I got into a discussion with my brother over who was the more impressive scientist Tony or Howard Stark. And while I know its a question that is unanswerable where it took us was in fact the crux of our debate. Is it more impressive with limited technology of your time to be able to theorize with high levels of accuracy what is possible and get it right generations after you are gone as technology advances ...or is it more impressive to be able to look around you at what exists today and be able to visualize and combine it in new and novel ways to create the things that were theorized prior. Of course there would be cross over of guys who theorize and construct but to keep this debate simpler lets assume for this example that Tony (or another scientist) has no major future based theoretical GOAT level predictions that ever come true, but he has taken the theories of others (his dad) and built GOAT level inventions like the Arc Reactor and other things. And Howard has no GOAT level significant inventions he had realized in his time but has some very detailed GOAT level theoretical ones that, once the technology became available others were able to use as a road map to realize them. This scene where Howard tells Tony "I am limited by the technology of my time..." is the crux of our debate and what kicked it off... i took the position that the guy theorizing without the benefit of technology in his era to base it upon, was more impressive than the guy who could view a road map, look around the room at what was available and figure out how to pull it all together. You?