Sherlock Holmes
-
Koko [1] opinó:
Sherlock is best detectiv in the world
-
Caroline [1] opinó:
I love Sherlock Holmes
-
Marketa [1] opinó:
Sherlock is best detectiv in the world
-
Leeroy [2] opinó:
Lets put it this way, to end all discussion (everything else aside, because it does not compare to this):
Poirot doesn’t officially solve the crime to a tee, He comes up with ridiculous theories with all the ‘suspects’ rounded up at the end of the story. He’ll state his case, which is almost always -terribly- off, ergo, accusing the wrong person of the crime. This, in turn, ends up riling up some absurd commentary between said suspects. This commentary ends up shedding some light that Poirot’s pompous, cocky personality could not have possibly deduced. In the end, the perpetrator and others in question, manage to solve the crime -for- Poirot. The facts unravel and evolve, and Poirot uses this to his advantage to paint a false image that -he- solved the crime, when he merely stumbled to the conclusion. I could go on about plot holes and hiccups in character development, but the facts I stated alone takes the cake! Holmes is superior, fact. -
Glenn Johansson [1] opinó:
In comparison Sherlock holmes has a greater skill in solving crimes. His ability to tell an individual’s past merely by observing appearance and clothing is an ability which Poirot lacks. But still the pure quality of the Agatha Christie Poirot books are obviously superior.
-
Lindy [1] opinó:
Poirot decides the answer and then has to go back and find the evidence for it whereas Sherlock Holmes actually goes about a case in a logical and methodical manner to solve it- as any proper detective would. *With full disclosure, I greatly enjoy reading both, but Sherlock Holmes is far superior.
-
Anonymous opinó:
CAME BACK TO CLARIFY – If you say HP is smarter than SH because SH needs evidences but HP doesn’t need them, I would say SH is smarter than HP because HP needs people, but SH doesn’t need them !!I was talking about the very first SG case – A STUDY IN SCARLET !! All SH has is a corpse inside a locked house. Now, Vangrab, YOU tell me, what would HP do in a case like this. . .?!
-
Murali N. [4] opinó:
Vangrab,
If you say HP is smarter than SH because SH needs evidences but HP doesn’t need them, I would say SH is smarter than HP because HP needs people, but SH doesn’t need them !!I have already answered your points regarding Stephen Norton. Are these newspaper bits not clues enough for you ?? What do you mean he detects only when there are evidences ???? Tell me…., can you even do something without leaving a shred of evidence ?? Just think through and you will realise that it is simply not practically possible. ESPECIALLY in the fervour of committing a crime, you would definitely leave back SOME pointer. After all, it is not as though a murderer walks out of a swimming pool with a blood dripping knife and all SH has to come and do is to follow the blood trail into some unused cellar and nab the murderer by the neck. A lot of keen observation and quick reasoning is required to do what SH does. Very often, he uses lenses, let’s not forget that ! What more – as though foreseeing a question from future readers ‘how come no marks get obliterated till long after the crime is done ?’, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gives us to understand that the official police often guard the crime scene till SH finishes his investigation. So, AC’s detectives way of saying “there are no marks / clues” is very superficial.
Also, your saying that SH deals with only one suspect is also meaningless. Actually, it is the advantage of using forensics as against your ‘psychological evidences’. When you go by forensic clues, you directly get at the criminal; you need not break your head weighing the intensity of “motives” to judge the veracity of individual testimonies.
Incidentally interestingly, NO ONE [including you] has been able to convincingly answer this point of mine – ’ HP’s way of ‘reconstructing the crime’ is suitable in only those situations when the perpetrator of the act is within some confinement where the investigation is going on like plane, ship, library railway coach etc. Notice that AC’s detectives are often found saying “We have only [some character]’s word for [something].” to [at least partially] imply that the statement might be a lie. Now tell me, doesn’t this assume that the affair under investigation / aspect of the case begging explanation would involve only those inside the confinement ? But, is this “necessary” ? Can there NEVER be a situation where the inmates are all innocent of the act ?
