King, a swordsman and Kaido's #2, being Sanji's matchup on the basis of him being able to fly or use fire, never made sense. I'm talking about narrative logic based on Oda's way of doing things since pretty much the beginning of One Piece.
Sanji beat Arlong's RHM Kuroobi his first arc as a Strawhat.
Jabra was the #1 option on his own team and the superior fighter to Kaku.
Absalom, while perhaps not the clear RHM over Hogback, unambiguously outranked Ryuuma.
Kaidou made King his RHM when they met in their youth. Years later, he and Queen were nevertheless equals in rank to Jack, with the two of them clearly displaying a dynamic of equals to each other and seniors to Jack. It's very clearly intended they - the strongest opponents Zoro and Sanji have defeated to date - were equals or as close as possible to it by design. In fact, Oda's never been more explicit about the opponents of Zoro and Sanji.
I suspect we will see a similar dynamic to the Beast Pirates with Shiryuu, Lafitte and Burgess.
"Unarmed martial artist" doesn't mean they fought like Sanji lol. Rokushiki is nothing like Sanji's fighting style, same about fishman karate. The closest thing to Sanji's style was Bon Clay's, since he only used kicks, but that was the end of their similarities. King himself wasn't even an unarmed martial artist, so I don't see how that helps your case.
Nobody's opponents in this series fights anyone exactly like them.
Bruva, Sanji ripped off the Rokushi to expand his own skillset.
Absalom wasn't an unarmed fighter either.
And an assumption not panning out could very well not pan out because it was never rooted in logic to begin with, which was the case here. Hence you can hardly make a case for King from a pure narrative standpoint and gotta rely on nonsensical similarities Oda never cared about.
You're welcome to substantiate any of this at your earliest convenience.
So far all you've done is simply declare it so, like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.
