Balck Panther Vs Iron Fist

Started by Metalmanx4 pages

Honestly, I just think your logic is flawed is all.

I feel that if one fight is done well enough, then one is good enough for evidence.

I felt that the BP/IF fight was VERY well done. So, in my opinion, BP was superior in that fight.

That's all.

Ultimately, i think we all agree that IF loses, but not without an extrodinary fight, am i right?

Originally posted by ExtraMision5555
Ultimately, i think we all agree that IF loses, but not without an extrodinary fight, am i right?

Agreed. ✅

Originally posted by Metalmanx
Honestly, I just think your logic is flawed is all.

I feel that if one fight is done well enough, then one is good enough for evidence.

I felt that the BP/IF fight was VERY well done. So, in my opinion, BP was superior in that fight.

That's all.

So what part of that didnt i understand? I just disagreed with you thats all.

Does it make sense to you that one piece of evidence is enough for characters that have been around for decades?

Dont you think it would be better to come with more scans?

Originally posted by Alfheim
So what part of that didnt i understand? I just disagreed with you thats all.

Does it make sense to you that one piece of evidence is enough for characters that have been around for decades?

Dont you think it would be[B] better to come with more scans? [/B]

OF COURSE it would be better. It's ALWAYS better with more evidence.

My point was that if there is only one piece of evidence and it is written well on both sides, then I have no problem with it being used as evidence.

So, in essence, I'm both agreeing and disagreeing(?) with you.

Originally posted by Alfheim
So what part of that didnt i understand? I just disagreed with you thats all.

Does it make sense to you that one piece of evidence is enough for characters that have been around for decades?

Dont you think it would be[B] better to come with more scans? [/B]

i agre with you, and i was about to add something but what i was going to add was what metalmanx said

if its well written (relative to the charcterS) then i can accept it as great evidence

so now im following metalmanx 😄 lol

Originally posted by Metalmanx
OF COURSE it would be better. It's ALWAYS better with more evidence.

My point was that if there is only one piece of evidence and it is written well on both sides, then I have no problem with it being used as evidence.

So, in essence, I'm both agreeing and disagreeing(?) with you.

Ok fair enough but slapping you forehead was going over board.

does anyone think that IF actually fights BETTER blood-lusted and mind-controlled . . .?

he's a smart fighter as well as a tough fighter. that mind-controlled battle was NOT a good gauge, imo. for what EITHER could really do. based on the books i've read of both, danny could win 3-4/10 and EACH fight would be very tough.

Originally posted by leonidas
does anyone think that IF actually fights BETTER blood-lusted and mind-controlled . . .?

.

thankyou for mentioning that
i forgot to earlier
good point

I'd put Danny above T'Challa as far as speed and skill are concerned. Sure, IF was bloodlusted in their last fight, but he was also being mind-controlled.

It wouldn't be like Danny to just lose himself there, so while it was a good fight, I wouldn't say he was at the peak of his skills there.