Originally posted by ultimatethor
Nah its more like disStrength goes to thor
Speed WW
Fighting skill goes narrowly to WW
Durability most definitely THOR. Using hulk /thor fights to judge thors durability as weak is just purely stupid. Or are u saying that if wonderwoman was hit enough times by the hulk she would not be koed?
Thor has never been koed by the hulk in a few punches. I am not evn sure when the hulk eva koed him at all( might hv happened). Most of the times thor is bruiosed and battered but still fightingExperience thor as well.
Winner THOR
There's no proof that Thor is stronger thus giving both the benefit of the doubt we say they are even here.
WW is fairly more skilled than Thor. This is because her martial art is superior to all known martial arts on Earth. Thor's art is not superior to most arts on Earth.
Thor has trouble been hit in the head by uber strong beings (like Hulk or Juggs). WW can be hit by an sun amped Superman from the Sun to the Earth, reenter the atmosphere, and super crash into the Earth making a huge crater. This alone proves that her physical blunt durability is at least equal to Thor's.
Also WW is about as old as Thor and thus has about the same amount of experience. So how does experience goes to Thor?
So Thor has 0 advantages in this fight. So how does he win? 😕
Originally posted by Larceny
Not to mention Thor's taken bullets from high caliber machine gun bullets from a fighter jet, machine gun fire, and a head on attack from the disintegrator beam.
Thor has never taken a head on attack from the disintegrator beam.
Are you lying or just not a true Thor fan as we though?
People here are arguing general durability when they should be arguing physical blunt (non-sharp) durability. People assume that since WW has some slight problems with piercing objects then this reflects her blunt force durability. This is a false assumption. Her durability decreases exponentially the sharper the object is (I think because of a curse or how she was made). In other words, sharp piercing objects don't have anything to do with her ability to take a non-sharp object such as a fist. She can take a bullet about equal as Thor and a fist better than Thor. So how is Thor's physical blunt durability necessarily better than hers?
Originally posted by h1a8
There's no proof that Thor is stronger thus giving both the benefit of the doubt we say they are even here.
There is more proof that he is, than otherwise.
When he starts to need other peoples help in a constant manner in doing high strength feats like she does, you can have a case.
Originally posted by h1a8
WW is fairly more skilled than Thor. This is because her martial art is superior to all known martial arts on Earth. Thor's art is not superior to most arts on Earth.
Load of crack that is. If Diana fougth just h2h with Batman, she would lose most of the time. Comic top tiers arent more skilled than the street level types. Its a comic rule staple.
Thats how guys like Batman and the Masterof Kung Fu have any use for writers.
Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has trouble been hit in the head by uber strong beings (like Hulk or Juggs). WW can be hit by an sun amped Superman from the Sun to the Earth, reenter the atmosphere, and super crash into the Earth making a huge crater. This alone proves that her physical blunt durability is at least equal to Thor's.
Lets see the difference you got here: Thor gets hit in the head of Hulk and Juggs and doesnt usually gets knocked out, while it only took Diana one hit of Superman to take a brief nap.
Originally posted by h1a8
Also WW is about as old as Thor and thus has about the same amount of experience. So how does experience goes to Thor?So Thor has 0 advantages in this fight. So how does he win? 😕
Thor is obviously (and painfully at that) older. Not that it matters, because experience in comics is worth to almost nothing. Thats how "younger" folks like Deathstroke can hang with people they shouldnt.
Your "reasoning" as usual finds lacking.
Originally posted by Soljer
Low showing.She's been shot to no effect.
Where does arrogance come into the picture?
Guess what. So has Thor.
And yet he isent attributed with the same kind of "invulnerability" of Superman and Hulk have. For obvious reasons.
And neither is Diana for that matter. But even with that apart, he is cleary overall more resistant to damage. Hell, its a part of his character to keep getting up all broken and still ready to figth. Im discounting of course current Thor, because i dont belive one bit, its the OP wanted to use..is it?
Originally posted by h1a8
Let's seeStrength is even (even though I think WW is stronger)
This one is easily replied. How many times Thor needed someone`s help to perform at high levels of strength? How many times WW needed the same?
