thor vs gladiator

KK the Great

Simon got whipped, but all in all it wasn't such a terrible showing for him.

He flew up to Gladiator saying, "Let's talk, we don't want a fight" or something like that, and Gladiator immediately hit him with his laser vision, blowing up Simon's jetpack and setting him up for a piledrive blow into the ground. Right off the bat he was hurting and he didn't have a chance of avoid those attacks. Simon got one decent shot in and was then hammered relentlessly deep into the core of the planet. Glads basically rained down dozens of blows and still Simon was able to dig his way out from deep in the planet.

Then whereas Simon vs. Gladiator started off with Gladiator suckering Simon, Thor vs. Gladiator was exactly the opposite. Masterson hit Glads with a huge surprise attack from behind. From there, it was all Gladiator's fight, and he dominated about as well as he did against Simon. Eventually he had Masterson on his hands and knees and was standing over him triumphantly. Masterson's saving grace was catching sight of Living Lightning and using him to hit Gladiator from behind (again), which stunned him long enough to land something like a dozen enraged Mjolnir blows to the head--an onslaught that I imagine would kill most opponents, let alone KO.

Juk3n

been done - inb4lock post count +1

and out.
thor has a good chance.

hulkcpbifiussjf

thor

KK the Great

I thought superspeed was the end-all of advantages on KMC. What happened to that?

TheBadguy

Originally posted by KK the Great
I thought superspeed was the end-all of advantages on KMC. What happened to that?

Only when its Superman or another DC character.

KK the Great

But Gladiator's just Superman with creamy lavender skin and fabulous hair.

TheBadguy

Originally posted by KK the Great
But Gladiator's just Superman with creamy lavender skin and fabulous hair.

Thems the rules, don't question it.

OneDumbG0

Originally posted by KK the Great
But Gladiator's just Superman with creamy lavender skin and fabulous hair. As it happens, Thor beats Superman too.

TricksterPriest

This is a close fight. It depends on which versions we're using. Gladiator at his best, has the ability to take Thor, but he rarely uses his speed enough to do it. Thor is stronger, but Glads has the speed to win at 4/10, if not more.

spidey-dude

Originally posted by TheBadguy
Only when its Superman or another DC character. DC fanboy

TheBadguy

Originally posted by spidey-dude
DC fanboy

reread it

KK the Great

Originally posted by TricksterPriest
This is a close fight. It depends on which versions we're using. Gladiator at his best, has the ability to take Thor, but he rarely uses his speed enough to do it. Thor is stronger, but Glads has the speed to win at 4/10, if not more.

I don't think Thor has ever come off as stronger in their confrontations.

Really the only time they were portrayed as peers in a fight was in the Fantastic Four issue with the time bubble thing.

The other times, Gladiator seemed to be presented less like a peer and more like the Ivan Drago uber-threat that Thor had to Balboa-up to beat, especially in the issue with Wonder Man and Masterson Thor.

KK the Great

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
As it happens, Thor beats Superman too.

But Superman doesn't have creamy lavender skin or a fabulous haircut.

OneDumbG0

KK the Great

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
He sure looks stronger here when he decides to get serious.

How does pounding him repeatedly in the face with Mjolnir make him look stronger? There are any number of physically stronger opponents whom Thor could defeat if he landed that many Mjolnir strikes to the head.

This goes back to something I was going to mention in the Gladiator/Namor thread, before it was closed. You were saying that Thor's win was more impressive than Gladiator's win in the Jurgens arc because he "really pounded him" or something along those lines. But if we apply the powers of reason to it, your argument doesn't stand to much scrutiny.

I mean, yeah, you're right about one thing. Thor really pounded the hell out of him.

First he blasted Gladiator, and then he bashed his head in with repeated all-out Mjolnir strikes. Gladiator hit the ground and like a second later Tarene stepped in and blasted him with an energy bolt which Thor proclaimed to "rival omnipotent Odin." After being blasted and then pounded mercilessly and then blasted again, Gladiator was rising to his feet and talking within a couple of panels.

When Gladiator won in their earlier fight, all he did was punt Mjolnir from Thor's hands and then uppercut him. That uppercut KO'd Thor so long that he reverted to Jake Olsen and was still unconscious.

I'm not entirely sure why you think that makes Thor's win more impressive. Because Thor had to do so much more to achieve so much less?

Not in terms of raw power level, it isn't.

I'm not talking particularly about Masterson's performance against Gladiator. He isn't the warrior Thor is, and a running theme in the fight was Gladiator mocking Masterson's skill as a warrior. That much is a given, and obviously it can't be used to say the real Thor would perform as poorly.

But I'm not talking about that, anyway.

What I'm talking about is the basic way in which Gladiator was presented to the reader. He wasn't treated like Hercules or some other rough peer to the Avengers heavy hitters. He was presented as a nigh-unbeatable threat that it was practically suicide to face. They actually used the word "undefeatable" to describe him.

Thor, Wonder Man, The Vision, Captain Marvel (Photon), Living Lightning, Starfox, and Scarlet Witch as a team were acting as though fighting him would be a death-sentence. If it was Hercules standing in their way, you can bet dollars to donuts they wouldn't have the same reaction.

At some point, as a reader, you need to develop a degree of sophistication. You need to grasp and accept that the character on the cover is ultimately going to pull out a win and save the day. That's just the way of things--it's what title characters do. Any character in the villain role will ultimately be defeated. It is an inevitability. With that unavoidable reality in mind, the mere fact that the hero was able to score a victory should be taken with some semblance of a grain of salt. More important for judging the villain's mettle is analyzing how he was portrayed in the battle and presented in the narrative. Thor will manage to defeat Mangog every time, but it should be pretty clear that he's doing so as an underdog. He's the valiant hero overcoming incredible odds.

That is how Gladiator tends, more often than not, to be portrayed: as the overwhelming physical threat which the hero must valiantly overcome against the odds. When a villain is portrayed in that manner, it is fallacious (now we've come full circle) to point to his inevitable defeat as evidence that he must be less powerful than the title hero.

OneDumbG0

Originally posted by KK the Great
How does pounding him repeatedly in the face with Mjolnir make him look stronger? There are any number of physically stronger opponents whom Thor could defeat if he landed that many Mjolnir strikes to the head.

This goes back to something I was going to mention in the Gladiator/Namor thread, before it was closed. You were saying that Thor's win was more impressive than Gladiator's win in the Jurgens arc because he "really pounded him" or something along those lines. But if we apply the powers of reason to it, your argument doesn't stand to much scrutiny.

I mean, yeah, you're right about one thing. Thor really pounded the hell out of him.

First he blasted Gladiator, and then he bashed his head in with repeated all-out charged Mjolnir strikes. Gladiator hit the ground and like a second later Tarene stepped in and blasted him with an energy bolt which Thor proclaimed to "rival omnipotent Odin." After being blasted and then pounded mercilessly and then blasted again, Gladiator was rising to his feet and talking within a couple of panels.

