Why Batman Shouldn't Win Very Many What-Ifs.

[Teague]

Originally Posted by TNovak

You don't think purposely changing my avatar to Columbo was too much of a dig?

I've just been quietly enjoying it.

[JDH]

Originally Posted by Teague

Great discussion guys. I'm pleased that this thread has been discussed rationally. (Well, except for Jess.)

For that, maybe I'll just draw you Columbo in a cowl.

[Teague]

Originally Posted by JDH

For that, maybe I'll just draw you Columbo in a cowl.

[The Dark Knight]

This thread is pathetic

If they bring him against Batman again, you know where he will end up.

[Meteor Man]

Originally Posted by Teague

Leon got me thinking about this thread with his answer in the Iron Man vs. Batman thread (so thanks, Leon!). And considering that we not only include Bats in so many of these things, but we at one point considered a moratorium on Batman related questions, just because they were so contentious, I figured I'd explain why I tend to vote against Bats more often than some.

First, let me say that there are many times I've voted for the Bat. Mainly, these are fights pitting Bruce against another street-level fighter-type. Iron Fist. Nightwing. Daredevil. Taskmaster. Even with Captain America, the quintessential Marvel match-up to DC's Batman, I give Bats credit for making it a near-draw. (I still give Cap the edge here, but I have to admit, I can cop to a Marvel bias in this perhaps making that difference...) But my point here is that I can concur with Batman being one of the best H2H fighters in the DC (or even any) universe. I have given him my vote in some matchups.

But the thing with Bats is that DC has built up this mythos around him (very effectively, based on a lot of opinions I see here) that Batman is the most dangerous man in the DCU. Superman's said almost that exact thing before (in JLA, I believe), and so have others. And it's very cool to think that this brilliant and well-trained guy can stand up with the likes of veritable gods. It's a great storyline. And it's a neat character thing, except in contests like these. Planning is everything to Batman. He relies heavily on it. This is why he's a detective, why he has the Bat-computer (I hope he still calls it the bat-computer...), all that stuff.

But most of the Batman comics I remember reading as a kid (Neal Adams era) went this way: Batman investigates. Batman gets his ass handed to him by some bad guy. Batman studies up. Batman figures out what's up. Batman takes the fight back to the bad guys and wins. The End.

Again, great stories. Powerful guy. Just not so great in an immediate one-on-one matchup like the ones these vs. threads set up. My feeling is this: if you have to add "with some planning" to your response, that means the answer is really no. Can Batman beat Superman? Yes, with some planning. Meaning no, not usually. Can Batman beat Thor? Sure, with some planning. Or, no, not straight up.

In other words, the vs. fights (to me) have always been these "two heroes meet in the street...who wins?" things. Not "in a long and developed comic arc, which of these two characters would win?" Because the answer to the second question is always "anyone". Dazzler beat Galactus. Doctor Octopus beat Dr. Doom. Comic books are always about beating the odds.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I tried to write this so as to avoid pissing anyone off, and I hope I managed to do that. I like these vs. threads for the most part, and I don't want to see them die off. I just almost type this whole thing out every time there's a Bat-thread, and I figured I'd just say it once so I wouldn't have to be tempted every time.

I totally agree with this post.

[Meteor Man]

Originally Posted by Babytoxie

I don't know when this started, but I blame chapter 4 of Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. Yeah, the fight between Bats and Supes was cool in a fanboyish way, but over time it was taken to mean that he'd have every opponent's number... no matter how skewed or flawed that initial match was when you got right down to it.

This is where I first remember hearing the "Batman could beat anyone," BS. I get really tired of it personally.

[VaultMan]

Originally Posted by Teague

Leon got me thinking about this thread with his answer in the Iron Man vs. Batman thread (so thanks, Leon!). And considering that we not only include Bats in so many of these things, but we at one point considered a moratorium on Batman related questions, just because they were so contentious, I figured I'd explain why I tend to vote against Bats more often than some.

First, let me say that there are many times I've voted for the Bat. Mainly, these are fights pitting Bruce against another street-level fighter-type. Iron Fist. Nightwing. Daredevil. Taskmaster. Even with Captain America, the quintessential Marvel match-up to DC's Batman, I give Bats credit for making it a near-draw. (I still give Cap the edge here, but I have to admit, I can cop to a Marvel bias in this perhaps making that difference...) But my point here is that I can concur with Batman being one of the best H2H fighters in the DC (or even any) universe. I have given him my vote in some matchups.

But the thing with Bats is that DC has built up this mythos around him (very effectively, based on a lot of opinions I see here) that Batman is the most dangerous man in the DCU. Superman's said almost that exact thing before (in JLA, I believe), and so have others. And it's very cool to think that this brilliant and well-trained guy can stand up with the likes of veritable gods. It's a great storyline. And it's a neat character thing, except in contests like these. Planning is everything to Batman. He relies heavily on it. This is why he's a detective, why he has the Bat-computer (I hope he still calls it the bat-computer...), all that stuff.

But most of the Batman comics I remember reading as a kid (Neal Adams era) went this way: Batman investigates. Batman gets his ass handed to him by some bad guy. Batman studies up. Batman figures out what's up. Batman takes the fight back to the bad guys and wins. The End.

Again, great stories. Powerful guy. Just not so great in an immediate one-on-one matchup like the ones these vs. threads set up. My feeling is this: if you have to add "with some planning" to your response, that means the answer is really no. Can Batman beat Superman? Yes, with some planning. Meaning no, not usually. Can Batman beat Thor? Sure, with some planning. Or, no, not straight up.

In other words, the vs. fights (to me) have always been these "two heroes meet in the street...who wins?" things. Not "in a long and developed comic arc, which of these two characters would win?" Because the answer to the second question is always "anyone". Dazzler beat Galactus. Doctor Octopus beat Dr. Doom. Comic books are always about beating the odds.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I tried to write this so as to avoid pissing anyone off, and I hope I managed to do that. I like these vs. threads for the most part, and I don't want to see them die off. I just almost type this whole thing out every time there's a Bat-thread, and I figured I'd just say it once so I wouldn't have to be tempted every time.

Good post. And I agree.

[Relic Reaper]

Originally Posted by JDH

The few times I've seen Clark and others say that knd of thing about Bruce, I just think they're all humouring him. The poor guy might just give it all up if they spelled it out to him that he's Columbo in a cowl.

Sometimes...sometimes words can hurt.

[Teague]

Originally Posted by Relic Reaper

Sometimes...sometimes words can hurt.

This is true. I really don't want to hurt Columbo's feelings.

[Relic Reaper]

Originally Posted by Teague

This is true. I really don't want to hurt Columbo's feelings.