Toho Kingdom

http://kingkong.wikia.com/wiki/Megaprimatus_Kong

vs

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Smaug (Hobbit Trilogy)

Rules:

1. Scaled

Arena: Smaug's Lair (Hobbit Trilogy)

The ruler of an island against the last of the great fire dragons of middle earth. I'm gonna lean toward Smaug for this one. Yes, Kong is by far the better fighter, and he can do some serious damage, but Smaug's flames are going to burn the ape alive if he isn't careful.

In a head-to-head fight, Kong could potentially overpower Smaug with his strength, but he doesn't have any answer to Smaug's flight and fire breath. If push comes to shove, Smaug could just fly out of range and roast Kong with flames.

Smaug always has conflict with Primates doesn’t he?

Shockingly I'm siding with King Kong on this

King Kong is the better fighter, sure, but the problem is Smaug's flames which I see Kong easily evading after being hit once by it. I don't think Kong would die upon first impact, he'll be burnt and all but after that he's way too smart and fast to keep getting hit. If Smaug tries to go airborne and roast him, judging by the arena Kong has a ton of things he could do: He could just take cover or he could throw those massive pillars at Smaug which would essentially take him down, and from there Kong could keep attacking avoiding the mouth (similar to the cow-riding pose he did with the V-Rex and wow that sounds dirty). He could also throw the pillar or coins in the air at Smaug's eyes and go the other way so Smaug loses sight of him, and then Kong massively leaps onto Smaug's back and takes him down. I really think once he's hit by the flames, King Kong has the fight in the bag since he would be avoiding the flames and evading them. King Kong 2005 is use to fighting gigantic flyers bigger than himself, such as in the game.

KingKong2005 wrote: King Kong 2005 is use to fighting gigantic flyers bigger than himself, such as in the game.

Not going to argue against the rest of the post, but we don't really count game feats outside of cutscenes, due to gameplay reasons. As it stands, the only interaction with flyers we can safely gauge Kong's feats and fighting style on are the bats in the cave, and his demise at the hands of jets.

Giratina93 wrote:

KingKong2005 wrote: King Kong 2005 is use to fighting gigantic flyers bigger than himself, such as in the game.

Not going to argue against the rest of the post, but we don't really count game feats outside of cutscenes, due to gameplay reasons. As it stands, the only interaction with flyers we can safely gauge Kong's feats and fighting style on are the bats in the cave, and his demise at the hands of jets.

Oh, well if it counts for anything it was in the World of Kong book which is 100% authentic. Is it a rule that I can't use those kinds of sources?

KingKong2005 wrote:

Giratina93 wrote:

KingKong2005 wrote: King Kong 2005 is use to fighting gigantic flyers bigger than himself, such as in the game.

Not going to argue against the rest of the post, but we don't really count game feats outside of cutscenes, due to gameplay reasons. As it stands, the only interaction with flyers we can safely gauge Kong's feats and fighting style on are the bats in the cave, and his demise at the hands of jets.

Oh, well if it counts for anything it was in the World of Kong book which is 100% authentic. Is it a rule that I can't use those kinds of sources?

Those kinds of sources are fine, just so long as they don't contradict anything shown onscreen.

The thing is- Smaug has nearly-indestructible scales. He survived immersion in molten gold. And against physical blows- he smashed through the side of a mountain, shattering solid rock, as far as I could tell? So running straight into a rocky wall, the wall is the one who takes damage. So in terms of being taken down by a thrown column or other rock, I think he's demonstrated sufficient resilience to take only minor harm- and to deal pretty powerful physical blows.


I would also question whether Kong could survive that initial fire hit, even if he could evade subsequent blasts; that stream of fire could shatter stone with its kinetic force, and according to other bits of lore, melt metal, even rings of power. Kong took damage from V-rex teeth and machine-gun bullets; his level of invulnerability is fairly low. He's tough; but he can be harmed by relatively low-level forces, compared to those at lay from Smaug. I'd see the intense flame of Smaug doing crippling or lethal damage to Kong with even a single hit; certainly enough to slow and disable him enough to make avoiding subsequent hits a no-go, even if he does survive. And even then, the Smaug that smashed through the side of a mountain has the brute strength to slow around blows at Kong's level (including to hit him while he's down from the fire), with the fire granting a definite advantage in a slug-fest. (A fire that he could exhale in sufficient volume to envelope his entire body- without harm to himself- meaning that even if Kong was riding his back or otherwise attacking in some way that the flexible, dexterous dragon somehow couldn't reach, he could still be engulfed in flames. Getting to within striking distance is risking the fire, regardless).

