Iron Fist vs. Sabretooth

"Maybe re-read this thread and see whether it this myth has nothing to do with Wolverine:"

Maybe I don't need to re-read another thread. Maybe make your position make sense *here* since here is where you brought it up. Wolverine has nothing to do with the microscope of this discussion. Sabretooth's powerset and when it was and wasn't demonstrated can be discussed without also discussing his mythos in connection to Wolvie... Argue otherwise.

"No yeah, makes sense for someone with no healing factor to fight Misty Knight, Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel toe-to-toe, etc."

Because you say so? No. Plenty of characters without healing factors fight these characters. Sabretooth was fighting and often losing, and being dropped by relatively little in a number of circumstances... He didn't have a healing factor *established* til 86, and he *did* have instances that demonstrated he didn't have one... It isn't really up for debate. We know what happened in the weeks between Spectacular Spidey 116 and 119... Sabretooth didin't heal sh**... So again... What. Are. You. Talking. About? You tell us where you saw Sabretooth with a healing factor before Nov 86.

"You're smart enough to know that beginning your argument by assuming your conclusion is no way to constructively discuss this. That's not even Wolverithmetics. That's just you twisting the narrative."

You're smart enough to know that Sabretooth couldn't be properly defined through his first six appearances and yet made that proposal anyway. Noting the absurdity of that notion isn't twisting a narrative, insisting on said notion to begin with might be. You don't have to assume as much about Sabretooth after having 40 more years of context to draw from as you do attempting to gauge him from the first 6 comics he appeared in. Argue otherwise.

"Bruh, how do you ignore that the Ms. Marvel fight was originally plotted/drawn and supposed to be published as Ms. Marvel #24 in 1979 if it weren't for cancellation?"

No one is ignoring that. Nor are we going to ignore that it *was* in fact cancelled. You want to discuss "subsequent" matters in concerns to the character but the character never demonstrating that particular feat until 92, so instead of being someone who had that fight and *then* went on to get decimated by Black Cat he's someone who got decimated by Felicia *and then* went on to have that fight published. You don't think seeing that fight may have effected how writers "subsequently" viewed the character? I also gave you a direct reference to how the Marvel editorial staff decided to publish Sabretooth's specific chronology in that era with "Sabretooth Classics" and the fight isn't included until the 12th issue. Conversely, how are you ignoring that?

In any case none of this matters anymore as it's now been brought to my intention that the headcanon I mentioned earlier wasn't headcanon after all and that Chris Claremont and Byrne's take on the Sabretooth mythos was going to be that every incarnation of him leading up to "Wolverine" 10 and then his introduction of the Jim Lee costume was a clone anyways, thereby explaining how he'd been so easily defeated in the past. Which Claremont then expanded on in X-Men Forever... So yeah, we can *easily* ignore his low showings in this era and have good reason to do it if we're going by creative intent as you invoke it with Ms. Marvel... Or... Are we going to not do that now because it works against your "narrative"? Enjoy the pickle. : )

Btw Smurph, your contributions to the thread have been hilarious. I see you bud.

Originally posted by jinzin
Maybe I don't need to re-read another thread. Maybe make your position make sense *here* since here is where you brought it up. Wolverine has nothing to do with the microscope of this discussion. Sabretooth's powerset and it was and wasn't demonstrated can be discussed without also discussing his mythos in connection to Wolvie... Argue otherwise.

Originally posted by jinzin
Because you say so?

Originally posted by jinzin
You're smart enough to know that Sabretooth couldn't be properly defined through his first six appearances and yet made that proposal anyway.

Originally posted by jinzin
No one is ignoring that.

Originally posted by jinzin
In any case none of this matters anymore as it's now been brought to my intention that the headcanon I mentioned earlier wasn't headcanon afterall and that Chris Claremont and Byrne's take on the Sabretooth mythos was going to be that every incarnation of him leading up to "Wolverine" 10 and then his introduction of the Jim Lee costume was a clone anyways, thereby explaining how he'd been so easily defeated in the past. Which Claremont then expanded on in X-Men Forever... So yeah, we can *easily* ignore his low showings in this era and have good reason to do it if we're going by creative intent as you invoke it with Ms. Marvel... Or... Are we going to not do that now because it works against your "narrative"? Enjoy the pickle. : )

You really trying to hold Claremont's head-canon theory that never made it to the comic page against me while simultaneously dismissing Claremont's 1979-plotted, actually published, canon, on-panel plot where he fought Ms. Marvel toe-to-toe???

