• 73 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by IheartZombies92 (2200 posts) - - Show Bio

Patrick Jane

Sherlock Holmes

Conditions

  • In-character
  • Set in 21st century New York
  • Neither have any contacts/friends in that area
  • Standard gear (heh)
  • View each other as bitter rivals
  • Both fully rested

Rounds

Round 1:

  • Only them
  • Neither know of the other's involvement
  • Both have to find an average serial killer in 24 hours

Round 2:

  • Sherlock has John, Jane has Lisbon
  • Both know that someone else is trying to solve the crime
  • Both have to find a mass murderer (Joker-level intelligence) in 24 hours

Who solves the case first?

---------------------------

For more of my battles, click here!

#2 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

I knew you were going to make this :)

As this is the BBC version, I can see Mr. Mentalist taking both rounds, specially considering they have to catch killers..

#3 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

Thief!!!

#4 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

I knew you were going to make this :)

As this is the BBC version, I can see Mr. Mentalist taking both rounds, specially considering they have to catch killers..

Out of curiosity, which other Sherlock do you think would fair better?

#5 Posted by IheartZombies92 (2200 posts) - - Show Bio
#6 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio
#7 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

@rogueshadow said:

@princearagorn1 said:

I knew you were going to make this :)

As this is the BBC version, I can see Mr. Mentalist taking both rounds, specially considering they have to catch killers..

Out of curiosity, which other Sherlock do you think would fair better?

The book version. I don't know why, but when you're reading the guy seems.. invincible. I mean, seriously, bbc sherlock looks like a kid compared to him, even if the feats aren't equally impressive.

#8 Edited by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

@princearagorn1: I know what you mean. Many people always say BC Sherlock's a lot smarter, which is just outright false. I place them about equal in intellect, whereas Doyle Sherlock had a reserved, Victorian quality, which made him far more able to really stand back from a situation and the cocaine use must've helped too lol. I place Sherlock and Holmes as roughly equal except that BBC Sherlock is imbued with a 21st century spirit/sensibility.

I think that there feats are moe or less equal, but Doyle's Sherlock seems less intelligent due to his slower speech, which makes him appear to have slower thought processes, whe it's actually just borne from the faster, more streamlined modern age.

. We're also yet to see an armchair case. If they could do a 90 minute armchair detective piece I would consider Gatiss/Moffat superb writers.

I'm just glad you didn't say CBS Sherlock.

#9 Edited by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

@iheartzombies92 As to the topic, I say that 3 hours is a very short amount of time, I'm not sure either of them could capture a serial killer in that space of time, let alone the Joker. Should extend it to 24 hours in my humble opinion.

#10 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

@rogueshadow:

I'm just glad you didn't say CBS Sherlock.

Course I wasn't going to :)

#11 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio
#12 Posted by IheartZombies92 (2200 posts) - - Show Bio

@iheartzombies92 As to the topic, I say that 3 hours is a very short amount of time, I'm not sure either of them could capture a serial killer in that space of time, let alone the Joker. Should extend it to 24 hours in my humble opinion.

Good idea

#13 Edited by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmmmm. So round 1 is basically who can deal with fodder better? I say Patrick, he has way more feats in that area, each week he's squaring off againt above average intelligence criminals - highly intelligent criminals and it's rare a character will even come close. Coupled with his more hands on approach than Sherlock [where people are concerned] unlike Sherlock who can sometimes give John the actual interpersonal relations aspect of the job. His overall physical deductive abilities are possibly slightly inferior to Sherlock's, but is psychological insight into people, and moral core equilibrates this in my opinion, since he will have genuine desire to catch a murderer, though he does mask it with good fun, it's evident he genuinely despises the killers, unlike Sherlock who quite enjoys them.

So from this Patrick's winning based on all around better feats with fodder.

