Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

who will win in a h2h fight?

Thor Reborn seems to have very quick reflexes and incredible durability.

Originally posted by Badabing
Thor Reborn seems to have very quick reflexes and incredible durability. WW hits him over teh head wif teh majikal bracelets, ftw. uhuh

Thor about 8/10

Wonderwomen will kill him.

As far as strength, Thor may have it over WW. But speed and durability can be debated. WW has magical armor and is in general, more invulnerable to blunt attacks than powerful energy base attacks. But I wouldn't take anything away from Thor's durability as well. WW may be faster and as far as fighting skills. She is one of the best in the DCU and has gone toe 2 toe with Superman, Darkseid, and others. And Thor is also a very capable fighter himself and is considers the beast warrior on Asgard under Odin. So it is kinda hard for me to say who the winner is. It can go either way.

I agree Fighting skills of WW is impressive most of what makes her more dangerous then people who are kinda strong. will the lasso have a effect on thor being that he is a god and what not and he has migic that could protect him?

Whenever I think of Thor fighting H2H I remember him grappling and doing fairly against Hercules.

yeah but herc fights just like him like some brawler goliath guy lol

WW got the crazy amazonian training (for some reason this smilie came to mind) donatello

Herc should be like a amazing wrestler and grappler.

Wonder Woman will take this most times IMO

Originally posted by thadarknite84
who will win in a h2h fight?

Take away Thor's hammer, take away Wonder Woman's bracelets/tiara/lasso/all other weapons, and leave it up to just Wonder Woman vs Thor hand to hand fighting only.

I am with Thor.

thor odinson for the win

Thor ftw

thor

Thor

Thor. anyone who can trade blows evenly with Hulk can take hits from WW. and then there's Thor's durability.

and then there's warrior's madness....

Thor 10/10

Originally posted by Sado22
Thor. anyone who can trade blows evenly with Hulk can take hits from WW. and then there's Thor's durability.

and then there's warrior's madness....

Thor 10/10

Is trading blows with Hulk more impressive than trading them with the likes of Superman, Despero and Zoom? I don't think so.

supes wasn't going all out at any point. and i also remember her falling to doomsday with one or two blows............someone supes stalemated toe-to-toe. she even used the lasso and still got wtfpwned

and thor went toe-to-toe with hulk without belt of power and warrior's madness (if i remember correct).

Thor.

Hes tougher. Stronger. More durable.

WW is strong and durable enough and faster, but since this isent a standart figth and even in those she rarely uses speed..

Bam.

Thor's got a lot of durability feats.

Thor ftw.

I hope Wonder Woman can be humble cause she is getting pwned all night



Nah but I think Thor takes it 10/10. Without their weapons or armors Thor has far better durability feats, and is stronger. Wonder Woman maybe faster and possibly more skilled but Thor's other two advantages simply outweigh the amazon goddess' own.

That and Thor does have the Warrior Madness to fall back on.

ti dont see a clear reason behind putting these 2 against each other other than 2 see WW get rapestomped all over da place

thor hands down, far more durable and stronger as well.

Their strength is approximately equal, but Wonder Woman is many times as fast and skilled.

She takes this.

Originally posted by Newjak
Nah but I think Thor takes it 10/10.

In a h2h fight? doh

Thor possesses more raw physical strength, is more durable, and is maybe equally skilled,maybe a little less. Thor also has reach over WW in H2H.

WW has speed, good durability and strength, and skill, but gotta go with my boy Thor on this one.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Thor possesses more raw physical strength,
Nope.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
is more durable,
To blunt force? Nope.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx

and is maybe equally skilled

and hell no.

okay its time we compare feats then to see whose stronger.

Originally posted by batdude123
In a h2h fight? doh Yes.

Oh wait I forgot Thor is nothing without his hammer right

This is a battle that I have thought about before, honestly they would be better off hooking-up then Fighting.

However In this fight I would have to give the Majority to Thor 5.1/10

Thor is probably Stronger, and More Experienced in general, w/ an advantage in terms of battle Mentality (including Warriors Madness).

