Who is the smartest detective of them all?

Batman

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman said:

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman said:

@Jayfournines said:

Monk's got nothing on Holmes

Have you ever seen monk?. Like i said for the 3rd time. Monk can tell you what you have done and what you are going to do, Without you speaking a single word to him.

Yup, i've seen Monk; and surely he can do that...so can Holmes. I'm assuming you are using all instances in which Holmes has appeared and not only the early Conan Doyle stories which were pretty few to say the least. Benedict Cumberbatch's Holmes runs laps around Monk

Nope, I am being completely serious and not exaggerating anything. Sherlock is not in monks level of instinct. If you blinded sherlock. He would be useless, However monk is not.

I don't recall any instance in which Holmes was blinded in any of the stories, tv shows or movies to be honest.

Edit: However being blind doesn't actually augment or decrease someone's investigating ability; it just makes it look cooler like Jean Claude Van Damme in bloodsport or something

Well, It doesnt look cool on monk...

@hudyman: but you haven't ACTUALLY made a case, repeating something doesn't make it true my friend. I know you believe being blinded and solving a case makes someone a better detective...which is not the case, it only proves that the mentioned character is able to overcome a handicap that the other character has not faced.

And if that were the case, Batman would win by a landslide since he often solves cases while being in overwhelming mortal danger and against some serious handicaps.

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman: but you haven't ACTUALLY made a case, repeating something doesn't make it true my friend. I know you believe being blinded and solving a case makes someone a better detective...which is not the case, it only proves that the mentioned character is able to overcome a handicap that the other character has not faced.

And if that were the case, Batman would win by a landslide since he often solves cases while being in overwhelming mortal danger and against some serious handicaps.

Bah Poirot beats Holmes, eventually.

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman: but you haven't ACTUALLY made a case, repeating something doesn't make it true my friend. I know you believe being blinded and solving a case makes someone a better detective...which is not the case, it only proves that the mentioned character is able to overcome a handicap that the other character has not faced.

And if that were the case, Batman would win by a landslide since he often solves cases while being in overwhelming mortal danger and against some serious handicaps.

I never said Monk was the better detective. I said His Instincts are stronger and far superior than sherlock's.

Batman is really not that good a detective without any of tech. Watch mr monk and the genious. He Challenges The Worlds best chess player. i.e The Genius

He was Always 3 steps ahead. Any clue or answer sherlock would have managed to get, would have been crushed by the genius.

@hudyman said:

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman: but you haven't ACTUALLY made a case, repeating something doesn't make it true my friend. I know you believe being blinded and solving a case makes someone a better detective...which is not the case, it only proves that the mentioned character is able to overcome a handicap that the other character has not faced.

And if that were the case, Batman would win by a landslide since he often solves cases while being in overwhelming mortal danger and against some serious handicaps.

I never said Monk was the better detective. I said His Instincts are stronger and far superior than sherlock's.

Batman is really not that good a detective without any of tech. Watch mr monk and the genious. He Challenges The Worlds best chess player. i.e The Genius

He was Always 3 steps ahead. Any clue or answer sherlock would have managed to get, would have been crushed by the genius.

I've watched Monk before, I know what he is capable of which is quite impressive; however all the comparisons you are making are pure speculations since you don't actually know if the genius would be able to crush Sherlock Holmes. Like I have mentioned before, the Holmes portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch would STOMP everyone (due to him being a walking plot device who does no wrong) on this list with the exception of maybe Batman due to his tech and obsessivenes.

Monk is out of his league here, not because his abilities are not tremendous, but because he is not used to dealing with threats as...intense...as Batman or Holmes; besides, it took him 20 years to solve his wife's murder. Monk vs Poirot would actually make a ridiculously good match up.

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman said:

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman: but you haven't ACTUALLY made a case, repeating something doesn't make it true my friend. I know you believe being blinded and solving a case makes someone a better detective...which is not the case, it only proves that the mentioned character is able to overcome a handicap that the other character has not faced.

And if that were the case, Batman would win by a landslide since he often solves cases while being in overwhelming mortal danger and against some serious handicaps.

I never said Monk was the better detective. I said His Instincts are stronger and far superior than sherlock's.