Friggin Wolverithmetics, mang.

Originally posted by jinzin
Btw Smurph, your contributions to the thread have been hilarious. I see you bud.

Originally posted by ODG
By that same token, maybe I don't need to repeat the same arguments that have been amply discussed in a separate thread with the same exact characters???

Originally posted by ODG
Are you really going to pretend that the same exact thread that hasn't yet been merged with this one that contained the same exact discussion, should be regurgitated?

Strawman.
... You were asked what Wolverine has to do with my initial post; You have yet to answer that question beyond arbitrarily pointing in some other direction.

Originally posted by ODG
Or should I be flippant and insinuate that srankmissingin's ample contributions to that thread are not reflective of your own opinions?

My initial post contained no opinions... Comprehension ftw...
Now, what does Wolverine have to do with said post?.... Explain.

Originally posted by ODG
I'm not the one trying to dismiss Sabretooth's canon from being probative evidence.

Originally posted by ODG
Don't try to flip the burden of proof. Canonicity is on my side, not your's. Don't get it twisted..

Originally posted by ODG
Once again. I'm not the one trying to dismiss his canon appearances.

Originally posted by ODG
You are.

Wrong. I haven't dismissed canon appearances at all, in fact, I referenced them directly in my initial post... Cite differently.

Originally posted by ODG
And I've already cited to his subsequent appearances that lend credence to that original fight/performance.

Originally posted by ODG
You literally did try to ignore that.

Originally posted by ODG
Same author and artist from the original Ms. Marvel 70s run. That comic was plotted/drawn back in 1979

Originally posted by ODG
So stop acting like Sabretooth was never portrayed "way back then"

Originally posted by ODG
as he subsequently was shown to be.

Originally posted by ODG
It being published later doesn't eliminate its impact on your inane notion that Sabretooth was never portrayed that way back then. He was.

Originally posted by ODG
Literally, in what was his second appearance by his own creator he was portrayed that way.

It "literally" isn't his second appearance. It's in the mid 30's of his appearances "literally." If you're flip flopping back to what it was "intended" to be, well, Claremont also "intended" for that Sabretooth to be a 2nd rate clone anyhow (remember how the government needed to teach him all the phases of unarmed combat?)... Your rhetoric is hypocritical. Simple as that.

Originally posted by ODG
It completely deconstructs your notion that he was never intended to be portrayed in a way that he was subsequently shown to be.

Originally posted by ODG
N1gga, Tony Stark was originally intended and canonically portrayed to be Howard Stark's biological son. He isn't anymore. That's published, canon and on-panel. End of story. So how does an unpublished, non-canonical, head-canon portrayal lend any credence to your hairbrained theory?

There is no theory. Sabretooth didn't have a healing factor mentioned until 1986; He did have numerous incidents demonstrating the absence of one up til then. You can keep crying but either demonstrate where Sabretooth was shown to heal something between 77 and Nov 86 or sit down. Claremont's/Byrne's intention with Sabretooth hovers over nearly his entire career between 86- and mid 91. Sabretooth was portrayed weak on purpose because it was supposed to be a set-up for the o.g. Sabretooth to show up as a real big bad.
"In the case of Sabretooth, you had a Xerox of a Xerox. That’s why the Sabretooth that has always appeared working for Sinister has been so flawed and so easily beaten. We’ve never seen the real thing." - Chris Claremont Wizard Magazine Wolverine Tribute 1996

All of the sudden, when the creator's intent doesn't align with your personal world view, you now want to dismiss that intent as irrelevant because you see what it does to the value of your citations but it doesn't work that way.

Either Claremont's intent matters to you or it doesn't. Pick one, I don't care which. Either way, "Iron Fist" #14 falls under a more critical microscope than something that can be taken at face value vs. a discussion involving a blatantly superhuman, 100 year old, fighting skill level 6 Sabretooth with a healing factor, which he clearly wasn't in his first 6 appearances. (And this is all ignoring the upgrades that the character would later come to have).

