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

Strength and speed is equalized so its based on skill. No weapons or heat vision/lightning

MCU guys get flight to match their opponent

Thor Vs Superman (Thor loses weight)
Doomsday Vs Hulk (no adapting)
Thanos Vs Zod (no suit fully adapted)
Kurse Vs Namek
Valkrie Vs Wonder Woman
Sif Vs Faora
Loki Vs Aquaman
Iron Man (3) Vs Black Manta
Captain America Vs Batman (normal suit)
Black Widow Vs Katana (no weapons)

Thor
Hulk
Thanos
Kurse
Diana
Sif
Aquaman
Is this Iron Man specifically from 3 or does he get all his h2h feats?
Which Batman is this? But probably still Cap
Definitely Widow

Originally posted by KingD19
Thor
Hulk
Thanos
Kurse
Diana
Sif
Aquaman
Is this Iron Man specifically from 3 or does he get all his h2h feats?
Which Batman is this? But probably still Cap
Definitely Widow Iron man has his iron man 3 suit but all h2h feats. Composite DCEU Batman. Good list

Originally posted by HumbleServant
Thor Vs Superman (Thor loses weight)

Thor.



Don't really know. Neither is particularly skilled.



Thanos is likely more skilled and more importantly much bigger. His reach is greater.



Namek. Neither are particularly skilled but Namek is considerably bigger and as such has way better reach. He'd be able to punch Kurse before Kurse can close in.



Not sure. Probably the best fight in the list.



Faora. I admittedly haven't seen Sif's TV appearances but she doesn't have any feats I know of concerning taking on physically much more powerful opponents like Clark and holding her own.



Loki IMHO. Aquaman hasn't really held his own against anyone superior to him except Steppenwolf, whereas Loki can at least put up a fight against Thor who is both physically far superior and also a skilled fighter in his own right.



**** idk lol.



Cap. Better showings against more powerful foes but tbf those fights are also bullshit.



No idea, never seen the film Katana was in.

Thor
Could go either way.
Thanos
Could go either way.
Wonder Woman
Faora
Aquaman
Iron Man
Batman
Black Widow

Zod *should* be more skilled than Thanos given he was literally genetically bred to be a soldier, but he couldn't even easily defeat a dude who was bred to be a scientist.

Also Zod could have just terraformed Mars. A good soldier would know you don't fight a battle you do not have to fight. So he is shitty at fighting and at common sense.

Originally posted by HumbleServant
Strength and speed is equalized so its based on skill. No weapons or heat vision/lightning

MCU guys get flight to match their opponent

Thor Vs Superman (Thor loses weight)
Doomsday Vs Hulk (no adapting)
Thanos Vs Zod (no suit fully adapted)
Kurse Vs Namek
Valkrie Vs Wonder Woman
Sif Vs Faora
Loki Vs Aquaman
Iron Man (3) Vs Black Manta
Captain America Vs Batman (normal suit)
Black Widow Vs Katana (no weapons)
I assume equal durability (equal physical stats all the way)
Here are the winners

Thor easily
DD if allowed claws and Hulk if not
Thanos easily
Kurse
Split (I can't decide yet)
Faora but close
Loki
IM (the same way he analyzed Cap)
Batman (Affleck)
Going with visuals then BW, going with suspension of disbelief then Katana (she could have beaten Lui Kang imo).

Sorry guys i forgot to mention its Katana from Suicide Squad. Can a mod edit that in please?

Well, you shouldn't have to because the MK character is called "Kitana", not Katana.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Well, you shouldn't have to because the MK character is called "Kitana", not Katana.


Sweet burn🤣🤣 he's right tho.

And why does Thor have to lose weight? That's only necessary if they are both powerless. I wouldn't be surprised if they were same weight or Clark was outright heavier based off of that batmobile showing

Based on their physiques and my 13+ years of lifting and sports experience I would estimate that Henry Cavill is around 215-225lbs, while Hemsworth is in the 205-210 range. Weight won't be a factor here.

