Board Thread:Versus Debates/@comment-26998824-20150920161424/@comment-26773508-20150928031859

Thekillman wrote: BakumatsuWarrior wrote: If that guy were so badass, we would have seen something from him during the War. There's literally no logical step between those two things. I think it's fairly obvious that the reason we don't see anything of Hiruzen is because Kishimoto simply didn't have any ideas. He clearly wanted to bring back Hashirama, Tobirama and Minato (95% of the edo tensei story is about them, the other 5% Hiruzen), yet just as clearly had no idea what to do with Hiruzen. Why he exists in the story is pretty clear: to be the friendly grandfather figure that teaches the Will of Fire, nothing more (and nothing less). There was never anything beyond that on paper for the guy. Of course there's a logical step. I think it's called inference or inductive reasoning or whatever i.e. drawing conclusion from claims and observations that are probabilistic (the conclusion may not be absolutely convincing beyond a shadow of doubt, but is still nonetheless highly likely given current observations). "Reading between the lines" is a good enough modern description of such logical processes, I suppose. Mind you, I haven't studied logic in university so I'm unaware of the technical aspects of it.

But anyway, let me spell out the logical steps with regards to Hiruzen in an informal manner:

Observation 1: Hiruzen was repeatedly said to be the strongest Hokage in Part 1.

Observation 2: Hashirama was suggested, again and again and again, to be the most powerful shinobi in Part 2.

Observation 3: Almost no mention or glorification of Hiruzen's strength was made in Part 2, in sharp contradiction to Part 1.

Observation 4: Edo Hiruzen still showed little to no feats and wasn't very relevant in the War. Specifically, he could do virtually nothing against Guruguru Tobi, while a fodder like Karin could smash through his defences for a while using an inferior version of the Uzumaki Adamantine Chakra Chains.

Inference 1: That Hiruzen was called the "strongest" in Part 1, but instead Hashirama is repeatedly called the "strongest" in Part 2 (Observations 1 and 2, respectively), suggests the author changed his mind about who was the strongest between Part 1 and Part 2. (Note that this inference alone does not suggest in any way whatsoever that Hiruzen was overhyped)

Inference 2: Observation 3 suggests that Hiruzen was not in the same league as Hashirama and Madara. Because if he was in the same league, his strength would have been compared to those two during the innumerable times Hashi and Madara were mentioned. But no character, old or young, bothered to place Hiruzen in the same league as Madara.

Inference 3: The fact that Hiruzen, in his near-perfect Edo form, could do nothing against Guruguru Tobi (who had vastly inferior Hashi powers), while fodders like Karin and Suigetsu could best him for a while, again suggests that Hiruzen is not in the same league as Madara and Hashirama. This is accounting for his old age, since the advantages of Oro's near-perfect Edo Tensei nullifies, to a great extent, Hiruzen's old age while reincarnated.

Inference 4: All the observations/premises as well as all previous the inferences made strongly suggest that Hiruzen was overhyped and his Part 1 hype has been retconned. This is because it is the most probable explanation that explains Hiruzen's lack of both hype and feats in Part 2.

Conclusion: Hiruzen is overhyped and his feat has been retconned.