Iron Man vs The Destroyer

Originally posted by the ninjak
Tony isn't gonna jump on the Destroyer and aim his chest directly into the Destroyer's visor.

Repulsor tech isn't the same anyways. Tony's beams force targets back. The Destroyers Beam appears to kinetically explode whatever it touches.

Its not a solid piece of armour, plenty of exposed points for Tony to exploit.

Originally posted by marwash22
lol.

hey, shooting down it's throat (pause) is the only thing shown to work, physical attacks are completely useless.

Physical attacks from spears and blunt objects. Tony as concussive beams, lasers, rockets and various other missiles and such.

Originally posted by The Silent Hero
Its not a solid piece of armour, plenty of exposed points for Tony to exploit.

Originally posted by Robtard
Physical attacks from spears and blunt objects. Tony as concussive beams, lasers, rockets and various other missiles and such.

Even If the destroyer was unimpressive, can iron man survive even 1 hit by the disintegration beam?

All he has to do is hit him once

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Even If the destroyer was unimpressive, can iron man survive even 1 hit by the disintegration beam?

All he has to do is hit him once

Is Iron Man more durable than Frost Giants, a gas station and some cars?

Yes, yes and yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is Iron Man more durable than Frost Giants, a gas station and some cars?

Yes, yes and yes.

from what is seen on screen, the "disintegration" only works on organic material, which would explain Thor not wanting to get hit by it. Tony's suit isn't organic material... so if anything, the suit will get damaged if hit by them beam, but it won't get disintegrated.

After A Prolong fight, i see the disintergration beam killing tony before tonys Pulse Bolts Kill The Destroyer

Tony Also doesnt have a healing factor where as the armor does

Originally posted by The Silent Hero
He doesn't need repulsors, he has plenty of rockets and whatnot. What he killed the Leviathan with, would destroy the destroyer with ease. Though hand repulsors would knock it on its ass long enough for Tony to get a second shot in.

Its not a solid piece of armour, plenty of exposed points for Tony to exploit.

What are you talking about "with ease"!

Bombs won't do anything and the Repulsor Beams probably won't put him on his ass. Did you see in Thor how the Destroyer swiped a flying car aside with a casual wave of it's arm?

And that bomb Tony destroyed the Chitauri beast with hit its exposed flesh. The D.Armor doesn't have any flesh .

Wow I could see the argument being made for Tony before Avengers(Lack of Feats for the Destroyer/Thor) but after Avengers I don't see how anyone can say Ironman wins.

Just look at the two fights between the Thor/Tony and Thor/Destroyer

Thor/Destroyer fight: Thor fought the Destroyer on a totally different level. He was smart, methodical, and didn't leave anything up to chance.

The Destroyer's beam was powerful enough to injure Asgardians as strong as Volstagg with residuals from it's blast and fists. We know for a fact Asgardians/Frost Giants are extremely durable just look at what Loki withstood in the Avengers movie. Even a thrashing from Hulk only left Loki disabled and not even KOed. The Destroyer's beam was able to seriously mess up Volstagg to where he needed assistance to be moved around. It was also heavily hinted at before Siff attacked it that a direct attack by the destroyer would have killed Volstagg while he was laying on the car.

Also Thor took no chances with that beam, and after what Thor survived in both movies I would take that as a sign of respect to the Beam and what Thor knows it can do. HE decided the best course of action was to not let that beam touch him at all and and he also decided the best course of action was to use it's own beam against itself.

Now once again before Avengers we had no real guideline with how that compared to human elements, but after Avengers we know.

Thor/Ironman Fight: Thor is obviously not trying to seriously hurt Tony cause throughout the fight we see that if Thor wanted to seriously hurt him he could have. He easily breaks IM's armor with his hands. A simple headbutt dents his armor. Everything Tony throws at Thor doesn't even hurt him even at 475% power levels for IM. We easily see Thor rip IM's face mask off at the end without even trying. IMs best attacks couldn't even get through the Leviathan's armor but we see Thor's lightning damage multiple's of the same beasts. You can also see that even though Tony absorbed Thor's lightning that where the lightning did touch it caused burn marks in IM's armor. That means to me that even though the lightning acts as a power up to IM if Thor really wanted to put Tony down with it he could have.

Also a hammer throw from Thor damages Tony and we know from the above examples that if Thor wanted to that Throw could have taken Tony's head off if he threw it as hard as he could have. Compare that to the Thor's throw against Destroyer. The initial impact from his throw only tilts its head, and it takes a surprise attack to knock it off its feat. Just for comparison when Hulk tried to catch Thor's hammer it still had enough force to carry the Hulk backwards and put him on his back same with a hit from Thor. The Destroyer only got it's head knocked backwards.

So what we have a is a none holding back Thor fighting smart and knowing it's opponents full capabilities decides the best way to take out teh Destroyer is to force it's own beam back into it's face and he doesn't even want to get hit the beam at all.

Thor's fight with Tony and Thor doesn't care at all about getting hit or taking Tony out quickly. He is more concerned with not trying to hurt Tony to badly.

Destroyer wins this and pretty easily. Ton'y flight may keep the match going for awhile until he runs out of power.

