Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm not so sure.So he's a team-wrecker. Good for him.
--
I honestly don't mind if they are in fact 1000x stronger. (A) That says nothing of their durability, and even if it did, (B) 1000X stronger is, I feel, a term that needs to be quantified when the top heralds of today are guys that are up in the quintillion/sextillion amount of tonnage and beyond.
Eh. All strength feats double as durability feats too. Since your body needs to be of the requisite durability to pull those feats off in the first place.
Originally posted by Mindset
They are 1000 times stronger than Superman.
😂
Originally posted by jalek moye
When you get high up though actually quantifying stuff is pretty hard. Which is why most of the time comics don't really try to. they have them do something and let the fanatics do the math
Of course; I'm just trying to get a general idea.
Originally posted by carver9
If they matched Savage Hulk physically in a contest of strength that alone put them at peak Herald physically. If they are a thousand times more powerful, that's insane. They have pretty good durability if they can withstand punches from a pissed Hulk.
No it doesn't, and you're talking about what was considered herald THEN, not NOW. Both are very different.
I never said they had bad durability.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
Eh. All strength feats double as durability feats too. Since your body needs to be of the requisite durability to pull those feats off in the first place.
I don't agree (to a point). There are plenty of characters whose strength and durability are not equal. Hulk is a prime example of this.
Originally posted by carver9
But we know that Doomsday is high class 100 and he doesn't have a single lifting ft under his belt.
i don't see how that matters.
Originally posted by -Pr-
😂
I don't agree (to a point). There are plenty of characters whose strength and durability are not equal. Hulk is a prime example of this.
There's nothing to agree or disagree with.
Someone completes a strength feat and by proxy its a durability feat. As their skin, muscles, tendons bones etc need to be durable enough to not collapse from the strain.
E.G. Hulk lifts a mountain successfully, means his durability is great enough to accommodate the attempt.
But then again, it is possible that Bi-Beast and Wendigo always had the requisite durability to pull off feats far above their strength class and their durability was not amped at all, but that is far less likely than vice versa.
Them being as large as they are compared to normal would be arguable as giving them durability boosts, since their muscles, bones etc are also bigger and thicker.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
There's nothing to agree or disagree with.Someone completes a strength feat and by proxy its a durability feat. As their skin, muscles, tendons bones etc need to be durable enough to not collapse from the strain.
E.G. Hulk lifts a mountain successfully, means his durability is great enough to accommodate the attempt.
But then again, it is possible that Bi-Beast and Wendigo always had the requisite durability to pull off feats far above their strength class and their durability was not amped at all, but that is far less likely than vice versa.
Them being as large as they are compared to normal would be arguable as giving them durability boosts, since their muscles, bones etc are also bigger and thicker.
I actually don't agree. Still. While I might say that durability can be a component in a strength feat, I don't agree that it's a 1:1 ratio, nor do I think it's an undeniable fact.
And not all strength feats are bound by an act such as bracing, as you know.
And again, I wasn't saying their durability hadn't changed or was somehow crap.
There is nothing to disagree with. It's inarguable. Its logic. It's fact.
Hulk lifts a mountain. His bodily structure is thus durable enough to allow him to safely lift a mountain. Otherwise his muscles would tear and his bones would snap etc. on the attempt, and they clearly don't--so obviously they are durable enough for the strain.
And it's never simply one to one in reality. As a safety mechanism your durability is always a great deal higher than what you are safely capable of doing with muscle force.
E.G. A T. Rex can't bite at its full strength without its skull being tough enough to allow it to do so. And its skull's durability is far more durable than simply being 1:1 with the force it can create with its jaw muscles. Otherwise it would simply be able to bite down on nothing, but as soon as it bites down on something that struggles back while bitten, that extra force would damage its skull.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is nothing to disagree with. It's inarguable. Its logic. It's fact.Hulk lifts a mountain. His bodily structure is thus durable enough to allow him to safely lift a mountain. Otherwise his muscles would tear and his bones would snap etc. on the attempt, and they clearly don't--so obviously they are durable enough for the strain.
And it's never simply one to one in reality. As a safety mechanism your durability is always a great deal higher than what you are safely capable of doing with muscle force.