Originally posted by ODG
You really trying to hold Claremont's head-canon theory that never made it to the comic page against me while simultaneously dismissing Claremont's 1979-plotted, actually published, canon, on-panel plot where he fought Ms. Marvel toe-to-toe???

And, his 79-plotted canon, on-panel plot where he fought Ms. Marvel toe-to-toe certainly *does count* for something.... It just doesn't count for anything that got printed before 86... Because it wasn't... And/Or, it counts as much as any retcon-like material that has to be put to consideration as your Iron Man example just demonstrated. No one is dismissing that it happened at all, but it didn't actually happen until 92. And you don't really get to go citing the writer's intent on the matter as proof while at the same time ignoring the writer's intent on the matter none-proof, while making any sense.
The book wasn't published til 1992, regardless of how much protesting you want to do about it.
Btw, do you think Sabretooth clearly "healed" something in the Ms. Marvel confrontation? Or are you arguing for the vague suggestions of the narrative?

Originally posted by ODG
Friggin Wolverithmetics, mang.

Nope. Just your " hate boner" that Stilt properly called out the second he saw what you were doing making a mess of things and bringing Logan into a discussion he wasn't involved in until you brought him up.

Originally posted by jinzin
You don't need to repeat anything, and you weren't asked to...
"What does this have to do with Wolverine?" was the question you were asked and refused to answer, twice; This question is never broached in that thread and you have yet to answer that question here.

Strawman.
... You were asked what Wolverine has to do with my initial post; You have yet to answer that question beyond arbitrarily pointing in some other direction.

My initial post contained no opinions... Comprehension ftw...
Now, what does Wolverine have to do with said post?.... Explain.

Are you not? That's great... So when Sabretooth's chronological canon starts lending itself to a character with abilities not previously established, demonstrated or mentioned, and, starts demonstrating feats greatly outstripping previous limitations *after* those abilities were established, demonstrated and mentioned, then that ought to weigh in on the likelihood of the probabilities at play no?
That said, you *were* also asked what the value of said "probative evidence" was (See? Not dismissed.)...

Nothing's twisted... You offered: "No yeah, makes sense for someone with no healing factor to fight Misty Knight, Luke Cage, Ms. Marvel toe-to-toe, etc", but... The "proof" contradicts your dismissive position as Sabretooth could not heal shallow cuts between the weeks spanning from Spectacular "Spider-Man" #116" to "Spectacular Spider-Man" #119. The proof *also* demonstrates that internal bleeding from broken ribs was enough to cause this era of Sabretooth to be unable to properly stand and prompted him to go out seeking medical attention from a doctor in "Power Man and Iron Fist" #78 with his next appearance in "Power Man and Iron Fist" #84 stating that he was in "pain and suffering" for "months" indicating the absence of a healing factor (at all) in the same comic where he fought Luke Cage that you cited while thinking it somehow supported your take.
So, you do need to support your position with proof, somehow refuting this evidence of absence or strict limitation and offer where you think/observe Sabretooth in those early appearances looked like he *had* a healing factor worth talking about.
And...
Canonicity? Like when Iron Fist hurt himself hitting Sabretooth and Sabretooth laughed and/or when Iron Fist's "Iron Fist" didn't put Sabretooth away, *after* Sabretooth started being written with a healing factor? Like that kind of canonicity? Or only the kind you're comfortable with?

No, only his chronological character portrayal but go on...
And, nor am I, no matter how indignant you become about the matter. *shrug*

Wrong. I haven't dismissed canon appearances at all, in fact, I referenced them directly in my initial post... Cite differently.

You cited some appearances sure, where you were and remain, wrong...
Half of those citations were after Sabretooth was written as having a healing factor, demonstrating you lack a grasp on the point of referencing said healing factor... The other half of which take place before the healing factor is ever even mentioned with all but two of them demonstrating significant limitations specific to a lack of healing factor that haven't been seen since, which isn't in line "to his subsequent appearances" nor do they lend credence to your take as both references to Misty and Luke Cage included context that actively refutes you, demonstrating the sheer absence of a healing factor.

Wrong.

What does the artist have to do with anything?
This is getting good... So, *now* Chris Claremont's *intentions* with his plotting are supposed to somehow magically count before they were printed, but alternatively, his intentions with the character of Sabretooth that he co-created, featured in that same plotting, don't matter inside the books of his that *did* get printed? O O Yikes. Pretty hypocritical to say the least.

I don't have to act like anything. He factually wasn't portrayed that way at that point in anything that was published. The book you are citing factually wasn't published until 1992, and after Ms. Marvel's cancellation, Claremont didn't touch Sabretooth again until "Uncanny X-Men" #212 in December of 86, a month after his artistic collaborator and editor Louise Simonson established the healing factor in print in "X-Factor" #10...
As of 1987, Sabretooth had never fought Ms. Marvel before that. It wasn't printed until 1992.
Are you saying Sabretooth *was* portrayed that way at the time because that book almost existed despite the fact that it was never released (until 1992)??? Because that sounds insane. O O

No. He was "subsequently/shown to be" a character with a healing factor. His appearances leading up to that point don't support that he had one; 4 of the 6 of them demonstrate he didn't. How admirably you feel he performed without one established and present is irrelevant.
Besides that... Show one feat that is analogous to the unprinted Ms. Marvel fight before 86. You can't. The same way you can't assume that an unpublished book had any relevance to writers not named Chris Claremont or Simonson between 77 and 86, it didn't. (We don't even know if that book had relevance to them afterwards, all the way up to 1992 as it was never mentioned or referenced directly or indirectly)...

My "inane notion that Sabretooth was never portrayed that way back then"? Um no.. You're attacking a strawman again; Gaslighting.
This isn't an argument I'm making here.
Sabretooth was never portrayed with a healing factor until Nov of 1986.
The book you're talking about *not being published* significantly impacts how the character was and *wasn't* portrayed at that time tho. It wasn't published, so he wasn't portrayed "that way" (whatever you think "that way" happens to be) until it *was* published... In 1992... You done trolling yet?

It "literally" isn't his second appearance. It's in the mid 30's of his appearances "literally." If you're flip flopping back to what it was "intended" to be, well, Claremont also "intended" for that Sabretooth to be a 2nd rate clone anyhow (remember how the government needed to teach him all the phases of unarmed combat?)... Your rhetoric is hypocritical. Simple as that.

I never said this...
It might, if that was my argument and if that particular book was published before the 80's...
Again you attack a strawman.
I've never once stated Sabretooth was never "intended" to be portrayed one way or another; Cite differently. (This doesn't even make sense. Now you're just tossing word salad against the wall and hoping something sticks.)
Nothing here rests on my personal "notions" as you put them. Sabretooth had 6 appearances before demonstrating he had a healing factor, but an unprinted Ms. Marvel book wasn't one of them. However, Chris Claremont factually "intended" Sabretooth to be portrayed differently than the way he was "subsequently shown to be" up til the Jim Lee costume anyhow which seemingly "completely deconstructs" whatever issue you are presently taking, trying to invoke Claremont's intentions with the Sabretooth character while also somehow ignoring Claremont's intentions with the Sabretooth character. Amazing gymnastics at display here.

Originally posted by jinzin
There is no theory. Sabretooth didn't have a healing factor mentioned until 1986; He did have numerous incidents demonstrating the absence of one up til then. You can keep crying but either demonstrate where Sabretooth was shown to heal something between 77 and Nov 86 or sit down. Claremont's/Byrne's intention with Sabretooth hovers over nearly his entire career between 86- and mid 91. Sabretooth was portrayed weak on purpose because it was supposed to be a set-up for the o.g. Sabretooth to show up as a real big bad.
"In the case of Sabretooth, you had a Xerox of a Xerox. That’s why the Sabretooth that has always appeared working for Sinister has been so flawed and so easily beaten. We’ve never seen the real thing." - Chris Claremont Wizard Magazine Wolverine Tribute 1996

All of the sudden, when the creator's intent doesn't align with your personal world view, you now want to dismiss that intent as irrelevant because you see what it does to the value of your citations but it doesn't work that way.

Either Claremont's intent matters to you or it doesn't. Pick one, I don't care which. Either way, "Iron Fist" #14 falls under a more critical microscope than something that can be taken at face value vs. a discussion involving a blatantly superhuman, 100 year old, fighting skill level 6 Sabretooth with a healing factor, which he clearly wasn't in his first 6 appearances. (And this is all ignoring the upgrades that the character would later come to have).

