Death Battle II - I don't THINK Gara got robbed I KNOW he did.

[Traab]

So you think screw attack will ever team up with deadliest warrior and create the most blatantly garbage "scientific" comparisons backed up by "computer simulations" as we listen to hardcore superfans of each entry debate over feats and what they mean? Just to keep the theme going, they could hire a guy who used to work in a quarry as their geological expert to determine just how many megapascels of power would be required to cause craters of that size along with a former comic shop owner to mediate between nerd offs. I gotta admit, i would totally watch that.

[Mato]

So you think screw attack will ever team up with deadliest warrior and create the most blatantly garbage "scientific" comparisons backed up by "computer simulations" as we listen to hardcore superfans of each entry debate over feats and what they mean?

No. They apparently use an unpaid intern for research and clearly don't have the time to read their own forums or google things. I think a complex computer program would baffle them. What we clearly need is a magical cupboard.

Edit - We're on page 50. I suggest Death Battle III - We Watch It Like We Read Bleach since we all apparently dislike it but we keep up with it anyway.

[Traab]

No. They apparently use an unpaid intern for research and clearly don't have the time to read their own forums or google things. I think a complex computer program would baffle them. What we clearly need is a magical cupboard.

Edit - We're on page 50. I suggest Death Battle III - We Watch It Like We Read Bleach since we all apparently dislike it but we keep up with it anyway.

Death Battle III The List Of Those Robbed Grows Ever Longer

Death Battle III Not Even Internally Consistent

Death Battle III WROOOONG!!!!!

[Lord Raziere]

Death Battle III: Come for the fight, stay for the lack of research

eh, too long

Death Battle III: Don't get your hopes up

Death Battle III: 18 doesn't drain energy

Death Battle III: Your Childhood, meet my Boot.

death Battle III: At least Bleach had a story

thats all I have.

[Knaight]

No. They apparently use an unpaid intern for research and clearly don't have the time to read their own forums or google things. I think a complex computer program would baffle them. What we clearly need is a magical cupboard.

From all indications the "complex computer program" in Deadliest Warrior is a particularly unimpressive spreadsheet that they stick numbers in after pulling them out of thin air.

[Rater202]

From all indications the "complex computer program" in Deadliest Warrior is a particularly unimpressive spreadsheet that they stick numbers in after pulling them out of thin air.

That was the first two seasons--Specifically, it was a simulation Videogame they repurposed, though they at least made a show of testing weapons.

The third season they actually had a decent simulator and some heavy duty researchers taking care of things off-screen(notably, all of the matchups were incredibly even) but by then the damage was done and they were canceled.

Which I think was why they did the "30 Days style Vampires vs Survival Guide style Zombies" episode for the series finale. If you're not getting a fourth season, why not just go for broke and do something riduclous? What are they gonna do, cancel you again?

[Traab]

That was the first two seasons--Specifically, it was a simulation Videogame they repurposed, though they at least made a show of testing weapons.

The third season they actually had a decent simulator and some heavy duty researchers taking care of things off-screen(notably, all of the matchups were incredibly even) but by then the damage was done and they were canceled.

Which I think was why they did the "30 Days style Vampires vs Survival Guide style Zombies" episode for the series finale. If you're not getting a fourth season, why not just go for broke and do something riduclous? What are they gonna do, cancel you again?

I figured they were running out of ideas. Lets face it, they covered the majority of weapon and armor types, so then they switched to historical figures which turned most of the battles into intangibles. Like, it was less about is an odachi better than a claymore, and more "Well hannibal fought like this, while general lee fought like this. So and so was crazy while such and such was believed to be holy." That sort of thing.

[Forum Explorer]

Death Battle III Not Even Internally Consistent

This gets my vote.


Anyways, I also think that Deadliest Warrior was just pretty much out of match-ups. There are only so many warriors that never fought each other, but were still at least relatively similar in technology so it's actually an interesting discussion.

[Traab]

This gets my vote.


Anyways, I also think that Deadliest Warrior was just pretty much out of match-ups. There are only so many warriors that never fought each other, but were still at least relatively similar in technology so it's actually an interesting discussion.

I wonder if in time they would have gone with, "Lets take these two legendary warriors, gear them up in stuff equal to each other, and have them fight to the death!" We get to see, I dunno, jack sparrow, fight king richard, while both are given shaolin monk style weaponry. WHO WILL WIN?!?!?!

[Dragonus45]

Death Battle III WROOOONG!!!!!


Is totally my vote.

