Thor vs. Aquaman in the arm-wrestling competition.

@Philo I mean the sledgehammer is designed to focus the force you give it like any tool.

It is still you supplying the power though. If you're swinging a hammer strong enough to shatter nearby moons and planets then you would have to be pretty fing strong yourself.

Also @Philo in comics we have examples of characters being much more durable then they are strong. This is pretty common. Look at Luke Cage for an example of someone who durability power is much more powerful then his super strength power.

Also I don't know what you mean by falling on you @Philo. Technically strength isn't going to keep the car from falling on you either. :/ It's still going to drop on you and hit you.

I think your scenario was botched from the beginning. The better be if you and the car started on the platform and you bent down and started acting like you were lifting the car but it was really the platform doing it. Or better yet you are attached to a crane and you're holding the car as the crane lifts you up. As long as your arms and body don't break you'll be fine and the car will be lifted.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Put it this way.

We know Barry/Wally can keep up with Superman. Their engine thrust is the same.

So can Barry and Wally perform the same lifting feats as Superman?

I know Superman feats are strength feats because that is their intention.

As for the Flashes they don't have the advantage flight to be able to create leverage on the object from any angle they want. So would they be able to use speed to the equivalent of flight. You could probably argue they could generate enough force to replicate feats of Superman as long as they are doing so in a horizontal direction to the ground. But once again it's moot to the main point.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would argue that specifically asking for feats like that is the same as asking for lifting feats of Superman where his flight was turned off.

The character in general is rarely going to be in such a scenario. For the majority of Thor's appearances he is going to have Mjlonir and is going to use it hit people with. It is part of character mythos. The scenarios where he won't do this are going to be few and far between. So yes I do see asking for such things as a nitpick based on the character and their history.

Once again the point of the flight argument is just to point out the absurdity of asking for something that is barely going to exist and then ignoring the bulk of someone's examples because it isn't clean.

The point is that just like people want to argue how much of Thor's striking feats is his strength vs the hammer you could in turn call into question how much of Superman's lifting feats are him versus his ability to fly.

It's kind of pointless given what the intention of writers are when showing these types of actions.

Writer's don't go in showing Thor unleash his full powered strikes to show off the hammer. They do it to show Thor's power.

Just like writer's making scenes of Superman lifting heavy things aren't trying to show his super flight powers. They are trying to show off Supe's power.

No it is not. You asking for examples of Superman lifting things without his flight powers is a faulty comparison. For one, you have to only use Byrne's interpretation of how his powers work. You're throwing around "writer intent" to argue that Thor is hitting as hard with Mjolnir as without, but only Byrne to my knowledge ever used Superman's flight the way you're trying to shoehorn in a justification.

Furthermore, even if we accept Byrne's interpretation as the be all end all, it's still a faulty comparison. You'd have to prove Superman was using his flight power to help him lift something while on the ground. We can clearly see Thor is striking someone with Mjolnir, because he's hitting them with Mjolnir. Your analogy is actually the absurd one to be honest. Even with the "prove he wasn't using flight" thing it falls apart without using one single interpretation of his powers. I guess you won't protest me posting old comics of Thor potentially being killed from multi story falls as the norm and say USAgent beats him to death?

I also noticed that you failed to address that it can still be argued Superman would have to have the strength to keep his arms out on impact for those who argue him flying at someone doesn't count.

You keep saying writer's intent. But what's this based off? I'm sure there's some examples, but enough for you to argue every writer? Or even in general? Not trying to be a dick but I suppose you will do that given you're trying to argue only one interpretation of Superman's powers to make your comparison about nitpicking.

Originally posted by Newjak
@Philo I mean unless you are incredibly weak you could kill someone with power of your punch just like you could kill someone with a sledgehammer.

The sledgehammer makes it easier but once again you're not picking up a sledgehammer and shattering planets either lol.

Also in this scenario the ability to resist not being crushed by the car would be durability not strength but nice try I guess Philo.

I guess Superman is just super durable and has good flight powers but is really weak

While it is possible to kill someone with punches, are you really comparing even your strongest punch to being only modestly harder hitting than a longer swing with a harder surface and more mass? Are you seriously arguing what I think you are?

