Superior Iron Man vs. WWH

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So again, when I ask for proof, you handwave it away with, 'no, show ME proof'.

Post the scans explaining how the lack of Tony magically makes them less durable. Please.

You want ONE scene? Sure.
https://41.media.tumblr.com/ab67fb4d931d4a6d17e709d7783e1874/tumblr_nnku9ukjMR1skzooso1_500.jpg

Wait, here's Spidey doing the same:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_large/11123/111235780/4768799-4150060-0227068366-asm_5.jpg

Concession accepted.

Will you stop? Your request is DUMB. You know no such explicit proof exists in comics, yet you keep demanding it to give the impression that you've won the debate. It's very transparent.

You haven't been here long enough, to realise that I am using carver's debating tactic there.

I mean, the alternative is to say that for some reason, the armours become more durable when Tony is inside them. If there is a reason, I would like to see it. If there is none, then it is merely a plot driven device.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
You haven't been here long enough, to realise that I am using carver's debating tactic there.

I mean, the alternative is to say that for some reason, the armours become more durable when Tony is inside them. If there is a reason, I would like to see it. If there is none, then it is merely a plot driven device.

First of all, if I was here for 5 minutes I could still tell what you are doing. You are acting as if Carver is offering an in book explanation for the variance in the armor's durability when it is occupied vs. when it's empty. Carver isn't offering any such in book explanation, he just pointing out the difference in the portrayals. When the armor is occupied, there are no lethal melee attacks (Spiderman's attack would not have killed). When the armor is unoccupied, it just so happens that the armor's durability is compromised with what would be melee attacks. This is 100% correct if you read comics. You are challenging a straw man.

Not really.

I am saying that all the instances of empty armours being less durable are plot driven. Without a famous cash cow/character inside, others are free to rip them apart with glee.

Same way in the Animated Xmen series, Wolverine could only slash robots and inanimate objects.

That has nothing to do with their durability. It doesn't change - what is obvious, however, is that Marvel is not going to show Tony getting ripped in two by heralds every week.

Marvel DOES show the armours taking damage, though, when Tony is inside. I have provided many scans, of Cap, Spiderman, Namor, Bucky ripping the armour. So they're obviously still open to being damaged.

With the Hulkbuster, Tony didn't get such damage until later.

But Superior Tony took it apart in two panels.

Originally posted by Blue Area Vet
First of all, if I was here for 5 minutes I could still tell what you are doing. You are acting as if Carver is offering an in book explanation for the variance in the armor's durability when it is occupied vs. when it's empty. Carver isn't offering any such in book explanation, he just pointing out the difference in the portrayals. When the armor is occupied, there are no lethal melee attacks (Spiderman's attack would not have killed). When the armor is unoccupied, it just so happens that the armor's durability is compromised with what would be melee attacks. This is 100% correct if you read comics. You are challenging a straw man.

👆

He is basically saying Spiderman is stronger than Hulk, Thor, Surfer, and Taurus. All of whom Ironman withstood licks from.

Ironman armor isn't as formidable when he isn't in it. It becomes fodder. If I post Ares ripping Ironman armor up that didn't have Tony in it vs Thor not damaging Ironman armor that had Tony in it, would he say that Ares is stronger than Thor? I hope he doesn't.

It's obvious Tony armor is fodder when he isn't piloting it.

Hey, carver, you asked me for one, just one scan, then you'd concede.

I posted two Spidey scans, one Cap, one Bucky, one Namor. I could go on.

Stop moving the goalposts. You asked for one, I provided several.

Are all of them PIS? Why do mine get waved away as PIS, when we all know a far better explanation is that Marvel are never going to show IM being ripped apart in battle??

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Hey, carver, you asked me for one, just one scan, then you'd concede.

I posted two Spidey scans, one Cap, one Bucky, one Namor. I could go on.

Stop moving the goalposts. You asked for one, I provided several.

Are all of them PIS? Why do mine get waved away as PIS, when we all know a far better explanation is that Marvel are never going to show IM being ripped apart in battle??

You misunderstood what I asked you for though.

Originally posted by carver9
You misunderstood what I asked you for though.

