Originally posted by -K-M-
If you have high enough hero points you actually don't get edited.
rest of this is no dirrected at any one it just generalize statement.
Not to mention many character stats are extremely inaccurate, I think wolverine has max out durability on his stats.
also hand books should be secondary sources, there back around info. on pannel comic evidence is primary, hand book is over view of years of comics, which is not dirrectly written by the writers of the comics they over view which would be similar to an biography.
on a side note even if anyone consider a handbook a primary source, it still not as good a source as a comic it self an no were near as accurate.
Originally posted by Battlehammer
which is why it a secondary source, how do you even get hero points lol.rest of this is no dirrected at any one it just generalize statement.
Not to mention many character stats are extremely inaccurate, I think wolverine has max out durability on his stats.
also hand books should be secondary sources, there back around info. on pannel comic evidence is primary, hand book is over view of years of comics, which is not dirrectly written by the writers of the comics they over view which would be similar to an biography.
on a side note even if anyone consider a handbook a primary source, it still not as good a source as a comic it self an no were near as accurate.
I agree to a point. For power levels and feats, in-comic appearances are much, much better than bios. But for general information, sometimes bios are just as good or better.
And the aspect of Ogun's bio that was posted was historical information about his origin. I would think that, aside from an obvious objection to the material (there has been none, even from you, thus far) that it would be as accurate as any source. The bio information that was posted was intended to refute the statement that he was a base level human who managed to survive for centuries. Clearly, he is much more than that, so the bio information was both relevant, correct, and refuted the statement made earlier in the thread.
If the information is flat-out wrong, please explain why. I haven't seen it yet, other than to call it a secondary source, which actually does not refute it upon rational grounds, but is an appeal to authority (or lack thereof).
here's the breakdown of the Dracula v. Ogun argument, and why it's long-since overdue to be ended.
Dracula's feats, at least those in the memories of the people of the thread, are largely related to him fighting. Using a sword or not, there are few "technical showings" but there are fights. And he tends to win, except against Excalibur, apparently.
Now, Ogun had primarily technical showings, as shown when he gave Kitty a haircut and paralyzed her and whatnot, and was compared to a real swordsman. All quite impressive, but without fight showings, they're as one-sided as Dracula's.
Both sides are trying to argue without a full portfolio of evidence. Ogun minus fight showings v. Dracula minus technical skill showings. You have to assume that if Dracula can win his swordfights, especially against opponents like Black Knight, that he has some level of technical skill. And you have to assume that if Ogun has the skill he's shown to have, he can win at least some fights against skilled opponents. But you can't directly compare the two, in any unbiased manner, without full information.
That's like trying to pick the next Miss America, but you can't see one, and you can't listen to the other. One could be saying all the right things, but look like Digi; and the other could be beautiful, but be cursing up a racist storm. In the interest of full disclosure, quit arguing back and forth until Iz gets some scans up. Also, maybe, try accepting that you don't have the right answer without reproach?
Originally posted by Disappear
Using a sword or not, there are few "technical showings" but there are fights. And he tends to win, except against Excalibur, apparently.
It was explained on another forum Excalibur is magical and can enhance the wielders skill.
Originally posted by Disappear
Now, Ogun had primarily technical showings, as shown when he gave Kitty a haircut and paralyzed her and whatnot, and was compared to a real swordsman. All quite impressive, but without fight showings, they're as one-sided as Dracula's.
The difference is that we actually have something to show for it while they have nothing.
Originally posted by Disappear
Both sides are trying to argue without a full portfolio of evidence. Ogun minus fight showings v. Dracula minus technical skill showings. You have to assume that if Dracula can win his swordfights, especially against opponents like Black Knight, that he has some level of technical skill. And you have to assume that if Ogun has the skill he's shown to have, he can win at least some fights against skilled opponents. But you can't directly compare the two, in any unbiased manner, without full information.
The problem is that the technical skills dont actually neccesarily prove anything. Characters like Iron Fist and Shang Chi can do stuff that Captain America cant, but Cap is still the better martial artist. Karnak can smash really durable substances with his hands but has been tooled by Black Panther twice. Scans with Ogun cutting somebodies hair and doing funky shit isnt really proof at all. All it proves is hes skillful but not to what degree.
Originally posted by Disappear
That's like trying to pick the next Miss America, but you can't see one, and you can't listen to the other. One could be saying all the right things, but look like Digi; and the other could be beautiful, but be cursing up a racist storm. In the interest of full disclosure, quit arguing back and forth until Iz gets some scans up. Also, maybe, try accepting that you don't have the right answer without reproach?
That wasnt even a completely accurate analysis of the discussion. Please dont tell us what to do. Also there was the discussion about what degree is skill or enhancements which also needed to be raised which you didnt address (not that I have a problem with that but if you want to start dictating to everybody how they should debate it would be good if you gave a complete analysis).
