[VS] Katakuri VS

[Love Cook]

Dude robin is a specific exception. Kid only had what like 20 mil on luffy? pre skip kid could have went and killed a whole town and be murderous as hitler but he would not go to a billion berry bounty. There are levels to it. Think of bounties as more of tiers guys close to a billion are not gonna to be sanji level. Ichiji was never given that kind of hype so assuming he might be kata level is stupid why don't we just assume post skip lucci is that level I mean you never kno right?? Lol but he doesn't have the hype.

You guys have no sense of context, making this argument is ludicrous.

What you don't seem to get is that Mr. 1 billion bounty still has a sister in his range of strength. Kaidou has Jack and probably 2 other potentially stronger Commanders following him. And to top it off there are 2 yonkou to finish the party.

So with like 4/6 characters that are completely out of range of anyone in the SH alliance, based on bounty and hype. How will they ever be beaten according to you ?

The only thing I said was that a SH enemy always goes down because story demands it. Cracker was already bypassed by Nami's rain. Big Mom is avoided with the rage cake. And now Luffy is alone with someone stronger than him in the mirror world.

So bottom line is, there will be someone with a way lower bounty than 1 billion to come in and beat Katakuri. And not just Katakuri but also the rest of the powerhouses.

That doesn't take away from their bounty being of worth and a huge indicator of how dangerous and strong they may be.

You either are given a high bounty because of the threat level you pose to the world government or because you are so powerful that you have threatened the world government with your powers. Just because they are made enemies of the SH's does not mean that their bounty means nothing.



That is not always the case, and Luffy sometimes always either gets lucky during his fights like with Enel, or has to be paired up or saved like with Cracker.

Finally Dannie gets it and is even repeating what I said in his own words now.

* Bounty is a strength indication, but on the head of an enemy also a target.
* Katakuri will win in all scenario's
* Katakuri will go down either by a team up or by a bad DF match up eventually

Both things I've said multiple times in this thread, that is what you get for not reading.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Oh, I wonder why Oda had Katakuri introduced with a 1 billion bounty

Gonna take this moment to give a reminder: The debate was never about whether or not Katakuri's bounty indicates he's a powerful character, but whether or not Katakuri's bounty>Cracker's bounty=Katakuri>Cracker.

and being known as a huge threat to the tea party,

There you go misrespenting this again. I love how you brought this up only to ignore the counterargument made just to spew it out again as though this wasn't refuted.

Katakuri was cited to be the biggest threat to the assassination plan SPECIFICALLY because it was a surprise, and he had the power to see through surprises. Katakuri was called the biggest threat to this SPECIFIC situation. He was not called the strongest or biggest threat in GENERAL.

The next time you feel the need to use this as an argument, remember that Capone said Katakuri was a bigger threat than Big Mom herself. You gonna say Katakuri>Big Mom?

Another thing that makes this argument dumb is the fact that Katakuri didn't even succeed at messing up the assassination plan whatsoever.

and got hit by a Kong Gun in the next chapter like it was nothing.

His biscuit soldier was hit by a Kong Gun and then the biscuit solider stood back up* I know most of you are debating like you're reading Two Piece, but try to stick to One Piece events. Let's also not try to make it seem like Cracker got bodied by a Kong Gun when his soldiers stood up to a Kong Organ and Cracker himself never got directly injured by Luffy ONCE during that fight.

It is not just a coincidence. It is called portrayal and because Oda intentionally had Katakuri look stronger than Cracker.

Then, by your logic, anyone with a higher bounty is stronger than a person with a lower bounty. That's not true, so the logic is a fallacy.

Oda doesn't even show everyones bounties when a new character is introduced but I wonder why he had these 2 sweet commanders bounties introduced, not to mention one of them being set up to be unstoppable because of his haki. Stop.

I like that you mention "unstoppable because of Haki," when neither Cracker nor Katakuri were portrayed that way(Cracker's Buso was broken by Gear Fourth; Katakuri's Observation failed at each step to prevent the StrawTanks plan)

You either are given a high bounty because of the threat level you pose to the world government or because you are so powerful that you have threatened the world government with your powers.

