- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 14,756
- Age
- 22
Between the inconsistency of one shot gaps, Trunks being compared to Namek Goku and the fact Trunks nor Freeza were at 100%, I find it a bit hard to tell how strong Trunks is.
Gaps in general were never consistent throughout the series, not to mention being purely speculation after scouters were removed as a plot device.Between the inconsistency of one shot gaps,
He was only said to have the same type of Ki as Namek Goku, not the same level.Trunks being compared to Namek Goku
Why would he have the same type of ki as Goku though? Him and Goku aren't even related and ki isn't usually referred to like that unless there is a connection between the ki users, such as Cell having the DNA of several people or Black having a similar ki to Zamasu due to having his soul in Goku's body.He was only said to have the same type of Ki as Namek Goku, not the same level.
There is nothing that says that all Super Saiyans have the same ki signature.They're both Super Saiyans. That's more than enough reason for them to have similar Ki signatures
Who says that Trunks wasn't at 100%? Trunks was confident in being able to beat both Freeza and Cold "in seconds" while both were at full power. The gap should reflect that.
From both a story and character perspective, there's no reason to believe the result would be any different had Freeza used 100%. Goku heavily implies Trunks would be able to oneshot Freeza in general when commenting on Trunks' description of the Artificial Humans and Trunks wouldn't have such confidence without some sort of benchmark to measure Freeza from, with it being out of character that Future Goku would've just killed a weaker Freeza as Trunks did.
Gaps in general were never consistent throughout the series, not to mention being purely speculation after scouters were removed as a plot device.
He was only said to have the same type of Ki as Namek Goku, not the same level.
The difference is that we have no reason to believe that Trunks wasn't serious against Freeza. Nothing about his actions indicated that he was holding back. He came to eliminate Freeza and Cold and did so hastily.Trunks compares his perfomance vs Goku to the one vs Trunks. Goku then proceeds to say it wasn’t his best.
I also don’t see why Trunks would go 100% if Freeza is supposed to be fodder to him. Also explains how he could be mistaken with Goku.
The difference is that we have no reason to believe that Trunks wasn't serious against Freeza. Nothing about his actions indicated that he was holding back. He came to eliminate Freeza and Cold and did so hastily.
Why wouldn't he go 100%? Trunks isn't the sort of idiot who leaves anything on the table when fighting. His experiences in his own world have made him a very serious man who hated playing around. We see this throughout the Android arc. To suggest he was holding back goes directly against his character.
He was mistaken for Goku because the Super Saiyan ki signature was the same. It's stated in the strength checker.
It's not an interpretation lmao. It's the translation of the dialogue. He literally states that "same amount of ki" would have had different wording.
The sword is an extension of Trunks. The sword means nothing if Trunks doesn't have the power to use it. The segment against King Cold made it painfully obvious that the sword wasn't the reason for his success.
Trunks is strong enough to beat both Freeza and Cold together. His confidence to bring down both of them in seconds is not contradicted, so quite frankly, going against that notion is nonsensical.
The problem is the story itself makes it clear that Trunks isn't equal to Namek Goku based on feats and implications, so that interpretation can be eliminated. Of you can find me an example in the manga where "same ki" is used as a power statement then I'll reconsider. Power statements are far more clear in the manga.Herms only noticed that Gohan didn't say the "same amount of chi". He didn't say the statement should be interpreted as "the same TYPE of chi" either. The statement remains open, with the "same chi" possibly indicating everything that follows the word same -- type and amount.
I don't necessarily think Trunks ~ Namek Goku, but the idea isn't devoid of its merit, as Gohan's statement is quite open to this interpretation. If he 100% meant the same type of chi, then well, he didn't SAY that. He said "same chi".
If it's the "same" only in regard to "type", then that isn't really "same". Same is an all encompassing thing unless stated otherwise.The problem is the story itself makes it clear that Trunks isn't equal to Namek Goku based on feats and implications, so that interpretation can be eliminated. Of you can find me an example in the manga where "same ki" is used as a power statement then I'll reconsider. Power statements are far more clear in the manga.
If you go by the literal definition of the word then sure. English isn't so cut and dry, and neither is Japanese for that matter. Consider the following example. Imagine two identical shirts from a clothing brand that come in different colours. You could say, "that's the same shirt that dad has!" while referring to the shirt, but the colours aren't the same. This could be the same, and when you weigh the evidence within the story (which you agree with), it seems unlikely that same applies to both aspects of the ki. This use of same is quite common in English.If it's the "same" only in regard to "type", then that isn't really "same". Same is an all encompassing thing unless stated otherwise.
Fair enough.If you go by the literal definition of the word then sure. English isn't so cut and dry, and neither is Japanese for that matter. Consider the following example. Imagine two identical shirts from a clothing brand that come in different colours. You could say, "that's the same shirt that dad has!" while referring to the shirt, but the colours aren't the same. This could be the same, and when you weigh the evidence within the story (which you agree with), it seems unlikely that same applies to both aspects of the ki. This use of same is quite common in English.
The very fact that Herms made note of the fact that it wasn't referring to the amount is quite telling. More often than not it is specified when the size of the ki is being referred to, in this case it wasn't.
if the same kind of ki was meant then i def. think trunks can be higher than freeza-saga goku, because if thinking in-universe wot seems more likely (if i can ask)? goku coming-back or there some-how being another character who can transform to the legendary warrior told of in legends? if i can ask
If you go by the literal definition of the word then sure. English isn't so cut and dry, and neither is Japanese for that matter. Consider the following example. Imagine two identical shirts from a clothing brand that come in different colours. You could say, "that's the same shirt that dad has!" while referring to the shirt, but the colours aren't the same. This could be the same, and when you weigh the evidence within the story (which you agree with), it seems unlikely that same applies to both aspects of the ki. This use of same is quite common in English.
The very fact that Herms made note of the fact that it wasn't referring to the amount is quite telling. More often than not it is specified when the size of the ki is being referred to, in this case it wasn't.