World's Greatest Detective.

[Kyberwulf]

Who do you think should really have the title, "World's Greatest Detective."

Keep in mind that This thread is only concerned with Detecting abilites only. I am not concerned with combat prowss, or the amount of resources available to them. If all other things are equal, who has the best mind putting clues together and deducing the facts.

A small list I can come up with.
Sherlock Holmes- Obviously
Batman
Robert Goren
Columbo

If you have any other possible Detectives up for the prize, let me know.

(Yes, I know that some characters may just be a "Rip off" of certain other characters, but include them anyway since these characters have other characteristics then the source.)

[Soras Teva Gee]

"Everyone knows who you are. You're the world's greatest detective."

-Batman, explaining how he Sherlock Scanned Sherlock

[Weezer]

I'd actually go with Mycroft Holmes, he surpasses Sherlock in abilities, but he's just too lazy to go out and be a detective. If he decided to hit the streets he'd win hands down.

[BRC]

Only really familiar with Holmes and Batman, and independent of resources I would go with Holmes, who it is established has memorized an obscene amount of information on very trivial things, like tobacco ash. Mind you, as you get away from Late-19th century London, that information becomes increasingly irrelevant as cultural customs change. For example, an encyclopedic knowledge of Tobacco Ash becomes less useful when men stop smoking pipes, and when it becomes increasingly traditional to smoke outside, where evidence of that sort is more easily destroyed, than indoors.
Of course, he would be behind on even fairly simply techniques, like Fingerprinting, that don't require advanced resources.

Mind you, if we're going with "PResent them with facts, see who does the best", then the answer would be Mycroft, who is like Min/Maxed Sherlock. More Brilliant than his brother, but too lazy to actually investigate.

Edit: Moriarty'd

[Water_Bear]

I'm going to have to downvote Robert Goren. He's a great detective to be sure, but not the World's Greatest.

As for Batman v Sherlock Holmes, it's kind of a question of your definition of the word "detective". Holmes is absolutely the better detective in terms of rapidly solving mysteries and identifying guilty parties, but Batman is more full-service; he'll also go out and tie the dude up with Bat-Rope and hang him off a skyscraper. I'd personally give it to Holmes, but I can respect the Batman option.

[Kitten Champion]

I'd vote for L, from Death Note. If you consider the magnitude of the challenge involved, finding a single mass murderer with an untraceable magical means of killing from among billions of potential suspects based on incredible logical deductions and considerable personal bravery, he's his own level of awesome.

[Dr.Epic]

Dib from Invader Zim

You never said what "world," and he's one of only two people that can see through that disguise.

:smallwink:

[Friv]

Given his near-perfection and habit of seeing through things, I'd have to put a suggestion in for Hercules Poirot. (Especially given that he and Holmes are two of the three characters that serve as the basis for essentially every detective ever, the third being the much more physical Sam Spade.)

[dps]

I'm going to have to downvote Robert Goren. He's a great detective to be sure, but not the World's Greatest.


Also, Goren's a bit like Frank Pemberton--his strongest suit is interrogating a suspect. His style is different than Pemberton's, and outside the interrogation room he's probably a bit better at noticing minor clues than Pemberton is.

Come to think of it, interrogating the suspect is a big part of Columbo's M.O., too, though his style is even more different from Goren's than Pemberton's is. Basically, Pemberton intimidates suspects, Goren distubs them, and Columbo makes them overconfident. The end result is the same, though--the suspect says the wrong thing and incriminates themselves.

Best detective though, I'd go with Sherlock.

[Kyberwulf]

I have to disagree with you on Goren. He only has to interrogate people to get them to confess to the crime. He already knows the hows and whys. Its just that most of the criminals will get away with their nefarious deeds due to lack of evidence.

[pita]

I think I upvote L. Sherlock would tell you what Light's favorite breakfast cereal is, but L would tell you that he actually ate something different today because he ran out of it.
If not L, then Sherlock.

[Jayngfet]

I'd put Sherlock over L, if only because we see more of Sherlock in action. L has like, one big case and references to some smaller ones to the best of my knowledge. Sherlock has a whole freaking library and wealth of information to go off of.

[Killer Angel]

It's hard to find a detective that can match Holmes' spirit of observation and analysis' skills, able to notice details and so expert in reading human nature.
I could name Patrick Jane, aka The Mentalist. (example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9mZXcloriA). Not the best, but still...)

[Manga Shoggoth]

What? No love for Peter Death Bredon Wimsey? After all, Wimsey, Holmes and Poirot are the big three in UK Crime Literature.

Holmes was very good at the swift detection, Wimsey was much better at tracking down the details of a case.