[Reddish Mage]

So you think screw attack will ever team up with deadliest warrior and create the most blatantly garbage "scientific" comparisons backed up by "computer simulations" as we listen to hardcore superfans of each entry debate over feats and what they mean? Just to keep the theme going, they could hire a guy who used to work in a quarry as their geological expert to determine just how many megapascels of power would be required to cause craters of that size along with a former comic shop owner to mediate between nerd offs. I gotta admit, i would totally watch that.

From listening to the commentary, Death Battle is very much about doing their own research and analysis rather than listening to hardcore superfans. Indeed, they complain that many members of the fan base would prefer to turn them into another version of those other battle online [Superhero Beatdown?] were voters decide who wins.

The writers say they take multiple days and many hours to analyze the characters from events in the comics and other medium. However, the writers often admit having little or no prior exposure to the particular character until they do their research.

No. They apparently use an unpaid intern for research and clearly don't have the time to read their own forums or google things.

The writers describe their process in the commentary with each battle posted on the website. It sounds like they certainly google but do not use much fan analysis determine their decisions. I’d think the things fans point out would be important but I don’t know when they actually do their research.

I see a lot of sniping at particular decisions (Naruto could travel at the speed of light, I thought that was weak evidence myself), but things are only really off base when the character winning is indefensible. Naruto, by the time the series ended, seemed to be operating at a whole other level from Ichigo and not just in speed but in power (this was certainly not true throughout the series).

I find this thread far to hard on Screwattack, despite my own disagreements with their analysis. Putting out an entertaining show requires these battles go a certain way. They certainly make some questionable decisions viz-a-viz certain characters, but the nature of the material really doesn’t make for clear cut measurements.

Sometimes characters do uncharacteristic stuff as a one-off, and I think just about every character they have ever done has shown some inconsistency with strength levels and stats. They could develop internally consistent way of reading comics and other materials regarding all characters, but that would more likely make what they say wrong more often then improve their process. Its impossible for them to research everything many of these characters ever said to have done even if they put dozens of hours into research. You can’t read all the comics or watch all the shows in that time. They must be working with secondary sources of some sort.

More to the point, sometimes one-off demonstrations of powers are illustrative and other times they absurd. Its hard to say which is which without making judgment calls.

What I see looks like a sincere attempt at doing research but often times the writers simply admit to not being superfans. I’m sure they are constantly missing stuff and getting some stuff wrong, but I also know that its pretty much impossible to uncontroversially stat out most of these characters in terms of real world physics, because the character’s have never been written to be understood in those terms in the first place.

[HolyDraconus]

From listening to the commentary, Death Battle is very much about doing their own research and analysis rather than listening to hardcore superfans. Indeed, they complain that many members of the fan base would prefer to turn them into another version of those other battle online [Superhero Beatdown?] were voters decide who wins.

The writers say they take multiple days and many hours to analyze the characters from events in the comics and other medium. However, the writers often admit having little or no prior exposure to the particular character until they do their research.



The writers describe their process in the commentary with each battle posted on the website. It sounds like they certainly google but do not use much fan analysis determine their decisions. I’d think the things fans point out would be important but I don’t know when they actually do their research.

I see a lot of sniping at particular decisions (Naruto could travel at the speed of light, I thought that was weak evidence myself), but things are only really off base when the character winning is indefensible. Naruto, by the time the series ended, seemed to be operating at a whole other level from Ichigo and not just in speed but in power (this was certainly not true throughout the series).

I find this thread far to hard on Screwattack, despite my own disagreements with their analysis. Putting out an entertaining show requires these battles go a certain way. They certainly make some questionable decisions viz-a-viz certain characters, but the nature of the material really doesn’t make for clear cut measurements.

Sometimes characters do uncharacteristic stuff as a one-off, and I think just about every character they have ever done has shown some inconsistency with strength levels and stats. They could develop internally consistent way of reading comics and other materials regarding all characters, but that would more likely make what they say wrong more often then improve their process. Its impossible for them to research everything many of these characters ever said to have done even if they put dozens of hours into research. You can’t read all the comics or watch all the shows in that time. They must be working with secondary sources of some sort.

More to the point, sometimes one-off demonstrations of powers are illustrative and other times they absurd. Its hard to say which is which without making judgment calls.

What I see looks like a sincere attempt at doing research but often times the writers simply admit to not being superfans. I’m sure they are constantly missing stuff and getting some stuff wrong, but I also know that its pretty much impossible to uncontroversially stat out most of these characters in terms of real world physics, because the character’s have never been written to be understood in those terms in the first place.

I can't agree with that. From what I have seen, personally, they pick who they want to win and work it to show that it happens. It doesn't take a super fan for a lot of the matchups that they are doing to have proper decisive outcomes but they specifically ignore a lot of their own research just to guarantee that their horse wins. Granted, even a broken clock can be right and that is the case for DB, since some fights are fairly obvious (Flash vs QuickSilver for instance). Or, as a proof of them ignoring their own research, check the math on the first goku v superman fight. Or even look at the fight of this thread title, or cloud v link.
They have, for a really long time, picked their horse fights for views (and has said as such) which makes their results all the more dubious. They are for entertainment. That's fine. What's not fine is running their horse fights as the be all to end debates solely to piss off fan bases to generate clicks. Yet that's what they do. It's why they made the goku v superman 2 match directly. It's why they said a moon that was hollowed out to fit a literal country inside of it has the same stats as our moon.
So yeah, a lot of people here are hard on them. Why shouldn't they, when DB lies about results?

[Reddish Mage]

I have not heard them say they arbitrarily pick winners and use analysis to justify the results. They claim the opposite. They do the research, pick the winner the research indicates is the strongest and if the result pisses off people then too bad.

They are not doing a popularity contest, they are not just randomly picking winners. They are making a good faith attempt to pick the winner based on analysis, but it is a free-wheeling analysis that lacks consistent methodology.

There are problems, or at least questions with these analyses. Sure Link vs Cloud they gave Link all his tools in multiple games, yet Cloud only received his “iconic” abilities and an extra artifact or two, when he, or any other FF character, can basically be customized to the fight.

Its one thing to say that writers lack consistency, or even a methodology, and that they get things wrong. However, it’s quite another to say they are doing things in bad faith and ignore their own analysis because they wish to anger the fans.

I see a lot of flaws and inconsistencies with their analysis, but I see that all the time with judgments being made in real life when there’s a lack of bright-line tests and strict methods are not applied to all aspects of including, sorting, and analyzing data.

Your accusation is the equivalent of saying the judges are prejudiced and are engaged in tampering with evidence. That accusation has a high bar against an actual judge. What substantiates that accusation?

The fact that they ignore some things said on their forums isn’t enough, or Wikipedia. There is no rule they include certain data (and a lot of people refuse to use Wikipedia in research). I also note that these are active areas and data from forums and Wikipedia arises often well after they do their research.

The fact that they seem to cherry pick their data isn’t enough. The fact that they are wrong even in fairly transparent ways isn’t enough (i.e. the hollow moon). Ignoring really blindingly obvious facts (i.e. ruling Superman is a weakling) and exceptionally tortured analysis (deciding Scrooge McDuck isn’t as wealthy Peter Parker), is the sort of facts that help.

What you would really need to substantiate bias and corruption could be actual statements by DB people indicating their prejudice or evidence tampering, or other evidence that play specifically to corruption and prejudged outcomes.

In the absence of indications of a payout, or an admission they decided a battle with a coin-toss and then fit the story around it, there really isn’t the evidence to sustain these sorts of accusations.

[Mato]

Death Battle III: At least Bleach had a story

I like it.

Death Battle III Not Even Internally Consistent

This gets my vote.

I could second that one too if we can't get a Bleach reference to go with the current Naruto one.

Screwattack just posted a preview for the preview of the next DB and it confirms that its Bayonetta vs (classic) Dante.

What? Batman Beyond vs Spiderman 2099 said the next episode was the season final and Sephiroth would be fighting Vergil.

[Reddish Mage]

Death Battle III Not Even Internally Consistent

There is definitely the chance for a consistency joke here:

Death Battle 3: Not Even Internally Consistent

[HolyDraconus]

If you truly wish to believe that they are as neutral about this as possible then fine. Ignore the facts they brought up, like how Gaara was able to turn an entire city to sand, and they shown this in their research, yet is weaker than Toph somehow. Facts like even the Cloud v Link fight they did NOT do any research for the other horse since Fire is NOT a signature materia of Cloud, who was shown in Advent Children to have a literal chest full of materia that he was stripped of and was geared in that fight to not use any, then had one of his materia reclassified to holy, even though Final Fantasy had Holy for decades at that point,cause they didn't want to research him. Or ignore the fact that even if they DO research they forget it, like how the math in goku v superman was horrible (50x big number is not that same number, to name one example) or how they know miguel has Thor 's hammer yet did not use it (even though he did gain that power).

