Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Okay, we saw them go at it when the Comedian was a much older man, but how would Veidt far against the Comedian if he were a younger man? No prep, just an all out brawl between the two with no weapons. Who wins this bout?

How do we know what Blake was like when he was younger. In the movie it wasn't stated that Veidt lost to him when he was younger like in the book. Veidt was pretty raw in the film. I'd go with him on pure speculation. But we truly don't know.

Yes, I know, but we did see Blake fight a little when he was younger, so I thought that'd be enough incentive for everyone to give a clear cut winner.

This might be closed.

Originally posted by Davis Bloome
Yes, I know, but we did see Blake fight a little when he was younger, so I thought that'd be enough incentive for everyone to give a clear cut winner. When did he fight? He was beaten up by one of the Minutemen members after trying to rape Miss Jupiter. He didn't even try to fight his teamate. No that's not enough evidence.

Don't mean to be rude but IMO this should be closed.

Nothing wrong with a little speculation for the fight.

This fight was already done onscreen, Impediment will prolly close it, just a heads up.

In this case yes there is. We have no idea of what he fought like back then.

As fact, younger Veidt lost to The Comedian.

This thread is completely unnecessary.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As fact, younger Veidt lost to The Comedian.

This thread is completely unnecessary.

He's not asking about a younger Veidt though. He's asking how Veidt, as he was when he beat Rorschach and Night owl, would fare against the younger Comedian.

Clearly Veidt would have been far less capable when he was younger than he is when he fights at the end of Watchmen.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As fact, younger Veidt lost to The Comedian. This is all irrelevant seeing how the movie stated no such thing.

Originally posted by jaden101
He's not asking about a younger Veidt though. He's asking how Veidt, as he was when he beat Rorschach and Night owl, would fare against the younger Comedian.

Clearly Veidt would have been far less capable when he was younger than he is when he fights at the end of Watchmen.

Are you sure?


Last time I checked, people got slower as they got older.























However, I see your point.




But...then...there's the obvious logic that an older veidt would fair worse against a younger comedian by simple logic.




Is there any evidence that Vedit improved as he got older? Surely at 67, the comedian was less than his 35 year old self.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
This is all irrelevant seeing how the movie stated no such thing.

I could have sworn that it stated, in the movie, by Spectre's mother, than Veidt was devastated by his loss to The Comedian.

Even if she did state that we have no evidence of the fight and how it went.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Even if she did state that we have no evidence of the fight and how it went.

Yes there would.

Ozy lost.

Okay. But then was Veidt as uberly fast and strong as he is in his current state as we know him? Was he as skilled? Was there guns/weapons used? Setting? Did Comedian degress over the years in shape?

We have no way of knowing. I don't even remember her saying anything relative to that.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Okay. But then was Veidt as uberly fast and strong as he is in his current state as we know him? Was he as skilled? Was there guns/weapons used? Setting? Did Comedian degress over the years in shape?

We have no way of knowing. I don't even remember her saying anything relative to that.

We do know that a younger Veidt lost to a younger Comedian, though.








It is fact that a human's ability to peak peform degrades as they get older.

However, it is not stated if Ozy became better.



This thread has no substance to debate on. It is literally baseless.


No younger comedian "feats" to go by other than beating younger Ozy. No younger Ozy feats to go by, other than losing to The Comedian. (Yes, I am aware that it is older Veidt vs. younger comedian.)




That's why this thread will be closed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. We do know that a younger Veidt lost to a younger Comedian, though.
2. It is fact that a human's ability to peak peform degrades as they get older.

1. Quite frankly, no we don't. Give me a scene and I'll check it out for clarification.
2. There are exceptions. Such as Jedi and Sith.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
1. Quite frankly, no we don't. Give me a scene and I'll check it out for clarification.

When Spectre's mom is talking about Veidt losing to The Comedian.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
2. There are exceptions. Such as Jedi and Sith.

Wrong movie series, bro.

That was a joke, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. When Spectre's mom is talking about Veidt losing to The Comedian.
2. Wrong movie series, bro. That was a joke, right?

1. Right. Where is this? Exact DVD runtime would help. She talks alot in the film.
2. No it wasn't. You never said your statement was related solely to Watchmen. I took it as that was a staple rule for movies in general. I simply pointed out an instance where an individual gets stronger in power as he grow older in age.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you sure?


