Originally posted by carver9I dunno. And not sure what it has to do with anything.
Didn't Hulk rip through a shield that was capable of halting the entire Celestial race?
But, as said before, Hulk isn't a good measuring stick. He goes from being KOed by Captain America punches level[something you'd never see written about current Superman], to the level we saw him at recently.
Give or take, which ever someone feels is stronger between Supes or maxed Hulk, which would probably depend on the person; when he's clearly at his upper end, he's closer to being Superman's peer in strength than Thor or Gladiator ever would be. And in a comic, when maxing out, Hulk would probably romp both of them at the same time without a plot device to stop him.
As Osiris said, he'd probably wrestle Thor down with one arm.
Originally posted by JuntaiI've already countered this as well. You wanting to make certain exceptions with canon comics just because you don't want them to count anymore is your own prerogative. That isn't Thor's only high end strength feat either. I already explained to you feats don't suddenly make Gladiator stronger than Thor either. Feats aren't the only measuring sticks. I also don't think Thor nor Gladiator are the strongest marvel top tier. That's Hulk. Strength is his thing. He's the guy who sets the benchmark in marvel. He's the guy with "dynamic strength." Thor isn't his equal in strength and I never said Thor's as strong as Superman.
Everything you wrote here, was covered in it's entirety in my last post and the one I quoted.Writing 'nuh uh', isn't a legitimate counter.
Also; I haven't dismissed any feat, save the original Serpent one, because as Phil pointed out, the fact it was ethereal was at play, when he tried to lift it with both of them materially, he could only get it's paw off the floor [something that occurred on two occasions.] That was the max of his strength.
The argument is in consistency. Thor lifting half a planet of weight 20+ years ago, that's a 'high feat', Gladiator throwing a tantrum on an unidentified planet, that's a 'high feet', in terms of strength.
These type of feats still have Thor and Glad fans enamored 20-30-50 years later. They're examples ultimate measure of strength in their entire careers.
But they'd be just another day in the office for Superman.
Their 50 year maxes, would hardly even be just average for him.
It's two different measuring sticks.
What I have a problem with is you deciding what feats don't count for any other reason than you don't want them to. Characters vary writer to writer so why stop with ten years and say hey, it's been 7 months and Superman hasn't lifted a planet. The feat is no longer consistent. If something is canon it's in continuity. You can't decide what counts for Thor based on your own opinion. I remain consistent and don't change my criteria just because.
Originally posted by PillarofOsiris
Some planets are the size of asteroids. The planet Glads punched out had moons, but Pluto is tiny and it has 5 moons. So we have no idea the size of the object Gladiator destroyed.
Gladiator push around planetary objects and contained a blast capable of destroying half of the solar system. He is easily planetary+.
Originally posted by quanchi112And again, I haven't discounted anything in particular, save the Serpent, which had circumstance, it was in ethereal form, among other things, and he's failed to do so twice since then. And that wasn't even originally me. I hadn't discounted anything personally.
I've already countered this as well. You wanting to make certain exceptions with canon comics just because you don't want them to count anymore is your own prerogative. That isn't Thor's only high end strength feat either. I already explained to you feats don't suddenly make Gladiator stronger than Thor either. Feats aren't the only measuring sticks. I also don't think Thor nor Gladiator are the strongest marvel top tier. That's Hulk. Strength is his thing. He's the guy who sets the benchmark in marvel. He's the guy with "dynamic strength." Thor isn't his equal in strength and I never said Thor's as strong as Superman.What I have a problem with is you deciding what feats don't count for any other reason than you don't want them to. Characters vary writer to writer so why stop with ten years and say hey, it's been 7 months and Superman hasn't lifted a planet. The feat is no longer consistent. If something is canon it's in continuity. You can't decide what counts for Thor based on your own opinion. I remain consistent and don't change my criteria just because.
What I'm talking about is consistency.
Thors all time highs in 50 years of comics, don't even match what Supes does constantly, year in and year out. That's all that needs to be said of the strength difference between them.
