Who is more powerful, Thor or the Silver Surfer?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Once again you prove to me you really didn't read blood and thunder or are purposely trying to twist the context to establish this non existent amp.

Thor pretty much routes BrB on his own and then before he can finish him off the Surfer intervenes giving Bill the time needed to gather himself up again. Bill then cheapshots Thor while they are at a standoff and then the Surfer flies in knocking Thor backward to which Thor quickly gets the better of the Surfer.

Bill then momentarily gets the better of him on his own without the aid of the surfer. Both stand there like absolute morons giving Thor the time needed to recover. Both [B]he and Bill recovered besting the other one temporarily. No amp was needed from Bill to beat Thor and no amp was needed from Thor. This is common sense. They both have the tools to beat the other.

No, it isn't. Bill mistakenly thought his behavior resembled warrior's madness so since he was incorrect about that he was incorrect about everything concerning Thor. Thor was unbalanced but to a different point and one in which he received no literal amp until the end of the story.

Thor never went all out against the Surfer before showing no mercy whatsoever. Thor was never this vicious before granting his friends no quarter and no mercy. Thor also lost one on one momentarily to bill thus proving no amp. I have you every which way.

Ok, but we later have a fully powered Surfer taking on Thor and it was no contest at all. So I tend to back up Loki's statement as the guy usually knows what he's talking about. Surfer needs an amp to best Thor in all out combat.

His energy output was unleashed against Exitar thus making it valid. The means of reinforcing the hammer is irrelevant as he doesn't have to recreate the feat here. It was done under his own power so it counts.

It's energy output at his best so quit trying to disqualify it. It fits my parameters of this thread and is showing how childish you really are.

It stands, period.

Bill also defeated Thor in this very arc. There is no literal amp at all described and your only statement is based from a guy who thought it was warrior's madness.

😂

You wanted to discuss the blood and thunder showing. Surfer hasn't shown any power upgrade to the point of competing with a godblast. In fact when he took away Skaar's old world power he became weakened further not impressing me at all. 😂 [/B]

Well thanks for the recap and all, but I was already aware of all that. You say it wasn't a literal amp, I say it was.

Bill being wrong about the source for Thor's amp doesn't prove that he wasn't amped. Again they never said that the characters were wrong about him being amped, just that it wasn't Warrior Madness.

Nope. We've seen all out Thor before, and he never seemed that powerful. In fact we've seen Warrior Madness Thor before without him seeming that powerful, Warlock even made comments about Thor being worse in Blood and Thunder.

Again, Surfer was depowered. Loki's assessment of less than full powered Surfer has no bearing on Surfer at full power that's also been upgraded. And you're still not addressing the fact that Thor admitted that Surfer nearly killed him with a warning blast.

It's his energy output with prep and his belt, not his norm. If he doesn't have the belt here it's not relevant, it's just that simple.

Nope Bill's statement is further supported by Warlock who's fought WM Thor in the past but feels that B&T Thor is more dangerous.

I want to discuss ALL of their relevant showings, because that's how we do it here on KMC. But if you're still refusing to discuss anything outside of B&T for Thor's defense then I might as well leave you to your game of checkers and wait for our BZ to play chess.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Well thanks for the recap and all, but I was already aware of all that. You say it wasn't a literal amp, I say it was.

Bill being wrong about the source for Thor's amp doesn't prove that he wasn't amped. Again they never said that the characters were wrong about him being amped, just that it wasn't Warrior Madness.

Nope. We've seen all out Thor before, and he never seemed that powerful. In fact we've seen Warrior Madness Thor before without him seeming that powerful, Warlock even made comments about Thor being worse in Blood and Thunder.

Again, Surfer was depowered. Loki's assessment of less than full powered Surfer has no bearing on Surfer at full power that's also been upgraded. And you're still not addressing the fact that Thor admitted that Surfer nearly killed him with a warning blast.

It's his energy output with prep and his belt, not his norm. If he doesn't have the belt here it's not relevant, it's just that simple.

Nope Bill's statement is further supported by Warlock who's fought WM Thor in the past but feels that B&T Thor is more dangerous.

I want to discuss ALL of their relevant showings, because that's how we do it here on KMC. But if you're still refusing to discuss anything outside of B&T for Thor's defense then I might as well leave you to your game of checkers and wait for our BZ to play chess.

Bill claiming this also doesn't prove he is correct. If this is all you are going on you haven't proven a thing. 😉

Yes, we have seen an all out Thor before and he's always been more formidable while all out as opposed to holding back. I'll save that for you in the battlezone, but it's common sense. That's irrelevant. What Thor does in warrior's madness is not relevant to blood and thunder unless you can prove otherwise.

