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

Rank these guys 1-10 based on H2H skill (MCU & DCEU)

Deadpool
Captain America
Winter Soldier (Hydra Mode)
Black Panther
Black Widow
Hawkeye
Lady Sif
Batman
Wonder Woman
Aquaman
Thor

Captain America
Winter Soldier (Hydra Mode)
Black Widow
Batman
Deadpool
Black Panther
Hawkeye
Lady SifWonder Woman
Aquaman
Thor

Too hard to do numbers for me.

Tier 1

Captain America
Winter Soldier
Deadpool
Black Panther
Batman

Tier 2

Black Widow
Hawkeye
WW

Noob Tier

Thor
Aquaman

There is no noob tier. Everyone here is skilled. Thor has shown better h2h than hawkeye and Batman should be on the very bottom. He didn't do shit

When did Thor show good H2H skills?

The only time we can say he displayed pure skill absent of his powers is when he was de-powered in the first movie. There he fought a few Shield agents. Sure he was strong for a human, but his skill was not at all impressive.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
There is no noob tier. Everyone here is skilled. Thor has shown better h2h than hawkeye and Batman should be on the very bottom. He didn't do shit

Like most people, you are probably are not discounting super speed and strength that the other characters benefit from.

If you have extra speed combined with skill, of course you are going to appear more skilled than someone who doesn't.

Ask yourself if you were to take away all their powers, with all stats equalized with the weakest character here, who would win?

Another argument to think about - put de-powered Thor in the abandoned warehouse Batman was in. Does he clear it as easily as Batman does? I will even change the scenario to all thugs being unarmed.

Cap
BP
WS
BW
DP
WW
LS
HE
Bats
AM
Thor

This would depend entirely on how you judge their skill. If you're basing it on how fancy their moves are then it would be:

Deadpool - 7
Captain America - 9
Winter Soldier (Hydra Mode) - 6
Black Panther - 10
Black Widow - 8
Hawkeye - 5
Lady Sif - 5
Batman - 7
Wonder Woman - 7
Aquaman - 5
Thor - 5

However if we were to judge it based on the quality of opponents they have fought and defeated (which is how modern fighters are ranked) then it would be:

Deadpool - 7
Captain America - 10
Winter Soldier (Hydra Mode) - 7
Black Panther - 8
Black Widow - 7
Hawkeye - 6
Lady Sif - 6
Batman - 5
Wonder Woman - 6
Aquaman - 7
Thor - 9

Originally posted by Kovert Potato
Like most people, you are probably are not discounting super speed and strength that the other characters benefit from.

If you have extra speed combined with skill, of course you are going to appear more skilled than someone who doesn't.

Ask yourself if you were to take away all their powers, with all stats equalized with the weakest character here, who would win?

Another argument to think about - put de-powered Thor in the abandoned warehouse Batman was in. Does he clear it as easily as Batman does? I will even change the scenario to all thugs being unarmed.

If you gave him the same bulletproof suit that Batman had? Yeah, he clears just as easily if not better based on how he took out the SHIELD agents.

Batman
WW
Am
DP
Thor
Lady Sif
Hawkeye
WS
BP
Cap

Hulk

Originally posted by FrothByte
This would depend entirely on how you judge their skill. If you're basing it on how fancy their moves are then it would be:

Deadpool - 7
Captain America - 9
Winter Soldier (Hydra Mode) - 6
Black Panther - 10
Black Widow - 8
Hawkeye - 5
Lady Sif - 5
Batman - 7
Wonder Woman - 7
Aquaman - 5
Thor - 5

However if we were to judge it based on the quality of opponents they have fought and defeated (which is how modern fighters are ranked) then it would be:

Deadpool - 7
Captain America - 10
Winter Soldier (Hydra Mode) - 7
Black Panther - 8
Black Widow - 7
Hawkeye - 6
Lady Sif - 6
Batman - 5
Wonder Woman - 6
Aquaman - 7
Thor - 9

Originally posted by FrothByte
If you gave him the same bulletproof suit that Batman had? Yeah, he clears just as easily if not better based on how he took out the SHIELD agents.
QFT and upvote.

Originally posted by FrothByte
If you gave him the same bulletproof suit that Batman had? Yeah, he clears just as easily if not better based on how he took out the SHIELD agents.

I give him everything Batman had. There is no proof his suit is completely bulletproof, only his cowl. He got stabbed, which shows it is not impregnable, and secondly he tries to avoid getting shot the whole fight.

The fact you think that de-powered Thor displayed more skill than Batman is laughable.