[Devonix]

Detective Chimp. you said worlds greatest, not human greatest. ;)

Elongated man is up there too

[Morph Bark]

I'd vote for L, from Death Note. If you consider the magnitude of the challenge involved, finding a single mass murderer with an untraceable magical means of killing from among billions of potential suspects based on incredible logical deductions and considerable personal bravery, he's his own level of awesome.

I'd put Sherlock over L, if only because we see more of Sherlock in action. L has like, one big case and references to some smaller ones to the best of my knowledge. Sherlock has a whole freaking library and wealth of information to go off of.

I'd put L over Sherlock, myself. Mainly because L really is incredible at deductions, whereas Sherlock mainly does abductions, which is a very different thing.

[Fri]

Poirot and Sherlock actually often work differently. Sherlock works like modern CSI, basing his investigation on hard and scientific evidences, while Poirot often work purely on psychological base alone, by mentally analizing eyewitnesses and suspects, and sometimes he even plant fake evidences to corner his suspects.

[Aotrs Commander]

Sherlock works like modern CSI

...

...

...

Nope, can't resist.

Sherlock: Yes, my dear Watson, it seems the game...
.___
/___\__
( •_•)
.....\■
.___
/___\__
( •_•)>⌐■-■
.....\■
.___
/___\__
(⌐■_■)
......\■

...is afoot.

YEEEEEAAAAH!

(I can' take credit for the face/sunglasses thing, Soras, came up with that, I just added the deerstalker and pipe (which I hope look like what they're supposed to be...!)

[Moak]

...

Sherlock: Yes, my dear Watson, it seems the game...
.___
/___\__
( •_•)
.....\■
.___
/___\__
( •_•)>⌐■-■
.....\■
.___
/___\__
(⌐■_■)
......\■

...is afoot.

YEEEEEAAAAH!


This is AMAZING.

I think that Sherlock deserve this title. Behind him, I put L, Poirot and Ellery Queen.... simply because sometimes Ellery exploit seems to come out from nowhere.

[ThiagoMartell]

Batman himself has stated more than once that Elongated Man is better than him, so there is that.

L does seem better than Sherlock. What Sherlock does makes sense in some ways, but L simply looks like he has read the whole manga beforehand. Basically, better writing makes Sherlock look more credible and therefore less skilled.

[Smart_alec]

I did a scale for this a couple of months ago.

I'll see if I can find it.

[Dienekes]

I'd actually go with Mycroft Holmes, he surpasses Sherlock in abilities, but he's just too lazy to go out and be a detective. If he decided to hit the streets he'd win hands down.

Yes if you change his entire personality he'd be the best. But that's not his personality. So, I'm gonna go no, Sherlock surpasses his brother on this.

In any case I'd rate them somewhat like this.
L: haven't read it, but the synapses makes him seem impossibly intelligent
Sherlock, Batman, Elongated Man: Generally the characters given the title Worlds Greatest Detective in their respective works.
The Question, Detective Chimp, Poirot, Ms Marple: Great detectives that I'd put just behind the big 4.

Now who I want to have the title is Sherlock, cause come on he popularized the detective genre.

[Tyndmyr]

Dr. Cal Lightman.

[Traab]

I go with holmes, his powers of observation and encyclopedic knowledge of the most obscure facts, (really, his brain is batmans utility belt) While batman is good at spotting clues, but he then needs to go back to his huge crime lab and spend time figuring everything out. If both of them were at the same scene, batman would abscond with the evidence to do some digging, while holmes would say, "Aha! Come watson! The killer is on lexington and broadway. But he shall be leaving in 20 minutes, so we must hurry!" Then as they dash off to stop the criminal, holmes would go on a 10 minute long rant about how the shape of a bit of scuffing on a freshly polished floor means yadda yadda yadda, and utterly amaze his partner who should really be expecting this sort of thing by now. :smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

Sherlock, definitely.

Columbo? He's no better than 20 other TV detectives.

[DomaDoma]

Really, the main flaw with Sherlock Holmes is the tendency for the more "exotic" plot points to be factually dubious. For instance, snakes don't actually drink milk or respond to high-pitched noises, and the Indian swamp adder is completely fictitious. Then you have the occasional reference to physiognomy - sensualist jaws and so forth - which... well, it's just a good thing none of the stories revolve around it. But that aside, I don't believe he's been matched for pure sleuthing lo these 126 years after his inception. Not that I'm complaining about the fictional detectives with different shticks, mind. (Except Miss Marple.)

Also, since this seems the only crowd that will ever understand this poem I composed:

I Will Not Come Down from the Mountain (On the Decision to Become Anonymous)
You think I lie dead in the township,
That I callously left you behind -
And I know not if you would betray me,
Or if you dared not speak your mind.
And I like not the hellfire behind me
Nor the vertigo I must embrace,
But I need pay no ransom to speak here.
I'm redeemed by the mist 'round my face.

