Namor vs Superman

That's right. Namor vs Superman. Unlike Thanos, Namor is a much better match against the Man of Steel. For those who don't know, Namor's powers haven't been calculated yet, because his strength is WAY over the 100 ton level, and he can Speedblitz. Here's a list of his feats from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feat_List_of_the_Sub-Mariner

The fight would take place on a beach. Namor cannot enlist the help of any outside source, and neither can Superman, which means NO FLYING THROUGH THE SUN! The fight also stays on the Earth so that neither has an unfair advantage.

Ready, Fight!

Superman would win. Even that dude who is a big fan of Namor would say so.

What? Darkcrawler?

Yup - he might be a Namor fan but he knows when to admit that he'd lose.

Superman is stronger, faster and more durable than Namor by a long long long way.

When Namor starts moving planets, flying at the speed of light and taking nukes without a scratch, please let me know. 🙂

Originally posted by Fanboy
Superman would win. Even that dude who is a big fan of Namor would say so.

"That dude?"

"THAT DUDE?"

And yeah, Superman 10/10. He is better in nearly every area, and he can also dehydrate Namor.

You are badass DC! 🤘

Yeah, I ****ing am! 😎

Originally posted by DarkCrawler
Yeah, I ****ing am! 😎

😆 😉

HA! Pfft, lucky for Namor, Supes is too nice.

The whole planet moving thing, you all are aware that has nothing to do with someone's super strength, right?

Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet.

Riiight.... let's just say that it's all to do with their 'flight' strength, as you seem to think so...

----------------------

Now - let's say we've got someone of average strength, but with incredible planet moving flight strength... k?

They stand upside down, like they're doing a handtsand, so they've got their arms bracing against the planet.

Now they start to use their planet moving strength.

And their arms collapse and they headbutt the planet.

This is what would happen, if they didn't have physical strength in their arms, equivalent to the pushing force of their flight...

-----------------

Superman has the strength in his arms to match his flight strength, otherwise he wouldn't be able to move planets without headbutting them.

🙂

Originally posted by Marcus4600
The whole planet moving thing, you all are aware that has nothing to do with someone's super strength, right?

*sigh*

"flight strength" also known as thrust would have to be generated by superman somehow. He doesnt use turbo thrusters like a jet, its all him.

So, if he can just generate that kind of power for flight, its probably reasonable to assume that he has at least that level of base strength, before he converts it to thrust.

If not, as soon as his feet leave the ground then he would be more than enough for namor, since he'd just beat him with thrust

but ya, there is probably a general level of suspension of disbelief necessary for the high physics involved in these feats. (especially travel at greater than light speed, since e=mc2)

Originally posted by Marcus4600
The whole planet moving thing, you all are aware that has nothing to do with someone's super strength, right?

Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet.

Ludicrous.

First let's start with your 'thrust' argument.
Take the Saturn V booster. The S-V is a heavy-lift rocket that can carry almost anything (that needs to be carried) to space.
Alright.
There we have a machine able to carry around 118 tons to low earth orbit. Thus, this machine could technically carry the weight of two MBTs (say the Abrams tank) to LEO.

Now, let's say you have someone somehow strapped to the booster rocket, and let's assume that everything is 'in situ' (in that there will be no detrimental effects to the person from friction, heat blast, inability to breath air due to speed, etc).
And that person is holding huge chains attached to two Abram's MBTs that are on the ground, and then the Saturn booster blasts off!
Ok, the person now has enough thrust to easily take the MBTs to LEO, but the connection from the booster to the tanks is through the human (and his arms).
What happens?
His arms get torn off.

Ok, a more real world example.
A car is stuck.
I need to pull it out of the mud.
I take a lil' child (say 3 yrs old), and put him in the back of a tractor (and strap the kid tightly so that he cannot be pulled off).
I give the child a high tensile strength rope to hold, and the end of the rope is tied around the front end of the car.
I then start to drive the tractor forward until the rope starts to get taut.
Then I go forward some more.
Now ....the tractor has more than enough pulling ability to get 5 cars out of mud, thus it has enough pull/thrust to get the car out of the muck.
The only thing is that the child is holding the rope.
However, since I have 'enough thrust' the kid should be able to pull out the car, right?
Wrong ....the kid's arms would immediately get disconnected.

