Bronze Tiger vs Steve Rogers: H2H Only

Originally posted by -Pr-
nobody is disputing that.

Yes but you seem to be trying to say it doesn't matter because it was his introduction. Doesn't matter wether its his introduction, he won.

Originally posted by -Pr-

bar the antidotes to the poisons, not that i could see.

I'll have to take your word for it.

Originally posted by -Pr-

it's been the general rule of thumb for years on this forum that we don't use pre crisis feats unless stated in the OP.

seriously; it's common knowledge on the forum.

No it isn't, Superman yeah it is. I know that people are a bit dodgey about it but its not common knowledge they're exampt.

Originally posted by -Pr-

because the second fight happened.

Yes but the first fight still happened, theres no reason to ignore it. BT 1 Batman 0

actually it's more like BT 1-0-and1

That last one's kind of important.

Originally posted by Deadline
Characters have also been smacked around when they haven't been introduced either.

Didn't Batman have prep in the second fight?

What so were making this a rule now? Theres no reason to think that BT wouldn't beat Batman especially since hes beaten an opponent that is superior to Batman and has beaten him three time (Deathstroke).

How on earth does getting dropped in two panels not indicate superioty?

Exactly. That logic makes no sense at all. The second fight had interference. And Batman with prep still couldn't take him either way.

Originally posted by -Pr-
considering that they fought again in the same issue and they were obviously stalemating each other, it has more weight than a couple of panels.

batman wasn't the first hero to get smacked down by someone making their introduction. it's the worf effect, and is a storytelling tool.

if tiger had dominated the second fight, then you might have a case, but he didn't.

regardless, it has no bearing on post crisis tiger's skills/abilities

I disagree. You say " it's the worf effect, and is a storytelling tool". No, that's an excuse. Statements like that only take away from what is being "shown".

The fight happened that way because the writer was making a statement about Bronze Tiger and his skills. And the fact that Batman couldn't beat him the second time with prep, only leads to the conclusion that maybe Bruce couldn't. You see Bronze Tiger already beat Bruce. So it was Bruce who had more to prove than Bronze Tiger had to. Bronze Tiger still kept Bruce from getting the upper hand. And you forgot the part where Bruce in his thoughts said that he hopes that he can at least low Tiger down. Meaning it was Bruce who was feeling the more of the pressure of fighting against him. Not the other way around.

Originally posted by jinzin
actually it's more like BT 1-0-and1

That last one's kind of important.

Did batman win the second fight?

Originally posted by Deadline
Yes but you seem to be trying to say it doesn't matter because it was his introduction. Doesn't matter wether its his introduction, he won.

that isn't what i said.

No it isn't, Superman yeah it is. I know that people are a bit dodgey about it but its not common knowledge they're exampt.

it's the way we've been doing it on this forum ever since i joined, almost 7 years ago.

Yes but the first fight still happened, theres no reason to ignore it. BT 1 Batman 0

so? one fight doesn't determine who's better over a course of decades.

Originally posted by Marvelknight
Exactly. That logic makes no sense at all. The second fight had interference. And Batman with prep still couldn't take him either way.

I disagree. You say " it's the worf effect, and is a storytelling tool". No, that's an excuse. Statements like that only take away from what is being "shown".

The fight happened that way because the writer was making a statement about Bronze Tiger and his skills. And the fact that Batman couldn't beat him the second time with prep, only leads to the conclusion that maybe Bruce couldn't. You see Bronze Tiger already beat Bruce. So it was Bruce who had more to prove than Bronze Tiger had to. Bronze Tiger still kept Bruce from getting the upper hand. And you forgot the part where Bruce in his thoughts said that he hopes that he can at least low Tiger down. Meaning it was Bruce who was feeling the more of the pressure of fighting against him. Not the other way around.

first of all, no, it's not an excuse. it's a well used storytelling tool.

they needed her to get captured from batman's grasp and make tiger look good. they took the logical course of action. if batman stomped the shit out of him, it would have looked bad for the story.

bruce was showing tiger respect, which was fine.

the fact still remains that in a proper fight, they were shown to be more equal.

and even if i were to agree with you, the fight wouldn't be valid, as it's pre crisis, so i honestly don't see why you keep arguing about it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
that isn't what i said.

My point is this. BT has a win over Batman, Batman doesn't have a win over BT.

Originally posted by -Pr-

it's the way we've been doing it on this forum ever since i joined, almost 7 years ago.

You've said that about other stuff as well.

Originally posted by -Pr-

so? one fight doesn't determine who's better over a course of decades.

But the problem is that writers tend to do reasearch on characters and in the modern are we also have BT beating Deathstroke, an opponent that is superior to Batman, so taking that into consideration it implies that BT > Batman.

Also stalemating somebody doesn't prove that somebody is inferior. DS > Batman, but Batman can stalemate DS for a while.

Originally posted by -Pr-

first of all, no, it's not an excuse. it's a well used storytelling tool.

they needed her to get captured from batman's grasp and make tiger look good. they took the logical course of action. if batman stomped the shit out of him, it would have looked bad for the story.

bruce was showing tiger respect, which was fine.

the fact still remains that in a proper fight, they were shown to be more equal.

and even if i were to agree with you, the fight wouldn't be valid, as it's pre crisis, so i honestly don't see why you keep arguing about it.

