World's Greatest Detective.

[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.

Spoiler

Show

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.

[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?

[Senator Cybus]

He had the exact number?

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? (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