks,
while some other breeds, such as the Hereford,
are relatively placid.

For some reason even relatively closely related
animals vary in their susceptibility to domestication.
There have been many attempts to domesticate
the bison, and all have failed. Similarly the eland
of Africa has been attempted, and failed, also.
The zebra, in the same genus as the horse, has
in a few cases been used to pull carts, but it is
apparently still more dangerous than a horse by
quite a bit. No one seems to know why one animal
can be domesticated while others apparently can
not.

The African buffalo at least has the reputation of
being much more dangerous than a domestic bull.
They may run from a pride of lions, but could
probably hold their own against a single lion. In
one documented case of an attack on a buffalo by
a group of several young, relatively inexperienced,
lions it took hours for the lions to kill it.

The wildebeest (note spelling) may look dangerous, and might be to a lone human, but it
is a relatively timid animal that usually runs away in
any situation that looks dangerous. Females
defending young, as always, may stand their ground. We had several cases here of attacks on
humans by white-tailed deer does when someone
got too close to a fawn.

Answer 2

American buffalo are quite placid but can turn a lot nastier than a standard bull under the right circumstances because they're not domesticated, African buffalo are far, far more dangerous than a bull. Wildebeest don't necessarily have the right temperament and predictability of a bull, but are pretty harmless unless you really attack it, they'll tend to run away.

Standard cattle is easier to domesticate anyway, and it's probably down to this that we have this familiarity with them, ergo using bulls rather than less-available animals. A wild bull would be more dangerous than a domesticated bull which has been bred that way through the generations from ancestors like buffalo.

Answer 3

Because the Romans invented Bull Fighting and Water Buffalo are in Southern Africa. A Wildebeast is puny compared to a bull

Answer 4

Ok, short answer. Bull riding originated in the American southwest there are no Cape Buffalo or Wildebeest there, but domestic cattle were plentiful, that's what cowboys did for a living, herd cattle. The same with bullfighting, no African animals in Spain or Mexico.

Answer 5

No way the buffalo is way more dangerous and it also tends to attack unprovoked here weve seen them do damage in africa i mean a bull usually attacks after some handling by man that provokes them beleive me you dont want to meet witha buffalo unarmed