Originally posted by TricksterPriest
This is a close fight. It depends on which versions we're using. Gladiator at his best, has the ability to take Thor, but he rarely uses his speed enough to do it. Thor is stronger, but Glads has the speed to win at 4/10, if not more.
I don't think Thor has ever come off as stronger in their confrontations.
Really the only time they were portrayed as peers in a fight was in the Fantastic Four issue with the time bubble thing.
The other times, Gladiator seemed to be presented less like a peer and more like the Ivan Drago uber-threat that Thor had to Balboa-up to beat, especially in the issue with Wonder Man and Masterson Thor.
Originally posted by KK the GreatHe sure looks stronger here when he decides to get serious. Afterwards, Gladiator himself admitted he was no match:
I don't think Thor has ever come off as stronger in their confrontations.Really the only time they were portrayed as peers in a fight was in the Fantastic Four issue with the time bubble thing.
The other times, Gladiator seemed to be presented less like a peer and more like the Ivan Drago uber-threat that Thor had to Balboa-up to beat, especially in the issue with Wonder Man and Masterson Thor.
And using Masterson's performance to correlate a real Thor/Gladiator comparison is as fallacious as using Dr. Doom's performance with Surfer's powers to do the same.
Originally posted by KK the GreatSuperman doesn't have a helmet with wings either.
But Superman doesn't have creamy lavender skin or a fabulous haircut.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
He sure looks stronger here when he decides to get serious.
How does pounding him repeatedly in the face with Mjolnir make him look stronger? There are any number of physically stronger opponents whom Thor could defeat if he landed that many Mjolnir strikes to the head.
This goes back to something I was going to mention in the Gladiator/Namor thread, before it was closed. You were saying that Thor's win was more impressive than Gladiator's win in the Jurgens arc because he "really pounded him" or something along those lines. But if we apply the powers of reason to it, your argument doesn't stand to much scrutiny.
I mean, yeah, you're right about one thing. Thor really pounded the hell out of him.
First he blasted Gladiator, and then he bashed his head in with repeated all-out Mjolnir strikes. Gladiator hit the ground and like a second later Tarene stepped in and blasted him with an energy bolt which Thor proclaimed to "rival omnipotent Odin." After being blasted and then pounded mercilessly and then blasted again, Gladiator was rising to his feet and talking within a couple of panels.
When Gladiator won in their earlier fight, all he did was punt Mjolnir from Thor's hands and then uppercut him. That uppercut KO'd Thor so long that he reverted to Jake Olsen and was still unconscious.
I'm not entirely sure why you think that makes Thor's win more impressive. Because Thor had to do so much more to achieve so much less?
And using Masterson's performance to correlate a real Thor/Gladiator comparison is as fallacious as using Dr. Doom's performance with Surfer's powers to do the same.
Not in terms of raw power level, it isn't.
I'm not talking particularly about Masterson's performance against Gladiator. He isn't the warrior Thor is, and a running theme in the fight was Gladiator mocking Masterson's skill as a warrior. That much is a given, and obviously it can't be used to say the real Thor would perform as poorly.
But I'm not talking about that, anyway.
What I'm talking about is the basic way in which Gladiator was presented to the reader. He wasn't treated like Hercules or some other rough peer to the Avengers heavy hitters. He was presented as a nigh-unbeatable threat that it was practically suicide to face. They actually used the word "undefeatable" to describe him.
Thor, Wonder Man, The Vision, Captain Marvel (Photon), Living Lightning, Starfox, and Scarlet Witch as a team were acting as though fighting him would be a death-sentence. If it was Hercules standing in their way, you can bet dollars to donuts they wouldn't have the same reaction.
At some point, as a reader, you need to develop a degree of sophistication. You need to grasp and accept that the character on the cover is ultimately going to pull out a win and save the day. That's just the way of things--it's what title characters do. Any character in the villain role will ultimately be defeated. It is an inevitability. With that unavoidable reality in mind, the mere fact that the hero was able to score a victory should be taken with some semblance of a grain of salt. More important for judging the villain's mettle is analyzing how he was portrayed in the battle and presented in the narrative. Thor will manage to defeat Mangog every time, but it should be pretty clear that he's doing so as an underdog. He's the valiant hero overcoming incredible odds.