I will not come down from the mountain
To the valley where you may be living,
For the mountain is certainly fearful,
But the valley is far less forgiving.
I stopped at no inn by the wayside
On the night I crept out through the door,
And I will not come down from the mountain
Till there's hope in the valley once more.

I stand with my gun at the ready.
It's only the truth that I must,
For up here or down in the valley,
The main thing we learn is mistrust.
I skulk through the mists of the mountain
As they boast of their evils below,
And I stand with my gun at the ready
For a battle I may never know.

I'll come down, my love, in the springtime
When the battle is over at last -
But it has been winter so long now,
Could it be that the battle has passed?
And if it is so, and the summer
Is long ago fallen and dead...
Then you must join me here on the mountain,
Or trudge on, all May's thoughts unsaid.

The herald, the toiler, the sweetheart and sailor
Still live 'neath the shade of the fountain -
And could not that shade yet be broken or stayed
While the common man stands on the mountain?

[Brother Oni]

Dr. Cal Lightman.

Dr Lightman isn't really a detective - as he says, he'll know that you are lying, but not the why and he usually has outside help in the form of proper detectives or government agents to figure out the why.


Really, the main flaw with Sherlock Holmes is the tendency for the more "exotic" plot points to be factually dubious.

To be fair, the original Holmes stories were products of their time and the more esoteric elements don't stand up well to modern scrutiny.

The BBC remake is much better in that respect, despite their blatant disregard of British gun control laws and some bit ham fisted nods to the original story (scrapings near the winding hole of a pocket watch being changed to scrapings near the charging port on a mobile phone).

[Androgeus]

Pfft, none of these detectives can measure up toFlint, The Time Detective (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yBEbuuTsZU)

[DomaDoma]

I wonder what my tendency to miss the keyhole of my apartment says about me? :p

In my view, the BBC series' biggest problem is that nobody has the basic idea of passwords and encryption that you get from signing up for a free email address. Including the guy who runs a top-secret military base. Well, no, the biggest problem is "Blind Banker", but I've long since stopped hating Thompson for being a bad writer and started hating him for being a good writer, and can comfortably forget that.

[INoKnowNames]

For some reason, this thread immediately reminded me of the Great Mouse Detective....

Anywho, I'll +1 L. Isn't he, in that series, the top -3- detectives, to the point where an enemy group hires him to detect himself, letting him play them from both sides? It wasn't until "Guy with God of Death's Book", which is certainly something not normally encountered, appeared that -ANYONE- had even seen him before. Which says a lot, at least to me.

[Soras Teva Gee]

L does seem better than Sherlock. What Sherlock does makes sense in some ways, but L simply looks like he has read the whole manga beforehand. Basically, better writing makes Sherlock look more credible and therefore less skilled.

Yeah for my money L had one good trick in deducing Kira's general region then coming up with an experiment to prove that.

Pretty much after that him and Light both run on pure plot.

Great detective gets pretty informed in my book.

[An Enemy Spy]

The Question.
"The plastic tips at the ends of shoelaces are called aglets. Their true purpose is sinister!"

[Eldariel]

Clearly the answer is Haruhi Suzumiya as the only omnipotent sleuth I've ever read of.


On a more serious note, yeah, I'd go with Sherlock. Batman is very good at solving dilemmas but his modus operandi is more along the lines of figuring out "What that is? What does it try to do? How do you defeat it?" about some cosmic powers than it is figuring out who committed a crime.

Mind, he's very good at that too and he's usually the one pointing out things don't match in e.g. Justice League and uncovering the mastermind behind the obvious culprit. But that's only a part of his agenda and I do think Sherlock has pulled off more impressive feats in that particular regard.

L...eh, he's so damn good but I have trouble quantifying his ability vs. the other people. It's just...it feels there's less material to go off of with him.

[Starbuck_II]

Detective Conan, he might be stuck in child form, but he is a great detective.

Also Wishbone, best dog detective.

[Traab]

Encyclopedia Brown. The kid is the ultimate petty crime solver.

[Barmoz]

Gregory House, or Harry Dresden

[BRC]

Gregory House, or Harry Dresden

House isn't a detective, he's a doctor. He's got the right mindset (since he's basically Holmes), but the wrong knowledge base.


Harry could work, but only because of his Magic. This is supposed to be a test of mental abilities. It dosn't seem right to deprive Batman of his crime lab while letting Harry keep his tracking spells.

[DiscipleofBob]

I'm pretty sure at least some incarnations of Doctor Who count.

[Aotrs Commander]

...Jupiter Jones...?

Why do I get the strong impression that will pass completely over the heads of the majority of the playground?

[Ravens_cry]

Basil of Baker Street!

[dps]

House isn't a detective, he's a doctor. He's got the right mindset (since he's basically Holmes), but the wrong knowledge base.


The original concept for the show was that House and his team would get involved in solving crimes through their medical cases (which actually happened a couple of times, such as in the episode in which it turned out that what was wrong with the patient of the week was that his wife was poisoning him)--sort of a more adult version of Diagnosis: Murder. But the concept was changed before the show started production to simply having them solve medical mysteries, not crimes.

[Anteros]

What L does isn't detective work, it's magic. He knows things for no reason other than the author wanting him to. Besides, he couldn't even catch Light. Does anyone really want to tell me that Holmes or the Bat wouldn't have been able to catch Kira? Really?

[JCarter426]

Dirk Gently, he solves the whole crime!

Ok, probably Batman. In the cartoon he closes every case in like 15 minutes.

[Kitten Champion]

What L does isn't detective work, it's magic. He knows things for no reason other than the author wanting him to. Besides, he couldn't even catch Light. Does anyone really want to tell me that Holmes or the Bat wouldn't have been able to catch Kira? Really?


You argue that L's detective skills are unrealistic but use Batman or Holmes as more plausible alternatives?

As to catching Kira.

Holmes would've been dead. That would've been easy for Light. Batman too. Honestly, it's not that hard to imagine the chain of reasoning that would lead to discovering Bruce Wayne was Batman for someone of Light's ingenuity.

Lastly, L did catch Light. L's failure was one of insufficiently proving his and Misa's guilt to his own satisfaction, before Light's plot succeeded.

[Xondoure]

Well L is lucky enough to have an adversary who on some level wants to be found.

For example, killing the man who investigated him at any point was obviously going to end badly. And I don't think I even have to mention the ending and how many obvious ploys there were to prevent what happened from happening.

[Soras Teva Gee]

You argue that L's detective skills are unrealistic but use Batman or Holmes as more plausible alternatives?

As to catching Kira.

Holmes would've been dead. That would've been easy for Light. Batman too. Honestly, it's not that hard to imagine the chain of reasoning that would lead to discovering Bruce Wayne was Batman for someone of Light's ingenuity.

Lastly, L did catch Light. L's failure was one of insufficiently proving his and Misa's guilt to his own satisfaction, before Light's plot succeeded.

Getting killed by a magic murder book has nothing to do with detective skills at all.

L (kinda not) concealing his name is a good example of the Death Note story running on pure narrative convenience.

Also it is very easy to say Batman has to be Bruce Wayne when you know the answer and know Batman's set of tricks pretty well. There have been times where Batman is more or less an unknown to the public at large. Most certainly what he can do which crimps any "has to be Bruce Wayne" arguments. Especially given the variety of possibilities in the DCU, John Henry Irons for example is last I checked not Fiction 500 wealthy and managed to make himself power armor.

[Starwulf]

I'd vote for L, from Death Note. If you consider the magnitude of the challenge involved, finding a single mass murderer with an untraceable magical means of killing from among billions of potential suspects based on incredible logical deductions and considerable personal bravery, he's his own level of awesome.

I was actually going to say this, but since you already mentioned him, I'll just second it. Though, there could be an argument for Light, since he figured out who L was, and managed to kill him before L could take him down.

[Kyberwulf]

Lots of good Gumshoes here.
Some I never would have thought of, Cal Lightman, and Dr. House. Althought not detectives, honorable mentions.

On the subject of L. I don't think he should be on this list at all. His "means" of Identifing the region was highly dubious.

[jamieth]

Hm, speaking of L, I'd mention a movie version of him, cause in that one, he actually managed to prove Light's guild decisively, even though it required him to basically commit a suicide to achieve that. (Well, Holmes also died fighting with Moriarty, even though that was retconned later)

But, after all, it still would be Sherlock, if only for the fact that without him, none of the others would exist. (Technically, Dupain was first, but I don't think the genre would ever go big with Poe alone...)
Oh, and it doesn't help that I'm currently effectively playing Holmes in a World of Darkness campaign... a female, high-school, magic-wielding Holmes :-)

edit: though, obviously, given my avatar and sigmature, I must say Haruhi deserves a special mention... after all, no other detective I'm aware of can make a theory, then change reality so that said theory is correct :-)

[DiscipleofBob]

Phoenix Wright definitely isn't the greatest detective, but he at least deserves a mention in this thread.

[Zea mays]

C. Auguste Dupin should be worth a mention too, if only for originating the genre.

[Fallen Angel]

Who do you think should really have the title, "World's Greatest Detective."

Keep in mind that This thread is only concerned with Detecting abilites only. I am not concerned with combat prowss, or the amount of resources available to them. If all other things are equal, who has the best mind putting clues together and deducing the facts.

A small list I can come up with.
Sherlock Holmes- Obviously
Batman
Robert Goren
Columbo

If you have any other possible Detectives up for the prize, let me know.

(Yes, I know that some characters may just be a "Rip off" of certain other characters, but include them anyway since these characters have other characteristics then the source.)