Originally posted by Newjak
Just for comparison when Hulk tried to catch Thor's hammer it still had enough force to carry the Hulk backwards and put him on his back same with a hit from Thor.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
While I agree with most of your argument, I believe that was Odin's enchantment in effect.

Hulk goes flying backwards into the plane.

Once again Thor throwing his hammer at the Destroyer only managed to knock its head backwards. The only time he manages to knock it over is the behind the back attack to it when his hammer is returning.

Originally posted by Newjak
We know for a fact Asgardians/Frost Giants are extremely durable just look at what Loki withstood in the Avengers movie. Even a thrashing from Hulk only left Loki disabled and not even KOed.

Actually, that only proves glaring inconsistency. Thor (the movie) would be a much better benchmark since it is more likely the writers mess up logic in a film with so many characters. Heck even in individual films, consistency/logic is not very high simply because it is written for entertainment, and not as a foundation of a logical debate. Also, it is quite obvious the scene was done for comedy, I would personally not treat it as serious evidence unless it is congruent with his other feats, which it isn't.

And clearly Thor is a unique Asgardian as his powers were bestowed upon him by Odin (and what becomes of him when it is taken away - a mere human, or arguably marginally stronger). I see no reason to believe other Asgardians have similar stats or are even superhuman as they have never displayed it. Frost Giants seem to have strength and durability proportional to their size and anatomy. Any other Frost Giant being thrashed by Hulk would be dead, it took Thor much less to take them out in Jotunheim.

"Feats" aren't the be-all and end-all, logic must take priority. That's why I don't take many Avengers feats seriously. They were trying to pay respect to every character, clearly they weren't factoring in consistency and logic in every feat. If you ignore this, and reach far enough and do some good ol' ABC logic, then you could draw some ridiculous conclusions for certain characters.

For example, it's just like in the cartoons, people like Batman or Captain America take direct hits from Class 100+, but is it honest or even meaningful to use those feats?

Originally posted by Placidity
Actually, that only proves glaring inconsistency. Thor (the movie) would be a much better benchmark since it is more likely the writers mess up logic in a film with so many characters. Heck even in individual films, consistency/logic is not very high simply because it is written for entertainment, and not as a foundation of a logical debate. Also, it is quite obvious the scene was done for comedy, I would personally not treat it as serious evidence unless it is congruent with his other feats, which it isn't.

And clearly Thor is a unique Asgardian as his powers were bestowed upon him by Odin (and what becomes of him when it is taken away - a mere human, or arguably marginally stronger). I see no reason to believe other Asgardians have similar stats or are even superhuman as they have never displayed it. Frost Giants seem to have strength and durability proportional to their size and anatomy. Any other Frost Giant being thrashed by Hulk would be dead, it took Thor much less to take them out in Jotunheim.

"Feats" aren't the be-all and end-all, logic must take priority. That's why I don't take many Avengers feats seriously. They were trying to pay respect to every character, clearly they weren't factoring in consistency and logic in every feat. If you ignore this, and reach far enough and do some good ol' ABC logic, then you could draw some ridiculous conclusions for certain characters.

For example, it's just like in the cartoons, people like Batman or Captain America take direct hits from Class 100+, but is it honest or even meaningful to use those feats?

Loki took machine gun fire and bullet to the face with no harm, Took an exploding arrow to the face no harm, took a shield throw from Cap no harm, took replusor blasts from Iron man no harm.

So Loki being a tough hombre is pretty consistent throughout the entire movie.

You can also look at other things that show Asgardian toughness. For instance Volstagg was only mildly hurt by a Frost Giants touch. But we already saw that a Frost Giants touch and attacks and instantly freeze and break Asgardian Armor. The same armor that is bullet proof and can take attacks from Ironman/Hulk/Cap/Hawkeye without being destroyed.

Also Thor might taken Frost Giant out easier than Hulk but at the same time Thor was holding back against Banner, Ironman, and even Loki in Avengers. So Thor might have had an easier time with the frost giants cause he wasn't pulling his punches. Obviously Hulk would beat on Frost Giants but the logic in stating that somehow makes Frost Giants/Asgardians weaker isn't as sound as you would believe.

I am failing to see what 'logic' you are talking about.

Logically I would think a marquee weapon from the Asgardians built by Odin to serve as a Guardian for the most dangerous weapons in the cosmos would be tougher and more powerful than Ironman, but that's my thinking on it.

Plus, look at the size of the explosion that Thor and Loki tanked when the Bi-Forst was destroyed

Originally posted by Newjak
That's why I also included the instant where Thor simply gives Hulk a hammer uppercut(I knew some people would probably argue it was just the enchantment)

Edit: For the record I indisputably agree with the rest of your stance(s) in this thread.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
The hammer uppercut seemed more like Thor's own power. Mjolnir flying with Hulk at its helm though appeared more as if the hammer was acting of its own accord, which can only be accounted by Odin's spell.

Edit: For the record I indisputably agree with the rest of your stance(s) in this thread.

I'm still curious to see if anyone can use Ironman replicating the Destroyers takedown that Thor achieved.

Stark simply can't do it.