Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is no such thing as a 'herald tier'.That's not a canon terminology for either company. It's a rough, board ranking term used to guide match making.
There has been no joint-consortium held by DC and Marvel that came to the agreement that such and such should be within the same tiers and thus should be roughly comparable.
It's board members that looked at various feats and came to an understanding that x,y,z seem to be capable of similar things 'on average' and lump them together in a ranking.
Unfortunately, that same 'understanding' is what is used as a yolk to try to keep things competitive. But that is purely subjective, not objective.
Since its impossible to ask that an average be found for every character, as that would require an inordinate amount of time that no one has (and no is without bias), to deny that their is an inequality when there are situations that X's top feats from X company are better than Y's top feats from Y company, even by leaps and bounds is arguing based on feelings, not on facts.
If its not an objective reasoning, its faulty.
Superman's only confirmed designation within his company is that he is etched in stone, as the Ultimate Hero. Bar none. Period. That means he can do anything when it calls for it because he has no set limitation.
Marvel on the other hand, has no such designation for any of their heroes. They don't operate that way. They have no ultimate hero. Thor (for example) would definitely not fit that placement either, because Marvel has made it very clear that he's not at that level of importance. He's a derived character from an old mythology and if he was gone from Marvel forever, they would not lose their identity. They would simply lose a B+ player who could be replaced with someone else (just for comparison, Iron Man and Spidey are A+ players in Marvel), and as of now, he *has* been replaced; by Jane Foster, who upon such a short time as the wielder of Mjolnir, has with such casual matter-of-factness, been designated by Marvel to be superior to Thor (by Thor's own words as well, she is more adept with Mjolnir than he ever was.) That's not an ultimate hero, if you can easily designate a replacement as better than he was, and thus lower the prestige of his decades long legacy.
And thus, Thor's top feats are fewer and of lesser magnitude than Superman's. The excuse that Superman is DC's top guy is exactly why Thor cannot be placed in the same league as him.
To say he is, and deny Superman's far more numerous showings and far superior showings, is simply an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Characterized by statements of the ilk of; "It doesn't feel right to say Thor is so much lower to Superman despite feats that would say so, so I'll ignore those and say they are comparable and it would be a good fight".
That's what Cely and others pack into their arguments. Bunch of empty platitudes and what not. There are no arguments presented to prop Thor(or whoever else of that ilk) up to the levels that Superman shows, so the only method is to try to undercut Superman down.
Whereas if you take a more objective approach and look at the absolute top feats for both, and context and all that, it becomes obvious who the winner is.
Superman and Thor have nothing to do with each other. Because in the end, they are from entirely different companies, and thus have no rule tethering them to be comparable (e.g. The way Thor and Surfer might have that unwritten rule for them by Marvel). It's certain board members that would like to keep them as such. It's a matter of letting feelings for a character get in the way of objective reasoning.
Now, I can almost understand that to an extant, as Marvel and DC have such a long history together that you almost feel like you have to come to that kind of mindset (E.g. that DC's top tiers are comparable to Marvel's top tiers or their street levelers are comparable to each other etc.), but in the end they are unrelated companies who cannot make direct references to each other in their comics without law suits.
So just replace Superman and Thor (or Hulk, or whoever else), with characters from another medium. Let's say we have anime character X from X company. And anime character Y from Y company.
X company and Y company have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and have no history at all. These companies are however, similar in their writing style, their art style, and the scope of stories they display, thus they reach a similar audience.
X character and Y character seem to be comparable, by the bulk of their showings. At their best showings however, they are not comparable at all.
And that's because X is the ultimate hero of X company and thus has superior number of total showings and better and more numerous top showings, than character Y from Y company. (Again; Company X and Company Y write stories of similar scope/scale as a reminder).
Would we deny X's showings over Y, simply because it feels like they should be comparable to you? Of course not. And for the most part, you don't see that happening with other characters in other mediums.
But when it comes to comics, particularly DC/Marvel cross-over topics, 'feelings' like that muddy discussions.
If Supes' top feats are beyond Marvel's designated heavy hitting heroes, then its as simple as that. No need to make it complicated.
excellent post dude. i agree 100
Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is no such thing as a 'herald tier'.That's not a canon terminology for either company. It's a rough, board ranking term used to guide match making.
