I am going to repost a reply I made as a post, because it might as well be. This is in response to a statement exclaiming "Funny how people still believe titles mean anything when we’ve seen in the manga that they’re just hearsay " Without further ado:
When you say titles "mean anything" and then give your opinion like they are just hearsay, it brings up the point that it depends on what the reader thinks a title means.
You think they mean nothing but that's objectively not true. Different readers will have different perceptions, but there are objective truths.
1. In the One Piece world, a quality of a title holder is that they are known and perceived in the world as that title. So for example most people would say Mihawk is the strongest swordsman, since he is widely known as such. That itself is not enough to make it true right? there are undoubtedly people that don't know that and debate that in the One Piece world.
So simply being world renowned for something doesn't mean everyone in the world is going to take it as fact. So you can then say "titles are based off of reputation, meaning they don't have to be true" which would be sound for an in world argument.
2. But if we now look at it from the perspective of the reader, the narrative is literally straight up telling us that regardless of in world reputation, this is a fact of the matter in the story. So when I see an old WB with the WSM title, I know he's stronger than Shanks.
Someone will then say "shanks wasn't trying when he clashed with WB" but neither was WB. The fact of the matter is we have not seen a healthy old WB go all out, using conquerors haki in conjunction with the quake fruit. We didn't even know this was literally possible until God Valley where we saw WB stack haki with the quake fruit to amplify the attack.
Then when we saw WB clash with Roger, he didn't use the quake fruit and they were equal, so even if someone wants to use headcanon like "roger being sick limited his haki" WB could have used the quake fruit along with his haki, which Roger is not beating in terms of raw power.
The point is, if a healthy WB used conquerors along with quake fruit, there is nothing Shanks or Mihawk can do to match it's raw strength. You can argue Mihawk and Shanks still win "but hold on he's wsm how could he lose?"
3. Because WB's title doesn't guarantee he wins a fight against every single man, just like Mihawk's title does not guarantee he beats every swordsman: he's going to lose to Zoro.
Another fact: You can be stronger and still lose. "So what is the point of titles then?" Well in this shounen manga titles cannot guarantee victory for obvious purposes, both luffy and zoro wouldn't attain their dreams otherwise. In a perfect world Zoro shouldn't be able to beat Mihawk this soon, he'd need 20-30 years to even challenge him.
But oda needs to keep his cast young, like he said the 2 year timeskip couldn't be younger because he has to maintain luffy's child-like nature.
4. Imu's existence does not invalidate titles. I've seen adjacent posts like this pop up recently, and have had to explain this multiple times, so here we go again:
. Imu is the "King of The World" for a fact, but 99.9% of the One Piece population doesn't know that. So why do we believe it? well because Oda is literally telling us:
The irony is, many will so easily believe this as fact because the narration is telling them, but when they see something like this:
They must all of a sudden be sceptical about it.
4.1) If you believe titles mean nothing, you must also believe Imu's title means nothing. But it's objectively true, how can you deny this?
Even if for example the theories are true about either Backbeard or Garling usurping Imu, and one of them does it, that does not mean Oda was lying to you, you are just misunderstanding the title. "Oh imu got usurped so I guess his title was fraudulent all along!" No, he was the King of the World, and now he's not.
Imu being usurped doesn't mean his title was never true, it literally was a fact for how many hundreds of years, until someone else became King of The World for a fact.
4.2) Just like Mihawk's title, he is objectively the WSS, if he's defeated it doesn't mean he was never the WSS. The WSS simply lost to someone else. Because neither Mihawk or Imu are invincible because of their titles, they aren't laws of the universe that must be true until the end of time. They are simply statements telling you that something is the case.
5.) How do we compare Mihawk to Imu? well for one thing Imu does not have to be the greatest swordsman "in the world" to be king "of the world" like his title suggests. If I ask you what takes more strength to hold, being King of The World or the Greatest Swordsman In The World, you're going to say it's a no brainer.
But having "more strength" doesn't translate to "being stronger in every aspect". It's that simple. Imu can be stronger than Mihawk but weaker in swordsmanship.
5.1 "How can he have weaker swordsmanship if he's stronger overall?" Well if someone believed Kaido is stronger than Mihawk, and you gave a sword to Kaido, does that mean Kaido's swordsmanship is going to now be stronger than Mihawks?
No
Because the fact of the matter is, there is levels to this, and Mihawk's pursuit of swordsmanship has led to him achieving a feat not achieved in 400 years since Ryuuma.
You might then say "but Imu has been alive for much longer" but immortality doesn't guaruntee anything, in fact you can argue it makes you even more lazy because you have infinite time. A mortal with a limited lifespan is going to achieve much more in the same amount of time than an immortal is because of that.
When you have nothing but swordsmanship like Mihawk you are going to end up being better at it than someone with literally everything else, from demonic powers, to spell books, to omen etc.
5.2 "But shouldn't imu combining his bullshit powers into a sword attack be stronger than Mihawk's unparalleled efficiency and skill?"
No
Because at this point it doesn't matter what Imu is holding, he could be holding a baseball bat, an axe, a sword it doesn't matter. All you're really saying is "If Imu swung something hard it would generate more power than if Mihawk swung Yoru hard"
But since when was that the all encompassing definition of swordsmanship? to do this would be to reduce swordsmanship entirely until the word "swordsmanship" doesn't have any meaning. Swordsmanship is a martial art. Technique and Haki utilisation are equally as important as power, and as Mihawk said:
So to answer the question: No, Imu is not a stronger swordsman than Mihawk, but he might be a stronger iron barman. And therefore Mihawk's title is not fraudulent, it is simply the truth.