When Gladiator won in their earlier fight, all he did was punt Mjolnir from Thor's hands and then uppercut him. That uppercut KO'd Thor so long that he reverted to Jake Olsen and was still unconscious.

I'm not entirely sure why you think that makes Thor's win more impressive. Because Thor had to do so much more to achieve so much less?Thor also blasted him before he lay into him with Mjolnir, in case you forgot. Glads didn't look like he was having fun:

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/2654/thorglads17mj.th.png

And Tarene came in after Gladiator was mightily smited upon in the scan that I posted previously. By this point, right before Tarene zaps him (that's her feet you see), he was pretty much done... unless you're going to argue that Glads like the taste of pavement:

http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/6843/thorglads38xn.th.png

And if you don't care for Thor's words or my own interpretations, then perhaps Gladiator's own admissions to Zarko may change your point of view:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2916/thorglads41dl.th.png

Before the prior thread was closed, what I was actually saying was that Thor was holding back the entire time. So in your own words, why does a Gladiator beating up on a Thor who is: 1) holding back; 2) asking for explanations; 3) bewildered by an assault from a former ally; and 4) saving innocents half the time do to warrant such a display of admiration for such efforts? Especially AFTER he decided to get serious, he stomped on him like he was a rabid smurf? Especially AFTER Gladiator himself admits Thor was more powerful than he?

OneDumbG0

Originally posted by KK the Great
Not in terms of raw power level, it isn't.

I'm not talking particularly about Masterson's performance against Gladiator. He isn't the warrior Thor is, and a running theme in the fight was Gladiator mocking Masterson's skill as a warrior. That much is a given, and obviously it can't be used to say the real Thor would perform as poorly.This last sentence is true. But to be more precise, the main running theme in the fight was that Masterson himself admitted and pitied his lack of skills as compared to Thor. He cursed himself for trying stupid stunts and forgetting his powers over weather control.
Originally posted by KK the Great
But I'm not talking about that, anyway.

What I'm talking about is the basic way in which Gladiator was presented to the reader. He wasn't treated like Hercules or some other rough peer to the Avengers heavy hitters. He was presented as a nigh-unbeatable threat that it was practically suicide to face. They actually used the word "undefeatable" to describe him.

Thor, Wonder Man, The Vision, Captain Marvel (Photon), Starfox, and Scarlet Witch as a team were acting as though fighting him would be a death-sentence.Vision described him as undefeatable. And considering the highest card in that team was Masterson Thor, who even Wonderman couldn't help but point out was pretty much worthless in that very same conversation, it was a very accurate prediction. Up until the point where they proved Vision wrong and did beat Gladiator and nearly killed him:

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/4363/thorvgladiator04si8.th.jpg
Originally posted by KK the Great
At some point, as a reader, you need to develop a degree of sophistication. You need to grasp and accept that the character on the cover is ultimately going to pull out a win and save the day. That's just the way of things--it's what title characters do. Any character in the villain role will ultimately be defeated. It is an inevitability. With that unavoidable reality in mind, the mere fact that the hero was able to score a victory should be taken with some semblance of a grain of salt. More important for judging the villain's mettle is analyzing how he was portrayed in the battle and presented in the narrative. Thor will manage to defeat Mangog every time, but it should be pretty clear that he's doing so as an underdog. He's the valiant hero overcoming incredible odds.

That is how Gladiator tends, more often than not, to be portrayed: as the overwhelming physical threat which the hero must valiantly overcome against the odds. When a villain is portrayed in that manner, it is fallacious (now we've come full circle) to point to his inevitable defeat as evidence that he must be less powerful than the title hero. At some point, as a critical thinker, you need to learn to step back and instead of focusing on how to rationalize your opinions, you simply engage in the most straight-forward manner and look at the plain presentation of the comics. I appreciate and can even applaud your grasp of the limitations that simple story-telling forces upon the antagonist in a heroes/villains contest. Almost surely will the villain lose. That's the nature of the beast.

But what drives an author to have their protagonist ultimately succeed also drives the author to develop a sense of danger and drama in the form of the villain. And that crisis is almost assuredly produced by portraying villains as posing an insurmountable obstacle to our protagonist, especially through common labels, i.e. "undefeatable." Arguing literature for literature's sake in a comic vs contest is admirable, maybe even sophisticated. However, recognizing these imposed limitations on an antagonist in a heroes/villains story is no reason to ignore the plain presentation and ultimate result of what actually occurs.

Here, Thor wins.

quanchi112

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
As it happens, Thor beats Superman too. Really?

Id like to hear your reasoning behind Thor beating Superman here.

I always thought this battle would be very close so I am interested to hear your take on this.

OneDumbG0

A surprising number of people do also. And if I were to name them, I think you'd be surprised who agrees. But I'd rather not derail this thread. Ask Raoul or Badabing to reopen the thread and we can discuss it there:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=481668&pagenumber=310

quanchi112

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
A surprising number of people do also. And if I were to name them, I think you'd be surprised who agrees. But I'd rather not derail this thread. Ask Raoul or Badabing to reopen the thread and we can discuss it there:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=481668&pagenumber=310 K.

KK the Great

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Thor also blasted him before he lay into him with Mjolnir, in case you forgot.

I didn't.

Which explains why I mentioned it twice in my post.

Why would it? It makes no sense. If not for the intervention of Tarene and Enchantress, Thor would have died.

Repeat: Gladiator would have killed Thor if Tarene and Enchantress had not stepped in to save him. Gladiator is clearly capable of killing Thor, just as Thor is clearly capable of killing Gladiator.

So the notion that Gladiator was incapable of killing Thor "because Thor was too strong" is absurd on the face of it. The preceding comic rather clearly shows otherwise.

It'd be like Count Neferia licking his wounds after his first defeat at the hands of the Avengers and proclaiming, "The Vision is just too strong."

The simple fact of the matter is that the only appropriate response to your summary of that first fight is to look at the pages and erupt in riotous laughter.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4844/thor3ub5.th.jpg http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6287/thor4lt2.th.jpg

Does that really look like a bewildered Thor who was holding back, not wanting to fight, and just trying to ask questions?

Really?

...

Really?

It's like I said before: Thor may as well put "I wasn't actually trying" on his business card. He pulls that excuse often enough. If it isn't "now that I have taken his measure..." then it's "I was holding back before, honest I was."

Didn't he even play that card after his ass-whooping in JLA/Avengers? Now that I'm thinking of that debacle, part of me wonders if Jurgens didn't receive so much outrage from Thor fanboys over Gladiator beating Thor that he was pressured into squeezing all of those half-baked excuses into the second issue. Certainly wouldn't be the first or last time rabid Thor fans forced a writer into doing something like that.

And why wouldn't they, when this is what they suffered?

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/9194/thor7mm9.th.jpg http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/8618/thor8sh3.th.jpg http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/4149/thor9mm4.th.jpg

Gladiator knocked him cold with contemptuous ease.

But I guess Thor was holding back his blunt-force durability.