The only one blatantly dismissing anything here? Is you.
Claremont's intention with the character he co-created whilst being the leading driving creative force of the X-Men and Sabretooth related material, working with his editor Louise Simonson up til 91 =/= Head-canon theory... (Are you serious?)

And, his 79-plotted canon, on-panel plot where he fought Ms. Marvel toe-to-toe certainly *does count* for something.... It just doesn't count for anything that got printed before 86... Because it wasn't... And/Or, it counts as much as any retcon-like material that has to be put to consideration as your Iron Man example just demonstrated. No one is dismissing that it happened at all, but it didn't actually happen until 92. And you don't really get to go citing the writer's intent on the matter as proof while at the same time ignoring the writer's intent on the matter none-proof, while making any sense.
The book wasn't published til 1992, regardless of how much protesting you want to do about it.
Btw, do you think Sabretooth clearly "healed" something in the Ms. Marvel confrontation? Or are you arguing for the vague suggestions of the narrative?

Nope. Just your " hate boner" that Stilt properly called out the second he saw what you were doing making a mess of things and bringing Logan into a discussion he wasn't involved in until you brought him up.

The wall-of-text thing is only fun when you do it, eh? 🙂

^ N1gga, please. Ain’t nobody got time to read all dat sh1t.

Right...
- You still have not explained what Wolverine has to do with this thread.
- Sabretooth's first 6 appearances are not an analogue for the rest of his career in part because roughly 67% of them featured a Sabretooth who got damaged and was without the ability to heal (i.e. extreme limitation that hasn't been seen since/"subsequently"😉. If you think differently, then show where he healed something.
- The Ms. Marvel fight was printed in 92, so that fight had no impact on comics printed between 77-86 at least; And, it's not clear where you think Sabretooth obviously healed something there anyway.
- If you think Claremont's intention with the Ms. Marvel comic is more important than the fact that the book was cancelled and not printed in 79, then you must also accept Claremont's intention with Sabretooth as he was writing the books that got printed, or, you're invoking a clear double standard citing writer's intent.

Originally posted by ODG
^ N1gga, please. Ain’t nobody got time to read all dat sh1t.

Oh, really now?

How come you always find the time for quoting yourself, then?

Autoerotic practice, I guess?

Originally posted by ODG
Bruh, how do you ignore that the Ms. Marvel fight was originally plotted/drawn and supposed to be published as Ms. Marvel #24 in 1979 if it weren't for cancellation?

Did you work on that book?

How do you know there were no changes made?

Just because you made no progress in seven years, doesn't mean everything else in the world works in the same manner.

Originally posted by jinzin
Right...
- You still have not explained what Wolverine has to do with this thread.
- Sabretooth's first 6 appearances are not an analogue for the rest of his career in part because roughly 67% of them featured a Sabretooth who got damaged and was without the ability to heal (i.e. extreme limitation that hasn't been seen since/"subsequently"😉. If you think differently, then show where he healed something.

Straw-man. But not your fault because you haven't closely read this particular thread and I am to blame for referencing past discussions. But if you bear down on this thread, I am arguing against dismissing Creed's first fight against Danny as if it had no probative value. That first fight does have probative value.

Originally posted by jinzin
- The Ms. Marvel fight was printed in 92, so that fight had no impact on comics printed between 77-86 at least; And, it's not clear where you think Sabretooth obviously healed something there anyway.
- If you think Claremont's intention with the Ms. Marvel comic is more important than the fact that the book was cancelled and not printed in 79, then you must also accept Claremont's intention with Sabretooth as he was writing the books that got printed, or, you're invoking a clear double standard citing writer's intent.

I cite a 1979-plotted, Earth-616 canon, chronologically immediate on-panel fight as applying to Sabretooth's early portrayal. You cite a 2009-plotted, Earth-161 head-canon, chronologically years later plot as applying to Sabretooth's early portrayal. But my standard is the one to be mocked? Bruh, Wolverithmetics.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Oh, really now?

How come you always find the time for quoting yourself, then?

Autoerotic practice, I guess?

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Did you work on that book?

How do you know there were no changes made?