Anyways, Superman helping move the moon had to do with strength.
Where do you think that thrust comes from?
A character cannot have the (to use your terminology) 'thrust' to MOVE A MOON (and also a PLANET, as when Supes moved WarWorld all by his own) and be a weakling.
That is just illogical.

Basically: To make EFFECTIVE use of the thrust generated, the character needs at THE VERY LEAST the same amount of strength in their arms to make it work. If you have X thrust, and you have X-1 (even X-0.001) arm strength, then you will not be able to utilize whatever thrust you are producing.
Hence to make use of any force generated, the characters need to have at least the same strength in their arms.
Otherwise it is all for moot.
It would be like attaching a spider's thread between a ramjet engine and a 1,000 pound chunk of metal, turning the ramjet on, and expecting the spider thread to hold the two together as the ramjet zips away.

The second illogical part in your posting is when you said the following: "Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet."

LOL ....alright then. Guess what! I guess one could also say that we haven't seen the extent of Wolverine's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Wolverine needs to slice and dice a planet.'
We also haven't seen Jubilee's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Jubilee needs to blow up a planet.'
Oh ....oh ....and we haven't see the extent of the Toad's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where the Toad needs to lick a planet to goo.'

I am amazed that you would even try to make such an argument. You are extrapolating a character's abilities based on 'we haven't seen it yet.'
Goodness, that is tantamount to someone saying that Haiti may be able to defeat the United States in thermonuclear warfare, and that we haven't seen the extent of Haiti's 'amazing' combat prowess because 'Haiti has never gone through a crisis where it needs to excel in thermonuclear warfare.'
And yet Haiti in reality not only lacks nukes (the only radiological devices it has are probably a couple of x-ray machines), but it even has one of the most pathetic conventional armies (more like a heavily armed police force than a real army).
However ......who knows!
Haiti could defeat the US .....after all, we do 'not know the full extent of its abilities.'

Even for a Marvel fanboy that is just too much.
Namor is nowhere near Superman.

Originally posted by spetznaz
Ludicrous.

First let's start with your 'thrust' argument.
Take the Saturn V booster. The S-V is a heavy-lift rocket that can carry almost anything (that needs to be carried) to space.
Alright.
There we have a machine able to carry around 118 tons to low earth orbit. Thus, this machine could technically carry the weight of two MBTs (say the Abrams tank) to LEO.

Now, let's say you have someone somehow strapped to the booster rocket, and let's assume that everything is 'in situ' (in that there will be no detrimental effects to the person from friction, heat blast, inability to breath air due to speed, etc).
And that person is holding huge chains attached to two Abram's MBTs that are on the ground, and then the Saturn booster blasts off!
Ok, the person now has enough thrust to easily take the MBTs to LEO, but the connection from the booster to the tanks is through the human (and his arms).
What happens?
His arms get torn off.

Ok, a more real world example.
A car is stuck.
I need to pull it out of the mud.
I take a lil' child (say 3 yrs old), and put him in the back of a tractor (and strap the kid tightly so that he cannot be pulled off).
I give the child a high tensile strength rope to hold, and the end of the rope is tied around the front end of the car.
I then start to drive the tractor forward until the rope starts to get taut.
Then I go forward some more.
Now ....the tractor has more than enough pulling ability to get 5 cars out of mud, thus it has enough pull/thrust to get the car out of the muck.
The only thing is that the child is holding the rope.
However, since I have 'enough thrust' the kid should be able to pull out the car, right?
Wrong ....the kid's arms would immediately get disconnected.

Anyways, Superman helping move the moon had to do with strength.
Where do you think that thrust comes from?
A character cannot have the (to use your terminology) 'thrust' to MOVE A MOON (and also a PLANET, as when Supes moved WarWorld all by his own) and be a weakling.
That is just illogical.

Basically: To make EFFECTIVE use of the thrust generated, the character needs at THE VERY LEAST the same amount of strength in their arms to make it work. If you have X thrust, and you have X-1 (even X-0.001) arm strength, then you will not be able to utilize whatever thrust you are producing.
Hence to make use of any force generated, the characters need to have at least the same strength in their arms.
Otherwise it is all for moot.
It would be like attaching a spider's thread between a ramjet engine and a 1,000 pound chunk of metal, turning the ramjet on, and expecting the spider thread to hold the two together as the ramjet zips away.

The second illogical part in your posting is when you said the following: "Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet."