I have addressed it. Thor fought him and beat him. It seems your entire argument hangs on two statements. Bill's and this statement while you want to disregard their actual fights while both going all out.

The belt didn't amp his energy output. If it did you'd have a point.

The guy was wrong. That just shows you how dangerous blood and thunder aka an all out Thor can be. I agree he's quite a monster.

Godblast wins this thread. Checkmate.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The only proof you have is a statement from BrB. The guy was also convinced it was warrior's madness also. It wasn't so there goes your theory.

Bill claiming this also doesn't prove he is correct. If this is all you are going on you haven't proven a thing. 😉

Yes, we have seen an all out Thor before and he's always been more formidable while all out as opposed to holding back. I'll save that for you in the battlezone, but it's common sense. That's irrelevant. What Thor does in warrior's madness is not relevant to blood and thunder unless you can prove otherwise.

I have addressed it. Thor fought him and beat him. It seems your entire argument hangs on two statements. Bill's and this statement while you want to disregard their actual fights while both going all out.

The belt didn't amp his energy output. If it did you'd have a point.

The guy was wrong. That just shows you how dangerous blood and thunder aka an all out Thor can be. I agree he's quite a monster.

Godblast wins this thread. Checkmate.

Have we ever seen a performance as impressive as B&T? If not his performance confirms BRB and Warlock's statements.

No you haven't. We have two conflicting showings we have to look outside those showings to see which is accurate.

The Belt enabled his energy output, which is why I have a point.

No he wasn't. Where's your on panel proof?

Nope, driving off a weakened Galactus don't mean much.

Originally posted by darthgoober
One piece of proof always trumps no proof at all. I have BRB and Warlock saying that he's stronger than usual, you don't have anything saying that he's not.

Have we ever seen a performance as impressive as B&T? If not his performance confirms BRB and Warlock's statements.

No you haven't. We have two conflicting showings we have to look outside those showings to see which is accurate.

The Belt enabled his energy output, which is why I have a point.

No he wasn't. Where's your on panel proof?

Nope, driving off a weakened Galactus don't mean much.

I think his performance against Exitar was better. He was just taking on top tiers in blood and thunder.

Yes, and I have done that. I am not out to prove Thor is more formidable here while you seem determined to ignore blood and thunder because the surfer got pwned in that arc.

It didn't increase his energy output though. The hammer was still shattered making the feat even more impressive.

You agree blood and thunder Thor was a monster so why question me about it?

How doesn't it? Surfer has been put down before with aid against an extremely weakened Galactus before.

Originally posted by quanchi112
That's just their opinion which doesn't count as 100 percent fact. BrB was also 100 percent wrong about warrior's madness.

I think his performance against Exitar was better. He was just taking on top tiers in blood and thunder.

Yes, and I have done that. I am not out to prove Thor is more formidable here while you seem determined to ignore blood and thunder because the surfer got pwned in that arc.

It didn't increase his energy output though. The hammer was still shattered making the feat even more impressive.

You agree blood and thunder Thor was a monster so why question me about it?

How doesn't it? Surfer has been put down before with aid against an extremely weakened Galactus before.

Exitar wasn't a fight, it's not comparable.

When did you address it?

It enabled it though. Meaning the showing isn't relevant without Thor's enabler.

I'm questioning your assessment about him being wrong. Where's your proof?

Thor wasn't fighting Galactus, he cheapshotted him(he never got hit). So G putting down Norrin is irrelevant.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Their opinion about him being more powerful isn't countered on panel. You're ignoring what was said in the comic in favor of YOUR opinion.

Exitar wasn't a fight, it's not comparable.

When did you address it?

It enabled it though. Meaning the showing isn't relevant without Thor's enabler.

I'm questioning your assessment about him being wrong. Where's your proof?

Thor wasn't fighting Galactus, he cheapshotted him. So G putting down Norrin is irrelevant.

It was a struggle. That showing was more impressive. The odds he was fighting against was much more impressive than beating up surfer, Bill, and warlock at different times.

Godblast.

So? He doesn't have to enable it again making it a clear demonstration of his power.

About warrior madness?

It's a power showing. His power can affect the guy who gives the Surfer power while Surfer can't phase him even with a cheapshot and tons of help.

Thor is more powerful. 🙂

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, it is. Later on we see BrB's opinion put to shame when he was running around spooked bexause he thought it was warrior's madness. Their opinion doesn't constitute as proof especially when incorrect about his mental imbalance.

It was a struggle. That showing was more impressive. The odds he was fighting against was much more impressive than beating up surfer, Bill, and warlock at different times.

