Are who beat who feats overrated in cross company fights?

Here's the discussion

when we are making cross company fight like for example
wonder woman vs thor

who thor and wonder woman have beaten shouldn't really be the focal point of the fight, if let's say thor defeated silver surfer but how does silver surfer rank in dc everyone has a different opinion so that feat by itself would be interpreted differently by different posters.

same with if wonder woman beat up green lantern, how green lantern would rank in marvel is viewed differently by different posters

so in that sense, cross company fights should be really focus on space cheese and non-fight general feats

if you destroy earth, or sun. sun and earth would be equal in marvel and dc, a ton is a ton, it's still the same metrics. lightspeed is still lightspeed

does that make sense?

It depends on the character.

If a character has very few appearances, fights matter more. Living Tribunal has no lifting feats, for example. So his interactions with other characters matter.

If a character has tons of appearances, feats matter more (what you term space cheese, but that's incorrect to use, really). Batman and Wolverine have 1001 appearances every week, it's inevitable that other characters will job to them (or....not??) so we should rely on feats more.

But NOT saying it's black and white, one or the other. Just that we should place more emphasis on one than the other, not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It depends on the character.

If a character has very few appearances, fights matter more. Living Tribunal has no lifting feats, for example. So his interactions with other characters matter.

If a character has tons of appearances, feats matter more (what you term space cheese, but that's incorrect to use, really). Batman and Wolverine have 1001 appearances every week, it's inevitable that other characters will job to them (or....not??) so we should rely on feats more.

But NOT saying it's black and white, one or the other. Just that we should place more emphasis on one than the other, not mutually exclusive.

in cross company fight

feats>statements>fights imo

too many times we enter this circle of
one side arguing for dc: person a defeated these guy b, c and d
the other side arguing for marvel: well guy b/c/d suck and my guy person e would defeat them easier
and it became a he say she say thing

if character a best feat is destroy universe, and character b best feat is destroy galaxy

then character a>b objectively even if they are from different company

if character a shown lifting 50 tons, and character b shown lifting 5 tons, then a is objectively stronger than b

fight only matters in a cross company thread
if the character has no feats/statements other than that fight at all, so we use the fight to be the measuring stick of said character

Ah, if statements are also being used....

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Beat me to it. I was just making this thread up in my head as well...

I would class them as:

1 Feats not depending on art - taken as gospel. Nobody here questions that Superman can fly, for example.

2. Feats depending on art - Drax's anti-Thanos aura, some depictions of speed fighting, and bullet-timing.

3. In-character narration. By this I mean, if Reed or Pym says that he's tested Cyclops' eye blasts, and they contain the equivalent of 1 million Newtons, we believe him. I won't believe Johnny Storm if he said this.

4. Comic Narration. This one is a bit iffy, particularly when we start looking at the Silver Age or pre-crisis comics.

5. Character narration. Spiderman telling the story of the Sentry stalemating Galactus.

Feats are top. Fights are included under feats, as is lifting/pushing etc. No such thing as space cheese, imo.

This topic is too generalized. Everything depends on the particular character.

If feats are always > fights, then Karnak's stock goes way higher than it should.

If fights carry little weight for cross-company comparisons, then Wonder Woman suddenly has surprisingly little in the way of speed feats.

KMC has always been against ABC logic, so MrMind is not exactly thinking of anything new here.

1 on 1 combat victories still matter, though - just look at Karnak. Great feats, but he can't beat any of his fellow martial artists.

So, ideally, you need both feats and the list of won fights.

agree. 👆

juggernaut is the best example i can think of. he has a lot of general strength feats and tons of statements about his power, but then consistently loses to cement trucks and shit.

Cain has a lot of great feats - but since Cyttorak granted him more power than ever before, he started jobbing like crazy. That's an example of how power-ups can often be counterproductive in comics.

Or Gargan Venom - in theory, his Scorpion powerset + evolved Venom symbiote should have made him unstoppable. He already was Spider-Man on steroids. But in practice, he turned out to be one of the worst jobbers in comic book history.

So, yeah. ABC logic is greatly flawed, no doubt. But we still need to bring it up sometimes, as on-panels feats alone don't mean much.

Killer Croc ripped a bank vault door with ease --- that's a gargantuan strength feat, especially for a low metahuman --- so what? He still gets assraped by powerless costume party boys in most of his appearances.