Originally posted by h1a8
Speed goes to WW
This is a fistcuff. Not to mention, she doesnt do combat speed. No matter what internet myths sport.
Originally posted by h1a8
Fighting skill goes to WW
Correct. Altho the difference isent that radical, or anything.
Originally posted by h1a8
Blunt durability goes to WW (Thor couldn't have withstood the punch that sent WW from the sun to earth in seconds since Hulk has koed him with far less power)
She was napping with one shot.
Hulk never came close to pull that one off to Thor. Ever.
Originally posted by h1a8
Experience is about even (WW is thousands of years old too)
No, it isent. Hes easily older. But like i said, this quality doesnt matter in the comic book setting.
Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has no advantages over WW. None!
The only way it is possible for someone to say that Thor wins is through sheer fanboyism.
Of course.
Now, go fetch me a sandwich, gender traitor.
Originally posted by olympianNo offense but that is dumb a$$ logic. Since when did Thor ever try to tow the Earth? Hell, WW needed more help than me before, but am I stronger?
There is more proof that he is, than otherwise.When he starts to need other peoples help in a constant manner in doing high strength feats like she does, you can have a case.
And where is the proof that he is stronger?
Diana would beat Batman if she had the same strength, speed, and stamina as him. This is because her art with experience is superior to batman's.
Load of crack that is. If Diana fougth just h2h with Batman, she would lose most of the time. Comic top tiers arent more skilled than the street level types. Its a comic rule staple.
Where are you getting "nap" from? Superman's hit was trillions of times harder than those two and she still didn't ko (NOT EVEN FOR A MICROSECOND).
Lets see the difference you got here: Thor gets hit in the head of Hulk and Juggs and doesnt usually gets knocked out, while it only took Diana one hit of Superman to take a brief nap.
I agree. Experience almost means nothing.
Thor is obviously (and painfully at that) older. Not that it matters, because experience in comics is worth to almost nothing. Thats how "younger" folks like Deathstroke can hang with people they shouldnt.
There is 0 proof that Thor can take physical blows better than Diana. This is a fact.
And neither is Diana for that matter. But even with that apart, he is cleary overall more resistant to damage. Hell, its a part of his character to keep getting up all broken and still ready to figth. Im discounting of course current Thor, because i dont belive one bit, its the OP wanted to use..is it?
Originally posted by h1a8
No offense but that is dumb a$$ logic. Since when did Thor ever try to tow the Earth? Hell, WW needed more help than me before, but am I stronger?
Its factual logic.
Thor towed the Midgard Serpent alone and the struggle was shaking off the globe.
Thor armwrestled Hercules and the struggle was said enough to shake a planet off its orbit.
WW doesnt have that unless its with help. And i dont think its by a coincidence. Lets face it, its not just the Earth, its everytime she is connected with a big towing feat. She is cleary strong enough to pull wins and hurt him, but given what we read, she isent stronger than him. And in my view not directly equal either.
Originally posted by h1a8
Diana would beat Batman if she had the same strength, speed, and stamina as him. This is because her art with experience is superior to batman's.
You would wish for it, im sure.
But no. Street level beats Top tier in figthing skills. Always have.
Originally posted by h1a8
Where are you getting "nap" from? Superman's hit was trillions of times harder than those two and she still didn't ko (NOT EVEN FOR A MICROSECOND).
In the panel where its stated she blacked out.
So, she migth have been taking a nap for a microsecond after all, no?
Originally posted by h1a8
I agree. Experience almost means nothing.
But I just wanted to show that Thor doesn't even have an advantage here either. And Thor is not necessarily older when she is also thousands of years old.
And i agree. But there is no reason to say Diana equals his experience or anything like it means something in comics.
And factually, she may be a thousand of years older and a smidge more, but Thor is easily centuries more.
Originally posted by h1a8
There is 0 proof that Thor can take physical blows better than Diana. This is a fact.
No, its your opinion.
Fact would be to aknowlege that she blacked out, even for a moment when it was written that she did.
Originally posted by olympianThat feat is no longer any good. It has been totally debunked. The Serpent's body was in ethereal form as said in the panel. It was magically crushing the Earth.
