Ragnarok deals less damage after Luffy masters CoC coating. Coincidence? No. Because CoC invisible coating boosted Luffy's durability throughout the fight, whcih already discredits any comparison between that fight and his fight with Katakuri. The Luffy on the rooftop would steamroll Katakuri (unless Katakuri gets subsecuently buffed between arcs, but here we're talking about Katakuri at the level that we saw him in WCI).
@BlackTiger, you're persistently comparing "Thunder Baguas" that, as someone pointed out already in page 1, aren't even the same technique as you're cutting out part of the name in the second attack, and you're handpicking details, like the "He wasn't using haki to defend because there was no shading" despite many panels in that very fight in which they use CoC coating with no shading. That's a pretty common attitude on this fandom, but arguments like that fall flat.
Rather than looking at the facts and arriving and a conclusion from them, you're starting from the conclusion that you want to arrive at: "Luffy was just as fast and durable against Kaido as he was against Katakuri", and you're only looking at whatever little thing may point at that, while ignoring the massive amount of details that point in the opposite direction. So it's obvious no agreement will be reached on this thread.
@BlackTiger, you're persistently comparing "Thunder Baguas" that, as someone pointed out already in page 1, aren't even the same technique as you're cutting out part of the name in the second attack, and you're handpicking details, like the "He wasn't using haki to defend because there was no shading" despite many panels in that very fight in which they use CoC coating with no shading. That's a pretty common attitude on this fandom, but arguments like that fall flat.
Rather than looking at the facts and arriving and a conclusion from them, you're starting from the conclusion that you want to arrive at: "Luffy was just as fast and durable against Kaido as he was against Katakuri", and you're only looking at whatever little thing may point at that, while ignoring the massive amount of details that point in the opposite direction. So it's obvious no agreement will be reached on this thread.
Last edited: