Originally posted by Insane Titan
Bwhahahahaha "Very few can defeat me in a scan war" seriously get over yourself.Tbh that ranks along side you saying you're a important poster on here that thinks he's sort of debating god.
And I am no debating god, I'm just really good at it. I've taken some of the top most debaters on this site to very limits by their own admission. I don't underestimate or overestimate my abilities, the facts are facts.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Try Google caches.
No it's boasting as this is fictional nerd site that doesn't matter at all.
No believe me you're not good, good debaters don't ignore context , lie and lowball as often as you do.
You have been owned by everybody who I would class as good serious debaters.
And before you try and save face I not a good or serious poster or class myself as one.
You wrote a lot, so I almost feel bad if I don't write as much in response. Anyway...
Originally posted by Delta1938
Pr, three examples where Superman has straight-up beat down opponents with a speed-blitz have been provided, and another example where Superman was more effective throwing punches at super speed than at normal speed. And unless the Thor side can provide anything better, evidence has been provided that Superman can get a LOT of attacks in before Thor could even react. Like the equivalent of a minimum 20 minutes of unanswered punches before Thor even knew he was attacked.
Can isn't the same as would, though. And I'm not even arguing capability or Thor having some unassailable defence. I simply don't see Superman opening up that early in to the fight, personally.
What I don't get is how everybody who's arguing Thor get a majority in scenario two are just automatically giving him it. Most of the people arguing Thor in scenario two admit that Superman is stronger and more durable than Thor, but arguing that Mjolnir gives him a significant striking advantage. Based on.....what? Even ignoring the speed advantage, if it gives him that much of a striking advantage, why doesn't he consistently own Hercules, his near/virtual equal(according to many showings) in strength, when most of those same people arguing Thor would also agree that Superman is stronger and more durable than Hercules? Thor had an extended brawl with Drax, punches and Mjolnir strikes being exchanged in a borderline slugfest in a comic, Thor even had a hammer throw and charged strike or two. Thor didn't put Drax down and that was shortly before BLOOD & THUNDER when Thor was suffering from that insanity that was mistaken for Warrior's Madness. Or other examples I've seen.
Because Mjolnir, if it's at all charged, won't just hurt Superman with blunt-force trauma, but the magic effect too. Without charge, the damage is less obviously, but that is STILL a high-herald level weapon, able to hit with immense force. Is one strike enough to put Superman down? Shit no, but it's enough to stagger Superman, imo.
Sure, I've seen Thor one-shot Drax with a pretty standard Mjolnir strike, but if I were to bring-up Superman arguably one-shotting Captain Marvel(after a recent red solar energy blast and modest exposure to Kryptonite), Pre-DOS casually one-shotting Maxima with a casual backhanded bitchslap, Pre-DOS one-shotting Lobo so badly he nearly killed him, or other examples, people would be going, "That's not his average."
Neither is their average, tbh.
So what is it? Is there a large number of examples I haven't seen where Mjolnir really does provide a significant striking advantage compared to his fists? Do people think Mjolnir being a mystical artifact means it simply hurts Superman more even with standard strikes? Do they think Thor will do a significant number of charged Mjolnir strikes? Is it just wishful thinking that Mjolnir will give a significant striking advantage, even with standard attacks, based on nothing but bias? What? I'm only seeing "Thor has a striking advantage just 'cuz Mjolnir."
You really think that the hammer doesn't allow Thor to hit harder than he would without it?
The two things I wanted from scenario two is adequate evidence that Thor's standard Mjolnir strikes are significantly more powerful than his punches, and if Thor actually has speed to keep-up with Superman decently enough to not get owned before he can blink.
The problem, imo, is the assumption that Superman will try to put Thor down before Thor will even register that he's there. I don't believe that's in-character in the slightest, personally.
Since it's a slugfest and they're striking each other until they go down, why wouldn't Superman throw punches at super speed until Thor goes down?
is it a condition of this match that Superman is written how we would use his powers, or how he would use his powers? Because that's key here.
