Classic whataboutism that has zero relevance to what im talking about. Negative portrayal does not equate to relatively NO portrayal. Also, the part I highlighted shows exactly how I know you have entirely lost track of what I was even talking about.
It's completely relevant but its all answered below.
- I believe Mihawk can defeat Shanks as a swordsman.
There is no "as a swordsman." Mihawk is above Shanks period. It didn't matter for any of Zoro's battles so how come it matters for Shanks?
- I dont believe "swordsman" is the extent of Shanks' capabilities. Display of Haki and his overall clashes with top tier characters, unlike Mihawk, already points to the possibility
Once again, it doesnt matter. Lots of Zoro's opponents had abilities beyond swordsmanship but Zoro didn't care and had to overcome all of it to be stronger than them.
Fujitora is a strong swordsman because of gravity....Law because of the Ope....Diamante because of Flutter etc...
- I don't believe Mihawk ever defeated Shanks overall, hence that's why we never heard it.
There's also no report on Shanks beating Mihawk but the latter is the one with the title
There's also no report Katakuri being beaten before Luffy or Roger/WB beating the other.....so any statement relating to their strength is irrelevant?
- I do believe Mihawk takes pity on Shanks for having 1 arm though, however that relates to combat feats, who knows. It doesnt matter because Shanks can still clash with Whitebeard 1 handed.
Mihawk doesnt like fighting against people with handicaps. It's nothing but an honor code that he and Zoro shares and displayed.
- I DONT believe there is any definitive evidence to determine if Shanks is not 100% a swordsman, just as there is no DEFINITIVE evidence to determine if Mihawk has defeated him, because the only argument seems to be a title
It's irrelevant whatever other abilities Shanks has just like how it was irrelevant for most of Zoro's opponents and even Zoro himself. That's the point.
So please, once again, stop misconstruing my posts to mean something I didn't say. The argument has always been that Shanks vs Mihawk is a stupid argument because neither side has enough evidence.
As you can see, I didn't misconstrue a thing.
Fuck my biases, fuck yours, it rooted in fact that neither side has a good argument aside from what we THINK certain interpretations mean.
Its not bias to say the strongest swordsman is stronger than a swordsman......
Instead, you could have said: Whitebeard was the STRONGEST man yet Roger was his equal, contradicting his title. WB and Roger fought many times but it's unknown if there ever was a victor. To be the new WSM, you have to beat WB and have it publicly known. With that alone, you'd have a decent example for Shanks and Mihawk. Mihawk is the WSS and one has to beat him to claim the title....Mihawk and Shanks fought many times but if no one knows if Shanks won or if they fought to a draw, Mihawk would be the WSS. Shanks became stronger after he lost an arm? Doesnt matter since Mihawk and Shanks has no interest in fighting each other anymore, with Mihawk keeping his title unchallenged as a result. But you then have to explain why Mihawk is waiting for an opponent stronger than Shanks.