WW vs. Thor: pure h2h cage match

relentless1

Originally posted by FrothByte
Getting knocked on your ass isn't really indicative that the hits "didn't really do anything to her".

she didn't bleed, bruise or get KOed did she?

As far as the bullets being able to harm her in Wonder Woman:

a. she was never shown to actually be vulnerable to bullets, her Amazon sisters just assumed she was so she defended herself accordingly

b. there is a power creep throughout her appearances

c. taking hits from Superman, Steppenwolf and Doomsday are much better durability showings that tanking a bullet anyways

Impediment

Thor grabs her by the pu$$y.

riv6672

^^^the mod has spoken (and spoken well).

/thread

Silent Master

BruceSkywalker

Originally posted by Impediment
Thor grabs her by the pu$$y.

so you've watched the porn version????

anyways Thor isn't gonna have that much of a problem

Tattoos N Scars

FrothByte

Originally posted by relentless1
she didn't bleed, bruise or get KOed did she?

As far as the bullets being able to harm her in Wonder Woman:

a. she was never shown to actually be vulnerable to bullets, her Amazon sisters just assumed she was so she defended herself accordingly

b. there is a power creep throughout her appearances

c. taking hits from Superman, Steppenwolf and Doomsday are much better durability showings that tanking a bullet anyways

Bleeding or getting KO'd is not the only proof that a hit affected you. Bruises normally appear only after some time has passed after getting hit.

Fact is, getting knocked down IS proof that you were affected by the hit, otherwise you would never have gotten knocked down in the first place.

In a boxing match if someone gets hit flush on the face and it knocks the fighter down, do we conclude that the hit completely didn't do anything to him simply because he was able to get back up after a 6 count?

The Spectre+

she has a strong gluteus maximus... i mean her a$$ shatterd, and sent deep cracks on the contrete ground.

FrothByte

Originally posted by The Spectre+
she has a strong gluteus maximus...

Was that fancy speak for saying she has a tight ass?

BrolyBlack

Thor wins

riv6672

Originally posted by FrothByte
Was that fancy speak for saying she has a tight ass?
And dem LEGS! eek!

HulkIsHulk

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yea, her bleeding from a gunshot wound in her solo movie is totally not her being shown to be vulnerable to bullets
Umm it was never shown how she got cut, just that she had been. Plus, considering she went through explicit power ups, I think it's a bit stretching to say she's still vulnerable to bullets if she ever was

Silent Master

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
Umm it was never shown how she got cut, just that she had been. Plus, considering she went through explicit power ups, I think it's a bit stretching to say she's still vulnerable to bullets if she ever was

What other weapons capable of cutting were her enemies using in that fight?

riv6672

IF she ever was?

KingD19

Wonder Woman has canonically always been vulnerable to bullets. Its like her main weakness. Like Superman and KRYPTONITE.

The Spectre+

Originally posted by FrothByte
Was that fancy speak for saying she has a tight ass?

hmm.. just merely lauding her asships greatness.

riv6672

Sadly not even her great ass is bulletproof.

TheVaultDweller

Originally posted by riv6672
Sadly not even her great ass is bulletproof.

*tries really hard not to make an "unloading" joke*

The Spectre+

Originally posted by riv6672
Sadly not even her great ass is bulletproof.
you tested that already??
what, are you gonna test the boobs now???

riv6672

Originally posted by The Spectre+
you tested that already??
what, are you gonna test the boobs now???
Its already been tested... stick out tongue

https://i.imgur.com/2oWwPZV.jpg

Nevan

Thor can take repeated blows from the Hulk to the head without being KOed.

What is Diana supposed to do again?

TheVaultDweller

Originally posted by riv6672
Its already been tested... stick out tongue

https://i.imgur.com/2oWwPZV.jpg

Well, now we can put that debate to rest lol.

HulkIsHulk

Originally posted by KingD19
Wonder Woman has canonically always been vulnerable to bullets. Its like her main weakness. Like Superman and KRYPTONITE.

Wonder Woman has also been weak to piercing damage for quite long, yet in her solo she barehanded her sword when Luddendorf tried to stab her with it. Assuming everything else not shown will be the same as in comics is a bit stretching it.

FrothByte

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
Wonder Woman has also been weak to piercing damage for quite long, yet in her solo she barehanded her sword when Luddendorf tried to stab her with it. Assuming everything else not shown will be the same as in comics is a bit stretching it.

She clapped the sword between her palms then kept it there, stopping Luddendorf from pulling it. That's really more a strength and speed feat than it is durability.

HulkIsHulk

Originally posted by FrothByte
She clapped the sword between her palms then kept it there, stopping Luddendorf from pulling it. That's really more a strength and speed feat than it is durability.
If she did it in the same style that Aquaman did it to pre-suit Manta I'd have agreed. She clearly clasps her fingers on the bladed edge, so let's just agree to disagree

FrothByte

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
If she did it in the same style that Aquaman did it to pre-suit Manta I'd have agreed. She clearly clasps her fingers on the bladed edge, so let's just agree to disagree

I study HEMA, it's actually possible to do this in real life without getting your hands cut, though it's usually done by grabbing the blade closer to the hilt. Still, as long as you're fast enough to catch the blade and strong enough to stop it from moving then you should be good. A sword needs to be able to move in order to cut.

Silent Master

Originally posted by FrothByte
I study HEMA, it's actually possible to do this in real life without getting your hands cut, though it's usually done by grabbing the blade closer to the hilt. Still, as long as you're fast enough to catch the blade and strong enough to stop it from moving then you should be good. A sword needs to be able to move in order to cut.

Plus, we've seen her wounded.

h1a8

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
I believe bullets can hurt WW (not sure after her upgrade though) but I disagree that a human can grab a sword in the exact manner that WW did without getting cut.

Disagree as much as you want, doesn't stop it from being true. All you need to do is research on things like half-swording and sword-grabbing techniques. Heck here, I'll save you the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo

Silent Master

John Murdoch

Thor has faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar greater durability, and speed only counts so much in the octagon where her maneuverability will be limited + she isn't going to be able to put him down for the count.

