Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who wins? No weapons.

Probably Bane.

Batroc. He's much faster and has showcased more skill than Bane and is strong enough to give Cap somewhat of a fight when he's not going full bore.

Batroc won't be able to hurt Bane unless he discovers his weakness.

Bane has no sold haymakers from Batman and can one-shot Batroc, given his ability to punch through stone columns.

Originally posted by h1a8
Batroc won't be able to hurt Bane unless he discovers his weakness.

Bane has no sold haymakers from Batman and can one-shot Batroc, given his ability to punch through stone columns.

Cap didn't one-shot Batroc and he has feats that put Bane to shame in his sleep. Like throwing Ultron through a highway column. And he doesn't need to hurt Bane to knock him out. All he has to do is rattle his brain which he is more than capable of. Considering Batroc has stopped Falcon from taking off against his jets and kicked him out of flight, he's more than strong enough to effect Bane.

Taking Sam down midflight and taking a shot from the shield to his forearms >>>Anything Bane did

Batroc oneshots Bane

Originally posted by KingD19
Cap didn't one-shot Batroc and he has feats that put Bane to shame in his sleep. Like throwing Ultron through a highway column. And he doesn't need to hurt Bane to knock him out. All he has to do is rattle his brain which he is more than capable of. Considering Batroc has stopped Falcon from taking off against his jets and kicked him out of flight, he's more than strong enough to effect Bane.

That means he hit Batroc with less than lethal force.
The same as when he struck many humans in his first movie and all his other movies.

Not every strike Captain America lands is superhuman. The plot often requires his strikes to be at human levels when he fights other humans.

Lol, I disproved the Ultron feat years ago - you just have a bad memory.
Also, you can't reference and scale a character's highest feats to another unrelated situation, especially when that character has contradictory lower showings.

As for Batroc stopping Falcon's flight in the first second - that's a human-level feat. I could do that. Falcon only achieves significant acceleration after being in the air for a few seconds. Even then, the stopping force is simply Falcon's mass multiplied by his acceleration, which is easily within the limits of real human strength.

Batroc.

Originally posted by h1a8

As for Batroc stopping Falcon's flight in the first second - that's a human-level feat. I could do that.

This is all anybody needs to read before even having an inkling of entertaining this guy any further.

Originally posted by tkitna
This is all anybody needs to read before even having an inkling of entertaining this guy any further.

Learn the basics of physics.
Force = mass * acceleration.

If the initial acceleration is approximately equal to g = 32ft/s, then stopping Falcon from taking off would be equivalent to lifting his weight.

Just eyeballing the scene, it's clear to any reasonable person that it doesn't require superhuman strength to accomplish.

Originally posted by tkitna
This is all anybody needs to read before even having an inkling of entertaining this guy any further.

You just gotta do the math right.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
You just gotta do the math right.



I've double and triple checked and the math checks out right.

Answer = H1 duplicating anything in any movie or film regardless of superhuman strength or normal human abilities is FALSE

Originally posted by h1a8
Batroc won't be able to hurt Bane unless he discovers his weakness.

Bane has no sold haymakers from Batman and can one-shot Batroc, given his ability to punch through stone columns.

When did he no-sell haymakers from Batman?

In the underground fight where he beat him up.

Prove it. Math yourself up a little rocket pack and then post a video of you performing some of Batrocs kicks and Falcons feats. I would love to see that.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
In the underground fight where he beat him up.

Prove it. Math yourself up a little rocket pack and then post a video of you performing some of Batrocs kicks and Falcons feats. I would love to see that.

Yeah, when Batman had just come back from 8 years of no Batmanning and was weaker.....

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
When did he no-sell haymakers from Batman?

His head moved but he didn't experience any damage or pause.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
In the underground fight where he beat him up.

Prove it. Math yourself up a little rocket pack and then post a video of you performing some of Batrocs kicks and Falcons feats. I would love to see that.

Force = mass x acceleration
Just estimate the initial acceleration from the scenes.

From what I remember, the initial take off acceleration is small.

Originally posted by h1a8
His head moved but he didn't experience any damage or pause.

Which scene?

Originally posted by h1a8
That means he hit Batroc with less than lethal force.
The same as when he struck many humans in his first movie and all his other movies.

Not every strike Captain America lands is superhuman. The plot often requires his strikes to be at human levels when he fights other humans.

Lol, I disproved the Ultron feat years ago - you just have a bad memory.
Also, you can't reference and scale a character's highest feats to another unrelated situation, especially when that character has contradictory lower showings.

