Allowing Mjolnir means that if it clashes with Conan's sword or Conan himself, Conan is done, son. That said, Mjolnir has like, zero reach compared to Conan's blade, so Conan might still win.
H2H, well, idk. I get the feeling Conan is a lot stronger, but I'm not sure by how much.
Mjolnir doesn't retain any of it's enchantments in this match. It's just a mallet for the purpose of this fight. I chose it, because I assume Thor has the most experience with it.
Well Conan is bigger... but from what I remember, he seemed slow and lumbering and I don't recall him displaying any real h2h skill.
Thor definitely wins h2h.
Weapons match is harder to call due to the sword having a bigger reach and is technically a far better combat weapon. I'd say 2nd match is 50/50, Thor winning half the fights due to skill and Conan winning the other half simply due to weapons advantage.
Now if it was Momoa's Conan, then he wins both matches.
If Mjolnir is just a stone mallet with a short handle then he loses. Hard.
Trying to block Conan's sword with it is equally as likely to end up maiming his hand or wrist, and harming Conan is going to be exremely difficult, both because he has to step far into Conan's reach to do it, and because Mjolnir is frankly ass as a weapon with no enchantment. It's surface is entirely flat, and the short handle means you have no leverage, so his blows will be relatively weak.
I'd give him a different weapon, but that's all he used in the film. Still, warhammers and maces were efficient weapons during the Middle ages while swords were sidearms. But that's partly because of armor.
I don't know if Thor is a better fighter than Conan. He spent quite a lot of time as an undefeated gladiator after all.
Well we can either base this off their records: In which Conan was an undefeated gladiator and Thor has been relatively undefeated in his centuries of war...
Or we can base this on what they have shown in their movies, in which Conan does move slowly and who's sword fighting style is basically hack and slash. Thor on the other hand has shown quite a bit skill: ducking, dodging, throwing more complex and more technically sound punches and kicks, as well as more technical swings and blocks with his hammer.
Removing Thor's powers doesn't remove his fighting skill nor his speed and agility if I'm not mistaken.
And now that I think about it, if Thor has reflexes fast enough to block laser fire, I don't see why he'd have a problem blocking Conan's sword strikes.
__________________
Last edited by FrothByte on Jan 31st, 2014 at 01:52 AM
No mace or hammer was built like Mjolnir. Give it a longer haft, change the shape of the hammer itself, it could be doable, but Mjolnir as it is is borderline the worst-designed weapon ever.
A real warhammer was about three feet long. Mjolnir is a foot at best.
I don't think Conan moved as slowly as you say. He wasn't fast, but he was no slouch. And he fought with skill, he just didn't suffer the same fate most modern action movies do with their over-choreographed fights (ala Star Wars). I think Conan has the strength edge, he shattered his father's sword with one swing in the first film.
We never saw any indication that Thor lost his speed and reflexes while depowered. We know he lost his strength, durability, and magical powers but if his fight with the SHIELD agents proved anything, he still maintained his speed and skill. I mean, it's not like he moved obviously faster in god mode as compared to when he was a human. The strength and durability difference was very obvious, but there was no discernible change in his skill or reflexes.
And I agree about the choreography. Older movies will always move slower than newer movies because choreography and camera work improved. Still, that doesn't change the fact that Conan moved and fought slower than Thor.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 30th, 2014 11:19 PM