Originally posted by abhilegend
As was I.Why wouldn't he? Scenario two is Superman using his speed. Do you think he can't throw 50 punches or even 20 punches in a second?
A few quick jabs is equal to a full on, well placed, fully powered punch now? Or are we talking about Superman actually moving his whole body so that he can accelerate each measured punch? Because the latter would be out of bounds in this kind of match.
Because he's still Superman, not Abhiman. He fights the way Clark fights, unless Delta, like I asked, is changing it for this match.
Originally posted by abhilegend
What do you mean "Abhi is abhi and that means he can't be right"? I only post what I can prove by scans and there are very few people who can beat me in a scan war. Don't go on what Bran and Rage have propagated about me.
Playing dumb just makes me want to ban you more. Don't do it. Be honest about what you do. Own it. Making excuses is just annoying.
Originally posted by riv6672
One, I did debate. I posted my opinion and am more than willing to have it changed.
Two, i have a lot more experience with abhi than you, enough to know that making more than a few posts in a thread he's heavily involved in is just becomes an exercise in futility. But just a few is fun. And fun is why i post.
Three, i dont hate the guy, i feel sorry for him. When i first "met" him, i agreed with a point he'd made. He flamed me. For not agreeing with him strongly enough. Over the next few months, watching him throw out four letter qualifiers, racial and sexual orientation slurs, create bait threads just to flame people, i realized serious debate with him is a waste of time. But, pushing his buttons was a hoot.
Four, since getting here, i've made. Conscious effort to avoid abhi. But avoid is not ignore. Watching him do his thing is like rubber necking at an accident.
Five, this makes my third post in this thread.
Yes, you did make debate. The initial topic. I was referring to debating with ABHI, instead of just trolling him.
I have a lot of experience with Abhi. I know he's stubborn, makes mistakes, aggressive and not the nicest poster, but generally he's not as bad as you're claiming he is. Mostly I only see him like that on HeroChat, which, in all reality, ya kinda have to be. People are constantly attacking each other. Not only do the mods and admins encourage and PARTICIPATE in flaming, trolling and bashing, but I once saw one(can't recall of mod or admin) abuse his power and edit a guy's post to make it look like he was making fun of himself and his religion.
But back on Abhi, much of the time it feels like people are ignoring Abhi's arguments and evidence because he's Abhi, focusing too much on mistakes they perceive(sometimes legit, other times they're the ones mistaken) and just dismissing Abhi because he's Abhi. More arguing from emotion than logic and evidence. To be honest, your post about why you treat Abhi like you do fits that.
Also, I never said you hate him.
Originally posted by riv6672
My only two interactions with abhi on this board, aside from this thread.
Agreement, then speaking to the other poster in the first, and a good piece of advice in the second.
Stalk and bash indeed.
And he's making great points here, no doubt.
But, much like i knew this thread would go triple digit within a day with his involvement, he will beat his points into the ground until everyone here totally agrees with him or people get tired and quit posting.
Since that last post has you talking about finding "middle ground," why aren't you for the topic? You said Mjolnir will give Thor a significant striking advantage, I posted previously examples that make me think that's not the case, and compared the one time I saw it give a significantly more powerful blow to the same circumstances people would complain about one-shots and stuff for Superman as "that's not his average." Nobody else has given any examples beyond essentially saying "Mjolnir gives Thor a big striking advantage 'cuz Mjolnir." You have a good number of examples to show standard Mjolnir strikes will give Thor a striking advantage?
Originally posted by -Pr-
I honestly have no idea what's going on here.
The last thing I recall was being discussed here was
Super speed punches effectiveness vs Hard punches effectiveness and if speed amps the punches.
F=ma will indicate that Superman's punches will be more effective at super speed, unless Superman hits lighter on purpose when He is fighting at Super speed.
Which does not makes any sense as Super speed is a tool he uses with enemies that will require a harder punishment to defeat.
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
The last thing I recall was being discussed here wasSuper speed punches effectiveness vs Hard punches effectiveness and if speed amps the punches.
F=ma will indicate that Superman's punches will be more effective at super speed, unless Superman hits lighter on purpose when He is fighting at Super speed.
Which does not makes any sense as Super speed is a tool he uses with enemies that will require a harder punishment to defeat.
It's more a question of effort, imo. Look at boxing, for example. A series of quick jabs looks good and quick, but doesn't do the same amount of damage as one good, clean haymarker.
Now, if Superman is moving his body at speeds where he's going full on with every punch and can still maintain a speed advantage, that's great. I was just under the impression that it wasn't allowed.
Originally posted by -Pr-
It's more a question of effort, imo. Look at boxing, for example. A series of quick jabs looks good and quick, but doesn't do the same amount of damage as one good, clean haymarker.Now, if Superman is moving his body at speeds where he's going full on with every punch and can still maintain a speed advantage, that's great. I was just under the impression that it wasn't allowed.
I understand your point but Jabs and haymakers are two completely different punches and techniques.
The closest analogy for this will be to compare two heavy weights one who relies in speed vs one who relies on strength and see who is more effective and or who hits harder
Lets say someone hits with a force or 2 tons in a single punch vs someone who hits 5 times with a force of 1 ton.
I don't want to be on the receiving end of either one but if I have to choose, I'll guess I choose the 2 ton one time rather than the 1 ton 5 times
Originally posted by -Pr-Who said its going to be jabs?A few quick jabs is equal to a full on, well placed, fully powered punch now?
Or are we talking about Superman actually moving his whole body so that he can accelerate each measured punch? Because the latter would be out of bounds in this kind of match.He can put the whole power of his punches at superspeed like PG did.
Because he's still Superman, not Abhiman. He fights the way Clark fights, unless Delta, like I asked, is changing it for this match.I'm using in comics details. No changes from me.
Playing dumb just makes me want to ban you more. Don't do it. Be honest about what you do. Own it. Making excuses is just annoying.I said what I do, nothing of that is about playing dumb. You don't agree, fine by me.
Originally posted by -Pr-Well, in the case of your boxing analogy, that's a trade off between speed and strength. It's a matter of technique, and using whatever move you feel is adequate for the situation (keeping your opponent at a distance or knocking him out)
It's more a question of effort, imo. Look at boxing, for example. A series of quick jabs looks good and quick, but doesn't do the same amount of damage as one good, clean haymarker.Now, if Superman is moving his body at speeds where he's going full on with every punch and can still maintain a speed advantage, that's great. I was just under the impression that it wasn't allowed.
But the difference is Superman does the same motion, in whichever speed level he chooses. His superspeed isn't dependent on technique - it's not a matter of he can only throw the jabs at supersonic speeds, but not the haymakers. No, he can hit Thor with a haymaker at a boxer's speed, or he can do so at nigh-lightspeed.
Imagine you fight a dude and hit him with a clean haymaker. He's probably dizzy, barely able to stand on his feet. Maybe gets up. Now, imagine somebody stops the fight and gives you a remote control that;s able to accelerate your perspective and movements 100x (just 100x...Superman can do so at a much larger speed). You begin to fight again. Can you throw the same haymaker again? Yes. Can you throw multiple haymakers before he can retaliate again? Yes. Do you haymakers do more damage now? Yes.
It's basically this scene (2:50):
kxAXhwLyxBk&feature=player_detailpage#t=172
Now, imagine any one of those players on the field are Thor, and Clark is intent on punching the shit out of him. That's what he'd look like to him.
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
I understand your point but Jabs and haymakers are two completely different punches and techniques.The closest analogy for this will be to compare two heavy weights one who relies in speed vs one who relies on strength and see who is more effective and or who hits harder
Lets say someone hits with a force or 2 tons in a single punch vs someone who hits 5 times with a force of 1 ton.
I don't want to be on the receiving end of either one but if I have to choose, I'll guess I choose the 2 ton one time rather than the 1 ton 5 times
Originally posted by Philosophía
Well, in the case of your boxing analogy, that's a trade off between speed and strength. It's a matter of technique, and using whatever move you feel is adequate for the situation (keeping your opponent at a distance or knocking him out)But the difference is Superman does the same motion, in whichever speed level he chooses. His superspeed isn't dependent on technique - it's not a matter of he can only throw the jabs at supersonic speeds, but not the haymakers. No, he can hit Thor with a haymaker at a boxer's speed, or he can do so at nigh-lightspeed.