Thor takes one in the W column.

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
Disagree as much as you want, doesn't stop it from being true. All you need to do is research on things like half-swording and sword-grabbing techniques. Heck here, I'll save you the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo

I just rewatched the scene. It appears that WW could have applied significantly more pressure to the sides and not much to the blade. So you are correct.

But here's a far stronger argument that WW could be cut by the sword and is not bulletproof:

The writer had her catch the sword to prevent being stabbed.
The writer had her block bullets to prevent her from being injured by them. In other words, writer's intentions are that she is not bulletproof.

Now after her Ares upgrade it is somewhat debatable. Tbh, I'm not sure either way. All I know is she became significantly more powerful.

h1a8

Originally posted by Silent Master
Talk about ignorance.

CoGb0JafLZM

How does always being wrong feel?

All martial arts are culty (cult like). They display unrealistic shit that doesn't work in real life. Real swords used in battle are extremely sharp. Yes if you can manage to clasped the sides of the sword more then you can possibly catch the sword without being cut (or cut a lot).

The only martial arts that is reliable to work is any art that is used in mix martial art competitions.

Anything else is subject to being culty.

TheGrat1

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11133/111339751/6301554-giphy+%281%29.gif
Diana: Right. Thor: Left.

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
All martial arts are culty (cult like). They display unrealistic shit that doesn't work in real life. Real swords used in battle are extremely sharp. Yes if you can manage to clasped the sides of the sword more then you can possibly catch the sword without being cut (or cut a lot).

The only martial arts that is reliable to work is any art that is used in mix martial art competitions.

Anything else is subject to being culty.

Nope, again you're wrong. Swords weren't "extremely" sharp. I mean, yes they were sharp, but they weren't anywhere near as sharp as your average kitchen knife, not european swords anyway. There were lots of things to consider here, from cross-section shape to type of steel to how heavily they were used, etc.

As for martial arts "displaying unrealistic shit", these blade-grabbing techniques were taught in historical fight manuals from the medieval ages. In short, they were legitimate techniques taught at a time when martial arts were actually used in combat. Obviously it doesn't mean they were easy to apply during combat, but they definitely weren't unrealistic.

Silent Master

riv6672

^^^Jesus that is some ridiculous shit H1 is going with.
Ah well, thats what makes fun threads i guess!

BrolyBlack

Originally posted by h1a8
I just rewatched the scene. It appears that WW could have applied significantly more pressure to the sides and not much to the blade. So you are correct.

But here's a far stronger argument that WW could be cut by the sword and is not bulletproof:

The writer had her catch the sword to prevent being stabbed.
The writer had her block bullets to prevent her from being injured by them. In other words, writer's intentions are that she is not bulletproof.

Now after her Ares upgrade it is somewhat debatable. Tbh, I'm not sure either way. All I know is she became significantly more powerful.

There is no swords in this so why does it matter? In a closed cage, WW is going to get her ass beat, that's all there is to it. She lacks the damage output without her weapons to put him down in any meaningful way. Thor took direct hits from Hulk and didnt even make him bleed and that was the first avengers movie. Hes never been a slouch on durability showing until it came to Kurse who broke that barrier.

Silent Master

Plus, if we use h1's argument that "writer's intention" trumps what is seen on screen. then Thor is far faster than Wonder Woman as he is fast enough to casually block energy attacks.

What do you think, will h1 be consistent or will he find some excuse not to use "writer's intentions" in regards to Thor's reaction speed?

BrolyBlack

He will argue all the corners he can and then retreat after he realizes he cant win the debate, and he knows WW cant win this fight. He could of just said "spite city" and left. That would at least be more reasonable.

Silent Master

I'm just curious on whether or not he'll abide by his own standards.

So which is it h1, are you going to admit that Thor's reaction speed is far faster than Wonder Woman's or are you going to admit to being a massive hypocrite?

The Spectre+

only one thing is lacking in this thread..........

where's quan??

Silent Master

His mom grounded him.

h1a8

Originally posted by Silent Master
Plus, if we use h1's argument that "writer's intention" trumps what is seen on screen. then Thor is far faster than Wonder Woman as he is fast enough to casually block energy attacks.

What do you think, will h1 be consistent or will he find some excuse not to use "writer's intentions" in regards to Thor's reaction speed?

Those energy attacks were slow. Look at the speed Thor bats them away.
We see the beam's speed and its not very fast.
Plus Destroyer telegraphed every time he fired.

In other words, bullets are far faster than those beams.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nope, again you're wrong. Swords weren't "extremely" sharp. I mean, yes they were sharp, but they weren't anywhere near as sharp as your average kitchen knife, not european swords anyway. There were lots of things to consider here, from cross-section shape to type of steel to how heavily they were used, etc.

As for martial arts "displaying unrealistic shit", these blade-grabbing techniques were taught in historical fight manuals from the medieval ages. In short, they were legitimate techniques taught at a time when martial arts were actually used in combat. Obviously it doesn't mean they were easy to apply during combat, but they definitely weren't unrealistic.

I used to buy karate books when I was a kid. That shit did not work in combat. Like I said, if you grasped mostly to the sides and not so much the blade then you can possibly catch a sword. Why didn't you address my other post agreeing with you? You just want to argue?

But it's impossible for you to convince me that a human's hands can become cut proof.

BrolyBlack

She doesnt have her sword in this fight, why is that so hard to grasp?

BrolyBlack

H1 its "Such fragile life forms" not "lifeformses" life forms is two words, and "lifeformses" doesn't even make sense as its wrong spelling and grammatically wrong as well.

Type in lifeformses and see what comes up.

h1a8

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
H1 its "Such fragile life forms" not "lifeformses" life forms is two words, and "lifeformses" doesn't even make sense as its wrong spelling and grammatically wrong as well.

Type in lifeformses and see what comes up.

I already knew that. He actually said, "fragile sort of life forms." But he put emphasis on the "s" at the end of forms.