EDIT: Now I saw your response to Phildo. It's more than just focusing the impact. Harder surface to focus. Longer swing. More mass. Yes you need the strength to drive the sledgehammer but are you trying to argue you hit just as hard, or at least almost as hard, with the hammer as your fist? If so.....the best I can come up with that's nice is this is trying to explain to someone who is convinced 2+2 does not equal 4 that it equals 4(which..... actually is something going on with the Internet).

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Normal striking? Why r u talking about normal striking? Why are you using that word?

I should have said punches. I think I wrote it the way I did because I was thinking of normal strikes with Mjolnir (not charged with lightning or anything special) compared to his punches. I am assuming you aren't going to argue a charged strikes should count for his strength.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Put it this way.

We know Barry/Wally can keep up with Superman. Their engine thrust is the same.

So can Barry and Wally perform the same lifting feats as Superman?

I get the gist of what you're arguing, but given Speed Force shenanigans, maybe there is some example like this. I'm pretty sure I have seen Wally (as Kid Flash) lifting stuff that he shouldn't be able to lift, but certainly not on the same scale as Superman. Maybe compare Quicksilver and Spider-Man? Not sure if it's better but throwing something out.

Originally posted by Delta1938
No it is not. You asking for examples of Superman lifting things without his flight powers is a faulty comparison. For one, you have to only use Byrne's interpretation of how his powers work. You're throwing around "writer intent" to argue that Thor is hitting as hard with Mjolnir as without, but only Byrne to my knowledge ever used Superman's flight the way you're trying to shoehorn in a justification.

Furthermore, even if we accept Byrne's interpretation as the be all end all, it's still a faulty comparison. You'd have to prove Superman was using his flight power to help him lift something while on the ground. We can clearly see Thor is striking someone with Mjolnir, because he's hitting them with Mjolnir. Your analogy is actually the absurd one to be honest. Even with the "prove he wasn't using flight" thing it falls apart without using one single interpretation of his powers. I guess you won't protest me posting old comics of Thor potentially being killed from multi story falls as the norm and say USAgent beats him to death?

I also noticed that you failed to address that it can still be argued Superman would have to have the strength to keep his arms out on impact for those who argue him flying at someone doesn't count.

You keep saying writer's intent. But what's this based off? I'm sure there's some examples, but enough for you to argue every writer? Or even in general? Not trying to be a dick but I suppose you will do that given you're trying to argue only one interpretation of Superman's powers to make your comparison about nitpicking.

While it is possible to kill someone with punches, are you really comparing even your strongest punch to being only modestly harder hitting than a longer swing with a harder surface and more mass? Are you seriously arguing what I think you are?

After all would there be a difference from someone using their ability to fly to move their arms in a bicep curl of something heavy vs them just using raw strength? I think it would be along the same lines as using telekinesis on yourself move your body like you had Superstrength.

Also to clarify I don't actually believe this to be the case. Just pointing out it could argued that because we've seen Superman use flight to move things it stands to reason he would potentially be using it to help his lifting feats. It's to point out writer's intention is just as important as the meta knowledge of the character.

Also you're technically trying to use real world physics to say that Thor using a weapon will derive the exact same result as real life. For one physics in comics are screwy. Like when Superman is moving a building and the building doesn't collapse.

Even then say Thor using Mjolnir has the same effect has me wielding a normal hammer. It's still him generating the power behind the blow. The tool is only going to amplify it so much. So we would know there is still a lot of power being generated from Thor himself.

Which is why it surprises that people attempt to negate these feats like he is somehow isn't contributing to the attack 😆

I think it's important to note as well Delta I'm not arguing an single interpretation of Superman's flight power. I didn't even bring up Byrne era Superman.

When I say writer's intention I simply mean what the writer is trying to convey in a scene. For instance we see Superman lifting a heavy object we know it's supposed to be strength based not him using his flight. That level of understanding should be applied to all characters though.

Just like when a writer shows Thor striking something with his hammer to break it we know it's supposed to be a showcase of Thor's power not the power the hammer.

Oh no I mean without lending it speed or any speed force tricks.

Literally standing behind a train, a plane, a giant statue, a mountain, an asteroid ,a planet ,with a nice track for him to run on. And then push, arms outstretched. No other tricks, just moving his legs.

If we want, we can give him a running start.

Originally posted by Delta1938
I should have said punches. I think I wrote it the way I did because I was thinking of normal strikes with Mjolnir (not charged with lightning or anything special) compared to his punches. I am assuming you aren't going to argue a charged strikes should count for his strength.

