Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What is the lowest feat that the character you'd think would lose in a given match would have to perform (other than a direct confrontation ) in order for you to think he'd win in a fight ?

Say you're of opinion that Thor beats Surfer. Or Captain America beats Batman. Or.. you get the point. Specify the fight and what the other character would have to do in order to change your views.

c'mon, phil. you've been around more than long enough to know that opinions rarely change. if someone goes into a thread with a decided winner already in their mind, the chance of that predetermined choice changing... is slim to none.

I can attest to the fact that its nearly impossible to change your mind if you get into a debate.
The best I can hope to do is stop debating if its a hopeless argument.

More info on what the character can do.

I know when i first joined this board in 04, i thought Superman would likely be top dog since i only read his comics and didn't own a single marvel book.

After reading more and buying old books, i learned how mistaken i was.

Likely why i give Surfer the edge in most top tier fights against bricks, great or small.

HV is nice, but blackholes are better.

Originally posted by Galan007
c'mon, phil. you've been around more than long enough to know that opinions rarely change. if someone goes into a thread with a decided winner already in their mind, the chances of that predetermined choice changing... is slim to none.

Yes, that's true. But hypotetically, say you think Firestorm would beat Skulk Waver (random name). If a comic would show him resisting transmutation from a high-end user, or wading through certain type of attacks, would you change your mind? And what would those attacks be?

You think Captain America would beat say.. Batman. What is the lowest feat(s) the latter would have to do in order to convince you otherwise ? I say lowest because it will be too simple to have you say a ridiculous thing "have him overpower The General" or something similar. That's essentially the question.

And I mean current views. Not some blabbering on how "oh, I was so uninformed years ago until I discovered how much that character sucks and the other one rules!!" like the baiting post above.

Nobody around here changes their opinions anymore. I initially changed my opinion about Apocalypse beating all of Marvel and DC's high heralds.
Originally posted by Galan007
Firestorm turns Hulk to salt.

^ aside from being absolutely pointless, you trolling is really quite childish, kris.

I disagree with the majority here. If you have a character with a intensely dense fanbase, then yes they are going to argue to the death, and no amount of scans, logic, or common sense is going to change their mind. As we speak Im debating Lobo vs Wolverine....
However, if you take characters who's fans dont have such a vested interest, you'll see opinions change from time to time. You wont see many Super Skrull posts going over 100 pages long.

Originally posted by Galan007
if i were arguing solely for firestorm being able to transmute 'skulk', and i was shown an instance of 'skulk' resisting a direct transmutational attack from a *proven* character on firestorm's level - i would have to abstain my argument. anything further pertaining to that side of things would be completely baseless.

It was just an example but, why not just start right here. Could you give an example of what character Firestorm would beat in a battle in your opinion and what that character would have to do in order to change your views ? Or not Firestorm, but any other match.

^ for instance: for me to believe surfer could defend himself against zoom, i would first need to see him reacting to an opponent on zoom's speed level.

Originally posted by Galan007
c'mon, phil. you've been around more than long enough to know that opinions rarely change. if someone goes into a thread with a decided winner already in their mind, the chance of that predetermined choice changing... is slim to none.
Actually...I did have a sloowww change of heart regarding two characters based on the visual evidence (no, not them). The on-panel evidence was just too, well, consistently evident that what I always used to think...was wrong.

And as far as two other characters go (now them), I've been in a reconsideration state of mind, oddly enough because of something I myself wrote in yet another debate featuring one of those characters whom I was defending.

Originally posted by Galan007
c'mon, phil. you've been around more than long enough to know that opinions rarely change. if someone goes into a thread with a decided winner already in their mind, the chance of that predetermined choice changing... is slim to none. ........SHUT UP...

Originally posted by Mindship
Actually...I did have a sloowww change of heart regarding two characters based on the visual evidence (no, not them). The on-panel evidence was just too, well, consistently evident that what I always used to think...was wrong.

