Bane (Dark Knight) vs Batroc (MCU)

Originally posted by h1a8
How is it bad science to state a fact?

Grip strength ≠ lifting strength - that's a fact.

If I have a device that grips something for you, does that mean you'd suddenly be able to lift significantly more weight?

When considering only physical strength without devices:
- Do you actually believe grip strength equals lifting strength?
- If I give you someone's grip strength, could you reliably determine their lifting strength?

I'm into arm wrestling, and I can tell you that many elite arm wrestlers outperform powerlifters in grip strength when measured with specialized devices. Yet, those same arm wrestlers can't even lift half of what the powerlifters can.

It's bad because lifting strength can depend on grip strength as I noted, the two are connected.

Here even googling 'is lifting strength affected by gripe strength' nets you: "Yes, lifting strength is significantly affected by grip strength; a weak grip can limit the amount of weight you can lift, especially on compound exercises like deadlifts, rows, and pull-ups, as your hands may not be able to hold onto the bar securely, effectively making your grip the limiting factor in your lift"

Your science is flawed and silly and boxed in. Try to be less narrow minded. Thanks.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's bad because lifting strength can depend on grip strength as I noted, the two are connected.

Here even googling 'is lifting strength affected by gripe strength' nets you: "Yes, lifting strength is significantly affected by grip strength; a weak grip can limit the amount of weight you can lift, especially on compound exercises like deadlifts, rows, and pull-ups, as your hands may not be able to hold onto the bar securely, effectively making your grip the limiting factor in your lift"

Your science is flawed and silly and boxed in. Try to be less narrow minded. Thanks.

My comment about gripping strength =/= lifting strength was specifically about using devices to grip objects. It had no connection to gripping strength in the context of human muscle performance. DS claimed that Batman used a device to enhance his grip on the mercenaries, thereby significantly boosting his lifting strength.

If I have a device that grips something for you, does that mean you'd suddenly be able to lift significantly more weight?

Did you even read that?

When it comes to muscle grip strength (which is unrelated to the thread):
When I started playing baseball in high school, I only focused on forearm exercises like wrist curls, reverse wrist curls, and hand grips. I did this because my older brother told me that Hank Aaron hit so many home runs due to his large, powerful forearms. As a result, I developed an incredibly strong grip but was notably weak in bench press and overhead lifts. Teammates with weaker grips could bench press significantly more weight than I could. It wasn't until college, when I began full-body weight training, that I significantly improved my overall lifting strength.

Additionally, if you watch some of Larry Wheels' (famous power lifter that broke several records) older arm wrestling videos, you'll see him and other professional arm wrestlers using a device to test grip strength. Despite Larry being able to lift multiple times more weight than them, they had a stronger grip than he did.

Then you should have been more clear, as you wrote it, you claims that grip strength is not related to lifting strength when it comes to the body. Next time mean what you say and say what you mean 👆

As for devices that help grip something, it would depend on the device and the scenario. It likely could not. But it also could ease some burden and thereby allow someone to lift a bit more, but again, it really depends on the what/how of the object and specific muscle moments involved. Your flat out statement of "no" here is also faulty, as there's many factors in play where it could potentially be a yes.

Originally posted by h1a8
This is fiction. The only reality that exists is what the writer wants us to believe/know. Batman never actually fought the mercenaries offscreen because, in the end, he's an actor, and the director simply said, "Cut!" The writer clearly doesn't intend for us to believe that Batman used his long-range throwing darts to be used as a hand pokey tool to incapacitate the mercs and also fail to do the same to Bane because he simply "ran out." You're essentially inventing details that the writer clearly does not want us to believe.

Your imagined scenario isn't just unreasonable - it's downright asinine.

Catwoman knocking out the mercenaries with strikes are demonstrated feats for her . Those feats proves themselves. She has multiple instances throughout the film of taking down trained men with her strikes.

It's illogical to suggest that Batman was weaker than an average boxer when he effortlessly took out mercs with his strikes, lifted one with ease, and even punched through a motorcycle helmet, knocking out the wearer in the process.

You've lost this debate, and anyone reading can see that. At this point, you might as well change your argument yet again. And that's the issue - every time you shift your argument (because you lost that battle), it proves that you're arguing solely to win, not to uncover the truth. It also reinforces that I'm correct; otherwise, there'd be no need for you to keep altering your argument and moving the goalpost.

You assertion is that Bane would weather Batroc's strikes, as he weathered Batman's.

My counterpoint is that Batman was weak, and Bane weathering his strikes does not mean much as he was weak from 8 years of 0 practice (he didn't even go down to the Batcave). As shown from dialogue, and scenes where we are explicitly shown and told that he has zero cartilage etc in his shoulders.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
My argument never changed, though?

You assertion is that Bane would weather Batroc's strikes, as he weathered Batman's.

My counterpoint is that Batman was weak, and Bane weathering his strikes does not mean much as he was weak from 8 years of 0 practice (he didn't even go down to the Batcave). As shown from dialogue, and scenes where we are explicitly shown and told that he has zero cartilage etc in his shoulders.