However Wonder Woman is Faster, has Flight and appears significantly more Skilled in H2H combat;
-Then Thor who considers his Hammer an extension of his body, (which in some cases is true) and rarely ever parts from it.

wonderwoman gets this, thor without his hammer is still strong but its just enough to give ww an edge

Originally posted by Evangel94
Take away Thor's hammer, take away Wonder Woman's bracelets/tiara/lasso/all other weapons, and leave it up to just Wonder Woman vs Thor hand to hand fighting only.

I am with Thor.


ME 2 !!

Wonder Woman 10/10.
it's difficult to fight when all your blood is rushing south... and very embarrassing to stand up too!

Strenght= Wonder Women
Speed= Wonder Women
Durability= Wonder Women
Epuipment that give power= Wonderwomen
Combat Skills= Wonder Women
Allies=Women

Yeah Wonderwomen takes this

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Strenght= Wonder Women
Speed= Wonder Women
Durability= Wonder Women
Epuipment that give power= Wonderwomen
Combat Skills= Wonder Women
Allies=Women

Yeah Wonderwomen takes this

I'd say they're about equal in strength and durability, and the thread certainly assumes that Wonder Woman's equipment-less if Thor is.

But, the fact that they're about equal in strength, durability, and equipment, and the massive speed and skill advantage that Wonder Woman possesses clinches her victory.

Current Thor could just call on the Odinforce to amp up his strength and speed beyond Wonder Woman.

Alright, let's post the results of what the forum thinks of this fight so far.

Votes for Thor: 17 (with maybes) 15 without
Evangel94
Badabing -maybe (references current thor)
psycho gundam
Papa Smurph
Psyquis52
guy222
Bouboumaster
Sado22
olympian
llagrok -maybe? (talks about Thor)
Mindship
Newjak
dat_boi
ultimatethor
Dark-Jaxx
Mr Marvel
complexbrother

Either way: 2
thadarknite84
Lord Feron

Votes for Wonder Woman: 6
Soljier
Galan007
xJLxKing
The Pict
cmack
janus77


The forum has spoken.

Thor. He's stronger, more durable, etc. She has an advantage in skill, but that's about it. Thor has the Odin Power, and or WM to fall back on. Either way he takes a healthy majority.

It seems as though WW's strength, and Thor's fighting prowess are being severely underestimated.

WW strength is on par with many top tiers, and Thor does have thousands of years of fighting experience.

I would say the only real advantage on either side goes to WW in the speed/reaction time department.

Thor might be slightly stronger than WW, and WW is probably marginally more skilled in combat.

Without their respective weapons, I believe they stalemate until both realize neither will win.

Originally posted by Evangel94
Current Thor could just call on the Odinforce to amp up his strength and speed beyond Wonder Woman.

That would be King Thor. And that version is not in this fight.

Originally posted by Evangel94
Current Thor could just call on the Odinforce to amp up his strength and speed beyond Wonder Woman.

I believe part of the point was to exclude the use of the Odinforce(Thorforce?).

I'm siding with Thor

A man should always beat a woman

Originally posted by tkitna
I'm siding with Thor

A man should always beat a woman

That depend on the woman, that man is fighting. Not all women and men are equal.

you read too many comic books

Originally posted by Sado22
you read too many comic books

Yeah you're right, that's very true.

Originally posted by Sado22
you read too many comic books

Not really. He's absolutely right.

http://www.beccaswanson.com/images/jbweightsmall.jpg

vs.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/73/78/22197873.jpg
???

Originally posted by Larceny
Thor. He's stronger, more durable, etc. She has an advantage in skill, but that's about it. Thor has the Odin Power, and or WM to fall back on. Either way he takes a healthy majority. What about her speed advantage?

I'm just talking about Thor.

He has strong friends.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yes.

Oh wait I forgot Thor is nothing without his hammer right

Yeah ..

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s132/Erik_Magnus_Lensherr/th_ThorFighting1.jpg

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s132/Erik_Magnus_Lensherr/th_ThorFighting2.jpg

Time for an update.