And as far as two other characters go (now them), I've been in a reconsideration state of mind, oddly enough because of something I myself wrote in yet another debate featuring one of those characters whom I was defending. that's why i said "opinions rarely change"

I'm not asking you to come up with insane scenarios/feats for what are obvious loopsided battle in order for the underdog to take it.

I'm asking you to tell me what would a specific character have to do within a comicbook (a specific feat, or a fight against another character) in order to swoop your opinion on his performance in a battle that you currently consider him to lose. You can do it for 50/50 fights aswell, if you like.

Thor speedblitzing Gladiator. Means fighting superfast against glads, similar to flash fights if you get what i mean. Glads can do it, when Thor would fight him while using superspeed, all over some planet, i would change my opinion to Thor 60%-40% Superman.

I don't think that Daredevil can beat Batman, but i don't know the char good enugh. I used to collect them after Miller took over and Romita draw them but he wasn't that impressive. I wouldn't give him more then 2 out of 10. When i would see him beating CA, i would change my stance to 4 or if he has more wins then CA, 5 out of 10.

for me, it would be superman vs thor.

my current stance is that superman's speed is vastly superior to thor and as such superman would handily beat thor if both performed to par

what would convince me otherwise is if someone shows clear evidence of thor being able to attack at blitz level super speed as well as defend against a almost flash-level speed blitz

i won't hold my breath for either

Originally posted by Galan007
I'm going to turn you into Salt, Kris!

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
*sigh*

Kris and Galan, I'm not sure what the problem is so I'll just ask that you both stop.

i always get the short end of the mod-stick... even when i didn't do a thing. disgust

Bada is nothing more than a tyrant who abuses his power.

Well, Batman sucks, so yea, that shows him.

Originally posted by Galan007
i always get the short end of the mod-stick... even when i didn't do a thing. disgust



mod-stick ? pervert

Originally posted by Batman-Prime
mod-stick ? pervert

correction: "short" mod-stick.

ZING!!

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Bada is nothing more than a tyrant who abuses his power.

Well, Batman sucks, so yea, that shows him.

cry Batman is ultracool!

Just because Bada is a tyrant with an "short" mod-stick does not give you the right to insult the BatMan!

batman

As long as people use recent feats I will change my view. I hate it when someone uses feats from 30 years ago to prove their point. That wont change my view

Originally posted by xJLxKing
As long as people use recent feats I will change my view. I hate it when someone uses feats from 30 years ago to prove their point. That wont change my view



Worse still. People use very old feats, while the current incarnation hasn't show them and appears more "realistic" and less powerful, while ignoring recent high end feats of the opposed char and coming up with low feats from ages past.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
As long as people use recent feats I will change my view. I hate it when someone uses feats from 30 years ago to prove their point. That wont change my view

What's the problem with using feats from 30 years ago?

Unless it's been retconed, the character has lost the ability to do said feat, or gotten noticeably weaker since that time, then the feat is valid, and you would have absolutely no basis or grounds to dismiss said feat.

Take Thor for example. You won't see me using his ability to manipulate time which was clearly lost in a debate. But if I need to, you best believe I will use the example of him shooting lightning out of his hands as say an example of using his god of thunder powers or an example of versatility which happened in 1960.

Another example is Odin. Clearly he isn't on Galaxy busting level currently so you won't ever see me using examples of Odin wiping out Galaxies casually currently. I will however use it as an example if I make sure to note that I am referring to Odin at his older more powerful levels or say at the height of his power.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
What's the problem with using feats from 30 years ago?

Unless it's been retconed, the character has lost the ability to do said feat, or gotten noticeably weaker since that time, then the feat is valid, and you would have absolutely no basis or grounds to dismiss said feat.

Take Thor for example. You won't see me using his ability to manipulate time which was clearly lost in a debate. But if I need to, you best believe I will use the example of him shooting lightning out of his hands which happened in 1960.

