[Discussion] Mihawk vs kaido

[ChrisWolf]

Ah let me rephrase it since you're not very good at getting the gist of analogies.

Asking me how is using a sword laced with Haki still swordsmanship is like asking how is eating a banana covered in chocolate still eating a banana.

You acknowledge that a sword covered in Haki is still a sword, so why is using it not swordsmanship?

It can be a sword, as I said before you can use a sword and not be a swordsman.

There's two examples of you trying to twist my words around.

1. I corrected your analogy which was clearly flawed and thus you accused me of misunderstanding it, did I say I didn't understand it?
2. I acknowledged it was still a sword so you tried to use that against me and say that it is swordsmanship but I have said several times you can use a sword and not be a swordsman so both of your pitiful tricks have failed.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Missing the point. I was saying that it's probable that Shanks relies on CoC a lot more than his swordsmanship in combat.
Clearly, you didn't understand the point.

That doesn't make him not a swordsman.

It can be a sword, as I said before you can use a sword and not be a swordsman.

There's two examples of you trying to twist my words around.

1. I corrected your analogy which was clearly flawed and thus you accused me of misunderstanding it, did I say I didn't understand it?
2. I acknowledged it was still a sword so you tried to use that against me and say that it is swordsmanship but I have said several times you can use a sword and not be a swordsman so both of your pitiful tricks have failed.

1. You actually did miss the point of my analogy completely.

2. Right. Using a sword consistently and regularly is actually the exact opposite of being a swordsman.

 

[ChrisWolf]

That doesn't make him not a swordsman.


1. You actually did miss the point of my analogy completely.

2. Right. Using a sword consistently and regularly is actually the exact opposite of being a swordsman.

I didn't miss the point of your analogy but the point was irrelevant because you can't compare an object like a banana to a style of combat the way you did it just didn't work, if you don't understand that then you clearly are the one who isn't good with analogies.

His Haki is his main form of defense and offense, I mean hell remember earlier when you asked me to bring up a time when he didn't draw his sword? well what about when he saved luffy from that fish and it ate his arm? he didn't draw a sword then.

 

[Forbidden Tale]

I don't know why people complicate things. At the end of the day Mihawk's title is the world strongest swordsman. His title alone means he is above other swordsmen in the fact that if they were to fight in a swords battle he won't lose. Regardless how fast, strong the enemies' physical strength and haki is, as long as they use as a supplement of their swordsmanship, it's Mihawk who is supposed to prevail.

So whether Shanks imbue haki, magic or whatever in his swords, it's Mihawk who is supposed to win. Conqueror haki is useless as it stands against someone strong anyway. Rayleigh(another conqueror haki user) couldn't make use of his conqueror haki against Kizaru simply because it was useless. Same thing goes for Doflamingo(a conqueror user) against Law(a non-conqueror user). Only thing useful in high level battles are observation and armament and for all we know Mihawk prevails in those categories as well.

That's not really the point and that's different than what I am talking about, though.

It's irrelevant will haki and other abilities close the gap, but point is that "haki/strength/speed/df" don't fell under category called 'swordsmanship'

 

[VongolaX]

Strongest swordsmen vs. the strongest beast

Since Shanks (yet to reveal title) took on the strongest beast and put him on hold.

Mihawk (shanks rival) will do the same

 

[Punk Hazard]

I didn't miss the point of your analogy but the point was irrelevant because you can't compare an object like a banana to a style of combat the way you did it just didn't work, if you don't understand that then you clearly are the one who isn't good with analogies.

His Haki is his main form of defense and offense, I mean hell remember earlier when you asked me to bring up a time when he didn't draw his sword? well what about when he saved luffy from that fish and it ate his arm? he didn't draw a sword then.

If eating a banana that's covered in chocolate is still considered the act of eating a banana, then why would combating with a sword that's covered with Haki not still combating with a sword, which is swordsmanship? That's the analogy, and it does work. That's the thing about analogies, they're not literally the same, they are parallel in concept.

That was an error in my part. What I should have asked you was to compare how many times Shanks was in a confrontation and opted to use his sword versus the amount of times he didn't. However, that too is irrelevant really, and Kaku is why. Kaku used his Rokushiki and Devil Fruit just as many times as his swords, and is still considered a swordsman. A person can use a separate ability more than or with his swords, but as long as he consistently and regularly uses his sword, he is still considered a swordsman; Kaku is the proof of that. Haki may be Shanks' main weapon(Not supported by the manga, by the way. Shanks has used his sword with and without Haki much more times than he's used his Haki without his sword), but as long as he maintains his regular and consistent usage of a sword, he is considered a swordsman.

 

[Punk Hazard]

That's not really the point and that's different than what I am talking about, though.