E.G. A T. Rex can't bite at its full strength without its skull being tough enough to allow it to do so. And its skull's durability is far more durable than simply being 1:1 with the force it can create with its jaw muscles. Otherwise it would simply be able to bite down on nothing, but as soon as it bites down on something that struggles back while bitten, that extra force would damage its skull.
and yet hulk's/superman's/thor's bones can be broken or damaged by forces far inferior to the kind of strength they're capable of exerting. I'm not saying it's right, just that it is as it is when it comes to comics. it's inconsistent. there are a multitude of factors outside of durability too.
so yes, when it comes to comics, i don't agree that we can apply real world science to those kinds of things, and i don't agree that strength = durability.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
There is nothing to disagree with. It's inarguable. Its logic. It's fact.Hulk lifts a mountain. His bodily structure is thus durable enough to allow him to safely lift a mountain. Otherwise his muscles would tear and his bones would snap etc. on the attempt, and they clearly don't--so obviously they are durable enough for the strain.
😬
Logically, Hulk shouldn't be able to lift a mountain. He'd be pressed into the ground (or the mountain).
Originally posted by -Pr-
and yet hulk's/superman's/thor's bones can be broken or damaged by forces far inferior to the kind of strength they're capable of exerting.
Either the damage they take is PIS--and it usually is for Superman, who's durability is far more thought out and consistent than Thor or Hulk--or their strength feats are PIS.
Take your pick.
Fact is, when we see these top guys do their big strength feats, we see them struggle to do it, so we know strain is being placed on their bodies, thus their durability is being tested as well.
Someone like Hawkeye should never, ever, be able to damage Hulk with his arrows. Unless he shoots him in the eyes with a special brand.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
Either the damage they take is PIS--and it usually is for Superman, who's durability is far more thought out and consistent than Thor or Hulk--or their strength feats are PIS.Take your pick.
Fact is, when we see these top guys do their big strength feats, we see them struggle to do it, so we know strain is being placed on their bodies, thus their durability is being tested as well.
Someone like Hawkeye should never, ever, be able to damage Hulk with his arrows. Unless he shoots him in the eyes with a special brand.
You'd be discounting an awful lot of feats if you go down that road.
I wouldn't use Superman as an example either, not with the whole bio-aura thing.
There's a lot of things that shouldn't happen, yet they happen; that's comics. These people have powers that don't conform to our laws of physics and whatever else have you; in fact they contradict them at times. That's why the question of strength and durability comes up in the first place, and why they're seperated by a lot of people.
Who knows, these two might be as durable as they are strong; i left that part open in my post. My main question is about whether being 1000x stronger than their previous forms truly puts them above someone who can hold a planet together or smack down Thor like a red-headed step-child.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
Either the damage they take is PIS--and it usually is for Superman, who's durability is far more thought out and consistent than Thor or Hulk--or their strength feats are PIS.Take your pick.
Fact is, when we see these top guys do their big strength feats, we see them struggle to do it, so we know strain is being placed on their bodies, thus their durability is being tested as well.
Someone like Hawkeye should never, ever, be able to damage Hulk with his arrows. Unless he shoots him in the eyes with a special brand.
Your analogy is off here. Is a guy that can squat 800 pounds more durable in terms of physiology then a morbidly obese guy that weights 800 pounds?
Originally posted by dmills
Your analogy is off here. Is a guy that can squat 800 pounds more durable in terms of physiology then a morbidly obese guy that weights 800 pounds?
Are the strong man's muscles, bones, tendons far tougher than the human jabba? Absolutely.
I don't see what you are trying to get at. There is nothing to argue about on this from an actual biophysical standpoint.
Originally posted by -Pr-
You'd be discounting an awful lot of feats if you go down that road.
And I do.
Comics are riddled with more discardable stupidity than just about any other medium that I enjoy.
Ask yourself what makes more sense to discard though. Hulk being hurt by a street leveler on occasion or Hulk having the durability to lift a mountain?
Originally posted by dmills
Ha! I've got ya!
Explain.
The only thing I've ever said is if you are strong enough to complete a feat you are durable enough to complete it as well.
The 800 lb guy is obviously not going to be strong enough/durable enough. His frame is already being taxed to the limit from just laying around at that weight.
Originally posted by Cogito
Point is, Pr is right. There's no evidence to conclude that there's a 1:1 strength to durability ratio.
Oh, but no one is arguing one to one, that would be an absolute minimum. 🙂
And the evidence is within the feats themselves. Hulk holds up part of a mountain in Secret Wars, his body is straining as its not easy for him to hold it up. Guess what that means? It's a durability feat. 🙂