I'll call stalemate. Something I don't think people are recognizing is they only get common knowledge of each other in addition to their personal knowledge. If this is normal Batman, he doesn't know who Terry Mcguiness is. He only gets common knowledge from that person's world, i.e. Gotham of the future. This is supposedly some Batman who reappeared after years of there being no Batman. Wayne can only theorize that he would have some involvement with this future Batman.
Yet, Terry knows Batman is Bruce Wayne. This gives him a very short-lived advantage at the outset of the fight. Terry knows how Bruce thinks and fights. Bruce taught him. And that was an older and more experienced Bruce that taught Terry. By using that against him, combined with his suit's advantages in strength, agility, flight, stealth and advanced weapons, he would definitely make it tough for Batman. Imagine if Nightwing or Robin were in a suit like this and Bruce didn't know it was them inside. Nightwing or Robin would use Batman's teachings against him and probably win.
I still think Bruce could even it out though, since I consider him to be a superior H2H fighter and tactician and Terry's suit is not beyond anything Batman hasn't faced in his career. And eventually, he should be able to deduce that this future Batman knows who Bruce is and that his older self must have trained this Batman from the future. So he'd switch tactics. I've always imagined that Bruce taught Terry everything Terry knows, but he didn't teach Terry everything that Bruce knows.
In his time as Batman, Bruce was on far more teams, that were far more powerful (and the threats that he went up against were far more powerful) and accomplishing more in general than Terry.
Bruce has shown the aptitude and ability to be able to master techniques in much shorter time than normal humans would, and created/added far more to the Batman mythos than Terry.
Finally, age doesn't really matter, because Batman's been doing far more of this than Terry has. Bruce is supposed to be what, 70-something now, but still appears to be the same age that he was when he started.
So Terry, I would say, actually has far less experience than Bruce.
All of that is dependent upon the further, unseen adventures of Terry McGinnis. You're acting like Terry just sat in the Batcave all of the time, and wasn't out leading the JLU (as has been seen and talked about) or stopping an Apocalypse or two (As Bruce has said in "Epilogue"). You can't just make a blind assessment like that, "Quality over Quantity". Seriously, that's a way too big of a blanket statement.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
A better example of a blanket statement would be What I'm confused about is why people are forgetting that Terry, no matter what age they fight at, would still have more experience than Bruce. , when, as I've shown, years is generally irrelevant.
If you're really set to rely on appearances that have only been alluded to versus Batman's overwhelming amount of appearances even just post crisis... you'd have to argue that just due to a few years, Terry's accomplished as much as we've seen Batman do, even accounting for Bruce's far greater intelligence and ability to learn.
And as you can see, I covered my statements by still having Bruce win. Just because I made a seemingly blanket statement, even though its really not(sure, in a way it could be construed as a blanket statement, but Terry does have more years of experience no matter which way you look at it), does not mean I did not give way to the more appearances and feats Bruce has to his name.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
Sure, you didn't make a blanket statement regarding the outcome of the match, but you did make one regarding experience... which is what I addressed.
And no, Terry doesn't necessarily have more years of experience no matter which way I look at it, because Batman's got everything since the crisis... which are in fact years of experience, even if he doesn't age in order to keep him popular.
Now you're turning the ages of the character into the ages of the medium in which they appear? Just because 17 years pass since the comic's release, does not mean 17 years has passed within the comic itself. Just because Bruce has appeared far, far longer within the pages of Batman, does not mean he would be Batman longer than Terry would be in this fight. If they're both in their prime, Terry would have been Batman longer than Bruce; there's no arguing that.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
Time passes normally in comics (see: 52, every special Christmas issue, etc.). But characters don't visually age.
Even if it means that Batman's been the same age for 22 years, that's still 22 years worth of experience... and due to Terry's recent conception and low popularity, he doesn't have that luxury.
Low popularity? The TV show was cancelled, the character wasn't. He'll be in the comics soon enough as an actual player; rather than just a throw in character like he already has been used as.
And, no, I'm not ignoring the rest of your comments, its just worthless debating. Honestly, throwing Terry into a fight is useless because there just isn't enough evidence for him, its hard to pick his side.
__________________
The only thing thats with you your whole life is complete and utter darkness.
Bruce has a dozen appearances a month, and has held them for the last decade or two.
Terry had a tv show.
He might be a good character, but his popularity needs to reach comics (which you say is happening) and give him ongoing appearances for it to matter, really.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 22nd, 2008 12:05 AM