What about Poriot and Maggy Marple?

What about Gibbs?

[Traab]

What about Poriot and Maggy Marple?

What about Gibbs?

Gibbs?! He has an entire TEAM doing his research and detective work for him. All he does is demand updates and help interview witnesses and such. He really doesnt solve much of anything himself.

[Kyberwulf]

The same could be said for most of the Detectives. They all rely on other people to help them. No detective is truly a one man show. The ability that makes a good detective, is the abilty to get information and apply that information to the solution.

[Tiki Snakes]

Actually, the classics (Holmes, Marple, Poirot etc) quite often are one man shows, often with another person around so they can exposite for the reader.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yeah your classic detective formula has said detective doing all the real work. Anyone else helping is just a report, like saying "the police examiners found no signs of forced entry" or whatever the data point is.

Whether the detective does this themselves or not isn't really the point all the mystery is up to them.

The NCISI:AL shows of today break things up to provide character drama and so forth.

[Mauve Shirt]

Harry Dresden!
Jk, he's kind of a derp. :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

The same could be said for most of the Detectives. They all rely on other people to help them. No detective is truly a one man show. The ability that makes a good detective, is the abilty to get information and apply that information to the solution.

Not really, most of the detectives on the list tend to put things together themselves. Even if they have guys gathering potential evidence for them, its the detective who figures it all out. Gibbs doesnt do that. He is the supervisor for an entire team of investigators. He rarely ever solves the mystery, its more that he keeps them moving so everyone can solve it.

[Raimun]

Phillip Marlowe.

What do you mean coolness is not a factor in this? :smallamused:

[Avilan the Grey]

Darkwing Duck. :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[Once a Fool]

Carmen Sandiego?

[Traab]

Carmen Sandiego?

The detective thats always CHASING carmen sandiego. I miss those old games. And I loved the fact that they made it into a game show, and a cartoon. I think they might have even made a movie off of it as well. I have to admit, its a fairly attractive story model. Brilliant thief is taunting the cops with clues, seeing if they can figure them out in time to stop her.

[Raimun]

The detective thats always CHASING carmen sandiego. I miss those old games. And I loved the fact that they made it into a game show, and a cartoon. I think they might have even made a movie off of it as well. I have to admit, its a fairly attractive story model. Brilliant thief is taunting the cops with clues, seeing if they can figure them out in time to stop her.

So she's like a female Riddler? You know, the criminal who must leave clues behind. That's kind of a bad business model, if you ask me.

[Forum Explorer]

So she's like a female Riddler? You know, the criminal who must leave clues behind. That's kind of a bad business model, if you ask me.

Except that Carmen's clues were very obscure generally.


Also she always managed to escape. Mostly because it seems that she has access to technology and money the rest of world can only dream of.

[Soras Teva Gee]

So she's like a female Riddler? You know, the criminal who must leave clues behind. That's kind of a bad business model, if you ask me.

Carmen's in it for the fun of it all. She turned to thievery because she was bored being a detective since it was just no challenge.

I suspect she turns a profit by running an underground gambling ring based not around her success (though you could place your bet there) but on just how far she will get.

[TheSummoner]

+1 to L. As said before, in-universe, he is not only the world's best detective, he's the world's top three under three different names.

As for L being able to solve the Kira case, he kinda did. Eventually anyways. He had no trouble figuring out that Light (and later, Misa) was Kira. His problem was proving it. Getting evidence enough to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Fairly hard to do when murder weapon is a magic notebook that can kill anyone in the world in any place at any time in any way provided that 1) it's physically possible and 2) the user knows the victim's name and face.

Light was never able to beat L. He just found a loophole and tricked Rem into doing his dirty work for him. Still, L was prepared for this. He saw his death coming and set up Near and Mello to take over. It cost him his life and even after that, took a few years, but in the end, L did manage to win against Light.

[Xondoure]

+1 to L. As said before, in-universe, he is not only the world's best detective, he's the world's top three under three different names.

As for L being able to solve the Kira case, he kinda did. Eventually anyways. He had no trouble figuring out that Light (and later, Misa) was Kira. His problem was proving it. Getting evidence enough to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Fairly hard to do when murder weapon is a magic notebook that can kill anyone in the world in any place at any time in any way provided that 1) it's physically possible and 2) the user knows the victim's name and face.

Light was never able to beat L. He just found a loophole and tricked Rem into doing his dirty work for him. Still, L was prepared for this. He saw his death coming and set up Near and Mello to take over. It cost him his life and even after that, took a few years, but in the end, L did manage to win against Light.

