Asked to compare him with British superspy James Bond, he told reporters: "The Bond character will always be anchored in the 1960s and in the values of the 1960s."

"It's not better or worse, it's just different and it's almost impossible to compare."

So who would win in the ultimate showdown between Bourne and Bond?

How does contemporary assassin Bourne compare to Fleming's creation?

JAMES BOND Age Unknown Nationality British Occupation 00 agent, British Secret Service. Probably served in the Special Operations Executive during World War II Childhood Orphaned following his parents' death in climbing accident, he was educated at a British public school, before entering the Royal Navy. Current status Single, living in London. Marriage history Numerous girlfriends, beginning with Vesper Lynd, whom he meets in Casino Royale. Married once, to Tracy Di Vicenzo. She was murdered on their wedding day, as recounted in Her Majesty's Secret Service. No children. Key characteristics Flippant yet savage, Bond is a notorious gambler and womaniser. Frequently seen quaffing a vodka martini. Licence to kill Famously armed with a Walther PPK, he also has a volley of gadgets at his service - including a magnetic watch, an underwater car and an exploding pen. Screen career Created by novelist Ian Fleming, James Bond has appeared in 20 official 007 films and has been portrayed by six actors on screen, most recently by Daniel Craig.

JASON BOURNE Age 37 Nationality American Occupation Soldier turned CIA assassin. In the books, Bourne starts out as a foreign service officer. Childhood Born in Missouri, parentage unknown. Bourne suffers from amnesia, only learning his name in the final part of the film trilogy. Current status Single. Residence unknown. Marriage history Devoted to partner Marie, who was murdered by Bourne's enemies - at least in the film version. According to the books, he was previously married, but his wife and children were killed while living in Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Key characteristics Highly intelligent, ruthless and bent on revenge, Bourne is increasingly troubled by his conscience. Licence to kill Government-trained assassin Bourne shows exceptional skill in arm-to-arm combat and driving any type of vehicle. Fluent in a number of foreign languages. Screen career Created by author Robert Ludlum, Jason Bourne is currently portrayed on screen by Matt Damon. He was played by Richard Chamberlain on TV in the 1980s.

Conclusion:Arguably Bond is a Sixties cliche, with an unhealthy dependence on wine, women and high-tech gadgets. That said, he is probably a lot more fun than Bourne - and it's not advisable to marry either of them!

But who do you prefer? This debate is now closed but you can see a selection of your comments below.

Your comments:

Daniel Craig was great, but the fact remains that by the time Bond has pressed "that special button" on "that special watch", Bourne's stuck a cheap biro in his neck and a rolled up magazine down his throat. Game over.
Victor N, London, UK

I prefer Bond to Bourne. Even after 40 years I can have a laugh at the way Bond acts and thinks of himself seriously. I'm not sure I would be able to do that with Bourne.
Cecilia B�n, Budapest, Hungary

Bourne is more appealing, and is set against a more realistic political background. Appears more vulnerable and a shade more human than Bond.
Salman Kureishy, Aligarh, India

I'm a huge Bond fan, but I have no doubt that Bourne would knock Bond around silly in hand-to-hand combat. Bond might win if he has an exploding pen with a remote detonator though...
Khiem, LA, USA

In 20 years, people will be asking: Jason who? Phil, Warrington

Bourne has the skill, but no style. Bond is style but needs gadgetry to save the day. The two as one - devastating
K Miller, Winch, VA

Bond is too fictional while Bourne belongs to the real world!
Junaid Abid, Lahore, Pakistan

Bourne all they way, the new Bond was obviously influenced by the Bourne series!
John Doe, London

As an American - although I have lived in London for some time - I have to go with Bourne. Although the Bond days of Roger Moore and Sean Connery were supreme, it is becoming slightly corny.
Carlin, New York City

You can't compare the two. The are very different in all the ways they are the same. Bond is an icon, Bourne is just starting to become one. Who is to say that if Bourne did 20 films that he wouldn't start becoming cheesy and dated like Bond did until Daniel Craig? I think it's too early to compare.
Joey G, Baton Rouge, La., United States

Bond would win. He is the more ruthless of the two, and he has no problem doing his job for his country. Bourne on the other hand, is wracked with guilt and self-doubt over what he has done in his past. Bourne would hesitate whereas Bond wouldn't.
Billy, Shinshih, Tainan County, Taiwan

In 20 years, people will be asking Jason who? But the name Bond and the franchise will still be going strong.
Phil Perkin, Warrington, England

Thanks to Craig, Bond still wears the crown Andy, Leeds

Bond movies goes through different cycles which does not make sense most of the time. Bourne is more realistic and has some consistency in the story. Bourne has a much better start than Bond and might have a better ending! Who knows?
Anon

Bourne is exciting to watch, he is a man on a mission and is never distracted, he is ruthless and gives you the adrenalin rush throughout the movie. Bond has too many distractions. I choose Bourne.
Emily Kumukumu, Lilongwe, Malawi

Bourne is merely an assassin, trained to kill a nominated target. Bond is a true spy, who can adapt to pose as different people to infiltrate an enemy organisation. Bond wins hands down!
John, Brisbane, Australia

