The undisputable outcome of the Dark Knight Returns final battle

There are three instances where fans like to consider that Batman defeated Superman in a fight, and they are Hush, Tower of Babel and The Dark Knight Returns.

Now, the first two are actually disputable. But the third one isn't.

In Hush, Batman only fought Superman (who was struggling against Poison Ivy's control) in order to distract him long enough for Catwoman to kidnap Lois, and force Clark to break free of Ivy's control. After, Batman inflicted some damage, Superman was about to finish things and crush Batman with a car until Bruce told him to look up to see Lois falling, therebye ending the fight. While Batman did beat up and basically own Superman in awesome fashion, he did not really "defeat" him, therefore Hush, does not count as a victory for Batman.

In Tower of Babel, while it is true that Batman's plans were responsible for Superman's defeat, it was not Batman who executed these plans, which were additionally modified by Ra's Al Ghul. Also, Batman was still experimenting the Red K that was used to defeat Clark, and his research was not 100% complete. So, while the story showed that Batman is fully capable of defeating Superman (and the rest of the Justice League), here it wasn't even a fight between the two, therefore it does not count as a victory for Batman (though it hints at potential victory somewhere down the road, but that's all we have, a hint, not an actual victory).

As most of you know, in the Dark Knight Returns, written by Frank Miller, Batman, using ten years of prep, help from Green Arrow and Robin, and an advanced armor, fought Superman, who was still recovering from a nuclear explosion in a climatic battle, and the undeniable result of that fight is a victory for Batman.

Here's the deal. Was the fight fair? No. Was Superman well written? No. Does this fight count as a valid answer to the question "Can Batman defeat Superman?"? No. Was Frank Miller, an admitted Superman hater, being unbiased? No. However, do all these things change the intended outcome of the fight, which was Batman defeating Superman? No. The truth is, despite all of these elements, which give Batman an unfair edge, it is clear that Batman defeated Superman, as intended, yet to this day, people still believe that Batman lost that fight, which is ludicrous.

As Stan Lee once said, the person who wins the fight, is the person that the writer wants to win. Guess who Frank Miller was pulling for...definitely not Clark! Miller wrote that fight with the specific intention of having Batman defeating Superman, yet people still want to dispute what the writer INTENDED to accomplish with some mind boggling arguments. For example:

- "The fight ended with Batman "dying" from a heart attack, with Superman holding his seemingly dead body. Therefore Superman won." No, the fight ended with Batman holding a bleeding and incapacitated Superman by the throat, and telling him that he wants him to remember the one man who beat him. The heart attack, (or fake heart attack), took place AFTER Superman's defeat. To put it in Mortal Kombat form, Batman defeated Superman, and the announcer says FINISH HIM, but instead of performing a Fatality, Batman performed a Hara-Kiri instead.

- "The fight ended with Batman having several broken ribs, while Superman only had a bleeding nose and a few bruises. Broken ribs is a much worse injury than a broken nose therefore Superman wins." No, let's put aside the fact that comparing battle damage in comics to real life injures is ridiculous, in comics, the loser of the fight is the one who is fallen and incapacitated, while the winner is the one who is standing tall, holding the other by the throat and giving an I beat you speach without any form of rebuttal by the fallen one. That person is Batman.

- "The fight was unfair, one sided prep, extra help, poor writing, biased writer, and weakened Superman who was holding back." All true. With all those elements in place, why is even a debate that Superman won? It is clear that Miller wrote this to stack all the odds against Superman and ensure his loss. Just because Batman cheated and the fight was unfair, doesn't mean that it doesn't count as a Batman victory. This isn't a real life sport, there is no disqualification, there are no rules. There is a winner and loser. I'll give an example. In Knightfall, Bane fought Batman in the Bat-Cave after he has fought and put down almost his entire rogue gallery while he was injured, sick, physically and mentally tired to the point where he could barely walk. It was an unfair fight in its fullest, yet the outcome is never in question, Bane defeated Batman and broke his back.

Here on CV, in the Dark Knight Returns story arc page, it is stated that "Batman lost" which is false. When a writer writes something with a specific goal, it should not be disputed, weather is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. If you ask Miller himself who won that fight, he'll gleefully tell you that it's Batman, so who are the fans to dispute what the writer claims about his own work? I do not consider it as a valid "Batman defeats Superman" feat in a battle forum but that does not means it did not take place.

Please excuse the long post, but I'm still reading comments that claim that TDKR fight is not considered a win for Batman, so it's just an issue that needed to be cleared up.

Please feel free to comment, I am very interested in everyone's feedback about this topic!

I will reference citizenbane's blog

Here's my problem with your argument. You're cutting the fight short directly at Batman's single moment of having any sort of control of the fight. The entire rest of the fight he was getting beaten down by a Superman who didn't even want to fight him, and directly after that extremely brief moment of having control Batman faked his death.

Batman chose to stop fighting after he had his moment of temporary victory, knowing full well if he didn't then Superman could easily get back up and bring the fight to an actual end.