For anyone not familiar:

q0cST5yQAnk

m7GWGLkPepU

1. Thor is fighting the agents one at a time. At one point, Batman fights four simultaneously.

2. SHIELD agents aren't trying to kill Thor.

3. SHIELD agents (with exception of last one) show NO fighting prowess, and NO resistance. You could replace them with any random untrained civilian, and the fight would have went the same.

4. Thor only has to be aware of two directions - in front and behind him. Batman engages a room with at least 12 thugs, and must be aware of the entire room.

5. Batman displays far more martial arts techniques with greater dexterity, speed, precision and efficiency. Thor relies on his strength and a brawler style.

All of these factors demonstrate the MASSIVE difference in skill displayed. Anyone watching both scenes, and concluding Thor showed more skill, I can only assume is being disingenuous and biased.

Only they're not untrained civilians, the movie specifically states that they're some of the best trained people in the world.

Originally posted by Kovert Potato
I give him everything Batman had. There is no proof his suit is completely bulletproof, only his cowl. He got stabbed, which shows it is not impregnable, and secondly he tries to avoid getting shot the whole fight.

The fact you think that de-powered Thor displayed more skill than Batman is laughable.

For anyone not familiar:

q0cST5yQAnk

m7GWGLkPepU

1. Thor is fighting the agents one at a time. At one point, Batman fights four simultaneously.

2. SHIELD agents aren't trying to kill Thor.

3. SHIELD agents (with exception of last one) show NO fighting prowess, and NO resistance. You could replace them with any random untrained civilian, and the fight would have went the same.

4. Thor only has to be aware of two directions - in front and behind him. Batman engages a room with at least 12 thugs, and must be aware of the entire room.

5. Batman displays far more martial arts techniques with greater dexterity, speed, precision and efficiency. Thor relies on his strength and a brawler style.

All of these factors demonstrate the MASSIVE difference in skill displayed. Anyone watching both scenes, and concluding Thor showed more skill, I can only assume is being disingenuous and biased.

Batman beat up a bunch of hired thugs. Thor beat up some of the most highly trained people in the world (according to Coulson anyway).

Thor also fought against legit skilled fighters like Loki and Hela, and fought above his weightclass against opponents like Hulk and Surtur.

Who has Batman fought outside of random thugs?

If your basis for better fighting ability is that Batman performed fancier moves, then you have a very shallow understanding of what fighting skill means.

Well, Thor with his powers has inhuman agility. I think that should be taken into consideration when discussing skill.
I mean, its easy to pull off yoga moves when you're already super flexible,

Originally posted by Silent Master
Only they're not untrained civilians, the movie specifically states that they're some of the best trained people in the world.

Is this supposed to refute anything (or everything) I said? Where did I say they were untrained civilians?

If you want to debate, then debate. Don't do lazy drive-by, low effort one-liners.

AFTER you address my first question above, in context of your exact reply (because I'm going to keep quoting it):

1. On-screen feats takes precedence over statements. The only way to overturn this is by getting a mod to change the rules.

2. Clearly not all SHIELD agents are the same. The ones Thor fought were not Maria Hill, Hawkeye, or Black Widow. There is a wide range in skill, which means the statements indicates nothing useful.

On-screen feats takes precedence over statements.

3. Every agency/org claims they have the best trained people in the world. Even your local police department.

On-screen feats takes precedence over statements.

4. "Best trained people" in the world is supposed to indicate what exactly? Best trained in unarmed combat? Is that specifically mentioned? I see no indication that they are. Coulson is a highly trained agent. Is he also among the best H2H fighters in the world?

On-screen feats takes precedence over statements.

5. "Best trained" means they received high level training, or that they actually achieved the highest level of skill in the world? If the former, anyone can receive training - it doesn't mean anything. If the latter, then are we to believe the agents Thor fought are on the level of a Winter Soldier? Maybe "SHIELD agents" should be at the top of the list for this thread?

On-screen feats takes precedence over statements.

6. Since when did claiming anyone is highly skilled only required statements as credible proof in this forum? Even ignoring the visual on-screen evidence we can see with our very eyes? Are you sure you can be consistent by engaging in this underhanded level of debate? Do you realize it can be easily used against you too?

Originally posted by FrothByte

Thor also fought against legit skilled fighters like Loki and Hela, and fought above his weightclass against opponents like Hulk and Surtur.


This is the only reasonable argument you've presented so far, which I was waiting for once we got the warehouse one out of the way.

However, I'm not going to engage further because you predictably ignored all the points you couldn't answer and it'll just repeat even if I did respond.

