KuRuPT Thanosi
Senior Member
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I was going to comment on this myself. Superman's feats of ramming into far large and heavier objects in the film is WAY more relevant to the current scenario than when he rammed other Kryptonians, because of how the size and mass of objects relative to each other affects what happens when said objects impact each other. And considering that Superman can fly at several times the speed of sound, Godzilla being a "moving and fighting" target is totally irrelevant, as he would be virtually unmoving from Kal's perspective in anyways.But I guess KT failed physics in school.
No it's not impressive at all and clearly comprehension is also not your friend. Point me to ANY place where I commented that the size of Godzilla wouldn't make it difficult for him to win. Stop being a clownshoes and actually try and read what is written in the thread. Actually that isn't the least bit impressive, in fact, it's lols worthy to even insinuate it was impressive. He didn't need to travel very fast at all to break through kryptonian metal. In fact, a mere casual not even trying backhand did the job quite easily. Yet I'm suppose to be impressed because he tried even harder to break though the same metal? LOL . Much like Robbie I see you like to crush your own arguments with your lack of logic and comprehension. Another example of this is saying it makes no difference it something is living... actively trying to survive... and able to move and think is the same as a non thinking or actively trying to live or fight back object. A eight year old would know what is more relevant and impressive. Let's see if you're as smart as a 8 year old.
Which is more relevant to a vs. match...
1. Doing a feat against a non living, non fighting back who doesn't care if it lives or dies or
2. Doing a feat against a living, fighting back wanting to live foe
Which is more relevant to a vs. matchups in general?