Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-207.254.224.12-20140717193212/@comment-4091815-20140719195710

HolyDrumstickofLove wrote: Paul.rea wrote: Wow - so you agree. When comparing Alpha performance shown on television - Scott is average.

Thank you.

I already agreed with you earlier that Kincade and the twins THINK Scott is weaker than he SHOULD be - the problem with their assesments is that it doesn't match up with what we've SEEN with other Alphas.

Your "comparisons" to betas and omegas don't inform the question of how an Alpha should perform. All werewolves bring their own skills and strength with them so who they are as individuals matters as much as werewolf status. Kincade is going to beat just about anyone he goes up against - unless it is two guys who (together) match his strength.

Isaac couldn't have taken Kincade - and he knew it. Weapons didn't help a couple of skilled fighters take Kincade.

That's because Kincade it tough to begin with and has little to do with his status (whatever it might be). It doesn't change the fact that Kincaide expected more from Scott, as did the twins.

And...I have to agree with LadyX. I wasn't trying to argue that Scott was grossly worse than Derek. I thought Derek was fairly crappy too. Considering you can't prove how good or bad Derek was as an alpha...your argument that Scott is average is kind of weak, especially when the show states that he is not average.

Your argument is far less valid than mine.

Now, if you wanted to change your argument to "Yeah, Scott is weak, but so was Derek." then it makes sense. What I've said all along - the alphas presented on the show are equal. Scott is no worse than any other Alpha shown when placed in similar situations.

I've agreed all along that Kincade and the twins think he's weak. That's fine, but we don't have evidence of our own - side by side comparisons of Alphas - to make such a judgment.

So far all Alphas (not hopped up on Beta juice) are the same.