Whos overall more powerful? Thor or Surfer?

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm 5 steps ahead of you Carv. I'm about to Heath Ledger Joker your arse.

Watch my awesome connection of logic:
1. Doomsday overpowered Superman in a test of strength when grappled up.
2. Darkseid CASUALLY bloodied Superman by smacking him and another time by punching him.
3. Superman has strength feats beyond Thor.
4. Superman isn't strong enough to CASUALLY bloody a 100% duplicate of himself in one blow.

By 1 and 2 Doomsday is stronger than Thor.
By 2, 3, and 4 Darkseid is stronger than Thor.

Remember lifting feats aren't the only thing that counts. We have hitting, pulling,... feats as well. Whether we connect the dots directly or indirectly (with comparisons) of whose stronger, the connection at root will always will be someone's natural feats.

Superman has mental blocks that holds his strength back. Do you have scans stating Superman was going all out against against either?

Originally posted by h1a8
It's only a reality in some cases because the writer knows that Character A will dominate Character B easily and refuses to allow this to happen for the sake of the story. But in other cases the writer makes known of what Character A can really do if he/she wanted.

Comics ARE built off of science and logic (or at least it tries to be at times), otherwise the suspension of disbelief fails. It's just that the science isn't always correct or discovered yet (like magic). Everyone knows how strong a character is based off the things they have lift, pulled, hit, etc... Even when using comparisons to other characters the root is still which natural feats were done at the root. Why do you think Superman is slightly stronger or equal to Thor when they have never fought or engaged in strength? Is it because of the natural lifting, pulling,... feats they have that compare? Isn't that based off science or logic?

Is it reasonable for a character to view bullets as frozen in time yet gets hits, while alert, to an attack moving at a small fraction of a bullets speed? Is it because of the character's ability that he got hit or is it because the writer chose to ignore their ability to falsely create adversity? The writer knows the truth and yet chooses what is best for the comic company, even if that means to go against logic at time.

This is the spirit of why we have the rule "Character's fight at their best ability [B]AS SHOWN BEFORE".
There is no writer to purposely ignore a character's natural ability just because it suits the story.

IMO, it is speed that prevents Thor from being Trans level or even Skyfather level. Without speed and him using his powers at their utmost he is still only a herald level being. [/B]

Originally posted by h1a8
logic and science are two different things. Reread my post. I claimed that the science is sometimes faulty. But the logic exists otherwise the suspension of disbelief will fail.

Originally posted by h1a8
When science doesn't work, I apply the suspension of disbelief and accept the feat.
When science works, then we use it.

So we allow comparisons because of feats
And we allow feats because because they are based on logic and science.
But when logic and science works we apply it.
When the science doesn't work, we still say the feats are valid by suspending our belief in science and logic.

So again. You said when you like the feat the science applies or you disbelieved te science to give it merit.
When YOU don't like the feat, te it is illogical because the science doesn't apply.

Feat wise.. When a guardian was defeated and sent in a green lantern to do what he couldn't.. It was an obvious admission green lanterns are more powerful than guardians...

Originally posted by quanchi112
You make no sense whatsoever. None. You use double standards and trip over your logic all the time.

Originally posted by Ambient
This post just cracks me up.. Lol

Hey. Everyone can't be wrong all the time...

Well I quess it's just, Quan nailed it on the spot..

Originally posted by rotiart
So we allow comparisons because of feats
And we allow feats because because they are based on logic and science.
But when logic and science works we apply it.
When the science doesn't work, we still say the feats are valid by suspending our belief in science and logic.

So again. You said when you like the feat the science applies or you disbelieved te science to give it merit.
When YOU don't like the feat, te it is illogical because the science doesn't apply.

Feat wise.. When a guardian was defeated and sent in a green lantern to do what he couldn't.. It was an obvious admission green lanterns are more powerful than guardians...

You got me confused with someone else bro. I never said or implied that if a feat goes against science (Physics) that I don't like it (in recent times of course). Feats are unusable if they are PIS though. That has nothing to do with science.
If feats go against logic (not necessarily science) then I don't like it. For example, is it logical for Spider-man to beat Firelord? Is it logical for Thor to be injured by mere bullets? Is it logical for someone to see bullets in slow motion on a consistent basis but get hit, when alert, by an attack moving at a magnitude slower? Comics are built of logic or at least they try to be. But sometimes they contradict themselves (not science). This makes them illogical.

Green Lanterns are not equal. Some are high herald and some are low herald and some even border on trans when they are at their best.

Originally posted by h1a8
By science I mean Physics. If comics are not logical then explain why the suspension of disbelief exists.

Just because some science in comics in faulty doesn't mean we can disregard all science in comics. After all, force is force. How would you know if Thor is stronger than Aquaman without science?

Originally posted by h1a8
Comics are built of logic or at least they try to be. But sometimes they contradict themselves (not science). This makes them illogical.

So first you say it's that te science is flawed but the comics logical...
Second you logic can sometimes contradict itself but not the science.

And just to be clear, comics are stories, like blockbuster movies. For the story to have the impact and flow necessary it is required walking in to put logic at the door to further the story.

Captain America being able to brace up a building comes to mind. Or hurt guys like the wrecking crew who normally tank big bricks like Thor.

Let me make this clear to you: what you define as logic, others define is your opinion. Just like it is my opinion that comics are illogical fantastic works of.... "fiction". Fun, but still unrealistic.

Originally posted by Naija boy
Not the same at all, You riding your bike is in no way comparable to surfers speed....Firstly you ride your bike in a straight line and have very little manoevrability regardless of the speed you attain. Further even when granting added manoevrability, the navigating of your bike is something directly contingent on your body movements (to a much greater extent than say the driving of a car or navigating a fighter jet and yet still to a lesser extent than that required by Surfer on his board), and thus you dont have the bodily reactions to even perform any complex manoevres at that speed at all. We havent even started talking about your lack of ability to process things or think at superspeeds

Surfer on the other hand is not only able to fly on his board at superspeed (travel speed), but is able to coordinate complex blast blitz attacks at that superspeed while manoevring in multiple directions...while in battle hence he is fighting at that speed.The reactions needed here for his level of manoevrability and control and use of superspeed in battle are astronomical and certainly considerably above anything Thor has displayed. Him having been clocked at the nanosecond reaction level further corroborates this.

Throw in the fact that surfer has legitimate superspeed perceptions and mental processing abilities and really any comparison between he and Thor speedwise falls pretty flat.

If you really start wondering about things and want to open up THAT Pandora's box, I would imagine that the mechanism behind Thor's ability to just teleport all over the Multiverse, instantaneously, is comparable, or more impressive than Surfer's. Especially if you start to break it down, remembering that Asgardian "Magic" has been described as "Super-Science" that borders on the Mystic, or is mistaken for the Magical.

The Runner, (Elder of the Universe) used the Space Gem. He was considered to be faster than the Surfer and in reality, was just using the Space Gem to skip-teleport along the space-ways.

Out of Surfer and Thor, in a race, who is the first to get to the other side of the galaxy, to planet "whatever"?

Isn't it going to be Thor?

Originally posted by h1a8
It's only a reality in some cases because the writer knows that Character A will dominate Character B easily and refuses to allow this to happen for the sake of the story. But in other cases the writer makes known of what Character A can really do if he/she wanted.

Comics ARE built off of science and logic (or at least it tries to be at times), otherwise the suspension of disbelief fails. It's just that the science isn't always correct or discovered yet (like magic). Everyone knows how strong a character is based off the things they have lift, pulled, hit, etc... Even when using comparisons to other characters the root is still which natural feats were done at the root. Why do you think Superman is slightly stronger or equal to Thor when they have never fought or engaged in strength? Is it because of the natural lifting, pulling,... feats they have that compare? Isn't that based off science or logic?

Is it reasonable for a character to view bullets as frozen in time yet gets hits, while alert, to an attack moving at a small fraction of a bullets speed? Is it because of the character's ability that he got hit or is it because the writer chose to ignore their ability to falsely create adversity? The writer knows the truth and yet chooses what is best for the comic company, even if that means to go against logic at time.

This is the spirit of why we have the rule "Character's fight at their best ability [B]AS SHOWN BEFORE".
There is no writer to purposely ignore a character's natural ability just because it suits the story.

IMO, it is speed that prevents Thor from being Trans level or even Skyfather level. Without speed and him using his powers at their utmost he is still only a herald level being. [/B]

I stopped reading your post after i read this

"Comics ARE built off science logic"

And this

"it is speed the prevents thor from being Trans level or even skyfather"

you dont need to be a speedster to be a skyfather

Originally posted by Horrificus
If you really start wondering about things and want to open up THAT Pandora's box, I would imagine that the mechanism behind Thor's ability to just teleport all over the Multiverse, instantaneously, is comparable, or more impressive than Surfer's. Especially if you start to break it down, remembering that Asgardian "Magic" has been described as "Super-Science" that borders on the Mystic, or is mistaken for the Magical.

The Runner, (Elder of the Universe) used the Space Gem. He was considered to be faster than the Surfer and in reality, was just using the Space Gem to skip-teleport along the space-ways.

Out of Surfer and Thor, in a race, who is the first to get to the other side of the galaxy, to planet "whatever"?

Isn't it going to be Thor?

Im not really doing any speculation and im only mentioning things that have been corroborated on panel and are direct displays of as well as directly related to combat speed/reflexes. Thor having the ability to teleport is nice and all but he has not shown at all to be effective in battle aside bfring his opponent. His self teleportation is not at all a good tactic for him as he hasnt shown the skill to execute it like nightcrawler etc. Addittionally he is still limited by his own speed as that teleportation needs to be activated by him physically or mentally..which are both areas that he is comparatively lacking.

The runner im pretty sure was using his own regular speed when fighting Surfer as he didnt have the space gem by then but even then its not comparable since his application of the space gem is something beyond what Thor can or will replicate....Oh Additionally, Surfer can
actually teleport himself and others as well and has even done so in battle. but thats beside the point...

