Originally posted by DTM
Ozymandias' skill was World Class, even on more mainstream Marvel/DC levels.
See, that doesn't translate well. As being the best fighter in the world, when there are no other good fighters out there doesn't mean anything. Because Ozy never really had anybody in his skill class to fight and compare against.
Batman's a great martial artist, not only because it was stated that he learned every martial art, but because he routinely fights against high end street leveler martial artists who have feats under their belts.
Ozzy has done nothing impressive because he's fought no one.
Cap on the other hand has tons of feats that put him out of Ozzy's league.
Lol, he catches bullet. Singular. And only fired from a shaky woman with no marksmanship experience. And he's hurt pretty bad after. And he was looking at her with the gun pointed at him before she pulled the trigger.
Cap on the other hand outruns bullets, can probably knock a bullet off course with a shield toss, and has one of the most massive jobber causing auras in comics.
Originally posted by Mshinu
No, I meant he has good odds of delivering a kicking himself, particularly without the shield being there. Ozzy seems to be imune to the jobber auras of heroes for starters.
His only chance of delivering a kicking, is if Cap starts the fight with both his legs broken and is chained to a tree.
Originally posted by Mshinu
No, I meant he has good odds of delivering a kicking himself, particularly without the shield being there. Ozzy seems to be imune to the jobber auras of heroes for starters.
What do you mean, immune? No one in Watchmen has a Jobber aura, and no one can contend with the people from Marvel/DC. It's a much weaker universe overall.
Using the suspension of disbelief Ozy can beat Cap in h2h only. With shield Cap has an advantage.
Feats of skill>>>>>>>feats against those with skill
Why?
Because everyone in comics job or perform under there highest ability the majority of the time. It is how you beat someone in comics that makes the difference and not the mere fact that you beat them.
The way Thor beat and treat Surfer in comics is not the way things would go down if Surfer was fighting at his best as shown before. It would be no contest really if the true Surfer showed up.
As far as this fight goes Cap wins.
Originally posted by Silent MasterAlthough fighting feats are feats of defending against attacks, fighting feats isn't the only thing needed to prove fighting ability. To assume so is faulty.
Qzy doesn't have the fighting feats needed to even get 1/10 against Cap.
I want to address something new.
Many say that Classic Mangog was indestructible to physical forces on the outside or people was giving him durability beyond what he has shown to tank. Why? Because of the suspension of disbelief.
If a character hasn't shown any limits then should we put a limit on them?
If a character was only seen lifting 85tons then should we assume he/she can't lift more? If CA only fought hoodlums, yet was the same person as we know him to be, then does that make him any less skilled than he really is?
With that said, of course you don't give a being who showed no limits an infinite limit. Either we don't argue said character or we choose a very reasonable suspension of disbelief limit for them. But one thing we don't do is assume their limit is equal to the highest they tanked when they never shown a limit.
True, we have a reasonable suspension of belief.
Ozy was a peak human - the best that humans could be. So he has human limitations. We already suspend belief rather substantially with the bullet catching feat.
Cap is beyond human. So....using the suspension of belief, we accredit him higher stats than Ozy.
The reason people keep bringing up the opponents they face, is because all too often in fiction, experience plays a large role in fighting skills (I can't say for real life, because I'm just a keyboard warrior lol). If you have experience fighting much stronger, faster, skilled opponents than yourself (obv not all at once), then you can say that character X is better than character Y, based on their fight history.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
True, we have a reasonable suspension of belief.Ozy was a peak human - the best that humans could be. So he has human limitations. We already suspend belief rather substantially with the bullet catching feat.
Cap is beyond human. So....using the suspension of belief, we accredit him higher stats than Ozy.
The reason people keep bringing up the opponents they face, is because all too often in fiction, experience plays a large role in fighting skills (I can't say for real life, because I'm just a keyboard warrior lol). If you have experience fighting much stronger, faster, skilled opponents than yourself (obv not all at once), then you can say that character X is better than character Y, based on their fight history.
Experience literally means NOTHING in comics.
We can have a being who lived for thousands of years fighting characters of all types (skilled fighters, super fast beings, super strong beings, etc.) and yet have terrible fighting ability in comparison to someone who only has a few years experience.
Thor vs. Cap is a good example.
Also in comics, characters are often shown to job or perform subpar greatly at times. So IMO it's not who you beat but HOW you beat them that determines fighting skill in my book.
Originally posted by h1a8
Although fighting feats are feats of defending against attacks, fighting feats isn't the only thing needed to prove fighting ability. To assume so is faulty.I want to address something new.
Many say that Classic Mangog was indestructible to physical forces on the outside or people was giving him durability beyond what he has shown to tank. Why? Because of the suspension of disbelief.If a character hasn't shown any limits then should we put a limit on them?
If a character was only seen lifting 85tons then should we assume he/she can't lift more? If CA only fought hoodlums, yet was the same person as we know him to be, then does that make him any less skilled than he really is?With that said, of course you don't give a being who showed no limits an infinite limit. Either we don't argue said character or we choose a very reasonable suspension of disbelief limit for them. But one thing we don't do is assume their limit is equal to the highest they tanked when they never shown a limit.
I'm glad that you admit that Ozy doesn't have the feats needed to beat Cap.
Originally posted by h1a8
Although fighting feats are feats of defending against attacks, fighting feats isn't the only thing needed to prove fighting ability. To assume so is faulty.I want to address something new.
Many say that Classic Mangog was indestructible to physical forces on the outside or people was giving him durability beyond what he has shown to tank. Why? Because of the suspension of disbelief.If a character hasn't shown any limits then should we put a limit on them?
If a character was only seen lifting 85tons then should we assume he/she can't lift more? If CA only fought hoodlums, yet was the same person as we know him to be, then does that make him any less skilled than he really is?With that said, of course you don't give a being who showed no limits an infinite limit. Either we don't argue said character or we choose a very reasonable suspension of disbelief limit for them. But one thing we don't do is assume their limit is equal to the highest they tanked when they never shown a limit.
It's not your job to speculate on the theoretically abilities of a character. If you want to make a case that a character can do something, you need to be able to prove it... if you can't, then that's all that maters. What a character has done is the only thing that of an relevance. Theorizing on hypothetical abilities that a character has never shown is a waste of time. Until a character shows the can do something, they can't. Why on earth should we arbitrarily decided that Ozy is a Captain America level threat even though he was never shown to be? How does that make sense to you? I can speculate on the theoretical abilities of Capatain America just as easy as you can Ozy... which makes such exploits pointless.
Ozy is a big fish in a small pound. He's the top fighter in a mid level promotion. He's Ben Askren. He might be the top guy at welter weight an undefeated fighter in Belator... but in the UFC he wouldn't even be close to top 10. In fact he'd probably be the equivalent of Charlie Brenneman who was just released from the organization because he can't compete on that level. The difference between what Captain America and Ozy have actually done is astronomical. You can speculate that Ozy was never pushed, and we never saw his limitations... but that is irrelevant. Nothing he actually did supports the notion that he would be on par with any top tier street in Marvel or DC.
Captain America is professional level. Ozy is AA.