That is how Gladiator tends, more often than not, to be portrayed: as the overwhelming physical threat which the hero must valiantly overcome against the odds. When a villain is portrayed in that manner, it is fallacious (now we've come full circle) to point to his inevitable defeat as evidence that he must be less powerful than the title hero.
Originally posted by KK the GreatThor also blasted him before he lay into him with Mjolnir, in case you forgot. Glads didn't look like he was having fun:
How does pounding him repeatedly in the face with Mjolnir make him look stronger? There are any number of physically stronger opponents whom Thor could defeat if he landed that many Mjolnir strikes to the head.This goes back to something I was going to mention in the Gladiator/Namor thread, before it was closed. You were saying that Thor's win was more impressive than Gladiator's win in the Jurgens arc because he "really pounded him" or something along those lines. But if we apply the powers of reason to it, your argument doesn't stand to much scrutiny.
I mean, yeah, you're right about one thing. Thor really pounded the hell out of him.
First he blasted Gladiator, and then he bashed his head in with repeated all-out charged Mjolnir strikes. Gladiator hit the ground and like a second later Tarene stepped in and blasted him with an energy bolt which Thor proclaimed to "rival omnipotent Odin." After being blasted and then pounded mercilessly and then blasted again, Gladiator was rising to his feet and talking within a couple of panels.
When Gladiator won in their earlier fight, all he did was punt Mjolnir from Thor's hands and then uppercut him. That uppercut KO'd Thor so long that he reverted to Jake Olsen and was still unconscious.
I'm not entirely sure why you think that makes Thor's win more impressive. Because Thor had to do so much more to achieve so much less?
And Tarene came in after Gladiator was mightily smited upon in the scan that I posted previously. By this point, right before Tarene zaps him (that's her feet you see), he was pretty much done... unless you're going to argue that Glads like the taste of pavement:
And if you don't care for Thor's words or my own interpretations, then perhaps Gladiator's own admissions to Zarko may change your point of view:
Before the prior thread was closed, what I was actually saying was that Thor was holding back the entire time. So in your own words, why does a Gladiator beating up on a Thor who is: 1) holding back; 2) asking for explanations; 3) bewildered by an assault from a former ally; and 4) saving innocents half the time do to warrant such a display of admiration for such efforts? Especially AFTER he decided to get serious, he stomped on him like he was a rabid smurf? Especially AFTER Gladiator himself admits Thor was more powerful than he?
Originally posted by KK the GreatThis last sentence is true. But to be more precise, the main running theme in the fight was that Masterson himself admitted and pitied his lack of skills as compared to Thor. He cursed himself for trying stupid stunts and forgetting his powers over weather control.
Not in terms of raw power level, it isn't.I'm not talking particularly about Masterson's performance against Gladiator. He isn't the warrior Thor is, and a running theme in the fight was Gladiator mocking Masterson's skill as a warrior. That much is a given, and obviously it can't be used to say the real Thor would perform as poorly.
Originally posted by KK the GreatVision described him as undefeatable. And considering the highest card in that team was Masterson Thor, who even Wonderman couldn't help but point out was pretty much worthless in that very same conversation, it was a very accurate prediction. Up until the point where they proved Vision wrong and did beat Gladiator and nearly killed him:
But I'm not talking about that, anyway.What I'm talking about is the basic way in which Gladiator was presented to the reader. He wasn't treated like Hercules or some other rough peer to the Avengers heavy hitters. He was presented as a nigh-unbeatable threat that it was practically suicide to face. They actually used the word "undefeatable" to describe him.
Thor, Wonder Man, The Vision, Captain Marvel (Photon), Starfox, and Scarlet Witch as a team were acting as though fighting him would be a death-sentence.