Godblast.

So? He doesn't have to enable it again making it a clear demonstration of his power.

About warrior madness?

It's a power showing. His power can affect the guy who gives the Surfer power while Surfer can't phase him even with a cheapshot and tons of help.

Thor is more powerful. 🙂

It wasn't a fight, it's not comparable(especially since he didn't have his enabler in B&T).

How does "Godblast" counter Thor's statement about Surfer nearly killing him again?

His showings with an enabler aren't valid in a thread without the enabler.

About Thor being more dangerous in B&T than he was while in Warrior Madness.

His power can hurt an extremely weakened Galactus with a cheapshot, that's not very impressive in and of itself. Surfer's casually releasing a blast that created a black hole is more impressive IMO.

Nope.

Originally posted by darthgoober
They're both reliable sources about how powerful Thor is/was at the time. Their opinion is far better evidence than yours and isn't countered on panel.

It wasn't a fight, it's not comparable(especially since he didn't have his enabler in B&T).

How does "Godblast" counter Thor's statement about Surfer nearly killing him again?

His showings with an enabler aren't valid in a thread without the enabler.

About Thor being more dangerous in B&T than he was while in Warrior Madness.

His power can hurt an extremely weakened Galactus with a cheapshot, that's not very impressive in and of itself. Surfer's casually releasing a blast that created a black hole is more impressive IMO.

Nope.

Even with the belt of strength that showing was much more impressive than B and T. You seem in awe of b an dt which isn't Thor's finest work. It's impressive but he just beat down a few top tiers is all.

The godblast is more powerful than the Surfer's blast unless you can prove otherwise.

The enabler didn't amp his energy attack making it valid. It counts.

Thor was temporarily defeated by BrB. I mean come on BrB was good enough to do so just not the Surfer. It's irrelevant. Wrtiers don't factor in other stories when presenting their own. If you feel this writer was specifically making Thor stronger than in warrior's madness then prove it.

So creating a blackhole is more impressive than defeating Galactus the guy who gave him his very power? 😂

Surfer has never ran off Galactus before when he has really wanted something by his power alone. A weakened Galactus crushed the Surfer in the devourer.

So a Surfer created blackhole is more powerful than a godblast? Is that what you are saying?

Originally posted by Mindship
Found it.

Couple of comments: it wasn't Ares Thor was talking to, it was Red Norvell. Also, note that Thor says he was trying to invoke this state but failed.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6461/thor50201qw8.jpg

If "berserker rage" is the same as "warrior madness" (and this is not some "alternate Thor"😉, then the tenfold increase (for warrior madness) is confirmed.

Quess 10x strength confirmed..

Originally posted by quanchi112
Their opinion isn't factual. BrB was wrong about his very mental condition and this is the only evidence you even have while interpreting it incorrectly imo.

Even with the belt of strength that showing was much more impressive than B and T. You seem in awe of b an dt which isn't Thor's finest work. It's impressive but he just beat down a few top tiers is all.

The godblast is more powerful than the Surfer's blast unless you can prove otherwise.

The enabler didn't amp his energy attack making it valid. It counts.

Thor was temporarily defeated by BrB. I mean come on BrB was good enough to do so just not the Surfer. It's irrelevant. Wrtiers don't factor in other stories when presenting their own. If you feel this writer was specifically making Thor stronger than in warrior's madness then prove it.

So creating a blackhole is more impressive than defeating Galactus the guy who gave him his very power? 😂

Surfer has never ran off Galactus before when he has really wanted something by his power alone. A weakened Galactus crushed the Surfer in the devourer.

So a Surfer created blackhole is more powerful than a godblast? Is that what you are saying?

He had the Belt, it's not comparable.

We weren't comparing the blast, we were comparing their power level when neither is amped.

If he can't do it without the enabler then it's not valid for a thread that doesn't feature it. Check the forum rules on standard equipment.

Thor was temporarily defeated BEFORE BRB made the comment about him drawing strength from the Madness. And it doesn't work that way. Warlock fought him in both and said that he was worse the second time around. There's the proof.

When the guy has low showings like Galactus does... sure.

Galactus has likely never been that weak against Surfer. In the story featuring Thor/Galactus, I'm pretty sure it was specifically stated that it was the weakest G had ever been. It's entirely possible that the same was said in the Devourer though, so just let me know if/when it was.

Nope. Like I said before I see it as an apples and oranges scenario and consider them approximately equal.

Thor has still made a godblast that tore a hole through a skyfather without the belt reinforcing it.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Quan, you have no conflicting evidence. You're going solely off your opinion, I'm going by what's shown on panel.

