Clubber Lang vs. Ivan Drago

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Except that Drago is clearly breaking conventional norms for even professionals with objective, measurable means. Subjective lowballing and ignoring that Lang beat an out of shape Rocky compared to Drago fighting Rocky at his peak is confirmation bias.

This is simple:

My assertion of Drago's superiority in punching is objectively backed up by measurable, verifiable evidence of him more than doubling world records and means.

Your assertion merely uses subjective feelings and pretends that Rocky is a static figure instead of a variable in both films.

See above.

Because Rocky has the exact same durability and training in both films, right? [/B]

Rocky broke conventional norms well before Drago. Him taking the world champs punches without really blocking for 15 rounds and not being KO'd or killed puts his durability well past the "norm"

I'm not at all bringing up Lang thrashing Rocky in their first fight. I've noticed you and other posters try to put this on me like I've actually made the point just to refute it and make yourself look better. I'm strictly talking about the second fight where Rocky actively tried to not get hit by Lang.

That "measurable, verifiable evidence " doesn't mean anything when no one else that we know of in that universe was measured in the same way. All we have that's comparable between the two is their showings against Rocky. And in those we see that Lang is the superior striker

See above

Can you conclusively prove his durability was altered in a significant amount? His training and putting on some bulk doesn't automatically mean his already superhuman durability was boosted to some extreme level.

Originally posted by juggerman
Rocky broke conventional norms well before Drago. Him taking the world champs punches without really blocking for 15 rounds and not being KO'd or killed puts his durability well past the "norm"

Irrelevant to the discussion.

I noted that Drago's peak punching power, which is the entire debate here, is higher than realistically possible, because of objective evidence. Rocky's endurance is likewise insane, but that doesn't hurt Drago; that's a feather in Rocky's cap.

Again, if you are asserting Lang punchrs harder than someonr who punches more than twice as hard as RL pros, you need measureable, objective evidence.

You have not provided this, so yout argument is fundamentally flawed and otherwise biased subjective thinking.

I'm not at all bringing up Lang thrashing Rocky in their first fight. I've noticed you and other posters try to put this on me like I've actually made the point just to refute it and make yourself look better. I'm strictly talking about the second fight where Rocky actively tried to not get hit by Lang.

Using Rocky's behavior or technique is a red herring, since Rocky is not the same fighter in terms of durability and experience in both fights. This only conclusively proves that Rocky can dodge Lang.

That "measurable, verifiable evidence " doesn't mean anything when no one else that we know of in that universe was measured in the same way. All we have that's comparable between the two is their showings against Rocky. And in those we see that Lang is the superior striker

This is vapid thinking.

Drago is measurably higher than anyone else in RL and possibly in the Rockyverse.

Lang has no such benchmarks.

Rocky is not a static unit of measurement.

Ergo, we can only conclusively prove Drago is stronger here. This isn't an issue of absence of evidence means proof of absence; rather, your claim lacks the evidence of the opposing claim and therefore has less validity.

Take some debating and logic courses.

And learn how to quote argument by argument for clarity's sake.

Can you conclusively prove his durability was altered in a significant amount? His training and putting on some bulk doesn't automatically mean his already superhuman durability was boosted to some extreme level.

This is strawmanning. I noted that Rocky is not the same in terms of physical attributes in both films. This is self evident. You are attempting to claim that Rocky is super human, which he may be given Drago's strength, but that's not an argument I can easily measure and prove.

What I can prove is Drago punches superhumanly strong. You haven't shown that Lang can do as much, so in persisting and falling into fallacies, you effectively concede.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

1. Irrelevant to the discussion.

I noted that Drago's peak punching power, which is the entire debate here, is higher than realistically possible, because of objective evidence. Rocky's endurance is likewise insane, but that doesn't hurt Drago; that's a feather in Rocky's cap.

Again, if you are asserting Lang punchrs harder than someonr who punches more than twice as hard as RL pros, you need measureable, objective evidence.

You have not provided this, so yout argument is fundamentally flawed and otherwise biased subjective thinking.

2. Using Rocky's behavior or technique is a red herring, since Rocky is not the same fighter in terms of durability and experience in both fights. This only conclusively proves that Rocky can dodge Lang.