As for Batroc stopping Falcon's flight in the first second - that's a human-level feat. I could do that. Falcon only achieves significant acceleration after being in the air for a few seconds. Even then, the stopping force is simply Falcon's mass multiplied by his acceleration, which is easily within the limits of real human strength.

Pfft, I could one-shot Thanos, kiddo.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which scene?

In Batman's first fight against Bane, he lands multiple haymakers, yet they cause no damage or even a slight stun effect.

Honestly, even if Batroc can cause some pause in Bane, Bane's insane damage soak will still allow him to overwhelm and dominate Batroc.

Originally posted by tkitna


I've double and triple checked and the math checks out right.

Answer = H1 duplicating anything in any movie or film regardless of superhuman strength or normal human abilities is FALSE

H1 has literally no understanding of human biomechanics. He doesn't understand how strength or anything related to athleticism works. He was probably one of those kids that were permanently benched in PE.

Originally posted by h1a8
In Batman's first fight against Bane, he lands multiple haymakers, yet they cause no damage or even a slight stun effect.

Honestly, even if Batroc can cause some pause in Bane, Bane's insane damage soak will still allow him to overwhelm and dominate Batroc.

Batman was weak after 8 years of being a shut in and having zero practice.

Originally posted by Psychotron
H1 has literally no understanding of human biomechanics. He doesn't understand how strength or anything related to athleticism works. He was probably one of those kids that were permanently benched in PE.

He teaches a Strength class. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
He teaches a Strength class. What are you talking about?

Sure, sure.

Batroc would give him a close fight and still win after Winter Soldier, but with the aforementioned Falcon and Winter Soldier feats, Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg Lefou Batroc annihilates Hardy Bane.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Batman was weak after 8 years of being a shut in and having zero practice.
Proof that he's physically weaker in striking? And to what extent?

This is fiction - the only thing that exists is what the writer wants us to believe.

That said, I can still throw a haymaker just as hard as I did when I practiced martial arts and boxing years ago. If there's any difference, it's negligible.

Originally posted by Psychotron
H1 has literally no understanding of human biomechanics. He doesn't understand how strength or anything related to athleticism works. He was probably one of those kids that were permanently benched in PE. Go ahead, teach me a lesson since you know so much about it.

And while you're at it, explain how anything Batroc did surpasses busting a stone column with fists or punching Batman in his bulletproof cowl and flash koing him.

Originally posted by h1a8
Proof that he's physically weaker in striking? And to what extent?

This is fiction - the only thing that exists is what the writer wants us to believe.

That said, I can still throw a haymaker just as hard as I did when I practiced martial arts and boxing years ago. If there's any difference, it's negligible.

Bane himself said: peace has made you weak, directly after catching his fist in his hand

Writer intent from the script showed Bruce as being gaunt and grey haired.

Edit: the quote is 'Peace has cost you your strength, Victory has defeated you' whilst he's holding Batman's fists.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
rQA1LdVs1Y4

with subtitles.

The fighting like a younger man part, is due to him running in and whaling away, no tactics or finesse. Bane even says this is a mistake.

Without any proof, we cannot attribute special attributes if not shown. The first fight with Batman isn't a showcase for Bane's durability, as Batman is weak through years of neglect (which is a central theme in the Dark Knight Rises).

Prime Batman, however, is superhuman, which qualifies as a special attribute. I never argued that Batman in that scene was superhuman.

Batman's punching power in that fight is comparable to an average middleweight professional boxer - that's the baseline, not a special attribute.

And if you don't buy that (which is highly unreasonable) then even a normal professional middleweight boxer retired for 10 years can knock out an average adult male with a single haymaker.

Downplay the feat all you want - it's still a superhuman durability feat - withstanding multiple haymakers from someone of that caliber without any damage or even being stunned.

I haven't trained in martial arts or boxing in over a decade, yet I've knocked someone out cold (that was heavier than me) while working on the job.

Originally posted by h1a8
Prime Batman, however, is superhuman, which qualifies as a special attribute. I never argued that Batman in that scene was superhuman.

Batman's punching power in that fight is comparable to an average middleweight professional boxer - that's the baseline, not a special attribute.

And if you don't buy that (which is highly unreasonable) then even a normal professional middleweight boxer retired for 10 years can knock out an average adult male with a single haymaker.

Downplay the feat all you want - it's still a superhuman durability feat - withstanding multiple haymakers from someone of that caliber without any damage or even being stunned.

I haven't trained in martial arts or boxing in over a decade, yet I've knocked someone out cold (that was heavier than me) while working on the job.