Light only died because he made one gigantic error after another. His screw up at the end being his worst offense. Had he just instructed for all of the names to be written on regular paper, or if he had instructed the other guy to make sure he tore a page out and kept it on his person like Light himself had been doing he would have won. He only lost because he got sloppy. And he was only ever suspected because he killed the officer sent to investigate him after he had successfully fooled the investigator. The whole thing speaks of a deep psychological need to play the game and lose. Finding and arresting a person with such a fatal flaw isn't really that impressive of an accomplishment.

[Kato]

I like DN but I really feel L is overrated from what we actually see him do...

I'd say Sherlock doesn't (in-officially) wear the title for no reason and many if not most modern detectives are modeled after him for a reason.

I'm not familiar enough with the Batman comics to really respect him as a detective...

Maybe it depends on your definition of detective but Holmes is rather close to being the winner, him or one of his "pupils". Possibly his BBC reincarnation but maybe that's just me liking him a lot.

[DigoDragon]

I guess I'd go with Sherlock Holmes just for being the icon of detectives.
Though for laughs I'll throw in Eddie Valiant. The Toon's detective. :smallamused:

[Traab]

I think a large part of the disagreement on who is the greatest may come from differing definitions on what makes a great detective. Yes, solving crimes is important, but to me its the way they are solved. To me, a great detective is one who can take a single look at a crime scene, and make intuitive leaps of logic based on the evidence to figure out a great piece of the puzzle. Thats why I dont count members of groups like ncis or csi as great detectives, because it isnt just one of them, they all have to do their part to solve the mysteries. NCIS combined is a great detective. Gibbs, or Ducky, or Abbey alone? They are not. They are all only skilled in a couple of fairly narrow fields, but when they link up with their team, they can cover everything and solve the mystery.

Thats why I say sherlock holmes. He doesnt require a crime lab, or a team of experts. He can look at the scene of a crime, and just by observation, he can often tell watson how the victim died, the general characteristics of the killer, including some random factoids that just make your eyes cross at the logical steps he makes, and can tell you possibly where to find said killer. It would generally go something like this.

"Watson, from looking at this room, I can tell several things. The victim was poisoned, as evidence by the flecks of dried green foam on his lips. The expression on his face tells me the victim was aware of his approaching death, which implies it was fast acting, and quite painful. Now, I believe his killer was a woman. First of all, there are two place settings at this table, and I can tell by the recent grease mark on the back of the chair and the fresh scrape marks on the floor, that our victim was a gentleman who pushed in his guests seat. Now, look over here, by this broken flower pot. You can see the imprint of a shoe in the dirt. I can tell by the shape that this is a Christian Louboutin, which implies the woman was wealthy, or at least has a wealthy patron."

You get the idea. Being able to put together all these facts by himself without needing an extensive research party or a team of coworkers to track it all down is a large part of what makes someone a great detective.

[DiscipleofBob]

The only problem I have with Holmes is that his method for solving crimes has been largely debunked as impractical in the real world.

It's mostly Holmes making educated guesses which just happen to be right based on the narrative.

[Kato]

The only problem I have with Holmes is that his method for solving crimes has been largely debunked as impractical in the real world.

It's mostly Holmes making educated guesses which just happen to be right based on the narrative.

Really, the original Holmes stories were very flawed. Even Poe's Dupin did a much better job. But later people who were created in Holmes image often do a better job if we want something that's actually logic and not... I dare say dumb luck.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Shawn Spencer from Psych. A hyper-observant faux-psychic (he came up with being psychic when the police became suspicious that he was calling in so many good tips) private detective who works with the local police. He's been trained in reading people, finding and memorizing clues, and other detective skills from his rough but incorruptible cop father ever since he was young. He's goofy, but allegedly got 100% on whatever the police detective aptitude test is when he took it for fun at age 15, and has the skills to back it up.

[DiscipleofBob]

Shawn Spencer from Psych. A hyper-observant faux-psychic (he came up with being psychic when the police became suspicious that he was calling in so many good tips) private detective who works with the local police. He's been trained in reading people, finding and memorizing clues, and other detective skills from his rough but incorruptible cop father ever since he was young. He's goofy, but allegedly got 100% on whatever the police detective aptitude test is when he took it for fun at age 15, and has the skills to back it up.

He's a good candidate. Pretty much trained in the Holmes method from birth and to notice the smallest details, but unlike Holmes he actually has faults. He doesn't have the encyclopedic knowledge and he usually does have to consult the actual police findings to arrive at the correct conclusion, and that's only after one or two failed guesses which are definitely blows to his credibility.

[Xondoure]

He's a good candidate. Pretty much trained in the Holmes method from birth and to notice the smallest details, but unlike Holmes he actually has faults. He doesn't have the encyclopedic knowledge and he usually does have to consult the actual police findings to arrive at the correct conclusion, and that's only after one or two failed guesses which are definitely blows to his credibility.

Trouble is he's gotten worse as the series has progressed. (And in fact his character has been subtly derailed)

[Dienekes]

The only problem I have with Holmes is that his method for solving crimes has been largely debunked as impractical in the real world.

