Gladiator vs WW Hulk (slugfest)

Originally posted by james2099
If Gladiator was allowed to win by the writers, thor and hulk would have been killed.... Do you think the writers were going to do that. In both cases, Gladiator was hindered before he killed them. Gladiator cannot beat the writers... There are no writers on KMC. No storyline... Just fighters at there best.... Going all out.... NOTHING TO STOP THEM FROM USING ALL THEIR POWERS TO THE FULLEST.

the problem with this is it then falls upon YOU to decide what is or isn't pis. and your list would be ENORMOUS. why bother using feats or battles since all you'd say is 'that was poor writing!' where do you draw the line on what is or isn't poor writing? you even said we haven't seen glads' highest level. how do you know? maybe we have. what proof do you have that he CAN be stronger?

we use what the writers give because otherwise it's pointless to debate. beyond that, in this case, he could have a mllion powers that would let him win, but he can't use them since this is purely h2h.

Originally posted by leonidas
the problem with this is it then falls upon YOU to decide what is or isn't pis. and your list would be ENORMOUS. why bother using feats or battles since all you'd say is 'that was poor writing!' where do you draw the line on what is or isn't poor writing? you even said we haven't seen glads' highest level. how do you know? maybe we have. what proof do you have that he CAN be stronger?

we use what the writers give because otherwise it's pointless to debate. beyond that, in this case, he could have a mllion powers that would let him win, but he can't use them since this is purely h2h.

Originally posted by leonidas
the problem with this is it then falls upon YOU to decide what is or isn't pis. and your list would be ENORMOUS. why bother using feats or battles since all you'd say is 'that was poor writing!' where do you draw the line on what is or isn't poor writing? you even said we haven't seen glads' highest level. how do you know? maybe we have. what proof do you have that he CAN be stronger?

we use what the writers give because otherwise it's pointless to debate. beyond that, in this case, he could have a mllion powers that would let him win, but he can't use them since this is purely h2h.

Originally posted by leonidas
the problem with this is it then falls upon YOU to decide what is or isn't pis. and your list would be ENORMOUS. why bother using feats or battles since all you'd say is 'that was poor writing!' where do you draw the line on what is or isn't poor writing? you even said we haven't seen glads' highest level. how do you know? maybe we have. what proof do you have that he CAN be stronger?

we use what the writers give because otherwise it's pointless to debate. beyond that, in this case, he could have a mllion powers that would let him win, but he can't use them since this is purely h2h.

I don't think that direct matchups should be ignored outright, but I'm starting to think that they should be bumped down to the bottom of the list of reliable evidence. Otherwise Spidey needs to be bumped up quite a bit on the tier list, and for more reasons than just his fight with Firelord.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I agree with some of what you're saying. but the big question is... which writers should we listen to? Do we listen to the ONE writer that either decided to write out a fight between two or was assigned the job by the company, or should we listen to the numerous writers that have contributed to fleshing out the characters over the years? Looking primarily at the match ups between specific characters is an easy enough way to make a call on the winner, but unless the two characters have locked horns numerous times over the years(and sometimes even then) it's notoriously inaccurate when it becomes the standard.

I don't think that direct matchups should be ignored outright, but I'm starting to think that they should be bumped down to the bottom of the list of reliable evidence. Otherwise Spidey needs to be bumped up quite a bit on the tier list, and for more reasons than just his fight with Firelord.

I think feats tend to be emphasized too strongly on here imo. Just because Gladiator has destroyed a planet with his fists that doesn't mean he beats the Hulk.

There are always exceptions though and Spiderman vs firelord is one of them. We all know that is isn't poor writing and that Hulk is definitely in the same league as Gladiator.

Originally posted by quanchi112
We factor everything in. Direct matchups should go to the top of the list while common opponents should also be factored in.

I think feats tend to be emphasized too strongly on here imo. Just because Gladiator has destroyed a planet with his fists that doesn't mean he beats the Hulk.

There are always exceptions though and Spiderman vs firelord is one of them. We all know that is isn't poor writing and that Hulk is definitely in the same league as Gladiator.

Originally posted by darthgoober
How do we all "know" that Spidey vs Firelord is BS while Hulk vs Glads isn't? What is your criteria for a fight to qualify one way or the other?

Spiderman can't take a punch from Gladiator barring some confidence issue or some plot device, but Hulk can take a punch and then some. That is just an example.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Their history, their powerset, how they have faced against similar opponents, and most of all common sense.

Spiderman can't take a punch from Gladiator barring some confidence issue or some plot device, but Hulk can take a punch and then some. That is just an example.

Originally posted by darthgoober
How does Spidey vs Glads factor into the question? What is it about SMvF that makes you write off the fight exactly?

I was just giving an example of something that hasn't occurred yet.

Smh...

Originally posted by quanchi112
The fact that Spiderman is way out of his league considering Firelord's power and his history.

I was just giving an example of something that hasn't occurred yet.

Meh Spiderman has powerful elementals in his own rogue gallery

Originally posted by darthgoober
How do you figure he's out of Spidey's league based on their history and common foes though? Spidey's taken on guys like Hulk, Juggernaught, Thor, Absorbing Man, Surfer, and I don't even know who all else, so I really doubt that Firelord's history is all that much more impressive than Peter's.

Originally posted by darthgoober
How do you figure he's out of Spidey's league based on their history and common foes though? Spidey's taken on guys like Hulk, Juggernaught, Thor, Absorbing Man, Surfer, and I don't even know who all else, so I really doubt that Firelord's history is all that much more impressive than Peter's.

Originally posted by Starscream M
he's never seriously taken them on, except juggs and maybe absorbing man...both who are slower than firelord

And what speedfeats of Firelord's are you remembering that place his combat speed as being much higher than Jugg's and AM exactly?