I get the gist of what you're arguing, but given Speed Force shenanigans, maybe there is some example like this. I'm pretty sure I have seen Wally (as Kid Flash) lifting stuff that he shouldn't be able to lift, but certainly not on the same scale as Superman. Maybe compare Quicksilver and Spider-Man? Not sure if it's better but throwing something out.

It's also why it's hard to gauge Thor's physical strength sometimes. We know he can hold his own against Hulk and Hercules but most often he is going to go God of Lightning and Thunder on people.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Oh no I mean without lending it speed or any speed force tricks.

Literally standing behind a train, a plane, a giant statue, a mountain, an asteroid ,a planet ,with a nice track for him to run on. And then push, arms outstretched. No other tricks, just moving his legs.

If we want, we can give him a running start.

Originally posted by Delta1938
I should have said punches. I think I wrote it the way I did because I was thinking of normal strikes with Mjolnir (not charged with lightning or anything special) compared to his punches. I am assuming you aren't going to argue a charged strikes should count for his strength.

At the particular moments where his strikes were causing indirect planetary damage, wr can safely say he is upping his strength output there. Why, because in other parts of the arc or comic, that level of damage was not happening. Its ure run o the mill high end feat.

Originally posted by Delta1938
No it is not. You asking for examples of Superman lifting things without his flight powers is a faulty comparison. For one, you have to only use Byrne's interpretation of how his powers work. You're throwing around "writer intent" to argue that Thor is hitting as hard with Mjolnir as without, but only Byrne to my knowledge ever used Superman's flight the way you're trying to shoehorn in a justification.

Furthermore, even if we accept Byrne's interpretation as the be all end all, it's still a faulty comparison. You'd have to prove Superman was using his flight power to help him lift something while on the ground. We can clearly see Thor is striking someone with Mjolnir, because he's hitting them with Mjolnir. Your analogy is actually the absurd one to be honest. Even with the "prove he wasn't using flight" thing it falls apart without using one single interpretation of his powers. I guess you won't protest me posting old comics of Thor potentially being killed from multi story falls as the norm and say USAgent beats him to death?

I also noticed that you failed to address that it can still be argued Superman would have to have the strength to keep his arms out on impact for those who argue him flying at someone doesn't count.

You keep saying writer's intent. But what's this based off? I'm sure there's some examples, but enough for you to argue every writer? Or even in general? Not trying to be a dick but I suppose you will do that given you're trying to argue only one interpretation of Superman's powers to make your comparison about nitpicking.

While it is possible to kill someone with punches, are you really comparing even your strongest punch to being only modestly harder hitting than a longer swing with a harder surface and more mass? Are you seriously arguing what I think you are?

EDIT: Now I saw your response to Phildo. It's more than just focusing the impact. Harder surface to focus. Longer swing. More mass. Yes you need the strength to drive the sledgehammer but are you trying to argue you hit just as hard, or at least almost as hard, with the hammer as your fist? If so.....the best I can come up with that's nice is this is trying to explain to someone who is convinced 2+2 does not equal 4 that it equals 4(which..... actually is something going on with the Internet).

I just dislike how people want to negate these types of feats to show Thor's strength because he is using a tool. Especially when they will be his most common feats considering the nature of how the character is written.

The point being that it could be argued Superman's flight could be argued to help him with his feats but we don't do that because understand the intention of the feats.

Just like Thor's striking feats are to show his strength. Also once again physics in comics get real wonky lol.

Originally posted by Newjak
@Philo I mean the sledgehammer is designed to focus the force you give it like any tool.

It is still you supplying the power though. If you're swinging a hammer strong enough to shatter nearby moons and planets then you would have to be pretty fing strong yourself.

Also @Philo in comics we have examples of characters being much more durable then they are strong. This is pretty common. Look at Luke Cage for an example of someone who durability power is much more powerful then his super strength power.

Also I don't know what you mean by falling on you @Philo. Technically strength isn't going to keep the car from falling on you either. :/ It's still going to drop on you and hit you.

I think your scenario was botched from the beginning. The better be if you and the car started on the platform and you bent down and started acting like you were lifting the car but it was really the platform doing it. Or better yet you are attached to a crane and you're holding the car as the crane lifts you up. As long as your arms and body don't break you'll be fine and the car will be lifted.