However Jane also will be more emotionally invested in this case, since his own wife and child were killed by a serial killer he has a particular distaste for them. This could be beneficial, but Partick's real weakness are his emotions, protecting Lisbon over catching RJ, shooting a man that there was really no evidence he was RJ. That being said this usually occurs over incidents involving RJ, so he would have to feel particularly engaged in the case for it to cloud him, though it is possible. A strength of this, is that he will not see it as a game [Unlike Sherlock, who, not knowing he is competing with somebody won't take it too seriously]

So Sherlock' strengths - Physical deduction,and forensics as mentioned, though this will be less prevalent since the time limit is 24 hours, his fodder haven't been s intelligent as some of Patrick's, Irene Adler, Jeff Hope etc they were supposed to be genius' but didn't come off as such.

His primary weakness is that he won't be as driven to stop the next murder as Patrick will be, in raw deductive analysis, he equals, if not exceeds Patrick, but his inability to take fodder seriously will be his downfall, however it may be his saving grace against the Joker.

Patrick wns round 1 8/10, either way they'd both catch a generic serial killer in under 24 hours in my opinion.Patrick probably takes about 10 hours, Sherlock 14 due to lack of real, committed interest and less experience/feats than Patrick.

#14 Edited by IheartZombies92 (2200 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmmmm. So round 1 is basically who can deal with fodder better? I say Patrick, he has way more feats in that area, each week he's squaring off againt above average intelligence criminals - highly intelligent criminals and it's rare a character will even come close. Coupled with his more hands on approach than Sherlock [where people are concerned] unlike Sherlock who can sometimes give John the actual interpersonal relations aspect of the job. His overall physical deductive abilities are posibly slightly inferior to Sherlock's, but is psychological insight into people, and moral core equilibrates this in my opinion, since he will have genuine desire to catch a murderer, though he does mask it with good fun, it's evident he genuinely despises the killers, unlike Sherlock who quite enjoys them.

So from this Patrick's winning based on all around better feats with fodder.

However Jane also will be more emotionally invested in this case, since his own wife and child were killed by a serial killer he has a particular distaste for them. This could be beneficial, but Partick's real weakness are his emotions, protecting Lisbon over catching RJ, shooting a man that there was really no evidence he was RJ. That being said this usually occurs over incidents involving RJ, so he would have to feel particularly engaged in the case for it to cloud him, though it is possible. A strength of this, is that he will not see it as a game [Unlike Sherlock, who, not knowing he is competing with somebody won't take it too seriously]

So Sherlock' strengths - Physical deduction,and forensics as mentioned, though this will be less prevalent since the time limit is 24 hours, his fodder haven't been s intelligent as some of Patrick's, Irene Adler, Jeff Hope etc they were supposed to be genius' but didn't come off as such.

His primary weakness is that he won't be as driven to stop the next murder as Patrick will be, in raw deductive analysis, he equals, if not exceeds Patrick, but his inability to take fodder seriously will be his downfall, however it may be his saving grace against the Joker.

Patrick wns round 1 8/10, either way they'd both catch a generic serial killer in under 24 hours in my opinion.Patrick probably takes about 10 hours, Sherlock 14 due to lack of real, committed interest and less experience/feats than Patrick.

Nice reply!

#15 Edited by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio
#16 Edited by IheartZombies92 (2200 posts) - - Show Bio
#17 Edited by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio
#18 Edited by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio
#19 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio
#20 Edited by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio
#21 Posted by IheartZombies92 (2200 posts) - - Show Bio
#22 Edited by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

I say Patrick again.

Sherlock will be an awful lot more enthused/intrigued by the Joker than a generic serial killer. Here he will probably go all out wanting to best him to show how good he is, and knowing some other unknown entity is on the case will push him even further, the thrill of competition, victory and showing how clever you are is more potent than any opiate for Sherlock. Also, he has proven himself adept at catching this type of killer with Moriarty, an insane super genius [I'm assuming that the killer is psychologically similar too, though I could be misinterpreting]

Jane's emotional involvement in people will spurn him a lot, he does genuinely care abut innocents. But not as much as Sherlock's drive to prove his superiority over the entire human race, only further exacerbated by his attempts to show off to John in this scenario.

