I disagree.
1. This doesn't prove Mihawk already had a black blade and at his peak when they dueled.
2. Teach singlehandedly debunks your theory as at MF War Teach wasn't even Yonko level or else he wouldn't run against Akainu and would've ganged up on him easily. This Teach managed to win against Shanks and scar him for life, something Mihawk wasn't even able to do.
3. Luffy at that point wasn't even thought to be YC level. Remember the defeat of Katakuri is a huge part of what made Luffy the 5th Emperor? Also Katakuri didn't even fought any YC1 as he was undefeated when he fought Luffy.
4. If Marco and King dueled it will be seen the same way as the duels of Mihawk and Shanks because the two are already known as the no.2 of Yonko. Simple, Mihawk and Shanks were already famous at the time but doesn't necessarily mean they are already top tiers.
5. Oden is a genius too since we saw him wield Enma as a child, that is age even younger than Shanks and we have no idea if he already had Gryphon. Yet, Oden who died at 39 didn't even manage to forge a single black blade.
"1. This doesn't prove Mihawk already had a black blade and at his peak when they dueled. "
1. So I'm not sure if you actually read what I said, because when did I ever argue Mihawk having a black blade? You can clearly be on xebec's level for example without having one, this was never my argument.
The fact that this is your first point in a response after saying you disagree, doesn't look good for you, because you're trying to tackle a point I never made, so did you understand the point I was trying to make, or are you just trying to use my comment to reinforce your own position, regardless if it's even relevant to what I said?
"
Teach singlehandedly debunks your theory as at MF War Teach wasn't even Yonko level or else he wouldn't run against Akainu and would've ganged up on him easily. This Teach managed to win against Shanks and scar him for life, something Mihawk wasn't even able to do." - You make assumptions in this point which you can't prove.
2. First off, we don't know when in the timeline Teach scarred Shanks. Second off, the very fact that BB managed to scar shanks despite him being a genius adds to his mystery, the actual method teach managed to do this could range from him being just as much as a genius as shanks in combat, to him being literally possessed by Xebec somehow, the possibilities are endless.
You saying A pre-yonko level Teach scarred Shanks isn't a good point for these reasons. Furthermore, When shanks talks to WB he says he has many scars but the one that aches is the one Teach gave him. This means he's suffered scars from other means, one of which could have been in his duels with Mihawk. So no, you can't definitively say Mihawk never scarred Shanks.
If you want to say BB scarring shanks on the face specifically is more impressive than any scar Mihawk could have gave him you can do so, but I believe this to be more of a narrative decision on Oda's part, because it highlights BB is destined to fight Shanks via the scar he gave him, just like the scar Mihawk gave to Zoro. And it being on his face adds emphasis to this. BB is someone who is all over the place onscreen vs offscreen, saying he scarred shanks to downplay shanks (when we don't even know exactly how it happened) eventual level in his 20's is not a good argument.
"Luffy at that point wasn't even thought to be YC level. Remember the defeat of Katakuri is a huge part of what made Luffy the 5th Emperor? Also Katakuri didn't even fought any YC1 as he was undefeated when he fought Luffy."
3. Trying to debate whether he was thought to be YC level or not is irrelevant, it doesn't make sense you're trying to hyper-focus on what exact luffy level was at vs Katakuri, when my point was simply saying either way this fight would not be worth mentioning.
Furthermore your point about 5th emperor was spun by Morgans in world, this was obviously done by oda to start to add hype to luffy's accomplishments and said defeating Katakuri is a milestone, but why should what Morgans say matter when he has been shown to purposely lie about events in order to stir drama and attention?
We as the reader know it's propaganda and we know in hindsight now defeating Katakuri is not that impressive with the level luffy was at in order to do it. Hence why I don't think WB would consider mentioning it in the same moments he is talking about legendary events (like he does for shanks duel). I don't know what your point about katakuri not fighting any YC1 even is supposed to show, it doesn't address the points I made.