Originally posted by KK the GreatAt some point, as a critical thinker, you need to learn to step back and instead of focusing on how to rationalize your opinions, you simply engage in the most straight-forward manner and look at the plain presentation of the comics. I appreciate and can even applaud your grasp of the limitations that simple story-telling forces upon the antagonist in a heroes/villains contest. Almost surely will the villain lose. That's the nature of the beast.
At some point, as a reader, you need to develop a degree of sophistication. You need to grasp and accept that the character on the cover is ultimately going to pull out a win and save the day. That's just the way of things--it's what title characters do. Any character in the villain role will ultimately be defeated. It is an inevitability. With that unavoidable reality in mind, the mere fact that the hero was able to score a victory should be taken with some semblance of a grain of salt. More important for judging the villain's mettle is analyzing how he was portrayed in the battle and presented in the narrative. Thor will manage to defeat Mangog every time, but it should be pretty clear that he's doing so as an underdog. He's the valiant hero overcoming incredible odds.That is how Gladiator tends, more often than not, to be portrayed: as the overwhelming physical threat which the hero must valiantly overcome against the odds. When a villain is portrayed in that manner, it is fallacious (now we've come full circle) to point to his inevitable defeat as evidence that he must be less powerful than the title hero.
But what drives an author to have their protagonist ultimately succeed also drives the author to develop a sense of danger and drama in the form of the villain. And that crisis is almost assuredly produced by portraying villains as posing an insurmountable obstacle to our protagonist, especially through common labels, i.e. "undefeatable." Arguing literature for literature's sake in a comic vs contest is admirable, maybe even sophisticated. However, recognizing these imposed limitations on an antagonist in a heroes/villains story is no reason to ignore the plain presentation and ultimate result of what actually occurs.
Here, Thor wins.
A surprising number of people do also. And if I were to name them, I think you'd be surprised who agrees. But I'd rather not derail this thread. Ask Raoul or Badabing to reopen the thread and we can discuss it there:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=481668&pagenumber=310
Originally posted by OneDumbG0K.
A surprising number of people do also. And if I were to name them, I think you'd be surprised who agrees. But I'd rather not derail this thread. Ask Raoul or Badabing to reopen the thread and we can discuss it there:http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=481668&pagenumber=310
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Thor also blasted him before he lay into him with Mjolnir, in case you forgot.
I didn't.
Which explains why I mentioned it twice in my post.
And if you don't care for Thor's words or my own interpretations, then perhaps Gladiator's own admissions to Zarko may change your point of view:
Why would it? It makes no sense. If not for the intervention of Tarene and Enchantress, Thor would have died.
Repeat: Gladiator would have killed Thor if Tarene and Enchantress had not stepped in to save him. Gladiator is clearly capable of killing Thor, just as Thor is clearly capable of killing Gladiator.
So the notion that Gladiator was incapable of killing Thor "because Thor was too strong" is absurd on the face of it. The preceding comic rather clearly shows otherwise.
It'd be like Count Neferia licking his wounds after his first defeat at the hands of the Avengers and proclaiming, "The Vision is just too strong."
Before the prior thread was closed, what I was actually saying was that Thor was holding back the entire time. So in your own words, why does a Gladiator beating up on a Thor who is: 1) holding back; 2) asking for explanations; 3) bewildered by an assault from a former ally; and 4) saving innocents half the time do to warrant such a display of admiration for such efforts?
The simple fact of the matter is that the only appropriate response to your summary of that first fight is to look at the pages and erupt in riotous laughter.
Does that really look like a bewildered Thor who was holding back, not wanting to fight, and just trying to ask questions?
Really?
...
Really?
It's like I said before: Thor may as well put "I wasn't actually trying" on his business card. He pulls that excuse often enough. If it isn't "now that I have taken his measure..." then it's "I was holding back before, honest I was."
