Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
even if he was KO'd by a tree wasnt that tree swung by a super human being? or am i thinking of another time?i seem to remember him getting messed up pretty bad in the beginning of the first movie but i cant remember what happened
Come to think of it, he was KO'd twice in the first film.
-When he flies through his windshield
-When Sabretooth hits him with the tree (shortly after the windshield)
So in movies X1-X3, he's KO'd by three different hits, going through a windshield and hitting/sliding on the ground, getting hit by a Sabretooth swung tree and bullet directly to the forehead. 1) Out for about 10 seconds, 2)Out for what seemed hours 3) Out for about 20-30 seconds.
Conclusion (and it's been said over and over again), Wolverine can be KO'd with sufficient force.
And Robocop has lots of that.
Dont get me wrong I still think that 6 or 7 times out of 10, Wolverine could dismember Murphy at close range. But given that to be at effective slashing range, he has to evade all 100 or so auto 9 shots, and step into Robocop's punching range.
And in "first to the knockout" terms Robo is a massive favorite here.
So the more I think about it, to deny all possible Robo victory as a possibilty would be rash.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Make your mind up.
He did. He told me that he ran it in 5.6 seconsd. He rounded up for simplicity's sake.
Also, you're forgetting that the first 30 meters of a 100 meter sprint, the sprinter is accelerating. (30 minutes later, I found supporting evidence for that. http://www.ptonthenet.com/displayarticle.aspx?ArticleID=1432 )
It's not, as you tried to do, a simple instant velocity, the entire distance. There IS an average "velocity" that can easily be calculated by distance per unit time.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Did you run 94 feet in six seconds or 75 feet in ABOUT six seconds? What distance was it, 94 feet or 75 feet? What speed? Nearly five seconds flat or a whole second longer? In two posts you've shaved a second off your time, and six metres off the distance you ran.What is it with you and NOT reading my posts? I never said you were in terrible shape. I said that 21 seconds for a 100 metres sprint IS a terrible time for someone who is young and claims to be in killer shape.
Dude, relax. This isn't a case of a poster not reading and then not understanding your posts. This is a case of your reading and not understanding another's post. (That uncommon for you as you're pretty good at following convos...actually, one of the best on KMC at it.) He did say "about", he did indicate that ANOTHER person, a world-class athlete, ran a distance of 75 feet at a speed within RJ's range, and he also indicated that 94-feet is what he ran. Nothing difficult about that, especially in context.
But, I can tell you, before he posted what he did, he discussed "5.6" with me. So, I can tell you that he did indeed round up. (His e-peen is smaller than I and probably you thought...most people would round down to 5.5 or something.)
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That is if your claim is true and you can run 94/95 feet in six seconds, which has now become almost five seconds. 5.6 seconds is not "around" six seconds, not in sprinting time it's not. It's around five.
You definitely incorrect. There's no sort of "sprinters specific" lingo that dictates that "around x" actually means "x + 0.y." That's just silly, dude. Around literally means that: x + - 0.y. Anything more specific than that is personal. I would say that if you use a whole number and say a value is "around" that whole number, it is closer to that whole number than + or - 1 from that stated whole number. Meaning x-0.y > x-.5 and x +0.y < x+0.5.
And that's relative to the size of the number being discussed. If we inflate those numbers by a factor of ten, then the decimal is moved by a factor of ten, as well (one place). So, 0.y become y where y is -5<y<5.
Again, "around" literally means "around." In fact, it's so ambiguous that you could say that RJ could have meant 2 or 3 seconds (but that should have been lower on your list of most probable intentions than say, 5.5 or 6.5.)
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To be on topic, the whole point I'm making is that you're acting like you're a good comparison to Wolverine. You're not even a good comparison to the average 100 metres time for a 20 year old male at optimum health, dude..
To your first sentence: he's "acting" like he's a bare minimum (floor limit) for James. You missed his point, bro.
To your second sentence: you made an incorrect conclusion based on a false premise.
Now, I'm not going to get on a high horse and say I was any better than John at 20. I have no friggin' clue as I did NOT train for basketball or track: it was for American Football.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
75 feet is 22 metres. 22 metres in four seconds is 5.5. metres per second. Extrapolate that, again, over 100 metres and you've got a total time of 18 seconds. He's still a whole three seconds faster than you. That's an eternity in sprinting and any coach will tell you that.-AC
Let's stick to 94 feet as a floor limit, for this thread, only because we can consider John to be the lowest possible expected value for a 94 foot sprint for James. Agreed? (That was RJ's original intent, bro. Not that your logic was broken in your above post, it's just that you had incorrect information when drawing your conclusions.)
AC, disregard my post if you two have moved past that. I'm going to read more of the thread. Other than the above post, I've liked and agreed with almost everything in this thread.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, you conveniently failed to mention that, and only did so when I had mathematically and scientifically proven your claim false.
No you didn't. You "scientifically and mathematically" proved John right considering he would barely get to top speed at 100 feet, much less 94 feet.
Originally posted by roughrider
Unless Robocop is given an adamantium shell, this isn't much of a fight. Wolverine dodges, weaves, and slices him to bits.
Except for the fact that in the movies, Wolverine doesn't dodge or weave from bullets, he tends to take them head on and relies on his HF to pull him through, which generally works well for him.
Edit: In the Hulk Vs Wolverine animated short-film he was this way too.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Dudemon, replied to you via PM.I don't intend to clog the thread.
-AC
Good call, on your part.
Also, I apologize, Imp, for bringing that argument back up. I saw that you said to bring it back on topic, a couple of pages later. It was too late for me to edit my post.
As far os the "floor limit" stuff, that still applies.
T-800: Tanked a point blank grenade blast from Reese. Tanked a truck explosion. Took a hydraulic press to do him in.
T-850: Tanked a TX energy blast to the chest. Connor's woman shot it in the face, it spit out the bullet and said "Don't do that."
T-1000: Will regen from anything Robo throws at him. Could even morph into Nancy Allen, fool Robo, then shove a blade through his head.
TX: Laughable. She'll corrupt Robo and turn him on the Detroit PD.
Movie Robo against any T model.......Dead Robo.