It's mostly Holmes making educated guesses which just happen to be right based on the narrative.

Well yeah, but this is fiction. Hell even CSI shows outright make detecting crap up for the sake of an episode.

Yeah, Sherlock wouldn't exist in real life, neither would Batman, or quite honestly any of the cool detectives I can think of except maybe Jake Gittes, and the Dude, who both just sort of have things explained to them until they can piece together the bigger picture from that. And the Dude takes a couple leaps in his reasoning as well, if memory serves.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Trouble is he's gotten worse as the series has progressed. (And in fact his character has been subtly derailed)

Yeah, his character has changed. I think it was because Gus was the uninteresting (to some people) "Regular Joe" foil, so they took one or two of Shawn's quirky traits and gave them to Gus instead (Gus is now the womanizer, and in one of the recent episodes he was eating a lot of candy, which would've been a Shawn trait in the earlier ones).

I'm worried they might be going too far the other way, making Shawn's only quirky traits his never-say-die attitude and crazy theories. But Gus is still the knowledgeable guy who backs up Shawn's theories with research and provides a bit of cowardice, so if they keep it as-is or go backwards a bit, Gus has a quirk or two while Shawn is the guy who's really quirky.

Not sure how he's gotten worse at cases... stuff like the fact that if the landlord in the episode where Lassiter buys a condo hadn't turned up dead, Shawn would've never suspected it was the girl?

[Xondoure]

Yeah, his character has changed. I think it was because Gus was the uninteresting (to some people) "Regular Joe" foil, so they took one or two of Shawn's quirky traits and gave them to Gus instead (Gus is now the womanizer, and in one of the recent episodes he was eating a lot of candy, which would've been a Shawn trait in the earlier ones).

I'm worried they might be going too far the other way, making Shawn's only quirky traits his never-say-die attitude and crazy theories. But Gus is still the knowledgeable guy who backs up Shawn's theories with research and provides a bit of cowardice, so if they keep it as-is or go backwards a bit, Gus has a quirk or two while Shawn is the guy who's really quirky.

Not sure how he's gotten worse at cases... stuff like the fact that if the landlord in the episode where Lassiter buys a condo hadn't turned up dead, Shawn would've never suspected it was the girl?

He makes way more mistakes, gets too attached to his theories, and jumps to dangerous conclusions. Also, he's gone from being the fake psychic that didn't believe in any of it to jumping around with childlike glee about the possibility of aliens. I miss the cynic.

That said, the humor is still solid and I do enjoy the show.

[Senator Cybus]

I nominate Adrian Monk, the 'defective detective'. The writers on Monk were specifically aiming to make him a modern day Sherlock - just with OCD thrown in. He even had his own Moriarty (Dale "The Whale" Biederbeck).

Despite often coming across as a bumbling clown due to his laundry list of phobias and obsessions, Monk had an incredible eye for detail, damn near eidetic memory, a wealth of obscure knowledge and had the Columbo-like advantage of being underestimated by the villains.

He once solved two murders in the space of five minutes from information gleaned after a read of the local newspaper (and one of those murders had taken place in France, while the other had occurred centuries before).

He could also pull tricks like card counting, or calculating the exact number of jellybeans in a jar at a local fair - he'd noticed several discarded jelly bean cartons in the trash on the way in, recalled the number of beans per carton that was printed on the side, performed the mental arithmetic to ascertain the total number of beans, then, brilliantly, assumed that the guy running the stall had taken a handful of beans for himself.

He's a contender for top spot, I reckon.

[Xondoure]

I nominate Adrian Monk, the 'defective detective'. The writers on Monk were specifically aiming to make him a modern day Sherlock - just with OCD thrown in. He even had his own Moriarty (Dale "The Whale" Biederbeck).

Despite often coming across as a bumbling clown due to his laundry list of phobias and obsessions, Monk had an incredible eye for detail, damn near eidetic memory, a wealth of obscure knowledge and had the Columbo-like advantage of being underestimated by the villains.

He once solved two murders in the space of five minutes from information gleaned after a read of the local newspaper (and one of those murders had taken place in France, while the other had occurred centuries before).

He could also pull tricks like card counting, or calculating the exact number of jellybeans in a jar at a local fair - he'd noticed several discarded jelly bean cartons in the trash on the way in, recalled the number of beans per carton that was printed on the side, performed the mental arithmetic to ascertain the total number of beans, then, brilliantly, assumed that the guy running the stall had taken a handful of beans for himself.

He's a contender for top spot, I reckon.

He had the exact number? :smallsigh:

[Senator Cybus]

He had the exact number? :smallsigh:

Yeah, implausible, I know, but I think the point of the scene was to show that not only can he spot tiny clues, recall precise details and crunch numbers, he can also factor in the human element: of course you're going to grab a handful of the beans for yourself if you're going to be spending all day staring at a jar full of them.