It's irrelevant will haki and other abilities close the gap, but point is that "haki/strength/speed/df" don't fell under category called 'swordsmanship'

Yes, they don't fall under the category of swordsmanship, but a user of such is still considered a swordsman overall. Shanks can be faster than Mihawk, or physically stronger, or have stronger Haki, that's all fine and dandy, but all that means is Mihawk is strong enough to not be defeated because of that; Mihawk has some trait that puts him above all swordsmen. Maybe his stamina is too great for swordsmen who are physically stronger than him. Maybe his skill with a sword is too great for swordsmen who are faster than him. Maybe his attacks are too overwhelmingly powerful for swordsmen with better Haki.

 

[Hexuze]

Shanks is a swordsman when it comes to using sword in a battle. Tho, fighting with sword makes you swordsman, but using haki in battle don't fell under swordsman category.

Mihawk > Shanks when it comes to swords only. But when it comes to other aspects like strength, haki, it's possible that Shanks is better which leave their overall power left for speculation. I personally would say that these two are around equal.

It's really no different than Law and Zoro.

In the end Zoro will become Best Swordsman. Law uses swords and therefore he is a swordsman. Does that mean that Zoro will be stronger than Law by the end of series? - No.

Zoro's swordsman skills >>>>>>> Law's swordsman skills, but Law on top has his DF, which close the gap and even give him the edge.

Like I was saying earlier, maybe it's CoC that sets Shanks above Mihawk.

I don't know why people complicate things. At the end of the day Mihawk's title is the world strongest swordsman. His title alone means he is above other swordsmen in the fact that if they were to fight in a swords battle he won't lose. Regardless how fast, strong the enemies' physical strength and haki is, as long as they use as a supplement of their swordsmanship, it's Mihawk who is supposed to prevail.

So whether Shanks imbue haki, magic or whatever in his swords, it's Mihawk who is supposed to win. Conqueror haki is useless as it stands against someone strong anyway. Rayleigh(another conqueror haki user) couldn't make use of his conqueror haki against Kizaru simply because it was useless. Same thing goes for Doflamingo(a conqueror user) against Law(a non-conqueror user). Only thing useful in high level battles are observation and armament and for all we know Mihawk prevails in those categories as well.

You must be really special if you think CoC is only used to knock out fodders. You really think Oda is going to place such importance on CoC if it's only capable of doing that and make Luffy (strongest from the M3) specialize in CoC? There's a reason why all the admirals were "scared" and WB stopped what he was doing when Luffy used CoC.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

Once Oda explains how CoC is used in combat, you'll see how strong it is.

 

[ChrisWolf]

If eating a banana that's covered in chocolate is still considered the act of eating a banana, then why would combating with a sword that's covered with Haki not still combating with a sword, which is swordsmanship? That's the analogy, and it does work. That's the thing about analogies, they're not literally the same, they are parallel in concept.

That was an error in my part. What I should have asked you was to compare how many times Shanks was in a confrontation and opted to use his sword versus the amount of times he didn't. However, that too is irrelevant really, and Kaku is why. Kaku used his Rokushiki and Devil Fruit just as many times as his swords, and is still considered a swordsman. A person can use a separate ability more than or with his swords, but as long as he consistently and regularly uses his sword, he is still considered a swordsman; Kaku is the proof of that. Haki may be Shanks' main weapon(Not supported by the manga, by the way. Shanks has used his sword with and without Haki much more times than he's used his Haki without his sword), but as long as he maintains his regular and consistent usage of a sword, he is considered a swordsman.

attacking someone with a sword and having swordsman ship ability is different, *sigh* once again YOU are the one implying that when luffy picked up a sword and attacked with it he was a swordsman.

The flaw in your analogy is that you asked if a chocolate covered banana was still a banana which was basically asking if a haki covered sword is still a sword but that was not the point, the point was is using a sword swordsmanship in the world of onepiece.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Like I was saying earlier, maybe it's CoC that sets Shanks above Mihawk.


You must be really special if you think CoC is only used to knock out fodders. You really think Oda is going to place such importance on CoC if it's only capable of doing that and make Luffy (strongest from the M3) specialize in CoC? There's a reason why all the admirals were "scared" and WB stopped what he was doing when Luffy used CoC.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

Once Oda explains how CoC is used in combat, you'll see how strong it is.

And until then, all we have is knocking out people. Unless we're all fine with making up potential uses and applying them to debates, COC can't really be applied for now.

attacking someone with a sword having swordsman ship ability is different, *sigh* once again YOU are the one implying that when luffy picked up a sword and attacked with it he was a swordsman.

The flaw in your analogy is that you asked if a chocolate covered banana was still a banana which was basically asking if a haki covered sword is still a sword but that was not the point, the point was is using a sword swordsmanship in the world of onepiece.

That's true. Swordsmanship isn't just attacking someone with a sword, it's regularly and consistently using a sword in combat. And Shanks has done that. That makes Shanks a swordsman.

I admitted the particular wording of that analogy was flawed to convey my intended meaning. How about you stop ignoring the fixed one and actually address it instead of banking on the erroneous one to dodge the question?

