Strength equalized battle

Originally posted by h1a8
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?

Liking pineapple is a horrible comparison, because nothing about liking a pineapple is competitive the way a fight is competitive. You like or dislike food based on your opinion and preference. A fight is not decided by opinion.

But sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your interest is genuine.

Who you fight and how well you fight are both always taken into consideration. And I need to emphasize that "how well you fought" is not necessarily the same thing as "how visually impressive you move".

"How well you fought" implies that you are being judged by your performance IN a fight, whereas "how visually impressive you look" can be done in or out of a fight, can be done while you're doing solo drills, or can even be done when you're going through a choreographed scene with a partner.

Whether in fiction or in real life, a person's skill is most highly evaluated based on how they perform in a fight (which again is obviously going to be measured against the skill of their opponent).

But in the absence of any fight feats to pull from, if we're talking about a person who has zero actual fighting footage to look at, that's the only time that we start judging based on visual impressiveness. How graceful they are, how sharp their blows are, how fast they move, how big they are, how muscular they are, etc.

But again, that's only as a last resort. Any time a person has actual fight feats to judge from then that takes precedence over simple visual aesthetics.

Originally posted by Silent Master

Why did you edit out half his argument?

Because it is irrelevant to the question of why WHO the character fought is important.

If i asked you why do you value Susan as a worker.
You tell me because she is hard working and she is fast.
I then ask you why is being hardworking relevant.
You then act like a retard and say, "Why are you separating what I said? I said because she is hard working and fast."

Maybe I should have asked, "why isn't it enough by itself to go by how well they did in a fight? Why does who the fought also important too"?
Maybe with your limited comprehension that would make you understand better?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Liking pineapple is a horrible comparison, because nothing about liking a pineapple is competitive the way a fight is competitive. You like or dislike food based on your opinion and preference. A fight is not decided by opinion.

But sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your interest is genuine.

Who you fight and how well you fight are both always taken into consideration. And I need to emphasize that "how well you fought" is not necessarily the same thing as "how visually impressive you move".

"How well you fought" implies that you are being judged by your performance IN a fight, whereas "how visually impressive you look" can be done in or out of a fight, can be done while you're doing solo drills, or can even be done when you're going through a choreographed scene with a partner.

Whether in fiction or in real life, a person's skill is most highly evaluated based on how they perform in a fight (which again is obviously going to be measured against the skill of their opponent).

But in the absence of any fight feats to pull from, if we're talking about a person who has zero actual fighting footage to look at, that's the only time that we start judging based on visual impressiveness. How graceful they are, how sharp their blows are, how fast they move, how big they are, how muscular they are, etc.

But again, that's only as a last resort. Any time a person has actual fight feats to judge from then that takes precedence over simple visual aesthetics.

You still do not understand. I'm asking why is the first metric relevant. Why can't we just use the 2nd metric by itself?

Why does the who matter when we have no way of determining their skill (since visually is not allowed)?

And you are discrediting an expert in determining skill by watching a fight. It's not fancy moves (you are strawmanning me). It's about REACTIONS, and EFFECTIVE technique applied in real time. It's about THE skillful effective movements made IN REAL TIME. It's very complicated.
An expert can judge more accurately than a fan.

The reason I know how skilled Loki is because I watch how he responds to a quick attack and maneuvers to defend and counter.
The speed and efficiency of the attacks against Loki is crucial.
That will determine if Loki can react and defend against a character who attacks with similar or lesser speeds and with similar or lesser efficiency of attack

Are you being purposely retarded?

Originally posted by h1a8
You still do not understand. I'm asking why is the first metric relevant. Why can't we just use the 2nd metric by itself?

Why does the who matter when we have no way of determining their skill (since visually is not allowed)?

And you are discrediting an expert in determining skill by watching a fight. It's not fancy moves (you are strawmanning me). It's about REACTIONS, and EFFECTIVE technique applied in real time. It's about THE skillful effective movements made IN REAL TIME. It's very complicated.
An expert can judge more accurately than a fan.

The reason I know how skilled Loki is because I watch how he responds to a quick attack and maneuvers to defend and counter.
The speed and efficiency of the attacks against Loki is crucial.
That will determine if Loki can react and defend against a character who attacks with similar or lesser speeds and with similar or lesser efficiency of attack

Why does the who matter? Because in the end, fighting skill is not determined by how visually impressive a person moves but how efficiently they're able to defeat their opponent in combat. And how efficiently they can defeat their opponent in combat is directly affected by how difficult their opponent is.

So obviously who they defeat is extremely important as it's much harder to look impressive when a skilled fighter is trying to take your head off as compared to you simply performing the moves on your own or against an easy opponent.

Just because I can easily knock out the average joe with my spinning heel kick doesn't mean I can do the same move if Brock Lesnar was trying to tackle me.