Which of the following is a more accurate explanation of how they beat him?

a) By Thor proving the more powerful of the two.

b) By a string of plot contrivances the likes of which are often used to allow victory when heroes are overmatched. (In this case, Gladiator simply stood there with his hands on his hips and a smirk on his face, leaving himself vulnerable to a surprise attack from behind, and after being stunned by Living Lightning, Gladiator was defenseless against a flurry of some ten enraged hammer blows from Thor--an onslaught enough to rightfully put just about anyone down for the count).

If you're being honest with me and with yourself, you pretty well have to admit that the latter choice is the more valid.

And yet you would still like to cite the issue as evidence of the former.

It's quite the predicament, I know.

Of course, it becomes a pretty simple choice when you realize that your logic here essentially demands that you hold as truth that every hero is more powerful than every villain he has ever defeated, and the sheer absurdity of such a stance is too much to allow yourself.

The Vision stronger than Neferia simply because he put the Count down for the count? Your logic simply doesn't stand under its own weight.

And yet you cling to your argument--that Gladiator's loss as the villain must be indicative of physical inferiority, despite all signs to the contrary.

What point are you trying to make?

Yes, a simple way to inspire drama is to make the hero the underdog by pitting him against overwhelmingly powerful opponents. The hero then valiantly overcomes the odds.

But at the end of the day, Ivan Drago still hits harder than Rocky.

But it is a reason.

A good reason.

We're not debating "What would happen if Gladiator were the villain in Thor's comic?"

We're debating "Thor vs. Gladiator."

There's no good reason for us to presume that this battle will involve plot contrivances designed to allow Thor's inevitable victory.

In a hypothetical KMC battle, Gladiator won't stand around gloating with his hands on his hips when he could be pressing his advantage. Living Lightning won't fly by and bail Thor out of trouble. Tarene won't step in and stave off Gladiator's killing blow. A distressed airplane won't force a team-up that gives Thor an opening to catch Gladiator off guard.

The "ultimate result of what actually occurs" is predestined. I don't have to read a single Thor comic to tell you that Thor beats his villains.

If Thor fights Superman in Action Comics, Superman will win.

If Thor fights Superman in The Mighty Thor, Thor will win.

Clearly, logically, an unavoidably, the details of the battle are *much* more important than the ultimate outcome when it comes to comparing the mettle of the combatants. At least if you want your analysis to have any degree of substance.

spidey-dude

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/2123/gladsvsthorgt8.jpg

OneDumbG0

Originally posted by KK the Great
I didn't.

Which explains why I mentioned it twice in my post.You initially commented on how anyone would get laid out by a few Mjolnir shots. I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't just Mjonir shots.
Originally posted by KK the Great
Why would it? It makes no sense. If not for the intervention of Tarene and Enchantress, Thor would have died.

Repeat: Gladiator would have killed Thor if Tarene and Enchantress had not stepped in to save him. Gladiator is clearly capable of killing Thor, just as Thor is clearly capable of killing Gladiator.

So the notion that Gladiator was incapable of killing Thor "because Thor was too strong" is absurd on the face of it. The preceding comic rather clearly shows otherwise.Only, it makes perfect sense when you remember that Thor was holding back, bewildered as to why Gladiator was attacking him and distracted by saving innocents at peril during his attack. This does not negate the fact that Glads did knock him unconscious and that Tarene saved him from certain death. And nowhere did I suggest that Gladiator was incapable of killing Thor. Don't put words into my mouth. Once again, to repeat myself: 1) Thor is holding back; 2) Thor is bewildered as to why he is attacking him; and 3) Thor was distracted by saving innocents. Do the math.
Originally posted by KK the Great
It'd be like Count Neferia licking his wounds after his first defeat at the hands of the Avengers and proclaiming, "The Vision is just too strong."No, a more pertinent analogy would be if in another fight, Gladiator was holding back, bewildered as to why Thor was attacking him and saving the lives of Shiar citizens, then a knockout by Thor wouldn't be admirable, it'd be pretty cheap. And if Gladiator came back and rocked Thor's butt after declaring he's finished with holding back and Thor limped over to Zarko and told him Gladiator was too strong, then it wouldn't be absurd, it'd make perfect sense.
Originally posted by KK the Great
The simple fact of the matter is that the only appropriate response to your summary of that first fight is to look at the pages and erupt in riotous laughter.

Does that really look like a bewildered Thor who was holding back, not wanting to fight, and just trying to ask questions?

Really?

...

Really?This is what a holding back and bewildered Thor who was also distracted by saving innocents looks like...

Here we have right after the opening bell, Thor asking why Glads is attacking him, "Yet thou attackest now in the manner of a craven coward! Why majestic one? Why?!" All while smacking him upside the head a few times. Notice also that Glads comments that he himself may very well have to sacrifice his life in order to win:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/8234/thorvsgladiator05gq9.th.jpg

Of course, Glads has to resort to endangering an innocent civilian and Thor has to save her not only from being blown away by his super-breath but from being splattered by half a building being thrown in their direction:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/9642/thorvsgladiator06afj2.th.jpg http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1122/thorvsgladiator06bmh0.th.jpg http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/6672/thorvsgladiator06dbu5.th.jpg

Do we need to belabor the point more about how Thor was bewildered and saving innocents? Yea sure, why not... Just to make this immutably clear we have Thor still wondering what Glads is on about and demanding to know what motivation he has behind the attack, "Thou speakest often of my crimes to come, Gladiator. But no proof thou hast offered." Here we also have Thor just about getting tired of Gladiator. How mighty and superior does Gladiator look in these panels to you, I wonder:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/4179/thorvsgladiator07ayw3.th.jpg

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Random/ThorvsGladiator08a.jpg

Of course, that's when their fight ended up nearly killing a plane full of innocents and finally, Thor clearly states, "Gladiator! I have considered thee a comrade-in-arms! But as thou hast repeatedly endangered mortal lives, taking these to the very brink of death -- I can do so no more!"

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1619/thorvsgladiator09mu9.th.jpg

"Surely, thou art brainwashed by a cunning foe! 'Tis the only possible explanation for thy bizzare statements! Thus I cannot hold back any longer!" And what do we end up with, Glads literally eating pavement:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Random/ThorvsGladiator11a.jpg

Does anybody else see a difference when Thor isn't hindered by circumstances and plot devices? I sure as hell do. Yeah, Thor got knocked unconscious whilst holding back, being bewildered by Gladiator's attack and saving innocents. He also had to have his life saved by Tarene. After all that? Not so much.

OneDumbG0

Originally posted by KK the Great
It's like I said before: Thor may as well put "I wasn't actually trying" on his business card. He pulls that excuse often enough. If it isn't "now that I have taken his measure..." then it's "I was holding back before, honest I was."

Didn't he even play that card after his ass-whooping in JLA/Avengers? Now that I'm thinking of that debacle, part of me wonders if Jurgens didn't receive so much outrage from Thor fanboys over Gladiator beating Thor that he was pressured into squeezing all of those half-baked excuses into the second issue. Certainly wouldn't be the first or last time rabid Thor fans forced a writer into doing something like that.