But.....that would mean you were doing what your new cheerleading buddy, BAV, was criticizing me for!!! Egads!!

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Not really.

I am saying that all the instances of empty armours being less durable are plot driven. Without a famous cash cow/character inside, others are free to rip them apart with glee.

Same way in the Animated Xmen series, Wolverine could only slash robots and inanimate objects.

That has nothing to do with their durability. It doesn't change - what is obvious, however, is that Marvel is not going to show Tony getting ripped in two by heralds every week.

Marvel DOES show the armours taking damage, though, when Tony is inside. I have provided many scans, of Cap, Spiderman, Namor, Bucky ripping the armour. So they're obviously still open to being damaged.

With the Hulkbuster, Tony didn't get such damage until later.

But Superior Tony took it apart in two panels.

Yet it never takes nearly the same level of damage, thus coming to hard conclusions about the durability of the armor can only be obtained in a rough estimate of the average showing which will have a very high level of variance.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But.....that would mean you were doing what your new cheerleading buddy, BAV, was criticizing me for!!! Egads!!

I'm "cheerleading" Carver? You're even more of an idiot. I'm explaining his position so that you can stop issuing false challenges and providing scans that don't disprove his claim. He specifically said to show him proof of Ironman "getting his head or arm ripped off...." You provided a scan of Spiderman ripping off his face plate, which ironically should never happen.

HEY...wait a minute. It's nothing wrong with cheerleading me (even though me and you dispute/go against each other 99% of the time).

Originally posted by carver9
HEY...wait a minute. It's nothing wrong with cheerleading me (even though me and you dispute/go against each other 99% of the time).

I cheer lead clarity and logic. Your point about the variance in the portrayal of Ironman's armor when occupied vs. unoccupied should not be contested by any seasoned Marvel reader.

By the way, we don't disagree 99% of the time, you just pulled that outta yo ass! The last thing we disagreed about was Gladiator many months ago....and I was right. 😈

Originally posted by Blue Area Vet
He specifically said to show him proof of Ironman "getting his head or arm ripped off...."

Originally posted by Blue Area Vet
Will you stop? Your request is DUMB. You know no such explicit proof exists in comics, yet you keep demanding it to give the impression that you've won the debate. It's very transparent.

Btw, I showed Spiderman ripping his armour apart as well. Cap doing so as well.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Btw, I showed Spiderman ripping his armour apart as well. Cap doing so as well.

Sigh.

So Ironman durability lies between Captain America and Spiderman ball park?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Btw, I showed Spiderman ripping his armour apart as well. Cap doing so as well.

But not what he asked, so.....

The POINT again is that Ironman's armors' durability is all over the placed. It can be destroyed by Cap but hold up perfectly to Hulk and Thor. Also, it's seemingly more durable when occupied vs. unoccupied. The blows that damage the hull of the armor decapitate or dismember when unoccupied. The writer excises his say.

I don't get it DS? You proved that Tony could and would have his suits ripped apart regardless of him being in them or if they were operating under remote control. This leaves me wondering if the suits are simply flimsy under any circumstance? So aside from Tony possibly being able to pilot the suit better while being in it than when he is remotely using it becomes questionable. If we jump to the conclusion that WW Hulk fought a Hulk Buster Iron Man and had trouble with it, we should also jump to the conclusion that the X-Men, Juggernaut, Zom Strange, Sentry, and the rest of the heroes that had trouble against WW Hulk would also be easily defeated by Superior Iron Man, because he easily destroyed the presumably same Hulk Buster suit that gave WW Hulk a fight.

If we decide to believe that Superior Iron Man would defeat WW Hulk, we must also assume that he would be able to easily defeat everyone that WW Hulk defeated. I have to add, that since you proved that the armors could easily be ripped apart by the likes of far weaker characters like Namor, and Spider Man, that we should assume that they would also be a huge problem for WW Hulk. Ares after all ripped through several of those suits like they were paper, but then we see WW Hulk one shot burying him into the asphalt. What should we think here?

1. Inconsistencies can be argued, as it is clear that in some showings Iron Man appears to be portrayed at a far higher level.

