Jump to content


Photo

One Piece Chapter 907 Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#141 captain kidd

captain kidd

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,466 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 04:22 AM

NO absoltely not! GR himself said that he and Garp nearly killed each other countless times! Thats what equality is, or at least its extremely close to it, since to be able to kill someone is a direct clash between one another (thus no cheap trick attack) u need to be close! Since WB on the other hand lost an awful lot of his power (as presented already) Garp by far outmaches ur wrongly used WSM title, u simply are too much faboyism to get it.....
SO yes u still fail to answer why Garp was not WSM!

So ur entire debate and arguments are for naught! Keep on the delulululu.


I have twice told you why garp isnt the wsm......

1st off, will smoker and luffy be able to say one day that they had both fought eachother? Yep. Did smoker fight pk level luffy yet? Nope... we have no clue if garp's "almost killing roger" was when roger was an up and coming rookie or when roger was pk level

2nd as i have now said 3 times. Garp himself in the end of el said he has lost alot of power, WB hadnt. Wb is wsm....

3rd as i have said above, akainu didnt point out wbs age till the heart attack, if age made him weaker it would of been a mute point.

Finally. I am delusional? You are ignoring chat boxes and DD's speach and the era, all for the sake of claiming someone who himself admitted he is much weaker is wsm..... as for comparable feats garp has zero, lifting that iron ball is impressive but not nearly as impressive as splitting an island.....
 
captain "Nostradamus" kidd
banner.png
 

#142 Abaroxa

Abaroxa

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,066 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 05:38 AM

@captain kidd & @capu
You guys are going in circles.
I can't see an end to your discussion as it is all a matter of perspective.

In this series there are titles, stories and feats.

First I am the type of person that only goes with feats not titles and not stories.

Lets start by analyzing feats.

Garp is at worst as strong as g2/g3 luffy since he easily defeated chijao in his prime. At the same time we have to see that he easily pushed marco (a yonko top commander)away when luffy had troubles doing that with katakuri.

WB destroyed 2 giants, had a quick clash with aokiji, showed attack after attack that he could f#ck sh*t up and at the end he fought akainu. The fight with akainu is a prime example that even though he was old, sick and heavily injured he was strong. He "won" that fight even after taking in mortal injuries because of his diseases and sicknesses.

Lets now look at titles and stories.

Garp is regarded as the hero of the marines and the stories say he cornered roger and on many occasions they
"tied" their fights I can assume he can and has some hidden power we haven't seen.

WB had the title of WSM but that meant nothing for me as we don't know when he got that title and how long has it been since he was challenged to a fight. He did prove himself as the WSM after all with is feats. The stories say he fought many times with roger and given how sick and old he was towards his end I can assume he was even greater in his prime.

Feats wise WB is superior to garp no debate.
Although both were put in the same environment (MF) which was the perfect platform for them to showcase their capabilities and prowess. WB did a splendid job but garp clearly had internal conflicts which prevented him from doing so.

We can throw in rayleigh which clashed momentarily with kizaro. Kizaro made it clear that rayleigh was impressive as he was holding him up at such an old age.
This shows that age is a factor in the series. Meaning that garp and WB both were and will continue to be nerfed due to this. Whatever title you get it will slowly lose its value as you get older and weaker.

We can also throw in luffy and smoker. Smoker was always superior to luffy all the way up to the time skip. Luffy comes back and now is on a whole new level.
Smoke can continue to get stronger but at this point its clear he wont match luffys level. He wont as luffy himself also continues to get stronger only at his case its a growth at a superior exponential rate. I am not saying that garp never did or didn't match rogers strength, I am just pointing out that we don't know what happen. The marines also have a history of altering facts for their benefits. This last point is the reason I don't believe in stories.

I will again reinforce the fact that I see feats shown not the ones we are told.
Although WB was old and sick he proved he was hella strong.
Garp on the other hand will have to show us one day what he can and can't do.

I say its a matter of perspective because given titles, stories and feats I only acknowledge feats. I use those feats to validate titles and I completely disregard stories. Some other may actually acknowledge stories has valid points bringing new arguments into the table.

