@Goldfinch: Thats good for you, I have seen every episode of Monk,Poirot and read Quite alot on sherlock
Than I guess I can take your word since you've read them all? But I just wonder how will Monk or Sherlock deal with the case of the murderer that is not murderer, but subtly and psychologically he had manipulated others to kill for him? That happened in the last Poirot's story (Curtain). How would Monk, Sherlock or any other detective deal with this, since none of them could not prove that the guy is a "murderer"?
I cant believe you are actually asking me about this. Monk Will find out. I mean he eventually found out who killed his wife. It was someone who manipulated others to do it for him
Yes, but Dale the Wale told him the first name, could Monk figure it out all by himself? Poirot figured it out all by himself! Could Sherlock do it? And what about Mentalist? What do you think about Sherlock or Monk or Poirot vs. the Mentalist, that would be awesome?
xD yeah!. Actually there is something i forgot to mention. Monks C.O.D was the thing that was stopping him from solving his wife's murder
Do you perhaps know in which episode this was confirmed? And what do you think about Mentalist?
I don't really know the others, but I think Monk. He is more genius than anyone could be. He is solved cases which is seemed impossible. He has great lexical knowledge. He has so good memory he even remembered his own born.
I don't really know the others, but I think Monk. He is more genius than anyone could be. He is solved cases which is seemed impossible. He has great lexical knowledge. He has so good memory he even remembered his own born.
At last! someone Who actually knows what they are talking about. Thumbs up my good sir
@hudyman: I watched all episode under two weeks on the internet. I almost became a detective myself, lol.
Why Monk is very impressive is not just because his abilities, but there were murderers who knew him and expect with him, and a lot of man made very good alibi. The two best alibi was when the murderer was in the space(!) while he managed to kill. The other was working on live radio while he managed to kill. There where also highly intelligent chess champion, and lawyer who "never lose" still Monk busted them. So these... the story writers made more than just regular murder cases.
@Goldfinch: You mean the episode where he finds the killer? Thats the last episode and i have never seen the mentalist really
Personally I think the mentalist would be the winner, after this guy can read people very easily. I still don't know why do you put Monk above Poirot and Sherlock, any why do you put Poirot above Sherlock. Sherlock could from only a few trails tell the whole story...
@Goldfinch: Thats good for you, I have seen every episode of Monk,Poirot and read Quite alot on sherlock
Than I guess I can take your word since you've read them all? But I just wonder how will Monk or Sherlock deal with the case of the murderer that is not murderer, but subtly and psychologically he had manipulated others to kill for him? That happened in the last Poirot's story (Curtain). How would Monk, Sherlock or any other detective deal with this, since none of them could not prove that the guy is a "murderer"?
I cant believe you are actually asking me about this. Monk Will find out. I mean he eventually found out who killed his wife. It was someone who manipulated others to do it for him
Yes, but Dale the Wale told him the first name, could Monk figure it out all by himself? Poirot figured it out all by himself! Could Sherlock do it? And what about Mentalist? What do you think about Sherlock or Monk or Poirot vs. the Mentalist, that would be awesome?
xD yeah!. Actually there is something i forgot to mention. Monks C.O.D was the thing that was stopping him from solving his wife's murder
Interesting I read on other boards that is is Monk's OCD that enables him to solve any case, and yet he couldn't solve wife's case without the help from Dale the Wale.
@Goldfinch: You mean the episode where he finds the killer? Thats the last episode and i have never seen the mentalist really
Personally I think the mentalist would be the winner, after this guy can read people very easily. I still don't know why do you put Monk above Poirot and Sherlock, any why do you put Poirot above Sherlock. Sherlock could from only a few trails tell the whole story...
Well sherlock would probably be higher than poirot. The thing is Monk will notice things in a few seconds, That will take sherlock and poirot and everyone else a couple of hours or days to actually notice them
@hudyman: I watched all episode under two weeks on the internet. I almost became a detective myself, lol.
Why Monk is very impressive is not just because his abilities, but there were murderers who knew him and expect with him, and a lot of man made very good alibi. The two best alibi was when the murderer was in the space(!) while he managed to kill. The other was working on live radio while he managed to kill. There where also highly intelligent chess champion, and lawyer who "never lose" still Monk busted them. So these... the story writers made more than just regular murder cases.
And what makes you think Poirot, Sherlock and Mentalist wouldn't be able to solve these mentioned cases/murders?