Its factual logic.Thor towed the Midgard Serpent alone and the struggle was shaking off the globe.
Yet it didn't. This is called hyperbole (or exaggeration).
Thor armwrestled Hercules and the struggle was said enough to shake a planet off its orbit.
Again stupid logic. Needing help doesn't prove that you are weaker. Now if Thor did the same feats as WW without help then that most certainly proves that he is stronger. So, when Thor tows an Earth by himself then I will say that he is stronger. Till then I'm saying that WW is stronger (but will say that they are even for the sake of argument).
WW doesnt have that unless its with help. And i dont think its by a coincidence. Lets face it, its not just the Earth, its everytime she is connected with a big towing feat. She is cleary strong enough to pull wins and hurt him, but given what we read, she isent stronger than him. And in my view not directly equal either.
That's no proof that batman is better than WW in h2h.
But no. Street level beats Top tier in figthing skills. Always have.
Yet you said it giving the impression that she was knocked the uck out. It doesn't matter anyway since that feat was more impressive than anything Thor has withstood on the blunt physical force side.
In the panel where its stated she blacked out.So, she migth have been taking a nap for a microsecond after all, no?
A statement cannot be an opinion. A statement is defined as something that is true or false. Either there is proof that Thor is more durable to blunt force or there isn't. I say there isn't. So is my statement true or false?
No, its your opinion.
Again this doesn't prove that WW has less blunt durability. Thor never got hit with that type of blunt force to even compare.
Fact would be to aknowlege that she blacked out, even for a moment when it was written that she did.
You really have to think about your logic. Because by your logic,
WW blacking out for an instant against an amped Superman punch proves Thing (or even Spider-man) has greater blunt durability than her. Do you see the faultiness of the logic here?
Originally posted by h1a8
That feat is no longer any good. It has been totally debunked. The Serpent's body was in ethereal form as said in the panel. It was magically crushing the Earth.
I dont recall that being said on panel, but what does it debunk exactly? That just because the kind of weigth involved is magical in nature, it doesnt count?
If we discount magic altogether, prepare to do the same with WW. Wich case in point the argument stands: she doesnt do this kind of "absurd" looking feats generally on her own. Thor does.
And there lies the difference between the two when discussing strength.
Originally posted by h1a8
Yet it didn't. This is called hyperbole (or exaggeration).
It didnt because the struggle lost its peak when the mountain where both wer standing, totally shattered. Its more than enough that the narration states what this kind of strengh can do or was about to do - not much differently than another character struggling with something, and the narration giving us the kind of effects of what is about to happen.
Its not like they wer really going to show the Earth shattering in half, would they?
If i recall, that is also implied in that same scene. Then again, if we are going to discount exagerations (according to you) shall we do equally for both?
Originally posted by h1a8
Again stupid logic. Needing help doesn't prove that you are weaker. Now if Thor did the same feats as WW without help then that most certainly proves that he is stronger. So, when Thor tows an Earth by himself then I will say that he is stronger. Till then I'm saying that WW is stronger (but will say that they are even for the sake of argument).
Sorry, H. My logic as faulty as it migth be, its cleary better than yours. What you present its basically nothing.
If WW only does those kind of feats, with help, then how can she be stronger or directly even with someone who does these kind of feats on his own? It makes no sense. What do you think its the writters intention?
Now, to be clear, i dont think your assertion of being even is totally out there. It really isent. I just think one obviously got better examples.
Originally posted by h1a8
That's no proof that batman is better than WW in h2h.
You just used a faulty inductive argument.
Sorry, but here you wont ever be rigth. You may not like it, and many sure dont. But its factual as the superhero genre is. In the majority of the cases the likes of Batman and Deathstroke are simply better at H2H than most if not all the top tiers. Gail Simone may show WW being better on her run and still almost all Batman writers, or JL writers (Morrison comes to mind), etc will show otherwise.
The reason for it, its also simple to understand. If they arent better than guys much more powerful than them - at something - they are for all porpuses a waste of paper. The way writers make them revelant is to enchant the whole meaning of "street level" type, wich is to be the guys with the best pure h2h style around.
