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

Mycroft assigns them to discover who killed JFK. First to find out wins. Who is the better detective?

My votes for Monk

Benedict Holmes? He's shown to be more intelligent and comes to conclusions quicker and with less information.

Memory of Monk is low as I barely watched any eps years ago and only started paying attention now, but from what Ive seen Monk is a great detective but not on Sherlock's level. His OCD at its best can demonstrate things above Sherlock, like identifying a rock thrown through his window as a specific rock he saw earlier (something like that), but usually its on the level of Sherlock's eyes, sometimes even a hindrance.


Random reason to post a clip? Okay:
im4TYITM0VE

Originally posted by BloodRain
Benedict Holmes? He's shown to be more intelligent and comes to conclusions quicker and with less information.

Memory of Monk is low as I barely watched any eps years ago and only started paying attention now, but from what Ive seen Monk is a great detective but not on Sherlock's level. His OCD at its best can demonstrate things above Sherlock, like identifying a rock thrown through his window as a specific rock he saw earlier (something like that), but usually its on the level of Sherlock's eyes, sometimes even a hindrance.


Random reason to post a clip? Okay:
im4TYITM0VE

In original stories/novels Sherlock Holmes has shown that his observation abilities are at least as good and even better than Adrian Monk's.
Sherlock Holmes is the greatest expert when it comes to physical clues and connections and everything else except psychology and has shown the ability to identify a rock thrown through his window as a specific rock he saw earlier.

Monk is a superhuman with his memory and attention to detail. Somebody used Monk's back as a surface to write something on a piece of paper. Later, Monk remembered the exact physical sensations and was able to discern what the guy wrote. Can Sherlock do that?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Monk is a superhuman with his memory and attention to detail. Somebody used Monk's back as a surface to write something on a piece of paper. Later, Monk remembered the exact physical sensations and was able to discern what the guy wrote. Can Sherlock do that?

Monk gets sidelined by the smallest stuff tho. Sherlock would have the case solved by the time Monk got over his phobia

Originally posted by Lestov16
Monk is a superhuman with his memory and attention to detail. Somebody used Monk's back as a surface to write something on a piece of paper. Later, Monk remembered the exact physical sensations and was able to discern what the guy wrote. Can Sherlock do that?

Actually Holmes is the most obsessed freak with extremely tiny clues and has superhuman photographic memory, in original stories/novels, Holmes has been able to do so much when it comes to photographic memory, observation and deduction and solve the case in less than a day, Monk always needed multiple days in figuring out what's going on and who is the killer.

the main question is could Monk detect invisible mastermind like Moriarty-answer no, because he couldn't detect the killer without someone's help, Holmes was able to detect criminal organization hiding behind completely random crime cases, Monk could not detect his own wife's killer-nuff said.

Originally posted by Mister Supreme

the main question is could Monk detect invisible mastermind like Moriarty-answer no, because he couldn't detect the killer without someone's help, Holmes was able to detect criminal organization hiding behind completely random crime cases, Monk could not detect his own wife's killer-nuff said.

So has Monk.

As far as Monk not detecting his own wife's killer, how did Sherlock detect Moriarty again? Oh yea, he didn't and was caught completely by surprise when it turned out to be the mortician's gay assistant. At least Monk has the excuse that there was no evidence and he had to investigate from scratch. Moriarty was in front of Sherlock's face the entire time and he didn't even suspect it.

It should also be noted that with Monk, the problem isn't discovering the mystery, it's getting evidence to convict. Monk usually has everything figured out by the beginning, and they must stop the guy from getting away with it.

And true his OCD limits him somewhat (he would have solved his wife's murder years ago if he had just opened her present, although it's completely understandable why he didn't), but in terms of pure investigative skills, Monk is better than CumberLock IMO. Like I said before, he remembered the physical sensations of somebody writing on his back. 2010 Sherlock couldn't do that.

Originally posted by Lestov16
So has Monk.

As far as Monk not detecting his own wife's killer, how did Sherlock detect Moriarty again? Oh yea, he didn't and was caught completely by surprise when it turned out to be the mortician's gay assistant. At least Monk has the excuse that there was no evidence and he had to investigate from scratch. Moriarty was in front of Sherlock's face the entire time and he didn't even suspect it.

I'm not talking about Sherlock 2010-I'm talking about Moriarty from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories/novels!!!!
That's a huge difference, Moriarty and his criminal organization in original stories/novels were so undetectable and invisible that even Holmes needed a year to detect a pattern in completely random crimes!!!
Read original stories/novels, do not watch stupid series of Sherlock-2010.



And all of the cases that Monk solves are actually easy to solve for Holmes-again I'm talking about Holmes from original stories/novels-read them. Holmes solved this kinds of cases in several hours, at most less than a day, monk always needed several days-it's not just his OCD, it's just he couldn't figure it out.
But also, Monk's OCD is also his greatest advantage as well when it comes to solving cases.



Without that video-tape Monk would never be able to solve Trudy's murder and he needed help from Dale the whale, and he needed video-tape to solve the case.
Holmes, in original stories/novels, figured it out Moriarty and his criminal organization who were hiding behind completely random crimes and none could notice it, even Holmes needed several years to detect a single pattern.

This is why Holmes would solve Trudy's murder sooner or later without any help whatsoever.
And I said about OCD, it may somewhat limit him (occasionally), but it give him more advantages than disadvantages.

Sorry, but Holmes from original stories/novels is just better than Monk in everything.

Well of course the OG Sherlock beats all other detectives out of the water (although could OG Sherlock pull that "remember what was written on my back" trick?), but as far as 2010 Sherlock vs Monk goes, I think Monk is better.

Not only would Sherlock know what was written on his back, he would also know what type of pen was used.

Originally posted by samhain
Not only would Sherlock know what was written on his back, he would also know what type of pen was used.

And that it wasn't ink. IT WAS BLOOD!!!

Monk has OCD powers. He wins.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Well of course the OG Sherlock beats all other detectives out of the water (although could OG Sherlock pull that "remember what was written on my back" trick?), but as far as 2010 Sherlock vs Monk goes, I think Monk is better.

OG Sherlock means original Sherlock-right? Yes original Sherlock from stories/novels beats every other fictional detectives when it comes to everything observation, detection, deduction on the evidences and tiniest clues that do not fit, and yes he would remember what was written on my back trick.
But, you're absolutely right-Sherlock 2010 LOSES against Adrian Monk, and original Sherlock beats Adrian Monk by far in all categories.
Original Sherlock knows and remembers 46 different bycicle tracks-nuff said, that's how good original Sherlock truly is.

Originally posted by samhain
Not only would Sherlock know what was written on his back, he would also know what type of pen was used.

You mean original Sherlock would know know what was written on his back, he would also know what type of pen was used, right?

Not the 2010 movie Sherlock's version (Benedict Cumberbatch), right?

Originally posted by the ninjak
Monk has OCD powers. He wins.

Monk wins only against 2010 Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch), but loses against Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories/novels.