Thor stomps
Hulk (remember he has partial training from Sakaar)
Thanos stomps
Kurse stomps
Valkrie (Diana never easily KO'd an opponent of Loki's caliber)
Sif Vs Faora - close fight but leaning towards Sif based on higher caliber oponents
Loki Vs Aquaman - close fight but will go with Loki based on higher quality opponents and much more experience
Iron Man
Captain America (assuming DCEU Batman, Batfleck never fought high caliber opponents one on one)
Black Widow

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor stomps
Hulk (remember he has partial training from Sakaar)
Thanos stomps
Kurse stomps
Valkrie (Diana never easily KO'd an opponent of Loki's caliber)
Sif Vs Faora - close fight but leaning towards Sif based on higher caliber oponents
Loki Vs Aquaman - close fight but will go with Loki based on higher quality opponents and much more experience
Iron Man
Captain America (assuming DCEU Batman, Batfleck never fought high caliber opponents one on one)
Black Widow

Why is character A a good fighter? Is it because he fought and did well against character B, who is also a good fighter? Or is what character A did in his fight(s)?
If the former, then why is character B a good fighter? Continue down the line until we get the first cause (element).

Originally posted by h1a8
Why is character A a good fighter? Is it because he fought and did well against character B, who is also a good fighter? Or is what character A did in his fight(s)?
If the former, then why is character B a good fighter? Continue until we get the first cause.

Who are you claiming isn't a good fighter?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Who are you claiming isn't a good fighter?

Everyone he doesn't agree with winning.

Originally posted by h1a8
Why is character A a good fighter? Is it because he fought and did well against character B, who is also a good fighter? Or is what character A did in his fight(s)?
If the former, then why is character B a good fighter? Continue down the line until we get the first cause (element).
.
Not sure what exactly your point here is.

Originally posted by FrothByte
.
Not sure what exactly your point here is.

You are saying one character is more skilled than another solely based off who they fought and not how they looked in the fights.
But how do we determine the skill of who they fought?
Again, with who they fought?
And how far down the line do we go? Until we have someone beating multiple fodder (like thugs or random beings)?

I'm just asking for your take on skill.

Note: there is no one correct standard. The actual standard is based on opinion.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Who are you claiming isn't a good fighter? I'm not claiming anyone on the list isnt a good fighter.

Why do you ask?

Originally posted by HumbleServant
Strength and speed is equalized so its based on skill. No weapons or heat vision/lightning

MCU guys get flight to match their opponent

Thor Vs Superman (Thor loses weight)
Doomsday Vs Hulk (no adapting)
Thanos Vs Zod (no suit fully adapted)
Kurse Vs Namek
Valkrie Vs Wonder Woman
Sif Vs Faora
Loki Vs Aquaman
Iron Man (3) Vs Black Manta
Captain America Vs Batman (normal suit)
Black Widow Vs Katana (no weapons)

Based on fighting skills alone, it breaks down like this:

Thor > Superman
Hulk > Doomsday
Thanos > Zod
Namek ? Kurse
Wonder Woman > Valkrie
Faora > Sif
Loki > Aquaman (could change my mind here)
Iron Man > Black Manta
Captain America > Batman
Black Widow > Katana

Originally posted by Robtard
Based on fighting skills alone, it breaks down like this:

Thor > Superman
Hulk > Doomsday
Thanos > Zod
Namek ? Kurse
Wonder Woman > Valkrie
Faora > Sif
Loki > Aquaman (could change my mind here)
Iron Man > Black Manta
Captain America > Batman
Black Widow > Katana Namek is the tallest krytonian who was in full body armor and his face was covered
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/11127/111276051/5094076-4546902-movie_nam-ek.jpg

Thank you, but I already knew that.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm not claiming anyone on the list isnt a good fighter.

Why do you ask?