I call BS on you being able to KO anyone whilst moving and wearing all that gear, having not trained for a decade, after taking out random mooks and sneaking about. Batman would have been gassed, nowhere near his prime. Of course, being a trianed martial artist, you know the importance of cardio and pacing yourself - which Batman had just gone through multiple rounds by that time.

His haymakers would have been ineffective. As shown. It is not unreasonable for me to say that a gaunt, grey Batman who has not been training/fighting for 8 years, who hadn't even put on the suit (which would be heavy) for 8 years, having just gone through multiple mooks, would be in any shape to deliver 'average middleweight pro boxer' level punches.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I call BS on you being able to KO anyone whilst moving and wearing all that gear, having not trained for a decade, after taking out random mooks and sneaking about. Batman would have been gassed, nowhere near his prime. Of course, being a trianed martial artist, you know the importance of cardio and pacing yourself - which Batman had just gone through multiple rounds by that time.

His haymakers would have been ineffective. As shown. It is not unreasonable for me to say that a gaunt, grey Batman who has not been training/fighting for 8 years, who hadn't even put on the suit (which would be heavy) for 8 years, having just gone through multiple mooks, would be in any shape to deliver 'average middleweight pro boxer' level punches.

The suit doesn't significantly reduce the force of a haymaker.

Plus, he lasted a while, threw numerous attacks, and absorbed a lot of punishment. His cardio was clearly above the average adult male, especially while wearing the suit as you mentioned. And cardio or pacing has nothing to do with the first few haymakers.

You'd lose a lot of money betting that if I wore the Batsuit and got a free haymaker on someone, I wouldn't be able to knock them out.

Again, I never quantified the feat. So what exactly are you arguing? I'm saying it's a superhuman durability feat.

I don't know about the catsuit but I have been laden down with armor and weapons before and moving fast or being super agile is just not happening.

I couldn't even imagine trying to fight someone in that thing. You would pass out within minutes lol.

At 27 in the Marines I ran a 17:30 3 mile and maxed out at 28 pull-ups and 184 crunches in 2 minutes.

After 4 years out of no training and trying it again both my pull-ups and crunches got cut in half and I ran like a 28:10

8 years of nothing at that age is simply gonna put your body at a huge disadvantage that would take years to come back from. And at that age you might never be able to get back in that shape.

Originally posted by h1a8
The suit doesn't significantly reduce the force of a haymaker.

Plus, he lasted a while, threw numerous attacks, and absorbed a lot of punishment. His cardio was clearly above the average adult male, especially while wearing the suit as you mentioned. And cardio or pacing has nothing to do with the first few haymakers.

You'd lose a lot of money betting that if I wore the Batsuit and got a free haymaker on someone, I wouldn't be able to knock them out.

Again, I never quantified the feat. So what exactly are you arguing? I'm saying it's a superhuman durability feat.

Those haymakers came AFTER he had been trekking through the sewers, taking care of random mooks. You're saying you can do all that, in a Batsuit with weapons etc, and still be able to throw KOing haymakers? Yeah, I call BS.

I'm saying it's NOT a superhuman durability feat. As Batman was way past his prime.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I call BS on you being able to KO anyone



The rest was not needed - he wouldn't read your post, anyway.

You need to invite carver for a threesome one day.

That bad, eh?

Regardless of all of this, Bane wins. Batroc had trouble even with the Falcon and Bane and Batman are both better than him.

Originally posted by tkitna
Regardless of all of this, Bane wins. Batroc had trouble even with the Falcon and Bane and Batman are both better than him.

Trouble? Batroc stomped him twice. Falcon ran away both times IIRC

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Common sense dictates that noone can - after 8 years of zero practice - wear a fully armoured suit laden with a cape and weaponry, sneak through a sewer, take out random mooks, and then fight at full capacity.

The writer chose to show us that Batman was weaker. Hence the written words in the script, 'Peace has cost you your strength'.

Common sense and writers intent show that tanking Batman's haymakers isn't as impressive as it was when Batman was in his prime.

Bottom line: Even if Batman is weaker than his superhuman prime self, that doesn't make him weaker than the average middleweight boxer.

Let's see - you ignored points 1, 2, and 3 below. Dismissing someone's argument while presenting your own isn't good debating; it's a form of trolling. Please address all three points. I've included the implied conclusions in case you missed them.

I didn't ignore them, I addressed them all.

Batman was weak, as shown when Bane casually caught both fists and told him - and us - to Batman's face, that he was weak.

Saying he is an average middleweight boxer level without any proof, is just wasting my time, tbh. Got proof? Then show it. Otherwise, I don't need to address random sentences.

