Several people have talked about Sabo and Burgess' clash in the Colosseum, where Burgess' armor broke, and suggested this shows Sabo is stronger than Burgess. I cannot agree with this conclusion; in fact, I would suggest it doesn't actually make sense in context. First, Burgess was launching one of his Wave Motion Elbows, a ranged attack, while Sabo intercepted it before he actually got the attack off. That gives Sabo a noticeable advantage in countering the attack. Second, it seems apparent to me that Sabo's techniques are especially useful at destroying objects: notice how he destroyed Burgess' armor, destroyed the ring, and broke Bastille's sword (and face), all barehanded using his 'dragon' techniques. Destroying the armor didn't have any effect on Burgess, it was little more than a visual flourish.
@Darth:
And every sword of great quality just got fucked. Haki is as of now a superior to craftsmanship, gentleman. Might explain why every high level swordsman in the world seems to be using completly ordinary blades that work as good as the supposedly mastercrafted and unique ones. A small detail, but annoying in how it belittles the swords in favor of CoA.
First, nothing we've seen indicates that haki makes a sword sharper, so a better quality blade might hold a better edge in the first place.
Second, haki doesn't make a sword better balanced, or improve the shape of the grip, or affect other small factors which contribute to the quality of a sword.
Third, haki might be able to make a sword more durable, on par with a meito… but then, you could also apply haki to a sword of quality.
@Darth:
For example: "You don't understand how this manga works" is not a proper counter-argument from logical stand point, since it is ad hominem and in the case of trying to dispute a work of art, it is a logical fallacy.
I thought you said you studied logic, so why don't you seem to know how to use the term "ad hominem" appropriately? An ad hominem requires one to reject an argument based on an irrelevant personal quality of the person making the argument: telling someone they don't understand a topic isn't a logical fallacy, because it's not an attempt at a logical argument in itself: it's simply invective. A personal attack doesn't necessarily make something a logical fallacy.
No one (that I recall seeing, at least; I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that my recollection may not be perfect) is saying "you're wrong because you don't understand this manga", they're saying "your argument demonstrates that you don't understand this manga". Come to think of it, the former still likely wouldn't be an ad hominem, depending on phrasing, because applying logic to the story does, to some degree, depend on understanding the story; these discussions aren't about pure logic operating in a vacuum.
@Razh:
Well I disagree in that. The fact that all the other blocks except A had characters that had importance in the arc later on or will have importance in the future plot gives an impression that there was nobody important in block A, save for Burgess.
I mean, we saw the aftermath, and there were gruesomely injured people all over the place being carried on stretchers, and screaming about how Burgess was going to kill them. It's not really much of a stretch to conclude that maybe block A was all just too injured to participate in the rest of the plot for this arc. And even if they're up and about, we also haven't seen Damask, Jean Ango, Mummy, Meadows, Rolling Logan, the fighting lion, Acilia, Spartan, Hera, or Gambia since the competition ended, either.