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

This begins with an enormous savage grizzly bear on the loose in Gotham City.

I don't see him beating a bear, not unless he carries some knockout gas or something on him and I've just forgotten about it.

Without gadgets or some kind of weapon Bruce gets mauled.

Watch h1 say Bruce has a better chance than Cap.

Originally posted by KingD19
Watch h1 say Bruce has a better chance than Cap.
Troll
Cap was against Six bears with NO SHIELD.
Batman is against ONE bear, with armor and gadgets (explosives, etc).

Based on the lazy OP, this seems like a random encounter, so Batman probably runs it over with one of his vehicles.

Originally posted by h1a8
Troll
Cap was against Six bears with NO SHIELD.
Batman is against ONE bear, with armor and gadgets (explosives, etc).

His armor barely protected him from some rottweilers. A grizzly will slice through it like butter.

As for his gadgets, he doesn't seem to carry anything standard that can do more than momentarily inconvenience the bear.

Also, he's slow as hell in a direct confrontation.

If they went toe to toe, he'd get eaten. But like Vault said, he probably runs it over with the Batmobile.

baleman gets mauled to death

Originally posted by KingD19
His armor barely protected him from some rottweilers. A grizzly will slice through it like butter.

As for his gadgets, he doesn't seem to carry anything standard that can do more than momentarily inconvenience the bear.

Also, he's slow as hell in a direct confrontation.

If they went toe to toe, he'd get eaten. But like Vault said, he probably runs it over with the Batmobile.

Prove that the dogs penetrated the armor to break his skin.
Prove that the dogs did any damage to the armor.


If Batman has any explosives then he wins easily.

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove that the dogs penetrated the armor to break his skin.
Prove that the dogs did any damage to the armor.


If Batman has any explosives then he wins easily.

Why don't you post clips that prove Batman has explosives as part of his standard equipment and that he could use them successfully during combat.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why don't you post clips that prove Batman has explosives as part of his standard equipment and that he could use them successfully during combat.
What part of "If" you do not understand? Why do you love to troll?

Originally posted by h1a8
What part of "If" you do not understand? Why do you love to troll?

You mean that you don't know what this Batman's standard gear is, are you debating characters you know nothing about again?

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove that the dogs penetrated the armor to break his skin.
Prove that the dogs did any damage to the armor.


If Batman has any explosives then he wins easily.

I swear, I don't know if you're dumb, forgetful, lazy, or all three. This was a decent plot point of the movie.

The first time he went up against them one bit him on the arm so bad it left a scar and caused him to reinforce his armor. You can even see the still bloody spot on his arm when he jumps off the parking deck to catch Scarecrow.

The second time he fought them(with Joker), they mauled him so bad that Joker had like 30 seconds to just wail on him with a pipe. And after the fight, you could see the bite marks and damage they'd left all over his body, even with the improved armor.

Your turn.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I'm still waiting for someone to make Luke Cage vs Baloo thread, or something along those lines, next.
I tried a Cap Vs Iorek Byrnison thread, but no one wanted to debate an actual fight.
I get it, though, these obvious stomps are way more fun!

Originally posted by KingD19
I swear, I don't know if you're dumb, forgetful, lazy, or all three. This was a decent plot point of the movie.

The first time he went up against them one bit him on the arm so bad it left a scar and caused him to reinforce his armor. You can even see the still bloody spot on his arm when he jumps off the parking deck to catch Scarecrow.

The second time he fought them(with Joker), they mauled him so bad that Joker had like 30 seconds to just wail on him with a pipe. And after the fight, you could see the bite marks and damage they'd left all over his body, even with the improved armor.

Your turn.

Don't Know everything about and know nothing about are two different things.

Originally posted by KingD19
I swear, I don't know if you're dumb, forgetful, lazy, or all three. This was a decent plot point of the movie.

The first time he went up against them one bit him on the arm so bad it left a scar and caused him to reinforce his armor. You can even see the still bloody spot on his arm when he jumps off the parking deck to catch Scarecrow.

The second time he fought them(with Joker), they mauled him so bad that Joker had like 30 seconds to just wail on him with a pipe. And after the fight, you could see the bite marks and damage they'd left all over his body, even with the improved armor.

Your turn.

Prove it. Show me the bite marks, show me the injury to Batman from the jokers dogs.

