Originally posted by cdtm
Because he hits harder. Thor never broke a planet with his fists.
You can't say that with any certainty. Thor may have never busted a dead planetoid with his fists but we do know for certain he rivals Gladiator strength wise.
And if you want to play the feat game, Thor has the superior strength feats. Heck, he'd win based purely on his durability showings.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusYou down Gladiator is more durable and does have more power in his fists than Thor is capable of. It isn't that huge of a gap but a gap nonetheless. I will give Thor the edge in damage soak and mental toughness.
No he doesn't. Thor may have never busted a dead planetoid with his fists but we know for certain he rivals Gladiator strength wise.And if you want to play the feat game, Thor has the superior strength feats. Heck, he'd win based purely on his durability showings.
Originally posted by quanchi112
You down Gladiator is more durable and does have more power in his fists than Thor is capable of. It isn't that huge of a gap but a gap nonetheless. I will give Thor the edge in damage soak and mental toughness.
More durable in what sense? I use to think Gladiator was more invulnerable but Thor nullifies any advantage with his damage soak and stamina. I disagree. I never understood why people gave Gladiator the edge over Thor in strength, Masterson alone was shown to rival him in that regard.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Iron Man never suggested that he has better damage soak than Thor. I doubt any character you'll mention has done the same. GTFO with this fallacious reasoning. Thor shits on it.Why does Gladiator win exactly? I want legitimate reasons backed by relevant showings. I've just grown tired of your constant bullshit and can no longer tolerate it for extended periods.
Hopefully one day you'll feel confident enough in Gladiator to do the battle zone with me and I can stomp out whatever fleeting hope you have left.
😂
Never said that Ironman said anything about Thor vs Gladiator soak. What I am telling you is people tend to compliment Gladiator damage soak and depicts him as an unstoppable being.
In regards to your battle zone comment...my time with KMC has run short so if you want to debate, do it now.
Originally posted by quanchi112
You down Gladiator is more durable and does have more power in his fists than Thor is capable of. It isn't that huge of a gap but a gap nonetheless. I will give Thor the edge in damage soak and mental toughness.
There is a difference in the two Gladiator doesn't hold back Thor does,if Thor doesn't hold back we are talking a whole new ball game. Damage soak and mental fortitude I agree Thor is better, you have to be with a Father like Odin and dealing with his baggage 😉.
But even Gladiator from the future even stated that Thor was too powerful for him, and that was a more experience seasoned Gladiator!
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
You can't say that with any certainty. Thor may have never busted a dead planetoid with his fists but we do know for certain he rivals Gladiator strength wise.And if you want to play the feat game, Thor has the superior strength feats. Heck, he'd win based purely on his durability showings.
Gladiator punching power is superior...don't know why you would think otherwise.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusMasterson beat him down with his hammer. The real Thor beat down a Gladiator pulled from the future with his hammer. Thor relies on his hammer far too often.
More durable in what sense? I use to think Gladiator was more invulnerable but Thor nullifies any advantage with his damage soak and stamina. I disagree. I never understood why people gave Gladiator the edge over Thor in strength, Masterson alone was shown to rival him in that regard.
Not overall strength but punching power. His damage soak isn't great enough to nullify the durability advantage.
Originally posted by the Darkone
There is a difference in the two Gladiator doesn't hold back Thor does,if Thor doesn't hold back we are talking a whole new ball game. Damage soak and mental fortitude I agree Thor is better, you have to be with a Father like Odin and dealing with his baggage 😉.But even Gladiator from the future even stated that Thor was too powerful for him, and that was a more experience seasoned Gladiator!
Not the same Gladiator and per the mods, he isn't usable since we really don't know what type of changes this Gladiator went through during this time line.
Originally posted by the DarkoneThor didn't hold back but also used his hammer against Gladiator from the future. He doesn't have his hammer here. Thor relies on his hammer all the time and it makes him A LOT more formidable than without it.
There is a difference in the two Gladiator doesn't hold back Thor does,if Thor doesn't hold back we are talking a whole new ball game. Damage soak and mental fortitude I agree Thor is better, you have to be with a Father like Odin and dealing with his baggage 😉.But even Gladiator from the future even stated that Thor was too powerful for him, and that was a more experience seasoned Gladiator!
Thor had the hammer. I agree Thor with the hammer wins but this thread is clearly without it. Thanks for playing.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Masterson beat him down with his hammer. The real Thor beat down a Gladiator pulled from the future with his hammer. Thor relies on his hammer far too often.Not overall strength but punching power. His damage soak isn't great enough to nullify the durability advantage.
Masterson never beat him down with his hammer. Masterson got punched once by Glads and was unable to fight. He then snuck attack him with living lightning which pretty much ended the fight then and he pounded on a near unconscious body.
Originally posted by carver9The fight ended because he beat him almost to death with his hammer. That's a fact.
Masterson never beat him down with his hammer. Masterson got punched once by Glads and was unable to fight. He then snuck attack him with living lightning which pretty much ended the fight then and he pounded on a near unconscious body.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Masterson beat him down with his hammer. The real Thor beat down a Gladiator pulled from the future with his hammer. Thor relies on his hammer far too often.Not overall strength but punching power. His damage soak isn't great enough to nullify the durability advantage.
And? I told you that Masterson was shown to be a direct rival and peer to Gladiator strength wise. The end result doesn't take away from that.
Thor relies on Mjolnir. That doesn't take away from his own personal abilities and isn't an argument for Gladiator winning. Comics have gone out of their way to deal with this.
Gladiator isn't physically stronger than Thor but can hit harder? Where does correlation stop? If Gladiator is still more invulnerable than Thor, there's no way the advantage is so great that Thor's damage soak doesn't overcome it.
Originally posted by carver9
Never said that Ironman said anything about Thor vs Gladiator soak. What I am telling you is people tend to compliment Gladiator damage soak and depicts him as an unstoppable being.In regards to your battle zone comment...my time with KMC has run short so if you want to debate, do it now.
Originally posted by carver9
Going by on panel statements of other characters that fought the two, Gladiator damage soak is better.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
You can understand why this statement had me confused:Sheesh, if you really don't want to do the battlezone, you don't have to. Leaving the board is a bit excessive.
Lol...I'm not leaving the board to avoid you Rage.
I can understand why but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I am basing it off of fts.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusMasterson used his hammer and the real Thor lacks Gladiator's punching power so what's your point ?
And? I told you that Masterson was shown to be a direct rival and peer to Gladiator strength wise. The end result doesn't take away from that.Thor relies on Mjolnir. That doesn't take away from his own personal abilities and isn't an argument for Gladiator winning. Comics have gone out of their way to deal with this.
Gladiator isn't physically stronger than Thor but can hit harder? Where does correlation stop? If Gladiator is still more invulnerable than Thor, there's no way the advantage is so great that Thor's damage soak doesn't overcome it.
The fights against Gladiator always show his hammer being the deciding factor. Without his hammer he was ko'd though it did have something to do with the reverting bakc to human form.
Mike Tyson isn't physically stronger than Ronnie Coleman but can hit harder. LOL. It's not that crazy of a concept. Bullets have pierced his skin before.
Originally posted by carver9That has nothing to do with how the fight ended.
Duuuuuhhh, he back stabbed Gladiator. Before this back stab, Masterson was getting worked.