Originally posted by JakeTheBankDepends on what Thor did there.
Completely different displays of power.One is using raw physical strength and stamina and the other is using heat vision.
To that end, I may as well compare the Midgard Serpent feat with Thor holding up 1/4 of the multiverse.
Both Superman's physical strength and his heat vision are fueled by his solar power. Not muscles.
Originally posted by Juntai
Depends on what Thor did there.Both Superman's physical strength and his heat vision are fueled by his solar power. Not muscles.
He used Mjolnir.
Eh? All of his powers come from the sun. That doesn't mean he can do with his bare fists or arms what he can do with his vision or vice versa.
I mean, one feat is clearly a test of physical strength and intended as such and the other is a display of energy output and power from his heat vision. They're not of the same criteria, but both incredibly impressive feats. You could argue that the vision one is more impressive, but you wouldn't be comparing the two on even grounds in terms of what kind of feat it is (strength, speed, stamina, energy output/projection, etc)
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
By quantifiable feats, what has Pre-Flashpoint Superman done that equals the feat of DCnU Superman?I'll agree that Pre-Flashpoint's averages are soundly superior to that of DCnU Superman, but what single feat of Pre-Flashpoint Superman's matches being able to bench Earth for five days straight while technically not even being at peak strength?
Originally posted by Juntai
It was written well within the realm of his power pre-Flashpoint, based on the feats he did perform. It wasn't like he was out of power after moving Earth, or the moon, or any of the dozens of other feats of this caliber. He flat out said he could bench press the planet. He just hadn't been in a position to do it for 5 straight days.Doesn't make it wild and absurd.
Originally posted by Juntai
Oh, it's a good showing, but it would be a good showing among many. Superman does in any given handful years in strength what Marvel fans tend to have to go back 30 years or more to achieve for the likes of Gladiator, Thor, etc. His average is thus, much higher than theirs, when their career max is just the norm for him.
Originally posted by Juntai
I've already named a ton of feats, and many more are in the thread, that prove it's not a ridiculous outlier for pre-Flashpoint Superman.
It would just be one among many.
Nothing shown so far changes the fact that it was not out of the realm of Superman's previously displayed power, nor has anything been shown to support Thor being even remotely close to Superman's strength output. Even his 5 all time feats could be matched and probably exceeded in any random 5 years of current Superman.
Originally posted by JakeTheBankFair enough.
He used Mjolnir.Eh? All of his powers come from the sun. That doesn't mean he can do with his bare fists or arms what he can do with his vision or vice versa.
I mean, one feat is clearly a test of physical strength and intended as such and the other is a display of energy output and power from his heat vision. They're not of the same criteria, but both incredibly impressive feats. You could argue that the vision one is more impressive, but you wouldn't be comparing the two on even grounds in terms of what kind of feat it is (strength, speed, stamina, energy output/projection, etc)
Originally posted by quanchi112
Smashing planets isn't that high end imo. To me it's typical of what an elite top tier can do. High end to me is the Surfer leaving his giver of power Galactus in awe due to his feat with the Crunch over Tenebrous and Aegis. That's an incredible feat.Thor's high end feats defy logic and are mythical as well. Same can be said of the Hulk or any other elite top tier with a monthly book. Two Thor hammers affected every single plane of reality. The point is who cares. While it's mythical and mega impressive it doesn't prove much if anything.
Hulk's caught energy, Thor's absorbed something that could lay waste to the fifth of a universe, made a weakened Galactus(who has owned earth along with Thor in a far more weakened state in Galactus the devourer) fear for his life. Hulk ripped through something almost twice the size of earth while remaining conscious years ago. It was a much weaker Hulk to boot. The feat proves jack. I am consistent with how I view feats and how I view peer by peer comparisons.
I also know that Thor in blood and thunder doesn't somehow make Thor>>>>>>>Surfer despite owning his ass in that story. It's because that was high end Thor not omg Thor not holding back forget everything else you ever read. Thor also recently busted up Galactus' helmet despite Beta Ray Bill being unable to do so with his power alone. That's another recent high end feat. This is all the same that's been going on for years. Superman might receive a tad more love due to the reboot but at the end of the day his status won't change and his high end feats aren't the only thing that defines him or anyone else.