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove it. Show me the bite marks, show me the injury to Batman from the jokers dogs.

Do your due diligence and watch Dark Knight. I'm not finding the scenes for you because you refuse to watch it. You do this every single time just because you never watch the movies you want to debate.

With gear, Bruce wins, without dies.

Cap could have won his match imo if he had armor and a shiwld. But he didn't, so every hit a bear scored would have been a severe or life threatening injury.

Originally posted by KingD19
Do your due diligence and watch Dark Knight. I'm not finding the scenes for you because you refuse to watch it. You do this every single time just because you never watch the movies you want to debate.

Well I saw the movie and did not see what you are talking about. So it's now back in your corner. No proof = it didn't happen

h1 is an ignorant moronic troll


https://i.postimg.cc/CxdS0BZt/3j71eo.jpg

Originally posted by h1a8
Well I saw the movie and did not see what you are talking about. So it's now back in your corner. No proof = it didn't happen

Saving this quote for the 99% or so of threads where you don't back up your arguments.

H1 posts directly after I post actual facts backed up by links, and ignores it all.

Classic.

Fine. Here I go doin h1's job for him yet again.

HB3qdnHeIJQ
Around 2:10 he gets mauled by the rottweiler and yells out in pain before throwing it off.
At 2:44 you can clearly see the bloody wound and the damaged armor where the doggo bit him all to hell.

cGsIgJGi_LU
This entire scene is Lucius Fox explaining that his new plated armor will be tougher, but since they're separated, he's more vulnerable to bullets and knives. Then Bruce asks how it handles dogs. Lucius reply asks if he means rottweilers or chiuhauhas', then he just says that it'll deal with cats just fine, but brushes off answering, because he knows those rottweilers will still tear him up.

X5-phrSTIUs
He gets mauled multiple times in this scene, and is on the ground long enough for Joker to come over and get free licks in for a bit until he can get the dogs off him. The only thing the armor did was make sure they didn't rip huge chunks of skin and meat off. But it didn't protect him much beyond that. So a bear with it's much bigger and sharper claws and much greater strength, etc... will shred the armor.

Also like others have said, he doesn't have the standard gear set to handle a grizzly.

Originally posted by riv6672
H1 posts directly after I post actual facts backed up by links, and ignores it all.

Classic.
I was replying to King. If you read my our exchange then you will clearly see it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. We are debating the durability of the armor. Now keep up!

Originally posted by KingD19
Do your due diligence and watch Dark Knight. I'm not finding the scenes for you because you refuse to watch it. You do this every single time just because you never watch the movies you want to debate.

I just told you that I watched the scene.
Well it didn't happen.

Considering he just posted the clips where it very clearly did happen, you're looking rather silly right now

The sad thing, and one of the main reasons I rarely bother still engaging that clown, is that, in a few weeks to months time, he will act as if none of this ever happened, and label people who refer back to it as liars. It's happened before.

If the fight takes place in a city, couldn't Batman just get to higher ground and chuck shit at it from safety? Or lure it into a trap? I find it hard to believe that any incarnation Batman would find himself stumped in the face of a loose animal.

Just like he did against those dogs, right?

Twice.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
With gear, Bruce wins, without dies.

Cap could have won his match imo if he had armor and a shiwld. But he didn't, so every hit a bear scored would have been a severe or life threatening injury. No, Cap won his match as well.

Originally posted by KingD19
Fine. Here I go doin h1's job for him yet again.

HB3qdnHeIJQ
Around 2:10 he gets mauled by the rottweiler and yells out in pain before throwing it off.
At 2:44 you can clearly see the bloody wound and the damaged armor where the doggo bit him all to hell.

cGsIgJGi_LU
This entire scene is Lucius Fox explaining that his new plated armor will be tougher, but since they're separated, he's more vulnerable to bullets and knives. Then Bruce asks how it handles dogs. Lucius reply asks if he means rottweilers or chiuhauhas', then he just says that it'll deal with cats just fine, but brushes off answering, because he knows those rottweilers will still tear him up.

X5-phrSTIUs
He gets mauled multiple times in this scene, and is on the ground long enough for Joker to come over and get free licks in for a bit until he can get the dogs off him. The only thing the armor did was make sure they didn't rip huge chunks of skin and meat off. But it didn't protect him much beyond that. So a bear with it's much bigger and sharper claws and much greater strength, etc... will shred the armor.