I agree. But that seems like that is the only feat you are referring to (the Gorr feat) for the last few pages. But no other feats come to mind?
Concerning the Gorr fear
The question then becomes can we be 95% sure or better that the writer INTENDED for Thor to use only strength when doing that feat? Could Thor have achieved the same feat if he used an adamantium hammer instead? If so then the feat should accepted as the riter intended. Unless it has been retconned.

Also how do you feel about retcons? Wouldn't a more recent retcon invalidate a feat regardless of what the original writer's intentions were?

For example, the original writers intended on adamantium being broken by certain characters to make the character appear powerful. But a later writer decided to retconned all those instances (secondary adamantium). Wouldn't that invalidate the original feats regardless of what the original writer wanted?

Originally posted by Newjak
First off this weird arm strength argument is counter productive but the simple explanation would be Superman just used his flight powers to move his arms while he is traveling fast if you wanted to go to the conclusion of that statement. Then it would just be a matter of him relying on his durability to get them broken. After there is nothing stating his ability to fly is only limited to him propelling his torso lol.

After all would there be a difference from someone using their ability to fly to move their arms in a bicep curl of something heavy vs them just using raw strength? I think it would be along the same lines as using telekinesis on yourself move your body like you had Superstrength.

Also to clarify I don't actually believe this to be the case. Just pointing out it could argued that because we've seen Superman use flight to move things it stands to reason he would potentially be using it to help his lifting feats. It's to point out writer's intention is just as important as the meta knowledge of the character.

Also you're technically trying to use real world physics to say that Thor using a weapon will derive the exact same result as real life. For one physics in comics are screwy. Like when Superman is moving a building and the building doesn't collapse.

Even then say Thor using Mjolnir has the same effect has me wielding a normal hammer. It's still him generating the power behind the blow. The tool is only going to amplify it so much. So we would know there is still a lot of power being generated from Thor himself.

Which is why it surprises that people attempt to negate these feats like he is somehow isn't contributing to the attack 😆

I think it's important to note as well Delta I'm not arguing an single interpretation of Superman's flight power. I didn't even bring up Byrne era Superman.

When I say writer's intention I simply mean what the writer is trying to convey in a scene. For instance we see Superman lifting a heavy object we know it's supposed to be strength based not him using his flight. That level of understanding should be applied to all characters though.

Just like when a writer shows Thor striking something with his hammer to break it we know it's supposed to be a showcase of Thor's power not the power the hammer.

It's not weird at all. Superman has to have the strength to keep his arms straight when impacting who he is flying at. Otherwise they'd "collapse" on impact and his head or shoulder would ram into them. You arguing he uses his flight to keep them straight is literally making something up to justify a point you can't counter.

I know you said you don't believe this to be the case. But your argument is bad. And you keep defending it.

Yeah some suspension of disbelief is required, but you're using buildings not collapsing to argue Thor hitting with Mjolnir counts without a doubt the same as his own striking without Mjolnir. You do this AFTER I pointed out how ridiculous your argument for getting punched compared to hit with a sledgehammer is. You yourself argued real world physics that you can kill with punches. Which is true(actually there's more murders by people being beaten to death than killed by all riffles in the U.S.), but it's not what you tried to argue. Or seemed to argue.

The only interpretation of Superman's powers that supports the arguments you've made and defended is Byrne, at least for a major writer I'm aware of. You're either doing that or you're just making up how his flight works to suit your case. Every argument you've made to try and counter my points needs you to assume that's how his flight works.

I think I know what you're trying to argue now, but it's still bad. I'm certainly not arguing if Thor had normal human strength he'd still be doing those feats with Mjolnir. But your argument is like someone hitting a record breaking distance with a metal bat and arguing he still could throw the ball the same distance on his own. Which is not good to say the least. It's not nitpicking to refuse to accept his feats with Mjolnir for as strong as he actually is.

EDIT: Saw your response to my edit, everything I've said still applies.

Originally posted by Newjak
I would say a lightning charged strike is a visual intention of the writer showing Thor is using more then just his strength in said attack.

It's also why it's hard to gauge Thor's physical strength sometimes. We know he can hold his own against Hulk and Hercules but most often he is going to go God of Lightning and Thunder on people.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Charged strikes? Thats a whole other ball game. If in an arc he was hitting an extremely durable opponent or object with little to no side effect damage, but all of a sudden later start busting mountains from shockwaves while performing same attack then yeah. Theres a pretty good indication of strength there. Thats essentially what happened in godbomb.