Batman is really not that good a detective without any of tech. Watch mr monk and the genious. He Challenges The Worlds best chess player. i.e The Genius

He was Always 3 steps ahead. Any clue or answer sherlock would have managed to get, would have been crushed by the genius.

I've watched Monk before, I know what he is capable of which is quite impressive; however all the comparisons you are making are pure speculations since you don't actually know if the genius would be able to crush Sherlock Holmes. Like I have mentioned before, the Holmes portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch would STOMP everyone (due to him being a walking plot device who does no wrong) on this list with the exception of maybe Batman due to his tech and obsessivenes.

Monk is out of his league here, not because his abilities are not tremendous, but because he is not used to dealing with threats as...intense...as Batman or Holmes; besides, it took him 20 years to solve his wife's murder. Monk vs Poirot would actually make a ridiculously good match up.

Dale The Whale is what i would consider to be a big threat

@hudyman said:

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman said:

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman: but you haven't ACTUALLY made a case, repeating something doesn't make it true my friend. I know you believe being blinded and solving a case makes someone a better detective...which is not the case, it only proves that the mentioned character is able to overcome a handicap that the other character has not faced.

And if that were the case, Batman would win by a landslide since he often solves cases while being in overwhelming mortal danger and against some serious handicaps.

I never said Monk was the better detective. I said His Instincts are stronger and far superior than sherlock's.

Batman is really not that good a detective without any of tech. Watch mr monk and the genious. He Challenges The Worlds best chess player. i.e The Genius

He was Always 3 steps ahead. Any clue or answer sherlock would have managed to get, would have been crushed by the genius.

I've watched Monk before, I know what he is capable of which is quite impressive; however all the comparisons you are making are pure speculations since you don't actually know if the genius would be able to crush Sherlock Holmes. Like I have mentioned before, the Holmes portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch would STOMP everyone (due to him being a walking plot device who does no wrong) on this list with the exception of maybe Batman due to his tech and obsessivenes.

Monk is out of his league here, not because his abilities are not tremendous, but because he is not used to dealing with threats as...intense...as Batman or Holmes; besides, it took him 20 years to solve his wife's murder. Monk vs Poirot would actually make a ridiculously good match up.

Dale The Whale is what i would consider to be a big threat

Ra's Al Ghul is what IMO would be an actual big threat.

Dale the Whale is a pastiche of professor Moriarty...and Dale doesn't even control the whole of San Francisco while Moriarty is the undisputed king of crime across the world.

But that's neither here nor there.

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman said:

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman said:

@Jayfournines said:

@hudyman: but you haven't ACTUALLY made a case, repeating something doesn't make it true my friend. I know you believe being blinded and solving a case makes someone a better detective...which is not the case, it only proves that the mentioned character is able to overcome a handicap that the other character has not faced.

And if that were the case, Batman would win by a landslide since he often solves cases while being in overwhelming mortal danger and against some serious handicaps.

I never said Monk was the better detective. I said His Instincts are stronger and far superior than sherlock's.

Batman is really not that good a detective without any of tech. Watch mr monk and the genious. He Challenges The Worlds best chess player. i.e The Genius

He was Always 3 steps ahead. Any clue or answer sherlock would have managed to get, would have been crushed by the genius.

I've watched Monk before, I know what he is capable of which is quite impressive; however all the comparisons you are making are pure speculations since you don't actually know if the genius would be able to crush Sherlock Holmes. Like I have mentioned before, the Holmes portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch would STOMP everyone (due to him being a walking plot device who does no wrong) on this list with the exception of maybe Batman due to his tech and obsessivenes.

Monk is out of his league here, not because his abilities are not tremendous, but because he is not used to dealing with threats as...intense...as Batman or Holmes; besides, it took him 20 years to solve his wife's murder. Monk vs Poirot would actually make a ridiculously good match up.

Dale The Whale is what i would consider to be a big threat

Ra's Al Ghul is what IMO would be an actual big threat.

Dale the Whale is a pastiche of professor Moriarty...and Dale doesn't even control the whole of San Francisco while Moriarty is the undisputed king of crime across the world.

But that's neither here nor there.