Also like others have said, he doesn't have the standard gear set to handle a grizzly.

Clearly that wasn't on the armor. Of course a bear with penetrate through that same part with ease.

LOL!!!

Originally posted by KingD19
Also like others have said, he doesn't have the standard gear set to handle a grizzly. But Batman should have some of his gadgets which were enough to stop the bear!

Originally posted by Tyrannoraptor
But Batman should have some of his gadgets which were enough to stop the bear!

What specific gadgets does this version of Batman carry around as standard gear that would allow him to defeat the bear?

Originally posted by Silent Master
What specific gadgets does this version of Batman carry around as standard gear that would allow him to defeat the bear? 1 grapple gun, some explosives & even smaller Batarangs loaded with tranquilizers while his kick with the boots for his batsuit can literally shatters brick walls.

Originally posted by Tyrannoraptor
1 grapple gun, some explosives & even smaller Batarangs loaded with tranquilizers while his kick with the boots for his batsuit can literally shatters brick walls.

Show clips from the Dark Knight of him having these as standard equipment and of using them in fights.

batman has two variants of explosives that he keeps on him, one is that sticky bomb gun and the other are the little orb shaped ones he uses in Begins and Rises

having said that he'd better keep well away from that bear or he's a goner, if he can stay out of reach and keep spamming explosives at it or run it over with the Tumbler then he could certainly win

This is Batman from "The Dark Knight", that means we can only use feats from that movie.

Why didnt Batmans utility belt and gadgets help him not get mauled by dogs?

Originally posted by Silent Master
This is Batman from "The Dark Knight", that means we can only use feats from that movie. We can use showings (not feats) from any earlier movie as long as it's relevant to the debate. If he has explosives in earlier movies then he does so in the later movies. Whether he used them or not is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Why didnt Batmans utility belt and gadgets help him not get mauled by dogs?
Many different possible reasons that have nothing to do with him not having explosives.

Have you even seen TDK, h1?

Why do people even bother debating with that tree stump?

Originally posted by h1a8
We can use showings (not feats) from any earlier movie as long as it's relevant to the debate. If he has explosives in earlier movies then he does so in the later movies. Whether he used them or not is irrelevant.

No we can't, the OP said Batman(The Dark Knight) and IMP has ruled that if the thread starter states a specific movie, then only feats from that movie can be used.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No we can't, the OP said Batman(The Dark Knight) and IMP has ruled that if the thread starter states a specific movie, then only feats from that movie can be used.

But we are not arguing feats. We are arguing equipment. Batman has the same equipment he had in earlier films unless you have proof that he (for some odd reason) decided to not carry it anymore.

You're trying to get around IMP's ruling, if you can't prove Batman had it in The Dark Knight. it's not useable.

Originally posted by h1a8
But we are not arguing feats. We are arguing equipment. Batman has the same equipment he had in earlier films unless you have proof that he (for some odd reason) decided to not carry it anymore.

Have you even seen the film?

Originally posted by Silent Master
No we can't, the OP said Batman(The Dark Knight) and IMP has ruled that if the thread starter states a specific movie, then only feats from that movie can be used.

You keep using the word "feats". We are not using feats but equipment.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Have you even seen the film?

Get to the point. Stop debating that way

Originally posted by h1a8
You keep using the word "feats". We are not using feats but equipment.

Equipment you can't prove he has.

Nothing Bruce has helps here.... He gets mauled to death...

Originally posted by Silent Master
Show clips from the Dark Knight of him having these as standard equipment and of using them in fights. Okay, here they are.

Fairly sure that first link is from The Dark Knight Rises.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Equipment you can't prove he has.

He retains the equipment used in earlier movies per writer's intentions. That means he still has his explosives.

Originally posted by h1a8
He retains the equipment used in earlier movies per writer's intentions. That means he still has his explosives.



hahahahahahaha.. man you are pure gold. you moron... bale hardly used any equipment in the dark knight

Originally posted by h1a8
He retains the equipment used in earlier movies per writer's intentions. That means he still has his explosives.

Not according to IMP's mod ruling. which states that only the movie named by the OP can be used.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not according to IMP's mod ruling. which states that only the movie named by the OP can be used.
It referred to feats, not equipment.
Batman's equipment remains either the same or improved. Writer's intent.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
hahahahahahaha.. man you are pure gold. you moron... bale hardly used any equipment in the dark knight

He didn't fight a bear.