Both can contend with a Joker level intellect in my opinion, [TDK Joker, comics would take them longer] and catch him, but I think Sherlock's relative lethargy in the first case will be none existent here, whereas Jane [without Lisbon] will not have the same level of interest as Sherlock, though still more than round 1.

So here is my reasoning that Patrick will win again [I do believe they are both somewhere close to equal overall, but I really don't think Sherlock could contend with RJ]

The presence of Lisbon. Jane without Lisbon's presence probably wouldn't be as motivated by the addition of Lisbon [Who I ship and I'm pretty sure he loves her] He has never been in a position where he might be outdone deductively or in general really aside from with RJ, unlike Sherlock who has had Jeff Hope, Irene Adler, Mycroft and Moriarty. Jane is the king of his world and whilst generally secure, if that was threatened he might want to show Lisbon he's still the biggest brain. He wins Round 2 again, not least because when he's going all out he's simply better than Sherlock in my opinion.

Also, Lisbon's hot:

#23 Posted by MadeinBangladesh (6651 posts) - - Show Bio
#24 Posted by IheartZombies92 (2200 posts) - - Show Bio

I say Patrick again.

Sherlock will be an awful lot more enthused/intrigued by the Joker than a generic serial killer. Here he will probably go all out wanting to best him to show how good he is, and knowing some other unknown entity is on the case will push him even further, the thrill of competition, victory and showing how clever you are is more potent than any opiate for Sherlock. Also, he has proven himself adept at catching this type of killer with Moriarty, an insane super genius [I'm assuming that the killer is psychologically similar too, though I could be misinterpreting]

Jane's emotional involvement in people will spurn him a lot, he does genuinely care abut innocents. But not as much as Sherlock's drive to prove his superiority over the entire human race, only further exacerbated by his attempts to show off to John in this scenario.

Both can contend with a Joker level intellect in my opinion, [TDK Joker, comics would take them longer] and catch him, but I think Sherlock's relative lethargy in the first case will be none existent here, whereas Jane [without Lisbon] will not have the same level of interest as Sherlock, though still more than round 1.

So here is my reasoning that Patrick will win again [I do believe they are both somewhere close to equal overall, but I really don't think Sherlock could contend with RJ]

The presence of Lisbon. Jane without Lisbon's presence probably wouldn't be as motivated by the addition of Lisbon [Who I ship and I'm pretty sure he loves her] He has never been in a position where he might be outdone deductively or in general really aside from with RJ, unlike Sherlock who has had Jeff Hope, Irene Adler, Mycroft and Moriarty. Jane is the king of his world and whilst generally secure, if that was threatened he might want to show Lisbon he's still the biggest brain. He wins Round 2 again, not least because when he's going all out he's simply better than Sherlock in my opinion.

Also, Lisbon's hot:

Nice reply, but...

Jane is better than Holmes?

But yes, Robin is much better than Martin Freeman.

#25 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

@iheartzombies92: Yeah, he has more feats in my opinion, maybe by the end of series 3 I'll change my mind. And I wouldn't say Robin is better than Martin Freeman. Freeman's pretty beastly. I definitely prefer Sherlock though.

#26 Posted by IheartZombies92 (2200 posts) - - Show Bio

@iheartzombies92: Yeah, he has more feats in my opinion, maybe by the end of series 3 I'll change my mind. And I wouldn't say Robin is better than Martin Freeman. Freeman's pretty beastly. I definitely prefer Sherlock though.

Yeah, agreed.

I meant in terms of attractiveness :p

#27 Edited by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio
#28 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

@iheartzombies92: Jane's feats are really crazy..

