Originally posted by RobtardNamek is the tallest krytonian who was in full body armor and his face was covered
Based on fighting skills alone, it breaks down like this:Thor > Superman
Hulk > Doomsday
Thanos > Zod
Namek ? Kurse
Wonder Woman > Valkrie
Faora > Sif
Loki > Aquaman (could change my mind here)
Iron Man > Black Manta
Captain America > Batman
Black Widow > Katana
Originally posted by h1a8
You are saying one character is more skilled than another solely based off who they fought and not how they looked in the fights.
But how do we determine the skill of who they fought?
Again, with who they fought?
And how far down the line do we go? Until we have someone beating multiple fodder (like thugs or random beings)?I'm just asking for your take on skill.
Note: there is no one correct standard. The actual standard is based on opinion.
I consider both the quality of opponents someone has fought as well as the ease with which they defeated them or, if they didn't defeat them, how much of a fight they were able to put up.
It's just a direct comparison.
Batman v Cap
Batman is a composite of the DCEU so he gets feats from Batman v Superman and Justice League and Suicide Squad. In all those movies, he only fought random goons in a warehouse, random parademons, and he used Kryptonite so he could bully Superman.
Cap on the other hand has fought elite military soldiers/agents from multiple organizations(SHIELD, HYDRA, Batroc and his mercs, Foreign forces like the French when he was with Bucky, etc...) He's fought Winter Soldier, Loki, another Cap, Quicksilver, Spider-Man, Ultron, Thanos, etc... And in all Cap's fights, he never looked bad. He was either overpowered by stronger opponents or used his own stats and skill to match his opponent or dominate the fight.
So based on Cap not only fighting way more people and a much more varied group, but also showing immense skill in all of his fights, the odds are highly in his favor. Bruce definitely showed skill, but he showed it against complete nobodies every single time. And his fight with Clark was a slobberknocker with him just demolishing him any way he could because Clark was poisoned and unable to fight back a majority of the time.
Originally posted by h1a8
Ok then this method will continue on and on until we get to the first opponent on which the pyramid is built. So since this first opponent never fought anyone then how do you determine their quality?
I noticed that you only quoted half his post, you conveniently left out the part that addresses the point you're trying to make here.
Like I said, you're just here to troll and this post just proved it.
Originally posted by KingD19
It's just a direct comparison.Batman v Cap
Batman is a composite of the DCEU so he gets feats from Batman v Superman and Justice League and Suicide Squad. In all those movies, he only fought random goons in a warehouse, random parademons, and he used Kryptonite so he could bully Superman.
Cap on the other hand has fought elite military soldiers/agents from multiple organizations(SHIELD, HYDRA, Batroc and his mercs, Foreign forces like the French when he was with Bucky, etc...) He's fought Winter Soldier, Loki, another Cap, Quicksilver, Spider-Man, Ultron, Thanos, etc... And in all Cap's fights, he never looked bad. He was either overpowered by stronger opponents or used his own stats and skill to match his opponent or dominate the fight.
So based on Cap not only fighting way more people and a much more varied group, but also showing immense skill in all of his fights, the odds are highly in his favor. Bruce definitely showed skill, but he showed it against complete nobodies every single time. And his fight with Clark was a slobberknocker with him just demolishing him any way he could because Clark was poisoned and unable to fight back a majority of the time.
Cap is superhuman and significantly stronger than Batman, that helps. If Batman had Cap's strength and durability then he would do way better.
Why are those characters Cap fought very skilled? Because they appeared to look skilled in their fighting (visually skilled) or is it because of who they beat?
Originally posted by Silent Master
I noticed that you only quoted half his post, you conveniently left out the part that addresses the point you're trying to make here.Like I said, you're just here to troll and this post just proved it.
That part is irrelevant because of the word AND.
If he said OR then you would have a point.
Originally posted by h1a8
That part is irrelevant because of the word AND.
If he said OR then you would have a point.
That part was very relevant to the argument you tried to make, stop being a troll.
He said "and" as in he uses both to determine skill. yet you only addressed half of his metric in your troll post.