One another interesting point of mine no one has been able to answer is – if psychology is better suited for hunting down criminals, why would you say HP hardly ever PREVENTED murders ?? Very often, HP is summoned by people who fear their lives to be in danger. What is he able to do for them ???? These forensic clues, which SH looks for and reasons from, are supposedly obtained only AFTER an act has been done; and yet, SH prevents crimes often !! Now, isn’t that an additional feather in SH’s cap ????
And, to conclude THIS post, who said SH doesn’t employ psychology ?? Just see how he elicits info from the goose store in THE BLUE CARBUNCLE, how he detects Killer Evans in THE THREE GARRIDEBS and how he traces the whereabouts of some photographs in A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA. The point is the psychology element in SH’s style of investigation is extremely subtle PLUS he so ‘logically’ explains what he had meant to do and how successful he was immediately afterwards that it is not easily evident – that ‘s all !!
-
Cassandra [2] opinó:
Holmes FTW, not just cause I love his series. He works SO WELL with Dr Watson and works quicker than Poirot! Besides he takes cocaine because it’s a stimulant and hes sick of society sometimes, aren’t we all? Besides Hastings sometimes DOESN’T EVEN APPEAR in his book, which shows that he is more of a sidekick than a partner, unlike Watson.
-
Holmes FTW, not just cause I love his series. He works SO WELL with Dr Watson and works quicker than Poirot!
-
aquamarine [1] opinó:
Hasn’t anyone noticed the poirot stories are so often blatant plagiarism of sherlock holmes stories? ?? I came across this site bc i finallu googled “agatha christie plagiarized sherlock holmes” yet there’s nothing on the web about that…so many of the short stories are totally plagiarized in terms of he basic plots. Was this intentional?
-
Jirka Holman [2] opinó:
Columbo is better than Holmes and Holmes is better than Poirot!!!
-
I think the greatest detective ever created is Lieutenant Columbo!But out of these two?Sherlock Holmes without the doubt.Because Hercule Poirot most often even doesnt explain how he solved the case.He just says how it is, but there is most often zeno explenatuions.
So Sherlock Holmes is much better detective, you always know, how he solved the case. -
Vangrab,
I guess you would agree with me when I say ‘a detective’s method of operation must be suitable for nabbing the criminal WHOever he is AND WHEREver he is !’ HP’s way of ‘reconstructing the crime’ is suitable in only those situations when the perpetrator of the act is within the confinement where the investigation is going on. AC’s detectives are often found saying “We have only [some character]’s word for [something].” to [at least partially] imply that the statement could be a lie. Now tell me, doesn’t this assume that the affair under investigation / begging explanation would involve only those inside the confinement ? But, is this “necessary” ? Can there never be a situation where the inmates are all innocent of the act ? Whereas, what does SH do ? He traces the movements of all the characters accurately and puts the findings to them. This forces the perpetrator of the criminal act to confess. In cases like ‘Curtain’, SH perhaps wouldn’t have detected the psychological element involved in the affair, but I can assure you that he wouldn’t have waited for so many murders to occur – even after the very first, he would have traced the murderer and THROUGH THE CONFESSION, THE INSTIGATION INVOLVED WOULD HAVE GOT EXPOSED !!!!!!To say ‘in SH plots, there is only one suspect’ is unacceptable. When you approach an incident based on the forensic clues you get from the scene, you directly get to see only what had happened – no need to clutch your hair with conflicting testimonies !
Read ALL my previous posts to understand my points better and answer me relevantly.
-
no name [1] opinó:
Ofcourse holmes use of observation and deduction is unmatchable and is the basis of modern crim detectives. Perhaps there would be no poirot without holmes.
-
Bhanuprakash [1] opinó:
Sherlock is by far superior in detection. There is more masala in Agatha Christies works but detection part is shabby. So Sherlock is way ahead of Poirot.
-
Holmes came before Poirot
-
St Baker [1] opinó:
Martial arts, chemistry, disguising, better sleuthing.
-
Holmes is better poirot’s stories are all the same & the character is not as likeable as Holmes and he solves mysteries easier
-
Tapas [1] opinó:
Well, to sum it up all, AC herself had admitted that she copied few if not many aspects of Sherlock.