It's not either or. Every bounty is a combination of both. Which is why you can't say which one is dominant over the other when a bounty is revealed with no information behind it

Funny that you used Usopp in 2 of your examples when we as readers already know that Usopp is a spineless weakling that only got a huge bounty because of what he did to Enies Lobby, so using him doesn't work nor does it make any sense since we already know how strong BB is without having to see his bounty.

Using Usopp, Blackbeard, and also Robin, works perfectly because they are perfect examples of the point we made: Bounties are both strength and danger, not either or. A person's bounty consists of more than just how strong they are.

A bounty is never 100% power level, therefore you can't say a bounty is 100% a person's power when no info is revealed about that bounty. Usopp, Robin, and Blackbeard are all examples of this.

The burden of proof was on you to prove that Katakuri was not another example; the burden of proof was on you to prove that Katakuri's bounty was 100% about power and so was Cracker's(that's the only way you could use having a higher bounty as proof that someone is stronger), something you could not do.

It's called portrayal mate and obviously certain characters are set up to look stronger than others, which is why bounty exists in the first place.

It's amazing how you can go from acknowledging bounties have factors outside of power that causes them to be high in one paragraph, and in the very next one say "Higher bounty means higher power." That's a special kind of dumb.

 

[Dannie]

You can explain the hype all you want. Won't change that it wasn't 100%/a guarantee.

It is a large guarantee because Katakuri's introduction was set up to look stronger than Cracker, while you are just arguing semantics on bounty not being a clear indicator of a persons strength when we had more hype and subtle evidences of Katakuri being stronger back then. As Toshi said, it's just common sense.

Gonna take this moment to give a reminder: The debate was never about whether or not Katakuri's bounty indicates he's a powerful character, but whether or not Katakuri's bounty>Cracker's bounty=Katakuri>Cracker.

There you go misrespenting this again. I love how you brought this up only to ignore the counterargument made just to spew it out again as though this wasn't refuted.

Katakuri was cited to be the biggest threat to the assassination plan SPECIFICALLY because it was a surprise, and he had the power to see through surprises. Katakuri was called the biggest threat to this SPECIFIC situation. He was not called the strongest or biggest threat in GENERAL.

Again, semantics. Who gives a shit if it wasn't in general. There's a reason why Katakuri was at the tea party while Cracker was not, lmao. Not to mention Capone never made any mention of Smoothie or Cracker because he knew that Katakuri was the main threat to the ENTIRE BM family. It's because his powers are deadly which is obviously a reflection off of his bounty in GENERAL.

The next time you feel the need to use this as an argument, remember that Capone said Katakuri was a bigger threat than Big Mom herself. You gonna say Katakuri>Big Mom?

This is rather silly since BM is in a league of her own and we know this fact since she's a yonko.
Cracker and Katakuri are both Sweet Commanders and given BM's retarded candy crazed personality, obviously he would consider someone who has future seeing ability more terrifying than some fat lady who only cares about cake.

Another thing that makes this argument dumb is the fact that Katakuri didn't even succeed at messing up the assassination plan whatsoever.

He was doing much better than Big Mom though. I wonder why? :/

His biscuit soldier was hit by a Kong Gun and then the biscuit solider stood back up* I know most of you are debating like you're reading Two Piece, but try to stick to One Piece events. Let's also not try to make it seem like Cracker got bodied by a Kong Gun when his soldiers stood up to a Kong Organ and Cracker himself never got directly injured by Luffy ONCE during that fight.

That wouldn't have happened to Katakuri though.
*Looks at current fight with Luffy*

Then, by your logic, anyone with a higher bounty is stronger than a person with a lower bounty. That's not true, so the logic is a fallacy.

That's not my argument, my argument is that it's foolish to dismiss someone with a high bounty and act as if it doesn't portray someone as stronger than someone with a lower bounty, and to add that this man is literally at the top of a damn yonko crew, but keep being stubborn to this fact.

