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

Fistfight
Who wins this

(if it's too easy for Zan, then Gilmore gets replaced with Bob Barker)

Vaguely recall Happy Gilmore, but I'm pretty sure he had more fights than Van Zan and against tougher opponenets, no?

u2VkFiMqNTM

Bob Barker crushes him.

Zan solos Gilmore's entire universe.

It's the same universe.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's the same universe. No, it isn't. They exist in entirely separate fictional universes.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, it isn't. They exist in entirely separate fictional universes.

Incorrect, Happy Gilmore just takes place before the dragon awakens(again).

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect, Happy Gilmore just takes place before the dragon awakens(again). Prove it.

Concession accepted.

Originally posted by Robtard
Concession accepted. Asking to you back up a claim isn't conceding it's called debating.

Rob's right Happy Gilmore existed before the Dragons re-emerged.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Rob's right Happy Gilmore existed before the Dragons re-emerged. Different verse.

Prove it.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Prove it. I didn't make the claim rob did so he has to do so.

He made a different claim. You must also prove yours.

Happy waged his war on Golf in 1996. Reign of Fire is based 20 years after the present time of the films release, which was 2002.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I didn't make the claim rob did so he has to do so.

LoL, you just dodged Ninjaks question and tried to blame-shift, classic troll move. You in fact did make the claim that it's a different universe FIRST.

No worries, your concession was accepted, everyone here knows you're not good at backing up what you say.

Originally posted by the ninjak
He made a different claim. You must also prove yours.

Happy waged his war on Golf in 1996. Reign of Fire is based 20 years after the present time of the films release, which was 2002. I honestly am astonished you'd argue for this. It's the same overall general setting but with that being said just because each movie takes place on a fictional modern day earth setting that doesn't mean each character exists somewhere else during each movie's respective history. By your logic Biff Tannen and everyone from practically every movie exists which predates Reign of Fire. It's so absurd I am shocked.


Take comics for instance dc and marvel decides what's in continuity we don't just assume everything does just like with Reign of Fire. You can't say oh yeah Happy was winning golf tournaments pre Dragon attacks. Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, you just dodged Ninjaks question and tried to blame-shift, classic troll move. You in fact did make the claim that it's a different universe FIRST.

No worries, your concession was accepted, everyone here knows you're not good at backing up what you say. Because it's common sense. If you want to prove it's the same universe it's on you. We don't assume every movie exists within the same kind of universe if you claim it you must prove it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I honestly am astonished you'd argue for this. It's the same overall general setting but with that being said just because each movie takes place on a fictional modern day earth setting that doesn't mean each character exists somewhere else during each movie's respective history. By your logic Biff Tannen and everyone from practically every movie exists which predates Reign of Fire. It's so absurd I am shocked.

Robocop vs Terminator.
Alien vs Predator.
Freddy vs Jason.

Proof that the idea of two different franchises can coexist simply because someone wrote it.

Are you denying Bob Barker existed before the Dragons attacked?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Because it's common sense. If you want to prove it's the same universe it's on you. We don't assume every movie exists within the same kind of universe if you claim it you must prove it.

Common sense when two films are very opposing to each other, these two aren't; there's no reason to believe that Happy Gilmore didn't exist in America at the same time Quinn existed(as a very young child) in England in the same Earth/Universe. So since your point of view is going against logic and reason, it's on you to prove it.

So prove it, or STFU.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Robocop vs Terminator.
Alien vs Predator.
Freddy vs Jason.

Proof that the idea of two different franchises can coexist simply because someone wrote it.

Are you denying Bob Barker existed before the Dragons attacked? You kinda prpved my point for me. You can make another universe canon to your own like in these instances but without doing so the events of each movies are in their own. Originally posted by Robtard
Common sense when two films are very opposing to each other, these two aren't; there's no reason to believe that Happy Gilmore didn't exist in America at the same time Quinn existed(as a very young child) in England in the same Earth/Universe. So since your point of view is going against logic and reason, it's on you to prove it.

So prove it, or STFU. You have to prove your claim we don't automatically assume they are from the same universe until proven so. Common sense.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You have to prove your claim we don't automatically assume they are from the same universe until proven so. Common sense.

Other way around, logic tells us it's the same exact Earth just in different points of time, you need to prove it isn't as you claimed first.

I know you can't; you know you can't. Concession accepted.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You kinda prpved my point for me. You can make another universe canon to your own like in these instances but without doing so the events of each movies are in their own.