 

[ChrisWolf]

basically you are saying that the only reason shanks is a swordsman and luffy isn't is because luffy only used that sword once and shanks uses it often but using it often does not mean he is a swordsman, if he relied only on his sword like mihawk or even just mostly on his swords like zoro then yes you would have a valid argument, but this is not the case.

 

[Punk Hazard]

basically you are saying that the only reason shanks is a swordsman and luffy isn't is because luffy only used that sword once and shanks uses it often but using it often does not mean he is a swordsman, if he relied only on his sword like mihawk or even just mostly on his swords like zoro then yes you would have a valid argument, but this is not the case.

I never said using the sword often, I said regularly and consistently combating with a sword. Maybe if you weren't too busy changing my words, you'd pay attention and see that Shanks is a swordsman.

 

[ChrisWolf]

I never said using the sword often, I said regularly and consistently combating with a sword. Maybe if you weren't too busy changing my words, you'd pay attention and see that Shanks is a swordsman.

Oh excuse me lets use the right words then. Using a sword consistently and often STILL does not make you a swordsman IN FACT I would say that if you use one consistently and often and still do not show any sword techs then you are definitely not a swordsman because it cannot be argued that you are still learning but you are instead just not interested in sword style techs because you focus on haki because you are not a swordsman the sword you use is just a tool for you and a sometimes tool for you're haki.

is that better?

 

[Hexuze]

And until then, all we have is knocking out people. Unless we're all fine with making up potential uses and applying them to debates, COC can't really be applied for now.

Yeah all we've seen of CoC was to knock out fodder...

You must be registered for see images

If it can't be applied right now (which I'm not denying that it can't), why state Mihawk can defeat Shanks like it's factual?

 

[Punk Hazard]

Oh excuse me lets use the right words then. Using a sword consistently and often STILL does not make you a swordsman IN FACT I would say that if you use one consistently and often and still do not show any sword techs then you are definitely not a swordsman because it cannot be argued that you are still learning but you are instead just not interested in sword style techs because you focus on haki because you are not a swordsman the sword you use is just a tool for you and a sometimes tool for you're haki.

is that better?

Why are you still changing my words? Often and regularly are not the same thing.

Right. Shanks stopping Whitebeard's swing and Akainu's magma fist, as well as using a sword since his rookie days on the Roger Pirates' ship is clearly still learning how to use a sword and is just interested. By his portrayal so far, and until this portrayal changes, Shanks is a swordsman.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Yeah all we've seen of CoC was to knock out fodder...

You must be registered for see images

If it can't be applied right now (which I'm not denying that it can't), why state Mihawk can defeat Shanks like it's factual?

Because Oda knows what Shanks can do, and he's slated Mihawk as the Greatest Swordsman in the OP world. That's why we can say Mihawk can defeat Shanks, it is factual.

 

[ChrisWolf]

Why are you still changing my words? Often and regularly are not the same thing.

Right. Shanks stopping Whitebeard's swing and Akainu's magma fist, as well as using a sword since his rookie days on the Roger Pirates' ship is clearly still learning how to use a sword and is just interested.

he knows mihawk quite well and uses his sword regularly WHICH I NEVER DENIED so if was really a swordsman don't you think he would of picked up a few techniques from mihawk instead of still just relying on imbuing it with haki? and I'm not changing you're words go ahead and say regularly or consistently or whatever you want you are still wrong.

 

[Punk Hazard]

he knows mihawk quite well and uses his sword regularly WHICH I NEVER DENIED so if was really a swordsman don't you think he would of picked up a few techniques from mihawk instead of still just relying on imbuing it with haki? and I'm not changing you're words go ahead and say regularly or consistently or whatever you want you are still wrong.

You clearly don't understand the usage and importance of Haki in the OP world. That's like saying why didn't Luffy learn how to do something other than just imbue his body with Haki over the timeskip.

 

[ChrisWolf]

You clearly don't understand the usage and importance of Haki in the OP world. That's like saying why didn't Luffy learn how to do something other than just imbue his body with Haki over the timeskip.

exactly! he didn't learn any swordsmanship because he didn't need to because he had haki so he doesn't need to be a swordsman. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Punk Hazard]

exactly! he didn't learn any swordsmanship because he didn't need to because he had haki so he doesn't need to be a swordsman. Thank you for proving my point.

So is Zoro also not a swordsman anymore for learning Busoshoku Haki over the timeskip to use with his swords?

Is Sabo no longer a martial artist because he bothered to learn how to cover his body in Haki?

Shanks didn't learn to cover his sword in Haki to make up for a lack of swordsmanship skills, he did it to enhance the skills he was learning and to combat Logias. Remember that, how in order to combat Logias you need Haki? How do you know Shanks didn't learn and grow a monstrous level of skill, and then learn Haki to enhance it even further? How do you know that it's compensation and not just icing on the cake?