The 'who' is important because the more difficult your opponent is, the harder it becomes to look impressive.

This is pretty much common sense, not sure why I even need to explain it to you.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Why does the who matter? Because in the end, fighting skill is not determined by how visually impressive a person moves but how efficiently they're able to defeat their opponent in combat. And how efficiently they can defeat their opponent in combat is directly affected by how difficult their opponent is.

So obviously who they defeat is extremely important as it's much harder to look impressive when a skilled fighter is trying to take your head off as compared to you simply performing the moves on your own or against an easy opponent.

Just because I can easily knock out the average joe with my spinning heel kick doesn't mean I can do the same move if Brock Lesnar was trying to tackle me.

The 'who' is important because the more difficult your opponent is, the harder it becomes to look impressive.

This is pretty much common sense, not sure why I even need to explain it to you.

You keep arguing with an imaginary argument. Who cares about pretty looking attacks? I'm talking about DEFENDING against fast attacks. A Kung fu master can strike fast but they will get knocked out against a professional mma fighter because they can't properly defend against their attacks.

^
Says the guy that claimed baleman and bane were both faster and skilled than there were shown to be in the movies

Originally posted by Silent Master
^
Says the guy that claimed baleman and bane were both faster and skilled than there were shown to be in the movies

So if we are going with visual. What are you basing Batman being more skilled than Cap on. You're obviously not going to claim that those random thugs Batman fought threw faster attacks than everyone Cap fought in all of his movies, right?

Originally posted by h1a8
But how do you know an opponent is difficult or skillful? That's my point. How do you gauge the difficulty of an opponent before a character fights them? You are using circular reasoning.

You keep arguing with an imaginary argument. Who cares about pretty looking attacks? I'm talking about DEFENDING against fast attacks. A Kung fu master can strike fast but they will get knocked out against a professional mma fighter because they can't properly defend against their attacks.

It's not circular reasoning, it's recursive. You find out how good their opponent is based on who that opponent has defeated and how well they performed. Then you gauge those other opponents based on who they fought and how they performed. You keep doing this till you get to the end where you have a fighter who has zero feats whatsoever, at which point you judge them on how impressive they are visually combined with whatever other verifiable data you can find on them.

Like I said, recursive.

Originally posted by FrothByte
It's not circular reasoning, it's recursive. You find out how good their opponent is based on who that opponent has defeated and how well they performed. Then you gauge those other opponents based on who they fought and how they performed. You keep doing this till you get to the end where you have a fighter who has zero feats whatsoever, at which point you judge them on how impressive they are visually combined with whatever other verifiable data you can find on them.

Like I said, recursive.

Thank you Froth.
You finally answered the question perfectly.
I agree with you 100%.
Now was that so hard?

Originally posted by Silent Master
So if we are going with visual. What are you basing Batman being more skilled than Cap on. You're obviously not going to claim that those random thugs Batman fought threw faster attacks than everyone Cap fought in all of his movies, right?

It's very complicated. If I dissect the warehouse scene slowly I can explain exactly why. The attacks against Batman were not faster than the ones against Cap. Batman just showed skill in defending against simultaneous attacks and did some nice countering and coordinated movements. But it's close. Can go either way. What takes away from Cap's skill imo is his extra strength and durability.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thank you Froth.
You finally answered the question perfectly.
I agree with you 100%.
Now was that so hard?

Wouldn't have been so hard if you didn't seem like you were cherry picking points from my main response and if it didn't feel like you had ulterior motives.

Still, if you had genuine intentions then I apologize.

But yeah, Batman is still far less skilled than Cap based on my criteria.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's very complicated. If I dissect the warehouse scene slowly I can explain exactly why. The attacks against Batman were not faster than the ones against Cap. Batman just showed skill in defending against simultaneous attacks and did some nice countering and coordinated movements. But it's close. Can go either way. What takes away from Cap's skill imo is his extra strength and durability.

Kind of like how Batman was stronger than the thugs and his armor made him far more durable.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Kind of like how Batman was stronger than the thugs and his armor made him far more durable.

I took that into consideration.
I basically focused more on the defending of simultaneous attacks and the maneuvers that made the thugs attack each other.
Like I said, can go either way. Both are comparable.

If the fight "can go either way" and "Both are comparable." why the multipage freakout over froth giving Cap the win?

Originally posted by Silent Master
If the fight "can go either way" and "Both are comparable." why the multipage freakout over froth giving Cap the win?

You are deluded. I was curious on how he was determining skill.

Why?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why?

Skill is hard to quantify. It's not like strength or speed or durability. So knowing how different people quantify it helps the science of quantifying it.

You'd be more believable if you didn't originally ignore half of his metric and then proceeded to try and refute a strawman version of his argument.