Didn't he even play that card after his ass-whooping in JLA/Avengers? Now that I'm thinking of that debacle, part of me wonders if Jurgens didn't receive so much outrage from Thor fanboys over Gladiator beating Thor that he was pressured into squeezing all of those half-baked excuses into the second issue. Certainly wouldn't be the first or last time rabid Thor fans forced a writer into doing something like that.
And why wouldn't they, when this is what they suffered?
Gladiator knocked him cold with contemptuous ease.
But I guess Thor was holding back his blunt-force durability.
Vision described him as undefeatable. And considering the highest card in that team was Masterson Thor, who even Wonderman couldn't help but point out was pretty much worthless in that very same conversation, it was a very accurate prediction. Up until the point where they proved Vision wrong and did beat Gladiator and nearly killed him:
Which of the following is a more accurate explanation of how they beat him?
a) By Thor proving the more powerful of the two.
b) By a string of plot contrivances the likes of which are often used to allow victory when heroes are overmatched. (In this case, Gladiator simply stood there with his hands on his hips and a smirk on his face, leaving himself vulnerable to a surprise attack from behind, and after being stunned by Living Lightning, Gladiator was defenseless against a flurry of some ten enraged hammer blows from Thor--an onslaught enough to rightfully put just about anyone down for the count).
If you're being honest with me and with yourself, you pretty well have to admit that the latter choice is the more valid.
And yet you would still like to cite the issue as evidence of the former.
It's quite the predicament, I know.
Of course, it becomes a pretty simple choice when you realize that your logic here essentially demands that you hold as truth that every hero is more powerful than every villain he has ever defeated, and the sheer absurdity of such a stance is too much to allow yourself.
The Vision stronger than Neferia simply because he put the Count down for the count? Your logic simply doesn't stand under its own weight.
At some point, as a critical thinker, you need to learn to step back and instead of focusing on how to rationalize your opinions, you simply engage in the most straight-forward manner and look at the plain presentation of the comics. I appreciate and can even applaud your grasp of the limitations that simple story-telling forces upon the antagonist in a heroes/villains contest. Almost surely will the villain lose. That's the nature of the beast.
And yet you cling to your argument--that Gladiator's loss as the villain must be indicative of physical inferiority, despite all signs to the contrary.
But what drives an author to have their protagonist ultimately succeed also drives the author to develop a sense of danger and drama in the form of the villain. And that crisis is almost assuredly produced by portraying villains as posing an insurmountable obstacle to our protagonist, especially through common labels, i.e. "undefeatable."
What point are you trying to make?
Yes, a simple way to inspire drama is to make the hero the underdog by pitting him against overwhelmingly powerful opponents. The hero then valiantly overcomes the odds.
But at the end of the day, Ivan Drago still hits harder than Rocky.
Arguing literature for literature's sake in a comic vs contest is admirable, maybe even sophisticated. However, recognizing these imposed limitations on an antagonist in a heroes/villains story is no reason to ignore the plain presentation and ultimate result of what actually occurs.
But it is a reason.
A good reason.
We're not debating "What would happen if Gladiator were the villain in Thor's comic?"
We're debating "Thor vs. Gladiator."
There's no good reason for us to presume that this battle will involve plot contrivances designed to allow Thor's inevitable victory.
In a hypothetical KMC battle, Gladiator won't stand around gloating with his hands on his hips when he could be pressing his advantage. Living Lightning won't fly by and bail Thor out of trouble. Tarene won't step in and stave off Gladiator's killing blow. A distressed airplane won't force a team-up that gives Thor an opening to catch Gladiator off guard.
The "ultimate result of what actually occurs" is predestined. I don't have to read a single Thor comic to tell you that Thor beats his villains.
If Thor fights Superman in Action Comics, Superman will win.
If Thor fights Superman in The Mighty Thor, Thor will win.
Clearly, logically, an unavoidably, the details of the battle are *much* more important than the ultimate outcome when it comes to comparing the mettle of the combatants. At least if you want your analysis to have any degree of substance.
Originally posted by KK the GreatYou initially commented on how anyone would get laid out by a few Mjolnir shots. I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't just Mjonir shots.