There Are enemies is monk that are more brutal than moriarty. I will look up some episodes. But i can tell you this as a fact. There Are amazing masterminds in monk

But we're not debating brutality, a simple killer with a knife can be more brutal than Moriarty, brutality (in the sense of violent) doesn't play a factor in the quality of a villain. The fact of the matter is that Monk is a pastiche of Sherlock Holmes,

Monk, the brilliant invesitgator who lost touch with reality and needs his constant assistant to ground him back (played by a buncha different actresses), usually leans on an actual cop (in his case Leland) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Dale the Whale).

Holmes, the brilliant investigator who lost touch with reality and needs his constant Watson to ground him back, usually somewhat utilizes an actual cop (Lestrade) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Moriarty)

Face it dude, Monk IS Holmes and the original does it better.

Edit: Also, Batman, the brilliant hero who lost touch with reality and needs his constant Alfred to ground him back, usually somewhat utilizes an actual cop (Gordon) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Ra's Al Ghul)

@Jayfournines said:

But we're not debating brutality, a simple killer with a knife can be more brutal than Moriarty, brutality (in the sense of violent) doesn't play a factor in the quality of a villain. The fact of the matter is that Monk is a pastiche of Sherlock Holmes,

Monk, the brilliant invesitgator who lost touch with reality and needs his constant assistant to ground him back (played by a buncha different actresses), usually leans on an actual cop (in his case Leland) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Dale the Whale).

Holmes, the brilliant investigator who lost touch with reality and needs his constant Watson to ground him back, usually somewhat utilizes an actual cop (Lestrade) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Moriarty)

Face it dude, Monk IS Holmes and the original does it better.

Edit: Also, Batman, the brilliant hero who lost touch with reality and needs his constant Alfred to ground him back, usually somewhat utilizes an actual cop (Gordon) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Ra's Al Ghul)

Couldnt have said it better myself.

@Jayfournines said:

But we're not debating brutality, a simple killer with a knife can be more brutal than Moriarty, brutality (in the sense of violent) doesn't play a factor in the quality of a villain. The fact of the matter is that Monk is a pastiche of Sherlock Holmes,

Monk, the brilliant invesitgator who lost touch with reality and needs his constant assistant to ground him back (played by a buncha different actresses), usually leans on an actual cop (in his case Leland) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Dale the Whale).

Holmes, the brilliant investigator who lost touch with reality and needs his constant Watson to ground him back, usually somewhat utilizes an actual cop (Lestrade) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Moriarty)

Face it dude, Monk IS Holmes and the original does it better.

Edit: Also, Batman, the brilliant hero who lost touch with reality and needs his constant Alfred to ground him back, usually somewhat utilizes an actual cop (Gordon) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Ra's Al Ghul)

I don't see Holmes-Cumberbatch or any other Holmes being smarter than Monk, generally speaking, they both have advantages and disadvantages. Original in this case is definitely not better than his copycat and besides Monk is more like a copy of Poirot if you take his instincts/6th sense into account, also Moriarty seemed more predictable than I thought he would be, he is not like geniuses that Monk has faced. Geniuses that Monk has faced have been uncovered, not by Monk's logic and deduction, but by Monk's senses, this is something Holmes does not have on the level Monk and Poirot have, so Holmes wouldn't be able to solve it he doesn't have enough evidences or no evidences at all, unlike Monk and Poirot who would solve it and find evidences for it (Holmes wouldn't), if you commit murder. And Moriarty has committed murders, despite being a mastermind behind all killings and usually he (Moriarty) does not kill.

Like Hudyman said Monk's unmistakable Instincts are stronger and far superior than Sherlock's, although Monk's logic and deduction are not on Sherlock's level, the same goes for Poirot when we talk about unmistakable gut instincts/6th sense, however Poirot in addition also has unmatched logic and deduction even higher than Holmes (including Cumberbatch as Holmes) but harder to understand, that alone gives him advantage against any Holmes, including Holmes portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. I still didn't see Cumberbatch trying to overpower genius like in the Monk and the genius or like in the monk and the astronaut. Moriarty was nothing like that.