LOL ....alright then. Guess what! I guess one could also say that we haven't seen the extent of Wolverine's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Wolverine needs to slice and dice a planet.'
We also haven't seen Jubilee's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Jubilee needs to blow up a planet.'
Oh ....oh ....and we haven't see the extent of the Toad's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where the Toad needs to lick a planet to goo.'

I am amazed that you would even try to make such an argument. You are extrapolating a character's abilities based on 'we haven't seen it yet.'
Goodness, that is tantamount to someone saying that Haiti may be able to defeat the United States in thermonuclear warfare, and that we haven't seen the extent of Haiti's 'amazing' combat prowess because 'Haiti has never gone through a crisis where it needs to excel in thermonuclear warfare.'
And yet Haiti in reality not only lacks nukes (the only radiological devices it has are probably a couple of x-ray machines), but it even has one of the most pathetic conventional armies (more like a heavily armed police force than a real army).
However ......who knows!
Haiti could defeat the US .....after all, we do 'not know the full extent of its abilities.'

Even for a Marvel fanboy that is just too much.
Namor is nowhere near Superman.

💃 💃 💃 chair
I almost feel sorry for the fanboys when you post. Almost.

I was simply trying to make a point that Super-Strength isn't all that's needed for moving a planet. If all he was doing was using his arms, then he's doing pushups. Anyone with a base knowledge of physics knows that it would depend on his incredible amount of thrust, and his durability. The reason I brought that up was I hear too many people say that he's just using his arms, when that kind of argument is just flat out pathetic. Also, we don't know the limits of Namor yet, mostly because his limits haven't really been tested yet, unless I missed something. Also, I don't know as much about Superman as most people on these forums, mostly because I honestly don't think that he's that interesting of a character. I personally think that DC writers have an obsession of making their characters outside of Batman nearly godlike, and it's just not that interesting to me. I saw Namor accomplishing feats close to that of Superman before they decided to make him a god. So, let me rephrase my question. Would John Byrne's Superman (the one I know well enough) and Namor be a battle worth remembering?

Also, spetznaz, you read a little bit too much into my words, and made a lot of assumptions. The whole thing about Namor was about Namor, not Jubilee, or Wolverine. Namor is a character who has not been tested to his full potential. He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but some of the things that he has done are flat out amazing. The statement was simply that we don't know all of Namor's limits yet. I'm still wondering where the whole Haiti thing came into effect. In fact, the argument presented made sense until that point, when it seemingly became rambling. However, the other points made much more sense. It would take a being of extreme durability and strength to withstand a thrust of that magnitude. My statement just needed to be reworded. So, let me re-state it. The feat of moving a planet is not just super-strength. Superman more than likely can't bench press a planet. However, his thrust allows him to move it out of orbit, which is a statement that actually makes sense. So, next time, why don't you just rephrase the statement that I made, rather than being a complete ass and calling me a fanboy, when you don't even know who the hell I am.

So, here's the battle: Superman from the Man of Steel comic against Namor.

Namor and Superman wear very similar underwear. This could be a close one.

Originally posted by Marcus4600
I was simply trying to make a point that Super-Strength isn't all that's needed for moving a planet. If all he was doing was using his arms, then he's doing pushups. Anyone with a base knowledge of physics knows that it would depend on his incredible amount of thrust, and his durability. The reason I brought that up was I hear too many people say that he's just using his arms, when that kind of argument is just flat out pathetic. Also, we don't know the limits of Namor yet, mostly because his limits haven't really been tested yet, unless I missed something. Also, I don't know as much about Superman as most people on these forums, mostly because I honestly don't think that he's that interesting of a character. I personally think that DC writers have an obsession of making their characters outside of Batman nearly godlike, and it's just not that interesting to me. I saw Namor accomplishing feats close to that of Superman before they decided to make him a god. So, let me rephrase my question. Would John Byrne's Superman (the one I know well enough) and Namor be a battle worth remembering?

Also, spetznaz, you read a little bit too much into my words, and made a lot of assumptions. The whole thing about Namor was about Namor, not Jubilee, or Wolverine. Namor is a character who has not been tested to his full potential. He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but some of the things that he has done are flat out amazing. The statement was simply that we don't know all of Namor's limits yet. I'm still wondering where the whole Haiti thing came into effect. In fact, the argument presented made sense until that point, when it seemingly became rambling. However, the other points made much more sense. It would take a being of extreme durability and strength to withstand a thrust of that magnitude. My statement just needed to be reworded. So, let me re-state it. The feat of moving a planet is not just super-strength. Superman more than likely can't bench press a planet. However, his thrust allows him to move it out of orbit, which is a statement that actually makes sense. So, next time, why don't you just rephrase the statement that I made, rather than being a complete ass and calling me a fanboy, when you don't even know who the hell I am.