-
Jack [1] opinó:
Because Sherlock is smarter than poirot
-
ayyas [1] opinó:
Becausu Holmes is amazing
-
Uday Kanungo [1] opinó:
Sherlock is better at deduction, while Poirot is a just a normal character who helps solves the mystery as the story goes on. Sherlock lends more to the story than poirot, and the epic way he is sketched by Doyle is exemplary. Some Poirot-lovers are just like:-“Oh, but Sherlock is not human, he doesn’t love, he has nicotine patches etc.” But that is why he is a unique character.
-
vaibhav singh [2] opinó:
the cases that Sherlock are very complicated…but still he thinks them as elementary…but if the cases that sherlock solves are given to poirot…he will do nothing….well…he can do nothing…
-
sherlock is the best…….suck off you poirot lovers….sherlock is best because of his awesome deductions….poirot is shit…he just talks and talks and talks….but sherlock solves the case in the half way….the rest is to just get the criminal…poirot is a detective like any other….but sherlock is different…his abilities….he is different…and AWESOME…go to hell you poiroters…!!!
-
Sherlock is a much more complex character in my opinion. Also Sherlock has Watson an epic bromance vs Poirot and Hastings…..
-
HOLMES IS BETTER BECAUSE HE STUDIED SUBJECTS INCLUDED IN A FORENSIC SCIENCE CURRICULUM.
ALSO AGATHA CHRISTIE COPIED MOST OF DOYLE. -
I am answering the one who posted something here on 20th Sept, 2012: You seem to have missed my argument completely. You are saying: olmes keeps all the cards under his sleeves. In Poirot, most of the information is available to the reader, but in spite of that no possible solution seems clear. And then Poirot shows how every fact falls together. It’s an extraordinary puzzle involving logic, psychology and sheer creative intelligence.
I repeat myself – N HOW MANY AGATHA CHRISTIE STORIES YOU ARE ABLE TO STOP READING THE STORY SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE & SAY with conviction THAT (THIS) IS WHAT THE DETECTIVE HAS FOUND OUT SO FAR. (THESE) CHARACTERS ARE ABOVE SUSPICION, (THIS) CHARACTER IS BEING SUSPECTED B’COZ OF (THIS) REASON / CLUE ? That is, CAN YOU EVER SAY when POIROT / MARPLE OR WHOEVER FOUND which ASPECT OF THE CASE ?? You just keep reading page after page after page without knowing where things are heading and suddenly, the “truth” is revealed all at once. It is as though, the author herself felt tired of rambling for so many pages – she could have rambled more if she had wanted to – and so “condescends” to give the solution to the reader ! ( Even then, only how / why the murder was done and NOT HOW IT WAS FOUND OUT like who was suspected when and why, what was noticed, whether the suspicion was confirmed / allayed, etc. are not told whereas Sherlock Holmes explains the whole investigation process right from the moment he was given to investigate till the final solution).
To continue in the same vein, I would like to ask you (or,for that matter, anyone else who voices similar views): why on earth do YOU want to solve the case ?? To test your detective / observation skills, you always have games like “you be detective”, “treasure hunt”, “murder hunt”, “spot 10 differences between the pictures”, etc.
Agatha Christie is supposed to be a detective story writer. so, her purpose is (or rather, ought to have been) only to “entertain” the readers with her stories and not “mystify” them with her characters !! This entertainment is best provided by showing how “clever” the criminals were but not just clever enough to fool the detective she created. Why toy with the readers’ intelligence ???Another point of mine you seem to have missed is: A good detective should employ a method of solving cases which would help you irrespective of whether the perpetrator is within the confinement where the investigation is going on or outside it. HP’s keywords “psychology of crime”, “motives”, “human nature” and what not work (as “brilliantly” as they do for him) only if the perpetrator is inside the confinement. If he is at large, (which is NEVER the case in AC books), all his “methods” would be in a soup for sure !!
HP may seem more “humane” and “approachable” as a next street hairdresser as opposed to SH who is more cold and impersonal. But then, REMEMBER THAT WE ARE NOT COMPARING THE TWO AS PEOPLE HERE. WE ARE DEBATING WHOSE DETECTIVE SKILLS / METHODS ARE BETTER AND HOW. So, answer THAT !! Thus, forget the moustaches , neatly pressed clothes, polished shoes and all that crap ! Now speak . . . !!
