Originally posted by FrothByte
Nowhere did I claim that Thor was weaker because he was fat. I said fat Thor was less formidable (and yes, weaker) because he was [b]out of shape.
In none of your articles were you able to prove that a person who's out of shape is just as strong as they would be in their peak physical condition.As for dropping the Thor argument, I'm willing to drop that if you're willing to admit that the Thor Thanos defeated is a far less formidable fighter than the Thor that Hela fought. [/B]
Unless there is a valid reason, in terms of feats, to believe that Fat Thor is less strong than Regular Thor, there is no reason to believe that there is a difference in strength between them.
The fact is that I never claimed that Fat Thor was different in strength to Normal Thor, you did. Your entire case was based on a) Fat Thor being fat and b) Regular Thor being in "peak condition" due to visuals (Thor being all buffy).
I've proved the following:
1. That body fat has little to no correlation with body strength, ergo nullifying your first claim.
2. "Peak condition" is a way too ample term, and based on that alone, you can't prove that it translate into physical strength. A person can run 20miles a day, and be considered to have peak condition, yet he won't lift a 50kg weight! A person can lift a 50kg weight and be considered in peak condition, yet he won't swim 100m without felling tired!
What's worse, peak condition can't be measured by physical appearance alone! As I've already proven that muscle size doesn't translate into pure strength. So, Thor seeming all muscular in his regular form, doesn't mean he is in peak strength.
So, again, if you want to assert that Thor had a strength change, you need to back that up.
I don't need to back that one Thor is as strong as the other, as there is no reason to believe that.
In other aspects, I'm willing to say that Thor wasn't in other aspects as good as his previous version. In terms of strength, no.