Captain America vs. Rorschach/Nite Owl

Originally posted by Silent Master
I asked when normal humans had kept fighting after getting hit with 100% of Cap's strength, you proceed to name scenes. so either you were claiming the people in the scenes took full strength punches or you didn't understand the question.

Which is it?

Incorrect... I cited times Cap vas VISIBLY upset and trying to put them down. You claim those scenes weren't full powered punches... Cool... Prove it. All I need to show is that he was angry, pissed, and trying to win. Those are all indicative of when people really put forth effort. Yet here, you're saying, yeah he might been... but they weren't full powered blows. Cool, then I'm sure you'll be able to prove that.

It is 10 feet tops when he hit the pillar (less really). I had a full diagram of it in the Ozy vs WS thread which we discussed in detail and everyone accepted. If you want to rehash it, feel free to repost it with fresh new rebuttals. As it is, from use of a point of reference, 10 feet is the best estimate of the distance.

https://youtu.be/G3CYN7_Aa7E

It was pretty obvious that he would have travelled another 2 feet tops as soon as he hit the pillar (as seen with his body position relative to the floor at 0:53) and it was the angular fall that gave im an extra 3-4 feet if extra distance. Are we counting falls under "force of hit distances" now? And even then, this is still a huge difference in distance travelled between rorshach and rumlow.

Ppl stumble backwards when they are pushed standing up. Or if they trip. It is a completely different principle in physics when their feet are actually lifted off the ground and they are thrown by the force of something hitting them. Again, what principles are you basing this argument of yours from?

If anything, Cap's showing was harder to do as HIS kick was a snap kick to the jaw (which allows for maximum movement of the neck to absorb the force of the blow) while Ozy was a flat kick to the side of the face.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Stupid video didn't post.. Here it is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPVuC6ugmAw

Timestamps of ppl getting thrown? I see a lot of ppl falling down, but not thrown.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Incorrect... I cited times Cap vas VISIBLY upset and trying to put them down. You claim those scenes weren't full powered punches... Cool... Prove it.

This is impossible to quantify. Just because Cap doesn't break necks everytime he punches a person doesn't mean he can't. It doesn't take much to kill a person with a single punch. There are more than enough scenes to suggest he is powerful enough. Take the Heavy bag scene for example. Cap was obviously restraining himself during that workout until he decided to open up a little bit and split the bag into two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oAEsWbQooo

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
This is impossible to quantify. Just because Cap doesn't break necks everytime he punches a person doesn't mean he can't. It doesn't take much to kill a person with a single punch. There are more than enough scenes to suggest he is powerful enough. Take the Heavy bag scene for example. Cap was obviously restraining himself during that workout until he decided to open up a little bit and split the bag into two.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oAEsWbQooo

Right, and RO survived being kicked in the head, while on the ground... and was sent flying more than 10 feet and bouncing off a concrete pillar. That would kill any normal human. The force needed to kick somebody on the ground (kicking only the head, which is a small surface and the neck is flexible thus dispersing some of the force) and still send them flying would be pretty damn hard. He got up and kept on fighting. Yeah, I'd go ahead and side with him being able to take a few full blown punches from Cap. Obviously he'd be KO'd eventually, but Cap isn't taking anybody head off or one shot killing somebody who can take what RO did and still get up.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Timestamps of ppl getting thrown? I see a lot of ppl falling down, but not thrown.

I said, sent backwards. People are kick all the time in the head and sent backwards. Obviously they don't go flying in the air like Cap's kick (which indicates a powerful strike) but they are sent backwards. Post a video of somebody kicking somebody in the head while on the ground and them being sent anywhere. Doesn't happen.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It is 10 feet tops when he hit the pillar (less really). I had a full diagram of it in the Ozy vs WS thread which we discussed in detail and everyone accepted. If you want to rehash it, feel free to repost it with fresh new rebuttals. As it is, from use of a point of reference, 10 feet is the best estimate of the distance.

https://youtu.be/G3CYN7_Aa7E

It was pretty obvious that he would have travelled another 2 feet tops as soon as he hit the pillar (as seen with his body position relative to the floor at 0:53) and it was the angular fall that gave im an extra 3-4 feet if extra distance. Are we counting falls under "force of hit distances" now? And even then, this is still a huge difference in distance travelled between rorshach and rumlow.