Last time I checked, people got slower as they got older


However, I see your point.

But...then...there's the obvious logic that an older veidt would fair worse against a younger comedian by simple logic.

Is there any evidence that Vedit improved as he got older? Surely at 67, the comedian was less than his 35 year old self.

Old perhals...Not neccesarily older...I was faster at 20 than I was at 10...I was faster at 25 than I was at 20...

It's also not got a great deal to do with speed, in this case, anyway. Veidt has clearly become far more skilled at fighting than any of the others including the Comedian in his prime.



Tell that to Bernard Hopkins.




You see a younger Comedian fight when he drops out of the ship and starts kicking people's asses all over the street. Not sure how much younger he was supposed to be at this point though.

Doesn't he also take a slapping when he tries to rape original Silke Spectre?

Compare that to older Ozy who basically kicks the shit out of every other Watchmen bar Manhattan at one point or another.

I haven't seen the movie in a looong time, but didn't the inspector that checked the body of the Comedian said that he was still in his prime ore something like that.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
1. Right. Where is this? Exact DVD runtime would help. She talks alot in the film.

It would be much faster if you watched the film, now, than ask me to do it. I don't have the movie on me, and I am at work. You could watch the movie about 12 times over before I could actually get the movie in hand. If you want an answer to your question, now, go rent the film, watch it again, and you'll have an answer isn 4 hours.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
2. No it wasn't. You never said your statement was related solely to Watchmen. I took it as that was a staple rule for movies in general. I simply pointed out an instance where an individual gets stronger in power as he grow older in age.

Then that's your fault, not mine. I can't be held accountable for every absurd conclusion.





Logic dictates that this is real world or Watcmen world only. Bringing in other movies to prove a point fails horribly from any logical perspective. I'm sure you can think of a million and 1 exceptions to that, but to do so would be to miss the point.


Star Wars /= The Watchmen.

Originally posted by jaden101
Old perhals...Not neccesarily older...I was faster at 20 than I was at 10...I was faster at 25 than I was at 20...

Logical fallacy.


This assumed that I meant the younger the faster. That's not what was meant.


One can logically assume that Olympic age is the peak performance age for humans. 16-26 is were the large majority of competitors fall into.

Originally posted by jaden101
It's also not got a great deal to do with speed, in this case, anyway. Veidt has clearly become far more skilled at fighting than any of the others including the Comedian in his prime.

What evidence do you have of this?

None.

We have 0 evidence that he has become better as he got older. We can logically conclude that a 67 year old man is no longer in his prime, however.



Originally posted by jaden101
Tell that to Bernard Hopkins.

I'm sure you could think of several anecdotal exceptions, but to do so would be to miss the point.

If you want to use your anecdotes from the real world, that's fine. The burden of proof is on you to prove that The Comedian is in just as good of shape in all fighitng applicable categories as his younger, prime, self.


Until then, all we have is that The Comedian was one fit dude for 67. That's. No relatives to past ages, nothing.





Originally posted by jaden101
You see a younger Comedian fight when he drops out of the ship and starts kicking people's asses all over the street. Not sure how much younger he was supposed to be at this point though.

40s.

Originally posted by jaden101
Doesn't he also take a slapping when he tries to rape original Silke Spectre?

He certainly wasn't trying to kill Spectre, now was he?

Originally posted by jaden101
Compare that to older Ozy who basically kicks the shit out of every other Watchmen bar Manhattan at one point or another.

Young man Comedian > Ozy.

Middle aged Ozy > Old man Comedian.

Middle aged man Ozy > Night Owl and Rorschach.

The Comedian faired better, by himsefl, against Ozy than did both Rorschach and Night Owl, together. Therefore we can conclude the follwing:

Old man Comedian > Night Owl and Rorschach.







This is missing an extremely logical piece in order to claim in any way the middle aged Ozy is > Young Comedian.



IF Middle aged Ozy is > young Ozy


There's still not relative to conclude

Young Comedian > Middle Aged Ozy

Or

Middle aged Ozy > Young Comedian.



There is no logical data in order to conclude either way.




However, there is real world information that could lend us to conclude that


Middle aged Ozy is most likely debilitated or degraded from his peak physical capability, at the very least. There is no evidence to support that Ozy has developed a technology that allows him to retain a youthful body.










If you can provide evidence that supports:

Middle aged Ozy > Young Comedian.


I will admit defeat and concede the point.

