I'm new to this forum and I doubt I will stay around much longer (not that anyone care) but I just have some comments about these character battles. Why does everyone debate using power scaling and he did this against him instances, instead of just reading the manga? That may seem hard to understand but like say in Law vs Zoro people are actually trying to pass Zoro off as Kyros level when Zoro hasn't even broken a sweat yet, just because Law has more spot light in his own character arc? That's rediculus and I have a tough time seeing anyone actually believing that nonsense. Then Zoro can't block Law's basic DF slashes because his haki is weaker then the overrated Smoker? In the actual manga does anyone actually think Law stands a chance against Zoro? He'd just join the list of defeated swordsmen just like all the swordsmen Zoro faces and beats. Zoro is more or less the 2nd most important character with the some of the highest ambitions imo and he's a "lesser supernova" because he didn't stand beside Luffy when Law and Kidd did?
Heres how the battles generally work, and ill counter your post as a way to showcase that:
Your whole post is opinion. Its fine to have, but the essence of a battle is proving that one side will definitely beat the other side. So in your case you are trying to prove that Zoro will definitely beat Law. Power scaling is important because in the manga, there is no actual material of zoro and law ever going against each other in any fashion. Whether that be competing, being compared to each other, fighting in some sense, or even fighting similar opponents, nothing links them conclusively. This means that you must prove based on their merits and actions (aka feats) that one of them would come out ahead of the other.
- Focus on someone does not really matter, Laws spotlight is what allows this battle since otherwise Zoro has a huge plethora of feats, but is lacking since the TS, making it interesting.
- Overrating smoker is an opinion, it only really holds ground in terms of fan hype and character hype, not in-world so much. So because Law was able to slash through vergo can you say without doubt that zoro's haki is stronger than vergo? Or that Law is weaker than Pika? Neither of those are definitive so one of the goals is to try and prove ones haki is superior, but obviously its not a fact either way, its up to the strength of the argument.
- As a jab i could say that zoro has lost to swordsmen in the past (mihawk) and there are plenty of swordsmen in the manga that are superior to zoro (mihawk, shanks, vista).
- Importance to story means nothing in a battle, we are not talking about who would win in the story, we are talking about in this moment with no bias who would defeat the other. There have been battles where a side argued that the match up is won by one side b/c even though the side is weaker they have special properties that make them win even if they are weaker. For example Enel vs Luffy would be an actual story example.
Obviously I'm not trying to seriously debate you here ^^ just showing examples of how it works. Most importantly since it comes down to opinion about who wins in a battle, the judges decide which side was most convincing, rather than trying to decide which side actually wins the fight. Generally if you can convince the judges that your side is correct even if we feel differently we give it to the more convincing side.
Feel free to ask more questions if you have any.
It would have been fun to go at it with you Given how close the two are (in my opinion, of course), that debate could have had a lot more potential, especially with someone actually trying to earnestly defend Kaku
I thought it would be fun too but i guess people want more recent characters xD. We always have the OP section though, can go revive either of their threads if you really wanna talk about it ^^