Goku's biggest edge is that he wins on measurable feats and versatility, not just vague "limitless" hype. He's shown scaling across forms, instant transmission, energy projection, and decades of martial skill against opponents who can destroy planets. The other side will lean on Saitama's gag-level invincibility, and fair enough, that's his real case. But a no-limits joke isn't a combat feat, and Goku's adaptability means Saitama can't just be assumed to one-punch him. If we judge by demonstrated ability rather than narrative armor, Goku takes it.

Imagine judging a fighter by what they've actually done versus what the story implies they could do. My opponent's case rests on Saitama having no defined ceiling, but that's not a combat feat, it's a narrative blank check. Fair enough, the source never really presses him. But "no limit shown" doesn't prove infinite durability, and it cuts both ways: if Saitama is truly undefined, the question is unanswerable, not automatically a win. Goku has concrete planet-scale feats, instant transmission, ranged energy attacks, and decades of tactical adaptability. If we reward demonstrated ability, Goku has the stronger case.

The other side keeps turning "no shown limit" into proof of invincibility, and that's the flaw. Fair enough, nobody has really pressed Saitama, but that's an absence of evidence, not a durability feat. If his ceiling is truly undefined, then the claim that Goku can't beat him is just as unsupported as the opposite; the matchup doesn't default to Saitama. So judge what's actually demonstrated: Goku has planet-scale output, instant transmission, ranged attacks, and tactical adaptation. Saitama has one-punch wins against opponents far below that. Concrete ability beats a narrative blank check, so Goku takes the stronger case.