Well yeah. Cept the fact that Bob Barker definitely existed before Reign of Fire. And he has feats of kicking ass cooler than Van Zan.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Well yeah. Cept the fact that Bob Barker definitely existed before Reign of Fire. And he has feats of kicking ass cooler than Van Zan. So by your logic any futuristic movie means Happy Gilmore took place in it. Unless they make it so each universe is different.

Originally posted by Robtard
Other way around, logic tells us it's the same exact Earth just in different points of time, you need to prove it isn't as you claimed first.

I know you can't; you know you can't. Concession accepted. So you believe every movie unless proven otherwise exists in the same universe. Honestly, roberto.

Happy Gilmore killed a gator with his bare hands.

That is in fact a better feat than beating up a random dude and jumping off a building and getting eaten.

Originally posted by quanchi112

So you believe every movie unless proven otherwise exists in the same universe. Honestly, roberto.

Don't try and twist what I said into what you need.

That's the 5th time now you've dodged supporting the silly claim you made, Quancheese.

So prove it, or STFU.

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't try and twist what I said into what you need.

That's the 5th time now you've dodged supporting the silly claim you made, Quancheese.

So prove it, or STFU. You made the claim.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You made the claim.

LoL, you clownshoe. You posted in here BEFORE I did and in that post you claimed that Van Zan and Happy Gilmore were from different universes.

It's now the 6th time you've dodged supporting it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So by your logic any futuristic movie means Happy Gilmore took place in it. Unless they make it so each universe is different.

No. Only if it existed after 1996.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Happy Gilmore killed a gator with his bare hands.

That is in fact a better feat than beating up a random dude and jumping off a building and getting eaten.
And Bob Barker beat the crap out of him. He wins this.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, you clownshoe. You posted in here BEFORE I did and in that post you claimed that Van Zan and Happy Gilmore were from different universes.

It's now the 6th time you've dodged supporting it. Because that's what we assume unless otherwise proven.Originally posted by the ninjak
No. Only if it existed after 1996.

And Bob Barker beat the crap out of him. He wins this. Then you need to prove it. The rules don't state everything exists in the same universe unless you can prove it the common accepted belief is that each verse is different unless otherwise proven in each universe like in Freddy Vs. Jason.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Because that's what we assume unless otherwise proven. Then you need to prove it. The rules don't state everything exists in the same universe unless you can prove it the common accepted belief is that each verse is different unless otherwise proven in each universe like in Freddy Vs. Jason.

Happy Gilmore 1996. Reign of Fire 2002. The actual film is based 20 years after 2002, 2022.

Bob Barker beats the crap out of a guy who beat an alligator into unconsciousness if not death. Bob Baker beats the crap out of a guy who beat up an idealistic Christian Bale and who jumped into a dragon's mouth.

I would like to see Van Zan fight an Alligator.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Happy Gilmore 1996. Reign of Fire 2002. The actual film is based 20 years after 2002, 2022.

Bob Barker beats the crap out of a guy who beat an alligator into unconsciousness if not death. Bob Baker beats the crap out of a guy who beat up an idealistic Christian Bale and who jumped into a dragon's mouth.

I would like to see Van Zan fight an Alligator. Zan fights dragons not puny gators. Saying the movie and the timelines as proof isn't proof. The creators have to make something canon we don't start assuming it all fits into the same continuity. You know that's ridiculous.

Zan bests a guy who got destroyed by an old host from the Price's Right.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Zan bests a guy who got destroyed by an old host from the Price's Right.

That Price is Right host beat the crap out of a guy who performed a feat Van Zan would have a problem doing. Being beating an alligator into unconsciousness.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Robocop vs Terminator.
Alien vs Predator.
Freddy vs Jason.

Proof that the idea of two different franchises can coexist simply because someone wrote it.

Are you denying Bob Barker existed before the Dragons attacked? I am saying the events from happy gilmore aren't anon to reign of fire. If Bob Barker exists it's the realistic person not the movie role from Gilmore. Originally posted by Robtard
Common sense when two films are very opposing to each other, these two aren't; there's no reason to believe that Happy Gilmore didn't exist in America at the same time Quinn existed(as a very young child) in England in the same Earth/Universe. So since your point of view is going against logic and reason, it's on you to prove it.

So prove it, or STFU. You are just proposing w wild theory you can't prove. We don't assume other movies cross into other movies unless they mention it. You're a movie vs. vet and are being shown up by me on a very common sense type thing.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am saying the events from happy gilmore aren't anon to reign of fire. If Bob Barker exists it's the realistic person not the movie role from Gilmore.