And why wouldn't they, when this is what they suffered?

Gladiator knocked him cold with contemptuous ease.

But I guess Thor was holding back his blunt-force durability.Funny... you sound like someone who treats Superman apologists with rancor. After all, Superman had been downed by one punch by Konvikt in Trinity and essentially did hold back his blunt force durability because he had not "taken his measure." But see here, this isn't really a Superman/Konvikt situation. It's not about Thor underestimating Gladiator's measure. It's about Thor: 1) holding back; 2) bewildered at Gladiator's attack and asking for explanations; and 3) distracted while saving innocents. Not only that, once all that has been dispensed with... once Thor had decided not to hold back, believed that Gladiator had been brainwashed and no innocents were currently in danger... what did he do? That's right. He beat him.
Originally posted by KK the Great
Which of the following is a more accurate explanation of how they beat him?

a) By Thor proving the more powerful of the two.

b) By a string of plot contrivances the likes of which are often used to allow victory when heroes are overmatched. (In this case, Gladiator simply stood there with his hands on his hips and a smirk on his face, leaving himself vulnerable to a surprise attack from behind, and after being stunned by Living Lightning, Gladiator was defenseless against a flurry of some ten enraged hammer blows from Thor--an onslaught enough to rightfully put just about anyone down for the count).

If you're being honest with me and with yourself, you pretty well have to admit that the latter choice is the more valid.

And yet you would still like to cite the issue as evidence of the former.

It's quite the predicament, I know.Not really. Because as I stated earlier and which you seem to have forgotten, using Masterson's performance to correlate a superiority between true Thor and Gladiator is as fallacious as using Doom's performance with Surfer's powers. We already went over this before. As you've either forgotten about it, or ignored it because it makes this issue utterly moot, I've decided to repeat it to you.
Originally posted by KK the Great
Of course, it becomes a pretty simple choice when you realize that your logic here essentially demands that you hold as truth that every hero is more powerful than every villain he has ever defeated, and the sheer absurdity of such a stance is too much to allow yourself.

The Vision stronger than Neferia simply because he put the Count down for the count? Your logic simply doesn't stand under its own weight.My logic only demands that I look at the plain presentation of Thor's and Gladiator's fight with each other. Thor, once he stopped holding back, once he got over his bewilderment, once innocents were no longer an equation, stomped on Gladiator. Using Masterson's performance is a clear substitution fallacy. And insinuating that I commit to the idea that Thor is superior to all his defeated opponents is simply a facetious lie. I never said so. You only believe I think so. However, as has been made amply clear, I don't need to believe that to believe that Thor > Gladiator. I have their fights as simple proof of that.
Originally posted by KK the Great
And yet you cling to your argument--that Gladiator's loss as the villain must be indicative of physical inferiority, despite all signs to the contrary.Signs to what contrary? He got his a$$ beat by Thor when circumstances no longer hindered Thor's ability to fight him one on one. Are you still trying to use Masterson as a corrolary for your arguments? Do you even understand the absurdity of such a method of argumentation? Masterson Thor does not equal Thor. I don't feel like patronizing you anymore about this point, because we both know it's true.
Originally posted by KK the Great
What point are you trying to make?

Yes, a simple way to inspire drama is to make the hero the underdog by pitting him against overwhelmingly powerful opponents. The hero then valiantly overcomes the odds.

But at the end of the day, Ivan Drago still hits harder than Rocky.That you're overanalyzing Vision's comments about Gladiator, whilst ignoring that they actually did beat Gladiator. That while them defeating Gladiator may have been a product of protagonist > antagonist, you're ignoring that this aura of "undefeatability" that Gladiator posed (and which you are so obviously enraptured by), was ALSO a complete product of antagonist = manufactured threat for our protagonist.

And at the end of the day, Rocky still beat Ivan Drago. laughing

OneDumbG0

<continued>
Originally posted by KK the Great
But it is a reason.

A good reason.

We're not debating "What would happen if Gladiator were the villain in Thor's comic?"

We're debating "Thor vs. Gladiator."

There's no good reason for us to presume that this battle will involve plot contrivances designed to allow Thor's inevitable victory.

In a hypothetical KMC battle, Gladiator won't stand around gloating with his hands on his hips when he could be pressing his advantage. Living Lightning won't fly by and bail Thor out of trouble. Tarene won't step in and stave off Gladiator's killing blow. A distressed airplane won't force a team-up that gives Thor an opening to catch Gladiator off guard.

The "ultimate result of what actually occurs" is predestined. I don't have to read a single Thor comic to tell you that Thor beats his villains.

If Thor fights Superman in Action Comics, Superman will win.

If Thor fights Superman in The Mighty Thor, Thor will win.

Clearly, logically, an unavoidably, the details of the battle are *much* more important than the ultimate outcome when it comes to comparing the mettle of the combatants. At least if you want your analysis to have any degree of substance. I find it absurd that I am being accused of not paying attention to details when you yourself are both ignoring the circumstances that are clearly presented in tying Thor's hands and outright miscontruing others. The distressed airplane was what distracted Thor and saved Gladiator from getting his mohawk torn off at this point in the fight:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5787/thorvsgladiator08xc6.th.jpg

And how exactly was Gladiator caught off guard after they both saved the airplane from crashing? Where is it even depicted that he let his gaurd down? And even if in your imaginary world, he did so, is it not his own fault for letting it down even though he clearly believed Thor to still be a dire threat and was still trying to end his menace:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1619/thorvsgladiator09mu9.th.jpg

The proof's in the details. That much of, you're right. As to why you continually ignore those details, miscontrue others and focus on your own conceptions that Gladiator > Thor, despite understanding that, is beyond my ability to explain. At this point in our argument, you've added very little to what you've already said, all of which has been countered. You want to cling to your substitution fallacies despite and your preconceptions, that's your cup of tea. I'm gonna stick with the details, the results and the clear presentation of on-panel depictions.

KK the Great

Originally posted by spidey-dude
http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/2123/gladsvsthorgt8.jpg

Dude, he was just holding back his durability. Saving it for later, I guess.

He asked too many questions, you see. Questions give him a glass jaw.

He was preoccupied with civilians.

He was just getting Gladiator's measure.

He was bewildered.

He didn't want to fight. The "have at thee!" gives it away.

He didn't feel like not getting knocked out just yet. Maybe later.

He was more worried about whether he remembered to turn off the stove that morning. That's the ticket!

OneDumbG0

^ Ah... the classic "strawman fallacy." Whereupon you describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to undermine, whilst ignoring the actual argument because you can't refute it legitimately. Well... once you resorted to facetious strawman fallacies in an attempt to completely ignore the details of the fight, you pretty much defeated yourself. That's fine. I've encountered that kind of desperation many a time. That usually signals the end of the debate. As it stands, it doesn't change the facts:

1) Thor was holding back;
2) Thor was bewildered by Gladiator's attack and demanding answers;
3) Thor was distracted whilst saving civilians...