Imagine you fight a dude and hit him with a clean haymaker. He's probably dizzy, barely able to stand on his feet. Maybe gets up. Now, imagine somebody stops the fight and gives you a remote control that;s able to accelerate your perspective and movements 100x (just 100x...Superman can do so at a much larger speed). You begin to fight again. Can you throw the same haymaker again? Yes. Can you throw multiple haymakers before he can retaliate again? Yes. Do you haymakers do more damage now? Yes.
It's basically this scene (2:50):
kxAXhwLyxBk&feature=player_detailpage#t=172
Now, imagine any one of those players on the field are Thor, and Clark is intent on punching the shit out of him. That's what he'd look like to him.
No, I get that, and I understand that.
I just honestly didn't think Superman was allowed to use his speed to that extent in the fight.
Superman wins, and it's kinda spitey against Thor, tbh.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Who said its going to be jabs? He can put the whole power of his punches at superspeed like PG did.I'm using in comics details. No changes from me.
I said what I do, nothing of that is about playing dumb. You don't agree, fine by me.
See above.
Again, see above.
Don't. Seriously. What is it with you guys acting like the mods are idiots, that we somehow don't see through the shit you pull. Being rapid in your lowballing of Marvel characters is bad, but being a dick about your true intentions is honestly more annoying.
Originally posted by -Pr-
You wrote a lot, so I almost feel bad if I don't write as much in response. Anyway...Can isn't the same as would, though. And I'm not even arguing capability or Thor having some unassailable defence. I simply don't see Superman opening up that early in to the fight, personally.
Even if you don't think Superman would be blitzing that fast, there's examples for Superman that, even if the punches are weaker, aren't that much weaker and only require a few more for the same effect. Plus, two examples(one from Supes, the other from PeeGee) where punching at super speed is actually increasing the force.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Because Mjolnir, if it's at all charged, won't just hurt Superman with blunt-force trauma, but the magic effect too. Without charge, the damage is less obviously, but that is STILL a high-herald level weapon, able to hit with immense force. Is one strike enough to put Superman down? Shit no, but it's enough to stagger Superman, imo.Neither is their average, tbh.
You really think that the hammer doesn't allow Thor to hit harder than he would without it?
Some writers would have the magick itself having an extra effect, but others wouldn't. I typically think of magick as not having an extra effect just because it's magick, but it needing a specific effect. I've seen Superman take too many mystical energy blasts to think just because Mjolnir is charged, it will disproportionately effect him beyond the extra striking power the charge gives.
And no, I don't think Mjolnir's standard strikes allow Thor to hit significantly harder. Perhaps harder, but not significantly. That's why I brought-up Thor one-shotting Drax with a pretty standard Mjolnir strike, compared to under the same writer he was in a LONG fight with lots of Mjolnir blows, including a throw and a charged strike or two, and failed to put Drax down.
Basically, I'm seeing a double standard by everybody arguing for Thor in scenario two, whether intentional or unintentional. Logically, Mjolnir SHOULD make him hit harder than he can punch even with standard strikes. But I haven't seen enough examples to convince me of this compared to other fights. Yet, it's readily accepted and assumed just 'cuz, and nobody gives examples when requested. No scans, no descriptions, zip, nada, zlich. But, others argue Superman wouldn't punch as hard at super speed despite the speed should logically increase the force of the blows, but aren't really giving any examples that, even if the case, the blows with be significantly weaker that Thor can't be overwhelmed and knocked out. Despite examples contradicting the claims have been provided.
Originally posted by -Pr-
The problem, imo, is the assumption that Superman will try to put Thor down before Thor will even register that he's there. I don't believe that's in-character in the slightest, personally.
And if this were a standard, in-character fight, that would be a valid argument. But this isn't a standard, in-character fight.