Originally posted by Naija boy
Im not really doing any speculation and im only mentioning things that have been corroborated on panel and are direct displays of as well as directly related to combat speed/reflexes. Thor having the ability to teleport is nice and all but he has not shown at all to be effective in battle aside bfring his opponent. His self teleportation is not at all a good tactic for him as he hasnt shown the skill to execute it like nightcrawler etc. Addittionally he is still limited by his own speed as that teleportation needs to be activated by him physically or mentally..which are both areas that he is comparatively lacking.

The runner im pretty sure was using his own regular speed when fighting Surfer as he didnt have the space gem by then but even then its not comparable since his application of the space gem is something beyond what Thor can or will replicate....Oh Additionally, Surfer can
actually teleport himself and others as well and has even done so in battle. but thats beside the point...

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm 5 steps ahead of you Carv. I'm about to Heath Ledger Joker your arse.

Watch my awesome connection of logic:
1. Doomsday overpowered Superman in a test of strength when grappled up.
2. Darkseid CASUALLY bloodied Superman by smacking him and another time by punching him.
3. Superman has strength feats beyond Thor.
4. Superman isn't strong enough to CASUALLY bloody a 100% duplicate of himself in one blow.

By 1 and 3 Doomsday is stronger than Thor.
By 2, 3, and 4 Darkseid is stronger than Thor.

Remember lifting feats aren't the only thing that counts. We have hitting, pulling,... feats as well. Whether we connect the dots directly or indirectly (with comparisons) of whose stronger, the connection at root will always will be someone's natural feats.

Originally posted by carver9
Who is overall more powerful...

Durability

The Surfer's hard durability is tops, for example cutting the Surfer is a bigger deal than even cutting Supes. It just doesn't happen often at all.

Damage soak is comparable, but I chalk this up to Thor's mindset more than sheer physical durability.

Durability does to the Surfer without a second thought.

Energy output (minus God Blast)

Surfer, known for "worldbreaking" energy blasts. Actually those worldbreaking energy blasts destroy planets as a side effect of their potency. (SS Annual #7)

Strength

Typically Thor. But Surfer has had some really nice strength feats over the last couple of years. Catching and throwing a falling star, stopping Mjolnir mid-swing with little apparent effort, overpowering the engines of a massive star-ship then one-arm throwing it on a century long voyage (Defenders #3).

Strength, edge to Thor

Speed

Surfer, interstellar speed is his one of his shticks. Streaking past "galaxies in a blur" is another day at the office for Norrin.

Versatility

In the old days, tie. Nowadays, Surfer by a mile. I think Thor has forgotten Mjolnir can do more than fly and call down lightning bolts.

Combat effectiveness

It depends on the foe. The Surfer outperformed Thor against both Millenius and Durok. Against foes that greatly outclass both Thor's warrior pride is worth a lot, though SS has his fair share of shining moments against foes like this (Mrunngo-Mu, Tenebrous, Aegis, etc.) against the Hulk I'd pick Surfer anyday.

It really depends on who is having the better day.

The god-blast likely trumps the Surfer on raw power, aside from that I'd give the overall power-advantage to SS with combat effectiveness being a relative draw.

Not saying disagree or I agree. Just saying this might be the first coherent new (non bashing of crazies) post this thread has seen in pages.

Thanks for bringing sanity bak to this thread. :-P

Originally posted by TheRavager
The Surfer's hard durability is tops, for example cutting the Surfer is a bigger deal than even cutting Supes. It just doesn't happen often at all.

Damage soak is comparable, but I chalk this up to Thor's mindset more than sheer physical durability.

Durability does to the Surfer without a second thought.

Surfer, known for "worldbreaking" energy blasts. Actually those worldbreaking energy blasts destroy planets as a side effect of their potency. (SS Annual #7)

Typically Thor. But Surfer has had some really nice strength feats over the last couple of years. Catching and throwing a falling star, stopping Mjolnir mid-swing with little apparent effort, overpowering the engines of a massive star-ship then one-arm throwing it on a century long voyage (Defenders #3).

Strength, edge to Thor

Surfer, interstellar speed is his one of his shticks. Streaking past "galaxies in a blur" is another day at the office for Norrin.

In the old days, tie. Nowadays, Surfer by a mile. I think Thor has forgotten Mjolnir can do more than fly and call down lightning bolts.

It depends on the foe. The Surfer outperformed Thor against both Millenius and Durok. Against foes that greatly outclass both Thor's warrior pride is worth a lot, though SS has his fair share of shining moments against foes like this (Mrunngo-Mu, Tenebrous, Aegis, etc.) against the Hulk I'd pick Surfer anyday.

It really depends on who is having the better day.

The god-blast likely trumps the Surfer on raw power, aside from that I'd give the overall power-advantage to SS with combat effectiveness being a relative draw.

Originally posted by Sr J-Bieb
lol h1 is the worst