... and most importantly; 4) Thor beat the crud out of Gladiator once those plot devices were dispensed with:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Random/ThorvsGladiator08a.jpg

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/67/thorvsgladiator10bqz0.jpg

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Random/ThorvsGladiator11a.jpg

Deal with it. Thor wins.

KK the Great

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
As it stands, it doesn't change the facts:

1) Thor was holding back;

You're still trying to sell that?

When it comes to making excuses for a beating, the only person who trumps a Thor fan is Thor himself.

http://i37.tinypic.com/lxrtw.jpg

Is there some reason I should believe Thor when he delivers one of his standard ego-saving lines?

Who are you trying to fool with this crap, anyway?

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4844/thor3ub5.th.jpg http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6287/thor4lt2.th.jpg

Did you look up the wrong word in a thesaurus or something? The above is decidedly not the face of bewilderment.

"Stand thee back, villainous one!"
-Thor; The Mighty Thor #34

"Thou hast raised the wrath and ire of-Thor God of Thunder!"
-Thor; The Mighty Thor #34

"Now, since thou hast dared challenge the scion of eternal Asgard--HAVE AT THEE!"
-Thor; The Mighty Thor #34

*WHAMMM* *KRAKKT*
-Mjolnir; The Mighty Thor #34

"Thor was holding back the entire time bewildered by an assault from a former ally."
-OneDumbG0; KMC Versus Board

They were talking during the fight.

Just like 99% of all comic fights.

Alert the presses.

You know your excuses are getting thin when you have to resort to, "hey, my guy asked a question while hitting the other guy in the head, so his loss shouldn't count."

Should Gladiator's win count extra because he was so preoccupied with answering Thor's questions? I vote yes.

That would be a much better point if Gladiator had landed his knockout punch (or any punch) while Thor was distracted saving the girl. But the truth is that Thor's moment of distraction didn't really have much of an effect on the outcome.

This is where Gladiator won the fight:

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/8705/thor7ki0.th.jpg

Thor's not distracted saving civilians when Gladiator smacks Mjolnir out of his hand and knocks it and him across the city.

The only thing he's distracted by are the bricks that Gladiator threw at him to disguise his true attack.

For your future benefit, just typing the word "facts" at the top of your laundry list of excuses doesn't grant them substance.

quanchi112

Originally posted by KK the Great
I don't think Thor has ever come off as stronger in their confrontations.

Really the only time they were portrayed as peers in a fight was in the Fantastic Four issue with the time bubble thing.

The other times, Gladiator seemed to be presented less like a peer and more like the Ivan Drago uber-threat that Thor had to Balboa-up to beat, especially in the issue with Wonder Man and Masterson Thor. Ok you and dumbgo have both presented your cases in their entirety and I dont believe either one of you has anything further to add here. So of course I want to say my piece now.

You say Thor hasnt come off as stronger in any of their confrontations.
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/quanchi112/thorglads41dl.png

You have seen this scan but I wonder why you continue to ignore Gladiator's own words here to sell your argument. It is crystal clear.

"I did my best,he is just too strong,"he says. How can you come to any other conclusion than Thor was stronger than Gladiator here. Gladiator didnt use the words too powerful or anything else. He used the words too strong. So for you to ignore that and build the crux of your argument around your perception of their battle and then falsely compare it to Drago and Rocky was way off from page two of this debate.

The comic clearly shows that soon as Thor got serious he was too much for Gladiator to which he later agreed to. Rocky didnt beat the shit out of Drago but simply beat him at the end while Thor beat Gladiator's ass into submission which is completely different. I think this Ivan Drago is a herochat thing because most of them are hypnotized by him as well.

Anywho Thor wins this and when he is going all out I think its safe to say he would win the majority. I mean we all know Thor is a lot more powerful than Gladiator and both are comparable strength wise. The only thing Glads has on him is speed and that didnt seem to work out to well for him in this encounter.

I am not saying Thor dominates him but I am saying that you are selling bs here. Thor whipped his ass,Glads agreed with it in his own words,and won when Thor decided to get serious. End of story.

Hyperion Prime

Gladiator would have killed Thor if it wasn't for Tarene and the Enchantress coming into save Thor. What part of Tarene showing up and pulling Gladiator away as he was ready to kill Thor don't people understand????? confused

I guess if the Enchantress would not have showed up and driven Thor to where the hammer was at...Thor would have fought Gladiator in his human form. roll eyes (sarcastic)

KK the Great

Originally posted by quanchi112
Ok you and dumbgo have both presented your cases in their entirety and I dont believe either one of you has anything further to add here. So of course I want to say my piece now.

You say Thor hasnt come off as stronger in any of their confrontations.
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/quanchi112/thorglads41dl.png

You have seen this scan but I wonder why you continue to ignore Gladiator's own words here to sell your argument. It is crystal clear.

No it isn't.

"He's too strong" is not interchangeable with "He's stronger than me."

Thor being even close to Gladiator's strength is enough to explain his statement. Thor does not have to be stronger than Gladiator in order to be too strong to quickly assassinate.

That's an asinine distinction.

Sure, on battleboards we're careful to distinguish between strength, power, toughness, and so on. But you know as well as I do that when characters talk about strength they could be referring to any of those things.

Gladiator could have been twice as strong as Thor (not saying he is) and Thor's onslaught at the end there still would have likely put him down. An energy blast followed by a flurry of Mjolnir shots to the head does nothing to demonstrate an advantage in strength, or even parity for that matter.

"Back, Gladiator! Powerful as thou might be, e'en thy strength is nothing compared to the raging fury of Mjolnir!"

That's what Thor says while blasting Gladiator and setting up his salvo of hammer blows. He doesn't say that he's stronger. He says that Mjolnir is more powerful.

Which isn't surprising, since the raging fury of Mjolnir is usually how he's able to beat physically superior foes (see also: Mangog).

Truth be told, that example came to mind because of how resoundingly you're getting beaten in that Drago vs. Clubber debate.

The bottom line is this: Both times Thor has beaten Gladiator (including the Masterson fight), his victory has required him to go all-out raining down blow after unanswered blow. When Thor fights someone like Hercules, do you ever see him needing to go to such extremes to earn a win? I never have.

All Gladiator had to do in order to KO Thor for an entire minute was land one solid punch.

To put Gladiator down, Thor had to hit him with a big energy blast and press his advantage with a frenzied onslaught of hammer shots. Then Gladiator got hit again with an "Odin rivaling" blast from Tarene. And after all that, Gladiator was still getting to his feet and talking within seconds.

That does NOT paint the portrait of Thor beating a physically inferior opponent. It ABSOLUTELY paints a portrait of Thor overcoming a physically superior one.

I mean, good lord, Masterson had to pound him with TEN pissed-off Mjolnir strikes while he was already stunned by Living Lightning and unable to defend himself. Name anyone short of Thanos who would even survive that, let alone not be KO'd by it.

Thor didn't go to quite that extreme in the Jurgens fight, but he still blasted Glads and then hit him with four all-out hammer shots to the head. Thor usually craps his pants when someone survives one shot to the face like he gave Gladiator, much less four of them.