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
Trouble? Batroc stomped him twice. Falcon ran away both times IIRC

I don't remember it that way, but its been awhile. I'll need to watch again.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I didn't ignore them, I addressed them all.

Batman was weak, as shown when Bane casually caught both fists and told him - and us - to Batman's face, that he was weak.

Saying he is an average middleweight boxer level without any proof, is just wasting my time, tbh. Got proof? Then show it. Otherwise, I don't need to address random sentences.

Weaker or weak? Weak compared to what - an average human male or his prime self? Batman at his peak is far superior to an average middleweight boxer. The average middleweight boxer represents the lower bound for this version of Batman, and it doesn't need to be proven that he meets or exceeds that level.

Additionally, he had no trouble effortlessly knocking out trained mercenaries before the Bane fight. The idea that "Batman is weaker than an average middleweight boxer" is an absurd and unfounded assumption.

Originally posted by h1a8
Go ahead, teach me a lesson since you know so much about it.

And while you're at it, explain how anything Batroc did surpasses busting a stone column with fists or punching Batman in his bulletproof cowl and flash koing him.

There's nothing to argue - you're simply trolling. No one with an IQ above 75 thinks the 190lbs Bane is capable of stopping Falcon from taking off.

Breaking concrete is his one decent feat. He still got his ass whipped by a Batman that had literally no cartilage left in his knees, had been in one fight in the last 8 years, and had just recently suffered a broken back.

Originally posted by h1a8
Weaker or weak? Weak compared to what - an average human male or his prime self? Batman at his peak is far superior to an average middleweight boxer. The average middleweight boxer represents the lower bound for this version of Batman, and it doesn't need to be proven that he meets or exceeds that level.

Additionally, he had no trouble effortlessly knocking out trained mercenaries before the Bane fight. The idea that "Batman is weaker than an average middleweight boxer" is an absurd and unfounded assumption.

He didn't take the mercs on in direct combat. He snuck around and used stealth. So inapplicable as a showing if his strength.

You are just throwing out random lower bounds, tbh, hence my ignoring of them. Prove that this version of Batman is average middleweight boxer level.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He didn't take the mercs on in direct combat. He snuck around and used stealth. So inapplicable as a showing if his strength.

You are just throwing out random lower bounds, tbh, hence my ignoring of them. Prove that this version of Batman is average middleweight boxer level.

Knocking out multiple trained mercenaries with relative ease strongly suggests Batman was at least as strong as the average middleweight boxer. The idea that he accomplished this while being physically weaker than one is highly unreasonable - bordering on asinine.

Furthermore, while stealth played a role, it doesn't diminish the fact that his strikes incapacitated armed and trained combatants, who were likely conditioned to withstand blows. Batman - who was still active enough to take on multiple opponents - would have to be in a comparable range to a middle weight boxer to achieve similar results. If he were significantly weaker than a trained boxer, his strikes wouldn't have had the stopping power to drop multiple mercenaries as quickly as he did.

Even in his deteriorated state, Batman wasn't some frail, incapable fighter. He still demonstrated agility by evading machine gun fire, precision in his attacks, and enough strength to neutralize enemies effortlessly - lifting one as if he weighed nothing. The argument that he was weaker than a middleweight boxer contradicts the very feats he performed leading up to the Bane fight.

Once again, as someone pointed out, you're arguing like a lawyer trying to win a case at any cost rather than a philosopher seeking to uncover the truth.

Originally posted by h1a8
Knocking out multiple trained mercenaries with relative ease strongly suggests Batman was at least as strong as the average middleweight boxer. The idea that he accomplished this while being physically weaker than one is highly unreasonable - bordering on asinine.

Furthermore, while stealth played a role, it doesn't diminish the fact that his strikes incapacitated armed and trained combatants, who were likely conditioned to withstand blows. Batman - who was still active enough to take on multiple opponents - would have to be in a comparable range to a middle weight boxer to achieve similar results. If he were significantly weaker than a trained boxer, his strikes wouldn't have had the stopping power to drop multiple mercenaries as quickly as he did.

Even in his deteriorated state, Batman wasn't some frail, incapable fighter. He still demonstrated agility by evading machine gun fire, precision in his attacks, and enough strength to neutralize enemies effortlessly - lifting one as if he weighed nothing. The argument that he was weaker than a middleweight boxer contradicts the very feats he performed leading up to the Bane fight.

Once again, as someone pointed out, you're arguing like a lawyer trying to win a case at any cost rather than a philosopher seeking to uncover the truth.

