Originally posted by Larceny
Nope it was irrelevant. He didn't have Mjolnir, why he didn't have it was irrelevant as it had no relation to the death of Hulk.Which he is, and can be discussed in the proper thread. The "Can Thor defeat these two characters thread should suffice". However as long as we talk about Mantis, we must also discuss the "brick". Your choice.
I don't have to prove anything. I made no claim, however you did. That claim being that Hulk wasn't as powerful then as he usually is, something you can't prove. Hence the reason you made the attempt to place the burden of proof on me.
I know what happened, I've read each fight and Hulk hasn't defeated Thor more times than Thor's defeated Hulk, but again, since you made the claim the burden of proof is placed upon you. 🙂
Context. Allowing for your bias towards one of the characters, putting the feat into the correct context makes it all the more relevant. A great example being that one of Thor's supposed victories over SS is during B&T, a context which no sane or unbiased person would ignore. I simply made sure everyone knew that Thor not having Mjolnir was due to his own failings, not down to his choice, or some noble aspiration.
This has more to do with your illogical supposition that Thor > SS based on two contextually-heavy fights. Since we ARE discussing Thor and the threat he poses to Thanos, it is quite pertinent to discuss the matter of him having a losing record against hulk.
The proof of hulk being a lot less than he was as far as durability goes is obvious. Hulk has survived from being incinerated, eaten, and many other things that are far worse than getting impaled. Do you agree or disagree with this?
What burden of proof is there besides the ability to count the number of wins hulk has had? You may not accept it, but do forgive me if I find you an unreliable source on this.
If Thor > SS due to context, Hulk > Thor. Insert smiley.