Originally posted by h1a8
He didn't fight a bear.
No, he fought dogs and got mauled.

Originally posted by h1a8
Get to the point. Stop debating that way

So... you haven't. Figures.

Why are you even posting on this site?

Originally posted by h1a8
It referred to feats, not equipment.
Batman's equipment remains either the same or improved. Writer's intent.

The ruling didn't specify feats, so are you going to ignore a mod ruling?

Just report him, enough of this clown.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The ruling didn't specify feats, so are you going to ignore a mod ruling?

There is no ruling that prevents Batman from having access to his standard equipment just because he didn't pull it out in a later movie.

Batman has plenty of equipment that wasn't used in Dark Knight. Doesn't mean he didn't have it.

Iron man has his missiles in Spider-Man movie although he didn't use them there.

Originally posted by riv6672
No, he fought dogs and got mauled.

Dogs are not a bear. Batman wasn't prepared and was surprised. In this fight he will be.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
So... you haven't. Figures.

Why are you even posting on this site?

I'm posting to debate. You are posting to flame and troll.

Originally posted by h1a8
There is no ruling that prevents Batman from having access to his standard equipment just because he didn't pull it out in a later movie.

Batman has plenty of equipment that wasn't used in Dark Knight. Doesn't mean he didn't have it.

Iron man has his missiles in Spider-Man movie although he didn't use them there.

There is a ruling that states if a specific movie mentioned in the OP, only that movie can be used.

I've PM'd the mod to let him know that you're ignoring his ruling.

Everyone just give me a minute.

I deleted the previous posts because it went off topic because I misunderstood. My bad.

Let me post a revised ruling.

Originally posted by Impediment
I think I misunderstood the argument.

You're talking about weapons or feats from previous movies? Or both? Weapons (standard gear), not feats. Batman has grappling hooks, explosives, etc as standard gear. Silent is suggesting that just because he didnt use one of his standard gear in a movie (no scenario called for it) means that Batman didn't have access to it (or it was missing). That's like saying that Iron has no missiles and many other weapons in Spider-Man just because he wasn't shown to use them (there was no scenario that called for it).

Originally posted by h1a8
Weapons (standard gear), not feats. Batman has grappling hooks, explosives, etc as standard gear. Silent is suggesting that just because he didnt use one of his standard gear in a movie (no scenario called for it) means that Batman didn't have access to it (or it was missing). That's like saying that Iron has no missiles and many other weapons in Spider-Man just because he wasn't shown to use them (there was no scenario that called for it).

I actually have to agree with that, h1a8.

"Standard equipment" is a touchy topic, but I now understand the argument presented to me.

I'm going to allow the use of said equipment because it has been shown in previous versions of Baleman, and because to not allow it would be substantially bad because of canonical use even if it isn't directly shown in a film.

I have to stick to my previous rulings because that would be unfair, even if it contradicts some of the things I have ruled upon. Again, my bad.

All I can say is (AND I MEAN THIS) that posters need to adhere to my rule to make an elaborate opening post about stips and limits and handicaps.

Having made my revised ruling, let's not gloat or be sore.

Back to topic, please.

So as long as a character is shown using something once, it is considered standard equipment. Okay, I can work with that.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So as long as a character is shown using something once, it is considered standard equipment. Okay, I can work with that.

I, of course, meant within reason, SM.

Mjolnir isn't standard equipment for Captain America.

Originally posted by Impediment
I, of course, meant within reason, SM.

Mjolnir isn't standard equipment for Captain America. okay, how often does a character have to use something for it to be considered standard equipment?

Batman has used grapple hooks, batarangs, and explosive smoke pellets in almost every single Batman film, live or animated.

If an item Batman seemingly just comes from his suit or utility belt and isn't something he couldn't have carried around for the duration of the films without it being seen if it isn't, then it is standard equipment.

If it's something that he obviously doesn't carry on him, like a rocket launcher or some shit, then it isn't.

Silent Master's desperation to deprive Bruce of his equipment in this thread is pretty funny, but honestly I can't think of anything he had in the films that would take down a grizzly that didn't involve a vehicle. All of his gear is by design meant to merely incapacitate humans, not kill them, so its ability to take out a much bigger and tougher grizzly bear is suspect.