It was asked back during their first season if they did this for views, and I wish I remember where it was on their forums that they replied but it was there. But I so remember the crapstorm after superman v goku. And i remember that they said even if its wrong they got a lot of hits for it. It apparent that they pick who they want to win and work it to show that it will be that way. There's no question. Notice how the trend of picking someone with a big fan base, followed by an episode of two of minor fights then another one of antagonizing fan bases.
But hey what do I know. Most proof of them having bias is scrubbed outside their website, which you have to pay for to see what they are saying. So maybe you're right.

Except.. if the answer to a fight without being a fan with minimum research is obvious, yet you pick the others regardless.. what do we call that?

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not sure what you are saying in some places but:

I said cherry picking the facts they work with, and what they exclude, is pretty what anyone doing this sort of show will be accused of. Most of the time, the characters themselves are not internally consistent in so far as what they can do.

It sounds like you are implying they admitted (not sarcastically) to picking winners they know full well couldn't win over popular characters because they know that will spark a lot of hate-attention and get more views.
That is something that I would need to see.

You could just mean a post admitted they kill popular characters because it gets views. That may suggest bias, but its not clear how much, a lot of these battles are with two popular characters anyway. Raiden should probably beat Thor or Quicksilver should beat Flash given they would want the weaker fanbases to win. Its not surprising to see they care about getting hits, what's unclear is wether they are fixing fights so that weak characters win because they think that somehow gets them more views if they are dishonest about character stats.

You seem to say that proof they have bias is scrubbed except for on their website, wouldn't it be the opposite? To find proof of bias it would be housed on places outside their website, if they are able to censor stuff it would be on their website. I haven't seen anything smacking of proof of bias, and I'm asking you if you have any such proof or evidence (please be specific, preferably with links)

I don't agree the outcomes to these fights are so obvious and transparent. Good faith mistakes can be made even if one of the fighters was clearly stronger. I'd like to see stronger evidence of bias than an argument as to why the character that lost was really strong, preferably statements that admit bias or imply bias.

[HolyDraconus]

I will concede that some fights aren't blindingly obvious without research, but they claim to do a fair amount of it, and most of their bouts show that THAT claim can't be accurate for their consistently wrong results.

Example. Toph v Gaara. I don't need years of research to know who wins that fight. A quick search with no knowledge of the two shows that even without jinchuuriki boosting Gaara, he cleared entire cities without breaking a sweat, hasn't worn sand armor in literal years (just didn't need itl), and has a huge amount of sand that is living. Nothing Toph has shown can overcome him, and she has NEVER been shown to be in control of life infused anything. The closest you can take a feat to that is if you assume the joke of her lifting the planet was true. They outlined most of this, and ignored it, cause they wanted Toph to win.

That's just an example in several seasons of this. One or two here or there? Sure. Accidents happen. But as many as they have done? How are they NOT just picking winners?

[Forum Explorer]

I have not heard them say they arbitrarily pick winners and use analysis to justify the results. They claim the opposite. They do the research, pick the winner the research indicates is the strongest and if the result pisses off people then too bad.

They are not doing a popularity contest, they are not just randomly picking winners. They are making a good faith attempt to pick the winner based on analysis, but it is a free-wheeling analysis that lacks consistent methodology.

There are problems, or at least questions with these analyses. Sure Link vs Cloud they gave Link all his tools in multiple games, yet Cloud only received his “iconic” abilities and an extra artifact or two, when he, or any other FF character, can basically be customized to the fight.

Its one thing to say that writers lack consistency, or even a methodology, and that they get things wrong. However, it’s quite another to say they are doing things in bad faith and ignore their own analysis because they wish to anger the fans.

I see a lot of flaws and inconsistencies with their analysis, but I see that all the time with judgments being made in real life when there’s a lack of bright-line tests and strict methods are not applied to all aspects of including, sorting, and analyzing data.

Your accusation is the equivalent of saying the judges are prejudiced and are engaged in tampering with evidence. That accusation has a high bar against an actual judge. What substantiates that accusation?

The fact that they ignore some things said on their forums isn’t enough, or Wikipedia. There is no rule they include certain data (and a lot of people refuse to use Wikipedia in research). I also note that these are active areas and data from forums and Wikipedia arises often well after they do their research.

The fact that they seem to cherry pick their data isn’t enough. The fact that they are wrong even in fairly transparent ways isn’t enough (i.e. the hollow moon). Ignoring really blindingly obvious facts (i.e. ruling Superman is a weakling) and exceptionally tortured analysis (deciding Scrooge McDuck isn’t as wealthy Peter Parker), is the sort of facts that help.