#143 Tale

Tale

    Kakistocrat

  • Blessed by Uglypuff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,550 posts

User's Awards

3    3    2   

Posted 14 June 2018 - 05:57 AM


How is that related to my point? I didn't say Marco is incapacitated by Garp...I said Garp at half his strength could still do what the Admirals failed to do with some of their trademark techniques (by that time anw. Later we saw Marco had bruises when he ran to WB)

 

And this is supposed to demonstrate that the older generation was much stronger that the current generation how? The only time Marco didn't take visible damage from an Admiral's attacks was when he was fighting Akainu and at that point he was shrouded in his regenerative flames (implying that he was taking damage) which would have obscured any damage he was taking from the reader's eyes. I'm not sure if there are any other examples, but what makes you think Marco can't take damage from much weaker attacks, because I really don't remember the Admirals failing to damage him?

 

 

 

Not really, we saw how he regenerated super fast. When he didn't it just means the attacks did well.

 

No, it doesn't. We don't know how his ability really works. For all we know his regenerative ability was slowing down or he didn't have the time or "DF power" at that point to heal what, for him, was a superficial injury. :shrug:

 

 

 

and simply accuse me of harmonising and waving? O___o

 

From my point of view, you're threading on a minefield of questions which can't be answered and for each question you assume (implicitly or otherwise) that the answer to each of those questions doesn't contradict the contents of a narrator box or make your interpretation of it less probable. So yeah, I accuse you of harmonising and waving points away...

 

 

 

 If it's a ''I simply think so without reason''

 

I obviously don't think so without reason. Whitebeard calls it a "mere scratch" and we've seen even pre-TS Luffy and Zoro fighting with similar or worse wounds.

http://www.mangainn....e-piece1/572/10

Why should a wound like that be expected to completely change the quality a Yonkou or the WSM's performance?

 

 


More like I see zero evidence that contradicts the box so I still hold it in highest regard.

 

That's because the only counterargument you'll accept is one that directly contradicts the statement being made. That's an idiosyncratic requirement. It's sufficient for things to be uncertain for someone to doubt.

Also, here you imply that after seeing that evidence doesn't contradict the box, you accept the box as authoritative. I'm not sure how you can get to that conclusion when we have questions we can't answer, since if the evidence is inconclusive and questionable, so should be the narrator box. This doesn't seem to be the reasoning you're employing here. Like I said, you don't just hold in the highest regard, but you hold in in a special regard.

 

There are also scenes whose most natural implications do contradict the box.

@captain kidd is his usual style dismissed by Crocodile example, but it's one of the most important.

http://www.mangainn....e-piece1/563/10

http://www.mangainn....e-piece1/563/13

 

First, Crocodile doesn't just say Whitebeard has weakened, he calls him "pathetic", 

Second, Marco agrees. Note that Marco easily dodges the attack from Squardo, (although granted, he was focused on him) whereas Whitebeard does not. 

Third, Whitebeard concedes the point (in the same page @captain kidd highly values for Sengoku's statement). He says that he can't be the strongest forever.

 

The most natural interpretation of this (imo) is that Crocodile isn't criticising Whitebeard for weakening but still being someone fit to WSM, nor does it make a lot of sense for Whitebeard to say that (in other words) he's just a mortal man who cannot be the strongest forever if he's still the strongest. (I'm not saying other interpretations are inconsistent with this). 

 

There are other scenes that confirm this interpretation over other interpretations:

If these problems (as I claimed initially) are probable, in the sense that it is likely that Whitebeard's ability to dodge is now poor, and that it is likely that he would have had a heart attack because of his age, and not his injuries, I don't see a lot of room for arguing he was WSM, because he wasn't able to fight properly.

 


I mean it's what an omnipotent narrator is. One Piece isn't a story told by first person's point of view like some of Haruki Murakami's novels, not second person's point of view like Sherlock Holmes's Watson's and not the limited third person's point of view either because we clearly have full access to everything (on-screen that is). It's the point of chosen method of story-telling so why would I not see it as what it is?

 

Because it hasn't been established that the omniscient narrator in question is reliable all the time. There are omniscient narrators who are not reliable throughout a book or manga. (One possible example of this is Ian McEwan's Atonement.)

 

It doesn't follow that the omniscient narrator, simply from the fact that he is omniscient, is telling the truth all the time or that the narrator says nothing which is ambiguous and up to interpretation. 


Edited by Tale, 14 June 2018 - 06:00 AM.


