Tom Hardy as Bane XXX

[MagnarTheGreat]

As long as Batman figures out to punch Bane in the face and screw up his tubes, he's good enough to win. An army of dogs attacking Batman, on the other hand...

[I Am The Knight]

Originally Posted by EliteF50

Your sig is terrifying.

That's nice.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Cunning Stunts

That debate happened already. A handful of people just didn't want to hear any reasoning about Bane still taking Batman down even in The Dark Knight,

Oh...so you mean people just didn't agree with whatever you had to say?

Funny how the internet works.

[Baneis8feettall]

Say whatever you want but it's impossible to know who wins a fair fight.

[Hunter Rider]

In TDK Batman was at the peak of his game, in TDKR he had a bad leg and had not been Batman for 8 years, Bane would have found it much harder to take down TDK Batman.

[A Necessary Evil]

Maybe. But even in TDK, he underestimated his villains.

"Criminals aren't complicated alfred. We just have to figure out what he's after."

"With all due respect sir, maybe this is a man..YOU don't fully understand".

So, I still give the edge to bane.

[Travesty]

That, and he had a hard time fighting dogs.

[Hunter Rider]

He didn't understand The Joker's mentality, with Bane it was a simple of case of not being in fighting form, like being the best MMA fighter in the world but if you don't train for years and then get in the cage with a top fighter you will lose.

As for the dogs, Rottweilers are savage and powerrful animals and are much harder to fend off than a man.

[HighFivingMF]

Fun fact: I have a rottweiler named Harley Quinn and i got her a month before I knew Joker would get a pack of rottweilers.

[Baneis8feettall]

"We are the League of Shadows..."

[Baneis8feettall]

Originally Posted by HighFivingMF

Fun fact: I have a rottweiler named Harley Quinn and i got her a month before I knew Joker would get a pack of rottweilers.

[AnneFan]

Originally Posted by Hunter Rider

In TDK Batman was at the peak of his game, in TDKR he had a bad leg and had not been Batman for 8 years, Bane would have found it much harder to take down TDK Batman.

Originally Posted by Hunter Rider

He didn't understand The Joker's mentality, with Bane it was a simple of case of not being in fighting form, like being the best MMA fighter in the world but if you don't train for years and then get in the cage with a top fighter you will lose.

Absolutely, Hunter Rider. Bane comments on it himself. "Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you." It's in the same spirit as Knightfall where Batman takes on Bane and is already at a disadvantage.

[The Batman]

Yes...we all know TDK Batman would lose a physical fight because he'd underestimate Bane's psychological motivations...

Wait...that dosent make sense. At all.

Personally, I still think TDK Batman would whoop Bane's ass in a first fight, and I've yet to see an argument that made me think otherwise. Objectively, however, there was no fair fight between them in this film at all, so its actually hard to tell what would actually happen.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Hunter Rider

In TDK Batman was at the peak of his game, in TDKR he had a bad leg and had not been Batman for 8 years, Bane would have found it much harder to take down TDK Batman.

Originally Posted by The Batman

Yes...we all know TDK Batman would lose a physical fight because he'd underestimate Bane's psychological motivations...

Wait...that dosent make sense. At all.

Personally, I still think TDK Batman would whoop Bane's ass in a first fight, and I've yet to see an argument that made me think otherwise. Objectively, however, there was no fair fight between them in this film at all, so its actually hard to tell what would actually happen.

Definitely. TDK Batman was Bruce at his peak. In the comics and in TDKR, Bane only breaks Batman because Batman is at a physical disadvantage.

[JackWhite]

Originally Posted by The Batman

Yes...we all know TDK Batman would lose a physical fight because he'd underestimate Bane's psychological motivations...

Wait...that dosent make sense. At all.

Personally, I still think TDK Batman would whoop Bane's ass in a first fight, and I've yet to see an argument that made me think otherwise. Objectively, however, there was no fair fight between them in this film at all, so its actually hard to tell what would actually happen.

Just finished watching TDK, and the only time Batman isn't walking through people, kicking ass, is during his final confrontation with The Joker. And even then he finds a way to not only beat him physically, but morally too, by continuing to save him.

[mjbull23]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Definitely. TDK Batman was Bruce at his peak. In the comics and in TDKR, Bane only breaks Batman because Batman is at a physical disadvantage.

Completely agree. In TDK he was a wrecking machine just plowing through everyone in his way. He would've owned Bane fairly easily.

[Van Petrol]

So it looks as though this thread has basically turned into a Batman and Joker are better than Bane thread. Haven't missed much then..

[Van Petrol]

Originally Posted by The Joker

Definitely. TDK Batman was Bruce at his peak. In the comics and in TDKR, Bane only breaks Batman because Batman is at a physical disadvantage.

Bane is a lot older than Bruce and also has the disadvantage of having an anaesthetic being pumped into him at all times. Given all the disadvantages and hinderances amongst both of them and the moments in time they met and collided being vastly dissimilar in contrast, a lot would have to be considered and altered for them to be classed as having a fair fight.
And it's not just a case of Bruce having to fight throughout all his problems and disadvantages and having to be at his peak, the same would have to be required for Bane too, although it seems many are seemingly disregarding this fact in favour of stroking their ego's and preferences for Batman and the Joker at Bane's expense.