Thats how Deathstroke makes WW and GL look bad. Or Captain with Hercules and Hulk.
Originally posted by h1a8
Yet you said it giving the impression that she was knocked the uck out. It doesn't matter anyway since that feat was more impressive than anything Thor has withstood on the blunt physical force side.
Thor has withstood punches from beings cleary ahead of Superman in strength and overall power, and wasent ko with a single punch - ever- that i recall. Not even passing out momentarily if going by memory.
Originally posted by h1a8
A statement cannot be an opinion. A statement is defined as something that is true or false. Either there is proof that Thor is more durable to blunt force or there isn't. I say there isn't. So is my statement true or false?
Its false.
Unless you consider Superman stronger than the Asgardian Destroyer, Thanos, Mangog, Surtur and the like. The fact that Thor pretty much have the most dangerous rogues gallery of the standart heroes speaks for itself.
Originally posted by h1a8
You really have to think about your logic. Because by your logic,
WW blacking out for an instant against an amped Superman punch proves Thing (or even Spider-man) has greater blunt durability than her. Do you see the faultiness of the logic here?
No. Im not comparing a mid tier or just a below top tier character with a top tier.
Im comparing a top tier with another top tier. And one of them usually faces stronger folk more often. Its that simple.
Originally posted by olympianLook at the scan again. It says "ethereal". It even says in the OHOTMU that only the serpent's head materialized. And your analogy fails. WW used pure strength. If any magic helped her with the actually pulling or pushing then it would be a new power on her.
I dont recall that being said on panel, but what does it debunk exactly? That just because the kind of weigth involved is magical in nature, it doesnt count?If we discount magic altogether, prepare to do the same with WW. Wich case in point the argument stands: she doesnt do this kind of "absurd" looking feats generally on her own. Thor does.
And there lies the difference between the two when discussing strength.
True. But exaggerations occur in statements and not in the showing.
If i recall, that is also implied in that same scene. Then again, if we are going to discount exagerations (according to you) shall we do equally for both?
I never stated who was stronger as a fact. So I have nothing to present. I was just stating that there is no proof that Thor is stronger. Am I correct here? If no then give me some undeniable proof that he is stronger. The feats have to be comparable. Meaning you must show that he can do something she can't. If you succeed then I will admit that Thor is stronger. I have no problem with that as I like Thor too.
Sorry, H. My logic as faulty as it migth be, its cleary better than yours. What you present its basically nothing.
That's what I'm saying. If Thor does those feats without help then he is clearly stronger. But the problem is he never did any of those feats on his own. So we have nothing to compare. Thus no proof.
If WW only does those kind of feats, with help, then how can she be stronger or directly even with someone who does these kind of feats on his own? It makes no sense.
The word 'obviously' is deceiving. This is a bold face lie. There is no strength feat Thor has that is obviously better than Diana's best. Yet I say that both their strength is even for the sake of argument. Because no one can prove that one is stronger than the other.
Now, to be clear, i dont think your assertion of being even is totally out there. It really isent. I just think one obviously got better examples.
All that in invalid and moot. Thus it proves nothing. The fact of the matter is whether Diana's art is superior to all Earthly styles or not. Plus add the thousand of years of experience to this superior art.
Sorry, but here you wont ever be rigth. You may not like it, and many sure dont. But its factual as the superhero genre is. In the majority of the cases the likes of Batman and Deathstroke are simply better at H2H than most if not all the top tiers. Gail Simone may show WW being better on her run and still almost all Batman writers, or JL writers (Morrison comes to mind), etc will show otherwise.The reason for it, its also simple to understand. If they arent better than guys much more powerful than them - at something - they are for all porpuses a waste of paper. The way writers make them revelant is to enchant the whole meaning of "street level" type, wich is to be the guys with the best pure h2h style around.
Doesn't matter. Just was showing you that your logic was faulty.
Thats how Deathstroke makes WW and GL look bad. Or Captain with Hercules and Hulk.