#144 Fulmine

Fulmine

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,048 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 11:49 PM


And this is supposed to demonstrate that the older generation was much stronger that the current generation how? The only time Marco didn't take visible damage from an Admiral's attacks was when he was fighting Akainu and at that point he was shrouded in his regenerative flames (implying that he was taking damage) which would have obscured any damage he was taking from the reader's eyes. I'm not sure if there are any other examples, but what makes you think Marco can't take damage from much weaker attacks, because I really don't remember the Admirals failing to damage him?

Leave damage. The bruise. I never said the Admirals didn't make him regenerate

 

 


No, it doesn't. We don't know how his ability really works. For all we know his regenerative ability was slowing down or he didn't have the time or "DF power" at that point to heal what, for him, was a superficial injury. :shrug:

He was punched in full phoenix form...ergo the regenerative is in work 100%. Oda said very clealry what the blue flame means.

 

 


From my point of view, you're threading on a minefield of questions which can't be answered

Such as?

 

 


and for each question you assume (implicitly or otherwise) that the answer to each of those questions doesn't contradict the contents of a narrator box or make your interpretation of it less probable

I don't assume. They really logically don't contradict. Which isn't to say they can't be the link of another chain of thought but that's the point: we don't know and Oda tels us with the narrator box which chain we go for. Had it been character's dialogue only like Buggy's I wouldn't argue.

 

 


So yeah, I accuse you of harmonising and waving points away...

Then you should make better, harder reason to doubt. For example, I see no reason to doubt Real Madrid is a top football club if they lose a game in Primera Liga where 2 of their best stars are benched for injury. Their overall position in world football's ladder does not change.

 

The only way for you to be so doubtful of WB's performance is, as I said, you think WSM is some absolute indication of power level and must somehow ignore injuries and sickness suddenly acting up to blow through all obstacle which is too high a bar given how Oda has shown us how the stronger can lose for a number of reasons.

 

 


Whitebeard calls it a "mere scratch" and we've seen even pre-TS Luffy and Zoro fighting with similar or worse wounds.

http://www.mangainn....e-piece1/572/10

Why should a wound like that be expected to completely change the quality a Yonkou or the WSM's performance?

3 things:

To kill him!!! Why would you conveniently ignore the last part of his sentence? It's a mere scratch in the sense that it is far from killing him but it doens't mean it can't hurt him badly. He clealry put his hand where he was stabbed when he coughed blood whilst fighting Akainu.

 

Then there's his character. The guy refused to leave medical devices on just so he wouldn't be pitied. WSM isn't immune to ''saving face'' syndrome. He can talk tough.

 

Third, we know he has sickness. Luffy and Zolo do not. You see the area where that stab is? Luffy is also a goddamn rubber man. A finger or hook through his spine and some kg of meat he would be healed. WB's body, well, does not work that way obviously.

 

 


That's because the only counterargument you'll accept is one that directly contradicts the statement being made. That's an idiosyncratic requirement. It's sufficient for things to be uncertain for someone to doubt.

Like I said above, I see your reason to doubt is really weak. Not because I have some crazy requirement. Had WB lost really hard or unable to demonstrate something worth my suspension of belief would drop, too. But there's no reason to doubt because none of his performance says any contradiction.

 

 


Also, here you imply that after seeing that evidence doesn't contradict the box, you accept the box as authoritative

I accept the box's authority until proven otherwise. May sound like the same thing you said but not really. Obviously I do give thought because this is a work of human, not some physical law (even which can be falsified) so the author may change his mind later but in-verse-wise? Nothing breaks it so far.

 

 


@captain kidd is his usual style dismissed by Crocodile example, but it's one of the most important.

http://www.mangainn....e-piece1/563/10

http://www.mangainn....e-piece1/563/13



First, Crocodile doesn't just say Whitebeard has weakened, he calls him "pathetic",

Second, Marco agrees. Note that Marco easily dodges the attack from Squardo, (although granted, he was focused on him) whereas Whitebeard does not.

Third, Whitebeard concedes the point (in the same page @captain kidd highly values for Sengoku's statement). He says that he can't be the strongest forever.



The most natural interpretation of this (imo) is that Crocodile isn't criticising Whitebeard for weakening but still being someone fit to WSM, nor does it make a lot of sense for Whitebeard to say that (in other words) he's just a mortal man who cannot be the strongest forever if he's still the strongest. (I'm not saying other interpretations are inconsistent with this).