Your logic--that being KO'd by an onslaught of hammer-shots must necessarily demonstrate a strength disadvantage--is just absurd on the face of it. The fact that Thor even went to such extremes to secure a win only indicates the opposite, if anything.

I think that's far from safe to say.

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/5166/thorfast0zj7.th.jpg http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3752/thorfast1nc3.th.jpg http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/154/thorfast2ln4.th.jpg http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4047/thorfast3ul0.th.jpg http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/2785/thorfast4xe6.th.jpg

What happens if Gladiator uses the speed he used in that fight when Thor isn't experiencing time differently?

Going all-out, Gladiator can get more than two weeks worth of attacks in, from his perspective, in the time it takes Thor to blink.

llagrok

Originally posted by KK the Great
Going all-out, Gladiator can get more than two weeks worth of attacks in, from his perspective, in the time it takes Thor to blink.

Laughing my ass off...

Interpret the fights as much as you want, Thor's got much more than plain punches. In a fight where he uses his versatility and not only his brute power, Gladiator would fall.

Might I also add that Cassandra Nova made Gladiator pee himself.

KK the Great

Originally posted by llagrok
Laughing my ass off...

Did you read the scans?

The Earth heroes were using devices that made them immune to the time sphere, which slowed down time to such a degree that the heroes had been stockpiling weapons on the Shi'ar planet for TWO WEEKS from their perspective, and all the while even spaceships were frozen in the sky.

To interact with them, Gladiator had to remain at constant hyperspeed. He actually had to accelerate beyond his galactic traveling speed just to shake Thor's hand, let alone fight him.

Might I also add that Thor ended up bedridden in the hospital after nearly dying when a wooden ship mast fell on him.

OneDumbG0

Originally posted by KK the Great
You're still trying to sell that?

When it comes to making excuses for a beating, the only person who trumps a Thor fan is Thor himself.

Is there some reason I should believe Thor when he delivers one of his standard ego-saving lines?You ought to believe it because they're part of the story and not analagous? You're comparing a non-canon intercompany crossover and the obvious pressures that a writer faces to cater to opposing fans to a clear-as-day canon fight where the hero > villain as presented in Thor against a relatively obscure opponent. You're injecting your notions of what you perceive to be excuse making in an attempt to ignore the clearly presented details and plain presentation of the story. I cannot even guess what your motivations are, to act so oblivious. Are you resorting to intransigiency because you don't want to back off from your position? Are you vicariously arguing that Superman ought to beat Thor? I don't know. I don't care. He didn't underestimate his opponent, he was holding back:

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/67/thorvsgladiator10bqz0.jpg
Originally posted by KK the Great
Who are you trying to fool with this crap, anyway?

Did you look up the wrong word in a thesaurus or something? The above is decidedly not the face of bewilderment.

"Stand thee back, villainous one!"
-Thor; The Mighty Thor #34

"Thou hast raised the wrath and ire of-Thor God of Thunder!"
-Thor; The Mighty Thor #34

"Now, since thou hast dared challenge the scion of eternal Asgard--HAVE AT THEE!"
-Thor; The Mighty Thor #34

*WHAMMM* *KRAKKT*
-Mjolnir; The Mighty Thor #34

"Thor was holding back the entire time bewildered by an assault from a former ally."
-OneDumbG0; KMC Versus BoardFool? I've been posting scans and quoting directly from the pages. As I recall, you were the one who characterized this fight as Glads kicking Thor's butt and having to be saved. Of course, you negelected to mention the details that Glads ambushed him, Thor was wondering what had gotten into Glads, Thor was saving innocents and Thor was holding back. As for him being bewildered, well... how else do explain these quotes:

"Yet thou attackest now in the manner of a craven coward! Why majestic one? Why?!"
- Thor; The Mighty Thor #34

"Thou speakest often of my crimes to come, Gladiator. But no proof thou hast offered. Thou art devoid of reason. For I would ne'er do that which might harm Midgard!"
- Thor; The Mighty Thor #35

"Surely, thou art brainwashed by a cunning foe! 'Tis the only possible explanation for thy bizzare statements!"
- Thor; The Mighty Thor #35
Originally posted by KK the Great
They were talking during the fight.

Just like 99% of all comic fights.

Alert the presses.

You know your excuses are getting thin when you have to resort to, "hey, my guy asked a question while hitting the other guy in the head, so his loss shouldn't count."

Should Gladiator's win count extra because he was so preoccupied with answering Thor's questions? I vote yes.Strawman fallacy again. The facetiousness of your responses has left me skeptical of whether your arguments have any merit anymore. You're not arguing, you're belittling. You're not engaging in constructive criticism, you've resorted to guileless lambasting. Frankly speaking, Gladiator never really gave Thor the lowdown and Thor was forced into wrongfully concluding that Gladiator had been brainwashed. Which couldn't have been farther from the truth.
Originally posted by KK the Great
That would be a much better point if Gladiator had landed his knockout punch (or any punch) while Thor was distracted saving the girl. But the truth is that Thor's moment of distraction didn't really have much of an effect on the outcome.

This is where Gladiator won the fight:

Thor's not distracted saving civilians when Gladiator smacks Mjolnir out of his hand and knocks it and him across the city.

The only thing he's distracted by are the bricks that Gladiator threw at him to disguise his true attack.

For your future benefit, just typing the word "facts" at the top of your laundry list of excuses doesn't grant them substance. Oh I see, so when Gladiator blows that woman into the air which would have killed her, which presented an opening to use a shockwave attack... Thor wasn't distracted whilst saving a civilian:

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/2665/thorvsgladiator05mq5.th.jpg http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8955/thorvsgladiator06le1.th.jpg http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/8705/thor7ki0.th.jpg

Oops. Silly me. I suppose I'm supposed to just ignore that. Guess I'm also supposed to ignore that the shockwave attack also gave him time to pick up that building... Yea. Silly me. Face it, at the beginning of the fight, Gladiator's face was being used for batting practice and he had to resort to harming an innocent in order to set Thor up. And this is apparently proof of his superiority and thus an untainted victory in your opinion. BWAHAHAHAHA! And as for the building attack, Thor could have just jumped out of the way and just let all the rest of the debris smoosh the innocent woman behind him. Yeah, I'm sure that would make sense.

Now let me remind you of how this argument has developed between us. I've addressed every single one of your points. You've been forced to drop several of yours. Your account of the fight is a jaundiced one, at best. I've also had to correct you several times on important details. I don't know what's motivating you to ignore the clear presentation of the story, but the proof's in the pudding and in the characters' own words:

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/67/thorvsgladiator10bqz0.jpg

"Thus, I can hold back no longer!"
- Thor, The Mighty Thor #35

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/5711/thorvsgladiator12tw5.jpg

"I did my best. But he's too strong."
- Gladiator, The Mighty Thor #35

You really picked a losing battle here, mate. Your tenacity would be admirable, if it wasn't so obviously wasted on a losing effort.