At the particular moments where his strikes were causing indirect planetary damage, wr can safely say he is upping his strength output there. Why, because in other parts of the arc or comic, that level of damage was not happening. Its ure run o the mill high end feat.

To clarify, I don't think either of you two were arguing charged strikes. Whenever Thor's striking is being discussed, I differentiate charged strikes and non charged strikes in my head, and that differentiation probably caused me to unintentionally word my post to Celey the way I did earlier.

Originally posted by Delta1938
It's not weird at all. Superman has to have the strength to keep his arms straight when impacting who he is flying at. Otherwise they'd "collapse" on impact and his head or shoulder would ram into them. You arguing he uses his flight to keep them straight is literally making something up to justify a point you can't counter.

I know you said you don't believe this to be the case. But your argument is bad. And you keep defending it.

Yeah some suspension of disbelief is required, but you're using buildings not collapsing to argue Thor hitting with Mjolnir counts without a doubt the same as his own striking without Mjolnir. You do this AFTER I pointed out how ridiculous your argument for getting punched compared to hit with a sledgehammer is. You yourself argued real world physics that you can kill with punches. Which is true(actually there's more murders by people being beaten to death than killed by all riffles in the U.S.), but it's not what you tried to argue. Or seemed to argue.

The only interpretation of Superman's powers that supports the arguments you've made and defended is Byrne, at least for a major writer I'm aware of. You're either doing that or you're just making up how his flight works to suit your case. Every argument you've made to try and counter my points needs you to assume that's how his flight works.

I think I know what you're trying to argue now, but it's still bad. I'm certainly not arguing if Thor had normal human strength he'd still be doing those feats with Mjolnir. But your argument is like someone hitting a record breaking distance with a metal bat and arguing he still could throw the ball the same distance on his own. Which is not good to say the least. It's not nitpicking to refuse to accept his feats with Mjolnir for as strong as he actually is.

EDIT: Saw your response to my edit, everything I've said still applies.

I never said he would exert the same force with just a normal punch 🙄 That's been the projection of other people. I was simply pointing that trying to negate the usage of these feats to show his strength is asinine given what the intention is with this character and striking people. Asking for equivalent feats where he is just punching is futile and unproductive as well considering most of his epic feats will always feature him swinging his hammer. Especially when you try to deny access to these feats for said character. For instance there are people who feel these feats are just Mjolnir and is the only reason Thor can perform strikes even close to his best striking feats. Not from a normal physics idea but from a magic idea.

The argument itself is not bad. It's the unwillingness to accept the basic premise and tear off into irrelevant details that are. Like for instance how Superman's flight works. The only details that mattered were we've seen him carry things while flying. Therefore what's stopping Superman from using his flight powers to help out with all of his other lifting feats? Technically nothing would. Which is why writer's intention is important.

Also I looked it up. The furthest a baseball has ever been thrown is like 445 feet while the longest hit baseball is 582 ft. So if you want to say Thor supplies roughly 4/5ths of the striking power feat and the 1/5th comes from the hammer I would be okay with that lol. Once again though physics in Comics are weird.

I honestly believe there have probably been writers who wouldn't think there is difference between a Thor Hammer strike and a none Thor hammer strike.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Mjolnir is a separate character doe.

Also,it's Stilt. Hardly the biggest Superman supporter, you know. I know you've been away for a bit ,but you must remember Stilt isn't a Supes boy.....

Stilt hates Thor more than you love Superman. He's basically a Red Lantern.

Originally posted by h1a8
I agree. But that seems like that is the only feat you are referring to (the Gorr feat) for the last few pages. But no other feats come to mind?
Concerning the Gorr fear
The question then becomes can we be 95% sure or better that the writer INTENDED for Thor to use only strength when doing that feat? Could Thor have achieved the same feat if he used an adamantium hammer instead? If so then the feat should accepted as the riter intended. Unless it has been retconned.

Also how do you feel about retcons? Wouldn't a more recent retcon invalidate a feat regardless of what the original writer's intentions were?

For example, the original writers intended on adamantium being broken by certain characters to make the character appear powerful. But a later writer decided to retconned all those instances (secondary adamantium). Wouldn't that invalidate the original feats regardless of what the original writer wanted?

As for retcons. I believe there are two types maybe more. Hard retcons which means a history has been definitely changed for a character.

And soft retcons which are instances that seem different to what a character could do before but doesn't outright negate the previous stories or feats. I think these tend to stem more from writers putting their own spin on said characters while ignoring what came before.