So, here's the battle: Superman from the Man of Steel comic against Namor.

This is true. Logically, anyone who can fly and use some sort of mechanism to stop them self from going through the planet's surface should be able to move a planet. Moving a planet doesn't necessarily mean you can benchpress one.

Really, it's a matter of how much force one could project through flight, rather than muscular strength. I'd bet the Invisible woman could move a planet, if she tried to.

Originally posted by spetznaz
Ludicrous.

First let's start with your 'thrust' argument.
Take the Saturn V booster. The S-V is a heavy-lift rocket that can carry almost anything (that needs to be carried) to space.
Alright.
There we have a machine able to carry around 118 tons to low earth orbit. Thus, this machine could technically carry the weight of two MBTs (say the Abrams tank) to LEO.

Now, let's say you have someone somehow strapped to the booster rocket, and let's assume that everything is 'in situ' (in that there will be no detrimental effects to the person from friction, heat blast, inability to breath air due to speed, etc).
And that person is holding huge chains attached to two Abram's MBTs that are on the ground, and then the Saturn booster blasts off!
Ok, the person now has enough thrust to easily take the MBTs to LEO, but the connection from the booster to the tanks is through the human (and his arms).
What happens?
His arms get torn off.

Ok, a more real world example.
A car is stuck.
I need to pull it out of the mud.
I take a lil' child (say 3 yrs old), and put him in the back of a tractor (and strap the kid tightly so that he cannot be pulled off).
I give the child a high tensile strength rope to hold, and the end of the rope is tied around the front end of the car.
I then start to drive the tractor forward until the rope starts to get taut.
Then I go forward some more.
Now ....the tractor has more than enough pulling ability to get 5 cars out of mud, thus it has enough pull/thrust to get the car out of the muck.
The only thing is that the child is holding the rope.
However, since I have 'enough thrust' the kid should be able to pull out the car, right?
Wrong ....the kid's arms would immediately get disconnected.

Anyways, Superman helping move the moon had to do with strength.
Where do you think that thrust comes from?
A character cannot have the (to use your terminology) 'thrust' to MOVE A MOON (and also a PLANET, as when Supes moved WarWorld all by his own) and be a weakling.
That is just illogical.

Basically: To make EFFECTIVE use of the thrust generated, the character needs at THE VERY LEAST the same amount of strength in their arms to make it work. If you have X thrust, and you have X-1 (even X-0.001) arm strength, then you will not be able to utilize whatever thrust you are producing.
Hence to make use of any force generated, the characters need to have at least the same strength in their arms.
Otherwise it is all for moot.
It would be like attaching a spider's thread between a ramjet engine and a 1,000 pound chunk of metal, turning the ramjet on, and expecting the spider thread to hold the two together as the ramjet zips away.

The second illogical part in your posting is when you said the following: "Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet."

LOL ....alright then. Guess what! I guess one could also say that we haven't seen the extent of Wolverine's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Wolverine needs to slice and dice a planet.'
We also haven't seen Jubilee's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Jubilee needs to blow up a planet.'
Oh ....oh ....and we haven't see the extent of the Toad's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where the Toad needs to lick a planet to goo.'

I am amazed that you would even try to make such an argument. You are extrapolating a character's abilities based on 'we haven't seen it yet.'
Goodness, that is tantamount to someone saying that Haiti may be able to defeat the United States in thermonuclear warfare, and that we haven't seen the extent of Haiti's 'amazing' combat prowess because 'Haiti has never gone through a crisis where it needs to excel in thermonuclear warfare.'
And yet Haiti in reality not only lacks nukes (the only radiological devices it has are probably a couple of x-ray machines), but it even has one of the most pathetic conventional armies (more like a heavily armed police force than a real army).
However ......who knows!
Haiti could defeat the US .....after all, we do 'not know the full extent of its abilities.'

Even for a Marvel fanboy that is just too much.
Namor is nowhere near Superman.

