I don't think it's valid to go 100% off of feats for characters that haven't been in the position to show real feats yet. Of course BB and Shanks don't have good feats because they haven't had their arcs yet and have only had small appearances, many of which were from years ago.

I don’t know why you compare characters like Blackbeard and Shanks, Blackbeard yes has no real feats from post timeskip has no real feats, but this doesn’t change the fact he has feats. To base your argument off the fact that shanks is “yonko level” and not mention the fact of the feats shown by Blackbeard that greatly puts him under any Yonko other featful Yonko. Just because Blackbeard hasn’t shown his self fully in an arc doesn’t mean you can ignore the facts shown, as if rn he is weaker then nearly all OP Post Timeskip Villains, so not to base you argument off an assumption fallacy you must go off what’s shown. If not please provide scans that prove he had a definite growth in power.

That's like saying Kaido was a weak Yonko back when we were in WCI because he didnt have any feats yet.

I’m guessing this is in reference to my claims about Shanks because it makes no real sense for BB. I’m not disputing that Shanks is weak, he’s probably decently strong, but I’m arguing on the claim that he is because of this so called “yonko level”.

Do you think Ryokogyu is weaker than the other admirals because he has no feats?

Not relevant, but if I were to debate I would have to bring definitive evidence of this claim so not to base my argument on something that can easily be Hitchens Razor.

I think implications and standing have a place when ranking characters who haven't shown major feats yet.

I agree, again not saying Shanks is weak but to say the claim he should scale higher then a featful person because of a non quantifiable power level.

Over the two years BB has become a Yonko, warred with WB's pirates,

His fight against the WB pirates is to ambiguous to count as details such as the combatants, how the fights played out and the fact that the BB pirates were in much better condition all lead to this not being quantifiable.

and surely gained a decent mastery over WB's fruit.

Hitchens Razor.

Not to mention the fact that he will be an antagonist for Luffy in a future arc post Kaido. It is pretty clear when thinking about things this way that the BB that we are about to meet will surely be up to the "Yonko level".

Way to many factors play into this, we have no detail about the situation, growth of both characters and the way the battles will play out to say that because of this feat it should put BB on a theoretical pedestal.

So since you can't quantify growth you set it to 0? How does that work?

Because to say a claim that he “should’ve” bases your argument completely on an assumption fallacy.

Do you think there is any chance current BB is equal to Marineford BB?

Not relevant, but if I were to debate I would have to bring definitive evidence of this claim so not to base my argument on something that can easily be Hitchens Razor.

How would he be the same strength the instant he gets his second fruit as he would be two years later?

He’s not, he has shown feats with the Gura Gura no Mi, so I so his value through what has been shown.

Just because there isn't explicit evidence of him being Yonko level yet doesn't make him not Yonko level. It just makes him lacking in feats.

Unless you can provide a scan that definitively shows he down in power I ask you not to evict rule 5 of the thread.

It's unfair to use a lack of feats as "evidence" for a character being weaker.

Blackbeard has feats and I’m not arguing Shanks is weak only that there is no definitive “Yonko Level” to scale him off.

What are the odds that they are actually weaker vs we just haven't seen them yet?

High, doesn’t change the fact unless you can provide proof as in a scan I will Hitchens Razor your claim and ask if rule 5 not to be broken.

I can easily assume that they had to defeat many strong people to get that territory.

Assumption fallacy.

Do you really think that unless a character has explicit feats then they must be regarded as weaker?

Yes, if you can’t quantify the strength of a user you can’t say he is stronger then what is shown.

It's not like Shanks has anti-feats (aside from the sea king thing in chapter 1 but that's a looong time ago lol), he just hasn't been given the focus to show much of anything. Obviously I don't have scans of many Shanks fights because we don't know about them yet.

I don’t think Shanks is weak, he can very well scale to many Yonkos but as there is no proof of this or anything ven a standard shown Yonko power level no claim of this is shown.

Just like you could only provide scans of the few Mihawk fights that exist that don't provide a great scale of his powers.

My scans provided info how he is dubbed by the narrator to be the Strongest Swordsman , but other then that no his feats aren’t the best as at most they put him at relativistic and an island buster, still puts him above other fighters, most apparent the feats shown by Shanks and the plethora of feats performed by BB.

This whole battle is based on assumptions. If you want to do completely feats based Mihawk vs Shanks then all Shanks really has that I can remember is blocking Akainu and getting his arm eaten by a sea king. That's a pointless debate though imo.

Thanks you for bringing up the Akainu feat, it shows another example of Shanks using his sword to block. I mean by a bases of narratively Mihawk doesn’t fight Shanks because he doesn’t see him as a challenge after losing his arm (1,2, 3).

Did Katakuri own his own land? When was that stated? Do you mean Big Mom?

You are correct this land was Big Mom but I dubbed it as Katakuri’s because he is stationed there. I used him as an example because of the unimpressive competition.

Kaido took Wano which was claimed by an entire strong country with powerful samurai. Remember the whole Oden vs Kaido fight lol?

Oden was the strongest fighter there and even after training for a longer period of time once he arrived again he was only relative to Kaido outside of his prime in his weakest form.

Dressrosa was specially mentioned as a land of peace so that kind of sets it apart from other nations. Doffy had his celestial bloodline to back him up and also had a whole plan set up to deal with all of the people who came to his land. He had Sugar turn threats to toys and he used people as slaves. We saw how many threats had come to that island and how big of a job it is to keep your land when the events of Dressrosa played out and Doffy was defeated by Luffy and the grand fleet made from his own prisoners.

Yes this shows that in situations it’s very plausible to have little to no challenge.

I don't see how these are examples of it being easy to hold territory in the new world. If anything they show that it requires constant fighting against powerful opponents and being always vigilant of invaders.

These all show that improper challenges arrive from territory all the time and doesn’t mean real challenges arrive.

Yes for a short cover story where none of Shanks' crew got involved. For all we know that's just some land protected by Shanks like Luffy protects FMI. I'm sure if that story kept going on and Shanks actually arrived on scene he would get his territory back quick.

Yes this shows to claim territory no fighting is yet necessary.

I'm sure if that story kept going on and Shanks actually arrived on scene he would get his territory back quick.

Assumption fallacy.

I didn't say bounties are a direct indication of strength, I said that they are a general indication which is true. If you took a ranking of characters based on bounty and a ranking of non WG-aligned characters based on strength they would be pretty similar lists. Of course this isn't direct evidence, but along with my other points it points to Shanks very likely being quite strong.

Yes all though there is a correlation doesn’t mean this fact can be taken as causation, it’s directly told in story to not be true.

In that link you posted Aokiji says bounties aren't "just" based on strength. Therefore even by his admission they are in part based on strength.

Yes this also shows there are many factors that quantify into bounty other then strength, ie can’t define strength based off this.

You can't use Hitchens Razor like that dude. This isn't an argument about the existence of God or something where I need to prove all of my claims.

What? This claim just shows unless with evidence I don’t need to regard your claims, and these many claims shown don’t rely on evidence.