Bronze Tiger vs Steve Rogers: H2H Only

Originally posted by -Pr-
which is ABC logic. it's in the rules.

No its isn't.

Originally posted by -Pr-

especially considering the fact that batman has stalemated him and beaten him too.

Stalemating somebody in h2h doesn't disprove that your opponent is superior. Weaker opponents can stalemate superior opponents for awhile.

You don't know wether Batman has beaten DS. This is what you said.

Originally posted by -Pr-

has beaten bronze tiger too, if what i've been told is correct.

Of course if hes beaten Bronze Tiger that would prove your case.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i'll put it to you this way.

say batman fights bronze tiger, and tiger wins. then months, years pass, and batman fights, say:

Constantine Drakon, Richard Dragon, Batgirl, Black Canary and say... Jason Todd.

Batman beats them all, lets say, without PIS (just for example).

Tiger doesn't beat them all. He beats three of the five, maybe.

Who would you say is the superior fighter and more likely to win a rematch between the two?

Pr have any of those guys beaten Batman h2h? Did I not state that DS has beaten Batman in h2h? Why are you giving me an analogy of people that haven't beaten Batman in h2h. Of course it doesn't prove that BT is superior because none of those guys have beaten Batman in h2h.

I specifically said that you could argue hes more skilled than Batman because hes beaten him and somebody who has beaten him. Then you give me an analogy of him beating people that have lost to batman....

Originally posted by Deadline
No its isn't.

yes, it is actually.

also, you just missed the entire point of my post. Did you not read my question?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Suicide Squad is on my list, but it's a long way off.

Yeah, I hear you, I want to do the Guardians. Luckily most of them suck. 😖hifty:

Originally posted by -Pr-
yes, it is actually.

also, you just missed the entire point of my post. Did you not read my question?

Yes I read the question. He fights them all at once? If thats the case then I'm going Batman. Don't see how that proves anything

Originally posted by Deadline
Yes I read the question. He fights them all at once? If thats the case then I'm going Batman. Don't see how that proves anything

No. Both men fight them one at a time.

Let me repeat the question.

IF both men fight each of those people, and Batman gets more wins than Tiger, would that not suppose to you that Batman, having the superior record, would be the more likely to win if the two fought again?

Originally posted by -Pr-
No. Both men fight them one at a time.

Which is what I thought you said.

Originally posted by -Pr-

Let me repeat the question.

IF both men fight each of those people, and Batman gets more wins than Tiger, would that not suppose to you that Batman, having the superior record, would be the more likely to win if the two fought again?

Did you even get the point I was trying to make? Thats exactly what I thought you were trying to say.

Originally posted by Deadline
Which is what I thought you said.

Did you even get the point I was trying to make? Thats exactly what I thought you were trying to say.

then why did you start asking about whether they had beaten Batman, and talk about what those people did or didn't do against Batman?

Originally posted by -Pr-
then why did you start asking about whether they had beaten Batman, and talk about what those people did or didn't do against Batman?

Pr its pretty obvious the point you were making was that batman was superior. The problem is you have created an analogy. The problem is that I don't think its appropriate.

I don't even think you got the point I was making, the analogy does not fit the reality of what we are discussing. You could argue that if Superman beat Galactus in a comicbook this proves that he can beat Silver Surfer but this would be irrelevant because this does not fit the reality of comics.

Originally posted by Deadline
Pr its pretty obvious the point you were making was that batman was superior. The problem is you have created an analogy. The problem is that I don't think its appropriate.

I don't even think you got the point I was making, the analogy does not fit the reality of what we are discussing. You could argue that if Superman beat Galactus in a comicbook this proves that he can beat Silver Surfer but this would be irrelevant because this does not fit the reality of comics.

I never stated that Batman was superior, did I?

And no, I'm not talking about analogies. At all. I'm talking about comparisons and deduction.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I never stated that Batman was superior, did I?

I'm talking about this

Originally posted by -Pr-

IF both men fight each of those people, and Batman gets more wins than Tiger, would that not suppose to you that Batman, having the superior record, would be the more likely to win if the two fought again?

I don't want to get into a semantical debate ok? The point is from the example you gave Batman will probably win. Just because you didn't use the word superior doesn't mean I didn't understand the point you were making.

Originally posted by -Pr-

And no, I'm not talking about analogies. At all. I'm talking about comparisons and deduction.

I know and you gave an example to demonstrate what you were trying to say. I'm saying I agree with the conclusion that you made from the example but it's not relevant. Maybe analogy wasn't the right word to use.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'm talking about this

I don't want to get into a semantical debate ok? The point is from the example you gave Batman will probably win. Just because you didn't use the word superior doesn't mean I didn't understand the point you were making.

Anyway the point you were trying to make is that you would probably deduce that Batman wins. I was just trying to express that.

I know and you gave an example to demonstrate what you were trying to say. I'm saying I agree with the conclusion that you made from the example but it's not relevant. Maybe analogy wasn't the right word to use.

So your answer is yes, then?

As a non biased 3rd party, and a mod, I declare Pr the absolute winner.

Originally posted by -Pr-
So your answer is yes, then?

Obvosuly but its irrelevant because it doesn't support your case that I'm using ABC logic.

Originally posted by Deadline
Obvosuly but its irrelevant because it doesn't support your case that I'm using ABC logic.

based on what you said before, it kinda does. Unless you don't think tiger winning one fight and stalemating another makes him superior.

Originally posted by Badabing
As a non biased 3rd party, and a mod, I declare Pr the absolute winner.

ha-som

Originally posted by Warrior18
Agreed.Yet he's still overall above the likes of DD, Bats etc.
Akin to Slade in my opinion.
Marvelknight however won't even entertain the thought, despite the on panel evidence.

Been following this thread from page 1.

so is this thread is entertaining enough to bring you back?

😂

lulz @ this thread.. STILL.

Good stuff.

Yo.

as it relates to DS & Bats, did any1 remember that DS lost to Bats at the end of IC ??

to be fair, Slade *was* facing him, Dick & Tim (and possibly 1 other) at the same time, but in the end he did lose.

Tazer

Is anyone else using Red Forman's voice when reading MK's "nobody talks down to me, you wouldn't say that to my face" posts?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Is anyone else using Red Forman's voice when reading MK's "nobody talks down to me, you wouldn't say that to my face" posts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOzknvcgO8I

but lets get back on topic pls.

Originally posted by Tazer
Yo.

as it relates to DS & Bats, did any1 remember that DS lost to Bats at the end of IC ??

to be fair, Slade *was* facing him, Dick & Tim(and possibly 1 other) at the same time, but in the end he did lose.

Tazer

Yea. 👆