That is a bold faced lie (the implication is a lie as well as the stated word). Thor has never ever ever ever withstood a punch like that. He hasn't even withstood a punch with the power of even a weak John Byrne superman. So whether Superman is weaker or not makes no difference. And this wasn't regular Superman. This is sun amped Superman. Which IMO is stronger than anyone that Thor has ever faced. This punch that WW took was from a sun amped Superman than knocked her from the Sun to the Earth faster than light. That alone puts her blunt durability at least equal to his.
Thor has withstood punches from beings cleary ahead of Superman in strength and overall power, and wasent ko with a single punch - ever- that i recall. Not even passing out momentarily if going by memory.
I consider a sun amped Superman stronger than all you named (at their base strengths). Also, none of the ones you name struck Thor with the force Superman struck Diana with. Not even close.
Its false.Unless you consider Superman stronger than the Asgardian Destroyer, Thanos, Mangog, Surtur and the like. The fact that Thor pretty much have the most dangerous rogues gallery of the standart heroes speaks for itself.
No. Im not comparing a mid tier or just a below top tier character with a top tier.Im comparing a top tier with another top tier. And one of them usually faces stronger folk more often. Its that simple.
Doesn't matter what you are comparing. Going by your exact words you used faulty logic. Thor has never been in the situation that WW has been to even compare. Thus you can't say he is more durable to blunt force as a fact (you can give your opinion though).
Originally posted by The Pict
Is trading blows with Hulk more impressive than trading them with the likes of Superman, Despero and Zoom? I don't think so.
we are talking about WW not superman, WW is not even close to supes in physical raw power. this has been debated for ever. Yes shes tough very tough. But most the time she fights a male combatant they tend to go easy on her and she goes ape shit.
WW is more on the strength level as martian manhunter, id say thor is a tad above that but bellow supes strength level.
there is no real gauge to go by casue writing varys alot.
WW is strong but without her arsenal of wepons (tiara,braclets laso) thoses dont bother me thery are apart of her character.
but when you bring in the shield and sword ..thats horse shit tell ya why.
WW is arguably fairly tough and can put up a fist fight for a while against supes but its still not even. Now picture a female body builder in a fight with a male body builder. Sure this female body builder would do well but prolly loose due to strength issues.
Now lets give her a nice metal knife, nah lets make it a 2 foot sword made of metal. This metal can pierce the skin of anyone, i mean both combatants.
Very simple the male body builder is almost gaurenteed to die , why?
Becasue the wepon the female combatant has is LEATHAL not a form of dmg dealing , it can kill.
the sword should have never been made a part of WW's charatcer and as far as im concerned .
its not.
the tiara laso and braclets will always be recognized as part of WW, the rest of her toys are just over powed crap some writers gave to her.
Not to mention she dont have the durability that thor has.
But for what its worth WW does have one thing in her favor. She has alot of built in anger and shes very agressive, But never the less i dont think she could last in a long fight with any of the big wigs in DC or marvel especially dc.
Originally posted by h1a8
Look at the scan again. It says "ethereal". It even says in the OHOTMU that only the serpent's head materialized. And your analogy fails. WW used pure strength. If any magic helped her with the actually pulling or pushing then it would be a new power on her.
WW`s strength is magical in nature. There: we just discounted that.
Its like you didnt even read the reply. What does it matter the nature of the weigth involved as long it physically affects something like the whole globe? The same way, what does it matter the nature or origin of the strength source of a given character being magic? Or the sun? Or rage?
Totally. Nothing.
Originally posted by h1a8
I never stated who was stronger as a fact. So I have nothing to present. I was just stating that there is no proof that Thor is stronger. Am I correct here? If no then give me some undeniable proof that he is stronger. The feats have to be comparable. Meaning you must show that he can do something she can't. If you succeed then I will admit that Thor is stronger. I have no problem with that as I like Thor too.
That's what I'm saying. If Thor does those feats without help then he is clearly stronger. But the problem is he never did any of those feats on his own. So we have nothing to compare. Thus no proof.
No.
He towed the Midgard Serpent alone. He armwrestle against Hercules alone. And if you want to bring more absurd feats into play he also moved the World engine alone.
WW, since the crisis, usually doesnt have such absurd feats written for her and the most impressive she got are with assist. The difference is again, somewhat telling.
Of course, since those big feats arent random for everyone even of this range, we can say that one average theyr strength is pretty close. But the difference is still there as it is.
