low feats vs PIS

Originally posted by carver9
So do we go by average showings or high showings? Its impossible to debate which one is the acceptable ft. Example, let's say if someone post a scan of Thing punching the Hulk drawing blood as an effect and I post a scan of the entire Avengers punching Hulk (including people who are stronger than Thing) and they cant even budge him, let alone scar him. Which one would be considered a more solid evidence of Hulks durability?

That's easy: Whichever one is more consistent with his other showings.

Consistency is how we figure out an average. And figuring out averages really isn't that hard for anyone that reads a lot of a character.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
I always try and find averages and see if there's a reason this low feat happened before declaring pis. Take everything into consideration before saying "Hey doggy, this doesn't add up".

I try to stay away from incredibly high feats unless the question directly relates to if one has done or done similar things to this high feat.

And if a character has a long streak of losses or suddenly got more powerful, I usually seperate those characters into unofficial powerups or power downs.

An example of all 3 in order:

Take Bendis Thanos for example. Every appearance he makes he gains a new low feat, and by low feat, I mean if it wasn't for other Bendis appearances, it would be his lowest feat. However, not being one to just hand wave things away, you look at the feats.
In one of them he was weakened by a faux Cosmic Cube. In one he was weakened by a wormhole and possibly had the God Cancer. The other two showings? Not so great. One was wildly inconsistent for every character involved, and the other was mostly off panel but all the way gay.
So you weigh these feats. They still exist but enough showings can make them weigh less. Another would be inclined to just say pis and I wouldn't disagree.

Number 2.
Leon and I (Bran) had a conversation about Surfer slapping away Ego and throwing Suns/large sunballs. These normally wouldn't be something I would just toss like dice in a thread and look around at all the faces and go "Beat this you smelly cock suckers" with a carver9 sharp smirk on my face. However, I would discuss them, as they became pertinent to the conversation. All I wanted to say is these feats do exist and are canon. However, that again doesn't mean I'd use them in a serious manner unless the thread became about that.
If Surfer overpowered Galactus tomorrow, I would only bring that up against Thor fans, people asking if anyone has killed a Galactus level being, or if someone was directly challenging me to find high feats. Maybe some more, but it wouldn't be something I would solely use to say he beats Hulk for example.

Number 3.
Leon made this thread because of Gamora. He said "By Golly I don't enjoy you bringing up these... these... 'downward examples' to say your blasted character wins. Don't sully my name with your crud Mr Slashes!"
I've also had a Gamora exchange with Stoic recently. Here's where my point comes in hand:

Gamora simply isn't written up to the standards that Annihilation and Danbett set for her. Leon doesn't like her low feats brought up when all he wants is to use Annihilation Gamora. The issue is, is that her low feats are in abundance. So much so that she only mimics Gamora's appearance and nothing more. As I've said to Stoic, she has over 200 appearances since DnA left. She's had over 150 appearances before that. More than half of her appearances are of a shitty form, that's a lot to rule out.

A simple solution, and one we see often on the forum, is to seperate this.
Pre Annihilation Gamora would be everything from just before her tie ins to Annihilation.
Annihilation would be that, and DnA. It would also include the good of pre Annihilation.
Bendis Gamora would be the 200 appearances afterwards.

Nice and tidy. Now you could argue that you could pick and choose from highlights of Bendis Gamora for Annihilation Gamora since let's be honest, she's shit. But trying to mash them all together without addressing this creates issues, issues that led to Leon creating this thread. As always, there is usually a simple solution, you just have to open your brown eye a little.

Same with Carol. She has gotten more powerful. Unofficially (just like Gamora has gotten unofficially weaker since she should be the same level). Issue with her, is that she should be privy to all her prior feats. So without addressing her "upgrade", it creates issues when someone cums in and says she loses because she's in canon the same level as many of her oopsies.

But that's just how I see things. I don't speak for everyone, I'm just giving my two pesos.

you're stating the obvious--again--when you talk about being able to explain away certain low or high showings. not of course what i'm talking about.

you're right in one regard--the gamora thread is a perfect example of what has been going on but it's not what solely prompted this. my recent tourney experience really brought the issue to the forefront for me. the thread just brought the damn crashing down. in slash's case though, and to his credit, i mentioned the low balling and what did he do--low and behold he posted legit feats i'd not seen from drax and even changed my opinion somewhat! astounding how that worked out. 👆

it isn't about me 'not liking' anything. it's about having reasonable debates about CHARACTERS, and not getting bogged down in bashing ONE character.