What you would really need to substantiate bias and corruption could be actual statements by DB people indicating their prejudice or evidence tampering, or other evidence that play specifically to corruption and prejudged outcomes.

In the absence of indications of a payout, or an admission they decided a battle with a coin-toss and then fit the story around it, there really isn’t the evidence to sustain these sorts of accusations.

On one hand I could believe this, but on the other, then there are things like Tifa Vs Yang. Tifa who can fight monsters the size of skyscrapers, while Yang can barely fight a single mech. Tifa who can fight against Sephiroth and win, or Yang who lost against Neo so badly that she didn't land a single blow. And yet somehow Yang won that fight.

I will concede that some fights aren't blindingly obvious without research, but they claim to do a fair amount of it, and most of their bouts show that THAT claim can't be accurate for their consistently wrong results.

Example. Toph v Gaara. I don't need years of research to know who wins that fight. A quick search with no knowledge of the two shows that even without jinchuuriki boosting Gaara, he cleared entire cities without breaking a sweat, hasn't worn sand armor in literal years (just didn't need itl), and has a huge amount of sand that is living. Nothing Toph has shown can overcome him, and she has NEVER been shown to be in control of life infused anything. The closest you can take a feat to that is if you assume the joke of her lifting the planet was true. They outlined most of this, and ignored it, cause they wanted Toph to win.

That's just an example in several seasons of this. One or two here or there? Sure. Accidents happen. But as many as they have done? How are they NOT just picking winners?

Wait, when did Gaara stop using Sand Armor? I thought he was still using it, even past his death. I just don't remember him actually getting hit after that point.

[Reddish Mage]

On one hand I could believe this, but on the other, then there are things like Tifa Vs Yang. Tifa who can fight monsters the size of skyscrapers, while Yang can barely fight a single mech. Tifa who can fight against Sephiroth and win, or Yang who lost against Neo so badly that she didn't land a single blow. And yet somehow Yang won that fight.



Wait, when did Gaara stop using Sand Armor? I thought he was still using it, even past his death. I just don't remember him actually getting hit after that point.

I agree both are atrociously bad decisions, but the questions is whether they are the product of dishonest motivations.

Final Fantasy is about the only group of hyper-customizable (and swappable) JRPG characters they take on, and the methodology they choose to use severely limits their abilities.

Toph vs. Gaara is a more normal case. I agree Gaara will win, but the not for the reasons I heard on this forum. I would stress that Toph has problems bending sand. I think the fact that Toph "sees fuzzy" when she's on sand, and complained of being a poor sand manipulator the only time we saw her having to operate on sand, and that should determine the fight with Gaara.

Otherwise, Toph could win if she was simply faster, far more skilled in real martial arts, and more perceptive than Gaara. Toph is a genuine martial arts prodigy and Gaara is dependent on his sand-manipulation powers, so Toph has an edge there.

Sheer strength does not always determine the fight, so the fact that Gaara can move more sand than Toph could is not necessarily determinative.

Also, they showed that Gaara gets her in a sand coffin. Unless Gaara gives her room enough to move, benders need free movement to bend, its all over for Toph once she's in that thing. Admittedly, the blow by blows are "for illustration purposes only" and are not how their analysis suggests things will actually go down.

You analysis basically comes down to "these few times (and a bunch more unnamed times) are so blindingly obvious they must be ignoring their own analysis." However, I think these examples are much more arguably than you do, even if I agree with you on what the outcome should have been.

This is the equivalent of saying a real life judge is corrupt based on picking out a few bad decisions, and then telling me he's wrong nearly 1/3 of the time. If it was that easy to get a judge thrown off the bench it would be happening. You usually need evidence of actual corruption.

I'll accept their analysis gets it wrong, that its incomplete, that its highly selective. Since I think that's pretty much what happens when you take a few hours to research characters you don't really know much about in order to do really short video segment on them, I think its relatively easy to get it wrong.

However, you are claiming not that they are just getting it wrong, but they are picking winners for dishonest reasons. I'm not likely to agree they are doing the analysis in bad faith based on death battle results. I'd like to see evidence of their corruption and ulterior motives.

