Feat WAR! Lobo vs Hulk

Originally posted by Galan007
Quantify the feat then. What would busting an asteroid 2x larger than earth be akin to?

See the problem here?

I can see why people think it's so far out of Grey (and more powerful versions of) Hulk's ability if they think busting an asteroid of that size = busting a planet of the same size. But I personally don't view it in the same light. To me, he just busted a giant ass space rock, not a fully formed and inhabited (or capable of being inhabited) planet with a functioning core. Similar to Glad's "planet busting" feat, imo, in the fact that it's a nice feat, but people shouldn't get stupid about it.

Originally posted by leonidas
i see all of those as testaments to striking power, not strength. it's a fine difference, maybe, but still, to me those all fit striking power.

😬

Not sure if serious.

There's a very direct correlation between strength and striking power in comics, this is especially the case for the Hulk (Someone like the Flash is a rare exception). Those are all showings of raw strength, you can't honestly think otherwise.

Something like the Vector feat is no less valid than the Lobo showing you referenced even using your classification.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Not sure if serious.

😕

of course he has to be strong, but i think strength feats of the type being looked for here are lifting feats. nearly every feat you listed he is STRIKING something (except maybe the footstep feat i guess....) and striking power is a different category here.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
I can see why people think it's so far out of Grey (and more powerful versions of) Hulk's ability if they think busting an asteroid of that size = busting a planet of the same size. But I personally don't view it in the same light. To me, he just busted a giant ass space rock, not a fully formed and inhabited (or capable of being inhabited) planet with a functioning core. Similar to Glad's "planet busting" feat, imo, in the fact that it's a nice feat, but people shouldn't get stupid about it.

Originally posted by leonidas
😕

of course he has to be strong, but i think strength feats of the type being looked for here are lifting feats. nearly every feat you listed he is STRIKING something (except maybe the footstep feat i guess....) and striking power is a different category here.

What an incredibly silly distinction. If I were to make a Thanos/Wonder Woman feat war thread, Diana would get the win because he doesn't have her lifting feats? I'm trying to figure out how this works.

Anyways, even with this twisted logic, such a feat should count:
http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/61f38505b9
http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/2057a235f0
http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/e255e809cd

And maybe this:
http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/51605c18a3
http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/ed68327861
http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/dfd434506d

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
😬

Not sure if serious.

There's a very direct correlation between strength and striking power in comics, this is especially the case for the Hulk (Someone like the Flash is a rare exception). Those are all showings of raw strength, you can't honestly think otherwise.

of course you need to be strong, as i said. but they fit striking power better imo.

Something like the Vector feat is no less valid than the Lobo showing you referenced even using your classification.

walking through a blast that 'tears' reality is impressive, no doubt, but also unquantifiable so hard to gauge.

The difference here is that Id made 2 different categories: Strength, and striking power. Strength might be, for instance, Hulk bracing the mountain in Secret Wars. Striking power might be him punching through a timestorm. See the difference?

If a=strength and b=striking power, then a=b, but b =/= a.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
What an incredibly silly distinction. If I were to make a Thanos/Wonder Woman feat war thread, Diana would get the edge because he doesn't have her lifting feats? I'm trying to figure out how this works.

of course he would lose if it were limited to purely on-panel. 😐

does that mean i think diana is stronger than thanos? no, of course not. if you find the distinction is silly then, (a) don't use feats of him PUNCHING something as proof of strength when there is a STRENGTH category and a STRIKING POWER category. or (b) blame the thread starter for putting forth a 'silly' pair of categories that blend so tightly.

Does this feat count?

http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/61f38505b9
http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/2057a235f0
http://www.mynetimages.com/viewimage/e255e809cd

sure. quantifiable? no...... who else could have done the same? did it require full hulk strength or is it equally an impressive durability feat? who knows.....

Originally posted by Galan007
The difference here is that Id made 2 different categories: Strength, and striking power. Strength might be, for instance, Hulk bracing the mountain in Secret Wars. Striking power might be him punching through a timestorm. See the difference?