your irreconcilable problem is the thread said GAMORA. not POST ANNHILATION gamora, or any other form of her. you don't like the character, obviously, but afaik, your not liking her doesn't discount her more classic feats, unless you know something i don't. focusing on these more recent showings only (like when she beat down carol) discounts the old ones. that's not how this whole things works i'm afraid. the old feats are as valid in an argument as the newer ones (unless you go back 60 years maybe...). focusing on the low showings also goes completely contrary to AT THEIR BEST and gamora still has a lot more good feats than bad ones imo.

if someone wanted to try and convince someone that they have a lot more low showings that CAN'T be offset, that's totally different. showing a couple bad ones and lingering on them like a fly does on sh!t doesn't come close i'm afraid. do research, show a bunch and maybe a character will/can be looked at differently. otherwise low balling is low balling and barely a step up from trolling.

just my couple pesos. 👆

I'm a Sentry fan and I agree that he's a hard character to gauge, but it irks me when somebody will bring up his scuffle with Namor in the horribly written Avengers/Invaders book. Namor appears to have gotten the better of Sentry because he's not shown for a few panels (somewhat typical ploy by writers to take the character out of the picture so the story can progress), but later in another book, the Sentry is somewhat miffed at Namor and Namor cant even muster up a single offensive strike. Not one. The Avengers/Invaders book has Namor doing well against Sentry and Sentry running away from Hammond Torch and its just silly, but people are quick to bring those examples up when theres a debate.

Alright Leon, let's try this in a different way.

Would you admit that she hasn't looked as good since Bendis took over writing Guardians of The Galaxy?

And if yes, would it make sense to have this character who has more appearances than the rest of her other incarnations combined as a different version of this character?

It's not about bogging down a character, it's about all these showings being very much in line with her current depiction. Considering this forum uses the most recent iteration, it would make sense to use this. The way to get rid of this, would be to seperate her from previous incarnations. Something we do all the time. Not in Gamora's case yet though.

Now I understand you don't like attacking the character as opposed to raising your character up. And that's a tricky situation to address. Sometimes it has its place, sometimes it is just shitting on the character. I think in this case, Mr Slashes was just using the "low showings" to show that Gamora is portrayed as lower in comparison to Drax. He wasn't trying to use the low showings to try and say Cyclops could outfight her, he was trying to say they show her being less than Drax.

If you want to avoid this in this specific case, I think you need to look Mr Slashes in his cat eyes and say hey, I want to use this Gamora instead.

Like I said, you could just mash all of Gamora's showings together, but it opens her up to the issues you're facing now. She has a bunch of not great showings and like only 2 feats where she did something against Angela ODINSDOTTIR and Carol but ultimately lost or looked not so good. So yeah, those lesser feats add up.

Same way we have Classic Kingpin, Pre retcon Beyonder etc I guess...

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Same way we have Classic Kingpin, Pre retcon Beyonder etc I guess...

Originally posted by One Big Mob
Alright Leon, let's try this in a different way.

Would you admit that she hasn't looked as good since Bendis took over writing Guardians of The Galaxy?

And if yes, would it make sense to have this character who has more appearances than the rest of her other incarnations combined as a different version of this character?

It's not about bogging down a character, it's about all these showings being very much in line with her current depiction. Considering this forum uses the most recent iteration, it would make sense to use this. The way to get rid of this, would be to seperate her from previous incarnations. Something we do all the time. Not in Gamora's case yet though.

Now I understand you don't like attacking the character as opposed to raising your character up. And that's a tricky situation to address. Sometimes it has its place, sometimes it is just shitting on the character. I think in this case, Mr Slashes was just using the "low showings" to show that Gamora is portrayed as lower in comparison to Drax. He wasn't trying to use the low showings to try and say Cyclops could outfight her, he was trying to say they show her being less than Drax.

If you want to avoid this in this specific case, I think you need to look Mr Slashes in his cat eyes and say hey, I want to use this Gamora instead.

Like I said, you could just mash all of Gamora's showings together, but it opens her up to the issues you're facing now. She has a bunch of not great showings and like only 2 feats where she did something against Angela ODINSDOTTIR and Carol but ultimately lost or looked not so good. So yeah, those lesser feats add up.

following in some big footsteps with the subtle baiting. 👆

anyway, there is actually a place for those types of distinctions to be made in threads, believe it or not. we call it the title box. if someone wants to label a thread a specific way they are free to do so. if they don't you argue a character as they have been shown through their history. hardly a newsflash.

and you have it completely backwards--if there is NO distinction made by the thread starter, mr slashes is in the wrong IF he is trying to pigeon-hole a character into only one specific era. the solution is easy. all he had to say was, 'do you think she's been depicted as well recently?' and i'd have said, 'i don't know. show me all these terrible feats she's amassed and we can discuss it.'

it doesn't take a 10 000 character dissertation, just a question. and if he feels like doing some research, and shows a bunch of terrible, winter soldier type feats then maybe she WOULD warrant something similar to kingpin. if he doesn't feel like doing the research, then we argue as the thread would have us argue.
frankly, i don't think anyone cares enough about her to bother with distinctions and i'd be surprised if there were so many lesser ones that it's clear they should now take precedence over the better ones. but that can be proven by anyone who actually wants to show it and if it was. i'd have no problem labeling them as different versions.

