Originally Posted by
Sharpandpointies
Okay, I'm taking issue with a couple of things here. Actually, one thing. I'm seeing the qualifier 'vastly' being used.
I don't feel that's correct. In fact, I feel using it is giving the wrong impression and leading to erroneous conclusions.
Buffy does stuff like catch crossbow bolts at close range, as I recall (someone have the video?) and pulls her foot out of a bear trap before it closes on her ankle. This is pretty darned fast.
To say that Matt has VASTLY greater speed implies he has some kind of insurmountable advantage, that he'll be able to blitz her. If that's not what is being said, then perhaps some other kind of qualifier should be chosen.
For myself, while someone might make the argument that Matt is faster, it's not 'vastly' faster to the point where he's going to be blitzing. If he is faster, it's 'he's fast enough to have an edge on her in speed', that's all. It's an advantage.
And honestly? If someone could post the video for Buffy catching the bolt that would be good. I'm even wondering about the idea that Matt even gets to be considered faster than Buffy based on him catching arrows loosed at him at a distance (yes, it's multiple arrows, but again, they are projectiles he's picking up at a significant distance before catching them) versus Buffy potentially catching a crossbow bolt loosed at close range. Or yanking her foot out of a bear trap as it closes.
But I'd personally need to see the crossbow feat to judge.
Similarly for her skill. Sure, I'll admit here that Matt displays greater skill. But 'vastly' seems to be a bridge too far. Matt still gets hit by normals in groups. Matt still struggles against powerful-but-not-skilled opponents like Fisk. While the choreography is better, and Matt clearly shows more versatility (and realism, mostly), I'm not seeing some gigantic gulf in their fighting ability. Is Matt better? Sure. Does he enjoy an advantage on her? Sure.
So, we have Matt having an advantage in skill and likely in speed. Advantage. Not insurmountable advantage.
Contrast this with Buffy being considerably more physically powerful than Matt. She hits harder, potentially by a rather large chunk. Worse, her durability/soak is...well, Matt doesn't eat a punch in the face that sends him flying 20'+, such that he's STILL in the air when he hits the wall, and hits the concrete wall hard enough to put cracks in it (ie, Buffy would have kept going for a lot more distance). This hit basically stunned Buffy, but it didn't actually cause any lasting damage; she was perfectly capable of continuing the fight after a moment to shake it off.
Matt is going to work like hell to try to hurt her, even with his batons; they're blunt. And if Matt has his batons, Buffy is likely to be sporting edged weapons.
Buffy is considerably stronger than MCU Fisk, who (once he got his hands on Matt) has bounced Matt around like a basketball. And yes, in this case she IS vastly more durable than Fisk as well. And she's actually closer to Matt in skill than she is to Fisk, given her own fighting feats of taking on groups of vampires without getting hit, etc. And she's in Matt's ballpark for speed, as well, at the least.
So...I'm figuring she can eat a lot of damage from Matt, he can't eat a lot of damage from her, and she IS going to be landing hits and getting her hands on him in a long, drawn out fight (which is what this will be). So my feeling is that any fight between Matt and Buffy, barring Matt starting it by whaling on the back of her head umpteen times with batons before she even knows he's there, is very much an uphill struggle for Matt.
I realize this isn't a Rumble - Matt versus Buffy - but the comparison has come up.
Out of the two characters, I rather like Matt more. I also by FAR enjoy watching Matt's fight scenes. But I think he's being oversold here, and Buffy's capabilities are being downplayed.
Mileage, it may vary.