Why are people still arguing against who is faster out of Thor and Wolvy? Thor himself admitted that Wolverine is faster than him. Are we ignoring on-panel evidence because we don't like it? That's like us calling Thor a lie and if that's the case, do we ignore EVERYTHING that Thor say or have said.
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
They never suddenly lost anythng Those showings were never in the majority.
Thor doesn't show that he can Godblast in the majority of his showings. He's only used it on certain occasions. Nor does he need to show he has planet shattering power in the majority of his showings.
As powers go, characters don't need to show that they use it in the majority to prove that they have it. And perhaps show it enough times thru other showings to not make it look like PIS (tho this stipulation need not apply for "versatility-based" powers as they are by definition, rare and situational). They simply need a few showings to do so.
Originally posted by carver9
Why are people still arguing against who is faster out of Thor and Wolvy? Thor himself admitted that Wolverine is faster than him. Are we ignoring on-panel evidence because we don't like it? That's like us calling Thor a lie and if that's the case, do we ignore EVERYTHING that Thor say or have said.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0Or just go with the rest of what you said. Because Thor's beaten every speedster he's faced. Don't ignore that on-panel evidence in favor of a fight where he, ironically, two-shots Wolverine.
Yes, because he was interrupted before he could finish his sentence... which was, "He is faster than I-- [thought]." Which is exemplified by Wolveirne not being fast enough to dodge Thor managing to grab his ankle, toss him... and in fact, bashing him with Mjolnir when he was on his back.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Or just go with the rest of what you said. Because Thor's beaten every speedster he's faced. Don't ignore that on-panel evidence in favor of a fight where he, ironically, two-shots Wolverine.
The thing is, Wolverine was even talking about Thor speed, saying that he traded his speed in for strength.
^ The thing is, Thor kept talking about how he couldn't hit Wolverine with, and Wolverine was completely evading, "his finest blows" ...
... right before Thor actually midget-tossed him and hit him with a blow. I'm not about to give Thor's words of praise (that Wolverine was too fast for him to hit) their full faith and credit... when right after finishing that thought... he hits him.
Originally posted by carver9
Why are people still arguing against who is faster out of Thor and Wolvy? Thor himself admitted that Wolverine is faster than him. Are we ignoring on-panel evidence because we don't like it? That's like us calling Thor a lie and if that's the case, do we ignore EVERYTHING that Thor say or have said.
So, we're supposed to take that statement - which was incomplete as ODG pointed out - at face value while at the same time ignoring statements of Thor's super speed and the times he's displayed it - and to degrees Logan can't match or exceed - on panel?
That's what I can't wrap my mind around here. I can accept Logan being portrayed as "too fast for Thor" in that one comic if you can accept that Thor has more than enough showings to justify him being faster than how he was portrayed in a single comic.
All joking and insults and snide comments aside, I seriously don't get this double standard going on here. We're supposed to use that Logan/Thor scuffle as a basis for Omega Red and Gorgon as Logan is a primary foe of theirs and even use Logan's own speed feats as their own through ABC logic of them "being faster than Wolverine" while dismissing all of Thor's own speed feats and instances of legitimate superhuman and far and beyond peak human speed?
Using all of their showings as a whole and per the fighting to the best of their ability clause of the rules, why wouldn't Thor use that speed he has displayed before? Because he doesn't use it as often as he should? His speed isn't like the Godblast or using Mjolnir's various exotic abilities he's used very seldom over the years. It's a physical attribute that Thor can, has, and will use to maximum ability here.
It's just astounding that dismissing or low-balling Thor's speed is acceptable to some for stipulations they've got in their minds to apply him to meet the Wolverine Standard.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Simple. Are you SURE of what happened there? You're not because there's not a clear depiction on panel.
So what exactly is YOUR argument with this comment?: Did I misinterpret your meaning (it's possible that I did, tho)?Or did you post that simply to state that "It cannot be proven that Wolverine did indeed stab Thor" then you'd need to have your own take on things to convince ppl what exactly happened here?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Artwork? No. It's ambiguous at best. Context of the Story DEFINITELY NOT.
Artwork and the context of the story seems to point otherwise. Again, why would Thor yell (and be drawn) in pain if he was just grabbed a hold of?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210You wanted to know why Wolverine would retract his claws mid fight. That's a legitimate reason.
Wolverine is as much an established character as Creed or Thor, the same argument can be made regarding Wolverine and how well he did against Thor here.