It's not either or. Every bounty is a combination of both. Which is why you can't say which one is dominant over the other when a bounty is revealed with no information behind it

Using Usopp, Blackbeard, and also Robin, works perfectly because they are perfect examples of the point we made: Bounties are both strength and danger, not either or. A person's bounty consists of more than just how strong they are.

A bounty is never 100% power level, therefore you can't say a bounty is 100% a person's power when no info is revealed about that bounty. Usopp, Robin, and Blackbeard are all examples of this.

No they're not because we knew how strong, Usopp, Robin and BB were.
We knew nothing of Katakuri, other than he was a sweet commander of a yonko and had a bounty over a billion, it should be obvious that he was stronger than someone who was defeated before him and with a lesser bounty.

The burden of proof was on you to prove that Katakuri was not another example; the burden of proof was on you to prove that Katakuri's bounty was 100% about power and so was Cracker's(that's the only way you could use having a higher bounty as proof that someone is stronger), something you could not do.

Cracker was defeated before we got to Katakuri, not to mention Cracker received no hype of his abilities that made him look dangerous, like Katakuri did.

It's amazing how you can go from acknowledging bounties have factors outside of power that causes them to be high in one paragraph, and in the very next one say "Higher bounty means higher power." That's a special kind of dumb.

I mean sure, if you are only reading part of my posts then I guess it does seem that way, but I am not so ignorant to believe that someone being revealed to have a 1 billion 57 bounty is weaker than someone with a slightly lower bounty of only 860,000,000, knowing of which that both of these guys are sweet commanders so what sense would it make to think that one sweet commander with a lower bounty is stronger than a sweet commander of a higher bounty, with one being defeated quite early in the arc before the other was even revealed?

I am not so ignorant to believe that one of these 2 people with a slightly lower bounty happen to have been defeated by mere silly tactics and couldn't even make it to the tea party main event because he was defeated by Nami and a weakened Luffy is stronger than someone who was warned to watch out for, with a slightly higher bounty.

I am not so ignorant to believe that someone who received hype for his power(which for some reason you still want to dismiss it as hype) is weaker than someone who did not receive any hype at all and also has a slightly lower bounty.

I don't try to overthink these things, I use common sense based off of portrayal and how characters are brought to the story.

 

[arv993]

None of this actually refutes my point: Exceptions exist. Meaning that Katakuri being stronger than Cracker because of bounty wasn't 100%. And that's all the argument ever was.

You can explain the hype all you want. Won't change that it wasn't 100%/a guarantee.



1. Relativity. I'm comparing pirates whose bounty progression and rise to infamy are happening close together because that's the case for Katakuri and Cracker as well.

2. Your acknowledgement that external factors affect bounty, aside from strength, just supports my argument.

Lol cracker and kata reached the pinnacle where as luffy and co are all rookies as someone already pointed out.

External factors exist but bounty is still especially at those high level bounties a good indicator of strength. you are too rigid with your perception of things in this manga is all I can say to you. Your inability to use context is next level

 

[ToshiZO]

None of this actually refutes my point: Exceptions exist. Meaning that Katakuri being stronger than Cracker because of bounty wasn't 100%. And that's all the argument ever was.

You can explain the hype all you want. Won't change that it wasn't 100%/a guarantee.

Yea that's where being a sweet commander comes in.

C'mon now, you're making this too easy lmao.

Don't even know why you're so obssesed with him being > Cracker. The point was always he is in that Cracker range thus he no diffs these scrubs.

 

[Punk Hazard]

It is a large guarantee because Katakuri's introduction was set up to look stronger than Cracker, while you are just arguing semantics on bounty not being a clear indicator of a persons strength when we had more hype and subtle evidences of Katakuri being stronger back then. As Toshi said, it's just common sense.

There is no such thing as a "large guarantee." Either something is 100%, or it's not. A bounty introduced with no explanation never is. None of the things you've pointed out as hype actually suggests what you're claiming it does.