We are talking about strength feats. Yet you still haven't address Juntai's argument. He claimed that Superman has those type of feats consistently. You had to name many character's feats just to add up to Superman's. Some of the feats you named aren't really feats. Surfer feat was plot based, as he just happened to magically have those energies right next to him. Hulk's feat required special boots which explicitly stated on panel to help him.
BRB did damage Galactus with his own power. Different writer's and different interpretations give rise to power fluctuation in comics. Thus you can't use one feat to interpret another when that character was operating that different levels in those different comics. Hell, a weakened character in comics can operate much higher than a healthy version of himself in another comic for no apparent reason other than variance of power of a character.
Also comic fights should be taken with a grain of salt if one character was fighting far from optimal as they have shown before. Remember comics contradict themselves all the time. They are not the all telling truth here some think they are.
Lastly peer to peer comparison only works to a degree. They certainly don't work when discussing characters from different companies. We have to look at feats against nature to determine who is a peer of who. Also abc logic fails a lot due to different power sets and different styles of fighting. Just because A beats B and B beats C doesn't mean A will beat C.
Originally posted by Juntai
Nothing shown so far changes the fact that it was not out of the realm of Superman's previously displayed power, nor has anything been shown to support Thor being even remotely close to Superman's strength output. Even his 5 all time feats could be matched and probably exceeded in any random 5 years of current Superman.
Are you talking feats of pure physical strength or what?
Originally posted by h1a8The Surfer feat was an example of a high end feat. The feat itself wasn't as impressive to me as Galactus marveling at it. That was the point. I also never once said Thor was as strong as Superman so why should their feats been equal when I agree Superman is stronger than Thor. Superman's needed faster flight to destroy a structure in his path. You're right Hulk needed flight but the feat is still one of strength and durability. That feat doesn't mean anything or change the landscape of anything for the Hulk.
We are talking about strength feats. Yet you still haven't address Juntai's argument. He claimed that Superman has those type of feats consistently. You had to name many character's feats just to add up to Superman's. Some of the feats you named aren't really feats. Surfer feat was plot based, as he just happened to magically have those energies right next to him. Hulk's feat required special boots which explicitly stated on panel to help him.BRB did damage Galactus with his own power. Different writer's and different interpretations give rise to power fluctuation in comics. Thus you can't use one feat to interpret another when that character was operating that different levels in those different comics. Hell, a weakened character in comics can operate much higher than a healthy version of himself in another comic for no apparent reason other than variance of power of a character.
Also comic fights should be taken with a grain of salt if one character was fighting far from optimal as they have shown before. Remember comics contradict themselves all the time. They are not the all telling truth here some think they are.
Lastly peer to peer comparison only works to a degree. They certainly don't work when discussing characters from different companies. We have to look at feats against nature to determine who is a peer of who. Also abc logic fails a lot due to different power sets and different styles of fighting. Just because A beats B and B beats C doesn't mean A will beat C.
BrB didn't do anywhere near the damage Thor did recently. So you agree Superman lifting a planet in one story doesn't have anything to do with another writer in another story. Good.
We can judge based on similiar feats from characters for what they are capable of. Most of the writers work for both companies so this isn't something vastly different or difficult to comprehend.
When the plot calls for it huge masses are lifted. Rarely if ever does it change the status quo or carries over from one story to the next.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Yes, before the reboot. That's since changed. There's nothing that says post reboot Superman has to be weaker than pre-reboot.I never believed that was one of his higher feats, tbh.
Why wouldn't he be weaker? The longer superman is alive the longer he's had to absorb and store solar energy correct? Since this is a younger superman.. how could he be stronger? Wasn't this the whole point of the reboot.. like PC Superman was rebooted because he was too powerful.. wasn't this part of what DC did again?
