Spider-Man vs. Firelord - the rematch

I know that when people think of Plot Induced Stupidity, this is the textbook example. It's the legendary, prototypical fight that proves that sometimes...writers just get it completely wrong.

But is it?

Firelord isn't actually the first or only herald-level being Spider-Man has gotten the best of, or who have proven unable to defeat him. Let's look at some other victims:

Gravitron
Titania
Hulk
Magneto
Juggernaut
Silver Surfer
Adam Warlock
The X-Men
The Fantastic Four
Thanos
Eric Masterson Thor
Beta Ray Bill
Loki

So...what is it about Spider-Man? And if a character's power is best measured by his victories...does a victims list like this make Spider-Man one of the most effective heroes in comicdom?

Let's cast a blind eye to this being Spider-Man. Look at the victory list above. Based on that list alone, could this mystery character beat Firelord?

What the?

Juggernaut trapped in cement? So much for the foward moving power of Cyttorak.

The Fantastic Four? You mean where they're all like "hey stop we wanna talk to you" and he's running around them?

The X-men? I hope you're not talking secret wars when they were depowered.

Just he fact that you put these in makes me question the rest. He probably had cosmic powers for a couple more.

Juggernaut was trapped in cement, but he couldn't get out for some reason. Spider-Man still beat him. The FF started fighting him fairly quickly and it didn't make much difference - they lost. The X-men weren't depowered in the Secret Wars - what makes you say that? And he didn't have cosmic powers for any of the fights I listed.

My point is that it appears PIS is a savior to a point - but when you have a list this extensive, isn't there more to it than that? Or is it really just chronic PIS. Could someone with this resume believably beat Firelord?

Juggernaut couldn't move for some reason, I guess Class 100 characters can't match the mighty power of drying cement.

If you really think the FF were fighting, then I suggest you read that book again. Guys take on Celestials but all of a sudden friendly neighborhood Spiderman is too much for them.

X-men not depowered? I guess that's why Nightcrawler just teleported right out of the webbin... oh no wait he didn't. I'm sure there's more examples of crap with that one I can't remember right now.

It's not even PIS in some cases, It's just plain bad. Like the writers have never been to school or something or were totally baked.

To answer you question, sure someone with that resume could beat Firelord, the only problem is that the resume is so questionable.

The fact that Nightcrawler didn't teleport out of the webbing isn't because he was de-powered - he just...didn't. For the same reason why Flash gets hit by boomerangs and Superman gets hit by people who don't move a fraction of his speed. People make tactical errors all the time. The fact remains, it's canon. Ditto with Juggernaut being trapped, or FF suddenly being uncoordinated and amateurish. Or any of the other characters here losing or failing to win in various ways.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing with it, either. People can find ways of explaining away every single one of these fights - "so and so wasn't really trying" "so and so underestimated him" "so and so was de-powered", but when it happens THAT often, with THAT many people...some of the most powerful in comics, tasting defeat against one character, what's going on?

Why didn't Juggernaut do the "flex of power!" like he did when he was dipped into molten steel?
He let it dry and just flexed his muscles and the steel shattered off of him.

But...no, Spiderman can't beat firelord.

Also, add to your list the time when he somehow K.O'd Strange with a pot.

Hey Spiderman vs. Firelord is all good as long as you don't forget to mention that Firelord purposefully let his flames down, got crushed by a building and blown up.

I just wonder what factors went into those other fights.

And what's so hard to beleive about chronic stupidity. Are we forgetting that we're talking about marvel. Maximum Clonage anyone? Hero's Reborn anyone? Onslaugth anyone?

Can Spider-Man beat anyone on this list (we'll add Strange to that...didn't know about that one. What happened? lol)? If he can't...do we then disregard these fights? ALL of them? Based on what? Is that fair?

All I'm saying is tell the whole damn story. Everyone bitches as soon as anyone says Batman beat Superman. Don't forget the kryptonite and the throwing of Lois off a building and all that other stuff and it's all good though. But all of sudden Spidey beating Firelord is all good without any explanation?

Originally posted by MERCILOUS
Hey Spiderman vs. Firelord is all good as long as you don't forget to mention that Firelord purposefully let his flames down, got crushed by a building and blown up.

I just wonder what factors went into those other fights.

And what's so hard to beleive about chronic stupidity. Are we forgetting that we're talking about marvel. Maximum Clonage anyone? Hero's Reborn anyone? Onslaugth anyone?

There may or may not be factors for all of these fights. Factors are frequently in the eye of the reader. Hungry Galactus, anybody? Superman holding back, perhaps? Surfer being a pacifist? What makes, for example, Doom KOing Warlock with one hit a huge part of his god-like legend, but Spider-Man doing the same the subject of scorn and ridicule, especially if Spider-Man has shown a better track record for beating beings on that level than Doom?

Based on circumstance, anyone can beat anyone if all the odds are for them, but in a fight like the ones here, he would lose to everyone on the list.

The Strange fight was bad, he just grabbed a potted plant with his web and knocked Strange over the head with it.
That great an all but, Strange has shields up at all times....writers forget about that.

Don't be foolish. The difference between Doom and Spidey is that Doom creates the factors, while they just come to Spidey.

Originally posted by MERCILOUS
All I'm saying is tell the whole damn story. Everyone bitches as soon as anyone says Batman beat Superman. Don't forget the kryptonite and the throwing of Lois off a building and all that other stuff and it's all good though. But all of sudden Spidey beating Firelord is all good without any explanation?

The story is in the eye of the reader in many ways, isn't it? My time on this board has proven that. I debated with an Apoc fanboy before who saw that Cable vs. Apoc fight as Cable breaking his bones from hitting Apoc and Apoc just standing there until he got bored and punched Cable once and ended the fight. I read the same issue and saw it a totally different way. I saw it as a hard-fought battle with bones breaking on both sides and Apoc, in the end, edging out Cable, who miscalculated the amount of power to put into his final attack. We read the same thing - got two different results out of it. Is there a "whole damn story" that everybody can accept?

Originally posted by long pig
Based on circumstance, anyone can beat anyone if all the odds are for them, but in a fight like the ones here, he would lose to everyone on the list.

The Strange fight was bad, he just grabbed a potted plant with his web and knocked Strange over the head with it.
That great an all but, Strange has shields up at all times....writers forget about that.

What a horrid mistake. It's sad that a victory comes out of it, I'd hardly count it, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by MERCILOUS
Don't be foolish. The difference between Doom and Spidey is that Doom creates the factors, while they just come to Spidey.

What factors? Warlock blasted Doom, had no effect, Doom turned and blasted Warlock. Everybody is an awe. Spider-Man punches Warlock, knocks him clean out and everybody screams "PIS!". No factors created by Doom whatsoever. So what's the difference?

Doom is expected to be capable do such thing, Spiderman isn't.

Originally posted by MERCILOUS
What a horrid mistake. It's sad that a victory comes out of it, I'd hardly count it, it just doesn't make sense to me.

That's a good example. That's not the only time strange has been knocked clean out by something before. Not the only time he's been ambushed, or injured. In fact, in Defenders #1 that just came out this week, he was ambushed while sleeping and choked until he punched his way out. Again, no shields. So which is truly plot device - the fact that he doesn't have his shields up and gets tagged or the fact that he does and doesn't get tagged? How is that determination made?

Originally posted by demigawd
The story is in the eye of the reader in many ways, isn't it? My time on this board has proven that. I debated with an Apoc fanboy before who saw that Cable vs. Apoc fight as Cable breaking his bones from hitting Apoc and Apoc just standing there until he got bored and punched Cable once and ended the fight. I read the same issue and saw it a totally different way. I saw it as a hard-fought battle with bones breaking on both sides and Apoc, in the end, edging out Cable, who miscalculated the amount of power to put into his final attack. We read the same thing - got two different results out of it. Is there a "whole damn story" that everybody can accept?

Of course somethings are open to interpretation, but other things simply are not. That's why comic books have captions to clarify what's going on. It sucks when writers suck and don't bother filling you in on things artist can't draw, but I don't necessarilly think that's usually the case. So yes, unless you're talking to a delusional Fanboy, there is a generally accepted outcome to most stories.

Originally posted by long pig
Doom is expected to be capable do such thing, Spiderman isn't.

Expected by whom? Why? Based on what? On his prior successes in blasting people? Like who? Spider-Man's victory list is a lot more impressive than Doom's. And don't mention people like Galactus and Beyonder and Silver Surfer...he didn't beat them in fights with his own armor, he stole their power.

Originally posted by MERCILOUS
Of course somethings are open to interpretation, but other things simply are not. That's why comic books have captions to clarify what's going on. It sucks when writers suck and don't bother filling you in on things artist can't draw, but I don't necessarilly think that's usually the case. So yes, unless you're talking to a delusional Fanboy, there is a generally accepted outcome to most stories.

Is there really? When Hulk punched and punched on Superman and Superman didn't move, and Hulk eventually wore himself out...was that generally accepted? Or even when Superman beat Thor in JLA/Avengers. Was that really "generally accepted"? People still go to war over that on boards today, with some people calling that ultimate "PIS" and boycotting Busiek. And it's more than delusional fanboys. It's anybody who believes that Superman's vulnerability to magic should supercede any other factors in a fight between the two.

Or, we can reverse that, and have Thor beat Superman. Would that have been generally accepted? Not to anybody who beleives that Superman's light-speed fighting should supercede any other factors in a fight between the two. Could a fight between those two ever end in a generally accepted outcome?

What's different here?