Which he could have achieved with any manner of gadgets or tricks. Whilst he was quite agile, it says nothing about his strength.

Parroting others' arguments? How low you have fallen, to do what you accuse others of doing. Tsk tsk.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which he could have achieved with any manner of gadgets or tricks. Whilst he was quite agile, it says nothing about his strength.

Parroting others' arguments? How low you have fallen, to do what you accuse others of doing. Tsk tsk. You totally ignored the 2 actual strength feats I gave, one being an actual superhuman punching feat.

Baleman uses his hands and feet to knock out individuals. That's his style. He was never shown using a gadget to knock someone out or even possessing one capable of doing so. You are simply making stuff up at this point.

Parroting whose argument?

I'm confused. H1 is championing Bane for tanking haymakers from a decade out of practice, cartilage-less, no spine having Batman. Yet Batroc doing damage(even if slight) and being tough enough to take an extended beating from Cap means nothing because according to h1 he was holding back because Batroc was a normal human. Even though we've seen him do stuff like this to normal humans all the time. If those men aren't dead, they are in critical condition and will never be the same.

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11134/111345556/6369725-cap-kicks.gif
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7d0d0fd28f960a8204a49c47de6b2e80
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11114/111143885/4782573-strength%202.gif
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11114/111143885/4782587-strength%203.gif
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11113/111131285/5566959-gif.gif

Not sure why he'd hold back against a murderous pirate with hostages when he's done so much worse to random mook soldiers. In fact, Batroc held up against his initial assault and fought back well enough that Cap tackled him 20ft through a steel door then bounced his head off of the door while he was on the ground to KO him.

Originally posted by h1a8
You totally ignored the 2 actual strength feats I gave, one being an actual superhuman punching feat.

Baleman uses his hands and feet to knock out individuals. That's his style. He was never shown using a gadget to knock someone out or even possessing one capable of doing so. You are simply making stuff up at this point.

Parroting whose argument?

Oof. Making stuff up? NEver shown to have such a gadget?

https://v.redd.it/y5xu77md9blb1

Here he is using bat-darts to send his opponents to sleep:

lDdX6meXcY4?t=66

Go to the 1:10 mark. And maybe come back to this thread when you have watched the movie? And you can post your apology here, too.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Oof. Making stuff up? NEver shown to have such a gadget?

https://v.redd.it/y5xu77md9blb1

Here he is using bat-darts to send his opponents to sleep:

lDdX6meXcY4?t=66

Go to the 1:10 mark. And maybe come back to this thread when you have watched the movie? And you can post your apology here, too.


Having his mask electrocute anyone attempting to remove it is not only irrelevant to the mercenary scene in question, but there is also no proof that it knocked the guy out.

I don't consider throwing darts to be gadgets; I define a gadget as a mechanical or electrical device. Regardless, he clearly didn't throw darts in that mercenary scene.

Batman only has the gadgets or items we've seen him use.
Attempting to correct a statement without actually addressing the heart of an argument is just nitpicking.

That said, you ignored the fact that I provided two superhuman strength feats for Batman in the film before his fight with Bane. So the mercenary debate is irrelevant.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which he could have achieved with any manner of gadgets or tricks.

Sounds like you are just nitpicking.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Sounds like you are just nitpicking.
Obviously, I missed the word 'tricks,' which was clear in my first reply since I only mentioned gadgets. You could have corrected it right after, but you didn't.

I can easily argue that Batman relied solely on his physical strength and skill in that scene without using any gadgets or tricks to directly ko them, but I've already proven that the mercenary argument is moot given the other evidence. Your lack of response means you concede the point, yet you'd rather argue an irrelevant detail just to save face.

The only one you have, is him lifting the mercenary. Him removing the other mercenaries cannot be proved either way to be with strength or with sedatives, so is moot.

So now, now him lifting the mercenary. I go through things point by point so they're not missed.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
The only one you have, is him lifting the mercenary. Him removing the other mercenaries cannot be proved either way to be with strength or with sedatives, so is moot.

So now, now him lifting the mercenary. I go through things point by point so they're not missed.

Yes, the swiftness and ease with which he lifted the mercenary (both in full gear).

What about the other feat I mentioned?

Would you at least agree that Batman was at least as strong as the average middleweight boxer? It's not a big deal.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yes, the swiftness and ease with which he lifted the mercenary (both in full gear).

What about the other feat I mentioned?

Would you at least agree that Batman was at least as strong as the average middleweight boxer? It's not a big deal.