Again, semantics. Who gives a shit if it wasn't in general. There's a reason why Katakuri was at the tea party while Cracker was not, lmao. Not to mention Capone never made any mention of Smoothie or Cracker because he knew that Katakuri was the main threat to the ENTIRE BM family. It's because his powers are deadly which is obviously a reflection off of his bounty in GENERAL.

Not semantics; context. Capone was speaking of who the biggest threat towards their sneak attack was, not who their strongest enemy was. This is emphasized by the fact that he was speaking about Katakuri's Observation Haki alone, and none of his other abilities.

Your argument has now devolved into the same one LBeezy made when he said Kata>BM because his OH feats were better.

This is rather silly since BM is in a league of her own and we know this fact since she's a yonko.

THIS is what demonstrates how stupid your argument is. Capone said Katakuri was the biggest threat in a group that included Big Mom. He did not say anything about BM being an exception, he didn't say of all the Sweet Commanders, he said Katakuri is the biggest threat of them all. Meaning, by the logic you're trying, and failing, to retroactively fits means Katakuri>Big Mom.

He was doing much better than Big Mom though. I wonder why? :/

Because, as stated before, the context of the situation. During the "surprise" portion of the attack, Katakuri was the only one able to act. Which is what Capone said in the first place: His abilities countered the nature of their attack.

Look at what happened once the surprise part was over and Big Mom went into action. She was ****ing them up just as well as Katakuri was and became the biggest threat there, because at that point, the only thing relevant was power. It's no coincidence that once Big Mom started attacking, Katakuri's ability to see the future stopped being relevant in stopping the StrawTanks.

That wouldn't have happened to Katakuri though.
*Looks at current fight with Luffy*

Considering that Cracker 1 vs 1 was bodying Luffy, their fights pretty much are along the same lines. Luffy knocking down one biscuit soldier can be compared to Luffy grabbing Katakuri in Gear Third(which left him unable to do anything). And in both fights, both actions ultimately meant nothing and still left Luffy as the one losing.

That's not my argument, my argument is that it's foolish to dismiss someone with a high bounty and act as if it doesn't portray someone as stronger than someone with a lower bounty,

In 100% of the cases, no. This might be more likely, but the argument was never about likelihoods, it was about guarantees. The existence of Robin's, Franky's, and Usopp's bounties means guarantees for bounties will never exist. Point blank period.

and to add that this man is literally at the top of a damn yonko crew,

Are you forgetting that Cracker shares the exact same rank as Katakuri? The SAME rank can't be used to determine the DIFFERENCE between two people lmfao "When you factor in that Katakuri has a rank no higher than Cracker's, it's clear the rank is meant to portray him as stronger"

You must be registered for see images

No they're not because we knew how strong, Usopp, Robin and BB were.

That's what allows to make the comparison lmfao By comparing two people where we know one is stronger than the other, but has a lower bounty, we establish proof that higher bounty>higher power is not an absolute. If it were an absolute, these cases would not exist. C'mon now, these other guys are doubtful, but you're definitely smart enough to understand this.

We knew nothing of Katakuri, other than he was a sweet commander of a yonko and had a bounty over a billion, it should be obvious that he was stronger than someone who was defeated before him and with a lesser bounty.

Nope. It's because we knew nothing about Katakuri that we couldn't say he was definitely 100% stronger than Cracker just because of bounty(don't know why you keep bringing up that he's a Sweet Commander. At this point, I'm pretty sure you've actually forgotten that Cracker is one too)

Cracker was defeated before we got to Katakuri, not to mention Cracker received no hype of his abilities that made him look dangerous, like Katakuri did.

The fact that Luffy had to run away from Cracker for 11 hours and avoid direct engagement WHILE Nami was already weakening his biscuits soldiers is a direct hype to his power(actually might be a feat, either way works). Meanwhile, Katakuri's hype wasn't towards his overall power, but to one of his powers towards one particular situation that didn't require high combat skill.

Usopp with the power to see the future would have been the biggest threat to the plan too. Because it's a sneak attack.