If a=strength and b=striking power, then a=b, but b =/= a.

exactly. 👆

Originally posted by leonidas
of course you need to be strong, as i said. but they fit striking power better imo.

So Wonder Woman wouldn't get the nod over Thanos?

Can you please explain the criteria here? So far I'm getting a "whatever I feel like" vibe.

Imo, all around strength feats should be used to determine who wins the strength category whether it's smashing a part a planet or lifting a mountain. Otherwise you run into some serious problems.

Originally posted by leonidas
walking through a blast that 'tears' reality is impressive, no doubt, but also unquantifiable so hard to gauge.

You won't get any more concrete numbers with the Stellar mass feat. I personally find the Vector showing more impressive due to the scope but whatever.

Originally posted by leonidas
of course he would lose if it were limited to purely on-panel. 😐

does that mean i think diana is stronger than thanos? no, of course not. if you find the distinction is silly then, (a) don't use feats of him PUNCHING something as proof of strength when there is a STRENGTH category and a STRIKING POWER category. or (b) blame the thread starter for putting forth a 'silly' pair of categories that blend so tightly.

So Thanos would lose to Diana in the strength category? Alright then.

I still think this is very illogical and nitpicks the term to the point it lose it's meaning but whatever, at least you're consistent so I can't fault you.

Originally posted by leonidas
sure. quantifiable? no...... who else could have done the same? did it require full hulk strength or is it equally an impressive durability feat? who knows.....

So it counts, that's good. How do you think it stacks up to the Lobo showing you mentioned?

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
So Wonder Woman wouldn't get the nod over Thanos?

Can you please explain the criteria here? So far I'm getting a "whatever I feel like" vibe.

Imo, all around strength feats are used to determine who wins the strength category whether it's smashing a part a planet or lifting a mountain. Otherwise you run into some serious problems.

You won't get any more concrete numbers with the Stellar mass feat. I personally find the Vector showing more impressive due to the scope though but whatever.

seriously? i don't think this is all that confusing. ironfist is a character who would have low strength but uber striking power. flash is another (think you brought him up). strength obviously HAS to play a part in it, but i see strength feats (in THIS case because the categories have been made distinct by the threadstarter) as DIFFERENT from punching/hitting/striking feats.

strength feats for hulk would be holding the mountain range, keeping the inertia of colliding matter/anti-matter from meeting (also unquantifiable though i'd love to see some of the math guys try and quantify it...), crushing his serpent hammer could also be seen as strength imo. lifting/throwing are strength feats to me (and recall this is my own PERSONAL way to view these categories--you can look at it however you'd like) in the context of this thread.

Originally posted by Galan007
If you're going to credit GH with that feat, then you must find a way to downgrade in into [b]FAR less than a planetary feat (as that's where most people tend to go with it.) Like I mentioned before: no one in Thing's strength class is busting a city... Much less a state... Much less a continent... Much less a planet... Much less a planet++. [/B]

Fair enough.

I just don't see the big deal about said feat as it's:

A.) Obviously intended to be a high end feat for Hulk.
B.) Hulk's strength fluctuates on anger (ie. plot), even his weaker forms.
C.) Asteroids <<< Planets.

Maybe I'm in the minority in that I really don't think it's all that impressive in the grand scheme of things (for his weight class? absolutely).

Originally posted by leonidas
seriously? i don't think this is all that confusing. ironfist is a character who would have low strength but uber striking power. flash is another (think you brought him up). strength obviously HAS to play a part in it, but i see strength feats (in THIS case because the categories have been made distinct by the threadstarter) as DIFFERENT from punching/hitting/striking feats.

strength feats for hulk would be holding the mountain range, keeping the inertia of colliding matter/anti-matter from meeting (also unquantifiable though i'd love to see some of the math guys try and quantify it...), crushing his serpent hammer could also be seen as strength imo. lifting/throwing are strength feats to me (and recall this is my own PERSONAL way to view these categories--you can look at it however you'd like) in the context of this thread.