[HolyDraconus]

Gaara is a martial artist. It's literally one of their pillars of being a ninja. She doesnt have an edge there. In all honesty, especially once you start breaking down feats, it was supposed to be a stomp on the scale of Flash v QuickSilver. Toph bends earth. Toph has trouble holding a pillar up. Toph cannot turn sand into earth. Gaara manipulates sand. Gaara has leveled mountains and cities with his sand. Gaara can turn earth into sand. You can try to argue that skill beats power, when the difference between the two is literally a gulf that can fill a city. And that's assuming that Toph is more skilled, when there's nothing that can back that up, since Gaara beat his old man who was a master.

Again, that's just one example.
As for proof that they pick battles, look at superman v goku 2. That fight wasn't needed and they admitted on rooster that it was done for views.

[Forum Explorer]

I agree both are atrociously bad decisions, but the questions is whether they are the product of dishonest motivations.

Final Fantasy is about the only group of hyper-customizable (and swappable) JRPG characters they take on, and the methodology they choose to use severely limits their abilities.

Ah, to explain why I think Yang vs Tifa was dishonest is because that Death Battle was an atrocious decision, and it happened right after Roosterteeth and Screwattack merged or whatever it was that they did. Then there was the time where they had two characters from Red vs Blue fight.

It seems like pandering to Roosterteeth, giving them free advertising and support. In the first case, Yang should have lost horribly. It's not like Link vs Cloud where I can at least see an argument for Link winning since he has some OP combos, feats, and abilities and Cloud's power level is all over the place. Yang simply isn't that strong, and has plenty of show times where she's lost horribly and very few feats where she's actually won.

And in the second case, it's the first time that they've ever done two characters from the same franchise before. Which just happens to be owned by their partner channel.

[chainer1216]

Death Battle III - Very Divisive

[Kitten Champion]

Ah, to explain why I think Yang vs Tifa was dishonest is because that Death Battle was an atrocious decision, and it happened right after Roosterteeth and Screwattack merged or whatever it was that they did. Then there was the time where they had two characters from Red vs Blue fight.

It seems like pandering to Roosterteeth, giving them free advertising and support. In the first case, Yang should have lost horribly. It's not like Link vs Cloud where I can at least see an argument for Link winning since he has some OP combos, feats, and abilities and Cloud's power level is all over the place. Yang simply isn't that strong, and has plenty of show times where she's lost horribly and very few feats where she's actually won.

And in the second case, it's the first time that they've ever done two characters from the same franchise before. Which just happens to be owned by their partner channel.

For me, it was that the evidence they gave was just awful.

First, it was predicated on interpreting Rooster Teeth's animation, particularly in the area of displaying the worlds internal physics... which are poorly defined at best, and just makes the whole thing kind of cringe-inducing.

Secondly, the lynch-pin moment - apparently - was Yang being hit through a concrete pillar by a giant robot, followed up by something loosely related to a mathematical analysis of this event. It's beyond difficult for me, having played FF VII several times and at the time coincidentally playing through Final Fantasy Duodecim when that Death Battle was released, to understand why they thought that was sufficient grounds to prove anything.

I won't say Yang can't beat Tifa, and technically if Rooster Teeth simply says she can then she can regardless, but... Not Enough Minerals.

[Chives]

If you want a good example of cherry picking, check out the Megaman versus Astro Boy fight, DB ignored 20+ years of manga and pulled Rock's feats from Archie comics.

[Reddish Mage]

Gaara is a martial artist. It's literally one of their pillars of being a ninja. She doesnt have an edge there. In all honesty, especially once you start breaking down feats, it was supposed to be a stomp on the scale of Flash v QuickSilver. Toph bends earth. Toph has trouble holding a pillar up.

Toph moves like a real martial artist. Gaara has never been shown to fight or train in a way in which he didn't rely on his sand powers.

Yes, Toph in the desert has a hard time (although being able to hold the library up was quite a feat and she does it even under distraction and pressure. She shouldn't have won. The question isn't whether DB got the result wrong, its whether they are doing so just to piss Naruto fans off.

As for proof that they pick battles, look at superman v goku 2. That fight wasn't needed and they admitted on rooster that it was done for views.

Ah, to explain why I think Yang vs Tifa was dishonest is because that Death Battle was an atrocious decision, and it happened right after Roosterteeth and Screwattack merged or whatever it was that they did. Then there was the time where they had two characters from Red vs Blue fight.

DB picks who fights who, and do it for reasons like views or to give a boost to their partner sight.

The question is whether they pick the winners of those fights for those sorts of reasons.

I admit the fact that they are showmen that do lots of things for business reasons, rather than being disinterested academic scholars answering a question posed to them, means they are more likely to decide a fight because they want to get people upset if it'll get them more views.