I mean sure, if you are only reading part of my posts then I guess it does seem that way, but I am not so ignorant to believe that someone being revealed to have a 1 billion 57 bounty is weaker than someone with a slightly lower bounty of only 860,000,000, knowing of which that both of these guys are sweet commanders so what sense would it make to think that one sweet commander with a lower bounty is stronger than a sweet commander of a higher bounty, with one being defeated quite early in the arc before the other was even revealed?

What you're describing is likelihood. The burden of proof on your end was to prove it's a 100% guarantee.

I am not so ignorant to believe that one of these 2 people with a slightly lower bounty happen to have been defeated by mere silly tactics and couldn't even make it to the tea party main event because he was defeated by Nami and a weakened Luffy is stronger than someone who was warned to watch out for, with a slightly higher bounty.

Still likelihood

I am not so ignorant to believe that someone who received hype for his power(which for some reason you still want to dismiss it as hype) is weaker than someone who did not receive any hype at all and also has a slightly lower bounty

Hype for one ability in regards to one specific situation, whereas Cracker received hype for his general power. Nice try tho.

Lol cracker and kata reached the pinnacle where as luffy and co are all rookies as someone already pointed out.

This doesn't disprove the point. This is why I compared rookies rising in infamy together; like Cracker and Katakuri, the people I compared are in the same relative position in their journey as pirates.

External factors exist but bounty is still especially at those high level bounties a good indicator of strength.

It's a good indicator that a person is strong, but it's never a 1:1 indicator of who is stronger than the other.

you are too rigid with your perception of things in this manga is all I can say to you. Your inability to use context is next level

Ironic as ****, coming from someone on the same side as "Katakuri is stronger than BM because I don't context" up there.

Yea that's where being a sweet commander comes in.

The thing that Cracker is too? Yes, I'm sure both of them being the exact same rank tells us who's stronger. You smart good.

 

[Dannie]

^Jack also has a bounty in the billions, and we already know that he is cruel and powerful too, so are we just going to ignore this to and act like Katakuri's bounty doesn't hold the same weight?

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

Bounties are a good indicator of strength for characters that have reached their peak, but its not a good indicator of strength if the character is still rapidly growing in strength.

 

[LBeezy]

Going by some of the members logic in here.. this post is gold!

Ace> Blackbeard
Usopp> Franky
Robin at Enies Lobby> Sanji all pre-skip
Usopp> Blackbeard

All confirmed

All confirmed.

 

[ToshiZO]

I'm just gonna leave this here and then dip, I don't have it in me to suffer reading through nonsense.

Jimbei randomly bringing up Katakuri's bounty when it was extremely out of place, he didn't even say Katakuri is strong, he only mentioned his bounty as that is all that is needed to say exactly that.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Editor note at the end of the chapter, stating that this level of dominance was a product of that bounty.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

The portrayal of Katakuri right from the get go, at the start of this thread we already had:
-Capone a fellow Supernova shitting his pants calling him the biggest threat in the wedding (in which featured Big Mom)
-bounty over a billion, highest bounty in the show ever revealed existing only for the purpose of hype
-being one of the sweet commanders when we already saw one in action, one with lower portrayal
-arguably the best raw observation haki feat we seen in the manga better than his own Yonkou Captain.

There are no excuses. Basic literary techniques and context cues you'd expect even a grade schooler to pick up on.

And we had mfers arguing over "proof" for this man beating Sanji, much less crushing him. I sometimes give people on here (especially Riker cause he's guilty of this the most) the benefit of the doubt of being bored thus wanting to engage in arguments, cause no one could be this dense.

 

[Dannie]

Even Jimbei knows that 1 billion aint' no joke yo!

 

[Punk Hazard]

^Jack also has a bounty in the billions, and we already know that he is cruel and powerful too, so are we just going to ignore this to and act like Katakuri's bounty doesn't hold the same weight?

Is this supposed to be a counterargument? You're using the dude whose bounty is probably a combination of power and a factor separate from power(cruelty) to counterargue our point that bounties are more than just power, and to defend attributing a character's bounty solely to power?