We can't really say the Comedian did any better than Nite Owl & Rorschach. None of them actually hit Ozy when he was trying.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It would be much faster if you watched the film, now, than ask me to do it. I don't have the movie on me, and I am at work. You could watch the movie about 12 times over before I could actually get the movie in hand. If you want an answer to your question, now, go rent the film, watch it again, and you'll have an answer isn 4 hours.

I own the film. I refuse to watch it for the sole reason of hoping to find a scene that I don't recall even exists. You stated it not me. Therefore you have the burden of proof in this situation. If you wish to use this scene as evidence you watch it whenever you feel and give me the exact runtime so I can go directly to it.

The last time I watched the film in its entirety is when it was first released on DVD. I don't recall that scene in either the theatrical or the directors cut of the film. I do know that something of that sort played out in the graphic novel. But that's not a canon source material in this particular forum. We use events shown on film. Until you provide this scene or tell me exactly where in the film it is I'm going to have to say it's pure bullshit as I don't remember it.

Originally posted by Davis Bloome
We can't really say the Comedian did any better than Nite Owl & Rorschach. None of them actually hit Ozy when he was trying.

No, I could have sworn The old man Comedian did get a hit in or at least got a grapple in. He faired better than the other two did...especially if you consider that Ozy wasn't trying to kill Night Owl and Ror...but he was trying to kill Comedian.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
I own the film. I refuse to watch it for the sole reason of hoping to find a scene that I don't recall even exists. You stated it not me. Therefore you have the burden of proof in this situation. If you wish to use this scene as evidence you watch it whenever you feel and give me the exact runtime so I can go directly to it.


Nah.

I simply cannot back it up with the exact minute that you're looking for. It is impossible. I have a busy day tomorrow and I can't go to blockbuster or wal-mart and get the film. Someone else will come along and prove me right, though. It usually happens.










Originally posted by Darth Martin
The last time I watched the film in its entirety is when it was first released on DVD. I don't recall that scene in either the theatrical or the directors cut of the film. I do know that something of that sort played out in the graphic novel. But that's not a canon source material in this particular forum. We use events shown on film. Until you provide this scene or tell me exactly where in the film it is I'm going to have to say it's pure bullshit as I don't remember it.

K.

Originally posted by Davis Bloome
We can't really say the Comedian did any better than Nite Owl & Rorschach. None of them actually hit Ozy when he was trying. Yes we can. He took the hits better. He even got a hold of Veidt one time but was quickly put in his inferior place. Still, that's something neither Walter or Dan could do, together at that.

Ozymandias>Comedian>Nite Owl>Rorschach>/=Silk Spectre

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Yes we can. He took the hits better. He even got a hold of Veidt one time but was quickly put in his inferior place. Still, that's something neither Walter or Dan could do, together at that.

Ozymandias>Comedian>Nite Owl>Rorschach>/=Silk Spectre


Thank you.

Except for the fact that when he was young he got beat from the same guy he kicked the living shit out of when he was more experienced.

We can logically asume that the more he does something (fighting) the better he gets. Given that he isn't yet at the point where his age is a detrimental factor.




No it's not because we're not discussing older Comedian.




That's not who he takes the slapping about from though is it? Hooded justice comes in and beats the shit out of him.







Ok...On what you can actually see in the film...Ozy as he is in the main setting of the film (mid 40's) would whup the ass of the Comedian as he is when he attempts to rape Silke Spectre I because Hooded Justice easily smacked him about and Hooded Justice (although HJ was supposedly quite formidable). If I remember right the Comedian tried to rape SSI some 10 years before actually getting her pregnant. with SSII

SSII is supposed to be some 35 years old...this would mean the original rape attempt was some 45 years before the main setting of the watchmen in 1986-87...This would make that 1941-42.

This would mean that the Comedian, who you say is 67 would have been 22 when he tried to rape SSI (In his prime, as you would put it) Yet from fighting ability that you see on screen Veidt at mid 40's would have easily dealt with Comedian in his 20's.

Originally posted by jaden101
Except for the fact that when he was young he got beat from the same guy he kicked the living shit out of when he was more experienced.

Logical fallacy.

You don't have evidence that that "experience" made him better at fighting, and you don't know that The Comedian wasn't a shadow of his former self OR every bit as potent as his young self.