Originally posted by h1a8
The word 'obviously' is deceiving. This is a bold face lie. There is no strength feat Thor has that is [B]obviously better than Diana's best. Yet I say that both their strength is even for the sake of argument. Because no one can prove that one is stronger than the other.[/B]
Not unless you take the assists into account. Wich it seems you arent.
Originally posted by h1a8
All that in invalid and moot. Thus it proves nothing. The fact of the matter is whether Diana's art is superior to all Earthly styles or not. Plus add the thousand of years of experience to this superior art.
Doesn't matter. Just was showing you that your logic was faulty.
And again, you keep on not reading. Its like you reply on this thread not wanting to argue any valid points. What is the porpuse of that?
What you present, this theory of yours, its what would be common sense in the real word. Someone older and more experience at MA wins against someone younger at MA. But this is not the real world. Its comic books. Where certain unwritten rules are applied. And one of them is the reason why Deathstroke makes WW and a Green Lantern look less skilled than he is shown to be.
This is not to say they are actually going to win straigh on, only that this level is written to be better than the higher in one aspect: figthing skills. Its theyr stich.
Fell free to once more ignore what im writting.
Originally posted by h1a8
That is a bold faced lie (the implication is a lie as well as the stated word).
Appearantly you cant do better than say "its a bold face lie" to everything.
Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has never ever ever ever withstood a punch like that. He hasn't even withstood a punch with the power of even a weak John Byrne superman.
I can only conclude with this that you never ever ever ever read Thor in your whole life.
Honestly, Byrne Superman? Wich Hulk isent stronger than that? Grey?
Originally posted by h1a8
So whether Superman is weaker or not makes no difference.
When you spilled things like this out loud, it should be enough to make you stop typing.
It matters, because hes weaker than some folks Thor routinely figths.
Originally posted by h1a8
I consider a sun amped Superman stronger than all you named (at their base strengths). Also, none of the ones you name struck Thor with the force Superman struck Diana with. Not even close.
Its pretty telling that you dont read Thor. Not only that but your hierarchy is bogus.
All that ive named are stronger. And in the majority of the times, Thor doesnt go down with one punch.
Originally posted by h1a8
Doesn't matter what you are comparing.
Ok, stop now.
Its like replying to a brick wall. "It doesnt matter"? You trow here mid tiers that have nothing to do with the debate while im comparing characters of the same range and "It doesnt matter"?
Look, if you dont get something, then dont talk about the subject. Its easy.
Armwrestling, like, I'm gonna play with my friend Hercules, and they weren't even going all out.Physically Thor is up with all the top tiers, the fact is that the Supesboys believes Superman is too cool to be defeated by Thor.
11) INVULNERABILITY: The following are historical examples of incredibly devastating forces that has been used against Thor. Thor has survived each of these highly Lethal attacks, and most of the time have come out unscathed. A) Thor has been on the receiving end of Zeus and Blitziana's LIGHTNING bolts. B) Thor withstood a barrage of ARTILLARY fire with ease, and a Heat Seeking Missile- see Thor#480, and Thor-#247; C) and in the J. Kirby's days Thor used to test his invulnerability by having a Cobalt Bomb explode next to him. D) Kang’s Dissolution blast to the EXTREME did not fell Thor-Avengers-#143, and in Avengers-#295 Mechanosaurus struck Thor with a Megahertz Artillery fire that would easily destroy any vehicle to pieces- with no visible effect on Thor (Note: even bullets from a powerful sub-machine gun can’t hope to accomplish the same amount of penetration or destruction that could a Megahertz artillery attack by Mechnanosaurus). In Avengers-#5-pg 20- it explicitly stated that nothing, not even an ATOMIC BLAST could injure Thor, or his hammer. E) Thor resisted the full power of the Man from Saturn’s Graviton ray-Thor-#255. F) Thor withstood the Thermal Man's HEAT blast that could melt Tanks instantly, also, Thor was insensitive to the Lava Man's attack- see Avengers #5. In addition, Thor withstood a direct hit by Firelord’s Cosmic Flame with absolutely no dire visible effect on him- Thor-#306, and Ghost Rider’s Flame proved to be totally ineffectual against Thor, as well- Avengers-#214, and when the Planet Ego raised his internal heat temperature to the EXTREME, it had no affect on Thor-See Thor-#133. G) Thor was unaffected by an Alien Freeze Ray-Avengers-#14 (vol.1). H) In terms of indescribable sheer Magical, and Cosmic power, for instance, Thor was just temporarily stunned by Ego’s pulsating energy attack that would, physically, have rendered AN ENTIRE RACE UNCOUNSCIOUS- Thor-#133.