Regarding Monk being blind and solve the case, maybe this example does not show how smart an detective is, but it does show how powerful and how effective Monk's senses are, something that any Holmes could only dream. This is why Monk is superior to Holmes, generally speaking, because of Monk's vastly superior senses/gut instincts/6th sense and that alone enables Monk to solve many more, much more complex cases than Holmes did and could.

@Goldfinch said:

@Jayfournines said:

But we're not debating brutality, a simple killer with a knife can be more brutal than Moriarty, brutality (in the sense of violent) doesn't play a factor in the quality of a villain. The fact of the matter is that Monk is a pastiche of Sherlock Holmes,

Monk, the brilliant invesitgator who lost touch with reality and needs his constant assistant to ground him back (played by a buncha different actresses), usually leans on an actual cop (in his case Leland) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Dale the Whale).

Holmes, the brilliant investigator who lost touch with reality and needs his constant Watson to ground him back, usually somewhat utilizes an actual cop (Lestrade) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Moriarty)

Face it dude, Monk IS Holmes and the original does it better.

Edit: Also, Batman, the brilliant hero who lost touch with reality and needs his constant Alfred to ground him back, usually somewhat utilizes an actual cop (Gordon) and battles an ominous-nigh untouchable nemesis who seems more brillianty than he is (Ra's Al Ghul)

I don't see Holmes-Cumberbatch or any other Holmes being smarter than Monk, generally speaking, they both have advantages and disadvantages. Original in this case does not better than his copycat.

Like Hudyman said Monk's unmistakable Instincts are stronger and far superior than Sherlock's, although his deduction could not be on Sherlock's level, the same goes for Poirot when we talk about unmistakable gut instincts/6th sense, however Poirot in addition also has unmatched logic and deduction even higher than Holmes (including Cumberbatch as Holmes) but harder to understand, that alone give him advantage against any Holmes, including Holmes portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. I still didn't see Cumberbatch trying to overpower genius like in the Monk and the genius or like in the monk and the astronaut. Moriarty was nothing like that.

This

@hudyman said:

@Kratesis said:

I'd have to say Batman.

Seriously? Batman in terms of detective skills is nothing without his gadgets. And even with Batmans gadgets, Monk could figure out a case faster

Spare the ignorance.

Paul Smecker

Sherlock figures out the story in the first page! Then goes on a mission get proof for everyone that he was right.

Gotta say him. :D

I think it is prudent to define what skills make a detective better/worse.

I postulate that there are two methods that detectives use.

Analytical/Deductive & Perceptive/Investigative.

A/D techniques are what a detective does with information. Most detectives use these skills in similar ways. It may be difficult to say whose skills are "stronger" than others. Examples of Analytical/Deductive techniques are:
-Sherlock's ability to deduce facts from a person's clothing/appearance other minute details, his ability to analyze seemingly trivial information and intuit motives
-Mycroft's purportedly vast analytical abilities
-Batman's ability to interpret clues and details, his ability to predict behaviour, plan ahead and set traps
-Monk's near inhuman ability to analyze and deduce facts from minor details
-Columbo's ability to determine guilt/motive from discrepancies in behaviour and very minor details, also his weirdly inhuman intuition that lets him lock on to the killer mostly because the audience already knows who the killer is
-L's ability to pinpoint suspects from a national scale down to basically just one dude given only very general information about mass killings, ability to predict behaviour and take precautions to avoid getting killed

P/I techniques are how a detective gathers information. These differ greatly between detectives and are perhaps some of their more "defining" traits. The effectiveness of these skills is perhaps easier to compare across detectives. Examples of Perceptive/Investigative techniques are:
-Any of the CSI teams' ability to gather forensic data, the infrastructure of DNA/fingerprint databases, police structures, and the force of law (extends to most other realistic-type police-procedural detectives)
-Sherlock's ability to notice extremely small details, skill with disguises to gather information/fool people, hobo information network
-Batman's skills at intimidation, manipulation, his vast computer database, police/justice league/other people contacts, stealth and surveillance techniques
-Columbo's ability to cause people to underestimate him, persistence, psychological manipulation, police resources, perception of character and physical detail, his weird inhuman intuition might fall under this category too. It's basically a supernatural power.
-Monk's OCD attention to detail

Note that I don't include physical prowess as a P/I technique. Like, ability to hold up in a fight, marksmanship, etc. That doesn't make you a good detective. Note that Batman's intimidation isn't a physical trait but rather a skill for using fear to gather information. I suppose like, beating information out of people counts as info gathering too. But straight up fighting is out.