It's the same as getting into a fight with a bigger guy and getting your butt kicked. Then you knee him in the groin, say you won, and then run away as fast as possible before he stands back up.

@metaljimmor:

Actually you are mistaken. The fight was nowhere near as one sided as you described. As a matter of fact, Bruce was on offense much more than Clark. At one point there was even an exchange of blows between the two until Clark gained the upper hand. Though I am not a fan of comparing comic book battles to real life fights, but if we're going to do tha, then it's like this. One guys gets into a fight with a bigger guy, and after holding his own for a while, he eventually gets overpowered, and as a last resort, knees him in the groin. After that he gives him the beating of his life. And you are implying that Bruce faked the heart attack because he was afraid that Clark was going to finish the fight, which isn't true. The fight was over, but Bruce faked his death because the government will still be after him, and it was the only way he will be left alone.

So, to use your scenario, the smaller guy could have kneed him much harder in the groin, or he could have finished him off while he was on the ground, but he didn't. Clark/the bigger guy, was not getting back up, he was incapacitated after he recieved a beating from Bruce, the K was in his lungs, and this version of Superman was much more vulnerable. Going back to the comparision to Knightfall, Batman was exhausted, Bane ambushed him. Bane won. The outcome of that fight is not questioned, despite the underhanded tactics.

But we went off topic a bit. The point of this thread was that, despite all of these elements, the outcome of the fight is this: Batman won. No, it was not an honorable victory, far from it actually. Yes Bruce cheated and broke every rule in the book, but that fits with that version of the character, which was a darker and meaner Batman. But he did all that to ensure a victory, which he did, tainted maybe, but a victory nonethless.

@strongarm:

Funny thing is, some of the points I'm arguing actually come from that particular blog. I actually agree with everything in it, with the exception of what was said about this fight, hence this blog. :)

@anjales:

So, to use your scenario, the smaller guy could have kneed him much harder in the groin, or he could have finished him off while he was on the ground, but he didn't.

Clark also could've ended the fight at any moment with a casual slap to Bruce's exposed head. If we're deciding who wins off of who COULD HAVE won if they weren't holding back, Superman is still the victor.

And you are implying that Bruce faked the heart attack because he was afraid that Clark was going to finish the fight, which isn't true. The fight was over, but Bruce faked his death because the government will still be after him, and it was the only way he will be left alone.

The fight wasn't over. Superman could still get up and fight back. The fight ended because Bruce faked his death. A fight ends when one person can no longer fight or retreats, not when one fighter gets an upper hand for one portion of the fight. At best it was a draw with no decisive victor.

The most famous Batman vs Superman battle.......

@metaljimmor:

How is Superman "still" the victor if he wasn't in the first place? The point I was trying to make is not about who "could" have one, I was simply showing that this version of Superman is much more vulnerable to kryptonite than the mainstream version, which adds to the argument that Superman was incapacitated. Even during Bruce's funeral, Clark's face was still swollen.

And who says the fight wasn't over? Bruce had a beaten and bloody Clark by the throat, declared that he's the victor, with no sign of struggle from Clark, and there was 0 indication that Clark was getting back up. How could he? He was already still weakened from a nuclear explosion, then he was infected with pure K. If he could, why did just let Bruce have his speech.

And again you are mistaken, Bruce didn't have control of one portion of the fight, as a matter of fact he was in control for most of the fight. If anyone only had control of one portion of the fight that would be Clark, when he ripped the helmet off and punched him in the gut that's it.

What still confuses me is that you are trying to nitpick Superman's victory in a story that was specifically written to ensure his loss. If you asked Miller, the guy who wrote the story, who won, he'll tell you Batman without hesitation. Who are we, as fans, to change the writer's intended outcome? No one's saying it's fair, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

@experio:

Yup, though some people will tell you that title belongs to their fight from Hush.

And who says the fight wasn't over? Bruce had a beaten and bloody Clark by the throat, declared that he's the victor, with no sign of struggle from Clark, and there was 0 indication that Clark was getting back up. How could he? He was already still weakened from a nuclear explosion, then he was infected with pure K. If he could, why did just let Bruce have his speech.

Because at no point during that fight was Superman actually trying to hurt Batman. He was trying to talk him down. Also, the indication that Clark could still get up comes from when he actually got back up to grab Bruce when the heart attack kicked in, and was using his superpowers to listen/see Bruce's heart failing.

Even poisoned by kryptonite and bruised from being beaten up, Superman was still more concerned about Bruce's health than he was with the fight.

At any rate, I've said all I need to say here. Everything else to come would just be a circular argument with no clear winner.

There is no doubt that there are many justifiable reasons why Superman lost,but the bottom line is, he lost. What he could have done is irrelevant, he didn't. He was more concerned about Bruce than himself that's why he lost. The point you seem to be ignoring is that Frank Miller wrote that fight with the very intention of having Bruce defeat Clark, and that is what happened no matter how many people try to nitpick and analyze it.