3. This is vapid thinking.

Drago is measurably higher than anyone else in RL and possibly in the Rockyverse.

Lang has no such benchmarks.

Rocky is not a static unit of measurement.

Ergo, we can only conclusively prove Drago is stronger here. This isn't an issue of absence of evidence means proof of absence; rather, your claim lacks the evidence of the opposing claim and therefore has less validity.

Take some debating and logic courses.

And learn how to quote argument by argument for clarity's sake.

4. This is strawmanning. I noted that Rocky is not the same in terms of physical attributes in both films. This is self evident. You are attempting to claim that Rocky is super human, which he may be given Drago's strength, but that's not an argument I can easily measure and prove.

What I can prove is Drago punches superhumanly strong. You haven't shown that Lang can do as much, so in persisting and falling into fallacies, you effectively concede. [/B]

Numbered since you can't keep track.

1. Very relevant. Since Drago was the only known person to be measured in such a way it is impossible to know if anyone was close, equal or above his power by asking for a measured number. They don't exist for anyone else. Now take for instance if this were Ivan vs Thor. Would you now claim "since Thor doesn't have a registered psi for his punches that he must be under Drago?" No. What would you do then? Compare feats right? Yet here you refuse to do so and just hang onto this number that cannot be proven for anyone else.

2. It makes perfect sense to use his behavior since he is the only person to face them both. It proves conclusively that Rocky felt as tho Lang's hits needed to be blocked/avoided but Drago's could be walked thru. That means a lot.

3. This is very flawed thinking. Rocky and his opponents are not held by real world standards. If that were the case Rocky would be dead given the way he fights. Using real world norms are useless here since the characters are superhuman.

4. Rocky is proven to be superhuman in pretty much every single film. You need to prove his already super human durability increased tremendously in Rocky IV.

What I can prove is that Drago hits super humanly strong. Those superhuman hits barely cause Rocky to pause. Lang's hits however cause much more trouble for Rocky and even force Rocky to alter his approach. This is clearly seen and therefore proven

Originally posted by juggerman
Numbered since you can't keep track.

I can, but it is a matter of maintaining consistency on everyone's part, including other readers who may want to comment on, or refer back to a point.

1. Very relevant. Since Drago was the only known person to be measured in such a way it is impossible to know if anyone was close, equal or above his power by asking for a measured number. They don't exist for anyone else.

Actually, such measurements do exist IRL. Using that as a static point of comparison, Drago is not just strong; he's measurably stronger than any person in recorded boxing history.

Lang does not have anything to indicate as much, period. You can't tell me with any degree of certainty if he can pass 1k (Roughly top of the worled IRL), much less 2k. Without evidence, don't assert it.

Now take for instance if this were Ivan vs Thor. Would you now claim "since Thor doesn't have a registered psi for his punches that he must be under Drago?" No. What would you do then? Compare feats right? Yet here you refuse to do so and just hang onto this number that cannot be proven for anyone else.

Except that's not a good analogy. Thor is explicitly superhuman. He has strength which can be measured, such as smashing through XYZ, and can therefore be extrapolated to meet or surpass Ivan's PSI feat.

Lang does not have narration or any story evidence to support superiority to Drago. He does not have strength feats well in excess of Drago.

You must conceed.

2. It makes perfect sense to use his behavior since he is the only person to face them both. It proves conclusively that Rocky felt as tho Lang's hits needed to be blocked/avoided but Drago's could be walked thru. That means a lot.

No, it doesn't. You are interpreting vague evidence in a way which best fits your bias. Rocky dodging Lang or not is irrelevant to the argument that indicates who punches stronger.

If Rocky had said "Yo, Adrian... This guy ain't so bad. Lang punched harder", then this would be viable evidence. As it was, Drago murdered Creed in two rounds with brute strength and forced Rocky to hulk up just to stand a chance.

3. This is very flawed thinking. Rocky and his opponents are not held by real world standards. If that were the case Rocky would be dead given the way he fights. Using real world norms are useless here since the characters are superhuman.

Except that you can't measure Rocky's any more than you could measure the amount of soil in the earth. You are basically saying that Rocky is a valid measurement by which to measure both, but he changed drastically between both, on physical and mental levels.

If you cannot objectively prove Rocky's durability to be utterly identical in both fights, you can't measure Lang accurately and must conceed.