His career MAX, would hardly be average for Superman.
It's like in the gym, a kid hits 250 once and thinks he's strong, while there's a guy next to do him 40 reps of 350, every single day.
It's entirely different measures of strength.
Half a planet is a career feat for Thor.
That's nothing for Superman.
Originally posted by Juntai
Thor fans would splooge in their Spiderman underwear if he deposits 2 or 3 feats even marginally comparable to Superman's or [maxed out] Hulk in the strength department next 15 years, and would try to carry them for the next 50 as if he was actually in that bracket.It's kinda sad, honestly.
Originally posted by JuntaiIt's comics if anything it's usually inconsistent. That's the point. This stuff doesn't all add up. We have to judge by what's in continuity for the same criteria of the same set of rules for every character. I never said Thor is his equal to Superman in strength so why should they match up ? No one said they should since no one said they are equals. I disagree on the disparity here. You can place emphasis on feats but that won't make anyone stronger than the other guy until they meet up or are within the same story for the same feat.
And again, I haven't discounted anything in particular, save the Serpent, which had circumstance, it was in ethereal form, among other things, and he's failed to do so twice since then. And that wasn't even originally me. I hadn't discounted anything personally.What I'm talking about is consistency.
Thors all time highs in 50 years of comics, don't even match what Supes does constantly, year in and year out. That's all that needs to be said of the strength difference between them.
His career MAX, would hardly be average for Superman.
It's like in the gym, a kid hits 250 once and thinks he's strong, while there's a guy next to do him 40 reps of 350, every single day.
It's entirely different measures of strength.
Half a planet is a career feat for Thor.
That's nothing for Superman.
Originally posted by carver9
What does maxed out Hulk means? Majority of Hulk major fts is him being at his Savage levels which is weaker than the other major Hulks. Sounds like you are lowballing him.
Stop trying to bait people.
Originally posted by quanchi112
It's comics if anything it's usually inconsistent. That's the point. This stuff doesn't all add up. We have to judge by what's in continuity for the same criteria of the same set of rules for every character. I never said Thor is his equal to Superman in strength so why should the match ? No one said they should since no one said they are equals. I disagree on the disparity here. You can place emphasis on feats but that won't make anyone stronger than the other guy until they meet up or are within the same story for the same feat.
Actually it does. In the absence of face to face confrontations, we fall back on feats.
Originally posted by Juntai
While there is still going to be some fluctuation, you have to realize Superman is the measuring stick which heros and villains are compared to in DC.As this guy said earlier in the thread;
As such, for example, Superman being overpowered by someone physically takes an incredible amount of strength, given the idea of the type of feats of strength Superman performs year in and year out.
[/I]
I'm talking about supes in his own continuity, not vis a vis Thor et al. Lets look at abhi's scans as an example.
You got Supes being pressed down by mock black hole level gravitational force, then apparently beginning to resist it (the rest wasn't shown)
Supes being Punched by "planetary level power" by Carter.
Supes bearing planetary level gravitational forces.
So now if I were to start posting scans of him being KO'd, beaten and battered by apparently far less then those aforementioned feats, your defense would be that in those instances the forces causing those occurrences would by proxy have to have equalled or exceeded virtual black holes and planet level punches? Because believe me when I say that with the sheer amount of Clark haters in existence , that those scans are out there ripe for cherry picking.
But I'll help you out here because we both know he's more often then not been phucked up by and struggled with far less then black holes and it'd be pretty stupid to argue that say, Konvikt for example, ko'd Supes with a black hole or even planetary level punch. It's called highlights my man.