@Goldfinch: Thats good for you, I have seen every episode of Monk,Poirot and read Quite alot on sherlock
Than I guess I can take your word since you've read them all? But I just wonder how will Monk or Sherlock deal with the case of the murderer that is not murderer, but subtly and psychologically he had manipulated others to kill for him? That happened in the last Poirot's story (Curtain). How would Monk, Sherlock or any other detective deal with this, since none of them could not prove that the guy is a "murderer"?
I cant believe you are actually asking me about this. Monk Will find out. I mean he eventually found out who killed his wife. It was someone who manipulated others to do it for him
Yes, but Dale the Wale told him the first name, could Monk figure it out all by himself? Poirot figured it out all by himself! Could Sherlock do it? And what about Mentalist? What do you think about Sherlock or Monk or Poirot vs. the Mentalist, that would be awesome?
xD yeah!. Actually there is something i forgot to mention. Monks C.O.D was the thing that was stopping him from solving his wife's murder
Interesting I read on other boards that is is Monk's OCD that enables him to solve any case, and yet he couldn't solve wife's case without the help from Dale the Wale.
Its not just his O.C.D that helps him, He has a ton of other problems. As monk always says, Its a gift and a curse
Nah.. Riddler's puzzles would be a joke for him. I agree that batman is better at fighting and creating amazing gadgets, but he never showed a good enough case to match sherlock's first one, even.. There are generally weird villians who use either some weirder gadget or are insane or stronger than superhumans.. not criminal masterminds.. (When I am not comparing to Holmes, I am a Huge fan of batman.) But what makes him cool is his bike, and cloak, and you know.. being Batman. Not the extraordinary reasoning skills that holmes has.
Question, on the other hand seems more the detective type, and has good cases at hand but I still prefer Holmes (This, of course is a personal opinion.)
The problem is, Holmes doesn't have to go against cosmic entities and all that in his world. Otherwise, he would have much more impressive feats. He has gathered about all the knowledge required for his work (come on, who studies how many cigars are in existance?) and does almost all of his work legally. It's not his fault he was born in the wrong times :)
Yeah, sorry but its true.
If you threw Holmes into Riddlers puzzles, Holmes would be absolutely helpless. He doesn't have the expertise, wit or reasoning abilities at that level. If you actually read Batman RIP you would know that from one number and one sentence Batman uncovered an entire conspiracy with the Black Glove covering the Zodiac, Relgion, the Alphabet and Mythology. So much information garnered from one incredibly small detail. Sherlock is out of his league.
What you think makes Batman cool is irrelevant, the fact is that he's shown intuition, and logical reasoning skills that would leave Holmes the equivalent of a child with down syndrome.
No shame in it though, Holmes is still good, but he's just severely outclassed against characters of Batman and the Questions aptitude.
Right, you can speculate on how well Holmes would do if cosmic entities existed in his universe but that's all it is, speculation. I'm using actual facts. And for the record the feats I've mentioned have been with no tech, and with characters that are based on Earth so you can't really use that excuse
Truth is, even Nightwing has shown much better logic and reasoning ability than Holmes has
Nightwing isn't even on the same level as Batman and Question, and just by watching TV in one morning can solve several cases on America's most Wanted, just by watch the show. No tech, no superpowers. Just pure intuition, reasoning and logic.
Characters like Holmes and the rest of the detectives on this list aren't in the same league. No shame in that, they're still very good, but Bruce, Vic, and Dick are objectively better :)
Ah. Maybe. You are correct. I mean, though batman isn't some one specially intelligent, the higher level of his world makes him better. More like Avatar and Yamcha. Avatar simply outclasses anyone else in his world, and is better character, but in DBZ, there are too many moon busters and planet busters. In batman's world, it's possible to do things that aren't possible in our world (For example, there was someone who understood the structure of whole world.. was it Franklin Richards?). But in Holmes's, they are much behind us, he had to invent his own test for checking blood lol.. Maybe that's what makes him sound better to me. But objectively, it's quite correct. Batman is better..
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like Sherlock Holmes is the deFacto detective in many circles. Batman is even second to him. It may not be considered canon but there was an episode in Brave and the Bold where Batman went back in time to meet Holmes and Sherlock almost deduced Bruce's identity, just looking at his jawline and his costume. I may be reaching here a bit, but even in the DC universe Batman comes second when talking about the greatest detective in history.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like Sherlock Holmes is the deFacto detective in many circles. Batman is even second to him. It may not be considered canon but there was an episode in Brave and the Bold where Batman went back in time to meet Holmes and Sherlock almost deduced Bruce's identity, just looking at his jawline and his costume. I may be reaching here a bit, but even in the DC universe Batman comes second when talking about the greatest detective in history.
