Certainly, but it's like discussing the ending of 2001... Or is it? As for KKVSG, I just recounted what Honda said in the late 1980s to me, and said "The filmmakers said it was a tie." And then everyone goes apeshit. As far as a definitive answer, I believe that what he said is true. But, I also feel strongly that the director and the screenwriter (on separate occasions and in different locations), said the same thing: "It was a tie/draw" has more validity than a scribe in the PR Department, as far as I'm concerned. With that being said, I have my own interpretation of the ending, which I also posted above, and I feel that anyone has a right to believe what they want for their own personal reasons. But, just because some may disagree with Honda's comment (despite when he said it, because no one can know if he felt this way at the time of the production, or later on), so it can't be discounted in such an offhanded manner, either.

But, here are the facts: The screenplay and the film itself seems to end ambiguously. A synopsis in an English language sales brochure states that Kong wins. Honda and Sekizawa say the fight ends in a "draw". Toho's "Godzilla Magazine" in the 1990s explicitly states that the fight ends in a "draw"... So, what does that all add up to? And does it really matter? YOU decide?