Votes for Thor: 20 (with maybes) 17 (without)
Evangel94
Badabing -maybe (references current thor)
psycho gundam
Papa Smurph
Psyquis52
guy222
Bouboumaster
Sado22
olympian
llagrok -maybe? (talks about Thor)
Mindship
Newjak
dat_boi
ultimatethor
Dark-Jaxx
Mr Marvel
complexbrother
Erik-Lensherr - maybe (posts scans of thor w/o hammer fighting)
Larceny
tkitna

Either way: 2
thadarknite84
Lord Feron

Stalemate: 1
nimbus006

Votes for Wonder Woman: 6
Soljier
Galan007
xJLxKing
The Pict
cmack
janus77


The forum has once again spoken.

Vote really dont count when fanboy's and arrogant people are involved

The scans were to show that Thor can kick ass even without his hammer, not to express my opinion.
In general, I give DC characters (such as Superman and the like) the win against Marvel characters mostly due to the vastly superior speed. In this case, Wonder Woman, outclasses him in speed aswell as skill while most of their other atributes are comparable, which is why I'll give Wonder Woman the win.

right...especially when the opposing guys confuse "ignorant" with "arrogant"

Originally posted by Sado22
right...especially when the opposing guys confuse "ignorant" with "arrogant"

And he couldn't have actually meant arrogant...why?

Originally posted by Soljer
Not really. He's absolutely right.

http://www.beccaswanson.com/images/jbweightsmall.jpg

vs.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/73/78/22197873.jpg
???

I don't understand the "Not really"part of your post. It sounds like you're saying that I don't read a lot of comic books when in fact I really do. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying. But if so, I can't see how you can say something about me when you don't know me from a hole in the wall. I'm not mad or anything, I just had to ask.

Originally posted by Sado22
right...especially when the opposing guys confuse "ignorant" with "arrogant"
Even though I really meant to say arrogant right. Good thing we got this straight

Originally posted by Badabing
Thor Reborn seems to have very quick reflexes and incredible durability.

show me.
also, there are many types of durability. Here Thor needs physical blunt durability and not of the energy type.

Let's see

Strength is even (even though I think WW is stronger)

Speed goes to WW

Fighting skill goes to WW

Blunt durability goes to WW (Thor couldn't have withstood the punch that sent WW from the sun to earth in seconds since Hulk has koed him with far less power)

Experience is about even (WW is thousands of years old too)

Thor has no advantages over WW. None!
The only way it is possible for someone to say that Thor wins is through sheer fanboyism.

this is a little sexest but vikings don't lose to women.

if ww starts to win, I see thor taking off the kid gloves and start forgetting he is fighting a woman.

She is practically a Man when it comes to strength, speed, and durability

reported to all female moderators


.............why arrogant? what's so arrogant about saying thor beats ww?

Originally posted by psycho gundam
this is a little sexest but vikings don't lose to women.

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's see

Strength is even (even though I think WW is stronger)

Speed goes to WW

Fighting skill goes to WW

Blunt durability goes to WW (Thor couldn't have withstood the punch that sent WW from the sun to earth in seconds since Hulk has koed him with far less power)

Experience is about even (WW is thousands of years old too)

Thor has no advantages over WW. None!
The only way it is possible for someone to say that Thor wins is through sheer fanboyism.

Nah its more like dis

Strength goes to thor

Speed WW

Fighting skill goes narrowly to WW

Durability most definitely THOR. Using hulk /thor fights to judge thors durability as weak is just purely stupid. Or are u saying that if wonderwoman was hit enough times by the hulk she would not be koed?
Thor has never been koed by the hulk in a few punches. I am not evn sure when the hulk eva koed him at all( might hv happened). Most of the times thor is bruiosed and battered but still fighting

Experience thor as well.

Winner THOR

When did the Hulk knock out Thor?

The time when he jumped him in Thor Annual and still didn't know him out?

Originally posted by llagrok
When did the Hulk knock out Thor?

The time when he jumped him in Thor Annual and still didn't know him out?

I really dont remeber thor eva getting knocked out by d hulk

Just out of curiosity, why are people under the assumption that Thor is so much more durable than Wonder Woman? Both have amazing blunt force durability, and both have had problems with piercing objects in the past.

edit

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
no for real think about it.
for example any arnie movie especially conan is a good visualization of macho sexism.

if conan fought a woman, he wouldn't take it seriously at first but if that woman packed a punch, he would get medevil on her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txitDIyxFAk

tell me he^ would LET a female beat him.