So depending on which version of the retconn is happening would matter to me whether it would invalidate the feat.

For instance if we saw an insane feat from Thor and it was stated in a later comic that Thor was also insanely amped obviously it would negate the feat for what normal Thor could do.

A soft retcon would be like us seeing an insane feat for Superman and then later another lessor feat being stated to be his max by a different writer. I don't think it would negate the earlier feat necessarily.

If this makes sense to you.

Originally posted by abhilegend
And what is this point?

How's arguing Mjolnir can break planets on its own nitpick? It's outright stated.

You're confusing your fanfiction with actual comic proof.

Lol.

Remember when Thor was breaking planets as after-effects of hitting Gorr, and Abhiligend argued it didn't count because something something art. Lol.

Originally posted by Newjak
@Philo I mean the sledgehammer is designed to focus the force you give it like any tool.

It is still you supplying the power though. If you're swinging a hammer strong enough to shatter nearby moons and planets then you would have to be pretty fing strong yourself.

Also @Philo in comics we have examples of characters being much more durable then they are strong. This is pretty common. Look at Luke Cage for an example of someone who durability power is much more powerful then his super strength power.

Also I don't know what you mean by falling on you @Philo. Technically strength isn't going to keep the car from falling on you either. :/ It's still going to drop on you and hit you.

I think your scenario was botched from the beginning. The better be if you and the car started on the platform and you bent down and started acting like you were lifting the car but it was really the platform doing it. Or better yet you are attached to a crane and you're holding the car as the crane lifts you up. As long as your arms and body don't break you'll be fine and the car will be lifted.

If you want, you can ask a 10 year old to punch you in the face.

Then ask him to take a baseball bat and do the same thing.

Thor being capable of destroying a planet with Mjolnir [which as abhi has checkmated you on the previous page, is ALONE described as being capable of destroying a planet] has no bearing on his physical strength being to destroy the planet without it.

Is Thor very strong to be able to hit that hard with the hammer? Of course.
Does that mean that Thor, using his physical strength alone, can replicate what he does with the hammer? Of course not.

No matter the multitude of people trying to explain to you basic 3rd grade physics, you can't seem to grasp simple concepts such as newton's basic laws of physics.

You stay with your hand in the air.

A car is dropped from above, while you're lifted with a platform [i.e. flying].

Do you understand that in order for your arms to stay stretched and not bent inwards, you have to exert physical strength and force equal to the falling car, and the platform itself [i.e. flight] doesn't help you at all.

In fact, my physics illiterate Wratful Dwarf 2.0, do you understand that flight makes the feat even harder to do since you're not only having to meet dead-on with your outstretched arms the speed and mass of the car but also your own velocity which works against you, since it actually increases the strength you have to put in to stop the car?

In essence, Superman using flight to stop things dead-on is even MORE impressive than standing still.

Have you ever been to school, or do I really have to hold your hand through this?

sorry

Originally posted by Newjak
It's the freshest one in my head that meets the criteria for example I am using. That's the main reason I'm using it.

As for retcons. I believe there are two types maybe more. Hard retcons which means a history has been definitely changed for a character.

And soft retcons which are instances that seem different to what a character could do before but doesn't outright negate the previous stories or feats. I think these tend to stem more from writers putting their own spin on said characters while ignoring what came before.

So depending on which version of the retconn is happening would matter to me whether it would invalidate the feat.

For instance if we saw an insane feat from Thor and it was stated in a later comic that Thor was also insanely amped obviously it would negate the feat for what normal Thor could do.

A soft retcon would be like us seeing an insane feat for Superman and then later another lessor feat being stated to be his max by a different writer. I don't think it would negate the earlier feat necessarily.

If this makes sense to you.

I agree. I'm referring to the retcon where Mjolnir was currently written as always being Sentient (before Thor was born) and shown to assist in striking and such. Even the scan abhi posted where Mjolnir alone (not Thor) was stated to be able to destroy worlds like pebbles.

And to your defense. I know you understand that Thor couldn't achieve the feat without Mjolnir (which is not what you are arguing as other people here think). You are saying that is still impressive strength feat even though Thor did it with a hammer. We can all agree there. But the question then becomes what fraction of the damage can we award to Thor's strength alone? Or how many times does Mjolnir amplify Thor's striking vs doing it without a hammer?