Originally posted by jaden101
We can logically asume that the more he does something (fighting) the better he gets. Given that he isn't yet at the point where his age is a detrimental factor.

This is factually incorrect. For males, after age 25, it's down hill from there. Test levels drop, metabolism drops, balls get saggier, cartilage gets smaller, etc.

You're 0/2 on logic today, Jaden.




Originally posted by jaden101
No it's not because we're not discussing older Comedian.

It is VERY important to consider older Comedian if you're going to attempt to connect the dots.

Also, you're very incorrect about what WE are discussing. Here's where you're incorrect:

Originally posted by jaden101
Except for the fact that when he was young he got beat from the same guy he kicked the living shit out of when he was more experienced.


We aren't talking about older Comedian, are we?

0/3.

And, still, the burden of proof is on you to prove that older The Comedian is in just as good of shape AND skill as younger comedian in order for you to claim that Ozy got better as he got older, in order to back track and say that Ozy could beat younger comedian.

You're other option is to prove that Younger Comedian was just as in shape and skilled as older Comedian, which is kind of backwards and is borderline illogical.


0/4 on both points.

Originally posted by jaden101
That's not who he takes the slapping about from though is it? Hooded justice comes in and beats the shit out of him.


I guess you missed the point, then, now didn't you?


IF he was trying to kill Spectre, it would have been a different situation for both The Comedian and Hooded Justice.


The Comedian would have easily killed Spectre AND ACTUALLY fought back against Hooded Justice. There would have been no "surprise" on The Comedian because Spectre would have already been dead.

0/5.


You're failing at this, horribly. In fact, you're one of the best debtors on these boards. I have no idea what's wrong with your responses.





Originally posted by jaden101
Ok...On what you can actually see in the film...Ozy as he is in the main setting of the film (mid 40's) would whup the ass of the Comedian as he is when he attempts to rape Silke Spectre I because Hooded Justice easily smacked him about and Hooded Justice (although HJ was supposedly quite formidable). If I remember right the Comedian tried to rape SSI some 10 years before actually getting her pregnant. with SSII

SSII is supposed to be some 35 years old...this would mean the original rape attempt was some 45 years before the main setting of the watchmen in 1986-87...This would make that 1941-42.

This would mean that the Comedian, who you say is 67 would have been 22 when he tried to rape SSI (In his prime, as you would put it) Yet from fighting ability that you see on screen Veidt at mid 40's would have easily dealt with Comedian in his 20's.


Several logical fallacies on your part.


1. When Comedian beat Ozy, he was closer to 30-35. Prime would have been closer to 35 for The Comedian, by that logic.

2. Comedian was born in He was 16 when he tried to Rape SS. The photoshoot occurred in 1940. Sally was 19, at the time.

3. Since we can't go by the CANON and have to go by the movie...he was 22. Still not close enough to be prime because he got quite a bit of experience AFTER his time with the minutemen.

4. SS was three years older than he was. 3. That would put her at 19 or 25, in either the comic OR the movie.

5. By your incorrect logic, you assumed that The Comedian was in his prime at 22, which was incorrect. He was a Newb, not nearly as intelligent as Ozy, etc.


Sometime in the 40s or 50s is when Blake and Vedit fought. I don't remember when.


You do realize that he joined the Minutemen at 15, right?


He gained much of his military combat training after his time with the Minutemen. Despite his waning physiology, he actually hit his combat prime LATER due to experience.


Veidt, being a the smartest Genius on Earth, would have probably hit his prime much sooner as attaining skills would have been far easier.





However, if you want to use something illogical, you can.


Conclude, incorrectly, all you want.



Until you provide evidence that 67 year old Comedian is just as formidable as his prime self that fought Ozy and won, you still have 0 logic to stand on. Nothing.


This is why I said this thread should be closed. It is utterly useless and no logical conclusion can be drawn.


Only using real world science can we conclude that neither Ozy nor Comedian were at their primes when Ozy handed his ass to Comedian.


We have a young Ozy losing to a Prime Comedian, though.

Saggy balls!!!!! haermm

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Saggy balls!!!!! haermm

lol


You caught that.

Except for the fact that that's the way it works.



Except for the fact that you admit yourself that there are exceptions to the rule. As I highlighted by real life example. It's simply not logical to say that everyone over the age of 25 would get beaten by everyone under the age of 25.




You were.



