http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f95/t366379.html
Direct comparison of feats BB is outgunned bigtime.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f95/t366379.html
Direct comparison of feats BB is outgunned bigtime.
Some people give the GLs too much credit, they are basically slow-surfers with limited energy and autoshield (I'm not saying thats bad at all, but some people make them out to be more than they are and shunt too many factors).
Black Bolt is one of the most underrated characters around here which doesnt help the matter at hand.
The most realistic result I can give here is 5/10
Originally posted by Bentley
Some people give the GLs too much credit, they are basically slow-surfers with limited energy and autoshield (I'm not saying thats bad at all, but some people make them out to be more than they are and shunt too many factors).Black Bolt is one of the most underrated characters around here which doesnt help the matter at hand.
The most realistic result I can give here is 5/10
....
Black Bolt is over rated like CRAZY on this forum.
Some people were seriously considering giving him odds against the SURFER.
Jesus....
Hal, 9/10.
Originally posted by Blair WindI sincerely doubt the auto-shield absorbed the full brunt of the concussive and energy yield of the planet's destruction. I've seen a GL autoshield be bypassed with a Batman punch. More often than once. To reconcile the two, I'd say the former was merely the autoshield acting as a buffer which allowed GL John to float along the wave of force instead of riding against it, same way a single leaf can safely ride the crest of a tidal wave, while the tidal wave itself destroys a two story house. And the latter? Well, GL's auto-shield goes away when a GL diverts all will into a focused act. Like in 'Crisis of Conscience' where GL Hal is trying to overcome Despero's concentrated psi-beam attack with his ring and using considerable effort to do it, until Batman came over and punched him in the face and gave him a split lip.
limited energy and autoshields? John took a planet destroying bomb with his auto shield 😐
Just goes to show that in my experience and long readings of comic books, I've found that you can pretty much explain and reconcile almost everything. Even the most dubious occurences. Comic writers aren't complete morons after all.
I've already said for the record that Blackbolt takes it 7/10. I'll qualify that a bit more and say that Black Bolt takes it 6/10, only because Hal can be pretty badass when he's forced to. But I don't think Black Bolt's scream is overrated. Facing the number and caliber of opponents he's had and never having lost a fight even with just a "whisper" of his scream just goes to show you that he is a prince of restraint that houses insane power. I've seen Hal beaten by much less and more often than not, he's beaten by much less. Usually it happens when he's initially overwhelmed by something. He comes back in round 2 and finds a way around it. But round 1 standards? Black Bolt's scream is as good a thing to put your money on as anything else against a GL. My opinion anyways...
I duno,
i dont think blackbolt is very well understood on these fourms. Perhaps GL as well
but i know gl's autoshield doesnt just perpetually stay up
Can the enery that comes out of the rings be manipulated? because Blackbolt has surfer-esque matter manipulation.
IM not saying BB wins, but im not saying he loses either. I think it requires a little more thought than a simple write off, for either side.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0While I don't doubt BB's power. He's a supporting character while Hal has to support a ongoing series. So he has to job once in awhile.
Facing the number and caliber of opponents he's had and never having lost a fight even with just a "whisper" of his scream just goes to show you that he is a prince of restraint that houses insane power. I've seen Hal beaten by much less and more often than not, he's beaten by much less.
Both at full potential Hal wins.
Full potential is a very hazardous term that ignores many things. First of all, its an absolute... and only Sith lords deal in absolutes. So for one thing, you're an evil, evil man. For the second thing, it ignores coming to grips with everything the actual character has ever done and reduces them to feats. And when you reduce a character to feats, it doesn't solve much. In fact, it solves absolutely nothing most of the time.
What if the character's feats don't match up to give a strong basis for comparison, or the character has a weakness, or the character doesn't usually show himself at full potential? I think the forum members' fascination with specific feats is very flawed. Captain America has beaten Red Skull who has had and even absorbed the Cosmic Cube by himself, every single time. Cap at full potential, no matter how you square it, has singlehandedly beaten omnipotent persons. At full potential, Cap wins against omnipotent persons. What's wrong with this analysis? It ignores plot and character for the single primacy of a mere feat, or accomplishment. The mere feat or accomplishment in and of itself can involve a sh1tload of things. A twist, a scientific explanation, a cop-out. Any myriad of possibilities that made that feat/accomplishment possible.