In American pro football for example, Barry Sanders (God I hope you're at least 30 or this analogy falls to hell) unequivocally has the greatest highlight reel pretty much ever. Particularly among running backs. But with as many highlights there are showing Barry breaking off an 80 yard run, there are triple that of him running for a minor gain or even a -3 yards loss. Yet even with that, Barry still averaged 5 yards per carry for the entire duration of his career, which is elite of elite among running backs. In fact, his worst yards per carry season, 4.3 is the career average of a lot of pro bowl and in some cases, hall of fame caliber running backs. Emmitt Smith best rushing season (1700+ yards) would've only been Barry's third best. That's Superman. His average is higher then most anyone else's average, but the motherphucker isn't averaging 60 yards per carry lol. Those are your planet bench pressing, black hole resisting type runs. Supes is more like 5.0 ypc to Thor's 4.2 overall, which in the NFL, is a monumental difference.
Now over at Marvel, Hulk is the measuring stick for strength and raw power.The problem with this is that due to the nature of his powers,[prior to his current storylines] he always fluctuated incredibly, drastically, where holding part of a mountain is a major feat, to punching a moon into pieces probably wouldn't have been much of a problem, so using a performance against him in power would yield bad results because you don't know which version you were getting.
But as I said earlier in the thread;
But this version wasn't much of a measuring stick for Marvel either, because to do this, he took their measuring stick, broke it in half like a baseball bat, and shoved the wide end of it up the rest of Marvel Earth's ass.
Define combat feats. Because if you're strictly talking wins and losses against then I don't even think Banner cracks top 5. Maybe not even top ten in that regard. Certainly not in the last decade.
Originally posted by Juntai
Thor fans would splooge in their Spiderman underwear if he deposits 2 or 3 feats even marginally comparable to Superman's or [maxed out] Hulk in the strength department next 15 years, and would try to carry them for the next 50 as if he was actually in that bracket.It's kinda sad, honestly.
And it's not like Superman fans don't splooge in their own underwear, right?
Thor's strong as what the story intends or needs him to be. When facing against an "elite" strong man such as Hulk, his strength is either portrayed as being equal or at least comparable in some way. His power and energy output is what generally consist of his WTF level feats.
Not sure what's sad here considering that most people here agree that such a feat isn't happening for Thor based on what he's been doing for the past dozen years or so and if it or something similar did happen, it would be a wild and absurd feat, much like benching a planet for five days straight.
Originally posted by dmills
I'm talking about supes in his own continuity, not vis a vis Thor et al. Lets look at abhi's scans as an example.You got Supes being pressed down by mock black hole level gravitational force, then apparently beginning to resist it (the rest wasn't shown)
Supes being Punched by "planetary level power" by John.
Supes bearing planetary level gravitational forces.
So now if I were to start posting scans of him being KO'd, beaten and battered by apparently far less then those aforementioned feats, your defense would be that in those instances the forces causing those occurrences would by proxy have to have equalled or exceeded virtual black holes and planet level punches? Because believe me when I say that with the sheer amount of Clark haters in existence , that those scans are out there ripe for cherry picking.
But I'll help you out here because we both know he's more often then not been phucked up by and struggled with far less then black holes and it'd be pretty stupid to argue that say, Konvikt for example, ko'd Supes with a black hole or even planetary level punch. It's called highlights my man.
In American pro football for example, Barry Sanders (God I hope you're at least 30 or this analogy falls to hell) unequivocally has the greatest highlight reel pretty much ever. Particularly among running backs. But with as many highlights there are showing Barry breaking off an 80 yard run, there are triple that of him running for a minor gain or even a -3 yards loss. Yet even with that, Barry still averaged 5 yards per carry for the entire duration of his career, which is elite of elite among running backs. In fact, his worst yards per carry season, 4.3 is the career average of a lot of pro bowl and in some cases, hall of fame caliber running backs. Emmitt Smith best rushing season (1700+ yards) would've only been Barry's third best. That's Superman. His average is higher then most anyone else's average, but the motherphucker isn't averaging 60 yards per carry lol. Those are your planet bench pressing, black hole resisting type runs. Supes is more like 5.0 ypc to Thor's 4.2 overall, which in the NFL, is a monumental difference.
Define combat feats. Because if you're strictly talking wins and losses against then I don't even think Banner cracks top 5. Maybe not even top ten in that regard. Certainly not in the last decade.
Nice post.