In addition, Thor withstood blast by Odin-Thor-#241, by the Celestials-Thor-#300, and by a space Armada-Avengers-Annual#7. However, the three most impressive testimony events that showed Thor's invulnerability, however, was when he, almost, took a direct hit by a Doomsday Bomb that was capable of destroying an entire planet, and soon after that explosion Thor felt from space to a planet called Pangoria-see Thor#387. Also, Thor resisted the weight of Multitude of Planets-Thor Annual-#9, and the Gravity of a Neutron Star-Thor-#282. The other event took place when Thor paid an uninvited visit to ATUM in the Sun's core. If you think that this wasn’t enough, Thor has survive incredible physical punishment by the likes of the Destroyer, Durok, the Mangog, Surtur- Thor-#351, by the Devourer-Marvel Two In One-#23, The Thermal Man, Terminus, the 300,000 ft. tall Rhun god when he swatted Thor aside-Thor#220, and the Celestial- The One Above All- when he not only swatted Thor aside, but did hurled at him unnumbered tons of delicate machinery at him with no significant adverse effect on Thor-See Thor-#288.
Speaking about Thor's durability, ROTFL at Thor being drilled by Superman's superspeed punches.
Originally posted by K3VIL
Armwrestling, like, I'm gonna play with my friend Hercules, and they weren't even going all out.Physically Thor is up with all the top tiers, the fact is that the Supesboys believes Superman is too cool to be defeated by Thor.
11) INVULNERABILITY: The following are historical examples of incredibly devastating forces that has been used against Thor. Thor has survived each of these highly Lethal attacks, and most of the time have come out unscathed. A) Thor has been on the receiving end of Zeus and Blitziana's LIGHTNING bolts. B) Thor withstood a barrage of ARTILLARY fire with ease, and a Heat Seeking Missile- see Thor#480, and Thor-#247; C) and in the J. Kirby's days Thor used to test his invulnerability by having a Cobalt Bomb explode next to him. D) Kang’s Dissolution blast to the EXTREME did not fell Thor-Avengers-#143, and in Avengers-#295 Mechanosaurus struck Thor with a Megahertz Artillery fire that would easily destroy any vehicle to pieces- with no visible effect on Thor (Note: even bullets from a powerful sub-machine gun can’t hope to accomplish the same amount of penetration or destruction that could a Megahertz artillery attack by Mechnanosaurus). In Avengers-#5-pg 20- it explicitly stated that nothing, not even an ATOMIC BLAST could injure Thor, or his hammer. E) Thor resisted the full power of the Man from Saturn’s Graviton ray-Thor-#255. F) Thor withstood the Thermal Man's HEAT blast that could melt Tanks instantly, also, Thor was insensitive to the Lava Man's attack- see Avengers #5. In addition, Thor withstood a direct hit by Firelord’s Cosmic Flame with absolutely no dire visible effect on him- Thor-#306, and Ghost Rider’s Flame proved to be totally ineffectual against Thor, as well- Avengers-#214, and when the Planet Ego raised his internal heat temperature to the EXTREME, it had no affect on Thor-See Thor-#133. G) Thor was unaffected by an Alien Freeze Ray-Avengers-#14 (vol.1). H) In terms of indescribable sheer Magical, and Cosmic power, for instance, Thor was just temporarily stunned by Ego’s pulsating energy attack that would, physically, have rendered AN ENTIRE RACE UNCOUNSCIOUS- Thor-#133.
I read the C-Bomb one yesterday, they were going to test it but it was stolen so he never goy to, at that time he wasn't sure what he could take.
Just pointing out.