Another example is Odin. Clearly he isn't on Galaxy busting level currently so you won't ever see me using examples of Odin wiping out Galaxies casually currently. I will however use it as an example if I make sure to note that I am referring to Odin at his older more powerful levels or say at the height of his power.
In my opinion, I don't care if a character has feats from the 50's 60's 70's, but WHEN ALL HIS Feats for debating comes from 20+ years ago, there is something wrong.

I don't if it wasn't stated that someone got depowered, or retconned. If Thor shots lighting that destroyed mountains in the 60's and then he shoots lighting and only destroys buildings in the 2005, you bet your ass I would see that as a invalid feats

Originally posted by xJLxKing
In my opinion, I don't care if a character has feats from the 50's 60's 70's, but WHEN ALL HIS Feats for debating comes from 20+ years ago, there is something wrong.
Especially if said character only has like 100 ish comics from recent age, and like 500 from way back when. Then it makes super-no sense! right? RIGHT?!

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Especially if said character only has like 100 ish comics from recent age, and like 500 from way back when. Then it makes super-no sense! right? RIGHT?!
100 issues is enough to try and use them instead of only using the ones from 20 years ago. Not to mention, if the 100 issues aren't as good as the 20 years ago, then there is clearly something wrong.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
In my opinion, I don't care if a character has feats from the 50's 60's 70's, but WHEN ALL HIS Feats for debating comes from 20+ years ago, there is something wrong.

I don't if it wasn't stated that someone got depowered, or retconned. If Thor shots lighting that destroyed mountains in the 60's and then he shoots lighting and only destroys buildings in the 2005, you bet your ass I would see that as a invalid feats

Fortunately, someone like say Thor has feats from modern times. Arguably Thor's greatest strength feat, and a great deal of his feats of versatility without Mjolnir come from modern times. And it doesn't matter if I decide to use feats for a Thor debate from only the 60's and 70's and nothing else. Unless it was explicitly shown that he has lost said power or ability, gotten weaker, it was retconed, then you would have no basis to have any problem with said feats.

Or maybe Thor wasn't exerting as much power in the second instance. If you see Thor destroying mountains in the 60's, and then you see him destroying buildings say last year, that in no way indicates that he cannot destroy mountains with said lightning, unless in both instances he was stated to be using all of his power, and he accomplished noticeably less damage. Which has never happened by the way.

And of course Thor would have more feats back then than he has in say the last two decades. Him being dead, having much less appearances etc. impact his number of feats.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Fortunately, someone like say Thor has feats from modern times. Arguably Thor's greatest strength feat, and a great deal of his feats of versatility without Mjolnir come from modern times. And it doesn't matter if I decide to use feats for a Thor debate from only the 60's and 70's. Unless it was explicitly shown that he has lost said power or ability, gotten weaker, it was retconed, then you would have no basis to have any problem with said feats.

Or maybe Thor wasn't exerting as much power in the second instance. If you see Thor destroying mountains in the 60's, and then you see him destroying buildings say last year, that in no way indicates that he cannot destroy mountains with said lightning, unless in both instances he was stated to be using all of his power, and he accomplished noticeably less damage. Which has never happened by the way.
How about this!
You use feats from modern times such as 2000-2009 and I use the ones from 20 years ago

Originally posted by Galan007
i always get the short end of the mod-stick... even when i didn't do a thing. disgust
you're trolling kris...so you deserve to be warned

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Especially if said character only has like 100 ish comics from recent age, and like 500 from way back when. Then it makes super-no sense! right? RIGHT?! you're kinda dense

Originally posted by Starscream M
you're trolling kris...so you deserve to be warned eh, what? it's actually quite the opposite.

Originally posted by Galan007
i always get the short end of the mod-stick... even when i didn't do a thing. disgust















Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Bada is nothing more than a tyrant who abuses his power.

Well, Batman sucks, so yea, that shows him. Originally posted by Batman-Prime
cry Batman is ultracool!