Bob Barker has film feats. He beat the crap out a guy who killed an alligator pro wrestling style.

Barker jabs Van Zan into wooziness then takes him down. Van Zan doesn't know what hits him.

I just watched Reign of Fire a little bit. You could have told me that he was part of a U.S Special Forces regiment before his unit got attacked. That would have made a much better better argument than "He died better than McClane ever lived!!!!!"

Originally posted by Lestov16
I just watched Reign of Fire a little bit. You could have told me that he was part of a U.S Special Forces regiment before his unit got attacked. That would have made a much better better argument than "He died better than McClane ever lived!!!!!"

How old is the guy??? considering the film is based 20 years after the dragons decimate the Earth.

When he introduced himself he said he was from a regiment from Kentucky

Originally posted by quanchi112
Because that's what we assume unless otherwise proven.

So you agree that your silly claim was based off an assumption and has nothing to support it. Good, moving on.

Happy Gilmore beats the living crap out of Van Zan, he actually has fighting feats of worth, unlike Zan Van's nigh nothing. Happy Gilmore is the guy you should have pitted against McClane, that's a proper fight. Hopefully you learned something from this.

Perhaps I exaggerated on the Special Ops part, but still I'm pretty sure military regiment sent from the States has to have some pretty good credentials

Originally posted by Lestov16
Perhaps I exaggerated on the Special Ops part, but still I'm pretty sure military regiment sent from the States has to have some pretty good credentials

Considering how poorly he fought Quinn with the schoolyard moves, he doesn't have any sort of special training.

Originally posted by Lestov16
When he introduced himself he said he was from a regiment from Kentucky

Meaning even though he may be from a special forces regiment in the Kentucky Army. They exist in a primitive medieval state and don't have access to the kind of expertise a modern day special forces training program would have to offer.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Bob Barker has film feats. He beat the crap out a guy who killed an alligator pro wrestling style.

Barker jabs Van Zan into wooziness then takes him down. Van Zan doesn't know what hits him. Glad you gave up on the argument that Happy Gilmore's fictional events are canon to Reign of Fire.

Vam Zan doesn't even feel his punches. He headbutts Bob Barker out. Barker was down against Happy and he let off him. Zan won't give him a moment's reprieve.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you agree that your silly claim was based off an assumption and has nothing to support it. Good, moving on.

Happy Gilmore beats the living crap out of Van Zan, he actually has fighting feats of worth, unlike Zan Van's nigh nothing. Happy Gilmore is the guy you should have pitted against McClane, that's a proper fight. Hopefully you learned something from this. We don't assume a modern day earth takes into consideration another comedic movie's events as canon. It's laughable.

Getting beat up by someone in their 80's is pitiful. Zan sonns him.

Originally posted by quanchi112
We don't assume a modern day earth takes into consideration another comedic movie's events as canon. It's laughable.

Getting beat up by someone in their 80's is pitiful. Zan sonns him.

You just said you're the one assuming things, which you are. I know. Stop crying about it, you made a claim; couldn't support it. We've moved on.

Sure, keep ignoring (Happy's) high end feats. It's all you can do as shown over and over, thread after thread.

Originally posted by Robtard
You just said you're the one assuming things, which you are. I know. Stop crying about it, you made a claim; couldn't support it. We've moved on.

Sure, keep ignoring (Happy's) high end feats. It's all you can do as shown over and over, thread after thread. Common sense is just within my being unlike yourself.

Happy got beat up by an older man. That's pretty low end, dude.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Common sense is just within my being unlike yourself.

Happy got beat up by an older man. That's pretty low end, dude.

You just said you based your claim on an assumption, which you couldn't back-up. Stop lying.

That old man would do the same to Van Zan, considering Happy beat-up an alligator and a shitload of other guys. So keep ignoring.

Originally posted by Robtard
You just said you based your claim on an assumption, which you couldn't back-up. Stop lying.

That old man would do the same to Van Zan, considering Happy beat-up an alligator and a shitload of other guys. So keep ignoring. Reign of Fire takes into consideration modern day earth not another fictional comedic movie's actions as canon. Get real.

Nah, Gilmore let up where it's within Zan's character to not stop until the man is dead.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Reign of Fire takes into consideration modern day earth not another fictional comedic movie's actions as canon. Get real.

Nah, Gilmore let up where it's within Zan's character to not stop until the man is dead.

10th time asking: Prove it, or STFU.