Or maybe the reason why he got stomped was because hes that good, you know she could have got captured without Batman getting stopmed.

Originally posted by Deadline
My point is this. BT has a win over Batman, Batman doesn't have a win over BT.

good for him.

You've said that about other stuff as well.

i was right about those too.

But the problem is that writers tend to do reasearch on characters and in the modern are we also have BT beating Deathstroke, an opponent that is superior to Batman, so taking that into consideration it implies that BT > Batman.

geo-force beat deathstroke. do we assume geo-force is a better fighter than batman too? no, we go by context and average portrayals.

abc logic isn't how we do things, and you can't prove that exact writer at that exact time researched that exact issue without showing us some sort of evidence. making assumptions isn't proof.

Or maybe the reaso why he got stomped was because hes that good, you know she could have got captured without Batman getting stopmed.

You can't argue that he got stomped merely because of the plot. [/B]

and yet the second time they fought, batman matched him, thereby showing us that tiger isn't vastly superior.

Batman doesn't have a win over Bronze Tiger... but Matches Malone does.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Batman doesn't have a win over Bronze Tiger... but Matches Malone does.

seriously? ha.

Originally posted by -Pr-
that isn't what i said.

it's the way we've been doing it on this forum ever since i joined, almost 7 years ago.

so? one fight doesn't determine who's better over a course of decades.

first of all, no, it's not an excuse. it's a well used storytelling tool.

they needed her to get captured from batman's grasp and make tiger look good. they took the logical course of action. if batman stomped the shit out of him, it would have looked bad for the story.

bruce was showing tiger respect, which was fine.

the fact still remains that in a proper fight, they were shown to be more equal.

and even if i were to agree with you, the fight wouldn't be valid, as it's pre crisis, so i honestly don't see why you keep arguing about it.

No it's not a "story tool" Tiger is that good, period.

And I argue because I'm not going to discount it and give Steve the win because of a rule that hiders any pre Crisis events with Bronze Tiger from being use to validate his skill.

Originally posted by -Pr-
seriously? ha.

Yes 😎

Originally posted by -Pr-
good for him.

i was right about those too.

What its common knowledge that DS is faster than Cap?

Originally posted by -Pr-

geo-force beat deathstroke. do we assume geo-force is a better fighter than batman too? no, we go by context and average portrayals.

Except BT beat both Batman and Deathstroke.

Originally posted by -Pr-

abc logic isn't how we do things, and you can't prove that exact writer at that exact time researched that exact issue. making assumptions isn't proof.

You've used abc logic yourself. I said writers tend to do reasearch, just because I can't conclusively prove it doesn't mean its a bad argument, using that logic 90% of arguments would be null and void.

Originally posted by -Pr-

and yet the second time they fought, batman matched him, thereby showing us that tiger isn't vastly superior.

I edited my post. Matching somebody for awhile doesn't disprove that somebody is inferior. Batman was able to match DS for a while but still lost.

Originally posted by Deadline
Did batman win the second fight?

Nope, and he didn't have to. 😉

Originally posted by jinzin
Nope, and he didn't have to. 😉

and he hasn't won any.

Originally posted by -Pr-
that isn't what i said.

it's the way we've been doing it on this forum ever since i joined, almost 7 years ago.

so? one fight doesn't determine who's better over a course of decades.

first of all, no, it's not an excuse. it's a well used storytelling tool.

they needed her to get captured from batman's grasp and make tiger look good. they took the logical course of action. if batman stomped the shit out of him, it would have looked bad for the story.

bruce was showing tiger respect, which was fine.

the fact still remains that in a proper fight, they were shown to be more equal.

and even if i were to agree with you, the fight wouldn't be valid, as it's pre crisis, so i honestly don't see why you keep arguing about it.

let the awesome circle game begin!

I'm not arguing that Batman couldn't have won the second fight but when Batman hasn't won any fights theres more proof that BT is superior.

Originally posted by Deadline
and he hasn't won any.

you don't know who matches malone is do you?

in any case he doesn't NEED to... What about that are you not getting?

Originally posted by Deadline
What its common knowledge that DS is faster than Cap?

what?

Except BT beat both Batman and Deathstroke.

and batman has beaten those too.

You've used abc logic yourself. I said writers tend to do reasearch, just because I can't conclusively prove it doesn't mean its a bad argument, using that logic 90% of arguments would be null and void.

i use deduction; it's not the same thing. some writers do, do research, but there's no point mentioning it otherwise.

also, Do people not know who Matches Malone is? Jeez...

Originally posted by -Pr-

also, Do people not know who Matches Malone is? Jeez...

snicker
I know right?

Though TBF I don't think the "fight" between Matches and Tiger should count..... at least.... not any more than the fight between Tiger and Deathstroke, that's for sure.

I love how BT holding his own against a weakened, holding back Deahtstroke has slowly evolved into "BT beat Deathstroke" over the course of this thread...