There has been no joint-consortium held by DC and Marvel that came to the agreement that such and such should be within the same tiers and thus should be roughly comparable.
It's board members that looked at various feats and came to an understanding that x,y,z seem to be capable of similar things 'on average' and lump them together in a ranking.
Unfortunately, that same 'understanding' is what is used as a yoke to try to keep things competitive. But that is purely subjective, not objective.
Since its impossible to ask that an average be found for every character, as that would require an inordinate amount of time that no one has (and no is without bias), to deny that their is an inequality when there are situations that X's top feats from X company are better than Y's top feats from Y company, even by leaps and bounds is arguing based on feelings, not on facts.
If its not an objective reasoning, its faulty.
Superman's only confirmed designation within his company is that he is etched in stone, as the Ultimate Hero. Bar none. Period. That means he can do anything when it calls for it because he has no set limitation.
Marvel on the other hand, has no such designation for any of their heroes. They don't operate that way. They have no ultimate hero. Thor (for example) would definitely not fit that placement either, because Marvel has made it very clear that he's not at that level of importance. He's a derived character from an old mythology and if he was gone from Marvel forever, they would not lose their identity. They would simply lose a B+ player who could be replaced with someone else (just for comparison, Iron Man and Spidey are A+ players in Marvel), and as of now, he *has* been replaced; by Jane Foster, who upon such a short time as the wielder of Mjolnir, has with such casual matter-of-factness, been designated by Marvel to be superior to Thor (by Thor's own words as well, she is more adept with Mjolnir than he ever was.) That's not an ultimate hero, if you can easily designate a replacement as better than he was, and thus lower the prestige of his decades long legacy.
And thus, Thor's top feats are fewer and of lesser magnitude than Superman's. The excuse that Superman is DC's top guy is exactly why Thor cannot be placed in the same league as him.
To say he is, and deny Superman's far more numerous showings and far superior showings, is simply an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Characterized by statements of the ilk of; "It doesn't feel right to say Thor is so much lower to Superman despite feats that would say so, so I'll ignore those and say they are comparable and it would be a good fight".
That's what Cely and others pack into their arguments. Bunch of empty platitudes and what not. There are no arguments presented to prop Thor(or whoever else of that ilk) up to the levels that Superman shows, so the only method is to try to undercut Superman down.
Whereas if you take a more objective approach and look at the absolute top feats for both, and context and all that, it becomes obvious who the winner is.
Superman and Thor have nothing to do with each other. Because in the end, they are from entirely different companies, and thus have no rule tethering them to be comparable (e.g. The way Thor and Surfer might have that unwritten rule for them by Marvel). It's certain board members that would like to keep them as such. It's a matter of letting feelings for a character get in the way of objective reasoning.
Now, I can almost understand that to an extant, as Marvel and DC have such a long history together that you almost feel like you have to come to that kind of mindset (E.g. that DC's top tiers are comparable to Marvel's top tiers or their street levelers are comparable to each other etc.), but in the end they are unrelated companies who cannot make direct references to each other in their comics without law suits.
So just replace Superman and Thor (or Hulk, or whoever else), with characters from another medium. Let's say we have anime character X from X company. And anime character Y from Y company.
X company and Y company have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and have no history at all. These companies are however, similar in their writing style, their art style, and the scope of stories they display, thus they reach a similar audience.
X character and Y character seem to be comparable, by the bulk of their showings. At their best showings however, they are not comparable at all.
And that's because X is the ultimate hero of X company and thus has superior number of total showings and better and more numerous top showings, than character Y from Y company. (Again; Company X and Company Y write stories of similar scope/scale as a reminder).
Would we deny X's showings over Y, simply because it feels like they should be comparable to you? Of course not. And for the most part, you don't see that happening with other characters in other mediums.
But when it comes to comics, particularly DC/Marvel cross-over topics, 'feelings' like that muddy discussions.
If Supes' top feats are beyond Marvel's designated heavy hitting heroes, then its as simple as that. No need to make it complicated.
*Yoke, not yolk.
Damn typo. 😘
Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is no such thing as a 'herald tier'.That's not a canon terminology for either company. It's a rough, board ranking term used to guide match making.
There has been no joint-consortium held by DC and Marvel that came to the agreement that such and such should be within the same tiers and thus should be roughly comparable.
It's board members that looked at various feats and came to an understanding that x,y,z seem to be capable of similar things 'on average' and lump them together in a ranking.
Unfortunately, that same 'understanding' is what is used as a yolk to try to keep things competitive. But that is purely subjective, not objective.
Since its impossible to ask that an average be found for every character, as that would require an inordinate amount of time that no one has (and no is without bias), to deny that their is an inequality when there are situations that X's top feats from X company are better than Y's top feats from Y company, even by leaps and bounds is arguing based on feelings, not on facts.
If its not an objective reasoning, its faulty.
Superman's only confirmed designation within his company is that he is etched in stone, as the Ultimate Hero. Bar none. Period. That means he can do anything when it calls for it because he has no set limitation.
Marvel on the other hand, has no such designation for any of their heroes. They don't operate that way. They have no ultimate hero. Thor (for example) would definitely not fit that placement either, because Marvel has made it very clear that he's not at that level of importance. He's a derived character from an old mythology and if he was gone from Marvel forever, they would not lose their identity. They would simply lose a B+ player who could be replaced with someone else (just for comparison, Iron Man and Spidey are A+ players in Marvel), and as of now, he *has* been replaced; by Jane Foster, who upon such a short time as the wielder of Mjolnir, has with such casual matter-of-factness, been designated by Marvel to be superior to Thor (by Thor's own words as well, she is more adept with Mjolnir than he ever was.) That's not an ultimate hero, if you can easily designate a replacement as better than he was, and thus lower the prestige of his decades long legacy.
And thus, Thor's top feats are fewer and of lesser magnitude than Superman's. The excuse that Superman is DC's top guy is exactly why Thor cannot be placed in the same league as him.
To say he is, and deny Superman's far more numerous showings and far superior showings, is simply an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Characterized by statements of the ilk of; "It doesn't feel right to say Thor is so much lower to Superman despite feats that would say so, so I'll ignore those and say they are comparable and it would be a good fight".
That's what Cely and others pack into their arguments. Bunch of empty platitudes and what not. There are no arguments presented to prop Thor(or whoever else of that ilk) up to the levels that Superman shows, so the only method is to try to undercut Superman down.
Whereas if you take a more objective approach and look at the absolute top feats for both, and context and all that, it becomes obvious who the winner is.
Superman and Thor have nothing to do with each other. Because in the end, they are from entirely different companies, and thus have no rule tethering them to be comparable (e.g. The way Thor and Surfer might have that unwritten rule for them by Marvel). It's certain board members that would like to keep them as such. It's a matter of letting feelings for a character get in the way of objective reasoning.
Now, I can almost understand that to an extant, as Marvel and DC have such a long history together that you almost feel like you have to come to that kind of mindset (E.g. that DC's top tiers are comparable to Marvel's top tiers or their street levelers are comparable to each other etc.), but in the end they are unrelated companies who cannot make direct references to each other in their comics without law suits.
So just replace Superman and Thor (or Hulk, or whoever else), with characters from another medium. Let's say we have anime character X from X company. And anime character Y from Y company.
X company and Y company have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and have no history at all. These companies are however, similar in their writing style, their art style, and the scope of stories they display, thus they reach a similar audience.
X character and Y character seem to be comparable, by the bulk of their showings. At their best showings however, they are not comparable at all.
And that's because X is the ultimate hero of X company and thus has superior number of total showings and better and more numerous top showings, than character Y from Y company. (Again; Company X and Company Y write stories of similar scope/scale as a reminder).
Would we deny X's showings over Y, simply because it feels like they should be comparable to you? Of course not. And for the most part, you don't see that happening with other characters in other mediums.
But when it comes to comics, particularly DC/Marvel cross-over topics, 'feelings' like that muddy discussions.
If Supes' top feats are beyond Marvel's designated heavy hitting heroes, then its as simple as that. No need to make it complicated.
Originally posted by One-Punch
Celey has a point. There's a big difference between raw total number of high showings vs. ratio of high showings relative to number of appearances.Here's an example: in 2012 Canada has more total homicides than Belize (543 vs. 145). If you judge solely based on total raw number of homicides you would conclude Canada is more dangerous to live in than Belize.
But keep in mind Canada also has a population of 30 million and Belize has a population of 350k. If you look at the number of homicides as a ratio i.e., number of homicides per 100k inhabitants, Canada's rate of homicide is 1.6 and Belize is 44.7 which is more than 27x higher than Canada's.