Dude Sherlock and batman are not even close to monks skills. Seriously i can bet anything that Monk can find out batmans identity in a few minutes. Monk Is The Best Detective in history. Sherlock is The most famous and liked. Batman is just Batman
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like Sherlock Holmes is the deFacto detective in many circles. Batman is even second to him. It may not be considered canon but there was an episode in Brave and the Bold where Batman went back in time to meet Holmes and Sherlock almost deduced Bruce's identity, just looking at his jawline and his costume. I may be reaching here a bit, but even in the DC universe Batman comes second when talking about the greatest detective in history.
Dude Sherlock and batman are not even close to monks skills. Seriously i can bet anything that Monk can find out batmans identity in a few minutes. Monk Is The Best Detective in history. Sherlock is The most famous and liked. Batman is just Batman
Monk would find out batmans identity after a quick look. :D
@Goldfinch said:
@mypasswordis1234 said:
@hudyman: I watched all episode under two weeks on the internet. I almost became a detective myself, lol.
Why Monk is very impressive is not just because his abilities, but there were murderers who knew him and expect with him, and a lot of man made very good alibi. The two best alibi was when the murderer was in the space(!) while he managed to kill. The other was working on live radio while he managed to kill. There where also highly intelligent chess champion, and lawyer who "never lose" still Monk busted them. So these... the story writers made more than just regular murder cases.
And what makes you think Poirot, Sherlock and Mentalist wouldn't be able to solve these mentioned cases/murders?
Nothing. :D I don't know them. I have only seen Colombo, and Monk is better than he. But I suppose, they are pretty normals, apart from they are genius. They are maybe could solve some of monk's cases, well, I am sure they could. But Monk is an impossible personality. He has a lot of phobia and for compensation, superior memory(and it comes with great knowledge), and can make long conclusions after one short look to the scenery. Sorry, I can't convince you if you don't saw the series, but his mind is far above the human level.
Courage the Cowardly Dog... with his computer he is the best.
lol you joking?
This is actually pretty authentic though, the computer seemed to know everything. Though whether that makes Courage a great detective or not is arguable.
Nah.. Riddler's puzzles would be a joke for him. I agree that batman is better at fighting and creating amazing gadgets, but he never showed a good enough case to match sherlock's first one, even.. There are generally weird villians who use either some weirder gadget or are insane or stronger than superhumans.. not criminal masterminds.. (When I am not comparing to Holmes, I am a Huge fan of batman.) But what makes him cool is his bike, and cloak, and you know.. being Batman. Not the extraordinary reasoning skills that holmes has.
Question, on the other hand seems more the detective type, and has good cases at hand but I still prefer Holmes (This, of course is a personal opinion.)
The problem is, Holmes doesn't have to go against cosmic entities and all that in his world. Otherwise, he would have much more impressive feats. He has gathered about all the knowledge required for his work (come on, who studies how many cigars are in existance?) and does almost all of his work legally. It's not his fault he was born in the wrong times :)
Yeah, sorry but its true.
If you threw Holmes into Riddlers puzzles, Holmes would be absolutely helpless. He doesn't have the expertise, wit or reasoning abilities at that level. If you actually read Batman RIP you would know that from one number and one sentence Batman uncovered an entire conspiracy with the Black Glove covering the Zodiac, Relgion, the Alphabet and Mythology. So much information garnered from one incredibly small detail. Sherlock is out of his league.
What you think makes Batman cool is irrelevant, the fact is that he's shown intuition, and logical reasoning skills that would leave Holmes the equivalent of a child with down syndrome.
No shame in it though, Holmes is still good, but he's just severely outclassed against characters of Batman and the Questions aptitude.
Right, you can speculate on how well Holmes would do if cosmic entities existed in his universe but that's all it is, speculation. I'm using actual facts. And for the record the feats I've mentioned have been with no tech, and with characters that are based on Earth so you can't really use that excuse
Truth is, even Nightwing has shown much better logic and reasoning ability than Holmes has
Nightwing isn't even on the same level as Batman and Question, and just by watching TV in one morning can solve several cases on America's most Wanted, just by watch the show. No tech, no superpowers. Just pure intuition, reasoning and logic.
Characters like Holmes and the rest of the detectives on this list aren't in the same league. No shame in that, they're still very good, but Bruce, Vic, and Dick are objectively better :)
Ah. Maybe. You are correct. I mean, though batman isn't some one specially intelligent, the higher level of his world makes him better. More like Avatar and Yamcha. Avatar simply outclasses anyone else in his world, and is better character, but in DBZ, there are too many moon busters and planet busters. In batman's world, it's possible to do things that aren't possible in our world (For example, there was someone who understood the structure of whole world.. was it Franklin Richards?). But in Holmes's, they are much behind us, he had to invent his own test for checking blood lol.. Maybe that's what makes him sound better to me. But objectively, it's quite correct. Batman is better..