-
222 movies have been made on Holmes.He was inducted into the Royal Society Of Chemists on Oct 16,2002.Holmes has a museum dedicaed to him.and anyone who has read both the detective will find christie copied a lot from holmes.
-
eshayzvbmate [1] opinó:
Sherlock is better, because hes such a more interesting character, although i do enjoy Hercule’ mustache.
-
Sherlock always a humble being, he enjoy the mistery and fear, he relay on his brain and experience to solve the riddle but finish the case with heart.
With no intend to be rude, but i despise an old man who overestimate himself to be no.1 detective
😀
-
just to go above
-
the original
-
the master.
-
also in London in baker street there is a huge museum for shrlock holmes and also statue build in there just for sherlock holmes .sherlock holmes will never be disappointed sherlock holmes is the best of them all .”When a man embarks upon a crime he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it. another .the criminal who capable of such a thought whom ill be proud to do business with.
-
Holmes is the best of them all and mr hercule Poirot is like any detective at this century solving a case but it is different with Holmes and also sherlock holmes said many things in real life is important but mr poirot didnt.”listen at this when you have excluded the imposible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth” and also many things i cant remember open this website and look who is the best http://tanmaykm.tripod.com/lit.....uotes.html
-
sherlock holmes is the best detective of them all his intelligence his manner and attitude is fantastic ilove his deduction
-
Sherlock is the best.In many case Christie just winds up the story in an awkward manner and HP is without any clue to charge the criminal.When Hastings asked him if he had ever failed Poirot admits that he had failed innumerable times(THE CLUE OF THE CHOCOLATE BOX)and in many cases other detectives had solved the cases before he could.Speaking of methods I think on the contrary Holmes is much more organized as he keeps records of criminals (see THE MAZARIN STONE) He also faces formidable foes. He single handedly ( if you ignore the little help from the police and Mycroft)eliminated Moriarty’s gang. Holmes dueled with master criminals outthought the best of brains and always remained mild mannered.He never took credit at the cost of others.Although Poirot too followed some of his tactics He always boasted of having the best brain in the whole of Europe(see CHOCOLATE BOX).I have grown up listening to Holmes but I had never heard of Poirot until two years ago.So popularity advantage to Holmes. Poirot never faced an enemy like Moriarty and only ran errands for common people and caught petty thieves and hopeless criminals. Holmes All the way.
Let the debate end here.Anirban
-
Not only is he a more sympathetic character, but his (mis)adventures are THE ORIGINAL mystery adventures, of which other mysteries draw at least some influence. In fact, no disprespect to Poirot, but his novels actually say that he’s the most famous detective “SINCE SHERLOCK HOLMES”… so…
Ahem, anyways, Holmes is also a more complex character, being an arrogant jerk, despite being incredibly clever. But, he’s still a gentleman, and don’t even forget the deductive reasoning, which is the main reason for this character’s fame(infamy… just kidding). Thus, Holmes is the greater character. -
MURALI [2] opinó:
Here is somewhat a continuation of what I was saying. . .
Hercule Poirot keeps harping “order and method” all the time. But tell me dear Christie fans, what exactly does he do in an “orderly” and “methodical” way ? He presses his clothes, folds the newspaper, arranges flowers in vases, wears his tie, etc. in a neat methodical fashion. But then, my dears, he is supposed to be a “detective”. Is he any orderly and methodical in his profession ?? Sherlock Holmes is shabby in his appearance but EXTREMELY methodical in his profession and isn’t this what is more important ?? If you are not able to understand what exactly I mean, let me ask bluntly like this: (Answer honestly) IN HOW MANY AGATHA CHRISTIE STORIES YOU ARE ABLE TO STOP READING THE STORY SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE & SAY with conviction THAT (THIS) IS WHAT THE DETECTIVE HAS FOUND OUT SO FAR. (THESE) CHARACTERS ARE ABOVE SUSPICION, (THIS) CHARACTER IS BEING SUSPECTED B’COZ OF (THIS) REASON / CLUE ? That is, CAN YOU EVER SAY when POIROT / MARPLE OR WHOEVER FOUND which ASPECT OF THE CASE ?? You just keep reading page after page after page without knowing where things are heading and suddenly, the “truth” is revealed all at once. It is as though, the author herself felt tired of rambling for so many pages – she could have rambled more if she had wanted to – and so “condescends” to give the solution to the reader ! ( Even then, only how / why the murder was done and NOT HOW IT WAS FOUND OUT like who was suspected when and why, what was noticed, whether the suspicion was confirmed / allayed, etc. are not told whereas Sherlock Holmes explains the whole investigation process right from the moment he was given to investigate till the final solution).