I see no difference when someone reduces a supernova containing GL as his character's mettle or worth in battle as Cap beatin Cosmic Cube Red Skull as his mettle or worth in battle. Both reductions are infantile in the same way. You ignore the character's vulnerabilities, their personalities, their very actions. You very simpy ignore everything else about the character.
Hal at "full potential" unloads a salvo at Black Bolt that has the ability to implode a sun in a single instant. I don't doubt that he certainly could do such a thing. But let me ask, when has Hal ever done such a thing? He's done similar things in certain circumstances, but when has he ever done such a thing in a fight? When I see Hal fight, I see him shooting beams of energy, or making constructs and pummeling or redirecting energy. I never see him unload a sun implodign salvo the very instant the battle starts. In fact, when there are crises that would ask for very drastic reactions, Hal still doesn't do it. So why is it so very easy for KMC'ers to assume that such an act equates to him winning a theoretical fight? It's a$$ backwards stupid if you ask me. You completely take the character out of the character. For one damn thing, Hal Jordan isn't some cheap shotting thug who wields his ring with such destructive intentions with no regards for life. It's the furthest thing from Hal you'd ever expect and yet, "well... durr... he could do it... even though he never would... or has done it..." apparently floats as a real argumentative basis. If the character doesn't do or wouldn't do what you hope he could do, then it's simple to admit that it probably has no point for citation in a hypothetical fight.
If anything, the full potential Hal shooting a sun imploding salvo counts for 1/100 fights. I'm more interested in what he does the other 99 times out of a 100. So while some of you may believe that I stupidly ignore high end feats, I give them their due. But since they normally don't count for much in terms of the character, I give them exactly what their worth. That 1 out of a hundred instances such a thing would actually matter in a hypothetical fight between the characters. If you want to base your opinion on 1% of what matters, that's your cup of tea you evil, evil man.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Full potential is a very hazardous term that ignores many things. First of all, its an absolute... and only Sith lords deal in absolutes. So for one thing, you're an evil, evil man. For the second thing, it ignores coming to grips with everything the actual character has ever done and reduces them to feats. And when you reduce a character to feats, it doesn't solve much. In fact, it solves absolutely nothing most of the time.What if the character's feats don't match up to give a strong basis for comparison, or the character has a weakness, or the character doesn't usually show himself at full potential? I think the forum members' fascination with specific feats is very flawed. Captain America has beaten Red Skull who has had and even absorbed the Cosmic Cube by himself, every single time. Cap at full potential, no matter how you square it, has singlehandedly beaten omnipotent persons. At full potential, Cap wins against omnipotent persons. What's wrong with this analysis? It ignores plot and character for the single primacy of a mere feat, or accomplishment. The mere feat or accomplishment in and of itself can involve a sh1tload of things. A twist, a scientific explanation, a cop-out. Any myriad of possibilities that made that feat/accomplishment possible.
I see no difference when someone reduces a supernova containing GL as his character's mettle or worth in battle as Cap beatin Cosmic Cube Red Skull as his mettle or worth in battle. Both reductions are infantile in the same way. You ignore the character's vulnerabilities, their personalities, their very actions. You very simpy ignore everything else about the character.
Hal at "full potential" unloads a salvo at Black Bolt that has the ability to implode a sun in a single instant. I don't doubt that he certainly could do such a thing. But let me ask, when has Hal ever done such a thing? He's done similar things in certain circumstances, but when has he ever done such a thing in a fight? When I see Hal fight, I see him shooting beams of energy, or making constructs and pummeling or redirecting energy. I never see him unload a sun implodign salvo the very instant the battle starts. In fact, when there are crises that would ask for very drastic reactions, Hal still doesn't do it. So why is it so very easy for KMC'ers to assume that such an act equates to him winning a theoretical fight? It's a$$ backwards stupid if you ask me. You completely take the character out of the character. For one damn thing, Hal Jordan isn't some cheap shotting thug who wields his ring with such destructive intentions with no regards for life. It's the furthest thing from Hal you'd ever expect and yet, "well... durr... he could do it... even though he never would... or has done it..." apparently floats as a real argumentative basis. If the character doesn't do or wouldn't do what you hope he could do, then it's simple to admit that it probably has no point for citation in a hypothetical fight.