The reason I chose "lifeformses" is because when I was 4 years old and first saw Superman 2 this it what it sounded like (his English accent). For several years I adopted the saying when I played with friends.
So the quote is more about nostalgic reasons.

BrolyBlack

But it doesn't even make sense., why would you need to keep repeating something you know is not accurate?

The Spectre+

Originally posted by Silent Master
His mom grounded him.
f*uck his mom..... wait, what did he do this time. troll his grandpa?

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8

I used to buy karate books when I was a kid. That shit did not work in combat. Like I said, if you grasped mostly to the sides and not so much the blade then you can possibly catch a sword. Why didn't you address my other post agreeing with you? You just want to argue?

But it's impossible for you to convince me that a human's hands can become cut proof.

Ah, so many things wrong in this post.

1. If you used to buy karate books but never bothered to learn it properly, don't be surprised if that "shit" did not work in combat.

2. There's a big difference between your "karate books" that you bought as a kid (which we don't even know how legit they were) and actual fighting manuals that were written by weapon-masters who's job was to train knights in combat.

3. You agreed with me and then went ahead and said something completely stupid again. It's almost like you can't simply agree that you were wrong, you can't help but be contradictory.

4. Human hands are not cut proof. But you fail to consider there's a proper technique to grab a blade without cutting yourself (which is why the average joe can't simply do it) and doing it properly definitely isn't easy. Plus there are mechanics of how a blade cuts. Hint: A blade needs to be in motion to cut. If it isn't, it can't cut. Swords aren't light sabers that cut you just because you touch them.

5. You obviously don't know much about this topic. Please just trust the word of those who know more about it than you. Some of us actually studied this stuff.

BrolyBlack

In all fairness to H1 hes not the only one who never admits they are wrong thats 99.9% of this forum.

riv6672

^^^true.
Mostly its just ppl talking over each other & reiterating their opinions, often in more & more antagonistic ways.

FrothByte

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
In all fairness to H1 hes not the only one who never admits they are wrong thats 99.9% of this forum.

There's a difference between simply arguing your opinion is more valid than someone else's opinion (most posters here) and completely contradicting concrete proof already presented before you (h1).

Most posters here would say something like:
"Dogs are better than cats. I can't believe you prefer cats".

Whereas this is what H1 will say:
"I hate cats because cats bark a lot louder than dogs."

Inhuman

H1 is an MMA certified fighter and a Nobel prize level scientific mathematician, among the long list of other accolades. We are all lucky to be blessed with his presence.

BrolyBlack

h1a8

Originally posted by Inhuman
H1 is an MMA certified fighter and a Nobel prize level scientific mathematician, among the long list of other accolades. We are all lucky to be blessed with his presence.

Thank you. Finally some appreciation around here.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ah, so many things wrong in this post.

1. If you used to buy karate books but never bothered to learn it properly, don't be surprised if that "shit" did not work in combat.

2. There's a big difference between your "karate books" that you bought as a kid (which we don't even know how legit they were) and actual fighting manuals that were written by weapon-masters who's job was to train knights in combat.

3. You agreed with me and then went ahead and said something completely stupid again. It's almost like you can't simply agree that you were wrong, you can't help but be contradictory.

4. Human hands are not cut proof. But you fail to consider there's a proper technique to grab a blade without cutting yourself (which is why the average joe can't simply do it) and doing it properly definitely isn't easy. Plus there are mechanics of how a blade cuts. Hint: A blade needs to be in motion to cut. If it isn't, it can't cut. Swords aren't light sabers that cut you just because you touch them.

5. You obviously don't know much about this topic. Please just trust the word of those who know more about it than you. Some of us actually studied this stuff.

Yet you don't understand that you MUST latch on more to the sides than the blade. That's the technique. No one ever disagreed with that logic. I always disagreed with the notion that you can stop the sword by the blade without being cut.
Doesn't matter who wrote what. Karate books were written by actual people who trained. The problem is science governs all. Not magic, not tricks, etc.
Pressure = force /area
That means not too much force the blade can be applied to the human hand in order for it to not get cut. We can reduce the force by grabbing more to the sides of the sword.

And you are an idiot thinking that most martial arts schools today aren't culty. How in the hell is that stupid what I said? Manuals don't prove shit, science does. And with science you must have experimentation. That means you must show a human grabbing a blade with their hand while someone is trying to stab them full thrust.

Silent Master

Originally posted by h1a8
Those energy attacks were slow. Look at the speed Thor bats them away.
We see the beam's speed and its not very fast.
Plus Destroyer telegraphed every time he fired.

In other words, bullets are far faster than those beams.

I called it, h1 just proved himself a hypocrite by ignoring writer's intention. Remember, this is the guy that has stated multiple times that a writer's intention trumps what is seen on-screen.

John Murdoch

Originally posted by h1a8
I already knew that. He actually said, "fragile sort of life forms." But he put emphasis on the "s" at the end of forms.

The reason I chose "lifeformses" is because when I was 4 years old and first saw Superman 2 this it what it sounded like (his English accent). For several years I adopted the saying when I played with friends.
So the quote is more about nostalgic reasons.

We might disagree on quite a bit H1, but since it's been brought up, I respect that nostalgia factor my man.

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
Thank you. Finally some appreciation around here.

Yet you don't understand that you MUST latch on more to the sides than the blade. That's the technique. No one ever disagreed with that logic. I always disagreed with the notion that you can stop the sword by the blade without being cut.
Doesn't matter who wrote what. Karate books were written by actual people who trained. The problem is science governs all. Not magic, not tricks, etc.
Pressure = force /area
That means not too much force the blade can be applied to the human hand in order for it to not get cut. We can reduce the force by grabbing more to the sides of the sword.

And you are an idiot thinking that most martial arts schools today aren't culty. How in the hell is that stupid what I said? Manuals don't prove shit, science does. And with science you must have experimentation. That means you must show a human grabbing a blade with their hand while someone is trying to stab them full thrust.

Dude, I know that you need to keep pressure on the flat of the blade. I'm the one who actually posted the video that explained that. That's what the technique is about. But that doesn't mean that you can't touch the edge of the blade, as long as majority of the pressure is on the flat. I also never said that you can stop a blade mid swing with your hand, what I'm describing here is grabbing the blade to stop it from moving again.