So based on these two categories, I'd say the strongest Analysers/Deducers are Mycroft, Monk and L, and the strongest Perceptors/Investigators are Batman and CSI teams.

I'd say that Columbo and Sherlock have balanced A/D P/I abilities. They're not the best in either field, but perhaps the sum of their abilities is just as effective.

I believe other detectives (whom I am not as familiar with) would fit into this framework too.

I think it'd be fair to exclude the comicbook detectives. They are based on supernatural feats, whereas the rest are more practical.

And my list is like

1.Patrick=Poirot

2.Sherlock=Monk

3.Spencer

4. Colombo

the goddamn batman

Mr.Monk from Monk (2002-2009) He instantly identified women who got cornea transplant from his dead wife and he did not knew who that woman even was or what parts of his wife where transplanted into others.

I don't think that you can beat that.

Skulduggery Pleasant

Actually, it can be beaten, Poirot detected that there is a manipulator over murders by simply looking at a very few (5) newspapers articles, even though the murderers were known and there were witnesses, and all of them had motives to kill each other and even though those crime cases were already solved and closed.

L and Sherlock should top this list. Poirot should be in 2nd place.

Patrick Jane and Poirot are at the top of the list followed by Holmes/Monk.

Patrick Jane and Poirot are just too much even for Holmes (original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories/novels) and for Monk.

@goldfinch: Mycroft is the smartest, then Sherlock, then Moriarty.

where's batman on the list?

The answer is Haruhi. it's almost like crimes solve themselves around her.

Sherlock, monk, or Mentalist.

No Mycroft is not the smartest, the smartest fictional detectives are Mentalist-Patrick Jane and Hercule Poirot, for example Holmes brothers have never ever shown detection abilities to detect a criminal on the level of both Poirot and Mentalist.

Plus, Poirot has faced the most perfect criminal in entire detective fiction ever-Stephen Norton, in his last crime case, where Poirot died.

Moriarty is no match for Stephen Norton, neither are Holmes brothers, because Norton has never ordered anyone to kill, has never killed anyone by himself, has never done anything physically ever, and he barely spoke a word-and yet people around Norton were killing each other, however Norton himself has never done or said anything at all-that form of criminal Holmes brothers would never be able to suspect in the first place (because they have never shown in facing such a criminal, and they would never ever suspect anything, because this is not something that can happen, let alone detect.

The only fictional detective in entire detective fiction, who might stand a chance to detect Norton as the manipulator is Mentalist, but the fact is Norton did not say anything or do anything, and did not behave what would make Mentalist suspicious in the first place.

@gothamciti said:

Put Batman in the 19th and 20th century and he will lose that title, he has too much help with technology, those fictional detectives like Holmes, Poirot had tougher crime cases to solve without the high-tech gear, plus Poirot and Mentalist both have abilities to detect the killer without any need of high-tech, just by getting into the head of all forms of criminals-nuff-said.

@goldfinch said:

@gothamciti said:

Put Batman in the 19th and 20th century and he will lose that title, he has too much help with technology, those fictional detectives like Holmes, Poirot had tougher crime cases to solve without the high-tech gear, plus Poirot and Mentalist both have abilities to detect the killer without any need of high-tech, just by getting into the head of all forms of criminals-nuff-said.

Lol I wasn't being serious. I just posted this pic because it pokes fun at Batman's title of World's Greatest Detective

Skulduggery Pleasant due to his experience of aprox. 200 years

and also that he can find people off 1 bit of knowledge

Sherlock.

By feats L.

What he figured out was literally impossible to figure out. If we count this obvious pis/wis as a feat then hes the best

L

L

Dead wrong because L's feats ar enothing twhen it coems comparison with Hercule Poirot, Monk, And Patrick Jane-facts.

Patrick Jane, Monk and Poirot are all superior to Sherlock Holmes-all versions, plain and simple, all facts back this up.

Batman, he is even more iconic than Sherlock.