I'm just gonna leave this here and then dip, I don't have it in me to suffer reading through nonsense.

Jimbei randomly bringing up Katakuri's bounty when it was extremely out of place, he didn't even say Katakuri is strong, he only mentioned his bounty as that is all that is needed to say exactly that.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Katakuri's bounty turns out to be, for him, an indicator of strength, yes. We haven't denied that since this thread started back up(straight up said that). The problem with this is that you had no proof of this back when this thread was first started, and that was the proof that was asked for. Like Beezy and I mentioned before, you're gloating about guessing something and touting it as fact when other people said "I'm gonna wait for confirmation before I say this is fact, even if it's likley." And that's stupid.

Where was all this gloating about guessing when it turned out Katakuri didn't stop the assassination plan, I wonder.

Editor note at the end of the chapter, stating that this level of dominance was a product of that bounty.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Same as above.

The portrayal of Katakuri right from the get go, at the start of this thread we already had:
-Capone a fellow Supernova shitting his pants calling him the biggest threat in the wedding (in which featured Big Mom)

Gotta love how you acknowledge this, and still tout this as hype of Katakuri's overall power. Katakuri>Big Mom confirmed according to you lot.

-bounty over a billion, highest bounty in the show ever revealed existing only for the purpose of hype

The hype was to illustrate that Katakuri was a dangerous opponent. At that time there was no information to prove that Katakuri's danger was determined by power as the majority over cruelty/being a prominent threat. You're congratulating yourself for making an assumption without proper proof, and acting like that's good debating when the proof came afterwards.

-being one of the sweet commanders when we already saw one in action, one with lower portrayal

Lower portrayal? Cracker did not receive lower portrayal at the time this thread was going(Katakuri had no portrayal at all aside from being a dangerous Sweet Commander, which is portrayal that Cracker got in addition to being stronger than Luffy).

-arguably the best raw observation haki feat we seen in the manga better than his own Yonkou Captain.

And this is supposed to indicate overall power? Having better Observation than Cracker means Katakuri>Cracker? I guess Katakuri>everyone we've ever seen in the manga then, by this logic.

And we had mfers arguing over "proof" for this man beating Sanji, much less crushing him.

This was never the proof that was asked for. The proof that was asked for was proof that the statement "Katakuri's bounty being higher than Cracker's bounty=Katakuri>Cracker " is 100% a fact, which none of you were able to provide until the most recent chapter...6 months after the claim was made.

I sometimes give people on here (especially Riker cause he's guilty of this the most) the benefit of the doubt of being bored thus wanting to engage in arguments, cause no one could be this dense.

Says one of the people most common of autofellatio in this section. If you weren't too busy sucking yourself off, you'd see how you and Dannie already agreed to what me and Love Cook were saying this whole time, and ironically have been the ones to dense to realize it. Though I suppose that's easier than admitting how full of holes and contradictions your arguments have been.

Even Jimbei knows that 1 billion aint' no joke yo!

I'd love for you to show me where we said that Katakuri's bounty didn't mean he was a great danger of great strength. Because this is some incredible longevity when it comes to strawmanning.

 

[Dannie]

Is this supposed to be a counterargument? You're using the dude whose bounty is probably a combination of power and a factor separate from power(cruelty) to counterargue our point that bounties are more than just power, and to defend attributing a character's bounty solely to power?



I'd love for you to show me where we said that Katakuri's bounty didn't mean he was a great danger of great strength. Because this is some incredible longevity when it comes to strawmanning.

Mfw I wasn't even posting in this thread 6 months ago when you guys were guessing. We don't have that many characters, that we know of, with bounties in the billions, so it would only make sense for us to make the obvious conclusion that it goes back to their strength.

What do you people think the world government looks at when they see someone as a huge threat to them and decide to give them a large bounty? Obviously they look at their strength, and I don't think I need to remind you of what Aokiji said regarding a persons bounty. True, he might have said that it is not just about strength and that fear to the world government is also at play, but how does a person conquer and threaten someone if they are weak? Strength will ALWAYS be sure measure when it comes to bounty.