If Sherlock solves crimes with much less technology and with much less clues, against a guy (Batman) who needs high-tech to solve cosmic mysteries (pretty much like cosmic CSI), than it's logical that a guy with less technology and less clues is smarter. You only need to give Sherlock present day knowledge and that's it.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like Sherlock Holmes is the deFacto detective in many circles. Batman is even second to him. It may not be considered canon but there was an episode in Brave and the Bold where Batman went back in time to meet Holmes and Sherlock almost deduced Bruce's identity, just looking at his jawline and his costume. I may be reaching here a bit, but even in the DC universe Batman comes second when talking about the greatest detective in history.
Dude Sherlock and batman are not even close to monks skills. Seriously i can bet anything that Monk can find out batmans identity in a few minutes. Monk Is The Best Detective in history. Sherlock is The most famous and liked. Batman is just Batman
Monk would find out batmans identity after a quick look. :D
@Goldfinch said:
@mypasswordis1234 said:
@hudyman: I watched all episode under two weeks on the internet. I almost became a detective myself, lol.
Why Monk is very impressive is not just because his abilities, but there were murderers who knew him and expect with him, and a lot of man made very good alibi. The two best alibi was when the murderer was in the space(!) while he managed to kill. The other was working on live radio while he managed to kill. There where also highly intelligent chess champion, and lawyer who "never lose" still Monk busted them. So these... the story writers made more than just regular murder cases.
And what makes you think Poirot, Sherlock and Mentalist wouldn't be able to solve these mentioned cases/murders?
Nothing. :D I don't know them. I have only seen Colombo, and Monk is better than he. But I suppose, they are pretty normals, apart from they are genius. They are maybe could solve some of monk's cases, well, I am sure they could. But Monk is an impossible personality. He has a lot of phobia and for compensation, superior memory(and it comes with great knowledge), and can make long conclusions after one short look to the scenery. Sorry, I can't convince you if you don't saw the series, but his mind is far above the human level.
Sherlock is actually pretty much equal or slightly superior in some areas than Monk, when it comes to everything you said, Sherlock could also tell entire story of crime just from tiny clues. And of course he awesomely remembers things, details inside the case and etc. But my question really is can Monk and Poirot deal with criminal masterminds like professor James Moriarty? That I'd like to see. The fact is the only person that was actually smarter in the Monk's series was his brother Ambrose. You don't see any criminal mastermind, the same situation is with Poirot. Poirot, Columbo, Monk and perhaps even Mentalist cannot handle a criminal mastermind. Poirot, Columbo, Monk and perhaps even Mentalist are more of experts in regular criminals, or regular people who commit one-time crimes for personal gain.
Nah.. Riddler's puzzles would be a joke for him. I agree that batman is better at fighting and creating amazing gadgets, but he never showed a good enough case to match sherlock's first one, even.. There are generally weird villians who use either some weirder gadget or are insane or stronger than superhumans.. not criminal masterminds.. (When I am not comparing to Holmes, I am a Huge fan of batman.) But what makes him cool is his bike, and cloak, and you know.. being Batman. Not the extraordinary reasoning skills that holmes has.
Question, on the other hand seems more the detective type, and has good cases at hand but I still prefer Holmes (This, of course is a personal opinion.)
The problem is, Holmes doesn't have to go against cosmic entities and all that in his world. Otherwise, he would have much more impressive feats. He has gathered about all the knowledge required for his work (come on, who studies how many cigars are in existance?) and does almost all of his work legally. It's not his fault he was born in the wrong times :)
Yeah, sorry but its true.
If you threw Holmes into Riddlers puzzles, Holmes would be absolutely helpless. He doesn't have the expertise, wit or reasoning abilities at that level. If you actually read Batman RIP you would know that from one number and one sentence Batman uncovered an entire conspiracy with the Black Glove covering the Zodiac, Relgion, the Alphabet and Mythology. So much information garnered from one incredibly small detail. Sherlock is out of his league.
What you think makes Batman cool is irrelevant, the fact is that he's shown intuition, and logical reasoning skills that would leave Holmes the equivalent of a child with down syndrome.
No shame in it though, Holmes is still good, but he's just severely outclassed against characters of Batman and the Questions aptitude.