Wolverine tanking class 100 blows is something that he's done since the beginning of his career, fighting characters with brick level super strength takes up almost half of his fighting record and he's rarely even been put down by super powerful blows, especially without additional circumstances. Thor doesn't need to be written down to go into melee with Wolverine without KOing him nevermind killing him. Alternatively Wolverine DOES need to hold back or be written oddly on cutting Thor up to keep Thor in a prolonged fight with Logan where he isn't performing flawlessly.
The same argument can't be made for Thor (at least in melee) though you COULD argue against Thor's stupidity in not just frying Wolverine like he did Daken off the bat.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Your initial assessment was correct. The problem began when you started overanalyzing the fight. Cognitive bias occurred when you assessed that "Wolverine should have done more damage to Thor if he stabbed him from behind, thus it CAN'T be possible that he stabbed him from behind".
IF this were a RL fight, your arguments would actually hold water . However, this is a comic book fight. For the vast majority of comics out there, writers and artists make it a point to make every page as easy to interpret for the reader as possible. They don 't make it into some sort of puzzle for us to solve by gathering different kinds of hidden "evidences" that are scattered in different panels and then have the reader interpret them in multiple different ways (that is, unless that was the intention to begin with). The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In this case, the VAST majority of ppl reading this (including yourself) would interpret this scene as Wolverine stabbing Thor in the back.
So you do you agree then that Wolverine stabbing Thor makes the continuing panels nonsensical by nature?
The problem is that even if you do agree to that sentiment, and I agree to Thor being stabbed, what people will take away from that comic, or take advantage of rather is that stabbing Thor isn't a viable tactic since it did less damage than cutting Thor... which doesn't make any sense because again that interpretation of the comic makes the following panels look ridiculous as my criticisms already tried to point out.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210"seemed to be implied". So it isn't conclusive?
Doubtful. There's very little in the artwork that seems to indicate him being startled/frustrated. The fact that he was drawn getting HIT with something as he yelled seemed to be implied that it was due to pain, not frustration.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Wrong, my argument suggests there was no stab wound remember? And: Actually I'm inferring that Wolverine jumping with all his body weight, momentum and strength would cause more/deeper damage than a swiping blow landed as he was also evading counterstrikes. Especially since peircing attacks work far more effectively than cutting attacks on chain mail armor.
Not really, you're assuming that the stab wound to the back was deep (w/c might not be the case).
And there's a wealth of evidence used to reach that conclussion, it's not mere assumption.
Again, if Wolverine's claws were stopped/unable to penetrate something while in the process of stabbing they would be pushed back up through his forearms causing some deal of pain. That's not what we saw.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You really don't know the extent of damage done to Thor's back as it was never shown how deep Wolverine got his claws in.Also, art has been inconsistent in its portrayal of superficial damage.
In either case, you're avoiding the challenge of explaining how being stabbed is less damaging than superficial cuts on Thor's ribs.
So again you claim that the artwork is inconsistent with the storytelling?
Agreed.
So Thor's reaction to Wolverine jumping him COULD be out of frustration or surprise IN SPITE of the artwork correct?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Incorrect, Thor's stomach wounds were NOT shown throughout the portions of the fight where Wolverine stabbed him in the back. Notice the gut damage? It's not shown in some pages then downright emphasized later. Like I said, art = inconsistent.
So again you claim that the artwork is inconsistent with the storytelling?
Agreed.
So Thor's reaction to Wolverine jumping him COULD be out of frustration or surprise IN SPITE of the artwork correct?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
This isn't the WWH issue. The portrayal of Wolverine is different here than there. In this very issue notice how Wolverine's claws were drawn prior to the thrown then retracted as soon as he was tossed (Rage posted the scans)?
As for Rage's scans, Wolverine was not hit with Mjolnir in the moment he was thrown so the example's only comparable to a point but not conclusive.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Well, it's not for convenience, it's just the truth of the artwork.
Which works both ways doesn't it.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Actually, I'd be ignoring the pillow (barely a reaction to it, certainly won't go "ARRRGH!" especially when my body's prolly in shock already and can't feel a thing) and be focused intently on my stab wound, tbh.
Doesn't that fact alone debunk that Thor NECESSARILY had to be screaming from Wolverine striking him?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
It's actually pretty relevant as it was mentioned in this issue that it was Thor's durability that was keeping him from suffering significant damage.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Not really. Like I said, this is a comic book. This isn't some sort of detective story either. The artist drew it in a way to demonstrate what he wants in the simplest way possible with the assumption that there would be first time readers picking up the book as well. He doesn't assume that we'd all go detective on the panel and scrutinize every detail to come up with what the different possible versions of what he's trying to portray.Your first reaction (given you didn't miss any of the text) is usually the correct one.
I've interpreted the panels to the way I have to make sense of the story we were given. It has nothing to do with bias, it has to do with one interpretation of that comic causing a multitude of inconsistencies within it's own story and against both characters.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210If it's an attack from behind?
Because ppl don't ALWAYS have a choice where they get to hit someone in a fight?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Again the interpretation of Wolverine stabbing Thor causes a mess of problems.
Granted that might be downplaying Wolverine's accuracy, but aren't you the one who mentioned that Thor, being an established character, might force the writers to downplay certain aspects of his opponents at times?
Wolverine stabbing Thor in the shoulderblades causes even more. But you would need to prove he did so to begin with.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210He's using two hands to swing his hammer... He definitely whacked Wolverine with Mjolnir. The only superhuman part of his durability is his skeleton.
W/c really didn't happen here. :-/ Looks more like Thor swatted him away.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Simply falling and being hit by a double fisted Mjolnir swing are completely different ballparks.
Didn't look like he suffered much injury when Thor swatted him away. Also, a lot of ppl can still act REFLEXIBLY when falling. One would think someone as trained as Wolverine would be able to do so.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Fair enough.
Sorry, may bad. Meant to say: TRAINED ppl, not ppl in general (tho it's rare finding anyone who hasn't studied some sort of self defense these days where I come from).
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ The thing is, Thor kept talking about how he couldn't hit Wolverine with, and Wolverine was completely evading, "his finest blows" ...... right before Thor actually midget-tossed him and hit him with a blow. I'm not about to give Thor's words of praise (that Wolverine was too fast for him to hit) their full faith and credit... when right after finishing that thought... he hits him.
No one is saying that Thor is slow and no one is saying that Wolverine is untouchable but that comic solved a lot of issues, it answered a question for us that has been asked for years, who is faster out of Logan and Thor.
Of course Thor would land licks on Wolverine, what sense would that make of him not being able to... Wolverine was just a couple of pace more faster than him reflex and outburst of speed wise.
That wasn't the first time it was stated that Wolverine was faster than Thor, it was also stated during the introduction of the comic... "how is Thor going to deal with the speed of a killer with adamantium claws".
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Once was being tossed, where your argument towards rationalization would actually apply.
Again, different times, different portrayals. In this specific portrayal, he was shown to retract his claws when tossed more than once.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Again, a cut to the gut might warrant a bit more attention than a stab to the shoulder blades. Like I said, you're not Thor, neither am I. Which wounds he chooses to nurse really is up to him (and the artist portraying him), isn't it?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Lol not at all, but to argue that they had no choice in drawing Thor nursing his back instead of his ribs is asinine, no offense.
This is comics, not RL. :-/ Portrayal of characters have a lot to do with how they look in art more than actual practicality. Or do you think all the "dramatic poses" they like to strut around with is borne out of some sort of practical function?
It doesn't take a grand artist to draw something like that.
I'm curious...
Do you think the fact that he was nursing his ribs even brings doubt on his back being stabbed at all?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210Your opinion, which I will add doesn't fall in line with Thor's appearances, Wolverine's appearances, the context of that specific comic, principals behind real life anatomy, or the physics of real life weaponry.
Still is.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Also, can we take this debate somewhere else? Perhaps BZ it or something? Wolverine's not even in this thread.Also, I apologize for the late reply. RL issues limit my KMC debating time these days. 🙁
Oy no I understand. I honestly don't have the time to be battlezoning tbh. Especially over something as trifle as personal interpretations.
I can accept the fact that some people interpret the comic one way, I just don't agree with that interpretation for a number of reasons.
If you can accept that I HAVE reasons for my interpretation, that they're at least reasonable and semi-legitimate, and not a byproduct of strict bias then we'll be fine.
As it stands, you've attacked my interpretation, my character, and my credability on something that's completely ambiguous even at best for your arguments. 😬
Originally posted by The Real WolvieThis is mostly reasonable.
On a side note I honestly don't see what the problem is with Logan stabbing Thor in the back. Perhaps he was counting on crashing through a few ribs and some muscle like he's done to Creed in the past. Thor's muscles might be inpenetrable for Logan's claws which would prevent him from reaching the lungs...not to mention those Asgarian bones. What's that you say? But Logan knows the best way to strike vital organs? Why yes..yes he does - but he also is used to crashing through muscle and bone with ease so he would not see a reason to try and evade them in order to reach the organs easier. It simply would not make a difference if this was in fact Sabretooth he was dealing with. Perhaps he even diliberately wanted to see if Creed regained his adamantium - so he intentionally plunged his claws into his shoulder blades or ribs/muscle to see if he could break through them. That would make sense considering how he fights Creed differently if Creed has adamantium because it would force Logan to avoid stabbing areas which are inpenetrable such as the skull and also to use attacks which directly target the organs as opposed to slicing through bone.
I actually don't have a problem with Wolverine unable to cut through Thor's bones either. I think that makes plenty of sense, but if that's the case, again the rest of the issue doesn't.
Don't know if you've ever had a bone bruise, but they are excruciatingly painful. Having spikes plunged into your bones to any degree would be massive cause for this "nursing" Thor was forced into doing. 😬
Just sayin.
Originally posted by The Real Wolvie
And this is why you can't just use feats alone...there must be some employment of logic. Hulk reacting to speedsters is PIS. If he actually had that ability, guys like Iron Man, Abomination, Cap, Wolverine etc would NOT be able to touch him. Plus, the idea of lightening fast reflexes doesn't exactly come to mind when imagining the Hulk. Sorry. Somehow I don't think I'm alone on that one...
thumbsup
Spiderman has braced a portion of a skyscraper building before.. he's not a class 100.
Captain America has KOed Hulk with a punch to the stomach before... He's not a Hulk killer.
People can't just take one time feats and apply them to the scope of a characters entire career which contradicts it. 😬
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I agree with that feat thing. Been saying that for years. Shame a majority of people use it when it suits them on the forum. Just saying in general and not pointing fingers.Jinzin remind me your stance on this battle. I've seen you argue, but I was just curious on your ultimate stance.
I don't like Thor's odds for this fight.
IMO Gorgon is far faster than him in combat speed and reflexes. And, Gorgon has some legitimate degree of super strength for that Admantium sword, most likely more than the 2 ton rating he was given in Fury's outdated file (he one shot Phobos with a single strike to his chest). Any hand to hand fight with Gorgon I feel will have Thor missing and being cut or stabbed quite a bit. I don't know if Thor can hit him before being heavily effected by bloodloss.
If Thor DOES hit him however, I question if Gorgon will be any more than pavement pizza.
Omega Red I feel is definitely being undersold in this fight, his tenticals could turn into just an annoying mess for Thor fillibustering him and keeping him from engaging Gorgon in the manner he needs to. IF OR is able to wrap up Thor's arms and suspend him in the air it might rob Thor of any leverage for him to use his strength.
Thor has to fight near flawlessly to be able to win this IMO, and IMO I don't think he typically will.
Though tactics like ground pounding or blasting the arena wall would definitely wreck the team; I feel like while that is certainly an option for Thor, it's probably one that's outside the realm of likelyhood(?). Thor might use that in 1 or 2 of every 10 fights he engages in. He probably wins a few fights in pure melee too but I question his ability to win the majority.
Good fight but I honeslty am not sure right now. I can see the team effectively beating him, but I can also see Thor able to pull the win with his durability and immortality tanking Gorgons shots enough to get ahold of him or pulling a Bam-bam styled KO on Red.
Originally posted by jinzinDo you think Gorgon is the bigger player here?
I don't like Thor's odds for this fight.IMO Gorgon is far faster than him in combat speed and reflexes. And, Gorgon has some legitimate degree of super strength for that Admantium sword, most likely more than the 2 ton rating he was given in Fury's outdated file (he one shot Phobos with a single strike to his chest). Any hand to hand fight with Gorgon I feel will have Thor missing and being cut or stabbed quite a bit. I don't know if Thor can hit him before being heavily effected by bloodloss.
If Thor DOES hit him however, I question if Gorgon will be any more than pavement pizza.
Omega Red I feel is definitely being undersold in this fight, his tenticals could turn into just an annoying mess for Thor fillibustering him and keeping him from engaging Gorgon in the manner he needs to. IF OR is able to wrap up Thor's arms and suspend him in the air it might rob Thor of any leverage for him to use his strength.Thor has to fight near flawlessly to be able to win this IMO, and IMO I don't think he typically will.
Though tactics like ground pounding or blasting the arena wall would definitely wreck the team; I feel like while that is certainly an option for Thor, it's probably one that's outside the realm of likelyhood(?). Thor might use that in 1 or 2 of every 10 fights he engages in. He probably wins a few fights in pure melee too but I question his ability to win the majority.
Good fight but I honeslty am not sure right now. I can see the team effectively beating him, but I can also see Thor able to pull the win with his durability and immortality tanking Gorgons shots enough to get ahold of him or pulling a Bam-bam styled KO on Red.