He has gear/gadgets that help with his grip strength. He has not shown any gadgets showing his punching strength to be increased.

Next?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He has gear/gadgets that help with his grip strength. He has not shown any gadgets showing his punching strength to be increased.

Next?

Lifting strength =/= grip strength

Are you saying Batman's punches rely entirely on his own strength? If so, I've won the point. If not, then his punches are amplified by an external force (evidence?), which still proves my point.

Originally posted by h1a8
Lifting strength =/= grip strength

Are you saying Batman's punches rely entirely on his own strength? If so, I've won the point. If not, then his punches are amplified by an external force (evidence?), which still proves my point.

It would help with lifting the merc, especially when he has other gadgets helping his legs etc.

He also has tricks and gadgets (note the flipping round now!) to quickly sedate mercs, which he has used. So if you assert that he is using pure strength to KO mercs, prove it.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It would help with lifting the merc, especially when he has other gadgets helping his legs etc.

He also has tricks and gadgets (note the flipping round now!) to quickly sedate mercs, which he has used. So if you assert that he is using pure strength to KO mercs, prove it.

Lay off the drugs. The argument hasn't been about him knocking out the mercs for a week now. I've provided other strength feats that make that argument moot - try to keep up.

He only has what he's shown to have. Darts? Yes. Speculative gadgets we haven't seen? No. Did he use throwing darts on them? No. He relied purely on physicality. Even the dialogue reinforces this:

Catwoman: "They're not your average brawlers."
Batman: "Neither am I."

Also, what's a flipping round?

Originally posted by h1a8
Lay off the drugs. The argument hasn't been about him knocking out the mercs for a week now. I've provided other strength feats that make that argument moot - try to keep up.

He only has what he's shown to have. Darts? Yes. Speculative gadgets we haven't seen? No. Did he use throwing darts on them? No. He relied purely on physicality. Even the dialogue reinforces this:

Catwoman: "They're not your average brawlers."
Batman: "Neither am I."

Also, what's a flipping round?

Yep. That's what I was getting at - he isn't an average brawler. He uses gadgets and tricks.

So again, prove that he used pure strength in the feats you are using as a basis for his strength.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Yep. That's what I was getting at - he isn't an average brawler. He uses gadgets and tricks.

So again, prove that he used pure strength in the feats you are using as a basis for his strength. You do realize we're debating a moot point, right? I've already provided other feats beyond him physically knocking out the mercs.

But for the sake of debate, let's do it.

Rule 1: Batman has no gadgets or tricks beyond what's been shown or alluded to onscreen.

He didn't use his throwing darts - he was at close range and was shown grabbing.

They didn't try to remove his helmet to reveal his identity while he was actively incapacitating them - lol.

Therefore, he relied on physical strength.

Originally posted by h1a8
You do realize we're debating a moot point, right? I've already provided other feats beyond him physically knocking out the mercs.

But for the sake of debate, let's do it.

Rule 1: Batman has no gadgets or tricks beyond what's been shown or alluded to onscreen.

He didn't use his throwing darts - he was at close range and was shown grabbing.

They didn't try to remove his helmet to reveal his identity while he was actively incapacitating them - lol.

Therefore, he relied on physical strength.

So was he shown PUNCHING them out? Simple q, really.

If yes, post the proof. That's all I ask.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So was he shown PUNCHING them out? Simple q, really.

If yes, post the proof. That's all I ask.

He physically struck them. He doesn't need to be shown doing it for it to have happened - that was the writer's intent.

Originally posted by h1a8
He physically struck them. He doesn't need to be shown doing it for it to have happened - that was the writer's intent.

So it was shown that he punched them out? Post the screenshots/clips, I know you are technically aware enough to do so, so feel free to showcase them.

If you are unable to, because it was not shown, then.....

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So it was shown that he punched them out? Post the screenshots/clips, I know you are technically aware enough to do so, so feel free to showcase them.

If you are unable to, because it was not shown, then.....

It wasn't explicitly shown that he struck them with physical force. However, what isn't seen can still be canon if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Batman knocked them out with physical force, just as he attempted to do with Bane.

Originally posted by h1a8
It wasn't explicitly shown that he struck them with physical force. However, what isn't seen can still be canon if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that Batman knocked them out with physical force, just as he attempted to do with Bane.

So since Cap has never held back against a normal human, even fodder, then it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't hold back against Batroc and he was tough enough to take a number of full force hits from Cap before going down. Meaning Bane isn't strong enough to do much damage. And since Batroc is strong enough to affect Cap with his hits, he's more than strong enough to hurt Bane.