Right, you can speculate on how well Holmes would do if cosmic entities existed in his universe but that's all it is, speculation. I'm using actual facts. And for the record the feats I've mentioned have been with no tech, and with characters that are based on Earth so you can't really use that excuse
Truth is, even Nightwing has shown much better logic and reasoning ability than Holmes has
Nightwing isn't even on the same level as Batman and Question, and just by watching TV in one morning can solve several cases on America's most Wanted, just by watch the show. No tech, no superpowers. Just pure intuition, reasoning and logic.
Characters like Holmes and the rest of the detectives on this list aren't in the same league. No shame in that, they're still very good, but Bruce, Vic, and Dick are objectively better :)
Ah. Maybe. You are correct. I mean, though batman isn't some one specially intelligent, the higher level of his world makes him better. More like Avatar and Yamcha. Avatar simply outclasses anyone else in his world, and is better character, but in DBZ, there are too many moon busters and planet busters. In batman's world, it's possible to do things that aren't possible in our world (For example, there was someone who understood the structure of whole world.. was it Franklin Richards?). But in Holmes's, they are much behind us, he had to invent his own test for checking blood lol.. Maybe that's what makes him sound better to me. But objectively, it's quite correct. Batman is better..
If Sherlock solves crimes with much less technology and with much less clues, against a guy (Batman) who needs high-tech to solve cosmic mysteries (pretty much like cosmic CSI), than it's logical that a guy with less technology and less clues is smarter. You only need to give Sherlock present day knowledge and that's it.
It goes both ways. People can use technology to hide their trails, hide their steps, and make it look like something different happened, than what actually happened. People can fake identities better than ever before. People can make entire other people disappear from history. People can fake videos and plant evidence without ever needing to move from their living room or talk to anyone about ever doing it. Technology is a two-way street, it doesn't make anyone smarter or stupider, it just changes the rules.
Batman is less of a detective than Sherlock, though. Sherlock never uses conventional methods such as, I don't know, putting out fliers or going door to door to get information, he gets the information from a single room, half the time, without ever being told anything about it. Batman gathers information and deduces what it means (very well, I might add). Sherlock deduces information and understands intuitively what it means. The difference?
Bruce walks into a crime scene. There's blood spatters here and there, a victim with a hole in his head, a gun, and a suicide letter. Bruce would spend some time learning about the victim and his affiliates and correspondents (if he really needed to go that far), before making assumptions. He might make a psychological profile of the person based on his home's condition and his personal history, and decide whether it's plausible he killed himself, before even starting to look for people who would want him dead. Thorough, but generic.
Sherlock walks into the same scene. He automatically knows that the man was standing up when he was shot, due to the area he fell and the fact there are no visible impressions of the chair being pressed into the ground, and the blood spatters don't quite line up. He'd know it's a homicide instantly because he'd see that it was supposed to look like he was sitting down, but he was actually standing up, and if he was standing up, why would he stand facing the door, in front of a window, for everyone to hear and see it, when most people tend to kill themselves in their bedrooms or bathrooms, with closed doors/windows, so that they don't get interrupted? The scene doesn't line up. He'd know this all instantly and then start searching for a likely murderer. (FYI, I may have made up the part about people committing suicide in their bedrooms/bathrooms. It just seems like that would be the most logical place for someone to do it, if they were serious about it.)
This is the difference between being a detective and being a logical thinker. They're often very close to one another, but I probably wouldn't be Sherlock in an actual crime scene, whereas most people that can put a puzzle together and have the ability to conduct research on others and know basic psychology could do what Batman normally does. His true genius is reflected in his technology, some of his morals, and his ability to solve mind games. Sherlock detects, Batman gathers.
@Goldfinch: Monk has handled many masterminds. The Thing that stops him from actually solving a case easily. Is just the main plot. There is an episode wait i think that is the first ever monk episode. anyway monk accidently change's the police records,Then puts them back exactly where he found them. I mean There was about a million records.I really dont think sherlock could do that
Nah.. Riddler's puzzles would be a joke for him. I agree that batman is better at fighting and creating amazing gadgets, but he never showed a good enough case to match sherlock's first one, even.. There are generally weird villians who use either some weirder gadget or are insane or stronger than superhumans.. not criminal masterminds.. (When I am not comparing to Holmes, I am a Huge fan of batman.) But what makes him cool is his bike, and cloak, and you know.. being Batman. Not the extraordinary reasoning skills that holmes has.
Question, on the other hand seems more the detective type, and has good cases at hand but I still prefer Holmes (This, of course is a personal opinion.)
The problem is, Holmes doesn't have to go against cosmic entities and all that in his world. Otherwise, he would have much more impressive feats. He has gathered about all the knowledge required for his work (come on, who studies how many cigars are in existance?) and does almost all of his work legally. It's not his fault he was born in the wrong times :)
Yeah, sorry but its true.
