Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok quinn's pecs are slightly over the top, but the rest looks passable as a apocalypse survivor. van zan just looks likes a pro wrestler. its unlikely that anyone could maintain that physique in that scenario.oh btw your first link was 404
Ok fixed the link. Van Zan looks like a pro wrestler because of the hair, beard, and tattoos. But yeah, he was muscular. But compare his arms to Bale's and you won't see that much of a difference.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, no way of knowing. But Sadako is jumping to conclusions that Bale's people were malnourished despite the fact that we have no idea what their daily food intake is.So using that same tactic, we can pretty much assume that Van Zan and team were having similar food trouble since the dragons were supposedly burning everything around and Van Zan did mention that they burned through their supplies or something.
So... either we start using assumptions from both sides or we don't assume anything at all. Making assumptions for Bale while disregarding assumptions for Van Zan is pure fanboyism.
The conversion Quinn and that man had; their actions all paint us a picture that the community was scraping by.
We can't, as there's nothing to indicate that. Only thing I recall is Van Zan mentioning that the trip over the pond was costly in supplies and such.
The Quinn assumption is based on something directly mentioned and implied in the film though. Van Zan's isn't. I don't think anyone is a Bale fanboy except for Lestov and Quanchi, as they've claimed "Quinn's a badass" as well.
Overall though, Quinn not being malnourished changes little in regards to Van Zan and his supposed 'badassery', Quinn was a normal guy by all accounts.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
but they were likely on a food ration. less food makes people feel less energetic, unless im mistaken completely about the human anatomy here.
Not necessarily. Street children (especially street teens) are some of the toughest people you can get. If a person has gotten used to restricted rations then his/her body will adjust to it and will still allow it to function properly and at near full capacity. What you won't get is proper growth, so body building on a restricted food supply is out the window.
Originally posted by Robtard
The conversion Quinn and that man had, their actions all paint us a picture that the community was scraping by.We can't, as there's nothing to indicate that. Only thing I recall is Van Zan mentioning that the trip over the pond was costly in supplies and such.
The Quinn assumption is based on something directly mentioned and implied in the film though. Van Zan's isn't. I don't think anyone is a Bale fanboy except for Lestov and Quanchi, as they've claimed "Quinn's a badass" as well.
Well, I definitely won't call Quinn a badass. Courageous and tenacious, yes.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is that, providing proof that McClane is a good h2h fighter is all well and good. And I can respect that. But trying to undermine Van Zan's prowess by claiming Bale was weak from hunger... well, I find it quite a cheap tactic. Considering that at no where in the film do we see any signs of Bale being weak from hunger.
I would have much rather had an argument made that Van Zan beat up an average and untrained man.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Well, I definitely won't call Quinn a badass. Courageous and tenacious, yes.Anyway, the point I'm trying to make here is that, providing proof that McClane is a good h2h fighter is all well and good. And I can respect that. But trying to undermine Van Zan's prowess by claiming Bale was weak from hunger... well, I find it quite a cheap tactic. Considering that at no where in the film do we see any signs of Bale being weak from hunger.
I would have much rather had an argument made that Van Zan beat up an average and untrained man.
Comp had issues and I had to close FF. You responded before I was done:
Originally posted by Robtard
Overall though, Quinn not being malnourished changes little in regards to Van Zan and his supposed 'badassery', Quinn was a normal guy by all accounts.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Not necessarily. Street children (especially street teens) are some of the toughest people you can get. If a person has gotten used to restricted rations then his/her body will adjust to it and will still allow it to function properly and at near full capacity. What you won't get is proper growth, so body building on a restricted food supply is out the window.
right but what happens when you proceed to give that street urchin half of what they're used to. by your logic their bodies would just flip like a switch and not need time to adjust. even poverty can provide a regular, yet slim diet. a ration is a sudden cutting off of regular food supply. (within months)
Originally posted by focus4chumps
right but what happens when you proceed to give that street urchin half of what they're used to. by your logic their bodies would just flip like a switch and not need time to adjust. even poverty can provide a regular, yet slim diet. a ration is a sudden cutting off of regular food supply. (within months)
I don't wan to go down this whole nutrition road because we'll end up moving away from the topic.
So let me just ask you, in your complete and honest opinion. Does Quinn look malnourished to you? Or does he more closely resemble an average guy (plus dirt and grit ofcourse)?
Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok i must admit, he may just seem pumped due to his adolescent macho swagger attempting to do a hulk pose even in casual conversation...oh dear i played the poser card again
I was rooting for Van Zan in this match because he showed more finesse and h2h skill in that one short fight that he had with Quinn compared to the usually messier fights that McClane has.
