Hercules vs Wonder Woman

If you don't take real-world science or logic into account how do you determine which feats are better?

You could use fights, but really, who gives a flying **** that Hulk beat up Thor, or vice versa, when discussing characters from other settings? Superman hasn't fought either of those mother****ers in current canon that I'm aware of.

It's no different from people saying that WF Mxy (a casual multiverse destroyer and creator) would bolo stomp someone like Odin, who on his best day can just sort of shake it.

How would you determine if Hyperion's feat is better than Superman's (just for example) if you don't consider how strong he would actually have to be in order to stop a planet flying at 500,000 mph?

^Indeed.

Lifting a planet's no more impressive than lifting a goddamn balloon if you don't actually put any science into it...

Originally posted by abhilegend
Thor was restrained by titanium like ropes recently.

😐

Originally posted by abhilegend
It was 500000 mph actually.

5 stages of Grief

1 Denial
2 Anger
3 bargaining
4 depression
5 acceptance.

Just thought I'd leave this here.

You are going through all that? Ah poor you.

??? You realiz I have you on ignore right?

I do. It seems even more amusing now.

???

Why don't you bring some more calculations from random sites and claim they are from NASA?

Originally posted by abhilegend
Why don't you bring some more calculations from random sites and claim they are from NASA?

herc ends simon. makes him fearful of death. again..... 🙂

at one point when herc went WM he actually DID almost kill simon with only a single blow iirc.....

he doesn't need WM though. simon's tough, but a definite tier below herc imo.

Originally posted by pym-ftw
Yes I'm referring to Supermans benchpress feat vs Thor's multi planetoids/planet moon busting strikes.

Sure but moving a planet 3 feet or what ever Superman's wingspan is, is significantly less not to mention he didn't physically move the planet. He benched 6.6 quadrillion tons.

But let's assume that Thor used nothing but strength in his striking (no help from Mjlonir).
Thor damaged a small portion of the Planet he was near and damaged partially a moon he was about some thousand miles away.

It took Thor many blows to achieve the total damage. He didn't achieve the feat from a single strike (which would be impressive as hell). So each strike (was all of Thor's might) was only a very tiny portion of the feat itself.
For example, if the total damage took 60 sextillion tons to achieve and Thor struck a hundreds of times then each blow was below a sextillion amount of tons (which is far less than planetary).

The fact that Thor struggled to move a mountain sized mass immediately after proves it. So the feat is great but nowhere compared to Superman.

Originally posted by NemeBro
If you don't take real-world science or logic into account how do you determine which feats are better?

You could use fights, but really, who gives a flying **** that Hulk beat up Thor, or vice versa, when discussing characters from other settings? Superman hasn't fought either of those mother****ers in current canon that I'm aware of.

Fights between characters are the beginning and end for most discussions in the vs. threads. Most characters have fought similar analogues if not perfect analogues. But I agree that fights between characters don't necessarily inform which feat is better than the other, and vice-versa.

Originally posted by NemeBro
It's no different from people saying that WF Mxy (a casual multiverse destroyer and creator) would bolo stomp someone like Odin, who on his best day can just sort of shake it.

Originally posted by NemeBro
How would you determine if Hyperion's feat is better than Superman's (just for example) if you don't consider how strong he would actually have to be in order to stop a planet flying at 500,000 mph?

Thor hit Gorr several hundreds of times?

Sick speed feat.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Thor hit Gorr several hundreds of times?

Sick speed feat.

In reality, Thor seemed to be hitting him for at least minutes (if not hours). 1 hit every 2 seconds and Thor would have hit him 100 times in a little over 3 minutes.

Originally posted by ODG
By looking at them plainly and be open to the notion that sometimes you just can't tell which one is actually better.

Fights between characters are the beginning and end for most discussions in the vs. threads. Most characters have fought similar analogues if not perfect analogues. But I agree that fights between characters don't necessarily inform which feat is better than the other, and vice-versa. Well, both feats involve the same quantification, destructive force across a multiverse. So you can compare those quantitatively. Forcing a quantification between Hyperion catching a planet and Hulk punching a planet, would be like forcing a quantification between WF Mxy catching a multiverse flowing inside the Prime Monitor and just destroying a multiverse. I just think plainly and believe that catching an immense object moving at high speeds without any leverage is far superior than benching a relatively stationary immense object with leverage. It then becomes less clear when you take into account how long Superman was benching that immense object.

Average Force = change in momentum / time

That means Hyperion could supplied far less than planetary force to stop the planet if the time he took to stop it was large enough.

In other words, mass and speed of the object is not enough to calculate force. We need a good estimate of time.

In reality, Thor seemed to be hitting him for at least minutes (if not hours).[/B]

What ????

Did you read the issue ? Hitting him or hours ???

Wonder Woman wins via rear naked choke.

Originally posted by eaebiakuya
What ????

Did you read the issue ? Hitting him or hours ???