So your point was to troll and derail the thread. thanks for being honest.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So your point was to troll and derail the thread. thanks for being honest. No. It just means you lack reading comprehension.

Originally posted by h1a8
No. It just means you lack reading comprehension.

No, it means I know you.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are saying one character is more skilled than another solely based off who they fought and not how they looked in the fights.
But how do we determine the skill of who they fought?
Again, with who they fought?
And how far down the line do we go? Until we have someone beating multiple fodder (like thugs or random beings)?

I'm just asking for your take on skill.

Note: there is no one correct standard. The actual standard is based on opinion.

I consider both the quality of opponents someone has fought as well as the ease with which they defeated them or, if they didn't defeat them, how much of a fight they were able to put up.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I consider both the quality of opponents someone has fought as well as the ease with which they defeated them or, if they didn't defeat them, how much of a fight they were able to put up.

But how do you determine the quality of opponents? By who they fought?

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, it means I know you.

Not this time. If you look at my list it nearly matches his (in most parts). So my question is actually genuine.

If you say so

Originally posted by h1a8
But how do you determine the quality of opponents? By who they fought?

By the exact same metric: by who they fought and by how well they fought.

Originally posted by Robtard
Thank you, but I already knew that. Sorry I thought you didnt know

Originally posted by FrothByte
By the exact same metric: by who they fought

Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?

It's just a direct comparison.

Batman v Cap

Batman is a composite of the DCEU so he gets feats from Batman v Superman and Justice League and Suicide Squad. In all those movies, he only fought random goons in a warehouse, random parademons, and he used Kryptonite so he could bully Superman.

Cap on the other hand has fought elite military soldiers/agents from multiple organizations(SHIELD, HYDRA, Batroc and his mercs, Foreign forces like the French when he was with Bucky, etc...) He's fought Winter Soldier, Loki, another Cap, Quicksilver, Spider-Man, Ultron, Thanos, etc... And in all Cap's fights, he never looked bad. He was either overpowered by stronger opponents or used his own stats and skill to match his opponent or dominate the fight.

So based on Cap not only fighting way more people and a much more varied group, but also showing immense skill in all of his fights, the odds are highly in his favor. Bruce definitely showed skill, but he showed it against complete nobodies every single time. And his fight with Clark was a slobberknocker with him just demolishing him any way he could because Clark was poisoned and unable to fight back a majority of the time.

Originally posted by h1a8
Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?

I noticed that you only quoted half his post, you conveniently left out the part that addresses the point you're trying to make here.

Like I said, you're just here to troll and this post just proved it.

Originally posted by KingD19
It's just a direct comparison.

Batman v Cap

Batman is a composite of the DCEU so he gets feats from Batman v Superman and Justice League and Suicide Squad. In all those movies, he only fought random goons in a warehouse, random parademons, and he used Kryptonite so he could bully Superman.

Cap on the other hand has fought elite military soldiers/agents from multiple organizations(SHIELD, HYDRA, Batroc and his mercs, Foreign forces like the French when he was with Bucky, etc...) He's fought Winter Soldier, Loki, another Cap, Quicksilver, Spider-Man, Ultron, Thanos, etc... And in all Cap's fights, he never looked bad. He was either overpowered by stronger opponents or used his own stats and skill to match his opponent or dominate the fight.

So based on Cap not only fighting way more people and a much more varied group, but also showing immense skill in all of his fights, the odds are highly in his favor. Bruce definitely showed skill, but he showed it against complete nobodies every single time. And his fight with Clark was a slobberknocker with him just demolishing him any way he could because Clark was poisoned and unable to fight back a majority of the time.

Cap is superhuman and significantly stronger than Batman, that helps. If Batman had Cap's strength and durability then he would do way better.

Why are those characters Cap fought very skilled? Because they appeared to look skilled in their fighting (visually skilled) or is it because of who they beat?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I noticed that you only quoted half his post, you conveniently left out the part that addresses the point you're trying to make here.

