Search results

You must have a PhD in ignorance and selective reading if you're really trying to sell us the idea that Zoro was getting clowned when he was literally on the ground, unable to stand on his own two feet, even before Kaido started assaulting them. Two, Zoro permanently scarred Kaido with crude...

Difference b/w a skilled fighter and a noob who needs distractions to land every other attack: Kaido had Law on the ground 30 seconds into the fight while Yamato held off Kaido for several minutes by herself. There is literally no comparison there. Having flashy moves is cool and all but...

Big Mom and Kaido are too strong to be teleported by Law but he did not say he can only teleport people weaker than him. There is a difference. Law could still move people stronger than him and weaker than Kaido and Big Mom: Luffy, for example. This doesn't necessarily prevent Law from being...

Law doesn't always need his sword to attack so he isn't a swordsman. Meanwhile, Kaku... I mean, I understand why one might think Law isn't a swordsman in the same sense as Zoro but these arguments are as useless as they can be. Law's a swordsman through and through; whether or not he falls...

The wank never ends. :seriously: I will say I agree with all of that but only to a moderate degree because you tend to blow things out of proportion when it comes to Law, but I agree more or less with the notion that Law always has a chance against pretty much anyone given the right...

@ZenZu what's your take on this? Since Law already awakened his ability which is like the peak of his DF, don't you think Law's got less room to expand his power than Zoro?

Technically, he awakened it against Kaido. I see where you're getting at, but still, it's hardly appropriate that he chose to make King a non-swordsman in a swordsmen-centric arc. I don't think he's intentionally doing anything to separate Law from being a swordsman. He's hardly different from...

Zoro could go through all of that fighting Edward Weevil for all we know but that's not important. We're talking about Oda doing things that go in line with the ongoing arc's theme and he did not do that to the guy with the biggest connection to Wano from the main cast, so it's indeed asking for...

Honest opinion, the swordsman argument doesn't deserve the attention it is getting. It's not irrelevant but it's the least relevant aspect about Law and Zoro that we should be looking at.

Oda didn't even bother giving Zoro a proper sword fight in an arc filled with swordsmen. You're asking for too much, unfortunately.

The comment is from Oda. P.S. Nvm, I thought it was a different art.

Law's a swordsman: With Law, due to the kind of ability he wields, there will always be room for inconsistencies to call him a swordsman even if Oda outright comes out and calls him one. So I think the "Law's a swordsman" argument isn't that valid when it comes to him—at least not as valid as...

And Law is at his best when he's fighting in a team meaning he'd do worse in a one-on-one setting.

Yes, I understand where you're getting at about this being debatable. I was just saying there is no logic in saying "this topic wouldn't exist if it's so obvious" because even things as obvious as "Luffy>Zoro" have dedicated topics all over OP communities.

That's like saying if Luffy is stronger than Zoro, then Zoro vs. Luffy threads wouldn't exist. The logic doesn't quite work and these things always exist as long as people don't stop looking for ways to work around logic.

We already know the answer.