Now who's using the logical fallacies? You asume that if he was trying to kill SSI instead of raping her then he wouldn't have got his ass handed to him by HJ?...Really doesn't work that way.




So he got taken by surprise is your sole reasoning for him getting his ass handed to him?...Nah...You're just wrong. He got his ass handed to him because he's simply not that great a fighter.



Are you saying the Comedian was 35 when he beat Ozy...that'd be 32 years previous...Given that Ozy is only mid 40's then he'd have been 10 years old at most...Not really a surprise that Comedian would've won then eh?



So he's an exception to the rule but Ozy isn't?....His peak is beyond 25 but Ozy's isn't?



I don't have to prove anything of the sort. All I really have to say is that the feats of Ozy in the film (at mid 40's) is far superior to any of the Comedian's feats at any age throughout the film. On that basis alone then Ozy would beat Comedian regardless of when Comedian's prime was.

There's no proof in the films that younger Comedian was anywhere close to Viedt's abilities as we see him in the two fight scenes.

In the comic, Veidt says the Comedian had a 'great feint and a devastating uppercut' and he clearly implies that he was little more than a rookie when Comedian beat him; this being the reason.

Originally posted by jaden101
Except for the fact that that's the way it works.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You don't have evidence that that "experience" made him better at fighting, and you don't know that The Comedian wasn't a shadow of his former self OR every bit as potent as his young self.

Saying that that's the way it works doesn't change the above fact.


Sure, experience does make you a better fighter, but you have no evidence, from the films, that he got any better or any worse.



Originally posted by jaden101
Except for the fact that you admit yourself that there are exceptions to the rule. As I highlighted by real life example. It's simply not logical to say that everyone over the age of 25 would get beaten by everyone under the age of 25.

That's not what I stated or even remotely implied. You actually are arguing the point, completely wrong.

If you can find in my post where I stated or implied that every person over the age of 25 will lose to a person under the age of 25, in a fight, I'll show you where you didn't understand my post.

Try to stay in context to prevent needless conversation.


Originally posted by jaden101
You were.

Dude, you really suck and trying to follow an internet based conversation. Granted, these things can get complicated and hard to follow.


Stay in context and try to follow. If you're confused, ask first to prevent needless conversation. No, I won't think any less of you for it. There's not shame in asking for clarification, first.



Now, to actually counter your point, you really missed what I did there. I was being a smartass to a statement of yours, which occured in the very same post I was replying to, in the first section in your post I was resonding to:

Originally posted by jaden101
No it's not because we're not discussing older Comedian.


And because I KNOW you're going to miss that whole point of that, here is the entire thing, in context, so you'll understand what just happened:

I said:

Originally posted by dadudemon
The burden of proof is on you to prove that The Comedian is in just as good of shape in all fighitng applicable categories as his younger, prime, self.

To which you said:

Originally posted by jaden101
No it's not because we're not discussing older Comedian.

So, I took what you said from the FIRST sentence in your reply to me and proved that your above statement was false.

You said the following, EARLIER in your same post:

Originally posted by jaden101
Except for the fact that when he was young he got beat from the same guy he kicked the living shit out of when he was more experienced.

You made a direct reference to older comedian.

That's why I made the following smartass statement:

Originally posted by dadudemon
We aren't talking about older Comedian, are we?




I said we have to have evidence that makes the older Comedian just as good as the younger Comedian.

You said that the older Comedian is not what is being discussed. (BTW, that's highly illogical.)

I then called your b.s., with smartassery, by pointing out where YOU yourself were using older comedian in our discussion.

You missed the smartassery and nw I've responded with something that shows you missed it.







Originally posted by jaden101
Now who's using the logical fallacies? You asume that if he was trying to kill SSI instead of raping her then he wouldn't have got his ass handed to him by HJ?...Really doesn't work that way.

You aren't paying attention.

Behold:

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do realize that he joined the Minutemen at 15, right?


He gained much of his military combat training after his time with the Minutemen. Despite his waning physiology, he actually hit his combat prime LATER due to experience.




Originally posted by jaden101
So he got taken by surprise is your sole reasoning for him getting his ass handed to him?...Nah...You're just wrong. He got his ass handed to him because he's simply not that great a fighter.

You aren't paying attention.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do realize that he joined the Minutemen at 15, right?


He gained much of his military combat training after his time with the Minutemen. Despite his waning physiology, he actually hit his combat prime LATER due to experience.