Like I said, you're just here to troll and this post just proved it.

That part is irrelevant because of the word AND.
If he said OR then you would have a point.

Originally posted by h1a8
That part is irrelevant because of the word AND.
If he said OR then you would have a point.


That part was very relevant to the argument you tried to make, stop being a troll.

He said "and" as in he uses both to determine skill. yet you only addressed half of his metric in your troll post.

Who here is surprised that h1 is questioning a Marvel characters skill, but not the skill of any DC character?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Who here is surprised that h1 is questioning a Marvel characters skill, but not the skill of any DC character?

Yeah, I mean Batman only ever fought random goons and a weakened, almost worthless Superman. But man those goons must've been amazing.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Who here is surprised that h1 is questioning a Marvel characters skill, but not the skill of any DC character? I'm about as unsurprised about that as I am Frothbyte giving the Marvel character the win in every matchup.

Originally posted by h1a8
Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?

You cut out the rest of what I said. I said we measure them by who they fought AND how well they fought.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm about as unsurprised about that as I am Frothbyte giving the Marvel character the win in every matchup.

Not my fault that DC sucks at showcasing the skill of their characters.

Zod should have been skilled, and yet he lost to an untrained and inexperienced farmboy in what was pretty much a straight forward slugfest.

Faora looked skilled initially, but that was ruined by the fact that she also couldn't take out said untrained farmboy even when they fought him 2 on 1.

Superman gets plus points for defeating Zod and surviving a 2 on 1 attack on him, but his brawler tactics are far below what he'd need to win against Thor.

Wonder Woman looks skilled, yet the only decent opponent she ever defeated via her skill is Luddendorf. Ares she defeated via plot armor and Doomsday and Steppenwolf she defeated with the assistance of others. Heck, Steppenwolf actually has some of the best skill feats in the DCEU by fighting Aquaman and Wonder Woman at the same time.

Batman looks skilled yet only ever beats up on fodder.

Katana beat up putties.

Namek and Doomsday are pure brawlers.

Black Manta is pretty decent, just that he didn't have enough feats to convince me he could defeat Tony's AI. If we take out the AI then I'll pick Manta for the win.

Aquaman actually has showcased the most skill of everyone in the DCEU list, which is why I think it will be a close fight against Loki. I gave Loki the edge due to Loki having more feats, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I'm not averse to giving DCEU characters the win, but these match-ups are just stacked against them. Now if match ups went something like:

Mera vs. Sif
Batman vs. Hawkeye
or even Steppenwolf vs. Thanos then I would have given the wins to the DCEU characters.

Originally posted by FrothByte
You cut out the rest of what I said. I said we measure them by who they fought AND how well they fought.

"AND" implies who they fought counts and that how they fought isn't enough by itself.

Since who they fight counts in the equation the how do you determine the quality of the original character (who hasn't fought anyone before) on which the pyramid is built?

To be fair if zod faora and namek won then the movie would of failed

Skill should be measured in what we visually see and not who a character has fought.

Why? Because we can't measure the skill of the character they fought without visual analysis of their skill as well. Why is Loki very skilled? Because he appeared to be (his technique and responses) or because of someone he fought that was skilled?
If the latter then why is that character skilled? I can go on and on. The argument MUST start with visual skill.

To accurately gauge skill we must analyze the fights. For example, A visually fast, non telegraphed, punch was thrown at a character. The character reacted and smoothly parried the punch while counter attacking with an attack that was very quick, smooth, skillful, and powerful.

Basically, how well a character can defend (reaction speed and technique). How well a character can attack (speed, quickness, power, and target area).

Many dogged Baleman in lack of skill because the trained swat officers fought like slow idiots. That implied we rely on the visual and not the WHO. The WHO is irrelevant even in real life. I seen a lot of Rock Paper Scissors scenarios between 3 fighters (abc logic was wrong).