Originally posted by -Pr-
is it a condition of this match that Superman is written how we would use his powers, or how he would use his powers? Because that's key here.
The second scenario comes down to Superman's speed versus whatever extra striking power Mjolnir gives Thor. I guess I poorly worded it with people arguing "in-character," but yeah, that's essentially it.
Originally posted by -Pr-
It's more a question of effort, imo. Look at boxing, for example. A series of quick jabs looks good and quick, but doesn't do the same amount of damage as one good, clean haymarker.Now, if Superman is moving his body at speeds where he's going full on with every punch and can still maintain a speed advantage, that's great. I was just under the impression that it wasn't allowed.
Philosophia gave a great response to this. Superman can throw any punch at super speed. The scans Abhi and I gave speed-blitzing Cyborg-Superman show this(although we only know it's at super speed because he says it), and the blitz against Equus shows power punches in a more traditionally depicted speed-blitz.
Now, if the Thor supporter can provide better evidence that Thor can reasonably keep-up with Superman, then maybe Thor could be at the advantage. Maybe I'll get those examples, maybe not. Maybe I'll even get examples of standard Mjolnir strikes being significantly more powerful than Thor's punches.
Originally posted by Delta1938
Even if you don't think Superman would be blitzing that fast, there's examples for Superman that, even if the punches are weaker, aren't that much weaker and only require a few more for the same effect. Plus, two examples(one from Supes, the other from PeeGee) where punching at super speed is actually increasing the force.Some writers would have the magick itself having an extra effect, but others wouldn't. I typically think of magick as not having an extra effect just because it's magick, but it needing a specific effect. I've seen Superman take too many mystical energy blasts to think just because Mjolnir is charged, it will disproportionately effect him beyond the extra striking power the charge gives.
And no, I don't think Mjolnir's standard strikes allow Thor to hit significantly harder. Perhaps harder, but not significantly. That's why I brought-up Thor one-shotting Drax with a pretty standard Mjolnir strike, compared to under the same writer he was in a LONG fight with lots of Mjolnir blows, including a throw and a charged strike or two, and failed to put Drax down.
Basically, I'm seeing a double standard by everybody arguing for Thor in scenario two, whether intentional or unintentional. Logically, Mjolnir SHOULD make him hit harder than he can punch even with standard strikes. But I haven't seen enough examples to convince me of this compared to other fights. Yet, it's readily accepted and assumed just 'cuz, and nobody gives examples when requested. No scans, no descriptions, zip, nada, zlich. But, others argue Superman wouldn't punch as hard at super speed despite the speed should logically increase the force of the blows, but aren't really giving any examples that, even if the case, the blows with be significantly weaker that Thor can't be overwhelmed and knocked out. Despite examples contradicting the claims have been provided.
And if this were a standard, in-character fight, that would be a valid argument. But this isn't a standard, in-character fight.
The second scenario comes down to Superman's speed versus whatever extra striking power Mjolnir gives Thor. I guess I poorly worded it with people arguing "in-character," but yeah, that's essentially it.
Philosophia gave a great response to this. Superman can throw any punch at super speed. The scans Abhi and I gave speed-blitzing Cyborg-Superman show this(although we only know it's at super speed because he says it), and the blitz against Equus shows power punches in a more traditionally depicted speed-blitz.
Now, if the Thor supporter can provide better evidence that Thor can reasonably keep-up with Superman, then maybe Thor could be at the advantage. Maybe I'll get those examples, maybe not. Maybe I'll even get examples of standard Mjolnir strikes being significantly more powerful than Thor's punches.
Thanks for writing all of that, but you might want to scroll up a tad.
I honestly didn't realise that Superman was being given such a massive advantage.
Originally posted by abhilegend
What do you mean "Abhi is abhi and that means he can't be right"? I only post what I can prove by scans and there are very few people who can beat me in a scan war. Don't go on what Bran and Rage have propagated about me.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Well, that's true. Not empty boasting.And I am no debating god, I'm just really good at it. I've taken some of the top most debaters on this site to very limits by their own admission. I don't underestimate or overestimate my abilities, the facts are facts.