Rage.Of.Olympus
Senior Member
Originally posted by abhilegend
Under the same writer? I don't know about that. Aaron writes a high end version of the young thor, remender writes an average version of young Thor. In all hnesty, Thor has a shit endurance under Remender, Sentry was about to kill him in three or four punches. He wasn't stronger than Gorr or something.
So what if it's under a different writer? That doesn't change the fact that Apocalypse was amped and Young Thor was a beast.
There you go again, lowballing. No he doesn't. Remender's Thor was walking around just fine with an entire arm burned away. Wasp said Sentry was killing Thor, not that he was about to kill him in 3 to 4 punches. That is why Thor stood right back up and was unharmed. You need to learn the finer points of English.
Originally posted by abhilegend
It would. We don't take a particular feat and discard it because you don't like it. It certainly is. And Diana's damage soak is pretty good. A hundred uncontested punches from a kryptonian would **** even Avengers Thor up, let alone young Thor.. And later she took a severe beating from amped up kryptonians which was even more impressive. No broken bones in sight.A hundred uncontested blows from a top tier and standing? I'd like to see them.
He had to. A broken arm from Blockbuster nearly incapacitated him from sheer pain untill Angel saved him and gave him enough tie to recover.
No, we average out feats. And if we do this to Young Thor, he comes out looking ridiculously good. He has one questionable showings and like two dozen other impressive feats. Yet your reasoning for Diana wining was the Apocalypse fight and whatever. So you seem to prefer to take one feat, and discard the rest.
Where did Diana take a hundred punches from Faora? And no it wouldn't. Not that Aaron's Thor, whether Young or Avenger, would let it get to that.