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Why wouldn't he be weaker? The longer superman is alive the longer he's had to absorb and store solar energy correct? Since this is a younger superman.. how could he be stronger? Wasn't this the whole point of the reboot.. like PC Superman was rebooted because he was too powerful.. wasn't this part of what DC did again?
Different universes, different rules.
It's not merely the clock being turned back.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Why wouldn't he be weaker? The longer superman is alive the longer he's had to absorb and store solar energy correct? Since this is a younger superman.. how could he be stronger? Wasn't this the whole point of the reboot.. like PC Superman was rebooted because he was too powerful.. wasn't this part of what DC did again?
No, it wasn't why he was rebooted. It was the larger DC continuity for the most part. He started off weaker, yes, because he was younger, but he's now at the stage where he's a fully grown adult. He might not be as old as the Superman from before the reboot, but he's old enough that his high herald levels are established.
Originally posted by JakeTheBankThat's what the thread is about, right?
Are you talking feats of pure physical strength or what?
See, Superman moving celestial bodies, or cracking them, or picking up black holes, or Superman fighting Earth 2 Superman and their punches landing destroy Earth 2 and shatter space/time .. . - COSMIC levels of physical power, are a regular thing for him. So far the only real evidence provided for Thor's physical power was a half a planet feat 20+ years ago.
This is why the argument of consistency came up and the idea that the two companies are on different measuring sticks-- because you can take any few years of Superman's might, and compare to them to the entire history of a guy like Thor, or Gladiator, even combined... and find not only comparable, but typically better ones. Even Hulk has to be his canonically strongest to even match the kind of consistent power Superman regularly displays[though he would occasionally get mad and do something crazy in the far past, such is the nature of his highly fluctuating power].
Originally posted by JuntaiWhoa, whoa, whoa. Keep this between Thor and Superman because Hulk is the strongest top tier there is. He's the benchmark.
Even Hulk has to be his canonically strongest to even match the kind of consistent power Superman regularly displays[though he would occasionally get mad and do something crazy in the far past, such is the nature of his highly fluctuating power].
Originally posted by Juntai
That's what the thread is about, right?See, Superman moving celestial bodies, or cracking them, or picking up black holes, or Superman fighting Earth 2 Superman and their punches landing destroy Earth 2 and shatter space/time .. . - COSMIC levels of physical power, are a regular thing for him. So far the only real evidence provided for Thor's physical power was a half a planet feat 20+ years ago.
This is why the argument of consistency came up and the idea that the two companies are on different measuring sticks-- because you can take any few years of Superman's might, and compare to them to the entire history of a guy like Thor, or Gladiator, even combined... and find not only comparable, but typically better ones. Even Hulk has to be his canonically strongest to even match the kind of consistent power Superman regularly displays[though he would occasionally get mad and do something crazy in the far past, such is the nature of his highly fluctuating power].
I would say so, yeah, but the whole heat vision thing threw me off, but as you seem to agree with me or at least see where I'm coming from, it doesn't matter.
And I'm going to have to disagree with you on those feats being regular things for him. He does them sparingly in arcs/events, certainly not issue to issue which you seem to be implying unless you and I have different ideas of what counts as "regularly", which could very well be the case.
Originally posted by JakeTheBankGiven the bulk of the feats in the thread are 2005-2011, a 6 year span of planet moving, moon busting, planet cracking feats happening all the time, I'd say it's a lot more consistant than most want to admit.
I would say so, yeah, but the whole heat vision thing threw me off, but as you seem to agree with me or at least see where I'm coming from, it doesn't matter.And I'm going to have to disagree with you on those feats being regular things for him. He does them sparingly in arcs/events, certainly not issue to issue which you seem to be implying unless you and I have different ideas of what counts as "regularly", which could very well be the case.
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.
I believe the narrative suggested that the planet had once sustained an atmosphere. Mercury for example is not massive enough to sustain an atmosphere. I think the planet Mars barely is. So it would've had to have been pretty close to Earth size unless my astronomy is way off lol. When I was in school Pluto was still considered a planet so...