Originally posted by jaden101
Are you saying the Comedian was 35 when he beat Ozy...that'd be 32 years previous...Given that Ozy is only mid 40's then he'd have been 10 years old at most...Not really a surprise that Comedian would've won then eh?

Not paying attention, are we.

Ozy is 15 years younger than the Comedian.


35-15 = 20.


Originally posted by jaden101
So he's an exception to the rule but Ozy isn't?....His peak is beyond 25 but Ozy's isn't?

Not paying attention, are we?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do realize that he joined the Minutemen at 15, right?


He gained much of his military combat training after his time with the Minutemen. Despite his waning physiology, he actually hit his combat prime LATER due to experience.



Originally posted by jaden101
I don't have to prove anything of the sort. All I really have to say is that the feats of Ozy in the film (at mid 40's) is far superior to any of the Comedian's feats at any age throughout the film. On that basis alone then Ozy would beat Comedian regardless of when Comedian's prime was.


Originally posted by dadudemon
The burden of proof is on you to prove that The Comedian is in just as good of shape in all fighitng applicable categories as his younger, prime, self.


If you cannot prove that, you have no logical leg to stand on.










Edit - Looking over how this went, it's basically you missing a bunch of points and/or failing to actually counter my points.

Comedian was 68 in the movie, while Ozy was in his forties, iirc. So that's at least a difference of 19 years.

Originally posted by Robtard
Comedian was 68 in the movie, while Ozy was in his forties, iirc. So that's at least a difference of 19 years.


He's 67 in the movies.


I've also addressed that difference in one of my posts, too.


The difference is only on the Comedian, not to Ozy.


Ozy would be 46 in the film, regardless of the Comedians age.

The only thing it does is add time time to the Comedians age, NOT change Ozy's age. To Jaden's point, that doesn't help at all as Jaden incorrectly calculated Ozy's age.

Then Ozy would be 21 years younger; not 15.

Unless you two are discussing strictly the comic, which is pointless here, for this battle.

I do...It's called neuromuscular facilitation...Something very important in martial arts and one of the reasons that masters of them are far better even when old than many people many years their junior are.




Nor do you for vice-versa which is why, i guess, you're saying the debate is pointless.



You're the one who said that people beyond 25 start deteriorating physically are you not?





You intially said that Comedian is 67

Here's the post




Veidt is supposed to be mid 40's so we'll say 46 (his birth year is supposed to be 1939)...

67-46 is 21 years difference...Not 15.

If you're implying that Comedian was 35 at his best when he beat Ozy then that's 32 years earlier...If Ozy is 45 then he would've been 13 when Comedian beat him...So a 35 year old man beating up a 13 year old kid. Not really difficult for anyone that, is it?

Still...according to watchmen wiki he was born in 1924...making him 61, not 67...this would either make him 29 when he beat Ozy or make Ozy 19. Still a young man and still likely to get an ass whupping relatively easily.

Actually we'll take the whole thing from the top...He was born in 1924

He became a "costumed adventurer" in 1939 at 15.

He tried to rape SSI the next year when he was 16.

In 41 he was stabbed and severely injured by a "hoodlum"....at 17

He met SSI again in 1948 when he was 24

Given that he was supposed to have beaten Ozy during the "under the hood" story which was in the run up to Nite Owl becoming a masked hero and the formation of the minutemen as well as some following stories. Chapter V deals with the rise of Ozy and is set in the 60's making Ozy anything between 21 and 30 when he lost to Comedian.

Now...When the later fight came about it should be noted that Comedian was still active and government sanctioned after the Keene act and so was still practicing his skills.

Ozy, on the other hand retired in 1975 at the age of 36 which means he should've been way out of practice when he beat the Comedian.

Of course all of this is from the graphic novels which differ from the film greatly.

In the novels the difference is 15 years between them. In the films it's 21.

Bit too ****ed up to try and work everything out from that though so yeah...I guess we'll just give up on it.

I still stand by the fact that if you go solely on the basis of what you see on screen then Ozy is better at his oldest age in the film than what the Comedian is at any age in the film.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then Ozy would be 21 years younger; not 15.

Unless you two are discussing strictly the comic, which is pointless here, for this battle.


Right. That makes Ozy 1 year older than when he was in the comic, based off of my estimate. That makes Jaden's case even worse.