He had the Belt, it's not comparable.

We weren't comparing the blast, we were comparing their power level when neither is amped.

If he can't do it without the enabler then it's not valid for a thread that doesn't feature it. Check the forum rules on standard equipment.

Thor was temporarily defeated BEFORE BRB made the comment about him drawing strength from the Madness. And it doesn't work that way. Warlock fought him in both and said that he was worse the second time around. There's the proof.

When the guy has low showings like Galactus does... sure.

Galactus has likely never been that weak against Surfer. In the story featuring Thor/Galactus, I'm pretty sure it was specifically stated that it was the weakest G had ever been. It's entirely possible that the same was said in the Devourer though, so just let me know if/when it was.

Nope. Like I said before I see it as an apples and oranges scenario and consider them approximately equal.

The belt didn't help with the power of the blast.

It doesn't matter which we we compare it Thor wins.

This isn't a forum battle it's a comparison regarding their power levels. It's valid as his equipment didn't amp the power of the blast. It just reinforced the hammer and was destroyed regardless.

I know. BrB was still dead wrong about it being warrior's madness making it an misinformed opinion. That's just Warlock's opinion. You need more to prove an amp.

So what? Thor's godblast has affected other powerful beings and we have also seen what Galactus has done while weak in Galactus the devourer and other arcs such as annihilation.

I'd like a scan proclaiming it's the weakest he had ever been. That has nothing to do with his later appearance in galactus the devourer either way. You also claimed Thing punched him out before and when asked quickly admitted it's what you heard. Let me know when you are going to stick to debating things you know as opposed to things you hear.

There was a major point to show how weakened he had become during this arc.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/quanchi112/GalactusTheDevourer3-17.jpg

So, you won't even give me a direct answer. Priceless.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, we do. We only have someone's opinion who was sold on the idea of him being afflicted with warrior's madness.

The belt didn't help with the power of the blast.

It doesn't matter which we we compare it Thor wins.

This isn't a forum battle it's a comparison regarding their power levels. It's valid as his equipment didn't amp the power of the blast. It just reinforced the hammer and was destroyed regardless.

I know. BrB was still dead wrong about it being warrior's madness making it an misinformed opinion. That's just Warlock's opinion. You need more to prove an amp.

So what? Thor's godblast has affected other powerful beings and we have also seen what Galactus has done while weak in Galactus the devourer and other arcs such as annihilation.

I'd like a scan proclaiming it's the weakest he had ever been. That has nothing to do with his later appearance in galactus the devourer either way. You also claimed Thing punched him out before and when asked quickly admitted it's what you heard. Let me know when you are going to stick to debating things you know as opposed to things you hear.

There was a major point to show how weakened he had become during this arc.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/quanchi112/GalactusTheDevourer3-17.jpg

So, you won't even give me a direct answer. Priceless.

It's still not comparable.

Nope. Surfer being able to kill Thor with a warning blast when neither are amped further supports B&T being an amp.

This thread is about standard Thor, so his feats that require nonstandard equipment don't apply.

No you need to prove they're wrong about him being more powerful. You're arguing your opinion against that of the characters involved, and they're more credible sources for info on the topic(especially since they'ver actually felt how hard he hits).

Like you said different writers portray characters differently. In his encounter with Thor he wasn't portrayed as being very impressive(as made evident by the fight with Ego that preceded it).

Actually I had that mixed up, it was their second fight where it was said he was the weakest(so that one's my bad). Looking back on that first fight though, it was not one of Galactus's better showings. He was cruising around in a hovercraft looking thing firing a canon for crying out loud. And no, I've seen the scan with Thing before, I just can't remember what issue it's from.

That's nice, but Galactus's showings while weakened vary. You're trying to cherry pick showings, and that's never a good idea.

That is a direct answer, they're approximately equal in power and impressiveness.

If Black Bolt yelled at a weakened Galactus, would it drive Galactus off? If so, would Black Bolt then be considered at least as powerful as Thor?

I was just looking at how "more powerful" is being defined in this thread...

Originally posted by quanchi112
Energy output and ferocity of attacks.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Oh we do... ok then show me. Show me a scan were it's stated that BRB and Warlock were wrong about him being more powerful.

It's still not comparable.

Nope. Surfer being able to kill Thor with a warning blast when neither are amped further supports B&T being an amp.

This thread is about standard Thor, so his feats that require nonstandard equipment don't apply.

No you need to prove they're wrong about him being more powerful. You're arguing your opinion against that of the characters involved, and they're more credible sources for info on the topic(especially since they'ver actually felt how hard he hits).