4. Rocky is proven to be superhuman in pretty much every single film. You need to prove his already super human durability increased tremendously in Rocky IV.

No, I don't. You're subtly asserting that Rocky did not improve and therefore shifting the burden of proof.

Can you prove Lang punches harder with an objecive measurement? If not, you must conceed.

What I can prove is that Drago hits super humanly strong.

But you can't prove Lang is stronger. QED.

Those superhuman hits barely cause Rocky to pause.

Watch the fight again. Early on, Rocky hits the mat often and is struggling to keep pace. Later on, when Drago presumably tires, things become more even.

Lang's hits however cause much more trouble for Rocky and even force Rocky to alter his approach. This is clearly seen and therefore proven

Is Rocky physically the same in both instances? Is he a static unit of measurement?

No, he's not. Your "Nuh uh" approach fails. Give up already.

Like I said before Stealth Moose, it's like arguing against a gas station toilet. You will only have shit spewed back at you. Juggerquan and papa Quan will never give up their biased love of B.A.'s Bigcockus, no matter how much evidence indicates they are wrong.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

1. I can, but it is a matter of maintaining consistency on everyone's part, including other readers who may want to comment on, or refer back to a point.

2. Actually, such measurements do exist IRL. Using that as a static point of comparison, Drago is not just strong; he's measurably stronger than any person in recorded boxing history.

Lang does not have anything to indicate as much, period. You can't tell me with any degree of certainty if he can pass 1k (Roughly top of the worled IRL), much less 2k. Without evidence, don't assert it.

3. Except that's not a good analogy. Thor is explicitly superhuman. He has strength which can be measured, such as smashing through XYZ, and can therefore be extrapolated to meet or surpass Ivan's PSI feat.

Lang does not have narration or any story evidence to support superiority to Drago. He does not have strength feats well in excess of Drago.

You must conceed.

4. No, it doesn't. You are interpreting vague evidence in a way which best fits your bias. Rocky dodging Lang or not is irrelevant to the argument that indicates who punches stronger.

If Rocky had said "Yo, Adrian... This guy ain't so bad. Lang punched harder", then this would be viable evidence. As it was, Drago murdered Creed in two rounds with brute strength and forced Rocky to hulk up just to stand a chance.

5. Except that you can't measure Rocky's any more than you could measure the amount of soil in the earth. You are basically saying that Rocky is a valid measurement by which to measure both, but he changed drastically between both, on physical and mental levels.

If you cannot objectively prove Rocky's durability to be utterly identical in both fights, you can't measure Lang accurately and must conceed.

6. No, I don't. You're subtly asserting that Rocky did not improve and therefore shifting the burden of proof.

Can you prove Lang punches harder with an objecive measurement? If not, you must conceed.

7. But you can't prove Lang is stronger. QED.

8. Watch the fight again. Early on, Rocky hits the mat often and is struggling to keep pace. Later on, when Drago presumably tires, things become more even.

9. Is Rocky physically the same in both instances? Is he a static unit of measurement?

No, he's not. Your "Nuh uh" approach fails. Give up already. [/B]

1. I'm not going to quote every single point separately. Number the responses if you want to keep track.

2. I meant they don't exist for anyone else in the series. You can't just say his is stronger based off something that no one else had a chance to do. Which is why we resort to feats

3. You've already said Drago is super human so we have two super humans to compare. As I said you need to then go to feats to see who may be stronger. Same thing here

4. It really does. Rocky needed to alter his tactic to beat Lang. With Drago he just out punched him. He was unable to do so against Lang. It means Rocky himself felt Drago's hits were something he could endure. He did not feel this way with Lang

5. You cannot measure that they differ. So we see a guy in one film and the same guy in the next film. You just want to assume that he made a major leap in stats with no real evidence. I am saying he was likely similar. Which seems more like a leap?

6. Rocky was the measuring stick. It's very simple. Rocky was able to endure Drago's hits unprotected for 15 rounds He could not do so with Lang. Rocky is an objective measuring device since he had no reason to "put over" either opponent.