Originally posted by KingD19
So since Cap has never held back against a normal human, even fodder, then it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't hold back against Batroc and he was tough enough to take a number of full force hits from Cap before going down. Meaning Bane isn't strong enough to do much damage. And since Batroc is strong enough to affect Cap with his hits, he's more than strong enough to hurt Bane. what I was slowly getting to

Originally posted by KingD19
So since Cap has never held back against a normal human, even fodder, then it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't hold back against Batroc and he was tough enough to take a number of full force hits from Cap before going down. Meaning Bane isn't strong enough to do much damage. And since Batroc is strong enough to affect Cap with his hits, he's more than strong enough to hurt Bane.

Cap fighting humans and failing to knock them out or kill them with his blows reflects his strength/striking level in those specific scenes. Strength/striking levels fluctuate in fiction due to fiction inconsistency, as writers don't always apply exact scientific thinking or maintain strict power scaling across all scenes.

It is faulty logic to equate one scene with another when fictional inconsistency is evident.

Regarding Cap vs. Batroc:
Cap never hit Batroc with enough force to bust a stone column.
A) Cap was fighting at the most typical levels he is seen fighting humans.
B) Cap has no striking feats suggesting he can bust a stone column with a punch.

Guidelines to follow
1. A combatant scales only to their highest showings - contradictory lower-end feats can't be used as valid evidence.
Example: If Cap were the combatant here, we cannot use his fights against humans as they contradict his higher-end feats.
2. When scaling a combatant off another character (ABC logic), use the opponent's average most typical portrayals, not their highest or lowest showings.
Example: We should ask, "What is Cap's typical strength/striking level when fighting humans?", and use that to determine his most probable striking level against Batroc.

Originally posted by h1a8
Cap fighting humans and failing to knock them out or kill them with his blows reflects his strength/striking level in those specific scenes. Strength/striking levels fluctuate in fiction due to fiction inconsistency, as writers don't always apply exact scientific thinking or maintain strict power scaling across all scenes.

It is faulty logic to equate one scene with another when fictional inconsistency is evident.

Regarding Cap vs. Batroc:
Cap never hit Batroc with enough force to bust a stone column.
A) Cap was fighting at the most typical levels he is seen fighting humans.
B) Cap has no striking feats suggesting he can bust a stone column with a punch.

Guidelines to follow
1. A combatant scales only to their highest showings - contradictory lower-end feats can't be used as valid evidence.
Example: If Cap were the combatant here, we cannot use his fights against humans as they contradict his higher-end feats.
2. When scaling a combatant off another character (ABC logic), use the opponent's average most typical portrayals, not their highest or lowest showings.
Example: We should ask, "What is Cap's typical strength/striking level when fighting humans?", and use that to determine his most probable striking level against Batroc.

Batman's highest stealth showings against groups, showcasing his intelligence, has him using darts and sedatives to knock groups of mercenaries out

Batman's highest strength showings show his using gadgets to augment his gripping and lifting strength (not his punching, though).

So you have nothing to showcase him actually punching anyone out. Thanks.

Otoh, a reasonable person would assume he would use his bag of tricks when he can (as seen in his fight with Bane, and as seen with the mercs).

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Batman's highest stealth showings against groups, showcasing his intelligence, has him using darts and sedatives to knock groups of mercenaries out

Batman's highest strength showings show his using gadgets to augment his gripping and lifting strength (not his punching, though).

So you have nothing to showcase him actually punching anyone out. Thanks.

Otoh, a reasonable person would assume he would use his bag of tricks when he can (as seen in his fight with Bane, and as seen with the mercs).

He used darts as long-range weapons in the first movie, coated with sedatives, but hasn't used them since. No darts were used in the mercenary scene.

He was shown lifting them with his own strength. If you argue that he used a gadget to do so, you must provide proof.

I used deduction and reasoning to prove he knocked them out with his strength. He attempted the same against Bane but failed.

Originally posted by h1a8
He used darts as long-range weapons in the first movie, coated with sedatives, but hasn't used them since. No darts were used in the mercenary scene.

He was shown lifting them with his own strength. If you argue that he used a gadget to do so, you must provide proof.

I used deduction and reasoning to prove he knocked them out with his strength. He attempted the same against Bane but failed.

No he did not - he used them in Dark Knight Rises. Rewatch the film, and come back when you have. This is the second time now, stop being a troll and arguing about a film you have clearly not actually seen.

I don't - I am introducing reasonable doubt. You initially asserted he used pure strength, I am showing that actually, he has access to and has used strength augmenting equipment as part of his standard loadout (no special prep was shown).

