Agent Chuck Bartowski vs Agent Sterling Mallory Archer

[Shooter]

Ladies and Gentlmen, GWCers one and all. In the West Coast Corner for today’s Geek Deathmatch we feature the great Chuck “The Intersect” Bartowski. Chuck is bred well. His father was Steve Bartowski (aka Scott Bakula/Capt Jonathan Archer of the NX-01 U.S.S. Enterprise and the resourceful Dr. Sam Beckett of Quantum Leap). His mother is Mary Bartowski (aka Linda Hamilton/Sarah Connor from Terminator). Chuck was trained by the ever graceful, successful yet deadly CIA Agent Sarah Walker and the battle hardened NSA Colonel John Casey (aka Firefly’s Jayne and Independence Day’s Major Mitchel – who kills an alien at point blank range). Chuck was trained to be The Intersect from a very young age and once he learned how to flash on his own was absolutely unstoppable. Chuck never believed in carrying anything more deadly than a tranquillizer gun. Chuck was uncanny in his ability to win in any situation, often using his caring more than his intersect abilities. Chuck was literally the world’s best spy.

In the East Coast Corner we have Agent Sterling Mallory Archer. Archer is also bred with spying in his veins. His mother, Mallory Archer was a top spy during the cold war days and his father? Well, we can only suspect his father was an awesome spy as well. Archer is ruthless. Archer is amazingly self-centered. Archer succeeds despite long odds against him every time. Archer is uncanny in his ability to spew out geek references in the heart of battle. Archer is a crack shot and a liver of steal. But Archer has a heart as well when we’re allowed to see it.

Now, GWC pits these two great gentlemen spies against each other in a battle to the death. Who wins? The unsuspecting geek spy Chuck or the playboy spy Archer? You decide!

[jpclaude]

My inner most feeling tells me not to take sides in which doing so would be a geek sin…

[Shooter]

My inner most feeling tells me not to take sides in which doing so would be a geek sin…

Show a little backbone, will ya!

[jpclaude]

I can’t… I worship both of them…
Though I think we saw this already with the aged spy teaching Chuck how to seduce women.

[Shooter]

I can’t… I worship both of them…
Though I think we saw this already with the aged spy teaching Chuck how to seduce women.

FAIL! 1) You can’t pick them all. And FAIL! 2) Failure to recognize significant geek reference in previous reply. (Raiders Of The Lost Ark)

[Solai]

I may need to invoke the age old GWC Baltar option.

NOT.

No secret I love Archer, but Chuck would Kung fu his ass into the ground. After, Chuck would offer to buy Archer lunch and then knock him out cold again leave the restaurant not having paid the bill, but paying just the tip.

[Omra]

Chuck would Kung fu his ass into the ground. After, Chuck would offer to buy Archer lunch and then knock him out cold again leave the restaurant not having paid the bill, but paying just the tip.

Heh, heh… “Just the Tip”!

//youtu.be/uqiPjz94OpE

[Oddball]

Not close. Chucks too moral and nice. Archer is amoral, self centered and unflinching.

At the end of the day, in a fight the nice guy eats dirt.

//youtu.be/6yDNNaPpTuY

OB

[Oddball]

Archer == Christopher :: Chuck == Pastry Dude

//youtu.be/CyqYHT6nRaA

OB

[phazedout]

gotta be chuck, but I see the poll is currently tied at 2-2, c’mon, go CLAN BARTOWSKI.
Phaze
on the “I had a spin class at 7 am this morning, now the whole day opens before me like a bright flower” ID

[Oddball]

here’s the continuation of the count down from above

//youtu.be/RR3ORb5gVqk

OB

[Shooter]

I gotta admit after first swaying towards Chuck I find myself leaning largely in the Archer direction now. Chuck is the quentisential good guy that always seems to get his man and with the intersect seems to be unstoppable. However, for whatever reason, Archer just seems to channel the intersect unknowingly. Archer is freakishly capable and always comes through no matter what he faces. He is quick on his feet and acts within a larger strategic plan, often without realizing it. Is it dumb luck? I don’t think so, especially not in light of all his continued success. Is it freakish skill? Probably. I think even Archer is surprised at his capabilities, but still like to brag about them. Either way I’d say Archer CAN take Chuck in a one on one battle.