Like he guessed a man's password by looking at the paintings in his office,

or knew in which book of home-library a man would have hidden a note, without knowing the man, or having been to the home itself.

or telling rigsby to put the cupcake from the crime scene back :p

or driving a car when blindfolded, and reading people's reactions..

The guy isn't human, it's almost like he's some sort of reality warper..

#29 Edited by Killemall (18556 posts) - - Show Bio

I , for one, see Sherlock as superior.

From solving a crime by harpooning a pig, to being able to solve a crime by looking at video once of the crime scene Sherlock has shown some commendable abilities there, but the only problem is Sherlock himself has shown with many character flaws, who enjoys the game rather than trying to solve it quicker.

The guy has the whole street of London mapped, going around checking pulse to know if someone is lying, know that something is wrong based on 1 mere word whispered by a person, BBC Sherlock seems a lot more impressive, at least to me.

#30 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall: The checking the pulse part was such BS. Elevated pulse and dilated pupils indicate sexual arousal, not genuine emotional attachment. That part annoyed me, especially since Sherlock's victory was predicated on it.

#31 Posted by Killemall (18556 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall: The checking the pulse part was such BS. Elevated pulse and dilated pupils indicate sexual arousal, not genuine emotional attachment. That part annoyed me, especially since Sherlock's victory was predicated on it.

Well BS or otherwise, its a TV series, and that part was cool :p Dont be a hatter man.

Well technically him harpooning a pig in his house should not have been able to solve a problem, to which , he only heard about on phone without even going there, but in the show it did , not much to argue there :p

#32 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall: I am a hater! Hate! Hate! Hate! - So there! *Runs upstairs stamping feet*

#33 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

I , for one, see Sherlock as superior.

From solving a crime by harpooning a pig, to being able to solve a crime by looking at video once of the crime scene Sherlock has shown some commendable abilities there, but the only problem is Sherlock himself has shown with many character flaws, who enjoys the game rather than trying to solve it quicker.

The guy has the whole street of London mapped, going around checking pulse to know if someone is lying, know that something is wrong based on 1 mere word whispered by a person, BBC Sherlock seems a lot more impressive, at least to me.

Well, book sherlock is already on a different level than both to me.

But I don't see anything bbc sherlock did that patrick cannot top. Some spoilers ahead:

For memory, he made a list of every person he ever shook hands with since he started working on red john's case over the span of years,

or as for deduction, correctly told a man was a psychopath, by looking at his medicine cabinet. Hell, he caught that the cook was guilty from the amount of butter he used in his food.

Or as I already mentioned, deducing people's password by looking at the paintings in their office (unlike sherlock, he hadn't met the person at all till then), or telling which book in home-library a dead guy hid a note in, without previously visiting the house. He doesn't count as human in these matters..

And catching people lying? he has never needed to check the pulse, except for the episode when he was blind. Or check this scene out (well, it's from season 1, so not that great of a spoiler, just wanted to share the amazing acting on both sides):

He has even seen a group's relations, the moment he met them. Like which members dislike each other, or a woman who was jealous of the others, and the members who were involved in a relationship..

Nothing sherlock did really put him on patrick's level. How the hell can he even know things like the crime scene was going to have cup-cakes and rigsby is going to pick one up? (S5E20)

Only time patrick ever lost, or made mistakes, was when red john was involved. But considering red john can deduce what patrick is going to deduce about him two months later.. that's not something that'll make patrick look bad.

#34 Posted by rpottage (880 posts) - - Show Bio

Sherlock, both rounds.


Only because Patrick is a bad copy of Shawn Spencer.

#35 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio
#36 Edited by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

@rpottage said:

Sherlock, both rounds.

Only because Patrick is a bad copy of Shawn Spencer.

No. Just no.

#37 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

@rpottage said:

Sherlock, both rounds.

Only because Patrick is a bad copy of Shawn Spencer.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

#38 Posted by Killemall (18556 posts) - - Show Bio


Well, book sherlock is already on a different level than both to me.