I legitimately don't know why you see my posts as baiting or something completely wrong here. Read what I'm saying with an open mind. If I wanted to bait, there'd be nothing subtle about it as well.

I like Gamora. She's a character connected to many important Thanos stories. And I don't like the way she's been portrayed. It's not consistent with even her earliest portrayals, let alone the massive stat amp she got in Annihilation.

But if you actually need it laid out in full, I'll see what I can cook up either today or tomorrow.

I just noticed OBM sig. I'm laughing at it and I cant stop laughing but I dont know why.

Originally posted by One Big Mob
I legitimately don't know why you see my posts as baiting or something completely wrong here. Read what I'm saying with an open mind. If I wanted to bait, there'd be nothing subtle about it as well.

I like Gamora. She's a character connected to many important Thanos stories. And I don't like the way she's been portrayed. It's not consistent with even her earliest portrayals, let alone the massive stat amp she got in Annihilation.

But if you actually need it laid out in full, I'll see what I can cook up either today or tomorrow.

if you're not baiting i owe you an apology, but....it feels like it at times lately. i'm also not understanding how i'm NOT being open-minded. i'm not going to continue to speak about gamora here though, because there is a thread for that, so if you're going to post some gamora stuff i'd ask you put it in the appropriate thread. and you brought her up. that thread was a PART of the problem, but this issue is reflected in an awful lot of threads.

if i'm confused regarding your point, it's because you haven't really made a clear one. you keep talking about gamora and suggest...creating different versions of her? but i'm talking much more broadly and not all characters can be pigeon-holed that way. i'm not even convinced SHE can... the question really has to do with low balling IN GENERAL and whether low feats should be viewed in the same vein as PIS--or if they ARE PIS and uncountable in either case. most seem to think that yes, low feats SHOULD be discounted, at least if there is a significant number of feats that contradict them. certain characters DO warrant special, individual attention, but i'm not asking about those characters.

slash raised a legit point in this thread when he said that looking at only high feats elevates everyone. but i'm not sure that would be the case tbh. the highest, outlier-style feats would be discounted anyway. the rest of the highs should paint a pretty good and consistent showing. i'd THINK anyway. that's the point of the discussion i guess. to get others' thoughts on the subject.

Originally posted by leonidas
simplifying--someone battles 5 separate heralds for pages and pages, more than holds their own. they show up in some street book and appear to be giving it their all but can't seem to beat the street. too me, that showing should carry little to no weight (again, over simplification, but you get where i'm going, hopefully.)

I dont think flat out banning ignoring such feats is the answer. There needs to be a balanced approach and reason used the same way we apply to most feat analysis.

Context is key and always plays a part.
I mean think about it how often is it more the case of such a showing being a high end for the street character.

Then we have Street characters who operate on that sort of level Terminator for example, definitely a street level character yet he operates comsistantly as a team Buster

Some examples Batman dropping Blockbuster with pressure points.
Bats beating Solomon Grundy
Solomon Grundy vs Wildcat. Ted didn't really do any direct damage he just dodged and let Grundy blunder into a wall and then laid one on him.
I don't think any of these are examples of low showings for the higher powered character but high showings for the street heavily laden with context usually ignored.

yeah, i agree with you in regards to one low being someone else's high, and it does come down to consistent portrayal. bats is one of those characters who does things outside his class so often it's impossible to see most things as pis--though many do have context. logan tends to be another one of those. but yeah when bats holds his own vs ww, that is clearly PIS of the highest caliber.

i don't think anyone would argue that bats can hold his own in straight h2h against someone like aquaman, even though he matched ww and grundy and whoever. it's when someone argues against aquaman because bats held his own against him that the problems arise. THAT kind of thing needs to be eliminated imo.

odin, oddly enough, is often a character who is low balled consistently. it's happened to galactus on several occasions i can remember too. honestly, it's hard to use averages in the forum, though i was a big proponent once upon a time. most don't read enough to SEE an average, and rely on the handful of feats they see here to decide. and to determine an average, we see loads of low feats often to skew that average, even though a character may tend to be pretty regularly portrayed well beyond the lows. the lows paint a biased picture. using just highs CAN do the same, but since we use characters at THEIR BEST, it seems much better to err on the higher side (with the exception of the stupidly high of course).

Without thoroughly reading all the replies, I want to throw something into the mix. Seems pertinent with all the Gamora talk. Sometimes, characters do undergo permanent downgrades(or upgrades) that aren't explicitly mentioned in-universe.