Another, but perhaps minor, point is HP is very fickle. In one story, he would say, “People don’t change” and in another, he would say “people change”. If you look at the context when he makes these statements, both will appeal as “correct” – I mean, he himself doesn’t have any particular approach value to life and says whatever is conveneint to the particular plot of the story !One another such inconsistency is his looking at a lone testimony about something. While very often, he “suspects” it saying “I have only your workd for it”, there are instances when Hastings points it to Poirot, Poirot asks, “But why should he lie ?” However, SH is consistent in his approach to all his investigative endeavours.
Would come back to continue later . . .
-
Sherlock Holmes is definitely better than Hercule Poirot in ways more than one. I will try and explain some here.
Firstly, I would say that it is SH who “reasons” while HP merely “feels” though he claims he “thinks”. Notice that HP uses “I was not satisfied”, “it didn’t ring true”, “it strucke me as rather odd”, and some such similar phrases to express his suspicions. I mean to say that there is no actual incongruity which HP notices to set him suspecting, whereas SH clearly explains what the culprit had wanted him to think and where exactly he gave himself away !! Even granting that you can’t be “logical” all the time and you DO have hunches at times, you find that he doesn’t actively pursue his suspicions. I mean – he suspected some character and did what after that – tapped his / her phone ? followed him / her to identify who he / she is meeting or what he is doing secretly ? intercepted his / her letters ? overheard any conversations from outside the door / window ? Nothing of the kind ever happens. HP’s saying that he suspected some character, thus, serves only to brainwash the reader to make him beleive that he isdeed is guilty !! That is, after you know who the murderer is, if you re read the book and look at his / her actions and/or words, they MAY give you to “feel” he / she is hiding something or evading some question or something like it – pure verbal trickery- that’s Agatha Christie for you !! (How else will you explain Poirot’s sudden absence from some scenes, but later using the “clues” from these scenes in his conclusions ???) In fact, the element of “mystery” in her stories is achieved only through this and not because of any genuinely unusual sequence of events like what SH had investigated and explained !!
Secondly, I would say that the method of investigation used by a detective should be suitable for identifying the perpretator whoever is and WHEREVER he is at the momnent ! SH scores over HP again here. HP’s way of “reconstructing the crime” is suitable ONLY when the perpetrator is within the confinement – be it a house, plane, ship, library, plane, railway coach, or anything. If the criminal is an outsider (as is more often the case in SH adventures,) Poirot would be in a soup for sure !! Notice that whenever Poirot needs to do something out of the household, like doing background check, gathering info, tracing people, there is always someone ready with the same on a platter for Poirot.(I OFTEN WONDER HOW AGATHA CHRISTIE FANS NEVER REALISED THIS !!) To ONLY conveniently direct the suspicion back to those inside the confined area, HP asks seemingly “logical” questions like “whose word do we have for it that there was a man in the corridor ? (Mystery of the Blue Train), “what evidence do we have for it that it was left in the draw last Friday ? (The Submarine Plans), etc.
Another really annoying point is her way of showing tangible clues cannot help a detective much. Either it is too contrived or it is too superficial !! I feel that it is a direct insult to Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes ! And the best thing is HP has indeed used tangible clues (The Big Four) but doesn’t have the moral courage to accept the same !
