Hancock/Mary vs Namek/Faora

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander

Not only that, it K.Oed him.

3:50. He gets shot, gets back up, then destroys the jets.

He wasn't KO'd. 👇

Originally posted by NemeBro
Better feats like what my friend?

Stopping the train with about as much trouble as farting (train scene)

Walking through .50 caliber heavy machine gun fire as if on a Sunday stroll (bank robbery)

Casually deflecting an RPG with one hand (bank robbery)

Flying so fast he's barely visible to the human eye (Bank robbery)

Flying to the moon, painting a giant heart logo on it and flying back in less than a day (end scene)

Jizzing so hard it shoots through the roof of his trailer (deleted scene director's cut)

But my main reason as to why Mr and Mrs Hancock win after a long hard match is the mask exploitation. Suits are tough, but enough super-punches and they'll fail in time.

Originally posted by NemeBro
YouTube video

3:50. He gets shot, gets back up, then destroys the jets.

He wasn't KO'd. 👇

^ Josh, Namek wasn't KO'd, stop being a silly ass and win debates by showing why your favored is better, not by trying to lowball the opposition 👆

Originally posted by FrothByte
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?

Regardless of where you're throwing it gravity is constantly working to keep the object down.

Nam-ek's throw had both significant horizontal and vertical distance. He had to overpower gravity's hold on the locomotive to throw it as high as he did, and to keep it flying as far as he needed it to.

Let me put it this way: if the weights were equal there would be no question. Nam-ek's feat would be laughably superior to Hancock's. It is only the superior weight of what Hancock stopped that makes this a discussion at all.

And frankly, you don't actually know how strong Hancock or Nam-ek would have to be to accomplish their feats. 👆

I don't remember the calc you'd need to calculate Nam-ek or Hancock's feats, and neither do you, if you ever saw it.

But arguing that the sheer mechanics of the feats, i.e. stopping something versus throwing it a great distance, is stupidity, as I'll illustrate to you in a moment.

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.

Dead cold without budging an inch? Maybe not, but frankly you're assuming here that Hancock didn't move an inch. He actually was embedded into the train and disappeared entirely inside of it.

http://freegifmaker.me/images/2dRc3/

We don't actually see if Hancock budged a little or not at all. It is an assumption on your part. Given how the train continues to lurch forward before coming to a stop implies the opposite IMO actually.

Furthermore, maybe you haven't, but that's because under human limits there just isn't enough friction to keep them from at least moving, if just a little. Hancock can dig his feet into the concrete and steel to keep his feet planted to assist in the feat (this doesn't lower the strength required, it just makes it physically possible). Furthermore, he can fly by will, which provides another means of negating the train's inertia.

It is also a bit of a false equivalency for other reasons. A linebacker is a living thing, and can change the direction of where he's applying his force at will, and is constantly trying to apply pressure during the play. By contrast, the train Hancock stopped was going in a single direction, and once initially stopped mechanically could go no further.

But more to the point, you say you can't think of a time a 250 pound linebacker was stopped cold, right?

But can you think of times when they were almost stopped cold? Not without budging at all, but held at bay or pushed back?

How many times can you think of someone picking up a fifty pound weight and throwing it hundreds of meters away in an arc that took it over several buildings?

The world record for throwing a mere baseball is about 435 feet, which is less distance than what Nam-ek accomplished with the train.

Essentially, what I am saying is this: the mechanics of stopping something are demonstrably less strenuous than throwing it. The weights a human being can stop under muscle power are far greater than what they can throw with any distance.

You bring up stopping a 250 pound quarterback and then ask if stopping him is harder than throwing a 50 pound kid into the air.

But the real question is what is harder? Stopping the quarterback, or throwing a quarterback a mile and a half away and a couple hundred or so feet into the air?

Because the latter is the mechanic of what Nam-ek did. It isn't as simple as pushing/stopping vs. throwing. It's pushing/stopping (more complicated than that admittedly, which you covered in your next point) versus throwing the exact height and distance Nam-ek did, because it increases the required strength exponentially.

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.

Probably the best point you've made thus far, which is that the speed affects the strength required as well.

How strong do you think Hancock would have to be to perform his feat? Now Nam-ek?

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%.

I haven't seen the film in a while, but as I recall Hancock didn't spend all that much time with Mary in the film. Mostly spent it with her husband (haha gay).

Originally posted by FrothByte
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.

I didn’t say 50lbs I said 250lbs to pick up and throw.

The notion that it is harder to stop a 250 pound man running at you than it is to throw him any notable distance is honestly particularly hilarious. Like whew lad.

Originally posted by FrothByte
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.

Go find 250lbs rock lying on the floor, pick it up and throw it and tell me how far it went.

Originally posted by FrothByte
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?

This is so flawed, why is the thing you have to throw 150lbs lighter?😂

I assume FB's weight difference is to signify that while Namek tossed a train engine, Hancock stop a train engine and a mile's worth of train cars attached to it.

And from what is seen, it does seem like Hancock stopped the train effortlessly dead in it's tracks:

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
This is so flawed, why is the thing you have to throw 150lbs lighter?😂

Because only an idiot would think that a single locomotive is just as heavy as a locomotive combined with more than a dozen train cars.

Originally posted by NemeBro
YouTube video

3:50. He gets shot, gets back up, then destroys the jets.

He wasn't KO'd. 👇

The train didn't even moved Hancock. The bullets threw Namek several meters.

Clearly Hancock is superior by far.

....Namek was on the ground for more than 10 seconds... That's a tecnical knockout in boxing.

Either way, Namek was stunned.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Josh, Namek wasn't KO'd, stop being a silly ass and win debates by showing why your favored is better, not by trying to lowball the opposition 👆

.............

You clearly underestimate the Tribunal Rob.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Because only an idiot would think that a single locomotive is just as heavy as a locomotive combined with more than a dozen train cars.

You just don’t get it. It’s easier to stop something moving then it is to pock it up and throw it.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
You just don’t get it. It’s easier to stop something moving then it is to pock it up and throw it.

You don't know much about physics do you? When something crashes against you, it's its mass AND acceleration that you need to counter. When you pick up something that's stationary, it is only the mass that you need to deal with.

You don't know that much about trains derailing. Just because he stopped the first car doesn't mean he stopped the rest, hence while they piled up.

https://www.quora.com/How-much-force-will-Hancock-need-to-use-to-stop-a-freight-train-dead-in-its-tracks-Or-how-much-would-an-object-have-to-weigh-to-do-the-same

Not my math but those seem to come from a pair of engineers, so I’m assuming they know what they’re saying. /shrug

Originally posted by Nibedicus
https://www.quora.com/How-much-force-will-Hancock-need-to-use-to-stop-a-freight-train-dead-in-its-tracks-Or-how-much-would-an-object-have-to-weigh-to-do-the-same

Not my math but those seem to come from a pair of engineers, so I’m assuming they know what they’re saying. /shrug

I remember I had to do a physics project about that specific scene a couple of years ago.

Yes, the feat is INSANE.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
https://www.quora.com/How-much-force-will-Hancock-need-to-use-to-stop-a-freight-train-dead-in-its-tracks-Or-how-much-would-an-object-have-to-weigh-to-do-the-same

Not my math but those seem to come from a pair of engineers, so I’m assuming they know what they’re saying. /shrug

If they all stopped at once sure, but he didn’t stop all them at once he stopped the first car the rest piled it and stopped because of the crash.

Well, like I said. They’re engineers (one is an aerospace one), so I’m assuming they would know the physics behind the whole thing. Also looked around to see if there are other calcs out there that contradict their numbers, but so far everyone seems to be more or less using the same equation.