Then there’s the thematic mismatch. Rocks was a ruthless, chaotic force aiming to topple the world order, while Teach is a scheming opportunist who plays the long game, manipulating events to seize power. Their approaches clash—Rocks was a blunt instrument, Teach a conniving chess player. A father-son bond would demand narrative parallels, like shared ideals or inherited traits, but Teach’s obsession with fate and the “D” clan feels more tied to his own myth-making than any direct Rocks connection. The “D” in their names? A weak argument, as the Will of D is a broader concept, not a family tree marker.

Finally, let’s not insult Oda’s craft. Introducing Teach as Rocks’ son this late would be a cheap, soap-opera twist, undermining Teach’s self-made villainy. Why reduce a complex antagonist to a cliché “daddy’s legacy” trope? Fans pushing this theory seem desperate to force connections where none exist, ignoring the story’s actual depth for fanfiction-level drivel. If you’re still holding onto this idea, I suggest rereading the manga with your eyes open instead of chasing conspiracy theories that belong in the reject pile.