Like you said different writers portray characters differently. In his encounter with Thor he wasn't portrayed as being very impressive(as made evident by the fight with Ego that preceded it).

Actually I had that mixed up, it was their second fight where it was said he was the weakest(so that one's my bad). Looking back on that first fight though, it was not one of Galactus's better showings. He was cruising around in a hovercraft looking thing firing a canon for crying out loud. And no, I've seen the scan with Thing before, I just can't remember what issue it's from.

That's nice, but Galactus's showings while weakened vary. You're trying to cherry pick showings, and that's never a good idea.

That is a direct answer, they're approximately equal in power and impressiveness.

Yes, it is at it is the energy output he is capable of.

Nope, that just proves inconsistent writing. I mean come on you are acting like every single writer feels the same way about character matchups. Grow up.

That feat is Thor's energy output at his best. It stands.

Godblast. Nuff said. His hammer didn't shatter so I have no idea what weird argument you are trying to drum up now. I guess iyo his blows were more powerful than the godblast. 😂

Thor didn't use his most powerful attacks and they can't magically tell if he is more powerful. He hit harder, big deal.

The point is though Thor is still powerful enough to affect Galactus while Surfer is nothing compared to him. Thor is more powerful and comics have proven this time and again.

No, I am covering showings against surfer and thor. Thor can't screw with Galactus either outside the godblast.

Based on what? You haven't been able to provide anything comparable to a godblast.

Originally posted by Mindship
If Black Bolt yelled at a weakened Galactus, would it drive Galactus off? If so, would Black Bolt then be considered at least as powerful as Thor?

I was just looking at how "more powerful" is being defined in this thread...

...and this seems to favor Thor, at least with regard to ferocity.

The godblast trumps Surfer's best. It's that simple.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, as that isn't even Thor's best feat. The Exitar feat was much more impressive imo.

I'm assuming Thor did it through brute force; still, the net effect was the same if we go by feats. But I think the purpose of this thread was to show who can generate more sheer wattage, which is why I'd personally stick with the godblast as Thor's best.

The godblast trumps Surfer's best.

Originally posted by Mindship
Thor got through Exitar's armor? Sue Richards also broke through (scans are in the Invisible Woman respect thread, top of page 3). She took a harmonic hyperspace approach to do it, but once through then she just blasted away to take Exitar down. I don't see why the Surfer (who's no stranger to hyperspace) couldn't do likewise...unless we're prepared to say Sue > Surfer.

I'm assuming Thor did it through brute force; still, the net effect was the same if we go by feats. But I think the purpose of this thread was to show who can generate more sheer wattage, which is why I'd personally stick with the godblast as Thor's best.

I'm not necessarily disputing that. I was just bringing to light (with the Black Bolt question) how "more powerful" is being defined in this thread, and at least the ferocity part pretty much automatically goes to Thor, as that of a warrior born should > than that of a warrior made.

Her example is more plot device'ish than pure power. That's like the Surfer manipulating the crunch to defeat T and A.

More powerful is defined by the amount of maximum power they can generate at their best under their own power.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you misunderstand. Maybe I should put a scan up although I thought I already earlier in the thread. Thor cracked a hole in the armor due to his belt of strength which disqualifies that said feat. I am referring to the godblast once inside Exitar.

Her example is more plot device'ish than pure power. That's like the Surfer manipulating the crunch to defeat T and A.

More powerful is defined by the amount of maximum power they can generate at their best under their own power.

But that's neither here nor there. This is your thread. I have to abide by your stips.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Show me a scan where it stated he was more powerful. Are you saying he was more powerful then against Exitar? Really?

Yes, it is at it is the energy output he is capable of.

Nope, that just proves inconsistent writing. I mean come on you are acting like every single writer feels the same way about character matchups. Grow up.

That feat is Thor's energy output at his best. It stands.

Godblast. Nuff said. His hammer didn't shatter so I have no idea what weird argument you are trying to drum up now. I guess iyo his blows were more powerful than the godblast. 😂

Thor didn't use his most powerful attacks and they can't magically tell if he is more powerful. He hit harder, big deal.

The point is though Thor is still powerful enough to affect Galactus while Surfer is nothing compared to him. Thor is more powerful and comics have proven this time and again.

No, I am covering showings against surfer and thor. Thor can't screw with Galactus either outside the godblast.

Based on what? You haven't been able to provide anything comparable to a godblast.

So now you've become so desperate you're left with "Nuh uh" responses and won't actually address anything being said? In that case I'll leave you to your game of checkers and you can just let me know if/when you're ready for our BZ so we can have a real debate 🙂 .