If you threw Holmes into Riddlers puzzles, Holmes would be absolutely helpless. He doesn't have the expertise, wit or reasoning abilities at that level. If you actually read Batman RIP you would know that from one number and one sentence Batman uncovered an entire conspiracy with the Black Glove covering the Zodiac, Relgion, the Alphabet and Mythology. So much information garnered from one incredibly small detail. Sherlock is out of his league.
What you think makes Batman cool is irrelevant, the fact is that he's shown intuition, and logical reasoning skills that would leave Holmes the equivalent of a child with down syndrome.
No shame in it though, Holmes is still good, but he's just severely outclassed against characters of Batman and the Questions aptitude.
Right, you can speculate on how well Holmes would do if cosmic entities existed in his universe but that's all it is, speculation. I'm using actual facts. And for the record the feats I've mentioned have been with no tech, and with characters that are based on Earth so you can't really use that excuse
Truth is, even Nightwing has shown much better logic and reasoning ability than Holmes has
Nightwing isn't even on the same level as Batman and Question, and just by watching TV in one morning can solve several cases on America's most Wanted, just by watch the show. No tech, no superpowers. Just pure intuition, reasoning and logic.
Characters like Holmes and the rest of the detectives on this list aren't in the same league. No shame in that, they're still very good, but Bruce, Vic, and Dick are objectively better :)
Ah. Maybe. You are correct. I mean, though batman isn't some one specially intelligent, the higher level of his world makes him better. More like Avatar and Yamcha. Avatar simply outclasses anyone else in his world, and is better character, but in DBZ, there are too many moon busters and planet busters. In batman's world, it's possible to do things that aren't possible in our world (For example, there was someone who understood the structure of whole world.. was it Franklin Richards?). But in Holmes's, they are much behind us, he had to invent his own test for checking blood lol.. Maybe that's what makes him sound better to me. But objectively, it's quite correct. Batman is better..
If Sherlock solves crimes with much less technology and with much less clues, against a guy (Batman) who needs high-tech to solve cosmic mysteries (pretty much like cosmic CSI), than it's logical that a guy with less technology and less clues is smarter. You only need to give Sherlock present day knowledge and that's it.
It goes both ways. People can use technology to hide their trails, hide their steps, and make it look like something different happened, than what actually happened. People can fake identities better than ever before. People can make entire other people disappear from history. People can fake videos and plant evidence without ever needing to move from their living room or talk to anyone about ever doing it. Technology is a two-way street, it doesn't make anyone smarter or stupider, it just changes the rules.
Batman is less of a detective than Sherlock, though. Sherlock never uses conventional methods such as, I don't know, putting out fliers or going door to door to get information, he gets the information from a single room, half the time, without ever being told anything about it. Batman gathers information and deduces what it means (very well, I might add). Sherlock deduces information and understands intuitively what it means. The difference?
Bruce walks into a crime scene. There's blood spatters here and there, a victim with a hole in his head, a gun, and a suicide letter. Bruce would spend some time learning about the victim and his affiliates and correspondents (if he really needed to go that far), before making assumptions. He might make a psychological profile of the person based on his home's condition and his personal history, and decide whether it's plausible he killed himself, before even starting to look for people who would want him dead. Thorough, but generic.
Sherlock walks into the same scene. He automatically knows that the man was standing up when he was shot, due to the area he fell and the fact there are no visible impressions of the chair being pressed into the ground, and the blood spatters don't quite line up. He'd know it's a homicide instantly because he'd see that it was supposed to look like he was sitting down, but he was actually standing up, and if he was standing up, why would he stand facing the door, in front of a window, for everyone to hear and see it, when most people tend to kill themselves in their bedrooms or bathrooms, with closed doors/windows, so that they don't get interrupted? The scene doesn't line up. He'd know this all instantly and then start searching for a likely murderer. (FYI, I may have made up the part about people committing suicide in their bedrooms/bathrooms. It just seems like that would be the most logical place for someone to do it, if they were serious about it.)
This is the difference between being a detective and being a logical thinker. They're often very close to one another, but I probably wouldn't be Sherlock in an actual crime scene, whereas most people that can put a puzzle together and have the ability to conduct research on others and know basic psychology could do what Batman normally does. His true genius is reflected in his technology, some of his morals, and his ability to solve mind games. Sherlock detects, Batman gathers.