Originally posted by FrothByte
By the exact same metric: by who they fought and by how well they fought.

@h1

Why did you ignore this half of his metric?

Oh h1. You're precious.

Proof

Originally posted by FrothByte
By the exact same metric: by who they fought and by how well the fought.

Originally posted by FrothByte
By the exact same metric: by who they fought
Originally posted by h1a8
Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?

You purposely edited his post to remove half of his argument.

Originally posted by h1a8
"AND" implies who they fought counts and that how they fought isn't enough by itself.

Since who they fight counts in the equation the how do you determine the quality of the original character (who hasn't fought anyone before) on which the pyramid is built?

"AND" implies that both metrics should be taken into account. You can't just have one or the other.

You did ask for my opinion after all, and I'm giving it.

Now what I'm wondering about is, why are you only focusing on one of the factors I mentioned?

If you think only one of them is important then you're more than free to voice your own opinion. But you asked me for mine and we're not going to move forward with this discussion until you acknowledge the entirety of my answer.

Originally posted by h1a8
Skill should be measured in what we visually see and not who a character has fought.

By this metric, Jet Li would be considered a far better fighter than Khabib Nurmagomedov.

Originally posted by FrothByte
By this metric, Jet Li would be considered a far better fighter than Khabib Nurmagomedov.

You mean the character who Jet Li plays, not the actual actor.
Note: The character who JetLi plays will stomp Jet Li with absolute ease

Originally posted by FrothByte
"AND" implies that both metrics should be taken into account. You can't just have one or the other.

You did ask for my opinion after all, and I'm giving it.

Now what I'm wondering about is, why are you only focusing on one of the factors I mentioned?

If you think only one of them is important then you're more than free to voice your own opinion. But you asked me for mine and we're not going to move forward with this discussion until you acknowledge the entirety of my answer.

So you have to be stupid with Silent?
I know BOTH are taken into account. I'm asking about the who a character fought metric though. Why does that metric even matter if you can't really gauge their skill without the visual?

If you ask me why do I like pineapple. And I say "because it's yellow and taste good". You then ask "why does yellow affect your decision"?
I then act retarded and say "I said it has to be both yellow and taste good."

Did I answer the question or act slow?

Originally posted by FrothByte
By the exact same metric: by who they fought
Originally posted by h1a8
Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?

Originally posted by FrothByte
By the exact same metric: by who they fought and by how well they fought.

Why did you edit out half his argument?

Originally posted by h1a8
You mean the character who Jet Li plays, not the actual actor.
Note: The character who JetLi plays will stomp Jet Li with absolute ease

No, I mean the actor. Because if you watch Jet Li perform moves in a demo, he pulls off way more complicated moves in much faster fashion than Khabib could ever replicate.

So even though Jet Li has never defeated anyone in a fight or match and Khabib is undefeated, using your logic we would conclude that Jet Li would completely stomp Khabib in a fight.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No, I mean the actor. Because if you watch Jet Li perform moves in a demo, he pulls off way more complicated moves in much faster fashion than Khabib could ever replicate.

So even though Jet Li has never defeated anyone in a fight or match and Khabib is undefeated, using your logic we would conclude that Jet Li would completely stomp Khabib in a fight.

The actor will get stomped by the character. The actor =/= character for obvious reasons.

1. Character is far stronger
2. Character is faster (camera is sped up)
3. Character is more durable
4. Character reacts to attacks that the actor couldn't
5. Character is more mobile and agile (wires, stuntmen, etc)

Fighting is responding to attacks and using techniques IN REAL TIME to deal with them.

Originally posted by h1a8
The actor will get stomped by the character. The actor =/= character for obvious reasons.

1. Character is far stronger
2. Character is faster (camera is sped up)
3. Character is more durable
4. Character reacts to attacks that the actor couldn't
5. Character is more mobile and agile (wires, stuntmen, etc)

Fighting is responding to attacks and using techniques IN REAL TIME to deal with them.