They actually are just interpreting the book stuffs for Sherlock. They hired a couple of writer who would translate the actual events from the book, into a story more fitting of the modern age. Every episode thus far in Sherlock, is actually a chapter in the book, written different so anyone who read the book wouldnt know what is going to happen the moment the episode starts, and with a twist.

I have not read the book, but Sherlock homes had a old series in the 90s , which was exactly word to word from the book, i have watched that.

I am just a massive Sherlock Holmes fan what can i say :p

For memory, he made a list of every person he ever shook hands with since he started working on red john's case over the span of years,

Sherlock has the whole London Map memorised with every turning, every light and what times the light turn red and green, as shown in first episode.

Which at least to me seems just as impressive.

Also people be aware, i am not disagreeing with, just having a discussion, its fun :p

or as for deduction, correctly told a man was a psychopath, by looking at his medicine cabinet. Hell, he caught that the cook was guilty from the amount of butter he used in his food.

Sherlock identified a Guy to be gay, looking at him, but then shame it turns out Moriarity was playing him (which is actually in line with the book, where Moriarity could see exactly what Sherlock would see on a scene, which allowed him to plant evidence that would make Sherlock see what Moriarity wanted him to see as opposed to what actually happened, he later lost because of his own ego because he was too bored with Sherlock seeing him so easily duped).

Sherlock also identified a guy as a military man looking at him, even deduced his entire details, in the first episode <-- John Watson.

Or as I already mentioned, deducing people's password by looking at the paintings in their office (unlike sherlock, he hadn't met the person at all till then), or telling which book in home-library a dead guy hid a note in, without previously visiting the house. He doesn't count as human in these matters..

Cant exactly recall Sherlock doing those stuffs , but then thats the problem with comics and TV shows, at least in comics you can scan and keep feats for future use :p.

The Irene stuffs was created to make her Sherlock equal.

He was looking at John figuring out he was going for a date, he looked at a guy and knew he was going to die soon and stuffs like that. But i suppose Patrick is going to have had done a whole lot of stuffs then him, given his various appearences.

He also looked at a case thru webcam and said its not a murder its an accident, merely based on something in his hand. Cant recall the episode, can you the one where Watson goes to a crime scene with his laptop and stuffs.

So yeah more or less with Patrick having more feats, but i dont know, personal preference, me being a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, i still sort of see Sherlock as smarter :p

#39 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

@killemall:

They actually are just interpreting the book stuffs for Sherlock. They hired a couple of writer who would translate the actual events from the book, into a story more fitting of the modern age. Every episode thus far in Sherlock, is actually a chapter in the book, written different so anyone who read the book wouldnt know what is going to happen the moment the episode starts, and with a twist.

I have not read the book, but Sherlock homes had a old series in the 90s , which was exactly word to word from the book, i have watched that.

Make sure you do read it. There are a lot of adaptations of the book, but none compares to actually reading the book..

Sherlock has the whole London Map memorised with every turning, every light and what times the light turn red and green, as shown in first episode.

Which at least to me seems just as impressive.

Of course it's equally impressive. I'm just saying jane doesn't have any notable disadvantage in the memory department..

Sherlock identified a Guy to be gay, looking at him, but then shame it turns out Moriarity was playing him

Patrick did the same thing, in the very first episode. Except that they guy was dead, and there were about no clues left after doctors had examined him. And of course he didn't slip patrick his number :p

which is actually in line with the book, where Moriarity could see exactly what Sherlock would see on a scene, which allowed him to plant evidence that would make Sherlock see what Moriarity wanted him to see as opposed to what actually happened, he later lost because of his own ego because he was too bored with Sherlock seeing him so easily duped

Actually that's not in line with the books. The book confrontation was quite different, but I won't spoil it for you. Too awesome to do so..