I perfectly understand your reasoning, I just wanted to know how far you'd take it as this logic runs into some serious problems if adhered to like this. Characters like the Flash or Iron Fist are the exception. A direct correlation between striking and strength is generally the rule the higher up you go, even amongst flying bricks. I think you should at least treat it as a case by case basis, in which case characters like Thor/Hulk/Wonder Woman/Thanos/Lobo should be able to draw on all their feats while that wouldn't apply to Iron Fist/Flash/Thor with Mjolnir etc.

But like you said, this is up to one's own personal interpretation so I'll just leave it at this.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
You won't get any more concrete numbers with the Stellar mass feat. I personally find the Vector showing more impressive due to the scope but whatever.

the stellar mass can be pretty easily quantified i think. even if we simply assume the least possible mass for a star the mass is astronomical.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
So Thanos would lose to Diana in the strength category? Alright then.

I still think this is very illogical and nitpicks the term to the point it lose it's meaning but whatever, at least you're consistent so I can't fault you.

welllll..... whew.

So it counts, that's good. How do you think it stacks up to the Lobo showing you mentioned?

i really don't know. i remember reading that feat and thinking it was impressive. i think it's at least as impressive a durability feat as a strength feat. he should have been flayed into a skeleton. i just think it's unquantifiable. not sure how you're gauging the strength level required to move against it. it's a great feat. beyond that.....?

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I perfectly understand your reasoning, I just wanted to know how far you'd take it as this logic runs into some serious problems if adhered to as firmly as you are. Characters like the Flash or Iron Fist are the exception. A direct correlation between striking and strength is generally the rule the higher up you go, even among flying bricks. I think you should at least treat as a case by case basis,

i'm not sure what problems you're talking about. again, for purposes of THIS thread where the distinction is required by the OP, strength, to me, is evinced by lifting/throwing, striking power evinced by hitting/punching/concussive. 😬

Originally posted by leonidas
the stellar mass can be pretty easily quantified i think. even if we simply assume the least possible mass for a star the mass is astronomical.

I doubt you could find a specific number but whatever, I only took physics as far up as grade 11.

Originally posted by leonidas
i really don't know. i remember reading that feat and thinking it was impressive. i think it's at least as impressive a durability feat as a strength feat. he should have been flayed into a skeleton. i just think it's unquantifiable. not sure how you're gauging the strength level required to move against it. it's a great feat. beyond that.....?

I think it's at least as impressive, almost certainly more so. At the time Vector could repel worlds and the very fabric of reality, Hulk wasn't just tanking that shit, he was walking through it.

I can't give you math equations or whatever, I'm just saying the scope of it makes it more impressive. A feat doesn't automatically become invalid if it can't be attached to numbers.

Originally posted by leonidas
i'm not sure what problems you're talking about. again, for purposes of THIS thread where the distinction is required by the OP, strength, to me, is evinced by lifting/throwing, striking power evinced by hitting/punching/concussive. 😬

What problems?

I think the category of strength loses meaning when you're criteria would have the Thing above the Destroyer Armor because it doesn't have the lifting feats. Like I said, I completely understand your criteria and you can stick to it, but there should be some leg room to apply common sense. Not all characters go around bench pressing buildings or mountains. Someone like Iron Fist should be treated differently from Lobo.

I didn't want to reply but I couldn't help myself.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I doubt you could find a specific number but whatever, I only took physics as far up as grade 11.

I think it's at least as impressive, almost certainly more so. At the time Vector could repel worlds and the very fabric of reality, Hulk wasn't just tanking that shit, he was walking through it.

I can't give you math equations or whatever, I'm just saying the scope of it makes it more impressive. A feat doesn't automatically become invalid if it can't be attached to numbers.

that's absolutely true, which is why i copped out on answering which feat is more impressive. a lack of numbers DOES make direct comparsions difficult though. could he have blown a star?? seems silly to think so, but, who knows.....

Only problem with lobo is that he is steeped in cartoony portrayals. It's understood that he's at least "part-toon/parody" of 90's comics and how overly macho they were, being he's an amalgam of grey hulk, wolverine, and the punisher on roids