7. I already did.

8. Well yes he does take punishment cuz Drago is legit superhuman. OF course it's gonna hurt. But Rocky never once needed to alter his approach. The reason He took a beating is cuz he never tried to avoid Drago. Not the case with Lang

9. We can assume he is similar. Nothing proves he took a giant leap in durability as your stance needs him to in order to make sense

Originally posted by Lestov16
Like I said before Stealth Moose, it's like arguing against a gas station toilet. You will only have shit spewed back at you. Juggerquan and papa Quan will never give up their biased love of B.A.'s Bigcockus, no matter how much evidence indicates they are wrong.

Wow another dick for you to latch onto. I guess after quan discarded you, you need some comfort in being someone else's cockboi

He mad. Look at all those fallacies.

Apparently, Drago is the only person to ever have used a punching measurement machine in both the Rockyverse and the real world, or everyone with boxing shorts is metahuman in Rockyverse.

Concession accepted, juggerquan. Until you get that PSI of 2k plus for Lang, definitive proof that Lang hit harder like a script line or directory commentary, or demonstrate how Rocky is more constant than is humanly possible, being only mildly more durable despite putting on like 15, 20 lbs. of muscle, you have no argument.

Drago wins.

Everybody but Elected Neighborhood Rapist Quan and B.A. Bottombytch Juggerquan know this to be true

Originally posted by Psychotron
Which is why he lost, when he was at his best rolled over Lang.

The only thing you did was embarrass yourself.

What kind of loser do you have to be to buy an iPad anyway? Your mum didn't want to buy you a PC or something?

If you are wondering, Ken Doll, I'm just waiting for juggerquan to debate again because at least with him, it's kind of fun since it's very unusual to see such a usually logical person say such utterly ridiculous bullshit, but with you, there's just no point. It is literally like arguing with a wall.

Originally posted by Lestov16
If you are wondering, Ken Doll, I'm just waiting for juggerquan to debate again because at least with him, it's kind of fun since it's very unusual to see such a usually logical person say such utterly ridiculous bullshit, but with you, there's just no point. It is literally like arguing with a wall.

Originally posted by juggerman
Go ahead an count away. Lemme know when you're ready to admit you're wrong.

You agree with me here now so it is I that accepts your concession

So you agree that Drago punching him more would have a greater effect than Clubber punching him much less no matter which was technically stronger right? Great Concession accepted again

Your statement was about two totally different people, one with muscle and one with much less. Your theory was proven wrong. If you would like to alter it now and say the same person with two different sizes then we can do so. But as is your point has been thoroughly destroyed

Are you seriously arguing that Rocky hit Lang more? Are you insane, blind, stupid, or a troll?

More delusions.

And so you agree that Drago was the main reason for his brain damage.

Yes, you are definitely retarded. How many times must I point out I was talking about the effects of muscle mass? If you take two people with the same durability, and then make one of them put on some muscle he'll be tougher if all else is equal.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, you're ignoring the context like you always do.

Irony.

Shut it. I use what I want to use, hick.

That's a laugh. You admitted Rocky wasn't in his best shape. The end.

More trolling.

Someone from Ohio calling some else a hick. Hilarious.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You used to be my minion. He spotted it as well. You are mine.

Just remember everybody, This immature bullshit isn't coming from the words of a child, it's coming from this grown man:

That is terrifyingly retarded.

And again, your B.A. Bigcockus wankage is a lost cause. You and juggerquan are the only retards who have your stance. Everybody else is smart enough to know the objective truth.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Are you seriously arguing that Rocky hit Lang more? Are you insane, blind, stupid, or a troll?

More delusions.

And so you agree that Drago was the main reason for his brain damage.

Yes, you are definitely retarded. How many times must I point out I was talking about the effects of muscle mass? If you take two people with the same durability, and then make one of them put on some muscle he'll be tougher if all else is equal.

That's a laugh. You admitted Rocky wasn't in his best shape. The end.

More trolling.

Someone from Ohio calling some else a hick. Hilarious.

Your hillbilly face can't hide forever.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I never said he was. My stance hasn't changed. Rocky wasn't in his best shape against Drago that was against Lang.

Your hillbilly face can't hide forever.

Rocky was in considerably better shape in IV.

Good thing I'm not some ugly, pasty Ohio geek, then.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Rocky was in considerably better shape in IV.

Good thing I'm not some ugly, pasty Ohio geek, then.