Superman Vs Tyrant

Originally posted by Stoic
So you're saying that it was PIS that Gladiator lost to Tyrant, despite Tyrant's cosmic awareness, and other abilities that you may or may not be acknowledging?

Either way, the characters that are able to move super fast are hit all too often to discount for the fact that they do get hit regularly. Perhaps the idea of them being hit is due to the fact that they lack precognitive abilities. or some of the characters that hit them are fast enough or powerful enough to light up the entire area that they are in.

You ever think to consider that perhaps a character capable of putting out enough power to destroy large planets, may be able to make a direct hit without actually being all that close to the speedster in question?

Is it at all possible that you're only looking at one characters abilities while casting a blind eye to the others abilities?

I agree with the main thrust of this argument. I would probably be willing to follow 'board rules' if they were actually coherent. I might then just view it as a kind of artificial sport based loosely on comics. But one cannot actually follow the rules and logic at the same time.

As Stoic implies, what then about all the negative evidence? Why do the few times that Superman has blitzed an opponent successfully outweigh all the times that he hasn't, particularly when the fate of the world or universe has been at stake? If the comics have clearly stated and implied that someone like Surfer can basically anything, then why do we only credit him with specific powers if he has at some point shown them? Ten scans saying he can do just about anything don't matter--all that matters is that in say 1962 he was once shown to use TP or something?

Also, the idea that just because we get rid of silly concepts like PIS means that we cannot argue our point is wrongheaded. We may not be able to prove our points as decisively as one can in the hard sciences, but we can still argue a point based on the patterns seen in the comics. They are not random. Just like we can argue about what constitutes a 'civilization' in history, or why the Roman Empire fell, or what constitutes an immoral or moral act, without being able to prove it mathematically.

Originally posted by Stoic
So you're saying that it was PIS that Gladiator lost to Tyrant, despite Tyrant's cosmic awareness, and other abilities that you may or may not be acknowledging?

Either way, the characters that are able to move super fast are hit all too often to discount for the fact that they do get hit regularly. Perhaps the idea of them being hit is due to the fact that they lack precognitive abilities. or some of the characters that hit them are fast enough or powerful enough to light up the entire area that they are in.

You ever think to consider that perhaps a character capable of putting out enough power to destroy large planets, may be able to make a direct hit without actually being all that close to the speedster in question?

Is it at all possible that you're only looking at one characters abilities while casting a blind eye to the others abilities?

Let's see. Gladiator gets distracted by Tyrant from HV being overpowered and was hit when he wasn't fully recovered. Then got BRB hit into him for another distraction. I don't see PIS there. Basically Gladiator tried to use HV against Tyrant instead of h2h.

But the forum rules are clear
1. Fight to the best of ability
2. Although flash doesn't will clock everyone in the first millisecond in a comic, he will here in a forum.

Originally posted by Pillow Biter
I agree with the main thrust of this argument. I would probably be willing to follow 'board rules' if they were actually coherent. I might then just view it as a kind of artificial sport based loosely on comics. But one cannot actually follow the rules and logic at the same time.

As Stoic implies, what then about all the negative evidence? Why do the few times that Superman has blitzed an opponent successfully outweigh all the times that he hasn't, particularly when the fate of the world or universe has been at stake? If the comics have clearly stated and implied that someone like Surfer can basically anything, then why do we only credit him with specific powers if he has at some point shown them? Ten scans saying he can do just about anything don't matter--all that matters is that in say 1962 he was once shown to use TP or something?

Also, the idea that just because we get rid of silly concepts like PIS means that we cannot argue our point is wrongheaded. We may not be able to prove our points as decisively as one can in the hard sciences, but we can still argue a point based on the patterns seen in the comics. They are not random. Just like we can argue about what constitutes a 'civilization' in history, or why the Roman Empire fell, or what constitutes an immoral or moral act, without being able to prove it mathematically.

1. Writer's write characters without specific abilities at times to fit the plot. Superman or WW or Spider-Man getting tagged by something moving slower than a bullet simply means that the characters didn't have the reflex speed to avoid getting hit in that particular scene. Otherwise they would have. Every enemy can't be fast. Therefore it is normal to ignore the fact that a character has superspeedin some scenes in order to have adversity. Superman and Flash could literally beat any non fast enemy by doing the Metro Man. That would lead to boring comics.

2. Characters fight to the best of their ability. What does that mean to you?