And yet, you wasted 5 pages arguing with me over a post that I admitted wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

That is what I mean when I accused you of lacking reading comprehension.

Taking a post I made seriously, when I specifically stated that I wasn't serious to begin with.

 

up

In response to the points you made:

First, the thread is "how good could he have become". We're talking about potential. No, Harry's not a "master," and I doubt he is even when he's head auror in comparison to Voldemort or Dumbledore, just because of age and experience. Could he eventually be? I think yes.

Second, the Elder wand is supposedly unbeatable. It sounds like you can't lose it in a straight up ruel without (and these are my theories) showboating, understimating your opponent, not using it (see Draco Malfoy), or having some emotional attachment to your enemy. (possibly Dumbledore and Grindewald? Just a guess)

Third, Harry capitalized on his opponent's weaknesses. I think that most students that age, especially in the wizarding world, would freeze up, or give up against two of the most powerful people. Harry never seemed crippled by fear. He also won either a battle of will, or a battle of magic against Voldemort (priori incantateum or however it's spelled).

The 7th years didn't have a reason to learn it themselves, but they had an almost perfect standing as a teacher of Defense the year before with Moody. That means they probably knew the 6th year course material pretty well, so Harry must have been at least a year advanced while taking no advanced classes. That's pretty damn good for coasting on talent the whole time.

 

Given his natural talent for dueling, an aptitude for charms and an ability to preform spells such as the Imperious curse with a competent level of skill with little to no practice we can assume that if Harry had dedicated himself to his studies he would have reached a level of skill to rival top level Death Eaters relatively earlier then he did in the books.

This is assuming that these talents did not all come from Voldemort's Horcrux and would not vanish when Voldemort perished.

I think that with his temperament Harry could make a skilled auror, a champion duelist or a fine dark wizard.

Though I do not think that he could ever reach the levels of Lord Voldemort or Albus Dumbledore he might be able to contend with them for a time when he reached his prime.

 

I would say that in terms of his abilities, Harry falls into a pretty standard niche for wizard protagonists. He's not great at book-work of pure theory, but he has an intuitive grasp of a lot of the fundamental principles of magic, and a real knack for applying what he knows in combat situations. It's actually pretty similar to how Harry Dresden works, except Dresden has a wise-cracking sex-obsessed skull to handle all the theory stuff instead of Hermoine. The big difference is that we seen Dresden well into adulthood in a job that plays to his strengths, while Harry's mostly a kid in school (a setting where there's far more emphasis on theory). Not to mention that one's teenage years often don't reflect how well they'll do as an adult. Plenty of child prodigies burn out, while other geniuses don't hit their stride until later in life.

The fact that Harry can go up against adult Death Eaters with more training, experience, and ruthlessness than him is already quite the testament to his abilities. When it comes to magical combat he's very good for his age. Rowling just doesn't seem to want to go too far into prodigy territory with him—Harry's very good for a fifteen year old, but he's not going to casually slap aside wizards who've been honing their skills and getting into fights since before he was born. Give him a few decades to home his skills and get more experience and he probably could hold his own against the likes of Dumbledore and Voldemort. He probably wouldn't redefine the laws of magic or accomplish magical feats nobody had ever thought were possible, but throw him into a life-or-death battle and he could find a way to win.