Doc Samson vs Colossus

Originally posted by King_Mungi
It's a DC-10 even John Bryne made mention it was one on his board during a Q & A. He saw one at the airport waiting for his plane to take off. If you want to see bad size difference look at the aircraft carrier Kilowog dropped on a Sinestro Corps member recently. It's suppose to be an air-craft carrier, but it isn't drawn to correct dimensions.

It's a DC-10, but goes with my point he is a class 100 brute and does class 100 feats without pushing himself yet he is classified as just class 70. Nuh uh.

They make a LOT of mistakes. 😬 Errr? even the bios [not the stats] in the handbooks have errors. Without the comics there would be no handbooks, so why would you take the handbooks over the actual comic?

Let's just say that it was a miniture DC-10 plane that weighed 25tons.
I will never believe it to be much more than that. So we can just agree to disagree here. Now, I do believe that he can lift more than 70tons though and thus making the stat you saw reduced to a tier guide. I never saw the stat myself (would you mind showing me). The only stat that I saw was that of being superhuman class 100.

Now Thing was able to lift up to 5 tons in his begining career. But he can lift somewhat more than 100 tons now. Where did this extra strength come from? Characters, over time, are naturally evolving without explanation in the comics.

The comics are wrong a lot more than handbooks. Onslaught pulled a nonexistent gem from Juggs chest ( 😕 ?). So why believe the comics more. Someone can't be both stronger and weaker than Thing at the same time. Thus we must have a balance. The handbook stats along with the majority of consistent showings gives us this balance.

Now, writers opinions weigh more than any comic. And they put their opinions in the handbooks. So that is why I believe them more.
Now there would still be handbook stats for characters without the comic.
For example, a character can be said to be class 100 but never (as of yet) shown it in comics. For writers form their opinion well before they write a comic about it. So, I don't quite agree with you that without the comic there is no handbook. Also, a lot of the handbook (not all) is made by consulting the writers who write for that certain character.

Some writers take over a character from another writer without fully understanding the character. That is why you see errors in the comic as well. Lastly, It is faulty to find an error in something and then say that the whole thing not trustworthy. People do this to handbooks. But since the comics have errors too then, in the same vein, there're not trustworthy either.

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's just say that it was a miniture DC-10 plane that weighed 25tons.
I will never believe it to be much more than that. So we can just agree to disagree here. Now, I do believe that he can lift more than 70tons though and thus making the stat you saw reduced to a tier guide. I never saw the stat myself (would you mind showing me). The only stat that I saw was that of being superhuman class 100.

Errrr…? It is a fact it was a DC-10, so not sure why we have to agree to disagree on this matter. Like I said read the Green Lantern issue then if you thought those proportions were wrong. Also I have never seen him EVER listed as class 100, so I would like to see where you got that.

Marvel X-Men Encyclopedia [Vol.2]: 5/7 [25-75 ton range]
1. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/ME2-065.jpg
2. http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c133/A_Flight3/ME2-240.jpg

The Official Handbook Of The Marvel Universe - Master Edition #17: Class 90 [Press 75-90 tons]
1. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/MasterEdition-17-Sasquatch_2.jpg
2. http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c133/A_Flight3/MasterEdition-17-1_cover_b.jpg

All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z #09: 5/7 [25-75 ton range]
1. http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l107/A_Flight11/All-NewOHOTMUA-Z0942-1.jpg
2. http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f188/A_Flight5/OHOTMU-X05StreetSamurai-DCP49irc.jpg

Originally posted by h1a8
Now Thing was able to lift up to 5 tons in his begining career. But he can lift somewhat more than 100 tons now. Where did this extra strength come from? Characters, over time, are naturally evolving without explanation in the comics.

Indeed, and over time Walter has gotten stronger due to Tanaraq taking over. Every time he transforms into Sasquatch he loses more of himself. The more pain or rage he experiences the weaker his soul becomes and easier it is for Tanaraq to take control boosting his power to Elder God levels.

Originally posted by h1a8
The comics are wrong a lot more than handbooks. Onslaught pulled a nonexistent gem from Juggs chest ( 😕 ?). So why believe the comics more. Someone can't be both stronger and weaker than Thing at the same time. Thus we must have a balance. The handbook stats along with the majority of consistent showings gives us this balance.