Psychology, if you ask me , can be used in a milder sense to elicit some info which the character would conceal consciously (like how SH does in “The Blue Carbuncle”). I mean you have to use your psychological skills with people about the village or locality to collect info about some pasts or secret info about some character.they should not be alarmed that you are a detective and you are spying for some info. With those inside the house, direct questioning can easily be employed to a far greater degree than what HP does.
MANY MORE POINTS ARE THERE –
BUT LET ME CONCLUDE WITH THIS QUESTION TO ALL AGATHA CHRISTIE FANS !!
Why should Agatha Christie be called a “mystery” writer ? She is a “crime” writer or more specifically a “murder” wirter. “Murder” is such a commonplace crime that the moment you utter the word “crime”, it is murder that strikes you first. So, what’s “mysterious” about it ? Murder is, at the most, “unexpected” !! A “mystery” is some very unusual peculiar incident awaiting explanation by the detective (ex. Noble Bachelor, Red-headed league {and many more} – SH, !!
-
Sherlock Holmes always gave readers a fair chance, but Poirot purposely put down clues to make us come to the wrong conclusion. Often, he clues all point to one person, without any serious opposition, but Poirot still reveals it to be someone else
-
Holmes doesn’t feels bloated all the time (unlike Piorot) and none of his stories end up anti-climatic (Piorot’s are usually quite anti-climatic) .
Oh , and no irritating accent for Holmes . -
Everything from his science of deduction (really induction) to his breadth and depth of knowledge in chemistry illustrates his superiority.
That and I’ve never cared for Agatha Christie, to be honest.
-
Holmes (England) is the 1st and Poirot(Belgia) is 2nd,…Shinichi Kudo a.k.a conan edogawa (Japan) is the last, follower of both detective
-
Holmes is very polite,humble and very intelligent…
His chemistry with watson is fantastic…
He is undoubtedly the better amongst the 2,isnt it elementary, my dears??? -
Just read the hound of the Baskervilles by doyle and i bet Poirot lovers will change their mind
-
Doyle is better
-
Best dectective fiction ever provided
-
SH is best, he’s influential and has a very interesting character. Thumbs up to Doyle and SH
-
I think Sherlock Holmes is better, because I heard of it more.
-
The Poirot stories are very general, cookie-cutter type stories. They are all cliche whodunits. They attempt to make up for unoriginality with intricacy. They are over-elaborate to make up for a lack of plot where Sherlock Holmes’ stories are very original and just complex enough to be believable and not so overly-entangled as to be an obvious fabrication. They are simply not believable, whereas Sherlock Holmes’ stories are perfectly explained and believable. So much so that people are surprised to hear that he wasn’t a real person. Everyone knows that Poirot was fictitious, but some think Holmes was a real person. He even gets letters!
-
The Sherlock Holmes stories are original. In fact, they are THE original. Poirot, however entertaining, is a series of simple whodunits that are solved by a slightly clever egoist. None have ever surprised or baffled me. I’m sorry, Poirot, but commonplace deductive skills and a mustache do not a great detective make. There is a reason Sherlock Holmes’ methods are still studied today and his stories have never been out of print. He holds the record for being the most portrayed character in television and film with 75 actors and over 211 films. He is, simply the first and the best. Poirot could never stand a chance against him for the simple reason that he had more singular and fascinating creator. To me, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle will always be the greater man behind the greatest man who never lived. But I digress. Some have accused Holmes’ stories of being to stuffy and boring; perhaps he is to those who can’t appreciate the subtlety of Sir Doyle’s humor, but they are quite charming and humorous to those who have read and understood them. Dear, I’ve written a lot! And sounded like a right ladida. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate M. Poirot, I just don’t believe he was better than Sherlock Holmes. He could have learned a lesson or two from him, (namely in humility) had he had the right kind of mind. I have a certain affection for the little Belgian, but Sherlock Holmes will forever be etched into my brain as well as in my heart. Funny how someone so devoid of emotion can invoke it so deeply in others.
-
if you think holmes is boring and has no personality, watch jeremy brett in action!
-
if you think Holmes is a boring character, please watch jeremy brett in action!