What gear do people think will take the grizzly bear out?

So we can use none Baleman movies to support what counts as standard equipment for Baleman?

Edit: I'm only questioning the sticky-bomb launcher as being standard equipment, as it's not something he carries around in his belt or strapped to his uniform

If someone says that Batman has a .44 magnum or an M203 grenade launcher as standard, then that's just bullshit.

Bats has ALWAYS had grapple hooks, batarangs, and smoke bombs.

We're all adults and comic fans, so we can come to a consensus.

Originally posted by NemeBro
What gear do people think will take the grizzly bear out?

The Anti-Life Equation.

Maybe.

Originally posted by Impediment
If someone says that Batman has a .44 magnum or an M203 grenade launcher as standard, then that's just bullshit.

Bats has ALWAYS had grapple hooks, batarangs, and smoke bombs.

We're all adults and comic fans, so we can come to a consensus.

I'm not questioning things like batarangs and a grapple gun, my issue was with the sticky bomb launcher. Which is too big to carry in the utility belt.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm not questioning things like batarangs and a grapple gun, my issue was with the sticky bomb launcher. Which is too big to carry in the utility belt.

Refresh my memory. When and where was the sticky bomb launcher?

Originally posted by Impediment
Refresh my memory. When and where was the sticky bomb launcher?

It's been years since I've watched these movies, but I think H1 said he used it in the first movie. Give me a couple minutes and I'll try to look it up

Just looked it up, it was actually used in The Dark Knight. So I have no idea why H1 has been wasting all our time blathering on about previous movies. When the weapon was actually used by the version of Batman that's in this thread.

That said, I still wouldn't consider it standard equipment as given its size , it's not something he can carry around in his utility belt.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So I have no idea why H1 has been wasting all our time blathering on about previous movies.

Because he hasn't seen any of them, Silent Master...

gNUfpsKliPI

He actually pulls it out in a compressed form before firing it like two minutes in.

According to this, it's concealed in the back of his utility belt:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Dark_Knight,_The#Sticky_Bomb_Gun

If true it would easily fall under standard equipment but I don't remember ever seeing it. Of course, his cape is typically in the way. Either way though, given how easily he was moving and the fact that he was able to glide despite having it does mean its size is no issue.

It's actually about 2:30 into the video and the explosives were on a timer and didn't go off for almost an entire minute. Don't think that would help against a bear attack even if we count it as standard equipment

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's actually about 2:30 into the video and the explosives were on a timer and didn't go off for almost an entire minute. Don't think that would help against a bear attack even if we count it as standard equipment

I know it was 2:30, I said two minutes to waste your time.

What would the bear be able to do as Baleman hung out on a building for a full minute? The fight is set on the streets of Gotham and Batman's mobility with his gear eclipses that of the bear. A minute is nothing.

More to the point, he can set the time:

qtJFitoUl6M

We also see that it is, in fact, on the back of his utility belt so the cry of "It's too big for him to carry!" doesn't seem to carry much weight given the two scenes I've posted. And we see that he can set the time in increments of ten seconds, with the lowest time shown being twenty seconds.

Bruce seems to stomp, gg ez. Dumb thread.

So Batman can only win by running away and using explosives. Ok, I can live with that.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So Batman can only win by running away and using explosives. Ok, I can live with that. I accept your concession.

I'm glad that you accept my concession in regards to Batman's only chance of winning is if he runs away and has explosives. Assuming of course those explosives are actually powerful enough to take out the bear, after all, they were only meant to incapacitate normal humans.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm glad that you accept my concession in regards to Batman's only chance of winning is if he runs away and has explosives. Assuming of course those explosives are actually powerful enough to take out the bear, after all, they were only meant to incapacitate normal humans. They weren't meant to be used directly on humans at all, every single time he's used them he's used them to destroy structures.

So those guys around the 3:20 mark were killed?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/directly

So now that everyone agrees that it's theoretically possible for Batman to win if he runs away and shoots explosives at the bear. that leaves us at least two questions.

In character, 1) how many times out of 10 do you think that tactic will occur to him and 2) of those few times, how many times do you think he'll be successful in getting away.

as Batman is not a killer during his nolanverse days he still gets mauled to death