Your deduction and reasoning is pretty shit, however, based as it is on incorrect information (him firstly NEVER using anything beyond pure strength EVER, secondly not knowing Bane actually tells him that he's weak, and thirdly, now asserting wrongly that he hasn't used them since the first film), and on assumptions without proof (when we have alternatives clearly shown).

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
No he did not - he used them in Dark Knight Rises. Rewatch the film, and come back when you have. This is the second time now, stop being a troll and arguing about a film you have clearly not actually seen.

I don't - I am introducing reasonable doubt. You initially asserted he used pure strength, I am showing that actually, he has access to and has used strength augmenting equipment as part of his standard loadout (no special prep was shown).

Your deduction and reasoning is pretty shit, however, based as it is on incorrect information (him firstly NEVER using anything beyond pure strength EVER, secondly not knowing Bane actually tells him that he's weak, and thirdly, now asserting wrongly that he hasn't used them since the first film), and on assumptions without proof (when we have alternatives clearly shown).

I misspoke - it was the second movie and third movies.

It's not reasonable to believe that Batman used long-range darts to sedate the mercs when he was fighting them up close, physically grabbing them, and never attempting to use a dart on Bane - even while getting his ass beat.

It's also unreasonable to assume Batman used strength-augmenting equipment to lift the merc in the air, as the movie never showed or even hinted at such a device. He's never used equipment for that purpose. If Batman could artificially enhance his strength, that would mean he hit Bane far harder than his natural power allows, which only weakens your argument further.

A man slightly stronger than average would still be considered weak to Bane, who is clearly superhuman.

And you are wrong! On the rooftop with Catwoman, Batman is shown knocking out multiple mercs with his strength (with punches as well).

Originally posted by h1a8
Lifting strength =/= grip strength

Are you saying Batman's punches rely entirely on his own strength? If so, I've won the point. If not, then his punches are amplified by an external force (evidence?), which still proves my point.

^This is bad science again. As lifting strength is often directly affected by grip strength. Grip strength is a good measure of a person's overall health, a predictor of muscle strength and mass, bone density and nutritional status.

Originally posted by Robtard
^This is bad science again. As lifting strength is directly affected by grip strength. Grip strength is a good measure of a person's overall health, a predictor of muscle strength and mass, bone density and nutritional status.

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.

Originally posted by h1a8
I misspoke - it was the second movie and third movies.

It's not reasonable to believe that Batman used long-range darts to sedate the mercs when he was fighting them up close, physically grabbing them, and never attempting to use a dart on Bane - even while getting his ass beat.

It's also unreasonable to assume Batman used strength-augmenting equipment to lift the merc in the air, as the movie never showed or even hinted at such a device. He's never used equipment for that purpose. If Batman could artificially enhance his strength, that would mean he hit Bane far harder than his natural power allows, which only weakens your argument further.

A man slightly stronger than average would still be considered weak to Bane, who is clearly superhuman.

And you are wrong! On the rooftop with Catwoman, Batman is shown knocking out multiple mercs with his strength (with punches as well).

Misspoke, i.e. flat out wrong. Concession accepted.

He can still stab them at close range with the darts. And whilst you say it's unreasonable, a perfectly reasonable explanation exists why he didn't use it on Bane - it was all used up on the mercs.

He used them in the previous movies, to bend gun barrels (i.e. with grip strength) and to carve vans open. Not to actually punch people out, though, so you can see why I am still perfectly consistent. In short, lifting mercs in the air = using equipment, punching them out = no equipment, but with sedatives. Now you see how iron clad I am?

Inconsistencies, as we are also shown Catwoman KOing these same mercs. Now, I know what you might argue - that she too is stronger than average.

But then you'd have to prove it. And it rapidly just becomes circular for you.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Misspoke, i.e. flat out wrong. Concession accepted.

He can still stab them at close range with the darts. And whilst you say it's unreasonable, a perfectly reasonable explanation exists why he didn't use it on Bane - it was all used up on the mercs.

He used them in the previous movies, to bend gun barrels (i.e. with grip strength) and to carve vans open. Not to actually punch people out, though, so you can see why I am still perfectly consistent. In short, lifting mercs in the air = using equipment, punching them out = no equipment, but with sedatives. Now you see how iron clad I am?

Inconsistencies, as we are also shown Catwoman KOing these same mercs. Now, I know what you might argue - that she too is stronger than average.

But then you'd have to prove it. And it rapidly just becomes circular for you.


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.

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.



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.
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.

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.
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.

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.