Originally posted by jaden101
I do...It's called neuromuscular facilitation...Something very important in martial arts and one of the reasons that masters of them are far better even when old than many people many years their junior are.

You mean kinesthetic (proprioceptic) adaptation, don't you? (I used to be a personal trainer.)


We can pontificate all day on this. It still does NOT change the fact that:

Originally posted by dadudemon
You don't have evidence that that "experience" made him better at fighting, and you don't know that The Comedian wasn't a shadow of his former self OR every bit as potent as his young self.




Prove that Veidt obtained an increase in fighting ability OR, prove that Comedian did NOT digress in ability at a ripe age of 67.




Originally posted by jaden101
Nor do you for vice-versa which is why, i guess, you're saying the debate is pointless.

Yes, that's exactly what I said in that section you just replied to.



You're the one who said that people beyond 25 start deteriorating physically are you not?





Originally posted by jaden101
You intially said that Comedian is 67

Here's the post




Veidt is supposed to be mid 40's so we'll say 46 (his birth year is supposed to be 1939)...

67-46 is 21 years difference...Not 15.

If you're implying that Comedian was 35 at his best when he beat Ozy then that's 32 years earlier...If Ozy is 45 then he would've been 13 when Comedian beat him...So a 35 year old man beating up a 13 year old kid. Not really difficult for anyone that, is it?

Still...according to watchmen wiki he was born in 1924...making him 61, not 67...this would either make him 29 when he beat Ozy or make Ozy 19. Still a young man and still likely to get an ass whupping relatively easily.

Actually we'll take the whole thing from the top...He was born in 1924

He became a "costumed adventurer" in 1939 at 15.

He tried to rape SSI the next year when he was 16.

In 41 he was stabbed and severely injured by a "hoodlum"....at 17

He met SSI again in 1948 when he was 24

Given that he was supposed to have beaten Ozy during the "under the hood" story which was in the run up to Nite Owl becoming a masked hero and the formation of the minutemen as well as some following stories. Chapter V deals with the rise of Ozy and is set in the 60's making Ozy anything between 21 and 30 when he lost to Comedian.

Now...When the later fight came about it should be noted that Comedian was still active and government sanctioned after the Keene act and so was still practicing his skills.

Ozy, on the other hand retired in 1975 at the age of 36 which means he should've been way out of practice when he beat the Comedian.

Of course all of this is from the graphic novels which differ from the film greatly.

In the novels the difference is 15 years between them. In the films it's 21.

Bit too ****ed up to try and work everything out from that though so yeah...I guess we'll just give up on it.

I still stand by the fact that if you go solely on the basis of what you see on screen then Ozy is better at his oldest age in the film than what the Comedian is at any age in the film.

lol


You posted all of that to arrive at the same thing I arrived at.

Ozy was 20 or 21 (Depending how you measure. One could turn one age before the other) when he lost to Comedian IF Comedian was 35 when he beat Ozy. This is how I arrived at my guestimation of 35 for Comedian...based on the biography and how the time lines worked.

Already argued my case for it. Your non acceptance of it doesn't change the truth of it.



Yeah if they'd stuck to the comic book ages and timelines it would've been easier to work out who did what to who and when.

Alas it's ****ing typical that film makers cvnt around with things.

Originally posted by jaden101
Already argued my case for it. Your non acceptance of it doesn't change the truth of it.

You mean you made baseless assumptions with no movie evidence?



Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah if they'd stuck to the comic book ages and timelines it would've been easier to work out who did what to who and when.

Alas it's ****ing typical that film makers cvnt around with things.

Indeed.









And, I apologize for thinking you were off form. I didn't know you were inebriated.


When I debate with you, I expected to get my ass handed to me on some points. It's your fault, you know. You've built yourself up to high expectations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You mean you made baseless assumptions with no movie evidence?


Don't be an idiot, Jaden's claim wasn't "baseless".

Assuming Veidt's fighting ability increased with time/experience is logical, considering he started crime fighting in his late teens/early twenties and stopped sometime in his 30's.

It's not baseless assumption that martial arts experts improve because of practice due to muscle memory. It's a fact.




I'm Scottish...I'm almost always inebriated.




My knowledge of Watchmen is limited. I've only read the novel once a long time ago and i've only seen the film twice, the 1st of which was an extremely poor copy of a cam-job with an out of sync audio and so that's the only reason I watched it for a 2nd time. (Because Robtard sent me a decent copy).

