Sherlock Holmes vs. Garrett (The Master Thief)

[Dienan]

Say, if Garrett was to pick a huge diamond from a stone market bank and Mr. Holmes was summoned to investigate, would you guys think he'd be able to catch Garrett. Holmes has the ability to solve almost anything by the traces left by a criminal. Garrett is known to be a ghost and has never been caught by normal people. Balance it by the fact that Holmes had a few cases that he couldn't solve. Who would win? Would it go to Holmes' unsolved list or would Garrett wake up in a cell with Holmes smoking a pipe outside? The universe is different, the age is diffrent but on an even field, who'd outsmart the other?
Edit- We can't take gameplay into account here as a veteren player would instantly pick up the AI's limits and beat the game without ever being detected by the AI. Honestly, the only time I got detected by an enemy in the (3rd) game was when the Pagans asked me to shoot the cornerstones with moss arrows. At first I had no idea of how to do it. The older games had invisibility potions and alike. Deadly Shadows re-invented the mechanic but was too far away from the old style. Taking into consideration that NOBODY has ever caught Garrett in action would be canon, he is a ghost. AFAICR the only person who ever saw and tried to pick-pocket Garret in public was a child with senses and reflxes at his own level as a orphan child. Adding a personal comment, Garrett would simply poison-rig Holmes' pipe or something if he wanted to kill him. However as he has never killed (except the Trickster, etc..) and would never consider killing even as a last resort.

 

[AskWazzup]

The new Garret would just try to kill Sherlock Holmes in melee combat, the old one dealt with undead and all sorts of shit that Sherlock never had to deal with. I Think Garret wins.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

The new Garret would just try to kill Sherlock Holmes in melee combat, the old one dealt with undead and all sorts of shit that Sherlock never had to deal with. I Think Garret wins.

Hahahah, that is rather direct.
But lets for the sake of argument that Sherlock Holmes and Garret live in the same universe, a fusion of London and The City (now Victorian era of course), and the citizens are more common with the supernatural and the undead, with dedicated zombie and witch hunters around.

Garret heists the suggested diamond or the crown jewels without killing anyone, and he in general tries to leave no bodies behind.

 

[Yamu]

This is going to come off as a complete fanboy answer, but Sherlock Holmes wins by virtue of being Sherlock Holmes. He's Victorian-era Batman with a far cooler Robin, and his only weaknesses were canonically downplayed into nonexistence. Inexorable, unflappable, and always in possession of the near-superhuman abilities which are the only thing he ever needs, it would only be a question of how long it took him to go tumbling with Garret over Reichenbach Falls. Even the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen titles recognized that he'd be too much of a power-player for inclusion, and that's saying something.

By contrast, Garret is completely fallible by virtue of his medium, gaming. He may well be sighted multiple times on a mission, with only his eventual success being canonical. Couple that with the fact that he's made his headquarters a big, conspicuous, giant-clockwork-filled, reputedly haunted feature of the Victorian skyline and the laws of drama necessitate a clear winner. Garret may escape the clocktower showdown in the end to thieve another day, but at the very least, Holmes would track him down, come within a hair's breadth of catching him, and recover the goods. Call that a draw if you must. It looks like a win to me, but I'm sure Holmes would consider it a loss.