As for your karate books, who were the authors of these books? Were these authors fighters who've survived duels to the death?

Besides, how would you know what works and what doesn't in a real fight, as you yourself admitted that you simply bought books (instead of, you know, actually learning and applying the techniques).

Silent Master

Originally posted by FrothByte
Dude, I know that you need to keep pressure on the flat of the blade. I'm the one who actually posted the video that explained that. That's what the technique is about. But that doesn't mean that you can't touch the edge of the blade, as long as majority of the pressure is on the flat. I also never said that you can stop a blade mid swing with your hand, what I'm describing here is grabbing the blade to stop it from moving again.

As for your karate books, who were the authors of these books? Were these authors fighters who've survived duels to the death?

Besides, how would you know what works and what doesn't in a real fight, as you yourself admitted that you simply bought books (instead of, you know, actually learning and applying the techniques).

Besides, it doesn't matter if the techniques are 100% effective in real life. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about.

This is just another example of h1 trying to pull the "that's not how things work in real life" argument in order to help a DC character.

h1a8

Originally posted by Silent Master
Besides, it doesn't matter if the techniques are 100% effective in real life. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about.

This is just another example of h1 trying to pull the "that's not how things work in real life" argument in order to help a DC character.

Frost is suggesting we use Real life evidence (written manual) to support his argument. But it was never a debate anyway as we both agree that you must supply majority of the pressure to the sides of the blade.

Originally posted by Inhuman
The mechanism that was built around the neutron star was there to contain all the neutron star's forces, gravitational pull and all that.
It's all dwarf space magic but that was the idea behind that whole structure. The dwarves had to work that close to the neutron star to make weapons, so the structure was there for them not to die and for them to use and harness whatever they needed from the neutron star.
But when the iris was opened , all the forces from the star came through that opening and hit Thor. Gravitational pull, radiation, gravity, heat, x-rays, etc, etc.
That is what is supposed to be happening in that scene. Thor taking the full force of the neutron star. Eitri even says this in a line of dialogue before it happened. He tells Thor that he is about to take the full force of the star.
There should be no guessing or assuming on that scene if the movies/writters tell you what is happening. Then the special effects team and directors portrayed that scenario as best they could even if there might be slight discrepancies.

You are making stuff up. Nowhere in the movie does it explains that.

Also Net Force = sum of all the forces =mass x acceleration
So the net force on Thor can be determined by the product of his mass times acceleration.

The product is very low. Therefore the net force on Thor was low.

Silent Master

Originally posted by h1a8
Well we are arguing for no reason then.
Bruce Lee was one of the authors. It was his first book.
Other authors were 5th degree black belts and above.

Real fights happen fast. Time does not slow down or stop in order for you to think what to do. Teachers often demonstrate shit as if time is standing still. Yet when the teacher gets in a real fight then that shit goes out the window.

I'm going to let you in on a secret that only a very few people know, Wonder Woman's reactions are very fast. more than fast enough to catch a blade properly.

Now don't go spreading this super secret information around, only people that have seen the movies are supposed to know about it.

h1a8

Originally posted by Silent Master
I'm going to let you in on a secret that only a very few people know, Wonder Woman's reactions are very fast. more than fast enough to catch a blade properly.

Now don't go spreading this super secret information around, only people that have seen the movies are supposed to know about it.

The debate was about whether WW is bulletproof. Had nothing to do with reflexes.

Silent Master

Originally posted by h1a8
The debate was about whether WW is bulletproof. Had nothing to do with reflexes.

Wow, you really aren't very smart are you?

h1a8

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wow, you really aren't very smart are you?

I'm very smart. It seems that you are the dumb one.

Silent Master

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm very smart. It seems that you are the dumb one.

No, you're really not or else given the context of your current argument with FrothByte, you would understand why I brought up WW being fast enough to catch the blade properly.

h1a8

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, you're really not or else given the context of your current argument with FrothByte, you would understand why I brought up WW being fast enough to catch the blade properly.

You are an idiot.
The initial argument stemmed whether WW is bulletproof. You even have members posting shit with bullets bouncing off WW's boobs. HulkIsHulk initially suggested that WW is bulletproof because of the sword catch.
Frost, me, and Hulk been discussing the issue since then. Go back and reread.

Froth get in here and correct your boy.

Silent Master

Originally posted by h1a8
You are an idiot.
The initial argument stemmed whether WW is bulletproof. You even have members posting shit with bullets bouncing off WW's boobs. HulkIsHulk initially suggested that WW is bulletproof because of the sword catch.
Frost, me, and Hulk been discussing the issue since then. Go back and reread.

Froth get in here and correct your boy.

OMG, you really are retarded. maybe you should go back and read your own posts a few dozen times and then ask your caretaker very nicely and they might explain why my post was appropriate.

h1a8

You are the retarded one here. Froth won't comment because you and him are on the same side. He should clearly tell you what the initial debate was about since you are too dumb to find out.

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
You are the retarded one here. Froth won't comment because you and him are on the same side. He should clearly tell you what the initial debate was about since you are too dumb to find out.

I'm not commenting because I have no idea what you two are arguing about. I brought in the sword-grabbing techniques as proof that what WW did to the sword is not proof that she was bullet proof. However, Silent's response to you seems to be about your claim of time not slowing down for martial artists. It's that post about Bruce Lee which I can't seem to see. I assume he's talking about that, and I know nothing about that discussion other than to say that black belts don't guarantee real life experience.

Silent Master

Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm not commenting because I have no idea what you two are arguing about. I brought in the sword-grabbing techniques as proof that what WW did to the sword is not proof that she was bullet proof. However, Silent's response to you seems to be about your claim of time not slowing down for martial artists. It's that post about Bruce Lee which I can't seem to see. I assume he's talking about that, and I know nothing about that discussion other than to say that black belts don't guarantee real life experience.

