James Bond (Daniel Craig version..sorry swansont) vs Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr. version).

 

One has to apprehend the other..all smarts, no fancy weapons/ gadgets, disguises are ok.

 

who will win?

James Bond will blow up Sherlock, and then Sherlock will be able to tell that he did it in the dining room, with C4 explosives tied under the chandelier?

 

To my (limited) knowledge, James Bond typically doesn't apprehend anyone. His opponents tend to die in a giant inferno. So, if apprehension is the aim of the game, that should mean Sherlock wins by default... If he survives.

This is spy vs detective, which is not really an apt comparison. Different skill sets and different goals.

This is spy vs detective, which is not really an apt comparison. Different skill sets and different goals.

 

Yes, that was my first thought as well, but the OP clearly states that they must try to apprehend each other, so the goal is clear (even though their skill sets aren't necessarily useful to achieve the goal).

Sherlock need only to wait. Bond is an alcoholic, so will likely botch things up.

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7255

Sherlock need only to wait. Bond is an alcoholic, so will likely botch things up.

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f7255

Sherlock has a cocaine habit, so I don't think he has a leg up there.

Bond has one strategy. He kicks the anthill to see what the soldiers do (or shakes the martini to see who looks his way), then neutralizes the threats one by one. He relies on established tactics to do this.

 

Sherlock is much more big picture. If he knows Bonds MO, he could easily set a trap that relies on the weaknesses of Bond's singlemindedness (he'll always try to save the girl, muscle his way past guards, use a sneaky back way in, etc). On the other hand, if Bond's luck prevails, Sherlock is getting his ticket punched.

 

I always thought the easiest way for a supervillain to kill James Bond is to put a special belt on all your guards. Tell them it's to protect them, but what it really does is explode when anyone punches the wearer in the jaw, killing the wearer and the puncher.

Of course, we all know how this match ends, right? They get into a tussle, go over a waterfall together and are presumed dead by everyone, although both survive.

 

Draw.

Sherlock holmes is a detective with more cognitive and brain power than James bond who has physical strengt with a lot of ammunition plus technical help. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the both cannot be compared.

Bond has one strategy. He kicks the anthill to see what the soldiers do (or shakes the martini to see who looks his way), then neutralizes the threats one by one. He relies on established tactics to do this.

 

Sherlock is much more big picture. If he knows Bonds MO, he could easily set a trap that relies on the weaknesses of Bond's singlemindedness (he'll always try to save the girl, muscle his way past guards, use a sneaky back way in, etc). On the other hand, if Bond's luck prevails, Sherlock is getting his ticket punched.

 

I always thought the easiest way for a supervillain to kill James Bond is to put a special belt on all your guards. Tell them it's to protect them, but what it really does is explode when anyone punches the wearer in the jaw, killing the wearer and the puncher.

This is what I was thinking about Holmes. Bond is just an organized Rambo, Holmes is a morally-guided genius.

Bond is more keen to reacting to an action. Holmes devises an impenetrable plan. In the end, brains win over brawn...if with highly trained psychological and physical skills.

Edited May 3, 201411 yr by Elite Engineer

Sherlock has a cocaine habit, so I don't think he has a leg up there.

 

Huh, did not know that. It doesn't seem nearly as bad as Bond's alcohol habit though, so my money's still on Sherlock. Brains over brawn and all that.

Isn't it that the Robert Downey Jr. version,which OP mentioned for comparison, hasn't acted for any of Sir Doyle's original? He is a bit different than the real Holmes.

Well-said rktpro! The real Holmes, and the real Bond, of Doyle's and Fleming's books, are far deeper than in the shallow, puerile movie versions which OP seems to rely on.

I get the impression that few people here have actually read any of the books, especially in the case of Bond.

Is that it how it is now - books are so old-fashioned - just watch the movie, or play the video game, and form an opinion from them?

Edited May 3, 201411 yr by Dekan

I read "a study in scarlet" in highschool. I thought it was neat with the blood test and stuff, but limiting Holmes' character relative to the Robert Downey Jr. Holmes.

Edited May 3, 201411 yr by Elite Engineer

You see, in movies it is easy to project characters as extraordinary; drums rolling when they kill, time slowing down to let them perform their stunts etc. This has an added impact on the viewer. The main virtues of character can come out of the original only. If you see Holmes of old T.V serials and the new Robert version, differences are visible.

In the end, brains win over brawn...

 

If this were a kickboxing forum, you'd have put it the other way around.

Shouldn't we also consider, the advantage Holmes received from Dr Watson, who was a trusty companion, always there to provide support.

Such support was not available to Bond. He had only a series of fickle female acquaintances, like Gala Brand and Pussy Galore. These women only lasted for one story, then vanished.

 

Whereas Watson didn't vanish, but stayed by Holmes' side throughout his career. What a psychological benefit that must have been to Holmes! He knew he had a true friend.

Unlike in the case of Bond, who was always friendless, fighting battles on his own. Therefore he would lose to Holmes. Because Holmes had Watson, and Bond had no equivalent.

 

Or is that too simplistic?

Edited May 6, 201411 yr by Dekan

Shouldn't we also consider, the advantage Holmes received from Dr Watson, who was a trusty companion, always there to provide support.

Such support was not available to Bond. He had only a series of fickle female acquaintances, like Gala Brand and Pussy Galore. These women only lasted for one story, then vanished.

 

Whereas Watson didn't vanish, but stayed by Holmes' side throughout his career. What a psychological benefit that must have been to Holmes! He knew he had a true friend.

Unlike in the case of Bond, who was always friendless, fighting battles on his own. Therefore he would lose to Holmes. Because Holmes had Watson, and Bond had no equivalent.

 

Or is that too simplistic?

 

Bond has M and Q. Especially Q gave him an edge, by giving him lots of gadgets.

Also, he had in fact the entire UK and US intelligence machine behind him. It's just that they always showed up only to clean up the mess, after Bond blew everything up singlehandedly.

That's true, Bond always had a rather wholesale method of dealing with villains.

Craig's Bond loses to Sherlock hands down.

 

If we consider Connery's Bond, well Sherlock captures him and while revealing his elaborate method to do so, Bond uses a gadget with some incredible luck to escape and then strangles Sherlock unconcious. He then utters an awesome one-liner and walks away with Irene Adler