Monk on the other hand would walk into the crime scene. Notice that the victim was obviously standing up when he was shot. Then he would use his "Monk Sense" And already notice things that the killer had left. Give monk 2 minutes and he will have the killer
Nah.. Riddler's puzzles would be a joke for him. I agree that batman is better at fighting and creating amazing gadgets, but he never showed a good enough case to match sherlock's first one, even.. There are generally weird villians who use either some weirder gadget or are insane or stronger than superhumans.. not criminal masterminds.. (When I am not comparing to Holmes, I am a Huge fan of batman.) But what makes him cool is his bike, and cloak, and you know.. being Batman. Not the extraordinary reasoning skills that holmes has.
Question, on the other hand seems more the detective type, and has good cases at hand but I still prefer Holmes (This, of course is a personal opinion.)
The problem is, Holmes doesn't have to go against cosmic entities and all that in his world. Otherwise, he would have much more impressive feats. He has gathered about all the knowledge required for his work (come on, who studies how many cigars are in existance?) and does almost all of his work legally. It's not his fault he was born in the wrong times :)
Yeah, sorry but its true.
If you threw Holmes into Riddlers puzzles, Holmes would be absolutely helpless. He doesn't have the expertise, wit or reasoning abilities at that level. If you actually read Batman RIP you would know that from one number and one sentence Batman uncovered an entire conspiracy with the Black Glove covering the Zodiac, Relgion, the Alphabet and Mythology. So much information garnered from one incredibly small detail. Sherlock is out of his league.
What you think makes Batman cool is irrelevant, the fact is that he's shown intuition, and logical reasoning skills that would leave Holmes the equivalent of a child with down syndrome.
No shame in it though, Holmes is still good, but he's just severely outclassed against characters of Batman and the Questions aptitude.
Right, you can speculate on how well Holmes would do if cosmic entities existed in his universe but that's all it is, speculation. I'm using actual facts. And for the record the feats I've mentioned have been with no tech, and with characters that are based on Earth so you can't really use that excuse
Truth is, even Nightwing has shown much better logic and reasoning ability than Holmes has
Nightwing isn't even on the same level as Batman and Question, and just by watching TV in one morning can solve several cases on America's most Wanted, just by watch the show. No tech, no superpowers. Just pure intuition, reasoning and logic.
Characters like Holmes and the rest of the detectives on this list aren't in the same league. No shame in that, they're still very good, but Bruce, Vic, and Dick are objectively better :)
Ah. Maybe. You are correct. I mean, though batman isn't some one specially intelligent, the higher level of his world makes him better. More like Avatar and Yamcha. Avatar simply outclasses anyone else in his world, and is better character, but in DBZ, there are too many moon busters and planet busters. In batman's world, it's possible to do things that aren't possible in our world (For example, there was someone who understood the structure of whole world.. was it Franklin Richards?). But in Holmes's, they are much behind us, he had to invent his own test for checking blood lol.. Maybe that's what makes him sound better to me. But objectively, it's quite correct. Batman is better..
If Sherlock solves crimes with much less technology and with much less clues, against a guy (Batman) who needs high-tech to solve cosmic mysteries (pretty much like cosmic CSI), than it's logical that a guy with less technology and less clues is smarter. You only need to give Sherlock present day knowledge and that's it.
It goes both ways. People can use technology to hide their trails, hide their steps, and make it look like something different happened, than what actually happened. People can fake identities better than ever before. People can make entire other people disappear from history. People can fake videos and plant evidence without ever needing to move from their living room or talk to anyone about ever doing it. Technology is a two-way street, it doesn't make anyone smarter or stupider, it just changes the rules.
Batman is less of a detective than Sherlock, though. Sherlock never uses conventional methods such as, I don't know, putting out fliers or going door to door to get information, he gets the information from a single room, half the time, without ever being told anything about it. Batman gathers information and deduces what it means (very well, I might add). Sherlock deduces information and understands intuitively what it means. The difference?
Bruce walks into a crime scene. There's blood spatters here and there, a victim with a hole in his head, a gun, and a suicide letter. Bruce would spend some time learning about the victim and his affiliates and correspondents (if he really needed to go that far), before making assumptions. He might make a psychological profile of the person based on his home's condition and his personal history, and decide whether it's plausible he killed himself, before even starting to look for people who would want him dead. Thorough, but generic.
Sherlock walks into the same scene. He automatically knows that the man was standing up when he was shot, due to the area he fell and the fact there are no visible impressions of the chair being pressed into the ground, and the blood spatters don't quite line up. He'd know it's a homicide instantly because he'd see that it was supposed to look like he was sitting down, but he was actually standing up, and if he was standing up, why would he stand facing the door, in front of a window, for everyone to hear and see it, when most people tend to kill themselves in their bedrooms or bathrooms, with closed doors/windows, so that they don't get interrupted? The scene doesn't line up. He'd know this all instantly and then start searching for a likely murderer. (FYI, I may have made up the part about people committing suicide in their bedrooms/bathrooms. It just seems like that would be the most logical place for someone to do it, if they were serious about it.)