Ppl stumble backwards when they are pushed standing up. Or if they trip. It is a completely different principle in physics when their feet are actually lifted off the ground and they are thrown by the force of something hitting them. Again, what principles are you basing this argument of yours from?

If anything, Cap's showing was harder to do as HIS kick was a snap kick to the jaw (which allows for maximum movement of the neck to absorb the force of the blow) while Ozy was a flat kick to the side of the face.

It was accepted? By whom? Cap's side? Well of course it was. I never accepted any notion that he didn't travel further after he hit the pillar and I've stated this categorical each and every time. The video proves exactly this. You keep saying it was an angular fall.. and thus 4 more feet of distance. What exactly are you implying here? I'm totally confused on why you think an angular fail doesn't count for distance? It ONLY wouldn't count if he just fell straight down from an elevated position. Here, he ends up a good 6-8 feet AWAY from the pillar. A small portion, very small had to do with the added height. You act like he was 10 feet in the air. They were only elevated, maybe 2 or 3 feet at the most. Thus, it was all clearly force carrying him that distance not because of the elevation. Further, he STILL went that far while still hitting a concrete pillar. You can SAY he only would go 2 more feet, but that is pure speculation on your part. We KNOW he went 6-8 feet away from the pillar after striking it...He clearly would've traveled even further had he not hit it. You're trying to make this about the elevation, when that played very little into the feat. They weren't 20 feet in the air here nib.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
It was accepted? By whom? Cap's side? Well of course it was. I never accepted any notion that he didn't travel further after he hit the pillar and I've stated this categorical each and every time. The video proves exactly this. You keep saying it was an angular fall.. and thus 4 more feet of distance. What exactly are you implying here? I'm totally confused on why you think an angular fail doesn't count for distance? It ONLY wouldn't count if he just fell straight down from an elevated position. Here, he ends up a good 6-8 feet AWAY from the pillar. A small portion, very small had to do with the added height. You act like he was 10 feet in the air. They were only elevated, maybe 2 or 3 feet at the most. Thus, it was all clearly force carrying him that distance not because of the elevation. Further, he STILL went that far while still hitting a concrete pillar. You can SAY he only would go 2 more feet, but that is pure speculation on your part. We KNOW he went 6-8 feet away from the pillar after striking it...He clearly would've traveled even further had he not hit it. You're trying to make this about the elevation, when that played very little into the feat. They weren't 20 feet in the air here nib.

My diagram used reference points (the TVs) to measure distance. It is no more than 10 feet. Less more likely. You were there. I'm not about to dig thru 100 plus pages to rehash an already settled debate because you suddenly forgot about it, however.

Because we don't count falls off elevations as proof that a person can strike a person hard enough to send him that distance.

And the angular fall DID carry him a few feet further.

In this diagram it shows that he would have fallen almost straight to floor level had he not fallen that extra distance. Otherwise, he would have hit the floor 2 feet from bouncing off the wall.

https://imgur.com/a/ALRJV

And even then, this is all moot, a few extra feet isn't going to cover the huge distance disparity between these 2 showings.

You keep saying elevation. It was 2 feet of elevation. It wasn't 8 feet or 10 feet or 20 feet. That is what we'd quantify as negligible elevation at best. No matter how you slice it, he traveled more than 10 feet WHILE still hitting the pillar. Couple that with the point that has yet to be disputed... Kicking somebody in the head.. while they are standing is VASTLY easier to send them backwards several feet and falling to the ground. I showed exactly of such and those were WITH headgear. Post me a clip of somebody being kick in the head while on the ground... and show them being sent backwards like we've seen with headkicks. It doesn't exist, why, because it's much harder to accomplish. Watch Pride.. or Old Vale Tudo fights or street fights.. We see them, nothing like that happens.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
You keep saying elevation. It was 2 feet of elevation. It wasn't 8 feet or 10 feet or 20 feet. That is what we'd quantify as negligible elevation at best. No matter how you slice it, he traveled more than 10 feet WHILE still hitting the pillar. Couple that with the point that has yet to be disputed... Kicking somebody in the head.. while they are standing is VASTLY easier to send them backwards several feet and falling to the ground. I showed exactly of such and those were WITH headgear. Post me a clip of somebody being kick in the head while on the ground... and show them being sent backwards like we've seen with headkicks. It doesn't exist, why, because it's much harder to accomplish. Watch Pride.. or Old Vale Tudo fights or street fights.. We see them, nothing like that happens.