Just because Bada is a tyrant with an "short" mod-stick does not give you the right to insult the BatMan!

batman I just gave you all 3 warnings each!!!!111 ohno

durfist
Originally posted by Starscream M
you're trolling kris...so you deserve to be warned Originally posted by Starscream M
you're kinda dense And you just got 4 warnings! evillaugh

Originally posted by Badabing

And you just got 4 warnings! evillaugh

kewl....I'm da specialz

Originally posted by xJLxKing
100 issues is enough to try and use them instead of only using the ones from 20 years ago. Not to mention, if the 100 issues aren't as good as the 20 years ago, then there is clearly something wrong.

Can't recall a single incident where this has happened. You're making things up I think.

Naturally, only an idiot would be more swayed by something because the colours are brighter.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
How about this!
You use feats from modern times such as 2000-2009 and I use the ones from 20 years ago

Don't try and compare that **** up DC calls a continuity to using older feats for characters in Marvel.

Using Pre-Crisis feats for characters such as Superman is invalid. Do I honestly need to explain to you why it is so?

Anything Post-Crisis or been re-shown is valid though.

And yes I could, use feats from 2000 to 2009 only if I had to. Of course I would only be limited to his new run, which unfortunately doesn't have a lot of feats in regards to battle and the last few issues of Volume 2, which does have some impressive enough feats, but the most impressive come from Rune King Thor, and King Thor and those are also invalid if we assume it's Classic Thor. It would be easier to use older feats, but debating for Thor while using feats in the last decade is certainly doable and even using those he would still be Top Tier, and have enough showings to show that he could beat say Superman.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Don't try and compare that **** up DC calls a continuity to using older feats for characters in Marvel.

Using Pre-Crisis feats for characters such as Superman is invalid. Do I honestly need to explain to you why it is so?

Anything Post-Crisis or been re-shown is valid though.

And yes I could, use feats from 2000 to 2009 only if I had to. Of course I would only be limited to his new run, which unfortunately doesn't have a lot of feats in regards to battle and the last few issues of Volume 2, which does have some impressive enough feats, but the most impressive come from Rune King Thor, and King Thor and those are also invalid if we assume it's Classic Thor. It would be easier to use older feats, but debating for Thor while using feats in the last decade is certainly doable and even using those he would still be able to easily be Top Tier, and have enough showings to show that he could beat say Superman. there's a difference between using old feats vs using feats that thor has not demonstrated coming close to in 30 years

that midgard serpent feat should never be used today because it is not representative of this era's thor's strength...kapish?

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Can't recall a single incident where this has happened. You're making things up I think.

Naturally, only an idiot would be more swayed by something because the colours are brighter.
facepalm
To call one an idiot is really idiotic especially when this is my opinion. Do I called you a Thor Sucking Moron because you are defending Thor?

It's pretty easy really. When ever it comes to Thor Vs a High herald character where feats are presented, it can easily be seen that the scans all are from 15+ years. Yet, there are almost(actually completely) none from 2000+. If they are, it is a rare occasion and usually the feats isn't too impressive, but again if You don't believe, I will prove it. I will take all the feats from Thor's Respect thread which are older and use them while you use feats from 2000+. Yes, you are right, you won't have as much, but surely you should be able to match the strength, speed, or power output.

Originally posted by Starscream M
there's a difference between using old feats vs using feats that thor has not demonstrated coming close to in 30 years

that midgard serpent feat should never be used today because it is not representative of this era's thor's strength...kapish?
Because Thor lifted it on a different occasion?

Or because he has demonstrated unlimited strength?

Originally posted by xJLxKing
facepalm
To call one an idiot is really idiotic especially when this is my opinion. Do I called you a Thor Sucking Moron because you are defending Thor?