Are these low showings, or simply the new status quo? Is it fair to reference old, higher feats when it's clear a character is no longer at that level?

Originally posted by leonidas

your irreconcilable problem is the thread said GAMORA. not POST ANNHILATION gamora, or any other form of her. you don't like the character, obviously, but afaik, your not liking her doesn't discount her more classic feats, unless you know something i don't. focusing on these more recent showings only (like when she beat down carol)

Originally posted by StyleTime
Without thoroughly reading all the replies, I want to throw something into the mix. Seems pertinent with all the Gamora talk. Sometimes, characters do undergo permanent downgrades(or upgrades) that aren't explicitly mentioned in-universe.

Are these low showings, or simply the new status quo? Is it fair to reference old, higher feats when it's clear a character is no longer at that level?

Context and consistency come in to play here. If a character is somehow downgraded without it being mentioned in or out of universe, then they need to be written consistently at this new level for it to become the status quo.

Classic Kingpin
Byrne Superman

On the other hand, characters like the Hulk are all over the place.

For example. Gray Hulk is 'traditionally' seen as one of the weaker incarnations of the Hulk. Yet, he has feats better than a lot of the other Hulks (e.g his asteroid feat, unless we want to nitpick it). Do I take his strongest Gray feat, then extrapolate? That makes WWH the second most powerful Hulk.....but he was affected by attacks other 'weaker' Hulk's shrugged off. That kinda thing.

Doomsday is another. DoS is the 'weakest'. Then he has feats like the Guardian feat, Calaton, faster than Flash etc etc.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Classic Kingpin
Byrne Superman

On the other hand, characters like the Hulk are all over the place.

For example. Gray Hulk is 'traditionally' seen as one of the weaker incarnations of the Hulk. Yet, he has feats better than a lot of the other Hulks (e.g his asteroid feat, unless we want to nitpick it). Do I take his strongest Gray feat, then extrapolate? That makes WWH the second most powerful Hulk.....but he was affected by attacks other 'weaker' Hulk's shrugged off. That kinda thing.

Doomsday is another. DoS is the 'weakest'. Then he has feats like the Guardian feat, Calaton, faster than Flash etc etc.

Superman at least had it explicitly stated outside the comics that he was downgraded, though people took that and ran with it to a ridiculous extent.

With Hulk, and the dynamism of his powers, finding that average is even more important. I'm not saying it's easy, but I do believe it can be done.

Doomsday... Doomsday suffers from the forum myth that because he fought the "weakest" Superman, and a not-elite Justice League, that he's not that special. If you take his feats all together, he's not the weakest Doomsday at all. He's second only to Hunter Prey, I would argue. it follows to Superman too. Because he's the weakest, they assume he's also weak, when he isn't. They're not the same thing. Byrne Superman has feats that heralds today would look impressive doing.

It's just another forum myth that needs to **** off and die.

I consider general character ability/profile + story context (writer intent) to determine if the low-end -- or high-end -- feat is legit or PIS.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Carol mollywhopped Gamora. You talking about something else?

well, i wouldn't say mollywhopped (though i love that word) but carol would probably have won that fight though she was having trouble keeping gamora down. gamora did get in some really good shots though. the gamora talk was starting to get irritating however so i may have oversold it. 👆 gotg 13 for anyone who wants to check it out.

and again, that's not what the thread is about. if a character can definitively be shown to be less than they were then of course distinct 'eras' of a character can be introduced or referenced in threads--as they always have been. problem is no one has proven she HAS been 'downgraded' beyond showing a couple random lower feats. this is more about the use of low feats, and their use in vs threads in general...

Originally posted by -Pr-
Superman at least had it explicitly stated outside the comics that he was downgraded, though people took that and ran with it to a ridiculous extent.

With Hulk, and the dynamism of his powers, finding that average is even more important. I'm not saying it's easy, but I do believe it can be done.

Doomsday... Doomsday suffers from the forum myth that because he fought the "weakest" Superman, and a not-elite Justice League, that he's not that special. If you take his feats all together, he's not the weakest Doomsday at all. He's second only to Hunter Prey, I would argue. it follows to Superman too. Because he's the weakest, they assume he's also weak, when he isn't. They're not the same thing. Byrne Superman has feats that heralds today would look impressive doing.

It's just another forum myth that needs to **** off and die.

In the case of Superman, the depowering was done to a ridiculous extent in the comics themselves.

Not by Byrne, either. The worst offender was Marv Wolfman, who wrote the most pathetic Superman ever.

I mean, just look at him struggle with Teen Titans villains.

It's said Byrne could be kind of a jerk, so wouldn't surprise me if Wolfman went overboard on purpose. "Ok jerk, you want weaker, I'll do weaker."