Originally posted by darthgoober

And what speedfeats of Firelord's are you remembering that place his combat speed as being much higher than Jugg's and AM exactly?

Originally posted by Starscream M
dood he's a herald that traverses the galaxy...im fairly certain that puts him far beyond juggs or am in speed

And keep in mind that I'm not trying to justify SMvF, I'm just pointing out that direct matches are far from a reliable source using SMvF as an example of why. Everything that people say to defend direct matches between characters when someone suggest PIS can just as easily be applied to defend Spidey and Firelord's fight.

Originally posted by james2099
Still dont get it do you? LET ME EXPLAIN... When you buy a comicbook, you will began with a cover, the hero or main character will be put in a storyline..... lets use thor vs gladiator..... gladiator was sent to kill thor.. remember the word KILL as you read this..... gladiator and thor fight, gladiator gets the upperhand and sends thor across the sky for 60 seconds koed....STOP!! now lets move the battle to KMC at that point... What could gladiator have done to a koed thor in 60 seconds on KMC when he would have been going ALL OUT?? STOP!! back to the comics.. Gladiator has to now dispatch thor girl while thor recovers in the nick of time. Now in order for the hero to stay alive, the writer must LET the hero or main character win, or else kill off hero and end storyline. I dont care about poor writing, aunt may can be written to beat thanos, but i know who would really win... just like spiderman vs firelord... Spiderman the hero will win in the comic.... Spiderman the fighter will lose to him on KMC and be SPITE. Thor and hulk have the ability to put down gladiator.. but NOT on a KMC battle when they all will be going all out.. they may get some wins.. 1 or 2.

actually, it's you that doesn't get it. you are--and continue--to look at it from only one point of view. in this case, gladiator's. what the hell was to have stopped thor from the start of the fight from using mjollnir to absorb gladiator's soul as he did to loki? or from having opened a vortex into another dimension and left him there? the part you keep leaving out at the start of that fight is that thor thought gladiator was a FRIEND (iirc). he didn't want to fight him, but glads attacked him anyway. thor could have used a massive lightning bolt, stunned him, and hit with a blow from mjollnir that could have shattered a planet ala bill vs stardust and killed him. why does thor always ENGAGE opponents instead of using his powers to their fullest? because the writers are stupid?

OF COURSE WRITING IMPACTS THINGS. IT'S A FRIGGIN COMIC. you're speaking like you've unearthed some great and long sought secret. everyone KNOWS that. we debate using feats and past match ups anyway because otherwise it's "you say" "i say".

pointless.

and you still never answered my question: how exactly do you know that glads has NOT been shown at his peak? where's your proof he can go and possess near limitless strength if only someone would write him correctly? oh . . . . . wait. some character probably said that in some COMICBOOK written by some WRITER! too bad that i've decided to deem that book and that writer, and everything his characters said as poor and not worth listening to.

your argument is myopic.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I agree with some of what you're saying. but the big question is... which writers should we listen to? Do we listen to the ONE writer that either decided to write out a fight between two or was assigned the job by the company, or should we listen to the numerous writers that have contributed to fleshing out the characters over the years? Looking primarily at the match ups between specific characters is an easy enough way to make a call on the winner, but unless the two characters have locked horns numerous times over the years(and sometimes even then) it's notoriously inaccurate when it becomes the standard.

you always look at the history of the character imo. i try not to see just high and low feats. i tend to find the 'average' of a character when i'm trying to decide who would win. if we looked at ss vs thanos, we might not readily say that thanos>ss. however, looking at their past matchups and how thanos has done against others in ss's weight class, we can safely say thanos>ss. his average showing (despite the fact that starfox has smacked him around, and morg did well against him) doesn't outweigh his average showings.

I don't think that direct matchups should be ignored outright, but I'm starting to think that they should be bumped down to the bottom of the list of reliable evidence. Otherwise Spidey needs to be bumped up quite a bit on the tier list, and for more reasons than just his fight with Firelord.

spidey's not a great example because he's not actually beaten any of those you mentioned save FL. even masterson was more surprised and didn't really want to hurt spidey. he's done nothing against hulk except barely stay alive. he did nothing to juggs but trap him.

wolverine otoh COULD be bumped up based on average showings.

you know like i do goob it comes to common sense eventually. but just because a character doesn't always do EVERYTHING they can conceiveably do doesn't mean it's pis or poor writing.

Originally posted by leonidas
you always look at the history of the character imo. i try not to see just high and low feats. i tend to find the 'average' of a character when i'm trying to decide who would win. if we looked at ss vs thanos, we might not readily say that thanos>ss. however, looking at their past match-ups and how thanos has done against others in ss's weight class, we can safely say thanos>ss. his average showing (despite the fact that starfox has smacked him around, and morg did well against him) doesn't outweigh his average showings.

spidey's not a great example because he's not actually beaten any of those you mentioned save FL. even masterson was more surprised and didn't really want to hurt spidey. he's done nothing against hulk except barely stay alive. he did nothing to juggs but trap him.

wolverine otoh COULD be bumped up based on average showings.

you know like i do goob it comes to common sense eventually. but just because a character doesn't always do EVERYTHING they can conceiveably do doesn't mean it's pis or poor writing.

In direct match-ups, Thing's a little behind Hulk in the strength department but still able to hang. Independent showings on the other hand suggest that the gap's far more significant. I have no problem with people who use character fights as evidence, but unless one of the characters is MASSIVELY short on appearances I don't think that direct match-ups should in any way be considered definitive either. If anything I think they should be the LAST evidence looked at unless it's literally the ONLY thing one/both of the characters has to go by.