-
Neelanjan [1] opinó:
he was best is best will be best because he has true character of a detective no emotions just intelligence will always be the winner if a competition is held b/w poirot and holmes, holmes will solve the case in seconnd while poirot(sucker) will not be able to even complete this case
-
Sherlock is a very interesting character! He knows what he does and he investigates with his own eyes… I think Poirot very “unreal” because he investigates only with words! If there is something that Inspector Japp doesn’t see, but it’s essential to the case, Poirot would be in bad hands!
-
Columbo is the best.
-
Holmes,he deduces better from little details,i thing his method is right for solving mysteries or just show brilliance,Poirot doesnt reveal how he figured it out.
-
See’s things and deduces things Poirot would simply miss.
-
sherlock holmes is the best poirot sucks.Only reason why poirot is popular is that americans always like their own version of everything to be better than england’s for example saying that metallica is better than iron maiden poirot is better then sherlock holmes, i am sure if arthur conan doyle was american everyone would have sided with sherlock holmes.poirot’s books are ridiculous for example the one where the murderers turn out to be all the passengers of orient express or the one where the murderer turns out to be a little girl, its obvious sherlock holmes is the best its obvious
-
Because he’s the originator and more well rounded as a detective (forensics, footwork, evidence) and the crimes are grittier and less self-consciously `mysterious’.
-
Sherlock Holmes stories draw you in more, and he continues to excite to this day
-
sherlock holmes has logic and intelligence that impresses all
the complications in his charecter just make the whole thing better
its sad that it came to an end -
Sherlock Holmes is a more intreasting character than Poirot, and also the first sucessfull fictional detective. Nearly everyone knows Sherlock Holmes and his companion Dr Watson, while not many knows Poirot and Hastings. Hastings aren’t much mentioned as Dr Watson in the books and he isn’t very intresting compare to Watson either.
Agatha Christies Poirot is also a french version of Sherlock Holmes, and is more irritating by his french snobbish apperance. I do like to read an watch Poirot now and then, but I don’t like him. I realy don’t.
it seems that every fictional detective are different version of Holmes. Holmes is the original, and the best. Jeremy Brett is the best as Holmes. No One can be compared to him. -
Well, that Holmes was, is and will remain the BEST is beyond doubt, but Poirot also is very interesting (with a touch on the funnier side). Both have their own methods and lets enjoy both of them rather than comparing and complaining. What say?
-
I like his metal capacity of ovservation and deduction
-
Kurian Joseph [2] opinó:
I think Agatha Christie’s Poirot is copied cat of sherlock holmes.
Poirot have a companion like Watson who is not only dumb but also narrate the story. Police is dumb as ever from the time of Doyle to Agatha Christie. Both have a landlady. Poirot get involved in mystery circumstances similar to Sherlock Holmes. Only difference is Poirot is immensely talented he knows the murderer before the murder itself. Not much clue is needed. The clues is only to mislead the audience. -
Sherlock is a much more complicated character than Poirot especially with his drug habits. Also having his “assistant” as a doctor is rather interesting.
Plus Poirot’s “magnificent mustaches” gets old so quickly.
Granted, not many people saw the ending for “The Murder of Roger Ackroyd” coming I but generally find most of Agatha Christie’s mysteries (The ones with Hercule Poirot maybe not quite so much as the rest though) too boring and predictable.Summary: I’m on Sherlock’s side 100%,
-
Holmes doesn’t really need a reason to be the best but for one, he was the influence for Poirot.
-
Holmes always has been the best one.
tuba [1] 
Oliver [1] 
VSG24 [1] 
Vangrab [2] 
Yolo [1] 
Atin [1] 
Roy [1] 
Annoymous [1] 
Leeroy, you have hit the bull’s eye – spot on !! In fact, I have already said something to this effect in the very beginning. Let me repeat [paraphrased] – All HP does is merely talk to the people about the place the murder had happened over and over and over again till the actual perpetrator says something which he had better not said and use this to pounce on him ! The interesting point to note here is he has very openly admitted that this is his very style of ‘investigation’ in one ‘five little pigs’ [also known as ‘go back for murder’] in which a murder was supposed to have happened 16 years ago !!!
If you ask me how would SH solve cases such as that, I could only say that such a situation would never arise if detectives applied the techniques employed by SH.