If anything, the full potential Hal shooting a sun imploding salvo counts for 1/100 fights. I'm more interested in what he does the other 99 times out of a 100. So while some of you may believe that I stupidly ignore high end feats, I give them their due. But since they normally don't count for much in terms of the character, I give them exactly what their worth. That 1 out of a hundred instances such a thing would actually matter in a hypothetical fight between the characters. If you want to base your opinion on 1% of what matters, that's your cup of tea you evil, evil man.
Originally posted by snoopdogg
While I don't doubt BB's power. He's a supporting character while Hal has to support a ongoing series. So he has to job once in awhile.Both at full potential Hal wins.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Full potential is a very hazardous term that ignores many things. First of all, its an absolute... and only Sith lords deal in absolutes. So for one thing, you're an evil, evil man. For the second thing, it ignores coming to grips with everything the actual character has ever done and reduces them to feats. And when you reduce a character to feats, it doesn't solve much. In fact, it solves absolutely nothing most of the time.What if the character's feats don't match up to give a strong basis for comparison, or the character has a weakness, or the character doesn't usually show himself at full potential? I think the forum members' fascination with specific feats is very flawed. Captain America has beaten Red Skull who has had and even absorbed the Cosmic Cube by himself, every single time. Cap at full potential, no matter how you square it, has singlehandedly beaten omnipotent persons. At full potential, Cap wins against omnipotent persons. What's wrong with this analysis? It ignores plot and character for the single primacy of a mere feat, or accomplishment. The mere feat or accomplishment in and of itself can involve a sh1tload of things. A twist, a scientific explanation, a cop-out. Any myriad of possibilities that made that feat/accomplishment possible.
I see no difference when someone reduces a supernova containing GL as his character's mettle or worth in battle as Cap beatin Cosmic Cube Red Skull as his mettle or worth in battle. Both reductions are infantile in the same way. You ignore the character's vulnerabilities, their personalities, their very actions. You very simpy ignore everything else about the character.
Hal at "full potential" unloads a salvo at Black Bolt that has the ability to implode a sun in a single instant. I don't doubt that he certainly could do such a thing. But let me ask, when has Hal ever done such a thing? He's done similar things in certain circumstances, but when has he ever done such a thing in a fight? When I see Hal fight, I see him shooting beams of energy, or making constructs and pummeling or redirecting energy. I never see him unload a sun implodign salvo the very instant the battle starts. In fact, when there are crises that would ask for very drastic reactions, Hal still doesn't do it. So why is it so very easy for KMC'ers to assume that such an act equates to him winning a theoretical fight? It's a$$ backwards stupid if you ask me. You completely take the character out of the character. For one damn thing, Hal Jordan isn't some cheap shotting thug who wields his ring with such destructive intentions with no regards for life. It's the furthest thing from Hal you'd ever expect and yet, "well... durr... he could do it... even though he never would... or has done it..." apparently floats as a real argumentative basis. If the character doesn't do or wouldn't do what you hope he could do, then it's simple to admit that it probably has no point for citation in a hypothetical fight.
If anything, the full potential Hal shooting a sun imploding salvo counts for 1/100 fights. I'm more interested in what he does the other 99 times out of a 100. So while some of you may believe that I stupidly ignore high end feats, I give them their due. But since they normally don't count for much in terms of the character, I give them exactly what their worth. That 1 out of a hundred instances such a thing would actually matter in a hypothetical fight between the characters. If you want to base your opinion on 1% of what matters, that's your cup of tea you evil, evil man.
Incredible post* * * 😮
This should be stickied, or something