I didn't.Which explains why I mentioned it twice in my post.
Originally posted by KK the GreatOnly, it makes perfect sense when you remember that Thor was holding back, bewildered as to why Gladiator was attacking him and distracted by saving innocents at peril during his attack. This does not negate the fact that Glads did knock him unconscious and that Tarene saved him from certain death. And nowhere did I suggest that Gladiator was incapable of killing Thor. Don't put words into my mouth. Once again, to repeat myself: 1) Thor is holding back; 2) Thor is bewildered as to why he is attacking him; and 3) Thor was distracted by saving innocents. Do the math.
Why would it? It makes no sense. If not for the intervention of Tarene and Enchantress, Thor would have died.Repeat: Gladiator would have killed Thor if Tarene and Enchantress had not stepped in to save him. Gladiator is clearly capable of killing Thor, just as Thor is clearly capable of killing Gladiator.
So the notion that Gladiator was incapable of killing Thor "because Thor was too strong" is absurd on the face of it. The preceding comic rather clearly shows otherwise.
Originally posted by KK the GreatNo, a more pertinent analogy would be if in another fight, Gladiator was holding back, bewildered as to why Thor was attacking him and saving the lives of Shiar citizens, then a knockout by Thor wouldn't be admirable, it'd be pretty cheap. And if Gladiator came back and rocked Thor's butt after declaring he's finished with holding back and Thor limped over to Zarko and told him Gladiator was too strong, then it wouldn't be absurd, it'd make perfect sense.
It'd be like Count Neferia licking his wounds after his first defeat at the hands of the Avengers and proclaiming, "The Vision is just too strong."
Originally posted by KK the GreatThis is what a holding back and bewildered Thor who was also distracted by saving innocents looks like...
The simple fact of the matter is that the only appropriate response to your summary of that first fight is to look at the pages and erupt in riotous laughter.Does that really look like a bewildered Thor who was holding back, not wanting to fight, and just trying to ask questions?
Really?
...
[b]Really?
[/b]
Here we have right after the opening bell, Thor asking why Glads is attacking him, "Yet thou attackest now in the manner of a craven coward! Why majestic one? Why?!" All while smacking him upside the head a few times. Notice also that Glads comments that he himself may very well have to sacrifice his life in order to win:
Of course, Glads has to resort to endangering an innocent civilian and Thor has to save her not only from being blown away by his super-breath but from being splattered by half a building being thrown in their direction:
Do we need to belabor the point more about how Thor was bewildered and saving innocents? Yea sure, why not... Just to make this immutably clear we have Thor still wondering what Glads is on about and demanding to know what motivation he has behind the attack, "Thou speakest often of my crimes to come, Gladiator. But no proof thou hast offered." Here we also have Thor just about getting tired of Gladiator. How mighty and superior does Gladiator look in these panels to you, I wonder:
Of course, that's when their fight ended up nearly killing a plane full of innocents and finally, Thor clearly states, "Gladiator! I have considered thee a comrade-in-arms! But as thou hast repeatedly endangered mortal lives, taking these to the very brink of death -- I can do so no more!"
"Surely, thou art brainwashed by a cunning foe! 'Tis the only possible explanation for thy bizzare statements! Thus I cannot hold back any longer!" And what do we end up with, Glads literally eating pavement:
Does anybody else see a difference when Thor isn't hindered by circumstances and plot devices? I sure as hell do. Yeah, Thor got knocked unconscious whilst holding back, being bewildered by Gladiator's attack and saving innocents. He also had to have his life saved by Tarene. After all that? Not so much.
Originally posted by KK the GreatFunny... you sound like someone who treats Superman apologists with rancor. After all, Superman had been downed by one punch by Konvikt in Trinity and essentially did hold back his blunt force durability because he had not "taken his measure." But see here, this isn't really a Superman/Konvikt situation. It's not about Thor underestimating Gladiator's measure. It's about Thor: 1) holding back; 2) bewildered at Gladiator's attack and asking for explanations; and 3) distracted while saving innocents. Not only that, once all that has been dispensed with... once Thor had decided not to hold back, believed that Gladiator had been brainwashed and no innocents were currently in danger... what did he do? That's right. He beat him.