What are you talking about? he is talking about Jet Li the actor and Khabib the fighter, he isn't talking about a movie character.

Try and address his actual argument and not your strawman.

Originally posted by h1a8
So you have to be stupid with Silent?
I know BOTH are taken into account. I'm asking about the who a character fought metric though. Why does that metric even matter if you can't really gauge their skill without the visual?

If you ask me why do I like pineapple. And I say "because it's yellow and taste good". You then ask "why does yellow affect your decision"?
I then act retarded and say "I said it has to be both yellow and taste good."

Did I answer the question or act slow?

Liking pineapple is a horrible comparison, because nothing about liking a pineapple is competitive the way a fight is competitive. You like or dislike food based on your opinion and preference. A fight is not decided by opinion.

But sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your interest is genuine.

Who you fight and how well you fight are both always taken into consideration. And I need to emphasize that "how well you fought" is not necessarily the same thing as "how visually impressive you move".

"How well you fought" implies that you are being judged by your performance IN a fight, whereas "how visually impressive you look" can be done in or out of a fight, can be done while you're doing solo drills, or can even be done when you're going through a choreographed scene with a partner.

Whether in fiction or in real life, a person's skill is most highly evaluated based on how they perform in a fight (which again is obviously going to be measured against the skill of their opponent).

But in the absence of any fight feats to pull from, if we're talking about a person who has zero actual fighting footage to look at, that's the only time that we start judging based on visual impressiveness. How graceful they are, how sharp their blows are, how fast they move, how big they are, how muscular they are, etc.

But again, that's only as a last resort. Any time a person has actual fight feats to judge from then that takes precedence over simple visual aesthetics.

Originally posted by Silent Master


Why did you edit out half his argument?

Because it is irrelevant to the question of why WHO the character fought is important.

If i asked you why do you value Susan as a worker.
You tell me because she is hard working and she is fast.
I then ask you why is being hardworking relevant.
You then act like a retard and say, "Why are you separating what I said? I said because she is hard working and fast."

Maybe I should have asked, "why isn't it enough by itself to go by how well they did in a fight? Why does who the fought also important too"?
Maybe with your limited comprehension that would make you understand better?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Liking pineapple is a horrible comparison, because nothing about liking a pineapple is competitive the way a fight is competitive. You like or dislike food based on your opinion and preference. A fight is not decided by opinion.

But sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your interest is genuine.

Who you fight and how well you fight are both always taken into consideration. And I need to emphasize that "how well you fought" is not necessarily the same thing as "how visually impressive you move".

"How well you fought" implies that you are being judged by your performance IN a fight, whereas "how visually impressive you look" can be done in or out of a fight, can be done while you're doing solo drills, or can even be done when you're going through a choreographed scene with a partner.

Whether in fiction or in real life, a person's skill is most highly evaluated based on how they perform in a fight (which again is obviously going to be measured against the skill of their opponent).

But in the absence of any fight feats to pull from, if we're talking about a person who has zero actual fighting footage to look at, that's the only time that we start judging based on visual impressiveness. How graceful they are, how sharp their blows are, how fast they move, how big they are, how muscular they are, etc.

But again, that's only as a last resort. Any time a person has actual fight feats to judge from then that takes precedence over simple visual aesthetics.

You still do not understand. I'm asking why is the first metric relevant. Why can't we just use the 2nd metric by itself?

Why does the who matter when we have no way of determining their skill (since visually is not allowed)?

And you are discrediting an expert in determining skill by watching a fight. It's not fancy moves (you are strawmanning me). It's about REACTIONS, and EFFECTIVE technique applied in real time. It's about THE skillful effective movements made IN REAL TIME. It's very complicated.
An expert can judge more accurately than a fan.


The reason I know how skilled Loki is because I watch how he responds to a quick attack and maneuvers to defend and counter.
The speed and efficiency of the attacks against Loki is crucial.
That will determine if Loki can react and defend against a character who attacks with similar or lesser speeds and with similar or lesser efficiency of attack

Are you being purposely retarded?