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't be an idiot, Jaden's claim wasn't "baseless".

Assuming Veidt's fighting ability increased with time/experience is logical, considering he started crime fighting in his late teens/early twenties and stopped sometime in his 30's.

Emphasis on "with no movie evidence?"


And, I've already brought up another point that counters that: Veidt, being the extreme genius he is, would master those things far faster than anyone else. It is far more likely that he hit his fighting peak in his 20s along with his physical peak, in his 20s, than he did as a 46-year-old man.

Originally posted by jaden101
It's not baseless assumption that martial arts experts improve because of practice due to muscle memory. It's a fact.
I'll concede that it's not baseless if you concede the validity of my counter-point.




Originally posted by jaden101
I'm Scottish...I'm almost always inebriated.



True, that's my fault for not thinking.




Originally posted by jaden101
My knowledge of Watchmen is limited. I've only read the novel once a long time ago and i've only seen the film twice, the 1st of which was an extremely poor copy of a cam-job with an out of sync audio and so that's the only reason I watched it for a 2nd time. (Because Robtard sent me a decent copy).

I read the comics from my Uncle's set back in the early 90s. He had the comics and not the later released novel...so his were the original format.


I also was what...9 or 10?


I also saw the movie once, in the theatre.


If I make factual mistakes, which I am prone to, you must also forgive them.

Yet hands on experience matters, actual fighting is better experience than shadow boxing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet hands on experience matters, actual fighting is better experience than shadow boxing.

So, he didn't get any fighting experience in when he was crime fighting before meeting up with Comedian to lose?


AHA!




Still, you can't gimp his extreme intellect. His intelligence would have allowed him to learn and adapt MUCH faster than any other person except for Manhattan.

Never compromise...Even in the face of armageddon.





Muscle memory isn't about brain power. Granted he would learn the techniques quicker but that doesn't mean he could execute the techniques as fluently or as well as he would with years of practice.

Look at all the martial arts masters. Mas Oyama, Yip Man, Morihei Ueshiba, Gichin Funakoshi and Hirokazu Kanazawa. All of them were old men who could easily beat younger yet still highly trained experts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, he didn't get any fighting experience in when he was crime fighting before meeting up with Comedian to lose?

AHA!

Still, you can't gimp his extreme intellect. His intelligence would have allowed him to learn and adapt MUCH faster than any other person except for Manhattan.

In the comic, Vedit had just started out; was still a rookie, while Comedian had over a decade of ass-kicking experience under his rapist belt.

Veidt implies this is the reason why Comedian knocked him on his ass, because he was still green, that and a 'great feint and devastating uppercut' from Comedian.

Probably, or maybe his extreme intellect just mattered in the academic realm and marketing.

due to the fact that ozymandias was beating people down with arches or whatever,and comedian was mostly using weapons,and the fact that despite his great condition as the police stated,he still got pwned by ozymandias,i'll say ozzy wins

Originally posted by Robtard
In the comic, Vedit had just started out; was still a rookie, while Comedian had over a decade of ass-kicking experience under his rapist belt.

Veidt implies this is the reason why Comedian knocked him on his ass, because he was still green, that and a 'great feint and devastating uppercut' from Comedian.

Probably, or maybe his extreme intellect just mattered in the academic realm and marketing.


So, that would put Comedian at 35, then, when he beat Ozy?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, that would put Comedian at 35, then, when he beat Ozy?

Somewhere in his mid-thirties, so that's a fair guess.

Originally posted by Robtard
Somewhere in his mid-thirties, so that's a fair guess.

Not bad, on my part, for not having read the comic in more than a decade.



*Struts his stuff*

I didn't read the comic book but from what I heard about it and read online. The Comedian didn't even try to fight back but in the film he tried. Also, Veidt ambushed The Comedian in his home while he was chilling watching TV in a robe, smoking a cigar and drinking. Also, Veidt had studied The Comedian for a long time before they fought the 2nd time AND I did hear that in the the book that Hollis Mason wrote "Under The Hood" that he or Silk Spectre said that Ozy never got over the beating Comedian gave him. The comic book states that Comedian beat him and therefore the film holds no weight to the graphic novel. ALSO in the movie when all of them was at the meeting. Comedian punked Ozy and had him under pressure before he burned his map. You could see that Ozy didn't even want to look at the Comedian in his eyes OR confront him.