Here's what I would suggest. I'm gonna make sort of "comparisons" to the general intelligence ratings highlighted in green excluding anything below the "Below Average" rating since those are fine. I'm gonna link character examples I'm familiar with in areas where it may help. I'm not saying these examples have to be on the pages obviously, but it might help explain what I'm thinking here
Poor (Completely unskilled individuals) [Below Average]
Average (Combat skill/strategy without any notability, but isn't necessarily lacking in skill altogether. Untrained individuals with no innate combat talents, for example)
Intermediate (Combat skill/strategy thats notably greater than the average person, but would not be considered impressive compared to more hardened fighters and may still be pressured by lesser skilled opponents in larger numbers. The real life equivalent would be lower level martial artists/weapons practitioners, for example) [Above Average]
(ex. Daniel LaRusso)
Expert (Combat skill/strategy that is considered highly proficient and/or masterful. The real life equivalent would be high level martial artists and soldiers, for example, albeit these would be baseline examples, as the ceiling for this level may be questionable in terms of real life performability the further into this rating a character is) [Gifted - At least Gifted]
(ex. John Wick, Scott Pilgrim [Film])
Superhuman (Combat geniuses with skill that is far more developed than any expert level combatants. At this point, characters can accomplish feats of skill that would without a doubt, be considered impossible by real life standards) [Genius]
(ex. Goku, OoT/MM Link, Taskmaster [Marvel vs. Capcom])
Extraordinary (Combat skill/strategy that manages to eclipse even those with superhuman levels of skill. This degree of proficiency cannot simply result from someone being significantly more skilled than combat geniuses. Characters at this skill level may understand combat as a concept to the highest degree, and [excluding cases where super-speed is solely enabling a character to perform something incredibly fast] may be able to process various pieces of information related to battle [such as fighting styles, techniques, and possible moves an opponent could make next] comparable or superior to that of a supercomputer, or take on opponents with capabilities relative to the aforementioned examples) [Extraordinary Genius and anything higher]
(ex. Emerl)
Imma be real. I'd be just fine seeing pages use the terms we already have so long as they specify the different intelligences of a character. But if I had to recommend something? It’d be this
Yeah, those just go back to my point that those levels are just too fuzzy to clearly sort into and would just be used to avoid direct feat comparison in a proper manner.
Where wolves rank by nature would be unclear for example, for the lower rankings.
And more generally, it's just almost entirely defined by relative concepts. To go in detail, let's go through everything starting with intermediate:
Combat skill/strategy thats notably greater than the average person
Alright, so that is basically my criteria for trained. That's fine. Anyone with combat skill is at least this.
but would not be considered impressive compared to more hardened fighters
That's just saying they can be not impressive compared to more impressive people. So this says nothing, as we have no objective criteria for the skill level of "hardened fighters".
may still be pressured by lesser skilled opponents in larger numbers
That's suggesting that everyone above this ranking must be so skilled that anyone less skilled than them can be defeated in arbitrarily large numbers. That isn't correct for any ranking.
Closest nearly workable criteria would be "May still be threatened by 2 fighters of equal stats and abilities, but without notable skill" and even that is IMO a bad criteria since the ability to deal with multiple opponents is more pronounced in some areas of combat skill than others.
The real life equivalent would be lower level martial artists/weapons practitioners
The real life equivalent would be high level martial artists and soldiers
Not clear what the distinction between a low level and high level real life martial artist and soldiers is. In regard to the prior criteria I will say that I'm unsure if great real-life martial artists would unambiguously manage against two stat equal unskilled opponents. Having a better trained body is usually a big factor.
We also have things like strategy is part of combat skill, which these don't cover at all.
Combat skill/strategy that is considered highly proficient and/or masterful.
Subjective criteria. What's considered impressive is just relative to the person that does the considering.
he ceiling for this level may be questionable in terms of real life performability the further into this rating a character is
At this point, characters can accomplish feats of skill that would without a doubt, be considered impossible by real life standards
That are objective borders, which is why the distinction between superhuman and not superhuman rating is possible.
Combat geniuses with skill that is far more developed than any expert level combatants.
That makes no sense. Fighters with this ranking are expert level combatants themselves.
Combat skill/strategy that manages to eclipse even those with superhuman levels of skill.
Characters of these rating themselves have superhuman levels of skill. Or, if "Superhuman" as in the prior rating is meant: The prior rating has no objective upper limit, so being above it tells us nothing.
This degree of proficiency cannot simply result from someone being significantly more skilled than combat geniuses.
Ok, so this apparently tells us that the prior criteria is not sufficient. That's fine, but gives no clear definition where this starts.
Characters at this skill level may understand combat as a concept to the highest degree
What the highest degree is obviously varies between verses or even the characters which make the analysis that something is the highest level. So this isn't an objective criteria.
and [excluding cases where super-speed is solely enabling a character to perform something incredibly fast] may be able to process various pieces of information related to battle [such as fighting styles, techniques, and possible moves an opponent could make next] comparable or superior to that of a supercomputer, or take on opponents with capabilities relative to the aforementioned examples
That is cherry-picking one very specific skill area as the defining characteristic of high-level combat. As said in my first comment: "
The criteria in the OP heavily favours variety in combat skill and learning, for example, but you can also be incredibly high via being super good in just one martial art. Whether the guy that can copy any real world martial art at a glance is better than a martial artist whose skill in one fighting style is so great that superhumanly skilled martial artists would consider it superhuman is hard to say."
Information processing in general, and martial arts copying specifically, can not be considered sole determinants of skill. Nor should defeating such opponents be considered as a necessary criteria to be considered possibly equal or superior to them.
Like, you're telling me the guy who instantly learned Judo from one throw is more skilled then the one that is able to block attacks 5 tiers above him via skill alone? Seems like a questionable decision.
TL;DR I still think there are exactly 3 clearly distinguishable levels:
- No skill feats of note
- Skill feats but nothing beyond real-life
- Skill beyond real life
I don't care what we name those levels, but I think we should keep to them IMO. (or just have no levels at all) Where the criteria don't represent a proper hierarchy, i.e. one where people of higher rating are actually better than those of lower rating, it discourages or even prevents individual comparison of feats to properly determine who does better.