Let’s put it this way as comics reference other comics, comics don’t reference handbooks. Handbooks are a summary of events that happen in comics, it’s the writers will what happens in the comic, but the handbook still write down what happened in those comics in the entry. So basically as you say it they’re still writing those errors.

Yeah and there are many character who have consistent showings and still have wrong stats, I even proved it wrong for Sasquatch and the Master. I can pick other characters and show dozens of scans completely contradicting the said stat.

Originally posted by h1a8
Now, writers opinions weigh more than any comic. And they put their opinions in the handbooks. So that is why I believe them more.
Now there would still be handbook stats for characters without the comic.
For example, a character can be said to be class 100 but never (as of yet) shown it in comics. For writers form their opinion well before they write a comic about it. So, I don't quite agree with you that without the comic there is no handbook. Also, a lot of the handbook (not all) is made by consulting the writers who write for that certain character.

Where are you getting this? As Stuart Vandal one of the writers of the handbooks [he is a alphawaves regular, and I routinely talk to him about adjusting the handbooks which are going to be made in the new hardcover handbook] says the exact opposite, as he can’t have an opinion as he has to write down the facts. In the end handbook writers are on a lower totem then the actual comic book writers. Their job is to read comic book writers work and summarize it, which in fact causes errors since they have to remove a lot of detail. He even told me it's very hard to summarize a character's entire history in just a page, and no way is a handbook writer going to read every comic of said character. If comics ended all together, there would be no handbooks. That’s not even up for debate.

Originally posted by h1a8
Some writers take over a character from another writer without fully understanding the character. That is why you see errors in the comic as well. Lastly, It is faulty to find an error in something and then say that the whole thing not trustworthy. People do this to handbooks. But since the comics have errors too then, in the same vein, there're not trustworthy either.

We have rules for the board for this as countless showings of said character doing a feat that they failed to do once in a comic is completely overruled by the more showings. You are never ever going to get consistent writing, but simply following the handbooks, which they do have errors is faulty.

Originally posted by King_Mungi
and I routinely talk to him about adjusting the handbooks which are going to be made in the new hardcover handbook]

Originally posted by snoopdogg
Is there a new handbook format coming out?

Kinda, the hardcovers are going to be updated and corrected entries from the A-Z handbook. Such as some characters got the wrong stats such as Centenial, so they can fix stuff like that.

I don't think the solicits are out for it yet, but Stuart Vandal mentioned it was happening a month ago.

Originally posted by King_Mungi
Errrr…? It is a fact it was a DC-10, so not sure why we have to agree to disagree on this matter. Like I said read the Green Lantern issue then if you thought those proportions were wrong. Also I have never seen him EVER listed as class 100, so I would like to see where you got that.

Let’s put it this way as comics reference other comics, comics don’t reference handbooks. Handbooks are a summary of events that happen in comics, it’s the writers will what happens in the comic, but the handbook still write down what happened in those comics in the entry. So basically as you say it they’re still writing those errors.

Yeah and there are many character who have consistent showings and still have wrong stats, I even proved it wrong for Sasquatch and the Master. I can pick other characters and show dozens of scans completely contradicting the said stat.

We have rules for the board for this as countless showings of said character doing a feat that they failed to do once in a comic is completely overruled by the more showings. You are never ever going to get consistent writing, but simply following the handbooks, which they do have errors is faulty.

Again, most of us haven't followed a character's every appearance like the handbook writers do. So we need handbooks as a guide. Now if someone was to show a good sized amount of feats that contradict the handbook stat then we, in good faith, can say that the handbook stat is an error. Other than that, I feel it's ok to trust the handbook stat.

Lastly, the logic "if there were no comics then there would be no handbooks" has no bearing on whether which source is more trustworthy. This is because there are contradictions in comics which make it sometimes impossible to determine the true stat on a character. But if one was to take the more consistent (majority) relevant showings as a basis (where handbooks try to do) then we get a sound basis for the character. Now this only applies to those here on the forum who use a small amount of feats to try to prove the handbook wrong.

But I agree that comics hold more water than handbooks if and only if the majority of relevant showings contradict the handbook. But I also agree that the handbook holds more water if and only if someone was to only show a very small amount of feats that contradict the handbook. This is because the handbook tried to go on the majority of relevant showings as a basis and dismissed the outliers (these said feats) if they contradicted them. So to prove the handbook wrong is to prove the basis built on a relevant majority is wrong. But if one does this, then and only then can we accept in confidence that the handbook is wrong on the stat. But I, being reasonable, will take a minimum 3 showings (instead of the needed majority) that contradict the handbook for me to overthrow the handbook stat.

How the hell did Sasquatch become part of this thread?

Anyhow I'm gonna go with Colossus here.

Originally posted by h1a8
Now I remember. Back in the 90's I use to collect Marvel comic cards (I had several complete sets of them).

Those Marvel cards arn't canon

Originally posted by h1a8

That logic follows if and only if the entire set of relevent showings in the comics are taken as a whole and not in parts. For instance, many here would show only 1 or 2 feats contradiction the handbook and then say that the handbook is wrong. I disagree. And I'm not arguing with you on the bios or anything similar in the handbooks that contradict the comics. My argument is only the stats in the handbooks.

Diamond Lil is another character they got wrong, they say she is athletic strength [not even peak human] and she has knocked out an alternate reality She Hulk, threw a punch a hit the BOX armor through a building and he still kept flying for another 50 feet, killed 20 foot monsters with a single blow, she also has gone toe to toe physically, and even the writer said she has superhuman strength on part of the 1990's Spider-Man [that's when the issue came out], but they list her as having athletic strength. Like I said check out my respect threads as I even explain in them how the handbook are wrong.

Originally posted by h1a8

Yes that may be true. But you have to indeed show at dozens of scans and not 1 or 2 (I will explain later). But know this; there can be a sound handbook stat and a wrong PIS feat in comics.

Errrr...if you want more scans contradicting the handbooks look at the respect theards. I literally have hundreds that contradict what the handbooks say. So I'm not talking about 1 or 2 scans.

Originally posted by h1a8

True, one shouldn't always simply follow the handbooks. They should only simply follow them if they haven't seen the entire (or even a majority) of a character's appearance to make a sound judgement.

Not even that as even the writers for the handbook entries don't read all the character's apperances, it's practically impossible due to the time frame their allowed to writer.

Originally posted by h1a8

Again, most of us haven't followed a character's every appearance like the handbook writers do. So we need handbooks as a guide. Now if someone was to show a [B]good sized amount of feats that contradict the handbook stat then we, in good faith, can say that the handbook stat is an error. Other than that, I feel it's ok to trust the handbook stat.[/B]

Errr...like I said earlier the handbook writers do not read every comic the character is in. Stuart mentioned he is constantly under the gun for time to complete entries for the A-Z handbook and they have to remove a lot of detail [since their not allowed a lot of space for an entry usually just a page], and can't give that indepth summary.

Originally posted by h1a8

Lastly, the logic "if there were no comics then there would be no handbooks" has no bearing on whether which source is more trustworthy. This is because there are contradictions in comics which make it sometimes impossible to determine the true stat on a character. But if one was to take the more consistent (majority) relevant showings as a basis (where handbooks try to do) then we get a sound basis for the character. [B]Now this only applies to those here on the forum who use a small amount of feats to try to prove the handbook wrong.

The handbooks even validate the contradictions as they summarize what's happening in the comics. So as you said they make errors in the comic, but the handbooks simply don't ignore it they add it in their entry as well. So basically all the handbooks are summary of key points, not a characters entire history unless the character is obscure and has little apperances to begin with

Originally posted by h1a8

But I agree that comics hold more water than handbooks [B]if and only if the majority of relevant showings contradict the handbook. But I also agree that the handbook holds more water if and only if someone was to only show a very small amount of feats that contradict the handbook. This is because the handbook tried to go on the majority of relevant showings as a basis and dismissed the outliers (these said feats) if they contradicted them. So to prove the handbook wrong is to prove the basis built on a relevant majority is wrong. But if one does this, then and only then can we accept in confidence that the handbook is wrong on the stat. But I, being reasonable, will take a minimum 3 showings (instead of the needed majority) that contradict the handbook for me to overthrow the handbook stat..[/B]

My whole thing has been on consistent showings throughout their carreer, as another error is Snowbird is said to have the intelligence of the Gods of the Arctic and has been said throughout her carrer over 20 times, but they list her as having "normal" intelligence.

I even did the 3 showings for the Master earlier, so 1/7 out of energy projection? That's quite wrong.

The way I see, we might as well get used to handbooks. They are not going anywhere. I enjoy reading them.

Anyways let's get back on track here. Colossus wins.

Any objections?

Originally posted by snoopdogg
The way I see, we might as well get used to handbooks. They are not going anywhere. I enjoy reading them.

Anyways let's get back on track here. Colossus wins.

Any objections?

Hell yes!

A bald Samson one-shots Colossus.

Originally posted by Soljer
Hell yes!

A bald Samson one-shots Colossus.

Originally posted by snoopdogg
Isn't he walking around with a crew cut now?

Yeah. And he was getting punked by a Russian Captain America.

Originally posted by King_Mungi
Those Marvel cards arn't canon

Diamond Lil is another character they got wrong, they say she is athletic strength [not even peak human] and she has knocked out an alternate reality She Hulk, threw a punch a hit the BOX armor through a building and he still kept flying for another 50 feet, killed 20 foot monsters with a single blow, she also has gone toe to toe physically, and even the writer said she has superhuman strength on part of the 1990's Spider-Man [that's when the issue came out], but they list her as having athletic strength. Like I said check out my respect threads as I even explain in them how the handbook are wrong.

Errrr...if you want more scans contradicting the handbooks look at the respect theards. I literally have hundreds that contradict what the handbooks say. So I'm not talking about 1 or 2 scans.

Not even that as even the writers for the handbook entries don't read all the character's apperances, it's practically impossible due to the time frame their allowed to writer.

Errr...like I said earlier the handbook writers [b]do not read every comic the character is in. Stuart mentioned he is constantly under the gun for time to complete entries for the A-Z handbook and they have to remove a lot of detail [since their not allowed a lot of space for an entry usually just a page], and can't give that indepth summary.[/B]

The handbooks even validate the contradictions as they summarize what's happening in the comics. So as you said they make errors in the comic, but the handbooks simply don't ignore it they add it in their entry as well. So basically all the handbooks are summary of key points, not a characters entire history unless the character is obscure and has little apperances to begin with

My whole thing has been on consistent showings throughout their carreer, as another error is Snowbird is said to have the intelligence of the Gods of the Arctic and has been said throughout her carrer over 20 times, but they list her as having "normal" intelligence.

I even did the 3 showings for the Master earlier, so 1/7 out of energy projection? That's quite wrong.

Yes, that is the only way to, in good faith, show that the handbook stat is wrong. Now I am never supporting that handbooks have no errors in them on stats. For I definitely believe they do. Its just take sound evidence to show this and 3 is good enough for me (this is all I'm saying).

With that said, Colossus wins this.
He is at least as strong as Samson but has better durability and arguably better fighting skill.

Originally posted by h1a8
says who?
Are you using canon to mean "acceptible"? Because canon doesn't mean acceptible. For example, a writers written (or orally interviewed) statement is "acceptible" as evidence but not canon.

Marvel, they have gone to record the cards on the same level as Marvel Adventures. There more for kids and not to be taken serious as in the first volume they even made up some fun facts such as win/loss/draw records. Also from vol.2 (1991) they gave Galactus 1/7 in stamina, said Rhino was 5/7 [able to press 10-50 tons]. Thanos practically had better stats then Galactus and I'm not joking 😬

Originally posted by h1a8

I don't care if she punched Superman to another galaxy with only physical power. You will still need sufficiently enough showings that contradict the majority of her [B]relevent showings that were used to give her the stat. That is the only way to show that the handbook is in error. Otherwise, spiderman is greater than class 40 (for he has several feats above this) . [/B]

Diamond Lil

OHOTMU: Master Edition #22
1. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/MasterEdition-22-Diamond_Lil_2.jpg
2. http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c133/A_Flight3/MasterEdition-17-1_cover_b.jpg

Battles Spider-Man [AR]
1. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-18.jpg
2. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-19.jpg
3. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-21.jpg
4. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-22.jpg
5. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-23.jpg

Here we first see Box in his short lived new Box armor design. Well what's most important is Lil sends her husband flying through the house and out the door landing on the ground 20-30 feet away. Box v.4 was 520 lbs, so this version was properly around the same weight

1. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/AlphaFlight125-07.jpg
2. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/AlphaFlight125-08.jpg
3. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/AlphaFlight125-09.jpg

Battles She Hulk [AR]
1. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-15.jpg
2. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-16.jpg
3. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-17.jpg

Destroying the giant snake in one hit
1. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/AlphaFlight73-11.jpg

Knocking a giant robot’s head off
1. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/AlphaFlight73-21.jpg

I can go more, but you get the idea. Also yes I can prove other characters stats are false, and yes I have more then 3 scans of them doing the feat

Originally posted by h1a8

I look at the respect threads on occassion. Sometimes I see many feats that people are misinterpreting wrong. With that said, I want more scans on the same character of a given stat (at least 3) and not mix and match scans on different characters (1 or 2 for each stat). Because it takes at least 3 scans in to overthrow the handbook in my mind.

