I strongly disagree with this.
Misconception 1: Mikey's mental state remained bad to the point that he was unable to fight
Misconception 2: Mikey was not fighting at full strength
This is wrong because Takemichy's desparation and Hinata telling them the truth improved Mikey's mood, and he was back to his normal self, as stated by Hinata and Takemichy themselves. Keep in mind that Takemichy initially thought Mikey wasn't mentally stable enough to fight.
All of this ties into Draken statement and Takemichy further emphasizes that Draken meant that there is no bullshit going on, Izana is truly stronger than Mikey.
Therefore, any attempt to claim Mikey's mental state remained bad and didn't improve well enough to fight at full strength is merely speculating and contradicting the manga to support baseless intepretations. The manga disagrees, and so should you.
Izana is stronger than Mikey, period.
I think you totally ignored my conclusion. :
-for the issue of Mikey and Izana I think is relative in speed and sub-relative in AP. Since I find the difference in AP to be minimal or a randomness or something at the plot level one can agree on relativity in that as well.I don't see that as a problem. Effectively it is an argument that has too much logical depth so let's consider that they are equivalent for a while.
My reasoning is based on a simple logical system with scientific and empirical basis (i'm afighter). All this is supported and argued with feat and statment while your points are based only on statments or dynamics prior to the fight. Feat + statment > feat > statment.
This is a Half thrurt. Mikey is no longer depressed but that doesn't mean he has totally recovered or that he doesn't have some distractions during the fight. Destabilizing him mentally was one of Izana's intentions.
This happens during the fight. Taking earlier dynamics (z) and adding them to later dynamics (x) is not necessarily valid any case. This is a logical error of generalization.
I wonder how anyone could be aware of Mikey's true strength if not with DI influence , since except with Hanma any confrontation always ended with a single blow before this story arc . He saw Mikey with slight influence of Dark Impulses so would this statment make Base Mikey > Mikey DI valahalla valid? I think my interpretation is more logical.
I don't understand what you mean by "stronger" but what makes Izana better than Mikey is
his view of combat. Izana doesnt call Mikey slow or weak but predictable, this is because what makes Izana dominant in combat thanks to his skill.
My conclusion is sub-relativity and relativity because I am indifferent which of the 2 is chosen ,I just preferred to put a different explanation on the character profile page.
In conclusion I suggest you read
premise, explanation and conclusion before writing so no one wastes time Or write unnecessary posts that lengthen the thread.
(Zefra knows that I am whatever is chosen will be fine with me so on this point I don't want to be called out again)
THANKS
I'll just say that a mangaka doesn't have to write each and everything about something happening. I mean, Baji cracked the wall, but it isn't explicitly mentioned that he cracked the wall, he just did it, and we saw it, it's that plain and simple.
In Mikey's kicking feat, everyone was blitzed by the speed since they don't know any of the thing that was happening,
it's that simple.
occam razors aren't used this way. This razor only serves to disregard unnecessary assumptions or assumptions that would complicate the result.You don't use it for something that you think is easier to conclude, As you know the simplest thing is not necessarily the most correct, the case obviously needs to be analyzed
Your example makes no sense. You compare a clear feat, with more than one dedicated panel and zooming in on the feat to a totallymene different feat ( of speed). This is proof by example (since in destruction feats it is not stated what they destroyed and how the same logic of not describing dynamics applies to speed feats)
Your conclusion is based on cosmic nothingness, clear example of Argument from belife (since you personally find reasonable A means that A is true, this error of yours is supported by the fact that you have shown nothing to prove what you say. you think it is right simply because it seems to you to be a valid conclusion) . Any claim needs an argument that makes it valid,Not to mention that you exclude many other variables
They do not know what happened but it is literally explained by one of them, so your conclusion in addition to having no valid evidence is overly hasty. They use your Occam razor it is more logical to think that they know what happened. (This does not imply that Mikey's kick may have been missing for a short time but I don't care about that)
this feat is not of my interest, I just wanted to point out many of your errors in your arguments.So consider the errors in your argument and correct it without trying to make logical errors such as. Rephrase your points without responding unnecessarily I asked Arnold, so as not to clog the thread.
This thread is becoming one hed herring. I am seeing so many logical errors that I am getting a headache.
@Zefra3011 , do something again to summarize pls, the same for others. Otherwise a conclusion will never be reached
THANKS x2