"If Marco and King dueled it will be seen the same way as the duels of Mihawk and Shanks because the two are already known as the no.2 of Yonko. Simple, Mihawk and Shanks were already famous at the time but doesn't necessarily mean they are already top tiers."
4. While I agree that simply being famous doesn't necessitate you being a top tier, using two other individuals who don't have anywhere near the same portrayal as shanks that I mentioned to then try to apply it on to Mihawk and Shanks is a false equivocation.
King for example is someone who is strong because of his genetics and Zoan fruit abilities, King is someone that doesn't take swordmanship seriously and does it more as a hobby, unlike Shanks and Mihawk who are stated to be master swordsman, Mihawk for example being world renowned for his swordsmanship before the great pirate era.
It's common sense that if King actually took swordsmanship seriously he would have the potential to be stronger. So that is one big difference highlighted between King and Mihawk/Shanks.
As well as this, you literally said it would be the same because they are known as the no.2 of Yonko, I don't think you understand how this is a counterpoint against the very point you are making.
You are saying because of their positions within an already established Yonko crew, would it be the same as Shanks and Mihawk. Even if I granted you this for the sake of argument, the very fact that Shanks and Mihawk did not hold these notable positions, and yet their fight would be of the same caliber as people that do, automatically means that their fight would hold weight for a different reasons other than being associated with high positions in a Yonko crew.
My argument is that the very reason WB brings this up, is that Mihawk and Shanks were already very strong, and therefore the duel gained traction because it was a fight between two high level oppositions, which is why WB even brought it up. Even if you want to say it's simply because their fame matched Marco and Kings, you would have to give a suitable reason why other than tremendous strength, again, they aren't carried by positions in a yonko crew, so what was the reason for their fame?
The most logical thing you can tie to Mihawk is his swordsmanship, therefore combat ability, therefore strength. And Shank's insane genius and growth, like with the Oda statement I already mentioned. And also more facts that add to this position, like Shanks possessing the ability to cancel out obs haki, something we haven't seen anyone else demonstrate.
"5. Oden is a genius too since we saw him wield Enma as a child, that is age even younger than Shanks and we have no idea if he already had Gryphon. Yet, Oden who died at 39 didn't even manage to forge a single black blade"
Oden is a genius too I agree, but again maybe my point when over your head, because you don't seem to understand the position I am taking in regards to Shanks genius, especially when compared to Oden's genius.
A very obvious example that highlights this, is Oden not even understanding the application of advanced ryuou in conjunction with CoC, he learns this when he meets Roger. The point I made was that I'm choosing to interpret Oda's statement as shanks was able to understand this kind of application and emulate it as a child without instruction, because Divine Departure is a move that uses CoC.
We have no evidence Oden would have been capable of doing this as a child. The statement resides exclusively with shanks. So there is already one big difference. Regardless if taming enma as a child is impressive.
Furthermore like I said, Shanks had the ability to do this as a child, but no one else on Roger's crew did even as an adult. The very fact that Oden despite his genius, hasn't been stated to possess the same kind of genius shanks does, automatically highlights a distinction. And depending on how far you want to go, Oden was in fact a part of Rogers crew for a time, therefore the statement could extend to Oden, but I won't go that far.
Then when we look at their end results, like for example you mentioned oden at 39 didn't have a black blade, well his CoC wasn't compared to Joyboy's either. If we're talking about end results in conjunction to talent, Shanks literally has a better end result for a fact.
The other thing is, mentioning black blade in this instance is not relevant, because what you need to achieve a black blade is not necessary to be a top tier. Like I already said Xebec did not have one for example. Shanks doesn't need one to be stronger than Xebec in his 20's, neither does Mihawk.
So this fixation you have on black blade doesn't negate the possibility of Shanks already being stronger than Oden for example.
You seem to do this thing where you use a completely different character in order to downplay another character, when they are two completely different people. This is not a good argument. Oden is not Shanks, King is not Mihawk. Marco is not Shanks. Their portrayal is different.