[Solai]

I need to ask a really dumb question…perhaps stinking obvious, but it is key for me who would win in this fight:

Are Geekdeath matches matches to the death? Always? I had it in my head that it was like a cagematch, two men enter, one man leaves but never once in all these years did I consider whether or not player one was killing player two. :eek:

I ask because in Chuck v Archer it boils down to that. If this is a match to the death Archer wins by default. Chuck is not a killer. If this is a match to a KO then Chuck wins because no matter what skills Archer brings to the table Chuck can download instantly anything to counter and improve.

[Shooter]

I need to ask a really dumb question…perhaps stinking obvious, but it is key for me who would win in this fight:

Are Geekdeath matches matches to the death? Always? I had it in my head that it was like a cagematch, two men enter, one man leaves but never once in all these years did I consider whether or not player one was killing player two. :eek:

I ask because in Chuck v Archer it boils down to that. If this is a match to the death Archer wins by default. Chuck is not a killer. If this is a match to a KO then Chuck wins because no matter what skills Archer brings to the table Chuck can download instantly anything to counter and improve.

Interesting question. When Chuck set up the rules to this forum thread having a Deathmatch end in death was never a stated Rule Of Engagement.

Welcome to the new Geek Deathmatch forum. What is GDM? Think of it as GWC’s own personal Thunderdome. (“Two geeks enter! One geek leaves! Two geeks enter! One geek…”)

Rules:[ol]
[li]All threads in the GDM forum must feature a title in the format “X vs. Y” – where X and Y, of course, are geek people, places, things, or other.
[/li][li]Each thread must include a poll with just two options: X and Y. DO NOT allow select multiple. All polls must close in ten days and remain anonymous.
[/li][li]X and Y should relate in some way. This is not intended to limit creativity in matches. If your match is esoteric, just be sure to explain the relation in your post.
[/li][li]Campaigning, bitching, and other forms of kabitzing are allowed and encouraged in the threads.
[/li][li]Rematches are also allowed and encouraged – especially if they have kick-ass names.[/ol]A vicious, chanting, cheering audience awaits your inspired matchups! Enjoy!

[/li]
I submit that it is not in the nature of the GWC community to limit Deathmatches to ‘The Death.’ However, matches to the death should be considered in the cases of matches that will not stop until death is achieved. I will reference the recent The Doctor v Iron Man Geek Deathmatch in which was I stated:

Iron Man (An Avenger) vs The Doctor (Doctor Who, Time Lord)

Okay Solai, you can’t have it both ways. If you and Keir truly believe that The Doctor is a pacifist at his hearts, Iron Man will survive to fight another day. (I do not share that view by the way and think if it is truly a fight to the death The Doctor will not give Mr. stark a second chance).

If Iron Man returns, he will defeat The Doctor. So if you believe The Doctor to be a pacifist he will be defeated by Iron Man. End Of Line.

So if there is a way to resolve the conflict without bringing it to ‘The Death’ I think that should be allowed, but only in those cases where the defeated party will not return to complete the act to ‘The Death’ at some later time. However, the provisor that prevents the defeated from returning to complete the Deathmatch MUST be specified in your posted response. What does everyone think?

[Oddball]

I need to ask a really dumb question…perhaps stinking obvious, but it is key for me who would win in this fight:

Are Geekdeath matches matches to the death? Always? I had it in my head that it was like a cagematch, two men enter, one man leaves but never once in all these years did I consider whether or not player one was killing player two. :eek:

I ask because in Chuck v Archer it boils down to that. If this is a match to the death Archer wins by default. Chuck is not a killer. If this is a match to a KO then Chuck wins because no matter what skills Archer brings to the table Chuck can download instantly anything to counter and improve.

agreed.

OB

Death. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

[Solai]

So if there is a way to resolve the conflict without bringing it to ‘The Death’ I think that should be allowed, but only in those cases where the defeated party will not return to complete the act to ‘The Death’ at some later time. However, the provisor that prevents the defeated from returning to complete the Deathmatch MUST be specified in your posted response. What does everyone think?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean. I understand, “but only in those cases where the defeated party will not return to complete the act to ‘The Death’ at some later time” but you could make that theoretical argument for any deathmatch. Chuck defeats Archer. A week later Archer snipes him from 1,000 yards in high winds in the dark while drunk and having sex.

My gut is that “To the Death” doesn’t feel very Alpaca and I would vote against that in general being the ‘rule’ of deathmatches. But I also trust this community and if someone wants to make a Deathmatch that is specifically to the death, go for it.

Default: KO. Only when specified: To the Death.

That’s my two quarters.