It's pretty easy really. When ever it comes to Thor Vs a High herald character where feats are presented, it can easily be seen that the scans all are from 15+ years. Yet, there are almost(actually completely) none from 2000+. If they are, it is a rare occasion and usually the feats isn't too impressive, but again if You don't believe, I will prove it. I will take all the feats from Thor's Respect thread which are older and use them while you use feats from 2000+. Yes, you are right, you won't have as much, but surely you should be able to match the strength, speed, or power output.

Well Einstein, try this on for size.

Thor got the Odinforce around year 2001

There are only 21 comics from Year 200 to the issue with Surtur and the death of Odin.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Don't try and compare that **** up DC calls a continuity to using older feats for characters in Marvel.

Using Pre-Crisis feats for characters such as Superman is invalid. Do I honestly need to explain to you why it is so?

Anything Post-Crisis or been re-shown is valid though.

And yes I could, use feats from 2000 to 2009 only if I had to. Of course I would only be limited to his new run, which unfortunately doesn't have a lot of feats in regards to battle and the last few issues of Volume 2, which does have some impressive enough feats, but the most impressive come from Rune King Thor, and King Thor and those are also invalid if we assume it's Classic Thor. It would be easier to use older feats, but debating for Thor while using feats in the last decade is certainly doable and even using those he would still be Top Tier, and have enough showings to show that he could beat say Superman.
When have I ever compared anything to DC. If I were to, it would be ridiculous. As of now, Superman has traveled with the LOSH, that makes it canon (if that's the correct term) to PC.
Same can be said for Green Lantern, their I am allowed to use PC feats for Green Lanterns (Hal). But it's rather stupid to do so.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Because Thor lifted it on a different occasion?

Or because he has demonstrated unlimited strength? how could thor demonstrate unlimited strength? that's absurd...that would mean thor could never be overpowered as he can increase his strength at will

I can't believe you're actually claiming thor has limitless strength. jeez.

Originally posted by Starscream M
there's a difference between using old feats vs using feats that thor has not demonstrated coming close to in 30 years

that midgard serpent feat should never be used today because it is not representative of this era's thor's strength...kapish?

You have no basis for an argument. Arguably his most impressive strength feat, being the World Engine didn't happen that long ago.

That's utterly stupid. Unless Thor tried and failed to overpower or lift the Midgard Serpent recently, proved unable to reach those standards of strength, or that feat was retconned then it absolutely IS a representative of Thor's strength today, as nothing says otherwise.

Go fight some crime while screaming, "MIRROR MASTAH = WALLY WEST" "THE JUGGANAUT > GALACTUS".

Originally posted by xJLxKing
When have I ever compared anything to DC. If I were to, it would be ridiculous. As of now, Superman has traveled with the LOSH, that makes it canon (if that's the correct term) to PC.
Same can be said for Green Lantern, their I am allowed to use PC feats for Green Lanterns (Hal). But it's rather stupid to do so.

Certainly seemed you were trying to, with the let me use 20 plus year old feat comment.

Him participating with the Legion of Superheroes in the events with have seen are cannon. It doesn't however magically make any feats he had with the Legion of Superheroes Pre-Crisis cannon. Just pointing that out.

Hence why I originally said their should be a distinction of using feats for characters when they have noticeably gotten weaker.

Originally posted by Starscream M
how could thor demonstrate unlimited strength? that's absurd...that would mean thor could never be overpowered as he can increase his strength at will

I can't believe you're actually claiming thor has limitless strength. jeez.

facepalm

Oh and Thor has demonstrated strength feats and has statements, supporting the fact he has limitless or unlimited strength. Clearly that's not the case though. He has unquantifiable strength when needed to, just like say Superman does on occasions.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
facepalm

Oh and Thor has demonstrated strength feats and has statements, supporting the fact he has limitless or unlimited strength. Clearly that's not the case though. He has unquantifiable strength when needed to, just like say Superman does on occasions. superman does not have unquantifiable strength..he has a limit. so does thor.