I think Smaug has too many ways of winning here.

Zarm wrote:The thing is- Smaug has nearly-indestructible scales. He survived immersion in molten gold. And against physical blows- he smashed through the side of a mountain, shattering solid rock, as far as I could tell? So running straight into a rocky wall, the wall is the one who takes damage. So in terms of being taken down by a thrown column or other rock, I think he's demonstrated sufficient resilience to take only minor harm- and to deal pretty powerful physical blows.


I would also question whether Kong could survive that initial fire hit, even if he could evade subsequent blasts; that stream of fire could shatter stone with its kinetic force, and according to other bits of lore, melt metal, even rings of power. Kong took damage from V-rex teeth and machine-gun bullets; his level of invulnerability is fairly low. He's tough; but he can be harmed by relatively low-level forces, compared to those at lay from Smaug. I'd see the intense flame of Smaug doing crippling or lethal damage to Kong with even a single hit; certainly enough to slow and disable him enough to make avoiding subsequent hits a no-go, even if he does survive. And even then, the Smaug that smashed through the side of a mountain has the brute strength to slow around blows at Kong's level (including to hit him while he's down from the fire), with the fire granting a definite advantage in a slug-fest. (A fire that he could exhale in sufficient volume to envelope his entire body- without harm to himself- meaning that even if Kong was riding his back or otherwise attacking in some way that the flexible, dexterous dragon somehow couldn't reach, he could still be engulfed in flames. Getting to within striking distance is risking the fire, regardless).

I think Smaug has too many ways of winning here.

I would't sleep on Kong though, he's pretty durable. He went full body into like a 10 feet thick wall of pure concrete and stone as if it were nothing, he would straight up lift pure stone houses his size, he broke through the wall, the log, etc. V-Rexes are powerful enough to uproot trees like nothing and break through stone pillars as seen in the fight yet Kong stood fairly well against them.

Alright, let's get this going for real. I shall assume, given user comments and the arena, that we are talking about movie Smaug rather than the 4-legged chap from the original book.

Now given the references made through both movie trilogies, we can safely say some version of the Silmarillion is canon. This is important as it details several events and particulars that make Smaug a little more impressive than one would initially think he is.

As detailed, Morgoth (formerly Melkor) bred dragons as mobile artillery, where they were used during the wars of the first age alongside balrogs. While the two types of beings were never stated to have come into conflict, it was said dragons were mightier once they reached maturity, an impressive feat considering it took only four balrogs to drive away Ungoliant, who even Morgoth feared.

Smaug, being the result of natural breeding of dragons after the first age, still possessed these traits. If the book aligns with the movie here, then Smaug conquered Erebor while still a juvenile, maturing in the 171 years he lay in the mountain. If this is the case it is also important to mention that his flight managed to uproot fully grown trees and his napalm-type fire shattered buildings despite his youth, and dragon-fire was said to increase in temperature with age.

And finally, there is one detail no-one has really brought up yet: Smaug's sentience.
Kong may be intelligent, but only at the level of a primate. Smaug was capable of language (likely multiple languages) and articulate speech, high reasoning, and complex riddles (it is believed by some the dragons were embodied Maiar much like wizards or balrogs, which would mean his intelligence would be above that of any non-primordial race). He also had (and you can see this and the effects of it in the second and part of the third film) the inborn ability to hypnotize with a dragon spell.

And yes, while Kong may be strong, he struggled in the 2005 film to pull apart and then break the jaws of the V.rex, whose bones were not refined by a dark lord so that they were extra-durable.

I give the win to Smaug. (Though I'm pretty sure you guessed that. )

Dawsbfiremind wrote:Alright, let's get this going for real. I shall assume, given user comments and the arena, that we are talking about movie Smaug rather than the 4-legged chap from the original book.

Now given the references made through both movie trilogies, we can safely say some version of the Silmarillion is canon. This is important as it details several events and particulars that make Smaug a little more impressive than one would initially think he is.

As detailed, Morgoth (formerly Melkor) bred dragons as mobile artillery, where they were used during the wars of the first age alongside balrogs. While the two types of beings were never stated to have come into conflict, it was said dragons were mightier once they reached maturity, an impressive feat considering it took only four balrogs to drive away Ungoliant, who even Morgoth feared.