Sherlock also identified a guy as a military man looking at him, even deduced his entire details, in the first episode

That's a feat replicated almost every alternate episode.. (A pizza guy, a casino guy, a teacher..and so on) Except the person is generally dead, removing the aspect of how he stands, or behaves..

he looked at a guy and knew he was going to die soon and stuffs like that. But i suppose Patrick is going to have had done a whole lot of stuffs then him, given his various appearences.

Yes, patrick has a lot more screen time than sherlock, hands down. But he also has the feats to keep up the intensity.. he understands minds better than anyone. And he tends to keep it funny:

I mean.. how is that even possible 0_0

So yeah more or less with Patrick having more feats, but i dont know, personal preference, me being a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, i still sort of see Sherlock as smarter :p

The point is, even if sherlock is smarter, patrick isn't any less smart. And he has huge host of other skills, bordering on pseudo reality warp..

I have never chosen anyone over sherlock, not shawn spencer, not spencer reid, not hercule poirot, not will graham, I like him to the point I consider him a rival to cal lightman (ok, that'll be pushing it a little). But mentalist gives so many insane feats to patrick, it's too hard to go against him.

#40 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

Just dropping this here for the lulz:

Really, patrick? Really?

#41 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20155 posts) - - Show Bio

Sticking to Sherlock here.

#42 Posted by PrinceAragorn1 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio
#43 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20155 posts) - - Show Bio
#44 Edited by Goldfinch (235 posts) - - Show Bio

How is Sherlock Holmes smarter than Hercule Poirot? The only person that can match Mentalist is Hercule Poirot, Prince Aragorn detecting Moriarty was not really a big thing, however Poirot in the Curtain met the perfect murderer which Holmes would never be able to identify!

Poirot has detected the Big Four something similar to Moriarty!

I dare to challenge you prince aragorn!

#45 Edited by Goldfinch (235 posts) - - Show Bio

@princearagorn1 said:

@killemall:

They actually are just interpreting the book stuffs for Sherlock. They hired a couple of writer who would translate the actual events from the book, into a story more fitting of the modern age. Every episode thus far in Sherlock, is actually a chapter in the book, written different so anyone who read the book wouldnt know what is going to happen the moment the episode starts, and with a twist.

I have not read the book, but Sherlock homes had a old series in the 90s , which was exactly word to word from the book, i have watched that.

Make sure you do read it. There are a lot of adaptations of the book, but none compares to actually reading the book..

Sherlock has the whole London Map memorised with every turning, every light and what times the light turn red and green, as shown in first episode.

Which at least to me seems just as impressive.

Of course it's equally impressive. I'm just saying jane doesn't have any notable disadvantage in the memory department.

Goldfinch: How exactly tracking people is impressive?

Sherlock identified a Guy to be gay, looking at him, but then shame it turns out Moriarity was playing him

Patrick did the same thing, in the very first episode. Except that they guy was dead, and there were about no clues left after doctors had examined him. And of course he didn't slip patrick his number :p

which is actually in line with the book, where Moriarity could see exactly what Sherlock would see on a scene, which allowed him to plant evidence that would make Sherlock see what Moriarity wanted him to see as opposed to what actually happened, he later lost because of his own ego because he was too bored with Sherlock seeing him so easily duped

Actually that's not in line with the books. The book confrontation was quite different, but I won't spoil it for you. Too awesome to do so..

You mean the Final problem story, sure!

Sherlock also identified a guy as a military man looking at him, even deduced his entire details, in the first episode

That's a feat replicated almost every alternate episode.. (A pizza guy, a casino guy, a teacher..and so on) Except the person is generally dead, removing the aspect of how he stands, or behaves..

he looked at a guy and knew he was going to die soon and stuffs like that. But i suppose Patrick is going to have had done a whole lot of stuffs then him, given his various appearences.

Yes, patrick has a lot more screen time than sherlock, hands down. But he also has the feats to keep up the intensity.. he understands minds better than anyone. And he tends to keep it funny:

Goldfinch: The only one who matches Mentalist in that department is Poirot!

I mean.. how is that even possible 0_0

So yeah more or less with Patrick having more feats, but i dont know, personal preference, me being a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, i still sort of see Sherlock as smarter :p

The point is, even if sherlock is smarter, patrick isn't any less smart. And he has huge host of other skills, bordering on pseudo reality warp..

I have never chosen anyone over sherlock, not shawn spencer, not spencer reid, not hercule poirot, not will graham, I like him to the point I consider him a rival to cal lightman (ok, that'll be pushing it a little). But mentalist gives so many insane feats to patrick, it's too hard to go against him.

Goldfinch: No Holmes is not smarter than Hercule Poirot, and Poirot is the only one matches Mentalist in all abilities, especially psychology! Mentalist and Hercule Poirot are the smartest and the best when it comes to psychology!

I need you to prove me everything that I written so far, and would Hercule Poirot detect Moriarty as criminal mastermind?

He will, because he detected and defeated the Big Four!

Would Patrick Jane be able to detect Moriarty as the criminal mastermind, since he was invisible?

You're 100% wrong!

And, you still need to prove that Sherlock Holmes is smarter than Hercule Poirot!

But you can't, because it's the opposite, Poirot is brighter and smarter than Holmes; Poirot through conversation and psychology knows who the killer is, while Holmes needs to visit crime scenes, observation and science (clues, evidences, fingerprints, footprints, chemistry, biology, geology, botany, anatomy and etc.), Poirot solves crimes without anything mentioned, read the Cornish mystery, read the Curtain, and there are many, many other stories/novels where Poirot solves crimes without using Holmes' methods-Poirot is much brighter than Holmes, Poirot by this category beats all other fictional detectives, including even Mentalist.

Even Mentalist needs few clues to know if someone is the killer, but Poirot does not need anything all he has to do is to make several conversations with people and that's it!

Unlike Mentalist, Poirot does not use his tricks and his mental traps too often (but he does from time to time), what Poirot does is that he makes other people underestimate him, and he makes people to talk to him and he makes people/criminals to confess him the crime they committed; unlike Holmes who underestimates criminals and because of that he had his failures, Poirot is perfect he has never made a single mistake, and never failed to solve any crime whatsoever!

And you still need to prove that Mentalist is superior to Poirot when it comes to psychology-read the Curtain: The Last Poirot's story.

Right now I'm reading all the stories/novels of original Sherlock Holmes, and I have still not found what's the big deal about all of Holmes' abilities-nothing big deal, it's all average, if you ask me.

Sure Holmes, is extremely observant-more observant than other mentioned fictional detective including Adrian Monk, and his deduction and knowledge of pretty much everything is truly awesome, but Poirot solves crimes without visiting crime scenes, without using science, Poirot just makes several conversations, and Poirot thinks and solves the crime.

In that area Poirot is superior to Holmes, plus this very fact 100% proves that Poirot is much smarter than Holmes, smarter than even Mentalist, because Mentalist can be fooled, while Poirot cannot be fooled.

#46 Posted by Auction_Sniper (1254 posts) - - Show Bio

The only person that can match Mentalist is Hercule Poirot

What about this guy?

#47 Edited by theONEtaichou (1521 posts) - - Show Bio

@auction_sniper: that Goren was stupid and crap.

He solved his cases by luck, dumb stupid luck and the stupidity of the criminals. In one case the suspect had literally gotten away with everything and they had NOTHING but they goad him into confessing (dumb as hell considering he had already asked for his lawyer). Dumb flippin dumb. The only way you could take Goren as a contender is if you are 10 years old.

good day

#48 Edited by Auction_Sniper (1254 posts) - - Show Bio
#49 Posted by Lunacyde (18654 posts) - - Show Bio

Patrick Jane...is the man.

#50 Posted by RogueShadow (10355 posts) - - Show Bio

@lunacyde said:

Patrick Jane...is the man.

He really is. He's just, 'the sh*t'.