Juk3n

Originally posted by OneDumbG0

Deal with it. Thor wins.

quanchi112

Originally posted by KK the Great
No it isn't.

"He's too strong" is not interchangeable with "He's stronger than me."

Thor being even close to Gladiator's strength is enough to explain his statement. Thor does not have to be stronger than Gladiator in order to be too strong to quickly assassinate.

That's an asinine distinction.

Sure, on battleboards we're careful to distinguish between strength, power, toughness, and so on. But you know as well as I do that when characters talk about strength they could be referring to any of those things.

Gladiator could have been twice as strong as Thor (not saying he is) and Thor's onslaught at the end there still would have likely put him down. An energy blast followed by a flurry of Mjolnir shots to the head does nothing to demonstrate an advantage in strength, or even parity for that matter.

"Back, Gladiator! Powerful as thou might be, e'en thy strength is nothing compared to the raging fury of Mjolnir!"

That's what Thor says while blasting Gladiator and setting up his salvo of hammer blows. He doesn't say that he's stronger. He says that Mjolnir is more powerful.

Which isn't surprising, since the raging fury of Mjolnir is usually how he's able to beat physically superior foes (see also: Mangog).

Truth be told, that example came to mind because of how resoundingly you're getting beaten in that Drago vs. Clubber debate.

The bottom line is this: Both times Thor has beaten Gladiator (including the Masterson fight), his victory has required him to go all-out raining down blow after unanswered blow. When Thor fights someone like Hercules, do you ever see him needing to go to such extremes to earn a win? I never have.

All Gladiator had to do in order to KO Thor for an entire minute was land one solid punch.

To put Gladiator down, Thor had to hit him with a big energy blast and press his advantage with a frenzied onslaught of hammer shots. Then Gladiator got hit again with an "Odin rivaling" blast from Tarene. And after all that, Gladiator was still getting to his feet and talking within seconds.

That does NOT paint the portrait of Thor beating a physically inferior opponent. It ABSOLUTELY paints a portrait of Thor overcoming a physically superior one.

I mean, good lord, Masterson had to pound him with TEN pissed-off Mjolnir strikes while he was already stunned by Living Lightning and unable to defend himself. Name anyone short of Thanos who would even survive that, let alone not be KO'd by it.

Thor didn't go to quite that extreme in the Jurgens fight, but he still blasted Glads and then hit him with four all-out hammer shots to the head. Thor usually craps his pants when someone survives one shot to the face like he gave Gladiator, much less four of them.

Your logic--that being KO'd by an onslaught of hammer-shots must necessarily demonstrate a strength disadvantage--is just absurd on the face of it. The fact that Thor even went to such extremes to secure a win only indicates the opposite, if anything.

I think that's far from safe to say.

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/5166/thorfast0zj7.th.jpg http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3752/thorfast1nc3.th.jpg http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/154/thorfast2ln4.th.jpg http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/4047/thorfast3ul0.th.jpg http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/2785/thorfast4xe6.th.jpg

What happens if Gladiator uses the speed he used in that fight when Thor isn't experiencing time differently?

Going all-out, Gladiator can get more than two weeks worth of attacks in, from his perspective, in the time it takes Thor to blink. Spin it however you want. In that encounter I think Thor looked stronger. At the end of my post I said that their strength was comparable. So my opinion holds true that their strength is in the same ballpark but in that [articular encounter Thor proved to be too strong to be denied. Gladiator then said,"I tried my best." Meaning he gave it his all and wasnt good enough to best Thor. Thor stomped him in this fight. Do you have any scans of Gladiator beating the real Thor?

I never said that Thor could beat this guy ten out of ten times so its entirely possible for Glads to get some wins here especially out of ten matches due to his speed. But Thor is still taking the majority here as the fight has clearly shown. When Thor got serious he wrekced him.

Yes, Thor brings his hammer to 9o plus percent of his fights. Thor doesnt have to say I am stronger than you for him to be stronger than Gladiator. Imo Glad's words were enough to convince me. But that is only in this encounter and like I said in my first post their strength is comparable. But with that now said we must also take into account Thor's war hammer that he brings to this fight. See if you want to create a matchup hand to hand barring his war hammer then Id be more inclined to give Glads the majority. But Thor gets his war hammer which really decides this matchup.

Why dont you come out of the shadows on herochat then under another name and personally come at me in the clubber lang vs. ivan drago debate. Otherwise be silent.

I think its rather comical that you said that maybe Gladiator could have been twice as strong and then put up scans of another battle where Gladiator even admits he is my equal in strength in that particular battle and then he resorts to heat vision. I have gone over this already but your scan even shows that Glads and Thor's strength are comparable which has always been my position. Thor's hammer wins this. In your scans the fight was stopped before it could have been concluded while both looked very fresh still with no real victor in that particular skirmish.

Gladiator already went all out and the scan has been put up twice. You are trying really hard here to get us all to forget what actually happened in the comic and what Glads said himself. Thor wins. Accept it.

KK the Great

Originally posted by quanchi112
Spin it however you want. In that encounter I think Thor looked stronger.

You think a lot of things that don't stand up to reason.

Have you been following at all?

OneDumb coming quick with a laundry list of excuses doesn't mean Thor wasn't beaten.

Thor himself doesn't attribute his win to superior strength. He says that as powerful as Gladiator is, even his strength falls short of the power of Mjolnir.

Which is exactly in line with how he usually manages to win against his more powerful villains.

Or you could just take it to Spinsulin and get put in your place again.

Hell, bring OneDumbG0. From what I've seen of his tenuous grasp of logic, he's almost certain to conclude that Rocky is stronger than Ivan.

What's comical about it? I said right from the start that of all the Thor/Gladiator confrontations, that one was the only time they were portrayed as peers, while in the other two Gladiator was clearly written as a Drago-style overwhelmingly powerful opponent.

quanchi112

Originally posted by KK the Great
You think a lot of things that don't stand up to reason.

Have you been following at all?

OneDumb coming quick with a laundry list of excuses doesn't mean Thor wasn't beaten.

Thor himself doesn't attribute his win to superior strength. He says that as powerful as Gladiator is, even his strength falls short of the power of Mjolnir.

Which is exactly in line with how he usually manages to win against his more powerful villains.

Or you could just take it to Spinsulin and get put in your place again.

Hell, bring OneDumbG0. From what I've seen of his tenuous grasp of logic, he's almost certain to conclude that Rocky is stronger than Ivan.

What's comical about it? I said right from the start that of all the Thor/Gladiator confrontations, that one was the only time they were portrayed as peers, while in the other two Gladiator was clearly written as a Drago-style overwhelmingly powerful opponent. Its fine that we disagree but again his comment was,"He's too strong." Usually you dont say those types of things about physically weaker opponents. Just saying. It makes no sense to think that Gladiator is stronger than him. None whatsoever.