It's no crazier than some of the stuff other fictional sleuths pull off, really.

[Traab]

Yeah, implausible, I know, but I think the point of the scene was to show that not only can he spot tiny clues, recall precise details and crunch numbers, he can also factor in the human element: of course you're going to grab a handful of the beans for yourself if you're going to be spending all day staring at a jar full of them.

It's no crazier than some of the stuff other fictional sleuths pull off, really.

Theoretically it is possible. Of course, you would have to be like, The Rain Man, or something, to do the math in your head. "Each jellybean takes up x amount of space, the jar has y volume, it would take z number of jellybeans to fill it to the brim." My gift for estimation has gotten me very very close a number of times with things like this. I havent ever been EXACTLY right, but I have always been very very close. Often close enough to win. Its an odd talent I have, I can do strange things like eyeball measurements so precisely, when asked to find the exact center of a board of wood, I am about the width of a pencil point from dead on. I do a better job of "guess your height/weight/age" than most carnies too. I dont question it, its just one of those strange things I can do. Point being, if I can get within a half dozen jellybeans on a regular basis, then someone better at it than me should be able to tell the exact amount.

[Tiki Snakes]

Theoretically it is possible. Of course, you would have to be like, The Rain Man, or something, to do the math in your head. "Each jellybean takes up x amount of space, the jar has y volume, it would take z number of jellybeans to fill it to the brim."

If I'm following, the trick is that's not how he worked it out. He saw the containers in the rubbish, knew the amount that would add up to, and deducted a handfull worth to account for nibbles. Significantly less math needed.

[Traab]

If I'm following, the trick is that's not how he worked it out. He saw the containers in the rubbish, knew the amount that would add up to, and deducted a handfull worth to account for nibbles. Significantly less math needed.

Yep, even easier, though the nibble part was a bit of a stretch, it could still fall under the heading of reasonable conclusion to what he saw.

[Xondoure]

The problem is knowing the exact amount the guy snacked on. That's not a math thing, there is no way to deduce that (at least not with the clues given.) Even if he as able to get it down to one handful that still leaves room for just how much the guy could grasp. I mean close, sure, within five or ten even. But dead on? That's a little ridiculous as long as we're supposed to believe chance didn't enter the picture.

[sun_tzu]

Between Holmes, L, Poirot, and Batman, there's some fierce competition.
But my vote goes to Shinichi Kudo from "Detective Conan"/"Case Closed". That guy's ability to notice everything and see through every elaborate trick is staggering.
(...and yet, in-universe, it's hinted that he's only second-best to his father...his battles of wits with Kaitou Kid usually end in a draw...and he has not yet been able to truly defeat Gin. That series has a lot of impressively smart characters, y'know?)

[Kyberwulf]

I am not a fan of any anime character really. They are all Sues of various levels. They never seem to have to study for their knowledge, they know everything just cause the plot says they do. They all seem to be so young, that the idea of them gaining enough life experiences doesn't seem to be very possible.
At least with characters like Batman, Sherlock Holmes and other various Detectives they seem to have earned their knowledge. Albeit most of the time The Batman and Sherlock also kinda stretch the possibilities too.

[BRC]

I am not a fan of any anime character really. They are all Sues of various levels. They never seem to have to study for their knowledge, they know everything just cause the plot says they do. They all seem to be so young, that the idea of them gaining enough life experiences doesn't seem to be very possible.
At least with characters like Batman, Sherlock Holmes and other various Detectives they seem to have earned their knowledge. Albeit most of the time The Batman and Sherlock also kinda stretch the possibilities too.

You could say the same thing about most characters from American cop shows, especially the more science-based forensic dramas who seem to have all-but instantaneous recall of anything remotely related to their field of expertise, all while being young (all the anime supergeniuses I can think of are usually described as one-in-a-million prodigies, while their American equivalents are often portrayed as being simply very competent professionals).

and remember, the question is "World's greatest detective", not "Detective character I happen to be a fan of"

[Kyberwulf]

I don't know which shows you watch. Most of the time, the detectives just get a sense of, "hey this reminds me of something, I have to go check it out." In most Cop shows you get a sense of, they studied for most of their lives in the pursuit of knowledge. i.e. They have no social lives, they spend their time reading, and researching. Being "young" is being in your 30's to mid 50's?

[Prime32]

Is it any better when they find perps by zooming in on a security camera image until they can see their DNA? :smalltongue: (and then somehow have a DNA database of every person in the world regardless of criminal records or lack thereof) Or use a fragment of someone's bone to create a photorealistic hologram of them, even guessing hair style and clothing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uoM5kfZIQ0

[Anteros]

I think we can all agree that all forms of media are going to have some very silly, impossible examples.