I just watched the fight twice, which exactly are you referring to? While Superman is on the ground?
So she rolls Kal over with her foot, Namek charges and it looks like he hit him in the face in the first one and it kinda push drags them both forward.
And then Namek punches straight down hitting Clark in the chest, you can tell it is the chest because his body goes down and his head shoots up because your neck bends.
Depending on which one y'all are referring to you could both be right
Originally posted by h1a8
No he was punched in the face. It is clearly shown. Tell you what. Post an image of Superman getting punched in the chest so all of us can see. That would settle it. Do you agree?I said WW headbutts harder. Stop trolling me ok.
We see both headbutt in the movies. WWs headbutt appears visibly more powerful than Thanos.
WW headbutt is significantly faster and results in a shockwave that causes Superman eyes to close for a good moment.
If I prove that Namek punched Superman in the chest and not in the face as you claim, will you admit that you have zero credibility when it comes to interpreting movie scenes? Because you can clearly see that it wasn't a punch to the face. To claim otherwise means you're either blind or completely dishonest.
So put your money where you mouth is. If I prove that it wasn't a punch to the face as you claim, will you make a public announcement here that you do not make credible statements?
As for WW's headbutt looking more visibly powerful, it can very easily be the result of Superman being less durable than Carol. Therefore if you want to claim that she headbutts stronger than Thanos, you actually need to prove that she hits harder than Thanos without using that particular feat.
Originally posted by ShadowFyre
I just watched the fight twice, which exactly are you referring to? While Superman is on the ground?So she rolls Kal over with her foot, Namek charges and it looks like he hit him in the face in the first one and it kinda push drags them both forward.
And then Namek punches straight down hitting Clark in the chest, you can tell it is the chest because his body goes down and his head shoots up because your neck bends.
Depending on which one y'all are referring to you could both be right
It's the 2nd one which he is specifically referring to (he even gives a timestamp for it).
Originally posted by h1a8
check 2:59
The first one isn't a punch, it's just Namek grabbing Superman by the face/neck and dragging/pushing him forward
Most certainly in the chest because his head went up and his body down. If it was vice versa it would have pushed his head down and the rest of his body would have risen up.
Pretty standard physics, but we all know H1 deals with a much more complicated and highly advanced form that us mere mortals can only pretend to understand.
Originally posted by h1a8
Clark head snaps back after the impact.
Also Zod has struck Clark in the face multiple times and he is stronger than Thanos.
WW headbutt harder from what we visually see.
Do you accept my challenge or not? If I show you a screenshot that proves it was a chest punch, will you publicly admit that your assessment of feats is not credible?
Originally posted by FrothByte
Do you accept my challenge or not? If I show you a screenshot that proves it was a chest punch, will you publicly admit that your assessment of feats is not credible?
I don't gamble, especially when I'm the only one with something to lose and nothing to gain.
Assuming a chest strike, the hit to the chest did absolutely nothing. Also Zod hit Superman in the face multiple times. Zod is a peer to Superman in strength (if not stronger).
Originally posted by h1a8
I don't gamble, especially when I'm the only one with something to lose and nothing to gain.Assuming a chest strike, the hit to the chest did absolutely nothing. Also Zod hit Superman in the face multiple times. Zod is a peer to Superman in strength (if not stronger).
Except you're so sure it was a punch to the face, so if you were really that sure then it wouldn't be a gamble would it?
But sure, I'll be fair. If I can't produce any proof that it wasn't a punch to the face, I will publicly admit that I am not credible. As long as if I do produce proof, then you admit you are not credible. This way we both have something to lose. Deal? Or are you now second-guessing your stance and are unwilling to put your money where you mouth is?