Same thing applies to high showings vs. total number of appearances for comic characters.
Superman being DC's flagship character and one of the most popular super heroes on Earth has [b]vastly
more appearances than any other herald level character comics. Statistically he's bound to have a greater number of total high showings than any other herald. But it's a completely different story if we go by ratio in order to account for his sheer amount of appearances. I doubt anyone has gone through the trouble of actually calculating his rate of high showings relative to appearances, like say....rate of high showings per 100 comic appearances. [/B]
Benched the earth for five days straight.
Threw Brainiac's ship away with J'onn.
Threw Warworld in phantom zone.
Tanked black holes bigger than earth and while weakened flew from the end of the universe to Earth.
Ripped Doomsday apart.
Brought H'el to his knees in two hits.
Beat the shit out of Wraith.
Shattered Phantom Stranger's body.
These are the feats which Heralds do once in a few years.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Well, we can check how many high showings he has in just last two years.Benched the earth for five days straight.
Threw Brainiac's ship away with J'onn.
Threw Warworld in phantom zone.
Tanked black holes bigger than earth and while weakened flew from the end of the universe to Earth.
Ripped Doomsday apart.
Brought H'el to his knees in two hits.
Beat the shit out of Wraith.
Shattered Phantom Stranger's body.
These are the feats which Heralds do once in a few years.
Originally posted by celeyhyga17
What are Thor's best feats?
Decent question. I was psychotically impressed with his showing against Mercy. In terms of a mesh between versatility and power, that might be his best. Planet-shaking storms and turning abstract-level power back on its owner, among a couple other things.
Others...cracking Exitar's dome; the Midgard Serpent showing in its entirety; various Godblasts. He rendered Ego unconscious at one point with one, and there have been others equally as beastly.
I could probably come up with others. Those are off the top of my head.
Originally posted by Digi
Decent question. I was psychotically impressed with his showing against Mercy. In terms of a mesh between versatility and power, that might be his best. Planet-shaking storms and turning abstract-level power back on its owner, among a couple other things.Others...cracking Exitar's dome; the Midgard Serpent showing in its entirety; various Godblasts. He rendered Ego unconscious at one point with one, and there have been others equally as beastly.
I could probably come up with others. Those are off the top of my head.
Btw who is Mercy?
😮
Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Oh I'm aware of his top end feats. I'm asking Cosmic because he seems to be familiar with them... Or at least seems confident enough to make such a blanket statement/post.Btw who is Mercy?
😮
I think he means Glory.
But yeah, decent battle board comics this week, for those who like them.
Golgo probably creamed over Billy getting Hronmeer's power, Sivaa's strength, Yuga Khan's powers etc...
That GL showing - what people forget, is every GL that fell became ANOTHER parademon, and they were still able to use their powers. So, no, hardly a low showing.
Maestro's helicarrier was pimp. But am glad they're finally showing BP's King of the Dead powers off. Lol@ Baron Sinister, though.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Well, we can check how many high showings he has in just last two years.Benched the earth for five days straight.
Threw Brainiac's ship away with J'onn.
Threw Warworld in phantom zone.
Tanked black holes bigger than earth and while weakened flew from the end of the universe to Earth.
Ripped Doomsday apart.
Brought H'el to his knees in two hits.
Beat the shit out of Wraith.
Shattered Phantom Stranger's body.
These are the feats which Heralds do once in a few years.
Originally posted by One-Punch
How many total appearances does DCNU Superman have in the past two years? Including his appearances in Superboy and Supergirl comics?
And then he is depowered for more than six months now.
Find any showing even comparable from any Herald like ripping Doomsday in half.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is no such thing as a 'herald tier'.That's not a canon terminology for either company. It's a rough, board ranking term used to guide match making.
There has been no joint-consortium held by DC and Marvel that came to the agreement that such and such should be within the same tiers and thus should be roughly comparable.
It's board members that looked at various feats and came to an understanding that x,y,z seem to be capable of similar things 'on average' and lump them together in a ranking.
Unfortunately, that same 'understanding' is what is used as a yolk to try to keep things competitive. But that is purely subjective, not objective.