Originally posted by h1a8
You still do not understand. I'm asking why is the first metric relevant. Why can't we just use the 2nd metric by itself?

Why does the who matter when we have no way of determining their skill (since visually is not allowed)?

And you are discrediting an expert in determining skill by watching a fight. It's not fancy moves (you are strawmanning me). It's about REACTIONS, and EFFECTIVE technique applied in real time. It's about THE skillful effective movements made IN REAL TIME. It's very complicated.
An expert can judge more accurately than a fan.


The reason I know how skilled Loki is because I watch how he responds to a quick attack and maneuvers to defend and counter.
The speed and efficiency of the attacks against Loki is crucial.
That will determine if Loki can react and defend against a character who attacks with similar or lesser speeds and with similar or lesser efficiency of attack

Why does the who matter? Because in the end, fighting skill is not determined by how visually impressive a person moves but how efficiently they're able to defeat their opponent in combat. And how efficiently they can defeat their opponent in combat is directly affected by how difficult their opponent is.

So obviously who they defeat is extremely important as it's much harder to look impressive when a skilled fighter is trying to take your head off as compared to you simply performing the moves on your own or against an easy opponent.

Just because I can easily knock out the average joe with my spinning heel kick doesn't mean I can do the same move if Brock Lesnar was trying to tackle me.

The 'who' is important because the more difficult your opponent is, the harder it becomes to look impressive.

This is pretty much common sense, not sure why I even need to explain it to you.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Why does the who matter? Because in the end, fighting skill is not determined by how visually impressive a person moves but how efficiently they're able to defeat their opponent in combat. And how efficiently they can defeat their opponent in combat is directly affected by how difficult their opponent is.

So obviously who they defeat is extremely important as it's much harder to look impressive when a skilled fighter is trying to take your head off as compared to you simply performing the moves on your own or against an easy opponent.

Just because I can easily knock out the average joe with my spinning heel kick doesn't mean I can do the same move if Brock Lesnar was trying to tackle me.

The 'who' is important because the more difficult your opponent is, the harder it becomes to look impressive.

This is pretty much common sense, not sure why I even need to explain it to you.
But how do you know an opponent is difficult or skillful? That's my point. How do you gauge the difficulty of an opponent before a character fights them? You are using circular reasoning.

You keep arguing with an imaginary argument. Who cares about pretty looking attacks? I'm talking about DEFENDING against fast attacks. A Kung fu master can strike fast but they will get knocked out against a professional mma fighter because they can't properly defend against their attacks.

^
Says the guy that claimed baleman and bane were both faster and skilled than there were shown to be in the movies

Originally posted by Silent Master
^
Says the guy that claimed baleman and bane were both faster and skilled than there were shown to be in the movies
That's old.
No one accepted that standard. It changed to visual speed so that we are all in agreement.

So if we are going with visual. What are you basing Batman being more skilled than Cap on. You're obviously not going to claim that those random thugs Batman fought threw faster attacks than everyone Cap fought in all of his movies, right?

Originally posted by h1a8
But how do you know an opponent is difficult or skillful? That's my point. How do you gauge the difficulty of an opponent before a character fights them? You are using circular reasoning.

You keep arguing with an imaginary argument. Who cares about pretty looking attacks? I'm talking about DEFENDING against fast attacks. A Kung fu master can strike fast but they will get knocked out against a professional mma fighter because they can't properly defend against their attacks.

It's not circular reasoning, it's recursive. You find out how good their opponent is based on who that opponent has defeated and how well they performed. Then you gauge those other opponents based on who they fought and how they performed. You keep doing this till you get to the end where you have a fighter who has zero feats whatsoever, at which point you judge them on how impressive they are visually combined with whatever other verifiable data you can find on them.

Like I said, recursive.

