Originally posted by h1a8
Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?
You cut out the rest of what I said. I said we measure them by who they fought AND how well they fought.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm about as unsurprised about that as I am Frothbyte giving the Marvel character the win in every matchup. 👆
Not my fault that DC sucks at showcasing the skill of their characters.
Zod should have been skilled, and yet he lost to an untrained and inexperienced farmboy in what was pretty much a straight forward slugfest.
Faora looked skilled initially, but that was ruined by the fact that she also couldn't take out said untrained farmboy even when they fought him 2 on 1.
Superman gets plus points for defeating Zod and surviving a 2 on 1 attack on him, but his brawler tactics are far below what he'd need to win against Thor.
Wonder Woman looks skilled, yet the only decent opponent she ever defeated via her skill is Luddendorf. Ares she defeated via plot armor and Doomsday and Steppenwolf she defeated with the assistance of others. Heck, Steppenwolf actually has some of the best skill feats in the DCEU by fighting Aquaman and Wonder Woman at the same time.
Batman looks skilled yet only ever beats up on fodder.
Katana beat up putties.
Namek and Doomsday are pure brawlers.
Black Manta is pretty decent, just that he didn't have enough feats to convince me he could defeat Tony's AI. If we take out the AI then I'll pick Manta for the win.
Aquaman actually has showcased the most skill of everyone in the DCEU list, which is why I think it will be a close fight against Loki. I gave Loki the edge due to Loki having more feats, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
I'm not averse to giving DCEU characters the win, but these match-ups are just stacked against them. Now if match ups went something like:
Mera vs. Sif
Batman vs. Hawkeye
or even Steppenwolf vs. Thanos then I would have given the wins to the DCEU characters.
Originally posted by FrothByte
You cut out the rest of what I said. I said we measure them by who they fought AND how well they fought.
"AND" implies who they fought counts and that how they fought isn't enough by itself.
Since who they fight counts in the equation the how do you determine the quality of the original character (who hasn't fought anyone before) on which the pyramid is built?
Skill should be measured in what we visually see and not who a character has fought.
Why? Because we can't measure the skill of the character they fought without visual analysis of their skill as well. Why is Loki very skilled? Because he appeared to be (his technique and responses) or because of someone he fought that was skilled?
If the latter then why is that character skilled? I can go on and on. The argument MUST start with visual skill.
To accurately gauge skill we must analyze the fights. For example, A visually fast, non telegraphed, punch was thrown at a character. The character reacted and smoothly parried the punch while counter attacking with an attack that was very quick, smooth, skillful, and powerful.
Basically, how well a character can defend (reaction speed and technique). How well a character can attack (speed, quickness, power, and target area).
Many dogged Baleman in lack of skill because the trained swat officers fought like slow idiots. That implied we rely on the visual and not the WHO. The WHO is irrelevant even in real life. I seen a lot of Rock Paper Scissors scenarios between 3 fighters (abc logic was wrong).
Proof
Originally posted by FrothByte
By the exact same metric: by who they fought and by how well the fought.
Originally posted by FrothByte[/B][/QUOTE]
By the exact same metric: by who they fought
[QUOTE=17336213]Originally posted by h1a8
[B]Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?
You purposely edited his post to remove half of his argument.
Originally posted by h1a8
"AND" implies who they fought counts and that how they fought isn't enough by itself.Since who they fight counts in the equation the how do you determine the quality of the original character (who hasn't fought anyone before) on which the pyramid is built?
"AND" implies that both metrics should be taken into account. You can't just have one or the other.
You did ask for my opinion after all, and I'm giving it.
Now what I'm wondering about is, why are you only focusing on one of the factors I mentioned?
If you think only one of them is important then you're more than free to voice your own opinion. But you asked me for mine and we're not going to move forward with this discussion until you acknowledge the entirety of my answer.
Originally posted by FrothByte
"AND" implies that both metrics should be taken into account. You can't just have one or the other.You did ask for my opinion after all, and I'm giving it.
Now what I'm wondering about is, why are you only focusing on one of the factors I mentioned?
If you think only one of them is important then you're more than free to voice your own opinion. But you asked me for mine and we're not going to move forward with this discussion until you acknowledge the entirety of my answer.
So you have to be stupid with Silent?
I know BOTH are taken into account. I'm asking about the who a character fought metric though. Why does that metric even matter if you can't really gauge their skill without the visual?
If you ask me why do I like pineapple. And I say "because it's yellow and taste good". You then ask "why does yellow affect your decision"?
I then act retarded and say "I said it has to be both yellow and taste good."
Did I answer the question or act slow?
Originally posted by FrothByte[/B][/QUOTE]
By the exact same metric: by who they fought
[QUOTE=17336213]Originally posted by h1a8
[B]Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?
Originally posted by FrothByte
By the exact same metric: by who they fought and by how well they fought.
Why did you edit out half his argument?
Originally posted by h1a8
You mean the character who Jet Li plays, not the actual actor.
Note: The character who JetLi plays will stomp Jet Li with absolute ease
No, I mean the actor. Because if you watch Jet Li perform moves in a demo, he pulls off way more complicated moves in much faster fashion than Khabib could ever replicate.
So even though Jet Li has never defeated anyone in a fight or match and Khabib is undefeated, using your logic we would conclude that Jet Li would completely stomp Khabib in a fight.
Originally posted by FrothByte
No, I mean the actor. Because if you watch Jet Li perform moves in a demo, he pulls off way more complicated moves in much faster fashion than Khabib could ever replicate.So even though Jet Li has never defeated anyone in a fight or match and Khabib is undefeated, using your logic we would conclude that Jet Li would completely stomp Khabib in a fight.
The actor will get stomped by the character. The actor =/= character for obvious reasons.
1. Character is far stronger
2. Character is faster (camera is sped up)
3. Character is more durable
4. Character reacts to attacks that the actor couldn't
5. Character is more mobile and agile (wires, stuntmen, etc)
Fighting is responding to attacks and using techniques IN REAL TIME to deal with them.
Originally posted by h1a8
The actor will get stomped by the character. The actor =/= character for obvious reasons.1. Character is far stronger
2. Character is faster (camera is sped up)
3. Character is more durable
4. Character reacts to attacks that the actor couldn't
5. Character is more mobile and agile (wires, stuntmen, etc)Fighting is responding to attacks and using techniques IN REAL TIME to deal with them.
What are you talking about? he is talking about Jet Li the actor and Khabib the fighter, he isn't talking about a movie character.
Try and address his actual argument and not your strawman.