4 steps is 4 feet of elevation. I already provided the proof and diagram that proves he would have landed to floor level 2 feet from bouncing off the pillar had he not fallen at an angle. It is right there in picture format. It is up to you if you choose to ignore it.

I find this all funny, however, as IIRC you didn't seem to all too accepting of ppls' reasoning that WS's kick would have easily sent the guy 2x the shown distance had he not hit the jet.

It is easier to topple a person while they are standing because they fall off their feet (fall down, trip, stumble). You are equating someone flying to someone fainting/tripping/stumbling. That is beyond silly.

Again, sending them flying, meaning lifting them off their feet and making them travel a distance off the ground is completely different. It requires force needed to overcome their weight over a given distance. Again, respectfully, unless you can point out a principle in physics that support your stance that kneeling ppl are IYOW vastly harder to send flying than standing ppl, then you are just using unsupported logic based on false evidence at this point.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
4 steps is 4 feet of elevation. I already provided the proof and diagram that proves he would have landed to floor level 2 feet from bouncing off the pillar had he not fallen at an angle. It is right there in picture format. It is up to you if you choose to ignore it.

I find this all funny, however, as IIRC you didn't seem to all too accepting of ppls' reasoning that WS's kick would have easily sent the guy 2x the shown distance had he not hit the jet.

It is easier to topple a person while they are standing because they fall off their feet (fall down, trip, stumble). You are equating someone flying to someone fainting/tripping/stumbling. That is beyond silly.

Again, sending them flying, meaning lifting them off their feet and making them travel a distance off the ground is completely different. It requires force needed to overcome their weight over a given distance. Again, respectfully, unless you can point out a principle in physics that support your stance that kneeling ppl are IYOW vastly harder to send flying than standing ppl, then you are just using unsupported logic based on false evidence at this point.

Okay, now I'm going to have to call BULLSHIT here. We aren't JUST talking about being send in the air are we Nib? We're talking about being sent in the air AND being send backwards. Those are two separate things being looked at here. What I'm saying is, half of the equation.. being send backwards is VASTLY easier to accomplish when a person is standing. I've proven it, without a single rebuttal from you in the video I posted. That IS the proof. Now, point me to a video where somebody lying on the ground is sent backwards ANY distance close to what we see when a person is standing. Until then, it's YOU who are relying on speculation not me. I've provide proof.

You keep talking about elevation... You do realize 3 or 4 feet of elevation means very little at all. It's barely worth mentioning. Even using the term "elevated position" and then saying 3 or 4 feet is laughable. It had little to do with anything. Further, being that he HIT the pillar, a concrete pillar, it matters not how far he flew afterwards (though we know he still did)... That would dramatically reduce the energy there. We don't need to calculate it, we know it. So anything that happens after that is a moot point if you're trying to prove he didn't go far.

Do you want to know what was really laughable.... You trying to equate somebody hitting a concrete pillar WITH most of their surface area and how that might impede distance... to crossbones landing on a table. You want to talk about who's being silly here?

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Okay, now I'm going to have to call BULLSHIT here. We aren't JUST talking about being send in the air are we Nib? We're talking about being sent in the air AND being send backwards. Those are two separate things being looked at here. What I'm saying is, half of the equation.. being send backwards is VASTLY easier to accomplish when a person is standing. I've proven it, without a single rebuttal from you in the video I posted. That IS the proof. Now, point me to a video where somebody lying on the ground is sent backwards ANY distance close to what we see when a person is standing. Until then, it's YOU who are relying on speculation not me. I've provide proof.