When you say titles "mean anything" and then give your opinion like they are just hearsay, it brings up the point that it depends on what the reader thinks a title means.
You think they mean nothing but that's objectively not true. Different readers will have different perceptions, but there are objective truths.
1. In the One Piece world, a quality of a title holder is that they are known and perceived in the world as that title. So for example most people would say Mihawk is the strongest swordsman, since he is widely known as such. That itself is not enough to make it true right? there are undoubtedly people that don't know that and debate that in the One Piece world.
So simply being world renowned for something doesn't mean everyone in the world is going to take it as fact. So you can then say "titles are based off of reputation, meaning they don't have to be true" which would be sound for an in world argument.
2. But if we now look at it from the perspective of the reader, the narrative is literally straight up telling us that regardless of in world reputation, this is a fact of the matter in the story. So when I see an old WB with the WSM title, I know he's stronger than Shanks.
Someone will then say "shanks wasn't trying when he clashed with WB" but neither was WB. The fact of the matter is we have not seen a healthy old WB go all out, using conquerors haki in conjunction with the quake fruit. We didn't even know this was literally possible until God Valley where we saw WB stack haki with the quake fruit to amplify the attack.
Then when we saw WB clash with Roger, he didn't use the quake fruit and they were equal, so even if someone wants to use headcanon like "roger being sick limited his haki" WB could have used the quake fruit along with his haki, which Roger is not beating in terms of raw power.
The point is, if a healthy WB used conquerors along with quake fruit, there is nothing Shanks or Mihawk can do to match it's raw strength. You can argue Mihawk and Shanks still win "but hold on he's wsm how could he lose?"
3. Because WB's title doesn't guarantee he wins a fight against every single man, just like Mihawk's title does not guarantee he beats every swordsman: he's going to lose to Zoro.
Another fact: You can be stronger and still lose. "So what is the point of titles then?" Well in this shounen manga titles cannot guarantee victory for obvious purposes, both luffy and zoro wouldn't attain their dreams otherwise. In a perfect world Zoro shouldn't be able to beat Mihawk this soon, he'd need 20-30 years to even challenge him.
But oda needs to keep his cast young, like he said the 2 year timeskip couldn't be younger because he has to maintain luffy's child-like nature.
4. Imu's existence does not invalidate titles. I've seen adjacent posts like this pop up recently, and have had to explain this multiple times, so here we go again:
. Imu is the "King of The World" for a fact, but 99.9% of the One Piece population doesn't know that. So why do we believe it? well because Oda is literally telling us:
The irony is, many will so easily believe this as fact because the narration is telling them, but when they see something like this:
4.1) If you believe titles mean nothing, you must also believe Imu's title means nothing. But it's objectively true, how can you deny this?
Even if for example the theories are true about either Backbeard or Garling usurping Imu, and one of them does it, that does not mean Oda was lying to you, you are just misunderstanding the title. "Oh imu got usurped so I guess his title was fraudulent all along!" No, he was the King of the World, and now he's not.
Imu being usurped doesn't mean his title was never true, it literally was a fact for how many hundreds of years, until someone else became King of The World for a fact.
4.2) Just like Mihawk's title, he is objectively the WSS, if he's defeated it doesn't mean he was never the WSS. The WSS simply lost to someone else. Because neither Mihawk or Imu are invincible because of their titles, they aren't laws of the universe that must be true until the end of time. They are simply statements telling you that something is the case.
5.) How do we compare Mihawk to Imu? well for one thing Imu does not have to be the greatest swordsman "in the world" to be king "of the world" like his title suggests. If I ask you what takes more strength to hold, being King of The World or the Greatest Swordsman In The World, you're going to say it's a no brainer.
But having "more strength" doesn't translate to "being stronger in every aspect". It's that simple. Imu can be stronger than Mihawk but weaker in swordsmanship.
5.1 "How can he have weaker swordsmanship if he's stronger overall?" Well if someone believed Kaido is stronger than Mihawk, and you gave a sword to Kaido, does that mean Kaido's swordsmanship is going to now be stronger than Mihawks?
No
Because the fact of the matter is, there is levels to this, and Mihawk's pursuit of swordsmanship has led to him achieving a feat not achieved in 400 years since Ryuuma.
You might then say "but Imu has been alive for much longer" but immortality doesn't guaruntee anything, in fact you can argue it makes you even more lazy because you have infinite time. A mortal with a limited lifespan is going to achieve much more in the same amount of time than an immortal is because of that.
When you have nothing but swordsmanship like Mihawk you are going to end up being better at it than someone with literally everything else, from demonic powers, to spell books, to omen etc.
5.2 "But shouldn't imu combining his bullshit powers into a sword attack be stronger than Mihawk's unparalleled efficiency and skill?"
No
Because at this point it doesn't matter what Imu is holding, he could be holding a baseball bat, an axe, a sword it doesn't matter. All you're really saying is "If Imu swung something hard it would generate more power than if Mihawk swung Yoru hard"
But since when was that the all encompassing definition of swordsmanship? to do this would be to reduce swordsmanship entirely until the word "swordsmanship" doesn't have any meaning. Swordsmanship is a martial art. Technique and Haki utilisation are equally as important as power, and as Mihawk said:
So to answer the question: No, Imu is not a stronger swordsman than Mihawk, but he might be a stronger iron barman. And therefore Mihawk's title is not fraudulent, it is simply the truth.