Funny, Quinn was fine and alive after their schoolyard-like fight. You need to pay better attention.

Originally posted by Robtard
10th time asking: Prove it, or STFU.

Funny, Quinn was fine and alive after their schoolyard-like fight. You need to pay better attention. You can either prove it or not. You made the claim from the same verse.

Because someone pulled him off this is a one on one thread fight. Wow.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You can either prove it or not. You made the claim from the same verse.

Because someone pulled him off this is a one on one thread fight. Wow.

Another dodge. I'd ask an 11th time, but you'd just dodge and do some more monkey-flips.

LoL, more assuming and speculation.

Zan beat up some random dude.

Gilmore physically killed a gator with his bare hands.

Now Quan, I know even reading my post is incredibly mentally taxing for you, but try to see reason by admitting I am right and a much better person than you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another dodge. I'd ask an 11th time, but you'd just dodge and do some more monkey-flips.

LoL, more assuming and speculation. We don't ever assume another universe's actions are canon unless it is stated. Originally posted by NemeBro
Zan beat up some random dude.

Gilmore physically killed a gator with his bare hands.

Now Quan, I know even reading my post is incredibly mentally taxing for you, but try to see reason by admitting I am right and a much better person than you. Gilmore beat up a gator. Zan killed a dragon.

Zan crushed a man in peak physical condition whereas Gilmore lost to someone in their twilight years.

Now Nemebro I know you're kinda of a sad guy begging for those to recognize it's your birthday and all but losing to a man in his golden years is kinda pathetic.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Gilmore beat up a gator. Zan killed a dragon.

Not physically. Just because a skinny twerp could kill Brock Lesnar, for example, with an assault rifle doesn't mean that said twerp could beat Brock in a fistfight.



Joe Greenstein at the age of 80 could burst multiple steel chains by expanding his chest, change a tire without any tools, bend coins with his thumb and forefinger, and chew nuts and bolts into powder.

Bob Barker being old means absolutely nothing, and attacking his age shows your incompetency. You have no argument, and you know this.



It is not wrong for God to expect worship. Be thankful I did not smite your souls for not recognising the day I assumed this corporeal form.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Not physically. Just because a skinny twerp could kill Brock Lesnar, for example, with an assault rifle doesn't mean that said twerp could beat Brock in a fistfight.



Joe Greenstein at the age of 80 could burst multiple steel chains by expanding his chest, change a tire without any tools, bend coins with his thumb and forefinger, and chew nuts and bolts into powder.

Bob Barker being old means absolutely nothing, and attacking his age shows your incompetency. You have no argument, and you know this.



It is not wrong for God to expect worship. Be thankful I did not smite your souls for not recognising the day I assumed this corporeal form. Wrong. A dragon's speed, power, size, and vision is far greater than a gator's.

If you are using one man as an example whereas he's a freak you already lost. There are much stronger peak males than the best older peak male. Test levels drastically start going down in your thirties and on. Anyone saying someone in their 80's is better than someone in their thirties isn't being realistic.

Just admit Van wins. For the kids.

Beating an Aligator with your bare hands is more impressive than shooting dragons with guns and harpoons.

Quan, you are really overestimating that fight. You need to take a look at the aftermath of it

Gilmore wins. Then Bob's got dibs.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Beating an Aligator with your bare hands is more impressive than shooting dragons with guns and harpoons. Not when you see him beaten down by a 70 year old man. You have to look at his whole body of work not just focus on his gator win.Originally posted by Lestov16
Quan, you are really overestimating that fight. You need to take a look at the aftermath of it No, I am really not.

Quan, I'm not trying to be mean, but I think you are. Watch the aftermath. As they pull Zan off of Quinn, Quinn is as vigorous as ever. He needed people to hold him back

Originally posted by Lestov16
Quan, I'm not trying to be mean, but I think you are. Watch the aftermath. As they pull Zan off of Quinn, Quinn is as vigorous as ever. He needed people to hold him back The point is Zan would have killed him had they continued and despite him not being critically injured he still would have finished him and was clearly in control up until they broke it up.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The point is Zan would have killed him had they continued and despite him not being critically injured he still would have finished him and was clearly in control up until they broke it up.

Yeah but all those hits and not only was Quinn still spry, but he barely had a scratch despite being hit in the face and headbutted quite a bit

Originally posted by Lestov16
Yeah but all those hits and not only was Quinn still spry, but he barely had a scratch despite being hit in the face and headbutted quite a bit He still dominated him and it was a short fight.