This is the difference between being a detective and being a logical thinker. They're often very close to one another, but I probably wouldn't be Sherlock in an actual crime scene, whereas most people that can put a puzzle together and have the ability to conduct research on others and know basic psychology could do what Batman normally does. His true genius is reflected in his technology, some of his morals, and his ability to solve mind games. Sherlock detects, Batman gathers.
Monk on the other hand would walk into the crime scene. Notice that the victim was obviously standing up when he was shot. Then he would use his "Monk Sense" And already notice things that the killer had left. Give monk 2 minutes and he will have the killer
You're using an example I made up designed to test two specific characters' abilities, to prove your own favorite character is better, when actually you have no reason to suspect Monk would have the killer in 2 minutes. The least shocking problem with your post is that you just assume Monk is capable of that feat even if it's not a criminal mastermind who committed the crime. If it's that easy, Sherlock would likely get it as well. The biggest, most glaring problem? I made up that scenario and didn't even tell you what the rest of it was, because it was irrelevant. I can make the scenario anything I want, Monk wouldn't be able to solve it, because I would be playing God.
@minigunman123: Well isnt it ironic that i dont feel bad?. When did i say monk was my favourite? Its just plain common sense. Monk is literally above human level of physiology, he can tell you what you have done today without you even saying a single word to him.
@minigunman123: Well isnt it ironic that i dont feel bad?. When did i say monk was my favourite? Its just plain common sense. Monk is literally above human level of physiology, he can tell you what you have done today without you even saying a single word to him.
If you Wish to howl,Then Follow it with a bite.
You didn't actually address any of the issues in my post that I had with your post, you actually basically just said "Monk is magic therefore your argument is invalid". You're not really making a good case for him here.
@minigunman123: Well isnt it ironic that i dont feel bad?. When did i say monk was my favourite? Its just plain common sense. Monk is literally above human level of physiology, he can tell you what you have done today without you even saying a single word to him.
If you Wish to howl,Then Follow it with a bite.
You didn't actually address any of the issues in my post that I had with your post, you actually basically just said "Monk is magic therefore your argument is invalid". You're not really making a good case for him here.
Because your post is not even worth it. Monk is not as smart or a logical as sherlock, But he is naturally faster at noticing things that normal people wouldnt. There was an episode in which monk was blinded temporarily by having acid poured into his eyes. Yet he still managed to solve a case using his other senses. Plus the person who ordered the strike was a person that manipulated people to do his bidding. I'd like to see sherlock do that.
@minigunman123: Well isnt it ironic that i dont feel bad?. When did i say monk was my favourite? Its just plain common sense. Monk is literally above human level of physiology, he can tell you what you have done today without you even saying a single word to him.
If you Wish to howl,Then Follow it with a bite.
You didn't actually address any of the issues in my post that I had with your post, you actually basically just said "Monk is magic therefore your argument is invalid". You're not really making a good case for him here.
Because your post is not even worth it. Monk is not as smart or a logical as sherlock, But he is naturally faster at noticing things that normal people wouldnt. There was an episode in which monk was blinded temporarily by having acid poured into his eyes. Yet he still managed to solve a case using his other senses. Plus the person who ordered the strike was a person that manipulated people to do his bidding. I'd like to see sherlock do that.
If you Wish to howl Then follow it with a bite
This guy can reach through a computer and kill a troll from across the world, after having his feet bathed in salts for too long and they got all pruny; he had to use his other senses to kill the guy through the computer. He must be a better killer than Jack the Ripper1!!1!!i11!!!1i!I!!
That's about as much sense as your posts are making.
@minigunman123: This post is going thread is going nowhere, You made a statement and i questioned it. Instead of proving me wrong, You come up with ideas that i am making no sense. If you cant accept that you were wrong then maybe you shouldnt try to compare sherlock with monk.
@minigunman123: This post is going thread is going nowhere, You made a statement and i questioned it. Instead of proving me wrong, You come up with ideas that i am making no sense. If you cant accept that you were wrong then maybe you shouldnt try to compare sherlock with monk.
... You were the one who brought up the comparison, and you were the one who made unsubstantiated claims about a scenario I made up to specifically gauge two other characters' abilities.
Please, troll, get out of this thread while you still have some dignity left ;) we don't take kindly to trolls here.
Log in to comment