No I saw you ignore points and try to tell us how you think the battle would go. You kept referring to speed but Gladiator clearly said he gave his best. We all have our opinions and our favorite characters but the at no time in either of these battles did the comic actually show us anything other than Thor being his superior in their second fight that was uninterrupted.

I never said Thor would beat him on strength alone. I have always maintained that their strength is comparable and Glads himself agrees with me. Why cant you? You put up the scans. It comes down to the warhammer. That is why Thor wins.

Yes, Thor beats more powerful villains using his hammer and thats how he defeated Gladiator as well. Without mjolinir Thor would lose more often than he would win.

I will come back to spinsulin. Rest assured. I cant speak for onedumbgo but I think he is happy here and doesnt want to travel from forum to forum. See kk this is what I dont get about you. Why must you insult him just because you disagreed with him. When did he ever say that rocky was stronger than drago? The stronger figher drago lost that encounter. The stronger person doesnt always win. Do you really think Gladiator is stronger than Thor in either of their encounters and if so what leads you to believe this?

Ok. First off Gladiator is fighting Thor who seems him as an ally and is clearly taken back. Rocky wants Drago's balls for what he did to his friend apollo creed. Thor clearly states he can hold back no more and quickly destroys Glads. Rocky was never holding back. His mission of beating Drago had been clear when he accpeted this matchup. Rocky barely managed to beat Drago at the end of their fight. Glads didnt look superior at all and his words afterwords proved he knew he was beaten and that he gave his best.

KK the Great

Originally posted by quanchi112
No I saw you ignore points and try to tell us how you think the battle would go. You kept referring to speed but Gladiator clearly said he gave his best.

Oh, well if Gladiator said he gave his best...

Are you serious with that?

I just posted scans of Gladiator spending an entire issue operating at hyperspeed. He fought evenly with a Thor who was on a different flow of time.

But Gladiator "said he gave his best," so I guess he must've been using that speed...um...nowhere. Sorry. He used it nowhere. Good try, though.

Have you ever seen Thor fight a weaker opponent? Or even an equal one?

When he fights opponents weaker than himself, he doesn't need to lay into them with an all-out onslaught of repeated hammer blows like he did against Gladiator. He doesn't even do that against guys like Hercules or Wonder Man.

Yes, Thor won the day. It was a huge surprise to exactly nobody.

He's also won the day against Mangog, Kurse, and any number of foes who most people accept as being stronger than him. His victory over Gladiator is presented more in line with those fights than with a fight against, say, Hercules.

Gladiator is quite clearly portrayed not as a weaker nuisance or even a peer, but as an overwhelming powerhouse against whom Thor must pull out all the stops.

Just look at how he won again.

He hit Gladiator with a full-body energy blast.

Then he let pummeled his head with several all-out Mjolnir strikes.

Then Tarene stepped in and hit Gladiator with an "Odin rivaling" blast.

After all that, Gladiator was *still* rising to his feet and talking within seconds.

If Thor (and Tarene) did that to someone weaker than Thor, their target would be a bloody smear--not conscious and standing seconds later.

That is, plain and simply, NOT what it looks like when Thor fights a weaker opponent. That's what it looks like when Thor, the hero of the book, goes all-out to stop a stronger foe.

I explained all of this to OneDUmbG0 rationally, and he brushed it aside and proceeded to spam the thread with scans of Thor hitting Gladiator and lots of fist-pumping and chest-thumping, as though celebrating his simple-minded approach to analysis. That's when the debate was over.

geshien

Ultimately, Thor wins the majority.

guy222

thor wins

quanchi112

Originally posted by KK the Great
Oh, well if Gladiator said he gave his best...

Are you serious with that?

I just posted scans of Gladiator spending an entire issue operating at hyperspeed. He fought evenly with a Thor who was on a different flow of time.

But Gladiator "said he gave his best," so I guess he must've been using that speed...um...nowhere. Sorry. He used it nowhere. Good try, though.

Have you ever seen Thor fight a weaker opponent? Or even an equal one?

When he fights opponents weaker than himself, he doesn't need to lay into them with an all-out onslaught of repeated hammer blows like he did against Gladiator. He doesn't even do that against guys like Hercules or Wonder Man.

Yes, Thor won the day. It was a huge surprise to exactly nobody.

He's also won the day against Mangog, Kurse, and any number of foes who most people accept as being stronger than him. His victory over Gladiator is presented more in line with those fights than with a fight against, say, Hercules.

Gladiator is quite clearly portrayed not as a weaker nuisance or even a peer, but as an overwhelming powerhouse against whom Thor must pull out all the stops.

Just look at how he won again.

He hit Gladiator with a full-body energy blast.

Then he let pummeled his head with several all-out Mjolnir strikes.

Then Tarene stepped in and hit Gladiator with an "Odin rivaling" blast.

After all that, Gladiator was *still* rising to his feet and talking within seconds.

If Thor (and Tarene) did that to someone weaker than Thor, their target would be a bloody smear--not conscious and standing seconds later.

That is, plain and simply, NOT what it looks like when Thor fights a weaker opponent. That's what it looks like when Thor, the hero of the book, goes all-out to stop a stronger foe.

I explained all of this to OneDUmbG0 rationally, and he brushed it aside and proceeded to spam the thread with scans of Thor hitting Gladiator and lots of fist-pumping and chest-thumping, as though celebrating his simple-minded approach to analysis. That's when the debate was over. Yes I am completely serious with that comment. Why are you ignoring Glad's words here? Just because the fight didnt play out how you wanted it to that doesnt change anything. In your mind I can tell Gladiator wins this due to his speed but in the actual comic he hasnt beaten him due to his speed advantage. So again in the actual comics you have nothing other than your vision of how this fight would play out.

So now you are trying to prove what exactly? That he went all out against Gladiator but doesnt need to against Hercules and other weaker opponents than Gladiator. I mean where are you getting this theory that Gladiator is superior to Thor? Where? In both of these battles both of these fighters were impressed with one another. In the second battle Thor was victorious. Thor stated he wasnt holding back anymore and beat him. This is all stated in the comic. Thor said he was serious and quickly decimated Glads into the pavement. The guy went back with his tail inbetween his legs here. You already know his comments and you cant change the obvious meaning of his words.

You can downplay them all you want and piss and moan about him losing but just because you see this fight different that doesnt overtake the actual comics here. Thor won and looked rather superior to Glads. Rocky beat a stronger Drago while Thor appeared stronger in this battle as well. So I think this comparison is terrible. Drago had an obvious edge in the strength department while Glads doesnt have one even according to him.

Please dont tell me you are comparing Mangog to Glads here. Wasnt Thor amped up for that fight with Mangog anyways?

***** and moan all you want but his own words prove you are wrong here. He didnt say,"I had him until that ***** Tarene interfered." No he said Thor was too strong and that he tried his best. Thor wasnt even going all out and wanted to know what had gotten into Glads. When Thor decided to get serious he stomped him into the ground.

Onedumbgo posted scans of the fight so you couldnt downplay Thor's intentions and his words. Again I can tell you like Glads but you havent changed one single mind here.

Thor wins and deal with it.