Originally posted by dmills
I'm talking about supes in his own continuity, not vis a vis Thor et al. Lets look at abhi's scans as an example.You got Supes being pressed down by mock black hole level gravitational force, then apparently beginning to resist it (the rest wasn't shown)
Supes being Punched by "planetary level power" by John.
Supes bearing planetary level gravitational forces.
So now if I were to start posting scans of him being KO'd, beaten and battered by apparently far less then those aforementioned feats, your defense would be that in those instances the forces causing those occurrences would by proxy have to have equalled or exceeded virtual black holes and planet level punches? Because believe me when I say that with the sheer amount of Clark haters in existence , that those scans are out there ripe for cherry picking.
But I'll help you out here because we both know he's more often then not been phucked up by and struggled with far less then black holes and it'd be pretty stupid to argue that say, Konvikt for example, ko'd Supes with a black hole or even planetary level punch. It's called highlights my man.
Actually, Superman was hitting Konvict with moon shattering punches, it said so, which by feats, we also know is well within his power. These weren't even really phasing Konvict.
Also, Konvict didn't KO Supes, though he was roughing him up.
But, based on the provided evidence, we have every right to believe he's in the same bracket. That he can hit nearly as well as he can take.
Originally posted by -Pr-I do it based on peer by peer and usually by abilities and what's in character. To me just because Gladiator destroys a planet doresn't mean he punches Aquaman's head off.
Stop trying to bait people.Actually it does. In the absence of face to face confrontations, we fall back on feats.
Originally posted by dmillsWell done dmills.
I'm talking about supes in his own continuity, not vis a vis Thor et al. Lets look at abhi's scans as an example.You got Supes being pressed down by mock black hole level gravitational force, then apparently beginning to resist it (the rest wasn't shown)
Supes being Punched by "planetary level power" by John.
Supes bearing planetary level gravitational forces.
So now if I were to start posting scans of him being KO'd, beaten and battered by apparently far less then those aforementioned feats, your defense would be that in those instances the forces causing those occurrences would by proxy have to have equalled or exceeded virtual black holes and planet level punches? Because believe me when I say that with the sheer amount of Clark haters in existence , that those scans are out there ripe for cherry picking.
But I'll help you out here because we both know he's more often then not been phucked up by and struggled with far less then black holes and it'd be pretty stupid to argue that say, Konvikt for example, ko'd Supes with a black hole or even planetary level punch. It's called highlights my man.
In American pro football for example, Barry Sanders (God I hope you're at least 30 or this analogy falls to hell) unequivocally has the greatest highlight reel pretty much ever. Particularly among running backs. But with as many highlights there are showing Barry breaking off an 80 yard run, there are triple that of him running for a minor gain or even a -3 yards loss. Yet even with that, Barry still averaged 5 yards per carry for the entire duration of his career, which is elite of elite among running backs. In fact, his worst yards per carry season, 4.3 is the career average of a lot of pro bowl and in some cases, hall of fame caliber running backs. Emmitt Smith best rushing season (1700+ yards) would've only been Barry's third best. That's Superman. His average is higher then most anyone else's average, but the motherphucker isn't averaging 60 yards per carry lol. Those are your planet bench pressing, black hole resisting type runs. Supes is more like 5.0 ypc to Thor's 4.2 overall, which in the NFL, is a monumental difference.
Define combat feats. Because if you're strictly talking wins and losses against then I don't even think Banner cracks top 5. Maybe not even top ten in that regard. Certainly not in the last decade.
Originally posted by JakeTheBank👆
And it's not like Superman fans don't splooge in their own underwear, right?Thor's strong as what the story intends or needs him to be. When facing against an "elite" strong man such as Hulk, his strength is either portrayed as being equal or at least comparable in some way. His power and energy output is what generally consist of his WTF level feats.
Not sure what's sad here considering that most people here agree that such a feat isn't happening for Thor based on what he's been doing for the past dozen years or so and if it or something similar did happen, it would be a wild and absurd feat, much like benching a planet for five days straight.