Part of his attempt to refute your point was him mentioning how real fights happen fast which means that people don't have to think about what to do. thus me mentioning WW's speed. but he is too retarded to see the connection.

FrothByte

Originally posted by Silent Master
Part of his attempt to refute your point was him mentioning how real fights happen fast which means that people don't have to think about what to do. thus me mentioning WW's speed. but he is too retarded to see the connection.

I think he deleted that post, as the only place I see it is in your quote. Wonder why he deleted it...

Silent Master

Just proves that he's both a coward and a troll.

riv6672

Or realized how awful it was.

Silent Master

Originally posted by riv6672
Or realized how awful it was.

Right, but now he's acting like he doesn't know why I brought up WW's speed as according to him it has nothing to do with their argument.

So basically, he knows my comment was related, but he's being purposely dishonest to try and save face.

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm not commenting because I have no idea what you two are arguing about. I brought in the sword-grabbing techniques as proof that what WW did to the sword is not proof that she was bullet proof. However, Silent's response to you seems to be about your claim of time not slowing down for martial artists. It's that post about Bruce Lee which I can't seem to see. I assume he's talking about that, and I know nothing about that discussion other than to say that black belts don't guarantee real life experience.

Wrong. HulkisHulk suggested WW is bulletproof because of her grabbing the sword and not being cut. We even have pictures of WW blocking bullets with her boobs. Then you replied by saying she did so by clasping the sides.

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
I think he deleted that post, as the only place I see it is in your quote. Wonder why he deleted it...

I didnt delete anything. Everything is there.

h1a8

Originally posted by Silent Master
Right, but now he's acting like he doesn't know why I brought up WW's speed as according to him it has nothing to do with their argument.

So basically, he knows my comment was related, but he's being purposely dishonest to try and save face. It seems you are trying to save face. You didnt know that the whole argument was about WW being bulletproof.

Why would speed having anything to do with WW being bulletproof or not?

Speed is irrelevant. The argument is WW being cutproof means she is bulletproof (HulkisHulk argument). I stated WW isn't cut proof as she grabbed the sides more and therefore she isn't bulletproof either.

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong. HulkisHulk suggested WW is bulletproof because of her grabbing the sword and not being cut. We even have pictures of WW blocking bullets with her boobs. Then you replied by saying she did so by clasping the sides.

How am I wrong when what you said was exactly what I said?

Silent Master

It appears that h1 can't even keep his argument straight as this whole thing started with him arguing that it's impossible for people to catch a blade like WW did without bleeding. which would mean that WW doing so is proof that she is at least cut resistant if not immune.

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
How am I wrong when what you said was exactly what I said? Because you know the initial argument was about WW being bulletproof. Silent thought it was about speed and is looking like an idiot. Yet you won't correct him as to what the original argument was about. Playing dumb maybe to protect your ally?

h1a8

Originally posted by Silent Master
It appears that h1 can't even keep his argument straight as this whole thing started with him arguing that it's impossible for people to catch a blade like WW did without bleeding. which would mean that WW doing so is proof that she is at least cut resistant if not immune.
Wrong! I posted afterwards that I rewatched the scene and saw that WW caught the sword more on the sides and thus making her cut proof invalid. Initially I believed HulkisHulk when he stated she caught the sword by the edge. But speed still has nothing to do with it. It's technique. You can have speed and catch the sword the wrong way and get cut.

Originally posted by h1a8
I just rewatched the scene. It appears that WW could have applied significantly more pressure to the sides and not much to the blade. So you are correct.

But here's a far stronger argument that WW could be cut by the sword and is not bulletproof:

The writer had her catch the sword to prevent being stabbed.
The writer had her block bullets to prevent her from being injured by them. In other words, writer's intentions are that she is not bulletproof.

Now after her Ares upgrade it is somewhat debatable. Tbh, I'm not sure either way. All I know is she became significantly more powerful.

h1a8

I take it that the people who voted for Thor are bias towards marvel. Meaning, they know WW wins yet still vote for Thor.
Anyone who can CONSISTENTLY see bullets in slow motion will see Thor far slower. This fight is actually spite due to the speed deficit.

If speed were equalized then I give it to Thor.

Silent Master

Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong! I posted afterwards that I rewatched the scene and saw that WW caught the sword more on the sides and thus making her cut proof invalid. Initially I believed HulkisHulk when he stated she caught the sword by the edge. But speed still has nothing to do with it. It's technique. You can have speed and catch the sword the wrong way and get cut.

Let's be honest, You believed HH's version because you've never seen the scene and his interpretation helped a DC character. that you claim to have change your mind later doesn't change the fact that I was right. this did start with you arguing that it was impossible for WW to have caught it without bleeding.

Let's be honest, we all know the real reason you were trying to prove the sword catch was impossible to do without being cut.

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
Because you know the initial argument was about WW being bulletproof. Silent thought it was about speed and is looking like an idiot. Yet you won't correct him as to what the original argument was about. Playing dumb maybe to protect your ally?

No, he has a quote of you talking specifically about speed.

Silent Master

Originally posted by FrothByte
No, he has a quote of you talking specifically about speed.

See, he is just proving that I'm right about him being dishonest. Plus we all know why he is trying to prove the sword catch was impossible. it's so he can use it later to prove she's bullet-proof.

We also know why he is harping on what I said, he's trying to distract from the fact that he lost the debate.

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
No, he has a quote of you talking specifically about speed.

He quoted my reply to you showing why Martial art schools are culty.
When the teacher demonstrates something they always have the volunteer freeze after the swing, allowing the illusion of frozen time. Yet in a real life fight, that shit goes out the window.

He butted in our discussion, which was about WW being bulletproof (through being cut proof).
We both agreed that WW caught the sword more on the side long before Silent made his comment about speed and reflexes. Therefore his post has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
But it doesn't even make sense., why would you need to keep repeating something you know is not accurate?
Nostalgic reasons. Did you not understand the story I gave you? Geez

Eon Blue

Originally posted by h1a8
You are the moron because you fail to understand the reasoning.
I actually gave you the correct quote (your quote was wrong).

