Sherlock Holmes vs Batman (DC comics)

[Wjowski]

This is what I was thinking. From what I've heard about Batman if Holmes is superior it isn't by leaps and bounds, and Batman also knows things likes the earth rotates around the sun and things even children would know that Sherlock doesn't.

...I'm pretty sure the heliocentric theory was widely accepted in the Victorian era.

[Surtur]

...I'm pretty sure the heliocentric theory was widely accepted in the Victorian era.

I could be wrong about the specific fact, but I've heard people say Holmes didn't know some kind of science fact that even then was common knowledge.

[Stigma Rex]

I could be wrong about the specific fact, but I've heard people say Holmes didn't know some kind of science fact that even then was common knowledge.

Sherlock doesn't know the Earth goes around the sun. When he heard about it it happened something like this:Watson explains it to him, and he responded annoyed, that it wasn't something that could help him in a case, and he say's he will try to forget about it as soon as he can, so it doesn't clog his mind, or something to the effect.

EDIT: this was in A Study in Scarlet

[Vidocq]

I could be wrong about the specific fact, but I've heard people say Holmes didn't know some kind of science fact that even then was common knowledge.

Yes, but he did know how to recognize the maker of tabacco ash by just looking at it and in a time were everybody and their mother (literally) smoked, that was a valuable tool. In the first book he had a brain attic theory that brain space was limited and you only kept stuff that he needed for Detective work. Meaning that he was the greatest Detective because he didn't care about anything else and literally deleted stuff from his brain and forced himself to forget useless facts. Has a crime ever been solved by knowing the Heliocentric theory? No, not really.

Also they by the second book, Arthur Conan Doyle dropped that entirely. His characterization really started from Sign Of Four (The second book). The first one, Study in Scarlet, presented Watson's characterization more than Holmes'.

Holmes was a modern man. If they were on their prime on the same times, Holmes would still be better because he could get the same results as Batman without the Millionare budget. The tools would change but the results would be the same. Just look at BBC Sherlock (not Elementary, Sherlock).

[abmccray]

It's as was stated before, Holmes is technicaly the better deductive detective, but generally, it's because he could "max his sliders" at deducting real world stuff in them odern area as opposed to having to consider alien stuff as well. It would be very, very close, going by top feats for both.

[Powerboy]

Sherlock doesn't know the Earth goes around the sun. When he heard about it it happened something like this:Watson explains it to him, and he responded annoyed, that it wasn't something that could help him in a case, and he say's he will try to forget about it as soon as he can, so it doesn't clog his mind, or something to the effect.

EDIT: this was in A Study in Scarlet

Yes. He gave an explanation about how he thought the mind can only hold so much information and he doesn't want to fill it with trivia that he feels is irrelevant to his detective work. However, in later stories, he demonstrates that he knows all sorts of information that, according to that first story, he didn't know. The explanation has to be either that Watson told him all that stuff that he didn't want to know or that he was somewhat pulling Watson's leg in saying he didn't know. Watson in "A Study In Scarlet" said he could not believe that a modern, educated citizen of the British Empire did not know that the Earth revolved around the sun.

[Powerboy]

Yes, but he did know how to recognize the maker of tabacco ash by just looking at it and in a time were everybody and their mother (literally) smoked, that was a valuable tool. In the first book he had a brain attic theory that brain space was limited and you only kept stuff that he needed for Detective work. Meaning that he was the greatest Detective because he didn't care about anything else and literally deleted stuff from his brain and forced himself to forget useless facts. Has a crime ever been solved by knowing the Heliocentric theory? No, not really.

Also they by the second book, Arthur Conan Doyle dropped that entirely. His characterization really started from Sign Of Four (The second book). The first one, Study in Scarlet, presented Watson's characterization more than Holmes'.

Holmes was a modern man. If they were on their prime on the same times, Holmes would still be better because he could get the same results as Batman without the Millionare budget. The tools would change but the results would be the same. Just look at BBC Sherlock (not Elementary, Sherlock).

You said all of that much better than I did.

[Wjowski]

At any rate, the 'best detective' argument is moot since Adrian Monk is better than either of them.

[dupersuper]

At any rate, the 'best detective' argument is moot since Adrian Monk is better than either of them.

It's his gift...and his curse.

[Stigma Rex]

At any rate, the 'best detective' argument is moot since Adrian Monk is better than either of them.

What's Monk done to back this claim?

[Wjowski]

What's Monk done to back this claim?

Among other things, solving a centuries-old murder just by looking at a mummy in a museum exhibit.

[Eternal Torment]

Among other things, solving a centuries-old murder just by looking at a mummy in a museum exhibit.

But can Monk see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

[master of read]

But can Monk see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

he would if he wasnt afraid of cinnamon.

[dupersuper]

But can Monk see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

He can tell the kid how many jelly beans are in a jar...