2. The scans presented in all, or most instances were handled by different writers that ineptly decided to ignore the characters past feats of durability and strength.

3. WW Hulk was clearly written, and portrayed as being far more powerful than any of the characters that have ripped apart Tony's armor. Why stop at them? Could we also assume that WW Hulk was portrayed as being far more powerful than Superior Iron Man, or should we ignore all evidence except for the evidence that shows Superior Iron Man tearing a prop apart?

Originally posted by Stoic
I don't get it DS? You proved that Tony could and would have his suits ripped apart regardless of him being in them or if they were operating under remote control. This leaves me wondering if the suits are simply flimsy under any circumstance? So aside from Tony possibly being able to pilot the suit better while being in it than when he is remotely using it becomes questionable. If we jump to the conclusion that WW Hulk fought a Hulk Buster Iron Man and had trouble with it, we should also jump to the conclusion that the X-Men, Juggernaut, Zom Strange, Sentry, and the rest of the heroes that had trouble against WW Hulk would also be easily defeated by Superior Iron Man, because he easily destroyed the presumably same Hulk Buster suit that gave WW Hulk a fight.

If we decide to believe that Superior Iron Man would defeat WW Hulk, we must also assume that he would be able to easily defeat everyone that WW Hulk defeated. I have to add, that since you proved that the armors could easily be ripped apart by the likes of far weaker characters like Namor, and Spider Man, that we should assume that they would also be a huge problem for WW Hulk. Ares after all ripped through several of those suits like they were paper, but then we see WW Hulk one shot burying him into the asphalt. What should we think here?

1. Inconsistencies can be argued, as it is clear that in some showings Iron Man appears to be portrayed at a far higher level.

2. The scans presented in all, or most instances were handled by different writers that ineptly decided to ignore the characters past feats of durability and strength.

3. WW Hulk was clearly written, and portrayed as being far more powerful than any of the characters that have ripped apart Tony's armor. Why stop at them? Could we also assume that WW Hulk was portrayed as being far more powerful than Superior Iron Man, or should we ignore all evidence except for the evidence that shows Superior Iron Man tearing a prop apart?

Different armours, remember. Hulkbuster is vastly diff from the others.

Carver asked for standard armours - so I limited my scans to those.

What Ares/Spiderman/Namor/Bucky did is moot, as armours are all different.

So we should only focus on the Hulkbuster's showings.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Different armours, remember. Hulkbuster is vastly diff from the others.

Carver asked for standard armours - so I limited my scans to those.

What Ares/Spiderman/Namor/Bucky did is moot, as armours are all different.

So we should only focus on the Hulkbuster's showings.

Don't have to, standard armors have taken blows from Thor and Hulk without damage.

Originally posted by carver9
Hulk has blitzed Ironman before and his energy attacks along with his strength is nothing to the Hulk. Ironman recently threw a city at Hulk at it did nothing. Hell, the WWH and Tony fight, their shockwaves was destroying the city and he still couldn't drop Hulk. He isn't doing anything here and Hulk WILL hit Tony, a lot.

That's good. Iron Man has surprised Classic Count Nefaria with his speed. And can just encase Hulk in a forcefield, altering the direction he jumps in.

And Hulk can be dropped. Right repulsors/uni-beam/pulse bolts combo could do that. And guess what, Stark actually did it in comics.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Different armours, remember. Hulkbuster is vastly diff from the others.

Carver asked for standard armours - so I limited my scans to those.

What Ares/Spiderman/Namor/Bucky did is moot, as armours are all different.

So we should only focus on the Hulkbuster's showings.

Different armors but the same material? Could the Hulk Buster unit that fought WW Hulk be a different armor than the one that Superior Iron Man tore apart? After all, didn't WW Hulk destroy that particular unit? What about the idea that WW Hulk defeated guys far above anything that Superior Iron Man has ever gotten into it with? We would indeed have to prove that Superior Iron Man could handle a guy capable of nearly sinking the entire Eastern Seaboard with a foot fall while holding back. I assume that this would be impossible to prove due to the lack of feats.