It has to be Bourne, when Bond surfed a tidal wave on a car door in Die Another Day it seemed the franchise had really run out of ideas, too flash, too brainless, too much. I enjoyed the new Bond but feel that it was heavily influenced by Bourne in its new grittier style. Finally Bourne would make short work of Bond in a fight, which is what everyone really wants to know.
Andrew, Aberdeen

I don't think Matt Damon is dismissing Bond as dated. He's right, Bond is a 60s icon. I'm glad that America now has a rival spy hero to Bond, and Robert Ludlum's creation is perfect. The best thing is that his Bourne novels are dense and sinister, more akin to John LeCarre. Fleming was writing much more from the genre of fantasy. They're both equally brilliant.
P. Dough, Welwyn Garden City, England

Up until Craig took over the role of Bond I would have said Bourne is more realistic. However, Bond's latest outing has brought the character not only up to date, but in a more real way to the rather silly hi-tech previous attempts that had become repetitive and boring. XXX was another attempt to make a modern Bond, but again it was a Hollywood-style movie which lacked any depth, although it was fun to watch. Overall I prefer Bourne, but thanks to Craig, Bond still holds the crown.
Andy G, Leeds

Bourne in the books is nuts and a lot more ruthless than Bond Kevin Talbot, Gosport

Although I enjoy The Bourne Films I believe that if they had stuck with the character from the books people would have a different view. Bourne in the books is nuts and a lot more ruthless than Bond. Bond is a lot more enjoyable, comical and glossy. Bourne more realistic, gritty and modern.
Kevin Talbot, Gosport

Bourne is way better than bond. He is a tough guy who doesn't need to strip off in any part of the films. Bond is a poser and womaniser - a pretty guy rather than a tough guy. Bourne is definitely more believable than Bond
Ceri, Bristol

I love this debate! But I'd like to point out that if it weren't for the revival, paring down, and hardening up of Bond through Daniel Craig, Bond vs Bourne would be a foregone conclusion.

Bond was cliche, but there's new life in the saga Ali Sana, Karachi, Pakistan

The question is really about the most recent Bond vs Bourne. And that's very interesting. Casino Royale was not gadget-heavy - indeed, we didn't even meet Q. 007 was still a bit green and confused while Bourne is troubled and confused so each has a flaw that could lead to a fatal mistake.

Bond was cliche, but there's new life in the saga. And as for who it would come down to, you can't really say. But I'll end with this - I've always felt that if there was a double-O in the real world, he'd be a Jason Bourne.
Ali Sana, Karachi, Pakistan

With the notable exception of the last Bond reincarnation, Bond is complete school boy fiction - "Stealth" boats, space lasers etc. At least with the Bourne movies, there is some attachment to reality, coupled to an excellent lead character. Arguably the movie series (Bourne) are better than the books. No contest !
SleepyD, Swindon, Wilts

I'm a Bond man, and I disagree with both Matt Damon's commentary and the description on the BBC site: Bond is a damaged hero, with something of a psychological dependency on his loyalty to the state he serves. He is clear-sighted, intelligent, and rarely has time (at least in adventures portrayed) for sentimentality. As portrayed by Craig (and as written by Fleming), Bond has a determination and drive to clear the way of enemies, both of himself and his state. He's a hero far over the personal angst-driven Bourne. To say that Bond is anchored in the values of the past is to not bother watching Casino Royale. Some of the Bond films may be kitsch, but Bond himself is a god amongst men.
Ben Archibald, Belfast, UK

Who, when asked, would ever say they wanted to be Jason Bourne!? And who, when asked, would ever say they didn't want to be James Bond!?
Anonymous

I'd have to plump for Bourne on screen, and Bond in the books Martin K, Manchester, England

Having seen all Bond & Bourne films, and read all Fleming's Bond books and Ludlum's Bourne trilogy, I'd have to plump for Bourne on screen, and Bond in the books. The image of Bond created by Fleming is sanitised and spoiled by the later Bond films, especially during Roger Moore's tenure. I'd certainly like to see a Bond film directed by Paul Greengrass though!
Martin K, Manchester, England

Despite some great high-points, Bond has simply gone through too many changes and had too many silly moments to be taken seriously these days. He's really more a traditional folk hero now, like Robin Hood or King Arthur, than a consistent long-running character.

Bourne on the other hand is still a fresh character with a consistent plot-line and enough depth to be taken seriously. All he really lacks is Bond's distinctive English cool... But on the plus side, he's not been played by Roger Moore, so I guess he still has more cool overall.

And of course Bourne would win in a fight: Unlike Bond, he doesn't rely almost entirely on luck and his enemies' incompetence to get him through difficult situations.

In short: Bourne all the way.
Ryan, Bristol, England

Before Daniel Craig, I would have said Bourne was the better, less annoying, character but since Daniel took over the part he would take some beating. Either way, I love both series of films.
Ryan, Beverley

Although Bourne is clearly the superior warrior, Bond wins James Carter, Nottingham

Gadgets are neither here nor there, cool rating is dependent on whether you like wise-cracks and womanising or not, so the real question is who would win in a fight? On this count, although Bourne is clearly the superior warrior, Bond wins. Why? Because he always does, even if it's not a clean victory.
James Carter, Nottingham

Bond is the original and the best! Plus Daniel Craig is far more sexy than Matt Damon!
Little G, Braunton, UK