No, the most natural and obvious meaning is WB got so much weaker in Croc's eyes, which isn't related to what he is now. For example, if I woke up from a long slumber like Captain Ammerica and found out my old rival who is 72 now is so much weaker I'd be disappointed regardless of whether he is still the WSM because the world's level drops due to...I don't know, technology and people are lazier to do physical activities. How do you get to your interpretation? I do know reading literature lines does not mean literal interpretation all the times but like, normally you look at context and things before, here you start with the unnatural interpretation I have no idea where it popped off from...

 

 

That's the point: focusing on someone changes a lot.

-Magellan perfectly followed Gear2's speed and fodderized Iva yet unable to dodge Luffy's bazooka even though he was looking right at Luffy just because he was careless and wondering what the white smoke is.

-DD could blitz Gear4's ''disappearing speed'' yet unable to dodge Red Hawk even though he realized Laws was going to swap him.

And that happened between enemies who should keep an eye on each other during fights. Not only was WB caught off-guard, it's from someone he trusted and he is having sickness. So I don't see why that hurts his WSM title. All that means is the WSM isn't perfect and there ARE reasons for that imperfection which have been shown in the manga itself.

 

 

It does make sense :psyduck: . I don't understand your logic there or maybe words have different meanings but WB's sentence follows Croc's sentence. Croc was disappointed WB got so much weaker he could not dodge Squardo's stab. So WB agreed he wasn't what Croc saw years ago anymore. That's the word ''strongest'' means. And it's not like WB was the type to brag about his title so we don't know if he believed himself that he was WSM. Which isn't important anw cause that doesn't negate the infobox, at all.

 

So none of the reasons you showed is really good reason to doubt. But on the other hand we have the omnipotent narrative and a know-what character in Sengoku who said WB is WSM you should be aware of even when he was injured.

 

 


There are other scenes that confirm this interpretation over other interpretations:

Akainu saying that WB can't escape the effects of old age: http://www.mangainn....ne-piece1/568/9 (This reinforces the point that the heart attack wasn't just a once in a blue moon kind of thing).
Marco confessing to having had the fear that Whitebeard's would have these issues prior to seeing them: http://www.mangainn....e-piece1/568/10

If these problems (as I claimed initially) are probable, in the sense that it is likely that Whitebeard's ability to dodge is now poor, and that it is likely that he would have had a heart attack because of his age, and not his injuries, I don't see a lot of room for arguing he was WSM, because he wasn't able to fight properly.

Neither of that refutes that Squardo's stab triggered things to worse state that it should have been, especially when WB kept touching the area...

 

And what do you define as ''properly"? WB could clearly continue to fight. It's not like he had a clear-cut limit of 10 minutes after which he would drop like a robot without electricity...

Luffy lost a chunk of flesh on his abdomen thanks to Flambe, bleeding terribly all over body, and yet he could still figth Katakuri and beat him. We don't say Luffy was improperly fighting. We do say it was unfair cause he shouldn't have gotten that bad if Flambe had stayed out of it, but we don't say he was improper and rejected the fact that he was as strong as he was. Only that Luffy does have what WB didn't: improvement during fights thata re reserved specially for mian cast or plot-demanded characters.

Now WB didn't come out on top of anyone, sadly, but he was even worse than Luffy in that he was ganged up later and had exchanges with all 3 Admirals. It's something that spiralled down from a starting point. Still, his performance is worthy of Yonkiral level.

 

 


Because it hasn't been established that the omniscient narrator in question is reliable all the time. There are omniscient narrators who are not reliable throughout a book or manga. (One possible example of this is Ian McEwan's Atonement.)



It doesn't follow that the omniscient narrator, simply from the fact that he is omniscient, is telling the truth all the time or that the narrator says nothing which is ambiguous and up to interpretation.

Then that isn't omniscient narrator. It would be the limited third person's point of view. Not to mention the type of fiction of the work that can be a factor, like metafiction.

 

One Piece so far isn't the type to employ ''trickery''.

 

Then we can see clealry the difference when the narrative wants to be ambiguous as opposed to decidedly clear info. For example, Kaidou isn't given an introduction box. He was said by the narrative that ''people said in a 1vs1, bet on Kaidou''. So the undisputed fact, by virtue of being told by the omnipotent's point of view, here is Kaidou is perceived by the mass like that, but not that his WSCreature title is fact. You see what I mean?


Spoiler Favorite male characters in manga/hwa/hua




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users