However, I don't see the connections to pissing people off getting more views, and if it does, who to piss off? Is it any better to piss off Goku's crowd than Superman's crowd, or Spiderman 2099's? Is there any reason to believe that a policy of picking weaker winners gets them more views and makes them more popular?

By the way, Superman is hardly an obvious victory for Goku, there are plenty of fans with their own calculations supporting a Superman victory.

When I have seen academics do these sorts of calculations, what I actually tend to see is far less convincing than DB. Often times they just pick out some isolated scene or factoid and do their calculations from there without even attempting to give their numbers context. The results often seem random and missing the point.

For example, one physicist calculated that Star Wars ships are weaker than Star Trek ones (despite being much more massive) because the energy scales given in Star Wars is orders of magnitude lower than what Star Trek ships are said to put out.

When DB runs such calculations for Yang and Tifa, I am not surprised Yang's tolerance for punishment is considered incredible given they picked the episode Yang's back fought a highway supporting girder and the girder was the thing that bent.

DB often chooses some illustrative event to run some calculations for both characters, but they at least make an attempt to ground those calculation in the history and gestalt capabilities of the character.

I don't agree the winner in any of these wrong picks are so blindingly obvious it must have been picked by a dishonest judge. Also, the admissions you say Screwattack has made (I'm never going to get a link am I?) don't sound like admissions they have ignored their own analysis to pick a winner to garner more views or annoy certain fans. They basically sounds like admissions to running a show.

[HolyDraconus]

It's kinda hard to say that Red (can I call you Red? )when they show proof that they know about some of these things and ignore it. Yang v Tifa. They shown clips from Advent Children and ignore it in their results. Spiderman 2099 v Batman Beyond. They shown Miguel to have THAT hammer, and ignored it for results. Toph v Gaara. They show Gaara turning a massive forest into sand. Ignored it for results.

To add further, they ignore obvious facts, their own math, stack versions of characters into 1 amalgam of one and even the word of mouth from the creators of the character, for their result. Bayonetta v Dante. Ignored that she fought god and won. While Goku v Superman 1 was supposed to be strictly canon (which New 52 retconned a lot of big Blue's feats, namely Specter and the book, regardless of them being outliers to begin with), they used them anyway, merged every version of Supes bar 2 particular ones and said "here" and even got their own math wrong. Basic multiplication. And rolled with it. I'm not saying the hillbilly can beat that. No one can really, but I will say it wasn't like they wanted to do it justice with how sloppily it was handled. Link v Cloud. TODAY, we know it to be a far closer fight with the things Cloud has done and the fact that all versions are the same due to the Master Sword bs. Back then we did not. I don't have to go further in detail on this, since I stated before that they stripped him and reclassified his abilities and said "it's iconic!" While they merged links (which today, would be fine cause of earlier mentioned sword).

The issue is that you can go thru every episode of DB, and find in an overwhelming majority of them that running theme of incorrect verdict. Some are glaringly obvious. Some a fan of the characters will have to point out. But it's there. And sometimes the result is right...but not for how they gave it.

[Traab]

Things like training and skill are important but it still comes down to one simple factor. The two universes, avatar, and naruto, have very different ideas on the stats of humans. A naruto human can be literally smashed through trees and boulders and survive with some bruises and maybe internal bleeding. They can be hammered into the ground so hard they crater. Avatar verse has no such supoer human durability. Yes someone like toph could wrap herself in metal or rock armor, but hit her in the fleshy bits and she feels pain like any bog standard human does. Speed is another factor. In the naruto verse you regularly have ninja who can move faster than the eye can see. Again, nothing of the sort in avatar. Strength is the same. You have people that, at their absolute peak, are so strong and fast they can warp space around their bodies. So much raw physical might, they can punch the air hard enough to create self sustaining jetstreams, so fast they can create a half dozen of those jet streams and use them to pin a person in place. This is the real reason its a flash/quicksilver stomp. Not because of innate skill, but because garra is point blank far stronger faster and more durable than toph could EVER be. And thats despite not specializing in those areas like Gai would be. And yet they ignored all of that in favor of "Toph can totally take control of his sand" and decided it didnt matter that garra is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to hurl tall buildings in a single throw.

[Forum Explorer]

DB picks who fights who, and do it for reasons like views or to give a boost to their partner sight.

The question is whether they pick the winners of those fights for those sorts of reasons.

I admit the fact that they are showmen that do lots of things for business reasons, rather than being disinterested academic scholars answering a question posed to them, means they are more likely to decide a fight because they want to get people upset if it'll get them more views.