We dont need you to come in here and tell us what to do.....thank you very much. Eventhough we have only one scan the Dracula side has proof and I dont need you to tell me to wait for Iz because thats what im doing. To be quite honest with you I still wouldnt say that Drac is better than Ogun based on that scan because im still not entirely sure because we dont have a vast amount of evidence. However I would say at least the Drac side does have some proof. 😬
the thread's titled "greatest swordsman" not "who'd win in a sword fight," phantom. swordsmanship is about being able to wield the sword, not just to win a fight, but with ease, skill and technical prowess. beating people in a sword fight is as valid a claim to swordsmanship as showing technical grace and non-combative abilities. both sides are arguing equally valid claims, but trying to play their side up above the other. dracula with "he actually won a fight, fight showings equal proof," and ogun with "look at what he's capable of, he's comparable to a real-world legend." it's becoming tedious, mundane argument back and forth, not proof or explanation. you don't see the ridiculous nature of what this thread had become?
just take a break, let Iz get his scans, maybe look up some other dracula, sword-related stuff, and let's get back to progressive discussion. or just keep beating your head against the wall. it's your life, man.
Originally posted by Disappear
the thread's titled "greatest swordsman" not "who'd win in a sword fight," phantom. swordsmanship is about being able to wield the sword, not just to win a fight, but with ease, skill and technical prowess. .
It doesnt have to be called that I can use common sense. Why was the sword invented? It was invented to kill and wound people so obvoulsy the most important thing is who you are able to beat. Who said technical prowess isnt important?
Originally posted by Disappear
beating people in a sword fight is as valid a claim to swordsmanship as showing technical grace and non-combative abilities.
No its isnt. The sword was invented for combat so the most important thing is combat. You think anybody would be a great swordsman if he wasnt able to beat opponents? Hell im not even arguing that it cant be used as evidence im just saying its not the most important thing.
Martial arts teaches you coordination and has non-combative applications. Martial arts teaches you coordination and could actually make you a better dancer, according to your logic posting scans of Wolverines ability to dance is just as good as posting him winning fights via martial arts....ridiculous. Hell Bruce Lee actually made comparisons between dancing and martial arts, you think Bruce Lee was remebered because of his ability to dance?
Originally posted by Disappear
both sides are arguing equally valid claims, but trying to play their side up above the other. dracula with "he actually won a fight, fight showings equal proof," and ogun with "look at what he's capable of, he's comparable to a real-world legend." it's becoming tedious, mundane argument back and forth, not proof or explanation. you don't see the ridiculous nature of what this thread had become?
No I just think you take yourself far too serioulsy.
Originally posted by Disappear
just take a break, let Iz get his scans, maybe look up some other dracula, sword-related stuff, and let's get back to progressive discussion. or just keep beating your head against the wall. it's your life, man.
Im not beating my head against the wall the only person I really have a problem with is Battlehammer and ive decided to ignore him. As far as im concerned im cool with how the discussion is going. I even think to an extent Ize has conceded that fighting feats is more important. Lots of people in this thread dont agree with your analysis of the discussion. Get off your high horse and stop dictating to people what to do....wow. 😐
this is deteriorating quickly. i won't point out the blatant hypocrisy of your post, except to say i won't point it out. it's off-topic.
you're misinterpreting my argument, whether intentionally or not, into something that's not valid. martial arts training leading to dancing skills does not equate to swordsmanship leading to technical prowess. they're parts of the same coin, whereas martial arts training and dancing are not; they're derivatives of the same basic function at best.
anyway, back on topic, who the hell's boy blue, and does karate kid have any significant weapons training, or mostly unarmed combat skill?
Originally posted by Disappear
anyway, back on topic, who the hell's boy blue
Character from Fables. Most of his skill is from the Vorpal Blade, not training.
Originally posted by Disappear
does karate kid have any significant weapons training, or mostly unarmed combat skill?
I don't think he's ever shown using weapons but the typical line is that he "knows every martial art of the 31st century" which would technically include armed combat. However, I assume most writers just mean he's really good an Karate and Kung-Fu and "Super Karate".
Originally posted by Disappear
this is deteriorating quickly. i won't point out the blatant hypocrisy of your post, except to say i won't point it out. it's off-topic.you're misinterpreting my argument, whether intentionally or not, into something that's not valid. martial arts training leading to dancing skills does not equate to swordsmanship leading to technical prowess. they're parts of the same coin, whereas martial arts training and dancing are not; they're derivatives of the same basic function at best.
You know I was actually tempted to respond to some of the issues raised in your post but I can see where its heading. Theres a certain type of poster on KMC who you know from the very first post or second that the debate is going to be a complete waste of time and your one of them. Good day.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You know I was actually tempted to respond to some of the issues raised in your post but I can see where its heading. Theres a certain type of poster on KMC who you know from the very first post or second that the debate is going to be a complete waste of time and your one of them. Good day.
relatively certain we've agreed on a good many points in the past, but i can accept that. let us retire this useless parade of machismo and return to the task at hand.
vandal savage is a centuries-old sword wielder, correct? anything special about him, or is it mostly just for show?