Then I suggest you check out mine as their all organized and show more then just 3 feats contradicting the handbook entries and their not just one scan, it’s a few to show the context of the feat. I have the biggest respect threads on this board.

Originally posted by h1a8

All handbook writers that are assigned a certain character must and do read every appearance of that character in chronological order (jotting down notes as they go along). It says this on Marvel's web site.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but they don’t actually. You expect them to read the thousands of appearances of say Iron Man or Captain America? Every apperance they have had through out their career; every guest appearance, every solo run, every mini? No, that’s literally impossible. Notice they don’t reference every appearance they make in the actually entries as they only cover their key moments in their history and that’s a fact.

Originally posted by h1a8

Again, yes they do. Read the Marvel site about this.

Stuart one of the handbook writer, directly said they can't for those popular characters. That's directly coming from a handbook writer.

Originally posted by h1a8

The handbook uses only the majority of consistent relevant showings to produce the stat. They also talk to the original writers of that character when they need to and if it is possible (as also explained on the Marvel site too).

Haha no they don't as another handbook writer who wrote the entry for Omega Flight didn't talk to Scott Kolins or Mike Oeming about the entry, he just read the issues and wrote the entry. Same with Stuart in his entries

Originally posted by h1a8

Yes, that is the only way to, in good faith, show that the handbook stat is wrong. Now I am never supporting that handbooks have no errors in them on stats. For I definitely believe they do. Its just take sound evidence to show this and 3 is good enough for me (this is all I'm saying).

Uuuuuhhh...all I have been doing is posting scans, how many more times do I have to keep proving the handbooks wrong. Machine Man is another character the handbooks don't do him any justice with. Also yes, I can prove it but save yourself and me time just check the respect thread

Originally posted by King_Mungi
Marvel, they have gone to record the cards on the same level as Marvel Adventures. There more for kids and not to be taken serious as in the first volume they even made up some fun facts such as win/loss/draw records. Also from vol.2 (1991) they gave Galactus 1/7 in stamina, said Rhino was 5/7 [able to press 10-50 tons]. Thanos practically had better stats then Galactus and I'm not joking 😬

Diamond Lil

OHOTMU: Master Edition #22
1. http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c365/A_Flight4/MasterEdition-22-Diamond_Lil_2.jpg
2. http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c133/A_Flight3/MasterEdition-17-1_cover_b.jpg

Battles Spider-Man [AR]
1. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-18.jpg
2. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-19.jpg
3. http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e54/A_Flight6/AlphaFlight74-21.jpg

The work to create the handbooks is divided among many writers and it also takes a long time (years) to create these handbooks. So yes, I accept that writers either go through (not read word for word though) every appearance or consult with the original writers on the character they are assigned to write about (like Marvel says). Sorry, due to Marvel own words, I need proof that writers sometimes do neither. As it is hard for me to overrule something I read with my own eyes in an official site vs. mere hear say.

Stuart one of the handbook writer, directly said they can't for those popular characters. That's directly coming from a handbook writer.

Haha no they don't as another handbook writer who wrote the entry for Omega Flight didn't talk to Scott Kolins or Mike Oeming about the entry, he just read the issues and wrote the entry. Same with Stuart in his entries

Uuuuuhhh...all I have been doing is posting scans, how many more times do I have to keep proving the handbooks wrong. Machine Man is another character the handbooks don't do him any justice with. Also yes, I can prove it but save yourself and me time just check the respect thread

In conclusion, I have no problem believing the handbooks may have some errors. But certainly they have a lot of true things in them as well. And as a lesson to others reading this, one cannot say that a handbook stat is wrong without proving it by either someone showing at least 3 scans contradictory to it or it itself being common sense (comix sense 😄 ), like Galactus having 1/7 in stamina which means a 1 min stamina, lol.