You keep talking about elevation... You do realize 3 or 4 feet of elevation means very little at all. It's barely worth mentioning. Even using the term "elevated position" and then saying 3 or 4 feet is laughable. It had little to do with anything. Further, being that he HIT the pillar, a concrete pillar, it matters not how far he flew afterwards (though we know he still did)... That would dramatically reduce the energy there. We don't need to calculate it, we know it. So anything that happens after that is a moot point if you're trying to prove he didn't go far.

Do you want to know what was really laughable.... You trying to equate somebody hitting a concrete pillar WITH most of their surface area and how that might impede distance... to crossbones landing on a table. You want to talk about who's being silly here?

...........

Let's hold off on the distance argument one sec and focus on this one VERY important point of logic here:

Dude. Repeat after me: stumbling isn't flying. Fainting isn't flying. Tripping isn't flying. You are literally getting a completely different phenomenon and using it as proof to equate things completely different. Kneeling ppl don't stumble or trip (duh) as they are already on the ground and if they faint, they go straight down like a standing person would.

This has literally nothing to do with being sent flying and you are wasting both our time arguing this mess, seriously.

And no, it is not easier to be sent -flying- while standing vs while kneeling. Physics dictate that once a specific force applied overcomes your weight enough to send you flying, it doesn't matter if you were standing or kneeling.

How is this still going? There is no way in hell Rorschach and Nite Owl take Cap

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
There is absolutely nothing that suggests that, Rorscach and Nite Owl could withstand blows from, Cap. Caps agility, strength and endurance are leagues above the Watchmen here.

Even with, The Comedian this match is one sided. The Comedian could get a lucky shot on Cap but with his shield, Cap can just plow through everyone.

False, the fact that Rorshach tanked a strike that can easily tear a human's head right off WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE proves that Cap can not one shot kill him.

No one here is argument that the team beats Cap. The argument is can Cap one shot kill them.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
How is this still going? There is no way in hell Rorschach and Nite Owl take Cap

Originally posted by h1a8
False, the fact that Rorshach tanked a strike that can easily tear a human's head right off WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE proves that Cap can not one shot kill him.

No one here is argument that the team beats Cap. The argument is can Cap one shot kill them.

You understand that one shot kill may also include: a punch to the throat or squishing their heads like a grape orrrrr snapping their necks?

So does anybody here not agree that Cap wins?

I'm fairly sure that the only reason this thread has gone on this long is because the Ozy fanboys are butthurt that Captain America has better feats than he does

Originally posted by Nibedicus
...........

Let's hold off on the distance argument one sec and focus on this one VERY important point of logic here:

Dude. Repeat after me: stumbling isn't flying. Fainting isn't flying. Tripping isn't flying. You are literally getting a completely different phenomenon and using it as proof to equate things completely different. Kneeling ppl don't stumble or trip (duh) as they are already on the ground and if they faint, they go straight down like a standing person would.

This has literally nothing to do with being sent flying and you are wasting both our time arguing this mess, seriously.

And no, it is not easier to be sent -flying- while standing vs while kneeling. Physics dictate that once a specific force applied overcomes your weight enough to send you flying, it doesn't matter if you were standing or kneeling.

So you didn't watch the video then.. They are just fainting backwards or tripping backwards... some of them are MOVED backwards. They are even KO'd before hitting the ground. I'm not saying they are sent 15 feet or even 10 feet flying backwards. What is unquestionable is that in some instance they are sent backwards via the force of the kick. They aren't jumping backwards when hit... They are sent backwards. What I'm saying is, even them being sent 2 feet or 3 feet backwards is more than we see from a kick to somebody on the ground.

Of course they are moved backwards. They are tripped or they stumble or are pushed or fall down backwards after getting hit.

Again this has nothing to do with being literally thrown backwards. One has literally zero relevance to the other. Being tossed by the force of something wherein your feet literally leave the ground is not the same as getting kicked backwards.

Not all backwards movements are the same. Different applications of force causing different results.

Seriously, this is basic stuff that I feel I shouldn't need to explain. I feel like I am just wasting my time explaining something this simple over and over.