It's like I said before: Thor may as well put "I wasn't actually trying" on his business card. He pulls that excuse often enough. If it isn't "now that I have taken his measure..." then it's "I was holding back before, honest I was."Didn't he even play that card after his ass-whooping in JLA/Avengers? Now that I'm thinking of that debacle, part of me wonders if Jurgens didn't receive so much outrage from Thor fanboys over Gladiator beating Thor that he was pressured into squeezing all of those half-baked excuses into the second issue. Certainly wouldn't be the first or last time rabid Thor fans forced a writer into doing something like that.
And why wouldn't they, when this is what they suffered?
Gladiator knocked him cold with contemptuous ease.
But I guess Thor was holding back his blunt-force durability.
Originally posted by KK the GreatNot really. Because as I stated earlier and which you seem to have forgotten, using Masterson's performance to correlate a superiority between true Thor and Gladiator is as fallacious as using Doom's performance with Surfer's powers. We already went over this before. As you've either forgotten about it, or ignored it because it makes this issue utterly moot, I've decided to repeat it to you.
Which of the following is a more accurate explanation of how they beat him?a) By Thor proving the more powerful of the two.
b) By a string of plot contrivances the likes of which are often used to allow victory when heroes are overmatched. (In this case, Gladiator simply stood there with his hands on his hips and a smirk on his face, leaving himself vulnerable to a surprise attack from behind, and after being stunned by Living Lightning, Gladiator was defenseless against a flurry of some ten enraged hammer blows from Thor--an onslaught enough to rightfully put just about anyone down for the count).
If you're being honest with me and with yourself, you pretty well have to admit that the latter choice is the more valid.
And yet you would still like to cite the issue as evidence of the former.
It's quite the predicament, I know.
Originally posted by KK the GreatMy logic only demands that I look at the plain presentation of Thor's and Gladiator's fight with each other. Thor, once he stopped holding back, once he got over his bewilderment, once innocents were no longer an equation, stomped on Gladiator. Using Masterson's performance is a clear substitution fallacy. And insinuating that I commit to the idea that Thor is superior to all his defeated opponents is simply a facetious lie. I never said so. You only believe I think so. However, as has been made amply clear, I don't need to believe that to believe that Thor > Gladiator. I have their fights as simple proof of that.
Of course, it becomes a pretty simple choice when you realize that your logic here essentially demands that you hold as truth that every hero is more powerful than every villain he has ever defeated, and the sheer absurdity of such a stance is too much to allow yourself.The Vision stronger than Neferia simply because he put the Count down for the count? Your logic simply doesn't stand under its own weight.
Originally posted by KK the GreatSigns to what contrary? He got his a$$ beat by Thor when circumstances no longer hindered Thor's ability to fight him one on one. Are you still trying to use Masterson as a corrolary for your arguments? Do you even understand the absurdity of such a method of argumentation? Masterson Thor does not equal Thor. I don't feel like patronizing you anymore about this point, because we both know it's true.
And yet you cling to your argument--that Gladiator's loss as the villain must be indicative of physical inferiority, despite all signs to the contrary.
Originally posted by KK the GreatThat you're overanalyzing Vision's comments about Gladiator, whilst ignoring that they actually did beat Gladiator. That while them defeating Gladiator may have been a product of protagonist > antagonist, you're ignoring that this aura of "undefeatability" that Gladiator posed (and which you are so obviously enraptured by), was ALSO a complete product of antagonist = manufactured threat for our protagonist.
What point are you trying to make?Yes, a simple way to inspire drama is to make the hero the underdog by pitting him against overwhelmingly powerful opponents. The hero then valiantly overcomes the odds.
But at the end of the day, Ivan Drago still hits harder than Rocky.
And at the end of the day, Rocky still beat Ivan Drago. 😆