Because it's old. And it's stupid. Superman has been stated to have unlimited strength, or even Ultraman, but does that mean he has unlimited strength???


Doesn't matter. You know what I mean when I say 2000. Heck you can try to use it at 1995, or whatever, but IF the Majority comes from the 70's,80's, then there is clearly something wrong.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Him participating with the Legion of Superheroes in the events with have seen are cannon. It doesn't however magically make any feats he had with the Legion of Superheroes Pre-Crisis cannon. Just pointing that out. except post-crisis superman has recollected quite a few of the pre-crisis/zero hour 'adventures' he had with the LoSH.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
facepalm

Oh and Thor has demonstrated strength feats and has statements, supporting the fact he has limitless or unlimited strength. Clearly that's not the case though. He has unquantifiable strength when needed to, just like say Superman does on occasions.
I think limitless is a crass term when it comes to measuring strength, incalculable is what's used to describe strength that's well beyond basic Class 100. Like Martian Manhunter is shown to be weaker than Superman yet he's still said to have incalculable strength. That means that while his limits have never been measured in terms of lifting he's still not infinitely strong because Superman can overpower him.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Doesn't matter. You know what I mean when I say 2000. Heck you can try to use it at 1995, or whatever, but IF the Majority comes from the 70's,80's, then there is clearly something wrong.
Why? don't you know basic math?`

80% of his comics are from the 70s and 80s, 80% of his feats are from the 70s and 80s. Pretty simple, nothing wrong there really.

And we're taking it down to the 80s now? lmfao. The X-men and Avengers are taking one hell of a hit then as well. Not to mention the majority of marvel cosmic simply vanishing into thin air. Damn!

When it says "CLASSIC" Thor, what does your brain think it means?

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Why? don't you know basic math?`

80% of his comics are from the 70s and 80s, 80% of his feats are from the 70s and 80s. Pretty simple, nothing wrong there really.

And we're taking it down to the 80s now? lmfao. The X-men and Avengers are taking one hell of a hit then as well. Not to mention the majority of marvel cosmic simply vanishing into thin air. Damn!

When it says "CLASSIC" Thor, what does your brain think it means?
Yet none of them comes from the 90's or 00's

None wahtsoever

So if it doesn't say Classic, you can't use his feats from 70's?

Hey guys, I think this thread has the potential to become the greatest/worst flamewar in this site's history.
It's somehow managed to turn into another Thor vs Superman argument.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Yet none of them comes from the 90's or 00's

None wahtsoever

So if it doesn't say Classic, you can't use his feats from 70's?

If it doesn't say classic then he would have the Odinforce. Or we'd have only Thor 603 + his annual. That's two comics.

I'm also curious about how you managed to count 0 feats from the 90s. I can count a whole lot. You must not be able to count.

Originally posted by redhotrash
I disagree with the majority here. If you have a character with a intensely dense fanbase, then yes they are going to argue to the death, and no amount of scans, logic, or common sense is going to change their mind. As we speak Im debating Lobo vs Wolverine....
However, if you take characters who's fans dont have such a vested interest, you'll see opinions change from time to time. You wont see many Super Skrull posts going over 100 pages long. I have changed my mind over the years on several characters, because my knowledge expanded on plenty of characters, I read loads of different types of literature fictional and non fictional, but it is always enlightening to learn more, which is more of my goal now more than ever.

I saw that argument. It is Wolverine though. Luckily some other people weren't there and won't likely be there because a weapon x character isn't there.

Originally posted by Starscream M
superman does not have unquantifiable strength..he has a limit. so does thor.

Except the time they have both shown unquantifiable strength, or the times they have both risen to the occasion and defeated opponents or gone toe to toe with opponents that previously neither have harmed etc. or opponents their supposed piers cannot defeat. I've seen Thor temporarily, drop Kurse, the Destroyer, Mangog, hell even Odin, when pushed, when on average he can't even make any of them, even feel his attacks, even when his apparently going all out.