In the long run, yes, I'd still bank on Bruce coming out on top, but I don't think it would be such a straight up walk in the park even in his peak and at his prime. A fair fight, imo, would push both of them to their limits.

[Cunning Stunts]

Originally Posted by The Batman

Oh...so you mean people just didn't agree with whatever you had to say?

Funny how the internet works.

It's arguably as funny as the guys who turn others' statements into ways to reply to someone in a derogatory manner.

[Baneis8feettall]

Originally Posted by Van Petrol

Bane is a lot older than Bruce and also has the disadvantage of having an anaesthetic being pumped into him at all times. Given all the disadvantages and hinderances amongst both of them and the moments in time they met and collided being vastly dissimilar in contrast, a lot would have to be considered and altered for them to be classed as having a fair fight.
And it's not just a case of Bruce having to fight throughout all his problems and disadvantages and having to be at his peak, the same would have to be required for Bane too, although it seems many are seemingly disregarding this fact in favour of stroking their ego's and preferences for Batman and the Joker at Bane's expense.

In the long run, yes, I'd still bank on Bruce coming out on top, but I don't think it would be such a straight up walk in the park even in his peak and at his prime. A fair fight, imo, would push both of them to their limits.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Cunning Stunts

It's arguably as funny as the guys who turn others' statements into ways to reply to someone in a derogatory manner.

^ Well, thats what happens when people go around saying "Oh, no one wanted to hear any reasons as to why blah blah blah".

We heard you, we just don't agree with you.

Originally Posted by Van Petrol

Bane is a lot older than Bruce and also has the disadvantage of having an anaesthetic being pumped into him at all times. Given all the disadvantages and hinderances amongst both of them and the moments in time they met and collided being vastly dissimilar in contrast, a lot would have to be considered and altered for them to be classed as having a fair fight.
And it's not just a case of Bruce having to fight throughout all his problems and disadvantages and having to be at his peak, the same would have to be required for Bane too, although it seems many are seemingly disregarding this fact in favour of stroking their ego's and preferences for Batman and the Joker at Bane's expense.

In the long run, yes, I'd still bank on Bruce coming out on top, but I don't think it would be such a straight up walk in the park even in his peak and at his prime. A fair fight, imo, would push both of them to their limits.

Like I said, objectively, I agree with the idea that there was no fair fight between them onscreen, so no one really knows how a fight would go between them. And I also don't see anyone saying that Bats would beat Bane easily. Bane is meant to be a scary mofo who can give Batman a fight.

And as for ego stroking, lets not act like Bane fans don't stroke their ego at Batman and Joker's expense:

"Oh, Joker may be the most popular Batman villain, but Bane is the ultimate/most dangerous villain."

Not to mention certain fans acting like Bane is unstoppable, even without his Venom. I find it funny that I have to constantly remind people that Bane has never beaten Batman without the use of venom. That's not ego stroking. In fact, I usually say things like this to keep other fans ego stroking in check, especially since a few of them seem to know very little about a character they claim to love.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by Van Petrol

In the long run, yes, I'd still bank on Bruce coming out on top, but I don't think it would be such a straight up walk in the park even in his peak and at his prime. A fair fight, imo, would push both of them to their limits.

To be honest, does Batman ever really fight fair? He uses cutting edge, military-grade weaponry, vehicles, and body armor to get the upper hand in combat. Look at the docks scene in Begins. Had Batman faced all of those guys in fair combat, he would have been shot dead. Instead he uses his arsenal along with parlor tricks to take them out in a predatory fashion. Comparatively, Bane only has an armored vest and the anesthetic, which is admittedly gives a big advantage, but in terms of fighting he only uses his appendages.

[The Batman]

^ So a fair fight is no gadget no body armor wearing Batman versus thugs who get to have guns?

And what would you make of a pre LOS training Batman kicking the ass of 6 guys on his own and without any of the tools you mentioned?

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by The Batman

^ So a fair fight is no gadget no body armor wearing Batman versus thugs who get to have guns?

And what would you make of a pre LOS training Batman kicking the ass of 6 guys on his own and without any of the tools you mentioned?

I'm just saying that Batman uses what he can to best his enemies whether it's fair or not. It's like the guy who brings a gun to a knife fight, he's doing what he must to win and stay alive (like I said, without the predatory maneuvers Batman could never take down that many armed men) but from the perspective of the other guy it's not exactly fair.

[Cunning Stunts]

Originally Posted by The Batman

^ Well, thats what happens when people go around saying "Oh, no one wanted to hear any reasons as to why blah blah blah".

We heard you, we just don't agree with you.

Which is a perfectly good reason to be ignorant toward others, right?

Regardless, it wasn't about disagreement, it was about people completely ignoring any sort of evidence supporting Bane's side. A laundry list of reasoning was supplied, and it was almost completely ignored.

I, myself, posted a somewhat lengthy post giving specific real-world examples supporting the Bane side of the debate, and it was glossed over. Hence the, "people just didn't want to hear any reasoning," comment.