However, I don't see the connections to pissing people off getting more views, and if it does, who to piss off? Is it any better to piss off Goku's crowd than Superman's crowd, or Spiderman 2099's? Is there any reason to believe that a policy of picking weaker winners gets them more views and makes them more popular?

By the way, Superman is hardly an obvious victory for Goku, there are plenty of fans with their own calculations supporting a Superman victory.

When I have seen academics do these sorts of calculations, what I actually tend to see is far less convincing than DB. Often times they just pick out some isolated scene or factoid and do their calculations from there without even attempting to give their numbers context. The results often seem random and missing the point.

For example, one physicist calculated that Star Wars ships are weaker than Star Trek ones (despite being much more massive) because the energy scales given in Star Wars is orders of magnitude lower than what Star Trek ships are said to put out.

When DB runs such calculations for Yang and Tifa, I am not surprised Yang's tolerance for punishment is considered incredible given they picked the episode Yang's back fought a highway supporting girder and the girder was the thing that bent.

DB often chooses some illustrative event to run some calculations for both characters, but they at least make an attempt to ground those calculation in the history and gestalt capabilities of the character.

I don't agree the winner in any of these wrong picks are so blindingly obvious it must have been picked by a dishonest judge. Also, the admissions you say Screwattack has made (I'm never going to get a link am I?) don't sound like admissions they have ignored their own analysis to pick a winner to garner more views or annoy certain fans. They basically sounds like admissions to running a show.

That is my accusation, regarding Yang vs Tifa anyways. For the Red vs Blue matchup, it wouldn't have mattered who won.

I do think it was dishonest, because of how weak Yang is in RWBY. She isn't presented as invincible, loses fights, and struggles to do much against some Grim. She's tough and strong sure, but she's not on the top of the food chain, and every time she's fought someone better then her, she loses hard.

I mean, watch the fight between Neo and Yang. Yang gets utterly destroyed, and literally does not land a single blow. Neo is effectively an assassin. Very skilled sure, but she's not super strong, she's not super fast, and she's not super tough.

Tifa has fought opponents who are much greater in power then Neo, and won. Her full final combo with her ultimate, fully charged weapon, would do an insane amount of damage, easily more then what we see take down Yang without any problems.

[Reddish Mage]

Tifa has fought opponents who are much greater in power then Neo, and won. Her full final combo with her ultimate, fully charged weapon, would do an insane amount of damage, easily more then what we see take down Yang without any problems.

We don't know how powerful Neo is. She never fought anyone and lost, although she fled from Raven.

We don't know how much Tifa's final combo does. Numbers on the screen do not translate into anything measurable, at least DB never even attempted to suggest it does. They measure it as doing less damage.

It's kinda hard to say that Red (can I call you Red? )when they show proof that they know about some of these things and ignore it. Yang v Tifa. They shown clips from Advent Children and ignore it in their results. Spiderman 2099 v Batman Beyond. They shown Miguel to have THAT hammer, and ignored it for results. Toph v Gaara. They show Gaara turning a massive forest into sand. Ignored it for results.

A common enough county courthouse's judges decision (also sometimes called a B paper in law school) basically reviews the facts, reviews the laws, and says "this is the result," without explaining how they get there. Writing an explanation that fails to address certain facts or lines of argument in a decision happens all the time at every level in decisions.

I say this, because the work of judges are writing about matters that have very serious outcomes.

Ignoring certain facts or rules happen not just because of corrupt judges, it happens because they may feel differently than the legal counsel about how powerful a particular fact is, or whether an argument carries weight, or perhaps even fails to understand an argument or sees its relevance to the particular case.

I compare this to a legal case, because it is not a matter of scientific precision who would win a fight.

What's more, matters of scientific precision will not always go in the way you favor. If Yang through a steel girder followed by a mech-shattering punch is the basis of the scientific analysis, then Tifa may well be in trouble.

The issue is that you can go thru every episode of DB, and find in an overwhelming majority of them that running theme of incorrect verdict. Some are glaringly obvious. Some a fan of the characters will have to point out. But it's there. And sometimes the result is right...but not for how they gave it.

I think a clear incorrect verdict is a minority of DB. I beleive you can find their decision is incorrect almost every episode, but I think someone will say the same about any show trying to do their sort of analysis.

I'd love to go through DB episode by episode and see how bad their decisions can get, but if the fights we are discussing are the worse offenders, I don't think I'll agree they are that bad.