"Weak" is a relative and subjective term.

To Bane, any human is weak, as he is clearly superhuman. I never claimed Batman was superhuman, though I did mention an early scene in the film where he demonstrated a superhuman-level punching feat.

Batman had no trouble knocking out trained mercenaries with his punches and strikes. When it comes to human-level strength or even the strength of an average boxer, he is far from weak. You’re clearly not debating in good faith.

On the other hand, "weaker" is a objective term.

Originally posted by h1a8
"Weak" is a relative and subjective term.

To Bane, any human is weak, as he is clearly superhuman. I never claimed Batman was superhuman, though I did mention an early scene in the film where he demonstrated a superhuman-level punching feat.

Batman had no trouble knocking out trained mercenaries with his punches and strikes. When it comes to human-level strength or even the strength of an average boxer, he is far from weak. You’re clearly not debating in good faith.

On the other hand, "weaker" is a objective term.

With no cartilage etc in his shoulders, and having to walk with a cane as shown in the movie, it is clear he is weak, and weaker. Writer intent, clearly shown. HOW those mercs were knocked out, can be easily explained away by Batman's use of powerful sedatives, whether it be on darts or other means.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
With no cartilage etc in his shoulders, and having to walk with a cane as shown in the movie, it is clear he is weak, and weaker. Writer intent, clearly shown. HOW those mercs were knocked out, can be easily explained away by Batman's use of powerful sedatives, whether it be on darts or other means.

Weak people don't have superhuman level punching feats, nor are they shown to one shot trained Mercs while on the roof with Catwoman. I bet you ignore this and only argue what I state below. Let's see.

Lmao at you still making things up as if these were real-life events. Batman is shown grabbing the mercs, and then the director calls cut.

It's unreasonable to assume the writer wants us to believe Batman used his throwing darts to poke them in close quarters, especially when he's consistently shown to brawl with opponents in close combat scenarios.

How has this thread made it to five pages? Batroc the vibranium shield blocker stomps.

Originally posted by h1a8
Weak people don't have superhuman level punching feats, nor are they shown to one shot trained Mercs while on the roof with Catwoman. I bet you ignore this and only argue what I state below. Let's see.

Lmao at you still making things up as if these were real-life events. Batman is shown grabbing the mercs, and then the director calls cut.

It's unreasonable to assume the writer wants us to believe Batman used his throwing darts to poke them in close quarters, especially when he's consistently shown to brawl with opponents in close combat scenarios.

But he doesn't brawl like an ordinary brawler (writer intent, as helpfully shown by you). He uses other means in his fights - sometimes he uses smoke, sometimes he uses sedatives, etc.

The fight can be explained away as PIS. I ignore it, because as you said, Catwoman is also there one-shotting the same mercs. How durable are they? How strong is she?

You might then argue 'oh, writer intent is that they are normal well-trained men, we don't see anything different about them', but we also see a woman with no other strength feats one-shotting them. It becomes circular, hence me ignoring it as it doesn't matter.

My original point which you keep ignoring, however, is that your only feat for Bane's durability is that he took Batman's punches. Whilst he casually says 'Peace has cost you your strength'. He is weaker, yes, but also weak. How much weaker, nowyou are speculating and making stuff up.

In short, that scene isn't great to showcase Bane's durability. Do you not have...well, anything else?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But he doesn't brawl like an ordinary brawler (writer intent, as helpfully shown by you). He uses other means in his fights - sometimes he uses smoke, sometimes he uses sedatives, etc.

The fight can be explained away as PIS. I ignore it, because as you said, Catwoman is also there one-shotting the same mercs. How durable are they? How strong is she?

You might then argue 'oh, writer intent is that they are normal well-trained men, we don't see anything different about them', but we also see a woman with no other strength feats one-shotting them. It becomes circular, hence me ignoring it as it doesn't matter.

My original point which you keep ignoring, however, is that your only feat for Bane's durability is that he took Batman's punches. Whilst he casually says 'Peace has cost you your strength'. He is weaker, yes, but also weak. How much weaker, nowyou are speculating and making stuff up.

In short, that scene isn't great to showcase Bane's durability. Do you not have...well, anything else?

Concession accepted. I win
You didn't address anything I said. You basically ignored everything.

Because I ignore irrelevant attempts to move me onto circular tangents? Blatant attempts to distract me? Uhuh.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Because I ignore irrelevant attempts to move me onto circular tangents? Blatant attempts to distract me? Uhuh.

Well you lose the debate then.

Originally posted by h1a8
Well you lose the debate then.

Distractions and irrelevance which is essentially trolling? Ok.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Because I ignore your attempts at distraction and irrelevance, which you implicitly admit to with this post?

Distractions and irrelevance which is essentially trolling? Ok.

This is a debate - ignoring evidence is a form of trolling.
If you believe the evidence is irrelevant, it's on you to explain why.
I could dismiss everything you say, even valid arguments, as irrelevant and ignore it - but that would obviously be trolling, wouldn't it?

Therefore, I win the debate since you have yet to provide a valid rebuttal to my evidence.