Originally posted by Robtardthat wasn't my entire argument but I'll lay it out for you. He's physically stronger and more durable. He doesn't need to rely on skill like Thor does typically because he can take more punishment(durability) and is stronger. We see this when they are in similar situations. It's rather obvious. Hulk is the powerhouse on the team not Thor. That doesn't mean Thor is useless and isn't powerful in his own right and with his own abilities but in terms of physicality (strength/durability) Hulk is greater than Thor.
You did, with your argument resting on Hulk being physically stronger
Look at the similarities between Superman and WW. Superman is stronger and more durable but WW is far more skilled and has other abilities/gear Superman doesn't have.
Originally posted by quanchi112
that wasn't my entire argument but I'll lay it out for you. He's physically stronger and more durable. He doesn't need to rely on skill like Thor does typically because he can take more punishment(durability) and is stronger. We see this when they are in similar situations. It's rather obvious. Hulk is the powerhouse on the team not Thor. That doesn't mean Thor is useless and isn't powerful in his own right and with his own abilities but in terms of physicality (strength/durability) Hulk is greater than Thor.Look at the similarities between Superman and WW. Superman is stronger and more durable but WW is far more skilled and has other abilities/gear Superman doesn't have.
Thor was at ground zero when the Bifrost exploded and then in the Sokovia explosion, what durability feats of Hulk's are greater?
Originally posted by Silent MasterOh so you refuse to give your opinion because you know you still believe Hulk is more durable because that's obvious. It's like saying Drax has greater durability feats then he is obviously more durable than the Hulk. We have to look at similar situations they are both in. We don't look at ones best feats and ignore how the two have been compared up against the same situations. Comparisons matter not just feats alone.
Our opinions don't matter, Currently Thor has the better durability feats.Seeing as the topic is who is more powerful, it's a very fair comparison.
Well it isn't a fair comparison. Do you believe the application of his powers is apples to apples here ?
Originally posted by RobtardThat's where you're flawed. We don't go by feats alone we go by logical deduction and how the characters compare with each other especially when in similar situations.
Film feats say yes. So what feats did I miss of Hulk's that beat either of Thor's two highest? List them.
When we see one guy avoid bulletfire with the other casually swatting them away that's both of them reacting to the same variable and comparing them in that manner. That's a more valid comparison than one off feats only exclusive to one character.
But I have an entire film coming out with these two being in the same situation which I am confident will back my conclusions not yours.
Originally posted by quanchi112
That's where you're flawed. We don't go by feats alone we go by logical deduction and how the characters compare with each other especially when in similar situations.When we see one guy avoid bulletfire with the other casually swatting them away that's both of them reacting to the same variable and comparing them in that manner. That's a more valid comparison than one off feats only exclusive to one character.
But I have an entire film coming out with these two being in the same situation which I am confident will back my conclusions not yours.
So you don't have any films feats and are going with your bias because you prefer Hulk over Thor. Hey, so do I. But I leave my feelings out of logical reasoning.
So you still think Thor dodged because bullets would have hurt him? Lol. He's tanked greater hits, it's logical bullets wouldn't hurt him. Use "logical deduction" here; Thor is bullet-proof.
What happens in Ragnarok doesn't affect the past films. As of right now, Thor has the greater durability feats.
Originally posted by RobtardI have my reasoning and a situation which involved the both of them. Also when both fell from great heights it was posed Thor may not survive while we see that the Hulk survived. Again that favors the Hulk.
So you don't have any films feats and going with your bias because you prefer Hulk over Thor. Hey, so do I. But I leave my feelings out of logical reasoning. Use "logical deduction" here.So you still think Thor dodged because bullets would have hurt him? Lol. He's tanked greater hits, it's logical bullets wouldn't hurt him.
What happens in Ragnarok doesn't affect the past films. As of right now, Thor has the greater durability feats.
WW also tanks greater impact than bullets but that doesn't mean they won't hurt her. 😂
Thor dodged because they'd obviously hurt. If someone throws a feather at me I won't dodge I'll just run right through it. Unless you think he's an idiot and just sucks things for no reason.
I already gave past situations involved with both. I am confident you aren't. You are trolling and I know you don't believe Thor is more durable. ill have more evidence after the next film but I can figure things out it seems you can't.
Originally posted by Silent MasterI get that you don't count similar situation feats which shows Hulk is more durable but that you'd rather rely on exclusive Thor feats in which the Hulk wasn't there. It must really pain you Hulk is going to look superior in Thor's third film. It'll be ok but I tried telling you so.
I get that you don't care that Thor has better feats, but everyone else does.