• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

Why is flying super-effective against grass?

Pokestar

New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
713
Reaction score
1
Why? wind will rustle a tree's branchs, but it won't knock it over?(Admittedly a tornado would.)
 
They also live in trees, which protect them from predators. If anything, birs needs plants to survive. I just think Grass and Flying should be neutral to each other.
 
They also live in trees, which protect them from predators. If anything, birs needs plants to survive. I just think Grass and Flying should be neutral to each other.

It would help a lot of pokemon. :3

Maybe because birds eat seeds and stuff?(not all of them,but still.)
 
I assumed it was the same reason fighting-type is weak to grass-type: while a fighting type can bust some fancy moves; a flying-type move has the advantage because it attacks from the air.

Grass-types, plants essentially, are rooted to the ground and thus something that can attack from the air has the advantage.
 
And theoretically, a slice of air (like the move Air Slash) could cut grass, or a flower, or a plant like Bellsprout.

And tornados can rip out trees and other plants..
 
I guess because Flying types have the the ability to attack from the air, while Grass types are in most cases limited to the ground.

And in real life, wind is more powerful than plants.
 
Ever notice how trees never can grow as tall by a windy coast as they can when nearer to the center of a continent? Even palm trees that manage to get planted farther away from the coastline. Air also can be very hot or very cold, it especially seems to move faster when it's cold, and ice destroys plant cells, as can excessive heat (fire). Also the thing about tornadoes is true, a plant has to just sit there rooted in the ground while windstorms rip them up then repair themselves slowly afterward.
 
Yup, tons of birds are seed or aquatic plant eaters. Also, in reference to roosting in trees and building nests, it just goes to show that birds have a use for plants, and take advantage of them. I figure it's the same reason grass is super-effective against water.

--"What Is" Jack
 
get a fan, put leaves in front of it, turn the fan on

THERE GOES THE BAGEL

that is why flying>grass

Get a fan, put fire in front of it, turn the fan on.
If it's a small flame, it's probably go out. A big flame will probably get bigger.
This is possibly why they're neutral.

This is some good logic.
 
In the Netherlands we have a saying "high trees catch a lot of wind."

That always seemed the reason for me. Although I don't really get it either.
 
I imagine that Flying is super effective to Grass because of the simple concept of the food chain, where birds eat grass. Now, this would be an odd reason, but the first Flying types that appear are birds, so this was my thought (not to mention the Flying type was initially planned to be called the Bird type). This food chain concept is seen like this: Grass -> Bug -> Flying (or Grass -> Flying), and I would imagine that children would have the common sense to understand this concept, so I don't see the matchup changing.

While this common sense is understandable, I can't help but feel that Grass has too many weaknesses already (although I might be overestimating here).

Thanks for reading.
 
As well as winstein, I also feel that Grass has too many weaknesses. Flying>Grass makes some sense, but at the same time, there isn't any easy resemblance.
 
I don't get it though. The grass-type has so many weaknesses and i guess it could do without the additional flying-type weakness
 
Plants can only be on the ground, and if not, when in the air they are usaully slow, unlike swift birds that can be on ground or in the air above reach.
 
Grass refers to pretty much any plantlife; twigs, berries, etc.
Birds use twigs for nests, eat berries, and ultimately have no problem uprooting things when necessary.
Moreover, such birds as woodpeckers often routinely peck foliage, supporting the flying > grass concepts even further.
 
Please note: The thread is from 13 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom