Damn you Nil! I deserved it!
Originally posted by jinzin
Herc holds back plenty too, not an argument.
I found this interesting.
Point me to a scene where it's suggested Hercules holds back against Thor.
And just so you don't scream contradiction (Still not sure you know what the word means) this is completely separate from our "discussion" regarding Thor/Wolverine.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
To place Batman in the same park as Spider-Man as speed because they do "relatively similar stuff" that can't be quantified is ridiculous.
Obvoulsy Batman isn't as fast as Spiderman but deducing that there isn't a big speed gap between Batman and Spiderman based on feats is logical.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You said he was obviously faster, how is he obviously faster
For starters hes classified as superhuman and if you look at his feats and placing in the MU it implies it. I think it is obvious to people who have read alot of Marvel comics, if you didn't know him well that might be different.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
and then negligible at the same time?
Not sure what you mean there.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Batman is superhuman? Nevermind, you were talking about Spider-Man.
Batman is superhuman compared to other humans, that doesn't change the fact if a character is officially classified as superhuman he gets the nod.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I know Spider-Man is. People say "Spider-Man is obviously faster, but it the difference is negligible" If it is so minimal that it is negligible, how can it be obvious?
Because hes officially classified as superhuman, not peak superhuman. You could also argue that his feats indicate this.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
He is a peak human, but he's still a human.
You could say the samething about Aloysha Kravinoff or any other superhuman with low stats.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Being a comic there is some suspension of disbelief, but not that much.
For example?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Doesn't answer my question though. Well I guess it does, the statement is contradictory by nature.
That depends Spiderman has been classified as being superhuman for a 100 years. If you want to dispute the handbook and millions of references then it's contradictory. If you want to take Marvels word for it then its obvious.
Originally posted by BigSidPure genius. I think for posters who use that argument (not pointing fingers, just in general) it's "I don't want to sound like a crazy fanboy by saying peak humans are faster that Spider-Man) so I'll say Spider-Man is OBVIOUSLY faster but not enough to make a difference.
I think what C master's point is, if Spiderman obviously faster then how can it also be a negligible difference.
Originally posted by PhilosophíaNot really, because the feats aren't the same.
Spiderman is superhuman. Batman isn't. He is faster by default, but going by feats, the difference is negligible.Simple, no?
But on another train of argument, the posters who say this are saying that showings matter and nothing else, so titles don't matter so the difference can't be "obvious".
Also speed feats are much harder to quantify than say strength feats.
This is true for lower levels like Spider-Man and Robin. And as we saw in the Thanos and SS vs Flash and Zoom thread, Surfer and Flash.
Originally posted by Tha C-MasterI never said I agree with that, but from a logical standpoint, if that were the case (their feats being sensibly at the same level), it's not illogical to say "Spiderman is obviously faster (ie. he is superhuman) but the difference is negligible (their actual feats are comparable)".
Not really, because the feats aren't the same.But on another train of argument, the posters who say this are saying that showings matter and nothing else, so titles don't matter so the difference can't be "obvious".
Also speed feats are much harder to quantify than say strength feats.
The "posters saying this say showings matter and nothing else" is something else, and I haven't even followed the discussion. I just saw you making fun of that line for somewhat being illogical - it's actually not.
Originally posted by PhilosophíaI suppose I see what you are saying. It's just confusing as one minute stats and titles matter, and then feats matter and the former doesn't. (Not accusing you of this obviously).
I never said I agree with that, but from a logical standpoint, if that were the case (their feats being sensibly at the same level), it's not illogical to say "Spiderman is obviously faster (ie. he is superhuman) but the difference is negligible (their actual feats are comparable)".The "posters saying this say showings matter and nothing else" is something else, and I haven't even followed the discussion.
Although it's one thing to say "they do somewhat similar feats" (which is vague) and attribute it to being "equal" to the character. I notice this happens a lot in threads with peak human characters when they fight superhumans, and even here.
Not to mention of course, when there are crossover matchups, the more powerful guy will be toned down in the fight to make the match more interesting. It's no secret.
I think Spiderman is one of the most underplayed characters in fights with street levelers, and I'm of opinion that he should stomp most of them if he gets serious. (see the Kingpin fight in the "Back in black" arc)
Some do have the equipment to pull something (Batman's utility belt, for example) but once it gets into close quarters, he should completly destroy them, and I hate it when it's shown otherwise (The fight with Cap in Civil War was the best example of this - but then again, Spidey's respect for him played a big part. I also remember an old issue of Amazing Fantasy I think, where Cap's single punch rocked Spiderman's world, and that's stupid).