I like debates that are in good faith. Just arguing or "winning" on the internet, however, is a waste of time.

Originally posted by Kovert Potato
This is the only reasonable argument you've presented so far, which I was waiting for once we got the warehouse one out of the way.

However, I'm not going to engage further because you predictably ignored all the points you couldn't answer and it'll just repeat even if I did respond.

I like debates that are in good faith. Just arguing or "winning" on the internet, however, is a waste of time.

If you're going to throw a fit everytime someone debates your points, then vs. forums are probably not for you.

Fact is, every single field SHIELD agent we've seen is a skilled fighter. Even when Daisy Johnson was only a partially trained agent she was already taking down groups of random thugs. And we know enough about Coulson to know that he won't surround himself with incompetent people. That Thor can take them out as easily as he did is proof of his skill.

Bottom line is, every combatant in this thread is more than skilled enough to clear out random fodder. Batman demolishing random thugs is about as impressive as Thor demolishing random frost giants. But unlike Batman, Thor actually has feats more impressive than taking out fodder.

So like you said, feats matter. And as far as feats go, Batman has the least impressive feats of this lot.

Yes and according to on screen feats and statements Thor is far more skilled than you are giving him credit for.

Originally posted by FrothByte
If you're going to throw a fit everytime someone debates your points, then vs. forums are probably not for you.


No fits thrown at you. I was annoyed by Silent Master because he responded to a reasoned argument with one line as if it refuted anything, and which by the way, wasn't even correct.

I charged you exactly with ignoring my points, not debating them.

I'm not sure if you can't grasp the logic of this or that you don't know what a debate is.

You keep presenting your arguments without addressing your opponents. How do you think a conclusion will ever be reached? It won't. You'll be saying the exact same things you said at the start at the end. It's a waste of your time too, I'm saving both of us from the pointless exercise.

I responded to you down playing the Shield agents, if you can't handle being corrected. Stop being wrong

Originally posted by Silent Master
I responded to you down playing the Shield agents, if you can't handle being corrected. Stop being wrong

You responded in one sentence, essentially by saying "no, SHIELD Agents are skilled".

Simply responding doesn't mean anything has been addressed.

You didn't address any of my points. To do so would require you to quote each argument I conveniently numbered for you, and respond to each in a relevant way that shows the flaw in my argument.

You replied with one line. There is no way that the 7 questions/points I raised were answered.

Can you imagine doing this in a live debate or in a court of law? Your opponent spends some time presenting various different line of arguments, and when its your turn to respond, you say one sentence, and in your mind, you've addressed everything and made a good showing for yourself. Your opponent (me) could be wrong, but don't pretend like you proved it. That's why this isn't a debate. Is it that hard to see?

It reminds me of politics in recent times.

One sentence was all that was required to prove you wrong

Originally posted by Kovert Potato
No fits thrown at you. I was annoyed by Silent Master because he responded to a reasoned argument with one line as if it refuted anything, and which by the way, wasn't even correct.

I charged you exactly with ignoring my points, not debating them.

I'm not sure if you can't grasp the logic of this or that you don't know what a debate is.

You keep presenting your arguments without addressing your opponents. How do you think a conclusion will ever be reached? It won't. You'll be saying the exact same things you said at the start at the end. It's a waste of your time too, I'm saving both of us from the pointless exercise.

I did not neglect your points, I simply gave a bigger argument that made your points moot. There's no point in me addressing your nitpicks when you keep failing to grasp the bigger point I'm making which is:

Batman defeated a bunch of random fodder. Thor has done the same thing as well as the other characters in this fight. The main difference is that the others have better feats than just this and Thor in particular has far better feats than just beating fodder unlike Batman.

So please stop complaining about people not addressing your points because your points are completely outweighed by the greater argument which is: Batman has less impressive feats than Thor.

Also, here's a clip that shows Thor is not simply a brawler as you stated:

https://youtu.be/bmKYj-9J8SA

Bruce defeated featless thugs hes at the bottom of the list

Originally posted by Kovert Potato
Like most people, you are probably are not discounting super speed and strength that the other characters benefit from.

If you have extra speed combined with skill, of course you are going to appear more skilled than someone who doesn't.

Ask yourself if you were to take away all their powers, with all stats equalized with the weakest character here, who would win?

Another argument to think about - put de-powered Thor in the abandoned warehouse Batman was in. Does he clear it as easily as Batman does? I will even change the scenario to all thugs being unarmed.


His fight with Hulk showed skill, his fight with the three asgardians showed better skill than anything Batman did. Also, his opponents are far and away better and more powerful than many on here faced