This is an entirely different situation, spetznaz. The person in your verbal illustration it holding onto chains that are being pulled. In all but one instance that I recall, Superman has pushed the said planet. I'm not saying that Superman could not perform the feat you've mentioned; I am doubtless that he could. Nonetheless, a subject even as strong and durable as Namor himself would be able to perform such a feat.

As Marcus4600 said, "thrust" in terms of flight has little to do with physical strength. Sue Storm can produce enough "thrust" to do just about anything, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with her strength. In the same token, Superman thrusting his body towards a planet via flight has little to do with his physical strength. Unless Superman shoved the planet, and acted upon it no further, allowing it to travel through space, the "thrust" he provided had little if anything to do with his physical strength. By protecting her body with a force field, and concentrating force behing her, Sue Storm could achieve the same results that Superman did.

Moreover, pulling or pushing a planet is much, much different from lifting the wieght of the said planet. As you know, inertia and gravity behave very differently, and gravity is considerably more potent. Hence, the notion that Superman can lift 66,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons is speculative, at best.

Thanks dude. In my opinion, it's Superman's flight ability that sets him apart from other heroes. The reason I like the Man of Steel Superman is because he actually has a personality. Also, I figured out that the reason he can fly through the sun is because his body naturally abosorbs that kind of radiation, but the radiation given from Kryptonite is near fatal for him. Scientifically, I can see in the comics Reed Richards wanting to do tests on him, and going nuts. However, it seems that it's usually the smarter characters that defeat him. Victor Von Doom once beat him with his wits. Superman tried to fight him in America, and Doctor Doom said this,

"Do you believe in the laws of America?"

"Yes."

"I am a foreign diplomat. In America, I am given political protection. For you to fight me would be to disobey your own principles."

Originally posted by Marcus4600
Thanks dude. In my opinion, it's Superman's flight ability that sets him apart from other heroes. The reason I like the Man of Steel Superman is because he actually has a personality. Also, I figured out that the reason he can fly through the sun is because his body naturally abosorbs that kind of radiation, but the radiation given from Kryptonite is near fatal for him. Scientifically, I can see in the comics Reed Richards wanting to do tests on him, and going nuts. However, it seems that it's usually the smarter characters that defeat him. Victor Von Doom once beat him with his wits. Superman tried to fight him in America, and Doctor Doom said this,

"Do you believe in the laws of America?"

"Yes."

"I am a foreign diplomat. In America, I am given political protection. For you to fight me would be to disobey your own principles."

I agree with you.

A big problem on this forum is the confusion of the terms 'mass' and 'weight'. The earth is weightless, yet it is extremely massive and is accompannied by great inertia (resistance to movement/change in direction.) However, if the earth did have a weight, it would be far, far more difficult to lift that weight (being imposed by gravity, a more potent force than inertia,) than it would be to move the earth through space by overcoming its inertia.

For instance, (in the absence of friction, but in the presence of gravity,) it would be easier to push an SUV (with or without wheels) than it would be to lift it.

Superman is indeed strong, but I can't quite say that he's strong enough to lift the weight of a planet. I'd say he's well into the mountain-lifting, tectonic plate moving class, however.

P.S. Don't piss off the Superman fans.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
This is true. Logically, anyone who can fly and use some sort of mechanism to stop them self from going through the planet's surface should be able to move a planet. Moving a planet doesn't necessarily mean you can benchpress one.

Really, it's a matter of how much force one could project through flight, rather than muscular strength. I'd bet the Invisible woman could move a planet, if she tried to.

WTF??????

do you have any idea how difficult it would be to move a planet?? even something as comparibly small as the moon would be BEYOND CURRENT HUMAN TECHNOLOGY (unless we built a rocket thruster on like half of it and used all of our hydrogen resourses to blast it, even then it would be tough)

please tell me why it would be easy to move a planet weighing trillions upon trillions of tonnes, moving at increadable speeds, being held in place by many gravitational forces? (This doesn't even take into account that in a vaccum it would even more difficult to stop and redirect an object in motion since there is no friction (not that im saying space is a vaccum, lol))

in fact, moving a planet means you could easily lift that weight under normal earth gravitational conditions, because you are dealing with much more than just the downward for of gravity.

plus, in your own argument you have stated they would need a mechanism to prevent them from just crashing into the planet. Thats true. So, then, using basic physics, and bastardizing what spetz said, the strength of whatever mechanism you are using must be equivelant to the force of the thrust, or else it breaks

also, your remark about the SUV is incorrect, provided that the SUV is currently in motion. See above.