Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Hancock and Mary stomp as long as they are far away from each other.Should they be close, their power drains and the Kryptonians have a chance.
It takes weeks if not months of them being in close proximity for their powers to start to drain. So for the purpose of the fight they're both at 100%.
Originally posted by KingD19
It takes weeks if not months of them being in close proximity for their powers to start to drain. So for the purpose of the fight they're both at 100%.
The last time I saw hancock y was 3 years younger! 😂
Kryptonians lose definitely. The angels are too strong and durable.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The last time I saw hancock y was 3 years younger! 😂Kryptonians lose definitely. The angels are too strong and durable.
https://gfycat.com/LimitedCostlyLangur
Hancock's train feat is pretty all right, but Clark can derail a train by punching Namek hundreds of meters away into it. And Namek's strength is approximate to Clark's.
Oh, and though the weight Namek was handling in throwing the train car is lesser than Hancock's, it requires considerably more strength to throw something than to stop or push it.
Not when the thing you're stopping is a freight train with dozens of cars all adding their weight to it as a whole. And Hancock casually threw a whale far further than Namek threw his train car.
Mary also one-hand lifted a cement truck and then one-hand slammed it on Hancock's head. Also extremely casually.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
And? Its easy to stop something, its a lot harder to pick it up and throw it.
Not when the weight of the object being stopped is exponentially heavier than the object being thrown.
Would it be easier to stop a charging bull elephant without budging? Or to pick up and throw a dresser? Both are heavy, but one is a lot heavier and moving at you at a high speed, both of which add weight, momentum and force acting against you. Instead of just picking up dead weight over your head and throwing it.
A train is different, if the first object stops, the rest just derails and piles up behind it as was shown. He didn't stop the whole train, he stopped the locomotive and the rest derailed. The feat is constantly over exaggerated. All the force of those other cars wasn't stopped hence why there was a huge pile up in the back.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Forget the kid, it would be easier to stop a 250lbs person from moving forward, then to pick up and throw a 250lbs person.
Those weights are the same. The weight of Hancocks' train and Namek's is different. Hancocks' is muuuuch higher.
Also that's Bullshit. You might not throw them far if you're strong enough to even get them over your head, but you cam at least throw them. But if you think you can stop a 250lb guy running full speed at you with a slight lean in like Hancock, you're just wrong.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Forget the kid, it would be easier to stop a 250lbs person from moving forward, then to pick up and throw a 250lbs person.
First of all, the mass of a single locomotive isn't equivalent to the mass of a locomotive w/ a whole bunch of train cars behind it. So you're already off. But even if their weight was equal you'd still be wrong.
It's actually harder to stop a 250 lb man who tries to tackle you at full speed (without budging an inch) than it is to pick him up and throw him. Think about it: I can easily pick up a 50 pound dumbbell and throw it a good ways away. But I won't be able to just stand there and not move an inch if a 50 pound dumbbell is thrown at me at 200 km/h.
Originally posted by FrothByteDepends on how far you're throwing the kid.
So you're saying it's harder to pick up a 50 pound kid and throw him above your head than it is to stop a 250 pound linebacker from tackling you without budging an inch?
If you're throwing him, say, thirty feet? Then yes, absolutely.
The dude who plays the Mountain in Game of Thrones has the world record for the keg toss, where you throw a keg over a bar. He threw the keg over one that was 7.15 meters high. How heavy was the keg? 15 kilograms. A mere 33 pounds.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJIpdW1g594/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again
Men weaker than Bjornnson have it as their job to stop 250 pound linebackers.
Yet they can't throw 33 pounds a mere 23ish feet into the air over a bar.
Weird right? It's almost like the distance traveled heavily affects the amount of strength required. Huh.
Originally posted by NemeBro
https://gfycat.com/LimitedCostlyLangurHancock's train feat is pretty all right, but Clark can derail a train by punching Namek hundreds of meters away into it. And Namek's strength is approximate to Clark's.
Oh, and though the weight Namek was handling in throwing the train car is lesser than Hancock's, it requires considerably more strength to throw something than to stop or push it.
A thunderbolt 2 bullet was able to send Namek flying away several meters.
Not only that, it K.Oed him.
A full speed train 》a bullet.
Originally posted by FrothByteThat's because your body is too fragile to withstand the force. It would shatter bones on impact and is likely to kill you.
First of all, the mass of a single locomotive isn't equivalent to the mass of a locomotive w/ a whole bunch of train cars behind it. So you're already off. But even if their weight was equal you'd still be wrong.It's actually harder to stop a 250 lb man who tries to tackle you at full speed (without budging an inch) than it is to pick him up and throw him. Think about it: I can easily pick up a 50 pound dumbbell and throw it a good ways away. But I won't be able to just stand there and not move an inch if a 50 pound dumbbell is thrown at me at 200 km/h.
This is also a false equivalency. You could throw a 50 pound dumbell, but not far nor quickly.
Nam-ek tossed a locomotive hundreds of meters at high speeds. It's not like he just lifted it and shunted it a few feet, which is all you could do with a dumbell.
To use Bjornnson again, here he throws a 56 pound dumbell 19 feet in the air:
And at a speed not nearly matching 200 km/h.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Depends on how far you're throwing the kid.If you're throwing him, say, thirty feet? Then yes, absolutely.
The dude who plays the Mountain in Game of Thrones has the world record for the keg toss, where you throw a keg over a bar. He threw the keg over one that was 7.15 meters high. How heavy was the keg? 15 kilograms. A mere 33 pounds.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJIpdW1g594/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again
Men weaker than Bjornnson have it as their job to stop 250 pound linebackers.
Yet they can't throw 33 pounds a mere 23ish feet into the air over a bar.
Weird right? It's almost like the distance traveled heavily affects the amount of strength required. Huh.
You do realize that throwing something upwards, against gravity, is obviously going to be more difficult than throwing something sideways or at an arc right?
And no, I have yet to see any man stop a linebacker dead cold in the middle of a direct tackle without budging an inch.
Obviously the more you increase the distance of the throw the more strength you need, but then if you want to play that game I can easily also just increase the velocity of the running linebacker. Say a linebacker hurled at you at 100 km/h is definitely going to be harder to stop without moving an inch than it would be to throw a kid 30 feet away.