Then again, I might have been just as swayed by Van Zan's "macho swagger" and "badass voice" as well.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
the other problem with van zan is he never had a real fight. we never got to see what he could take. mcclane on the other hand has been consistently put through a promethium hell-world of pain and came out standing.
And what would qualify for a real fight in your opinion? Van Zan was in a real fist fight/brawl/street fight, and as far as I know that's the stipulation in this match.
Granted, I admit that McClane's opponents have all been relatively stronger than Quinn, but the reason I support Van Zan in this fight is due to how easily he was able to dispatch Quinn.
Quinn got him with a full, clean blow on the face and he simply shrugged it off. He also effortlessly blocked and dodged around Quinn's blows. I don't recall McClane ever avoiding blows that easily. Most of McClane's fights were messy affairs, relying more on his tenacity, brutality, resourcefulness and a good deal of luck rather than real skill.
McClane was effective though, I give you that. Not pretty, but effective. Still if I had to place a bet, I'd put my money on the post-apocalyptic, somewhat mentally unbalanced, military special ops guy with the raspy voice.
You clearly need to scrutinize further. Cause Van Zan cannot fight with any actual effectiveness, generate power with his slow, telegraphed, energy inefficient ways of attack. All he generates is slap level force (And lolz from people watching who actually know how to fight) and it damages no one because of his bad technique.
McClane is faster, more damaging, and can knock people out in one blow, doesn't telegraph, has legendary damage soak etc etc
So when scrutinized, theres really no contest.
McClane wins.
BTW When your opponent is left 100% fighting fit and is screaming "I'll kill ya! I'll kill ya!!!!" and having to be held back by people, you've not "dispatched" him in the slightest.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You clearly need to scrutinize further. Cause Van Zan cannot fight with any actual effectiveness, generate power with his slow, telegraphed, energy inefficient ways of attack. All he generates is slap level force (And lolz from people watching who actually know how to fight) and it damages no one because of his bad technique.McClane is faster, more damaging, and can knock people out in one blow, doesn't telegraph, has legendary damage soak etc etc
So when scrutinized, theres really no contest.
McClane wins.BTW When your opponent is left 100% fighting fit and is screaming "I'll kill ya! I'll kill ya!!!!" and having to be held back by people, you've not "dispatched" him in the slightest.
It's these kind of arguments that really hurt McClane's corner. Some of the other pro-McClane posters here have valid points. Yours however is ridiculous. Van Zan cannot fight with actual effectiveness? Telegraphs moves? Slow? Weak? What are you smoking?!
Van Zan delivered blocks and blows fast enough that Quinn couldn't react to them. No telegraphing there. Then when Quinn was too stunned to fight back properly, only then did Van Zan took take his time to really cock his blows. That's not because he was slow, that was because Quinn's blows weren't hurting him and he knew he could take his time.
Claiming that McClane is a better fighter than Van Zan is a decent argument and can be debated. Claiming that Van Zan doesn't know how to fight is flat out ridiculous.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes, no way of knowing. But Sadako is jumping to conclusions that Bale's people were malnourished despite the fact that we have no idea what their daily food intake is. He's basing it on one person saying "there won't be a harvest next time if we starve to death".So using that same tactic, we can pretty much assume that Van Zan and team were having similar food trouble since the dragons were supposedly burning everything in the surrounding countryside and Van Zan did mention that they burned through their supplies (which is why they needed the shelter of the castle).
So... either we start using assumptions from both sides or we don't assume anything at all. Making assumptions for Bale while disregarding assumptions for Van Zan is pure fanboyism.
No the film itself made the statement.
You must have missed the bit about the fate of Quinn's wife and kid etc
But you just want to premptively dismiss me as a fanboy becuase it saves thinking. Whatever.
Van Zan cannot fight, his technique for striking and defence is shite and McClane has demonstrated superior ability in defence, attack and durability....oh.....and never left an opponent 100% undamaged screaming "I'll kill ya... I'll kill ya" after 6 free shots and a headbutt...
Originally posted by Lestov16
Thank you FrothByte. That is what I am trying to express by scrutinizing McClane's fight scenes. That Van Zan had an overall better fighting technique than McClane has ever displayed.
No prob. Far too many McClane fanboys in this site. I love McClane, and I love the fact that he's just some normal cop who just happens to have balls of steel and manages to get the job done. And that's what makes him such a great character, that he's just a bit above average. Some people in here would have you believe he's the next Jason Bourne, and that's completely ruining the character. It's like TDKR all over again. I mean, they even match him up against Frank Martin!!!
At least I can admit that McClane has a chance at winning this fight even if I root against him.