It really simply depends on the writer is all.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think limitless is a crass term when it comes to measuring strength, incalculable is what's used to describe strength that's well beyond basic Class 100. Like Martian Manhunter is shown to be weaker than Superman yet he's still said to have incalculable strength. That means that while his limits have never been measured in terms of lifting he's still not infinitely strong because Superman can overpower him.

I was referring to Thor and Superman overcoming forces of apparent infinite strength etc.

Not the entire incalculable class. Everyone from Namor to Kurse fall in that category.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
If it doesn't say classic then he would have the Odinforce. Or we'd have only Thor 603 + his annual. That's two comics.

I'm also curious about how you managed to count 0 feats from the 90s. I can count a whole lot. You must not be able to count.
All those feats are outclasses by the ones in 70 & 80's right?

Originally posted by Galan007
except post-crisis superman has recollected quite a few of the pre-crisis/zero hour 'adventures' he had with the LoSH.



Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus Him participating with the Legion of Superheroes in the events with have seen are cannon. It doesn't however magically make any feats he had with the Legion of Superheroes Pre-Crisis cannon. Just pointing that out.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Certainly seemed you were trying to, with the let me use 20 plus year old feat comment.

Him participating with the Legion of Superheroes in the events with have seen are cannon. It doesn't however magically make any feats he had with the Legion of Superheroes Pre-Crisis cannon. Just pointing that out.

Hence why I originally said their should be a distinction of using feats for characters when they have noticeably gotten weaker.
I think you made my point

Originally posted by xJLxKing
All those feats are outclasses by the ones in 70 & 80's right?

That's why it pays of to read the comics of the characters you argue about.

One of his greatest strength feats come from the early 90's as I recall. So does some of his greatest versatility feats.

He just has more feats from the 70's and 80's because he has vastly more appearances and as a result more showings from back then.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
All those feats are outclasses by the ones in 70 & 80's right?
Wait, wait. Did you just lie? I'm just trying to see if you really know what the hell you're talking about here.

Because first we never used Thor feats that were newer than year 2000. Naturally you have not read any of these comics, so you get a little frustrated and think you've come up with a killer argument. Then you're faced with the reality that Classic Thor stops in year 2001. Oh no! What then!

This is when you came up with the brilliant plan that we never posted any of his feats from the 90s! Ha-ha! The respect thread probably has not a single feat from those days! But alas, once again you were proven wrong. The respect thread is smitten with feats from the 90s. Ah shucks, such bad luck. It's just not simply fair that the claims you make up on the spot should turn out to be false. Dangit!

But here here, perhaps there is yet hope! Maybe there are no worthwhile feats from the 90s! Yes, this must be the case! But oh no! It turns out that in the 90s Thor fought and defeated the Dark Gods and better yet, it was the time when BRB, Adam Warlock and Surfer all went down like flies! Or wait, wasn't that the time when Thor pushed back the world-engine itself? Perhaps his greatest strength and willpower feat 'till day! No wait, the 90s, that's when Thor drained the Presence of his life-force, a very popular argument with the kids these days! Oh damn, there is just no getting a break for you, is it?

Let's hear the next ridiculous claim. 3 strikes, by all accounts you should be out by now.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
I think you made my point

Except if we talk about Thor, he has HASN'T gotten noticeably weaker or anything of the sort. He hasn't gotten weaker at all.

Stop being dense and making shit up. If you are referring to Thor of course.

There has been absolutely no evidence, that he has gotten weaker. You're argument consists of, "HE HAS MORE FEATS FROM BACK THEN SO CLEARLY HE WAS STRONGER BACK THEN", when you fail to take into account the fact that he has more than 90% of his appearances from those years. The showings he does have from the early 00's and the 90's however do rival and surpass his showings from back then. So you're argument is completely baseless.

This thread is closed until everyone cools off. There have been more reports from this thread today than we've had all week.