Smaug, being the result of natural breeding of dragons after the first age, still possessed these traits. If the book aligns with the movie here, then Smaug conquered Erebor while still a juvenile, maturing in the 171 years he lay in the mountain. If this is the case it is also important to mention that his flight managed to uproot fully grown trees and his napalm-type fire shattered buildings despite his youth, and dragon-fire was said to increase in temperature with age.

And finally, there is one detail no-one has really brought up yet: Smaug's sentience.
Kong may be intelligent, but only at the level of a primate. Smaug was capable of language (likely multiple languages) and articulate speech, high reasoning, and complex riddles (it is believed by some the dragons were embodied Maiar much like wizards or balrogs, which would mean his intelligence would be above that of any non-primordial race). He also had (and you can see this and the effects of it in the second and part of the third film) the inborn ability to hypnotize with a dragon spell.

And yes, while Kong may be strong, he struggled in the 2005 film to pull apart and then break the jaws of the V.rex, whose bones were not refined by a dark lord so that they were extra-durable.

I give the win to Smaug. (Though I'm pretty sure you guessed that. )

Smaug may be smart with speech and whatnot, but Kong has fought many creatures that are like Smaug and bigger. Kong has battle smarts that I think Smaug definitely does not, that's where I believe he gets the edge. And his durability may be only bound to give in eventually.

Here's how this plays out: Smaug flies up, really high (since he's a sentient dragon), too high for Kong to reach or jump to, and torches Kong with flames for half an hour, roasting him alive. Dead monkey.

If Smaug wasn't highly intelligent, then maybe this would be more even. But I mean...

Maritonic wrote:Here's how this plays out: Smaug flies up, really high (since he's a sentient dragon), too high for Kong to reach or jump to, and torches Kong with flames for half an hour, roasting him alive. Dead monkey.

If Smaug wasn't highly intelligent, then maybe this would be more even. But I mean...

I made a whole post about this though :/

KingKong2005 wrote:

Maritonic wrote:Here's how this plays out: Smaug flies up, really high (since he's a sentient dragon), too high for Kong to reach or jump to, and torches Kong with flames for half an hour, roasting him alive. Dead monkey.

If Smaug wasn't highly intelligent, then maybe this would be more even. But I mean...

I made a whole post about this though :/

Right except he can just fly higher than Kong's grasp and dodge anything he throws while BBQing him. A pterodactyl is a lot different than an intelligent ancient dragon.

Maritonic wrote:

KingKong2005 wrote:

Maritonic wrote:Here's how this plays out: Smaug flies up, really high (since he's a sentient dragon), too high for Kong to reach or jump to, and torches Kong with flames for half an hour, roasting him alive. Dead monkey.

If Smaug wasn't highly intelligent, then maybe this would be more even. But I mean...

I made a whole post about this though :/

Right except he can just fly higher than Kong's grasp and dodge anything he throws while BBQing him. A pterodactyl is a lot different than an intelligent ancient dragon.

Kong can not only hide behind certain things while this is happening, but he could outrun the flame. I don't think Smaug will be able to dodge everything Kong throws at him either. I think Kong is smart enough to go for the eyes and blind Smaug, then losing him.

Out...run...the...flame?

Maritonic wrote:Out...run...the...flame?

When it's being shot at him. Think Kong is running in a circle and Smaug is turning with him but still can't get him. I've seen Smag's fire and it's not that fast compared to King Kong who is INCREDIBLY fast and agile (think New York).

KingKong2005 wrote:Kong can not only hide behind certain things while this is happening, but he could outrun the flame. I don't think Smaug will be able to dodge everything Kong throws at him either. I think Kong is smart enough to go for the eyes and blind Smaug, then losing him.

Not sure that Smaug would be particularly impaired by that; he seems to know every inch of his home domain, and he was able to locate Bilbo via other senses. Also not sure there are many things large enough to shield Kong from the flames in the direct vicinity.

Added in 35 seconds:

Maritonic wrote:Out...run...the...flame?

My thoughts exactly.

Zarm wrote:

Maritonic wrote:Out...run...the...flame?

My thoughts exactly.

You guys are acting like I'm crazy It's like in Pacific Rim where Gypsy dodges that acid, you know?

Zarm wrote:The thing is- Smaug has nearly-indestructible scales. He survived immersion in molten gold.

Don't get me wrong, I agree Smaug has the advantage here... but I don't think scales would protect him from a theoretical jaw break or neck/spine snap.