Since its impossible to ask that an average be found for every character, as that would require an inordinate amount of time that no one has (and no is without bias), to deny that their is an inequality when there are situations that X's top feats from X company are better than Y's top feats from Y company, even by leaps and bounds is arguing based on feelings, not on facts.
If its not an objective reasoning, its faulty.
Superman's only confirmed designation within his company is that he is etched in stone, as the Ultimate Hero. Bar none. Period. That means he can do anything when it calls for it because he has no set limitation.
Marvel on the other hand, has no such designation for any of their heroes. They don't operate that way. They have no ultimate hero. Thor (for example) would definitely not fit that placement either, because Marvel has made it very clear that he's not at that level of importance. He's a derived character from an old mythology and if he was gone from Marvel forever, they would not lose their identity. They would simply lose a B+ player who could be replaced with someone else (just for comparison, Iron Man and Spidey are A+ players in Marvel), and as of now, he *has* been replaced; by Jane Foster, who upon such a short time as the wielder of Mjolnir, has with such casual matter-of-factness, been designated by Marvel to be superior to Thor (by Thor's own words as well, she is more adept with Mjolnir than he ever was.) That's not an ultimate hero, if you can easily designate a replacement as better than he was, and thus lower the prestige of his decades long legacy.
And thus, Thor's top feats are fewer and of lesser magnitude than Superman's. The excuse that Superman is DC's top guy is exactly why Thor cannot be placed in the same league as him.
To say he is, and deny Superman's far more numerous showings and far superior showings, is simply an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Characterized by statements of the ilk of; "It doesn't feel right to say Thor is so much lower to Superman despite feats that would say so, so I'll ignore those and say they are comparable and it would be a good fight".
That's what Cely and others pack into their arguments. Bunch of empty platitudes and what not. There are no arguments presented to prop Thor(or whoever else of that ilk) up to the levels that Superman shows, so the only method is to try to undercut Superman down.
Whereas if you take a more objective approach and look at the absolute top feats for both, and context and all that, it becomes obvious who the winner is.
Superman and Thor have nothing to do with each other. Because in the end, they are from entirely different companies, and thus have no rule tethering them to be comparable (e.g. The way Thor and Surfer might have that unwritten rule for them by Marvel). It's certain board members that would like to keep them as such. It's a matter of letting feelings for a character get in the way of objective reasoning.
Now, I can almost understand that to an extant, as Marvel and DC have such a long history together that you almost feel like you have to come to that kind of mindset (E.g. that DC's top tiers are comparable to Marvel's top tiers or their street levelers are comparable to each other etc.), but in the end they are unrelated companies who cannot make direct references to each other in their comics without law suits.
So just replace Superman and Thor (or Hulk, or whoever else), with characters from another medium. Let's say we have anime character X from X company. And anime character Y from Y company.
X company and Y company have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and have no history at all. These companies are however, similar in their writing style, their art style, and the scope of stories they display, thus they reach a similar audience.
X character and Y character seem to be comparable, by the bulk of their showings. At their best showings however, they are not comparable at all.
And that's because X is the ultimate hero of X company and thus has superior number of total showings and better and more numerous top showings, than character Y from Y company. (Again; Company X and Company Y write stories of similar scope/scale as a reminder).
Would we deny X's showings over Y, simply because it feels like they should be comparable to you? Of course not. And for the most part, you don't see that happening with other characters in other mediums.
But when it comes to comics, particularly DC/Marvel cross-over topics, 'feelings' like that muddy discussions.
If Supes' top feats are beyond Marvel's designated heavy hitting heroes, then its as simple as that. No need to make it complicated.
👆
Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Thor operates out of his tier in spectacular fashion quite a bit relative to the number of his appearances. I'm certainly not going to anoint him beyond high herald. It's flat out dumb. In fact he does this on a more regular basis than Surfer. And still I believe Surfer is every bit his equal in all the ways that matter.
Superman goes above Herald level more times than Thor and Surfer.
Yet, he doesn't wins a single fight against Surfer out of 10 against Surfer in surfer fans' opinion.
Just ask JBL.
😬
Originally posted by abhilegend
Is Superman equal to either though?Superman goes above Herald level more times than Thor and Surfer.
Yet, he doesn't wins a single fight against Surfer out of 10 against Surfer in surfer fans' opinion.
Just ask JBL.
😬
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=619853