Just because you made no progress in seven years, doesn't mean everything else in the world works in the same manner.

Common sense.

Random non-sequitur is random.

Originally posted by jinzin
"In the case of Sabretooth, you had a Xerox of a Xerox. That’s why the Sabretooth that has always appeared working for Sinister has been so flawed and so easily beaten. We’ve never seen the real thing." - Chris Claremont Wizard Magazine Wolverine Tribute 1996

I'm surprised it hasn't been made official, considering all the wacky retcons the X-books have gotten lately...

And would be interesting considering the constant clones that the Five are doing.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I'm surprised it hasn't been made official, considering all the wacky retcons the X-books have gotten lately...

Writer interviews are disgusting; Stilt knows my hatred of them.

I don't have to deny or agree with some childishly dismissive name-calling label you have yet to support or prove... You've been asked plenty of times to explain what Wolverine has to do with this thread, and you've either ignored that, or failed.

Strawman? No. You are the one responding to my post where it's literally the point of the reference. lol Thank you for showing us how lost you are here...
And, you've been asked what that value happens to be, you have yet to answer.

"That fight was plotted/drawn in 1979. It's also canon."
*And then not published* until 92...
There's a Justice League vs Avengers comic drawn and plotted, so what? It doesn't mean anything canon or non canon until it's published by the companies. "Ms. Marvel" #24 wasn't published until 92, simple as that. No amount of whining you do about the situation is going to change that fact.
No one is arguing whether it's canon, it's clearly canon, but it is *also* however, effectively a form of retcon as it never existed in Marvel printings until 1992.

"No healing in that fight? How else does Sabretooth survive third-rail electrocution, wake up from being smacked by an I-beam and Carol mentions that "he seems as fresh as ever."?"

Enhanced durability and stamina could be an answer that doesn't necessitate a healing factor. Luke Cage easily recovered after getting blasted by El Aguila twice around the same time frame with no healing factor, even in spite the fact that he was vulnerable to electrocution. Plenty of characters without healing factors recover from flash k.os and tkos, s*** people do that in real life too... I agree that those panels are very suggestive of Creed having a healing factor, but, you were asked to show where Sabretooth "obviously healed something." You haven't so far. You *are* however arguing for the "vague suggestions of the narrative" like I said... So either way, great. And, *still* no solid proof of Sabretooth having a healing factor until Nov 86.

"I cite a 1979-plotted, Earth-616 canon, chronologically immediate on-panel fight as applying to Sabretooth's early portrayal."

You cite a book published in 1992 as it it *was* published in 1979 even though it wasn't, demonstrating you have a flimsy grasp on how reality works.

It retroactively does apply to Sabretooth *after* it was printed, in 92, not before.
"Chronologically immediate." Lmao.
And what you mean is "almost chronologically immediately printed", which it wasn't.
You can keep referencing that fight all you like, it has no barring on how Sabretooth was chronologically *printed in that time period*, simple as that.
You can't prove Jo Duffy or Peter David had *any* idea about the direction Claremont meant to take with the character, or had any intention to mirror those ideas, and the direction Claremont meant to take is also something you are actively arguing against. Like I said before, enjoy the pickle.
Meanwhile, I *can* prove that Sabretooth had a noticeable absence of healing factor/limitation in 4 of the next 5 books he appeared in before that Ms. Marvel book was ever printed up til he was finally mentioned as having one in "X-Factor" #10.

"You cite a 2009-plotted, Earth-161 head-canon, chronologically years later plot as applying to Sabretooth's early portrayal. But my standard is the one to be mocked? Bruh, Wolverithmetics."

More accurately, I cited the creator/director intent of the character and time period of which both you are attempting to argue about. "X-Men Forever" was only referenced as compounding evidence supporting Claremont's previously documented intentions in that time period on top of two other direct quotes from said the creator/director, since, y'know, you are attempting to use Claremont's unpublished intentions as proof while ignoring those same intentions as non proof. Hypocrite.

"Ms. Marvel" #24 only works in a retroactive way, nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't printed until 92 point blank; Whatever your take on the matter beyond that is inconsequential and you *still* have not explained what Wolverine has to do with this thread but didn't bat an eyelid at the accusation of your "Wolverine hate boner." Gee, wonder why.