Handbooks versus On-panel feats

Apocalypse seems more powerful in Marvel Handbooks then he does in Comic pages

(IMO)

The only puorpse a Bio serves is to further validate an On Panel Feat.

There are three methods used during debating.

1. On Panel feats/occurrances.

2. Bio stated feats/occurrences.

3. Talking out your ass. (No proof of any kind)

On Panel > Bio > sign23

If it happened On Panel but Not in a Bio ... it Happened.

If it happened in a Bio but Not On Panel ... it Never Happened.

If it happened in both sources but they remotely contradict each other, On Panel > Bio

If it happened in both sources and they comply, You Win the debate.

Originally posted by Mr Master
(IMO)

The only puorpse a Bio serves is to further validate an On Panel Feat.

There are three methods used during debating.

1. On Panel feats/occurrances.

2. Bio stated feats/occurrences.

3. Talking out your ass. (No proof of any kind)

On Panel > Bio > sign23

If it happened On Panel but Not in a Bio ... it Happened.

If it happened in a Bio but Not On Panel ... it Never Happened.

If it happened in both sources but they remotely contradict each other, On Panel > Bio

If it happened in both sources and they comply, You Win the debate.

Id agree with all of that.

Originally posted by Newjak
What are you trying to say.

That we should use npthing but high feats 😬

No, he's saying that we should take either the mean, median, or mode feats.

NOT the highest.

Originally posted by Soljer
No, he's saying that we should take either the mean, median, or mode feats.

NOT the highest.

Then I guess we agree

My semi-Hegelian analysis is as follows:

1) Handbooks are intended as supplementary documents...they exist, as far as I understand it, to give new readers of a comic a quick reference and introduction to the character. They work on the assumption that the loyal comics fan will then go snap up every issue that character appears in to look at on-panel feats. They do often underrate characters, and do not always list some of the appropriate power stunts that a character may be capable of, but they serve quite well as a means of establishing a baseline reference for a character or team. Therefore, it would seem that on-panel feats are a much more accurate source of information on a character's true abilities.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

2) On-panel feats are subject to PIS, CIS, bad writing, jobbing, and various other distortions of a character's ability. Spiderman v. Firelord is one such case. Using average feats, rather than best feat, seems the logical approach, but try to convince your average fanboy of that. The problem arrives in establishing what is an average feat, what is a high-end/unlikely feat, and what is an example of jobbing.

For instance, in Omega Flight #1, Sasquatch gets whooped by the kings of jobbing, the Wrecking Crew. While I'll admit that the Crew seemed to be amped, they still should not have been much of a match for an angry Walter. This is CIS.

Now, in the next Sasquatch debate, someone is inevitably going to point out that Sas got beat by the Crew. Should this loss be allowed in a debate?

My contention is that it should not, since it is an example of PIS/CIS/jobbing (not sure which yet) and is thus not truly representative of the character.

SOLUTION:

Debates should draw from a well-balanced combination of handbook information and on-panel feats, and that those feats should represent the character at median levels of performance. However, room should be allowed within the debate for the discussion of extreme character feats, provided that the debator qualify them as such.

This allows for spirited debate which examines the respective characters from a much more objective and "realistic" approach, while still allowing for discussion of optimum character performance.

On Panel feats >>>>>>>>>>>> Handbooks.

So is the truth, so shall it be written.

Handbooks are only a guide to continuity, they dont dictate it. Handbook writers are sometimes just longtime members of Marvel.com, they're not necessarily Marvel highups and Marvel highups dont usually write the articles, they just OK them. How much detail do you think Marvel highups actually go into when checking the info?

On top of that Handbooks arent infallible which is why theres a facility for readers to get in touch with the writers to point out discrepancies between a writers summary of an event and what the comic states itself.

I personally use handbook as a guide, but abide by the comics. If a point you're trying to make is supported by both then youre on to a winner! 🙂

Originally posted by olympian
On Panel feats >>>>>>>>>>>> Handbooks.

So is the truth, so shall it be written.

✅

when you have shit like Silver Surfer being ranked below Hulk, Abomination and others, then you have to take the handbooks with a grain of salt.

Originally posted by masterbruce
Which holds more authority and credibility for you?

In my opinion, handbooks are what the company INTENDED the character to be. Handbooks are free of PIS or CIS. Onpanel feats, while GENERALLY useful, are prone to one writer's bias or lack of knowledge taking the character beyond what they were meant to be.

So....... 😕

Originally posted by Galan007
Well a handbook entry or bio of some kind, once stated that Superboy Prime was a greater threat than Anti-Monitor..... Yet on panel feats would suggest otherwise.

So....... 😕

Perhaps on panel feats doesn't mean a squat. dur

Originally posted by Evil_Ash
Perhaps on panel feats doesn't mean a squat. dur

Never thought of it that way.... 😛

Originally posted by Galan007
True.

Never thought of it that way.... 😛

Live and learn. durfist

Some writers tends to make the characters more powerful then they should be like superman/batman book. I think that it goes like this

bio=handbooks>on panel feats.

The reason that I say this is because when you put scans up people tend to throw it out the window because they know that it dont suppose to happen. If your going by on panel feats than you think that venom>>>>>>>superman, since he did whip superman ***. You also think that Thor>>>>galactus and cannonball>>>gladiator.

Gladiator in the handbooks, almost everything on his profile is at 7 and he has proven that he earned it.
Speed, flew 100 times the speed of light.
Strength, punched a planet to dust
invulnerability, took a blast that was stated to destroy a solar system and flew out of it without any affect.
Fighting skills, been trained sense birth (but that was at a 5)
but the comic had him losing to cannonball.

Handbooks>>comics.

Originally posted by Galan007
Well a handbook entry or bio of some kind, once stated that Superboy Prime was a greater threat than Anti-Monitor..... Yet on panel feats would suggest otherwise.

So....... 😕

Originally posted by Juntai
Well with the events of Infinite Crisis, sending the multiverse in a jumble, his threat was great, maybe not his personal power, but the circumstances he created were actually very similar. Also, at the end, when he was going to OA, that was a pretty hefty threat as well.

Originally posted by Galan007
The overall events of IC may have been similar to COIE, but the threat Superboy Prime himself posed, was nowhere near the threat of Anti-Monitor IMO.

He's not as -powerful- as Anti-Monitor, but the threat he posed was certainly up there.

Originally posted by Juntai
but the entirety of it was pretty much a result of Superboy Prime from the start. Superboy got mad and was punching the walls of reality, causing timelines to shift and meld.. Doing this inspired Alexander Luthor to his side[people rallying with him in a typical Superman style fashion.], Superboy broke them free of their prison...and together the duo played with the multiverse like putty, and eventually Superboy went to go collapse it all on OA.

He's not as -powerful- as Anti-Monitor, but the threat he posed was certainly up there.

And SBP alone really didn't pose much of a threat to the Multiverse, but SBP + Alex Luthor did.

And this bio says...

"Have made him (SBP), a greater threat then Anti-Monitor ever was"...

That's BS imo..... Panel feats for each individual character contradict this statement.

Originally posted by Juntai
but the entirety of it was pretty much a result of Superboy Prime from the start. Superboy got mad and was punching the walls of reality, causing timelines to shift and meld.. Doing this inspired Alexander Luthor to his side[people rallying with him in a typical Superman style fashion.], Superboy broke them free of their prison...and together the duo played with the multiverse like putty, and eventually Superboy went to go collapse it all on OA.

He's not as -powerful- as Anti-Monitor, but the threat he posed was certainly up there.

good post

if the red sun wasnt there, he would have still been killing. The guy was practically unstoppable.