You are a moron because you fail to understand proper grammar. I gave you correct logic in my last post. Reread what I wrote, idiot.

h1a8

Originally posted by Eon Blue
You are a moron because you fail to understand proper grammar. I gave you correct logic in my last post. Reread what I wrote, idiot.

If I fail to understand proper grammar then how did I know the correct quote and you didn't?

BrolyBlack

On top of it, I dont think he would lose to her in any fight.

Thor can take down Steppenwolf. Wonder Woman cant.

Inhuman

Originally posted by h1a8
If speed were equalized.
The problem here is WW sees bullets in slow-mo. Thor, who is significantly slower than a bullet, would appear vastly slower.

We have gone through this before.
A baseball player can hit 100 mile per hour fastballs just fine and they do not see the ball in slow motion.
Wonder woman does not see bullets in slow motion. Is there a scene that shows this that I am forgetting. If there is, post it.

BrolyBlack

Originally posted by h1a8
If speed were equalized.
The problem here is WW sees bullets in slow-mo. Thor, who is significantly slower than a bullet, would appear vastly slower.

So how do humans hit 100mph baseballs as said above?

h1a8

Originally posted by Inhuman
We have gone through this before.
A baseball player can hit 100 mile per hour fastballs just fine and they do not see the ball in slow motion.
Wonder woman does not see bullets in slow motion. Is there a scene that shows this that I am forgetting. If there is, post it.

You lowball with the best of them but get no flack for it because you do it against the DC side.

Baseballs and bullets are two different things. No human can hit a bullet.

It takes 0.4 seconds for a 100mph to travel from the picture to the hitter. Human reactions can be as low as 0.2 seconds. A jab can be snapped out in less time than the time it takes for a 100mph fastball to travel to the hitter.

A bullet is a different story.

There were a few scenes in WW that showed her seeing bullets in slow motion. How else would she be able to perceive a bullet from point blank range easily?

h1a8

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
So how do humans hit 100mph baseballs as said above?

It's not about speed in itself but TIME.
Time = distance/speed

A 100mph fastball takes 0.4 of a second to reach the hitter. Human reactions can be as low as 0.2 of a second.

Guess how much time is elapsed when a bullet travels 5ft?

BrolyBlack

You just proved the point on why Thor can react to fast things.

Inhuman

Originally posted by h1a8
You lowball with the best of them but get no flack for it because you do it against the DC side.

Baseballs and bullets are two different things. No human can hit a bullet.

It takes 0.4 seconds for a 100mph to travel from the picture to the hitter. Human reactions can be as low as 0.2 seconds. A jab can be snapped out in less time than the time it takes for a 100mph fastball to travel to the hitter.

A bullet is a different story.

There were a few scenes in WW that showed her seeing bullets in slow motion. How else would she be able to perceive a bullet from point blank range easily?

Wonder woman is going to react faster than a normal human would because she is enhanced beyond a normal human.
So it would make sense that she would be able to react fast enough to block bullets similar way that a baseball player can hit a 100 mile per hour pitch without seeing it in slow motion.

What scenes are you talking about where she sees bullets in slow motion?
Don't say the scenes that where the director uses slow mo just for the action to look cool.
Because that is not Wonder woman seeing bullets in slow motion. The whole scene was slowed down for the purpose of the action looking cool or whatever.
Wonder woman's movements were also slow down along with everything else in that scene.

BrolyBlack

No he is right on that, she was seeing them, you could see her looking at them as they were coming in.

Inhuman

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
No he is right on that, she was seeing them, you could see her looking at them as they were coming in.

But then it goes back to my original point. Baseball players cant see 100 mile-per-hour pitches in slow motion.
But, they can see the ball coming and know where to swing.
But again that does not mean they see the ball in slow motion. That means that they see the ball blurred , a white circle, or whatever, that is the extent of seeing that object coming at them.

BrolyBlack

Baseball players can see the ball coming in. 100mph fastballs are very rare and that's why they don't get hit, Slower ones they can see. I played baseball a lot, the most common phrase in baseball is "keep your eye on the ball."

But this isnt even about real life, Thor deflected laser beams but H1 being who is, is trying to say bullets are faster then lasers.

Inhuman

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Baseball players can see the ball coming in. 100mph fastballs are very rare and that's why they don't get hit, Slower ones they can see. I played baseball a lot, the most common phrase in baseball is "keep your eye on the ball."

But this isnt even about real life, Thor deflected laser beams but H1 being who is, is trying to say bullets are faster then lasers.

I agree. But like I said there's a big difference from being able to see the ball coming, than being able to see the ball coming "in slow motion", like h1 is trying to claim.

h1a8

Originally posted by Inhuman
Wonder woman is going to react faster than a normal human would because she is enhanced beyond a normal human.
So it would make sense that she would be able to react fast enough to block bullets similar way that a baseball player can hit a 100 mile per hour pitch without seeing it in slow motion.

What scenes are you talking about where she sees bullets in slow motion?
Don't say the scenes that where slow down just for the action to look cool.
Because that is not Wonder woman seen bullets in slow motion, that is the whole scene being slow down for the purpose of the action looking cool or whatever.

I gave you movie evidence that shows WW perceiving bullets in slow motion. Look at her eyes following the bullet. It appears that she is even confused to why time is appearing slower.

Seeing in slo motion basically means that she perceives objects moving SLOWER than humans do. Doesn't mean that time is actually slower.

When I first played baseball (little league) I couldn't perceive a 60 mph fastball. It was a complete blur to me. After months of training in batting cages and years of playing baseball, a 60mph faster (in high school) appeared to be frozen in time forever. Hell a 95 mph in college appeared slower than that initial 60mph.

Anyway you are arguing semantics (lowballing). If WW can perceive a bullet easily from 5ft away and respond to it then she can, with greater ease, perceive and respond to speeds far slower than a bullet.

BrolyBlack

Originally posted by Inhuman
I agree. But like I said there's a big difference from being able to see the ball coming, than being able to see the ball coming "in slow motion", like h1 is trying to claim.