Originally posted by FrothByte
It's not circular reasoning, it's recursive. You find out how good their opponent is based on who that opponent has defeated and how well they performed. Then you gauge those other opponents based on who they fought and how they performed. You keep doing this till you get to the end where you have a fighter who has zero feats whatsoever, at which point you judge them on how impressive they are visually combined with whatever other verifiable data you can find on them.

Like I said, recursive.

Thank you Froth.
You finally answered the question perfectly.
I agree with you 100%.
Now was that so hard?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So if we are going with visual. What are you basing Batman being more skilled than Cap on. You're obviously not going to claim that those random thugs Batman fought threw faster attacks than everyone Cap fought in all of his movies, right?

It's very complicated. If I dissect the warehouse scene slowly I can explain exactly why. The attacks against Batman were not faster than the ones against Cap. Batman just showed skill in defending against simultaneous attacks and did some nice countering and coordinated movements. But it's close. Can go either way. What takes away from Cap's skill imo is his extra strength and durability.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thank you Froth.
You finally answered the question perfectly.
I agree with you 100%.
Now was that so hard?

Wouldn't have been so hard if you didn't seem like you were cherry picking points from my main response and if it didn't feel like you had ulterior motives.

Still, if you had genuine intentions then I apologize.

But yeah, Batman is still far less skilled than Cap based on my criteria.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's very complicated. If I dissect the warehouse scene slowly I can explain exactly why. The attacks against Batman were not faster than the ones against Cap. Batman just showed skill in defending against simultaneous attacks and did some nice countering and coordinated movements. But it's close. Can go either way. What takes away from Cap's skill imo is his extra strength and durability.

Kind of like how Batman was stronger than the thugs and his armor made him far more durable.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Kind of like how Batman was stronger than the thugs and his armor made him far more durable.

I took that into consideration.
I basically focused more on the defending of simultaneous attacks and the maneuvers that made the thugs attack each other.
Like I said, can go either way. Both are comparable.

If the fight "can go either way" and "Both are comparable." why the multipage freakout over froth giving Cap the win?

Originally posted by Silent Master
If the fight "can go either way" and "Both are comparable." why the multipage freakout over froth giving Cap the win?

You are deluded. I was curious on how he was determining skill.

Why?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why?
Why be curious about anything?

Skill is hard to quantify. It's not like strength or speed or durability. So knowing how different people quantify it helps the science of quantifying it.

You'd be more believable if you didn't originally ignore half of his metric and then proceeded to try and refute a strawman version of his argument.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You'd be more believable if you didn't originally ignore half of his metric and then proceeded to try and refute a strawman version of his argument. I didn't ignore it. If you didn't have bad reading comprehension then you would have understood that I was asking why the first part of the metric is relevant. AND implies both are relevant.
Silent: "I like pineapples because they are yellow AND taste good. "
H1a8: "Why is yellow relevant in a pineapple?"
Silent: "I said, I like pineapples because of both metrics. Why are you leaving out my 2nd metric?
H1a8: "What an idiot."

You ignored half his metric and then attacked a strawman version of his argument

Originally posted by Silent Master
You ignored half his metric and then attacked a strawman version of his argument

Originally posted by h1a8

Silent: "I like pineapples because they are yellow AND taste good. "
H1a8: "Why is yellow relevant in a pineapple?"
Silent: "I said, I like pineapples because of both metrics. Why are you leaving out my 2nd metric?
H1a8: "What an idiot."

Originally posted by Silent Master
You ignored half his metric and then attacked a strawman version of his argument

Originally posted by Surtur
Zod *should* be more skilled than Thanos given he was literally genetically bred to be a soldier, but he couldn't even easily defeat a dude who was bred to be a scientist.

Also Zod could have just terraformed Mars. A good soldier would know you don't fight a battle you do not have to fight. So he is shitty at fighting and at common sense. Yes it would of been cool to see Zod terraform mars and bring the Kryptonians back