Speedsters who can move fast in combat can see things in slo motion because they are operating that much faster in the moment then what they are reacting to. This is also common in Marvel with quicksilver, he sees things in slo mo.

Baseball players dont see in slow mo, because the ball isnt moving 100's of meters per second.

Inhuman

Originally posted by h1a8
I gave you movie evidence that shows WW perceiving bullets in slow motion.

Wait, where? I saw words but did I miss a link? confused1

Originally posted by h1a8
After months of training in batting cages and years of playing baseball, a 60mph faster (in high school) appeared to be frozen in time forever.

lul, sure thing fam wink1

h1a8

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Speedsters who can move fast in combat can see things in slo motion because they are operating that much faster in the moment then what they are reacting to. This is also common in Marvel with quicksilver, he sees things in slo mo.

Baseball players dont see in slow mo, because the ball isnt moving 100's of meters per second.

Actually baseball players see a fastball much slower than a normal person. I'm a living witness to this.

Also it is common knowledge that speedsters see things slower than normal people.

Inhuman is lowballing to a crazy ass extreme.

He's basically saying that speedsters perceive bullets the same way humans do. Yet humans can't perceive them because they are too fast.

Inhuman

Originally posted by h1a8
Inhuman is lowballing to a crazy ass extreme.

He's basically saying that speedsters perceive bullets the same way humans do. Yet humans can't perceive them because they are too fast.

You can train yourself to focus and on the ball with years of training and making yourself aware of how pitchers throw the ball and know how to anticipate the ball, etc, etc. With years of training and experience , you would be able to anticipate and focus on the ball better than a person that has no experience hitting fast moving baseballs.
This has nothing to do with you thinking you are enhanced beyond human limits or you have learned to altered reality just because of training and having the ball frozen in time as you claim you do. (lel)

A super powered person like WW would be able to see fast moving objects way better than a human would be able to. And also react better than a human would.
Even if she could see the bullets coming at her, while a normal human cant, it still deosnt mean she is looking at the bullets suspended in time or crawling slowly towards her at a snails pace.
It means that she probably sees bullets thew same way a baseball player sees a ball coming at them. Baseball players can still see a 100 mile per hour ball. They can turn their heads to look at the ball whiz past them just fine. Again doesnt mean they see the ball suspended in time.

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
Actually baseball players see a fastball much slower than a normal person. I'm a living witness to this.

Also it is common knowledge that speedsters see things slower than normal people.

Inhuman is lowballing to a crazy ass extreme.

He's basically saying that speedsters perceive bullets the same way humans do. Yet humans can't perceive them because they are too fast.

I have to disagree. I used to play table tennis, was varsity in highschool and won a few tournaments. I had a very solid defense, able to return majority of smashes sent my way despite the fact that smashes can send a ball hurtling at 80-100 fps.

Was it because I saw the ball in slow motion? Hell no. It was because my muscle memory and reflexes were fast (and trained) enough to put my hand in the rough location of where I thought the trajectory of the smash would land the ball.

BrolyBlack

Silent Master

I see that h1 is making things up again.

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
I have to disagree. I used to play table tennis, was varsity in highschool and won a few tournaments. I had a very solid defense, able to return majority of smashes sent my way despite the fact that smashes can send a ball hurtling at 80-100 fps.

Was it because I saw the ball in slow motion? Hell no. It was because my muscle memory and reflexes were fast (and trained) enough to put my hand in the rough location of where I thought the trajectory of the smash would land the ball.

What do you disagree with?
Bullets are significantly faster than a ping pong ball.
And in table tennis, one has more than 0.2 of a second to react to a smash.

Remember it's not about speed but time (which incorporates both speed and distance).

Originally posted by Inhuman
You can train yourself to focus and on the ball with years of training and making yourself aware of how pitchers throw the ball and know how to anticipate the ball, etc, etc. With years of training and experience , you would be able to anticipate and focus on the ball better than a person that has no experience hitting fast moving baseballs.
This has nothing to do with you thinking you are enhanced beyond human limits or you have learned to altered reality just because of training and having the ball frozen in time as you claim you do. (lel)

A super powered person like WW would be able to see fast moving objects way better than a human would be able to. And also react better than a human would.
Even if she could see the bullets coming at her, while a normal human cant, it still deosnt mean she is looking at the bullets suspended in time or crawling slowly towards her at a snails pace.
It means that she probably sees bullets thew same way a baseball player sees a ball coming at them. Baseball players can still see a 100 mile per hour ball. They can turn their heads to look at the ball whiz past them just fine. Again doesnt mean they see the ball suspended in time.

The movie clearly shows her following bullets in slow-mo.
And all speedsters see action at a much slower rate than humans do. That's a fact. And I already gave you a real life example.

It's irrelevant anyway as it doesn't change the fact that she would perceive anything Thor does easier than bullets.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Again baseball players do not see in slow motion. No you are not a living witness to it.
You can agree to disagree. I don't care.
Baseball players see a fastball moving slower than a normal human does.

BrolyBlack

"normal humans"

Baseball players are normal humans, you are really off the deep end now.

Again you have never witnessed a fastball going in slow mo, that is my point.

How have you never been banned for you next level trolling is my question.

Inhuman

H1 is super human apparently

Silent Master

Originally posted by Inhuman
H1 is super human apparently

Well, he is certainly "special".

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
What do you disagree with?
Bullets are significantly faster than a ping pong ball.
And in table tennis, one has more than 0.2 of a second to react to a smash.

Remember it's not about speed but time (which incorporates both speed and distance).

The post I replied to was you specifically talking about baseball, not bullets. That's what I disagree with, that batters somehow see the baseball approaching in slow motion. Please try to keep up.

Though ping pong balls are not as fast as baseballs, they also travel less distance.

Silent Master

WolvesofBabylon

What about Thors star feat? Has that been discussed yet?

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
The post I replied to was you specifically talking about baseball, not bullets. That's what I disagree with, that batters somehow see the baseball approaching in slow motion. Please try to keep up.

Though ping pong balls are not as fast as baseballs, they also travel less distance.

It's impossible for you to tell me what my experience is about seeing a baseball is false. If you see time slower than you use to then no one can tell you that you are wrong. It's not even a debate. You can clearly just say I don't believe you. Discussion is over.

A 60mph faster was a complete blur to me, a streak of lightning. Now it is like it is floating in the air for a long time. My perception has changed and now I view 60mph much slower than I did when I first encountered them?

This is the truth whether you believe it or not. Also, a science documentary explained that flies see things far slower than humans.

The perception of time is relative.

h1a8

Originally posted by WolvesofBabylon
What about Thors star feat? Has that been discussed yet?

Yes. It was a heat and radiation resistance feat.
Thor got pushed towards the forge when he let go. The net force on him can be calculated as the product of his mass times his acceleration.

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
It's impossible for you to tell me what my experience is about seeing a baseball is false. If you see time slower than you use to then no one can tell you that you are wrong. It's not even a debate. You can clearly just say I don't believe you. Discussion is over.

A 60mph faster was a complete blur to me, a streak of lightning. Now it is like it is floating in the air for a long time. My perception has changed and now I view 60mph much slower than I did when I first encountered them?

This is the truth whether you believe it or not. Also, a science documentary explained that flies see things far slower than humans.

The perception of time is relative.

It is also impossible for you to say that your perception of time is any better than that of other "normal" humans.

Perhaps you just normally have slower perception than everyone, and when your perception finally sped up you ended up just becoming normal like others. Who knows.

Bottom line is, there's no proof that batters somehow see fast moving objects in slower motion that other people.

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
It is also impossible for you to say that your perception of time is any better than that of other "normal" humans.

Perhaps you just normally have slower perception than everyone, and when your perception finally sped up you ended up just becoming normal like others. Who knows.

Bottom line is, there's no proof that batters somehow see fast moving objects in slower motion that other people.

An experienced baseball player is not a normal human.
Anyone who relies on peak human reflexes (~ 0.2 second reactions) and perception on a consistent basis is not a normal human.
Normal is defined as the middle 95% (think of the bell curve).

Another example, I took my ex girlfriend to the park years ago. I made her try to hit my fastball (we used the gate as the backstop). She complained that she cant see the ball and that it's too fast. Fast forward to few years later. She has multiple times tagged my fastballs as well as fastballs in the fast batting cages. She says that the ball appears to be slower than what she first saw.

Another example, I trained her on table tennis (yes I'm an experienced player). She could not even see my smashes. They were a complete blur to her. Years later, she blocks the hell out of them with near perfection. I have a hard time beating her and have to rely more on English tricks along with sideline control, instead of setting up smashes.

But all of this is irrelevant. We clearly see Diana following the bullet (in shock) as if time as slowed down.

Quicksilver, Smallville, flash, Spider-Man, etc are all portrayed to see things slower than a normal human does. This is a fictional law.

To say WW does not see bullets any slower than a human is trolling. Not only we have movie evidence but ALL speedsters perceive things that way. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to respond.

Silent Master

The only reason she couldn't hit your fastball is because she couldn't lift the bat with her paws.

FrothByte

Originally posted by h1a8
An experienced baseball player is not a normal human.
Anyone who relies on peak human reflexes (~ 0.2 second reactions) and perception on a consistent basis is not a normal human.
Normal is defined as the middle 95% (think of the bell curve).

Another example, I took my ex girlfriend to the park years ago. I made her try to hit my fastball (we used the gate as the backstop). She complained that she cant see the ball and that it's too fast. Fast forward to few years later. She has multiple times tagged my fastballs as well as fastballs in the fast batting cages. She says that the ball appears to be slower than what she first saw.

Another example, I trained her on table tennis (yes I'm an experienced player). She could not even see my smashes. They were a complete blur to her. Years later, she blocks the hell out of them with near perfection. I have a hard time beating her and have to rely more on English tricks along with sideline control, instead of setting up smashes.

But all of this is irrelevant. We clearly see Diana following the bullet (in shock) as if time as slowed down.

Quicksilver, Smallville, flash, Spider-Man, etc are all portrayed to see things slower than a normal human does. This is a fictional law.

To say WW does not see bullets any slower than a human is trolling. Not only we have movie evidence but ALL speedsters perceive things that way. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to respond.

I think you're confusing the word "normal" for "average". Baseball players are not the average joes around but they're definitely still normal humans.

Anyway, no one here believes your stories. Save them for the kids.

h1a8

Originally posted by FrothByte
I think you're confusing the word "normal" for "average". Baseball players are not the average joes around but they're definitely still normal humans.

Anyway, no one here believes your stories. Save them for the kids.

You need to look up the definition of the word normal (root word is Norm). You have no clue to what you are talking about.
Try not to argue semantics.

I don't care what you believe. Just agree to disagree. It's all fine with me. I know the truth.

Mindset

Originally posted by h1a8
An experienced baseball player is not a normal human.
Anyone who relies on peak human reflexes (~ 0.2 second reactions) and perception on a consistent basis is not a normal human.
Normal is defined as the middle 95% (think of the bell curve).

Another example, I took my ex girlfriend to the park years ago. I made her try to hit my fastball (we used the gate as the backstop). She complained that she cant see the ball and that it's too fast. Fast forward to few years later. She has multiple times tagged my fastballs as well as fastballs in the fast batting cages. She says that the ball appears to be slower than what she first saw.

Another example, I trained her on table tennis (yes I'm an experienced player). She could not even see my smashes. They were a complete blur to her. Years later, she blocks the hell out of them with near perfection. I have a hard time beating her and have to rely more on English tricks along with sideline control, instead of setting up smashes.

But all of this is irrelevant. We clearly see Diana following the bullet (in shock) as if time as slowed down.

Quicksilver, Smallville, flash, Spider-Man, etc are all portrayed to see things slower than a normal human does. This is a fictional law.

To say WW does not see bullets any slower than a human is trolling. Not only we have movie evidence but ALL speedsters perceive things that way. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to respond. She could always physically perceive the ball whether she realized it or not, she developed her proprioception.

Idk what you guys are arguing about, just wanted to say that.