Arnie LOST to a woman in Terminator 3.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Arnie LOST to a woman in Terminator 3. And everyone considers that one of the biggest pis feats on the big screen.

Originally posted by Mr. Slippyfist
And everyone considers that one of the biggest pis feats on the big screen. Really? Last I checked that Terminator by Arnie's admission was faster, stronger, and more powerful than him.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Really? Last I checked that Terminator by Arnie's admission was faster, stronger, and more powerful than him. And was still not a man.

Check.

Originally posted by Mr. Slippyfist
And was still not a man.

Check. Prove Arnie is a man.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Prove Arnie is a man.

Get out.

robots don't count, they are only male/female on the outside.

barbarians/vikings/samurai etc never lose to woman due to pride and arrogance, thor has that in spades.

the last thing he wants to do is hear the asgardians make fun of him for thousands of years after losing to an amazon, which he has met before in anciant greece.

Originally posted by psycho gundam
robots don't count, they are only male/female on the outside.

barbarians/vikings/samurai etc never lose to woman due to pride and arrogance, thor has that in spades.

the last thing he wants to do is hear the asgardians make fun of him for thousands of years after losing to an amazon, which he has met before in anciant greece. You are pretty damn sexist man...

just going by in comic character and historical legend, males never want to lose to females in a contest of arms especially warriors.

the viking god of thunder probably invented sexism.

WW is a symbol of hope for all women who stand against oppression. She is no mere woman to any man, god or not. Both Thor and WW are warrior bound. If WW loses, it's not because she is a woman. WW plays with the big boys and win. But I wouldn't say she can take a easy win over Thor and the same gos for him too.

http://img374.imageshack.us/my.php?image=asdfyj7.jpg
pic curtacy of batdude

even batsy can do it

I'm sure that if WW wanted to get out of that hold, she would have. It seems very silly to use Batman's sparring session with WW. They are best friends, and wouldn't try to hurt one another. In a real fight, Batman has no more of a chance than he would against Superman.

Originally posted by batdude123
Just out of curiosity, why are people under the assumption that Thor is so much more durable than Wonder Woman? Both have amazing blunt force durability, and both have had problems with piercing objects in the past.

Originally posted by batdude123


Recently, Thor's had no problems with piercing damage. Other than that, he pretty much is more durable than her.

Originally posted by batdude123
Just out of curiosity, why are people under the assumption that Thor is so much more durable than Wonder Woman? Both have amazing blunt force durability, and both have had problems with piercing objects in the past.

By problems, you mean Thor was ko'd once by a shot to the head by a bullet that the writer later said was supposed to be fired from a BAKG and he also admitted to not knowing anything about Thor. As opposed to WW whose been hospitalized by bullets before.

Originally posted by Silent Master
By problems, you mean Thor was ko'd once by a shot to the head by a bullet that the writer later said was supposed to be fired from a BAKG and he also admitted to not knowing anything about Thor. As opposed to WW whose been hospitalized by bullets before.

Not to mention Thor's taken bullets from high caliber machine gun bullets from a fighter jet, machine gun fire, and a head on attack from the disintegrator beam.

Originally posted by Silent Master
By problems, you mean Thor was ko'd once by a shot to the head by a bullet that the writer later said was supposed to be fired from a BAKG and he also admitted to not knowing anything about Thor. As opposed to WW whose been hospitalized by bullets before.

By problems, I mean bullets leaving welts on his body, being KO'd by a shotgun blast to the face, and being punctured by tranquilizer darts.

Originally posted by Larceny
Not to mention Thor's taken bullets from high caliber machine gun bullets from a fighter jet, machine gun fire, and a head on attack from the disintegrator beam.

I assumed we were referencing Classic Thor. Wonder Woman is just as durable.

Originally posted by thadarknite84
I'm sure that if WW wanted to get out of that hold, she would have. It seems very silly to use Batman's sparring session with WW. They are best friends, and wouldn't try to hurt one another. In a real fight, Batman has no more of a chance than he would against Superman. i guess everybody jobs to batman then.

Originally posted by batdude123
By problems, I mean bullets leaving welts on his body

Off hand comment that isn't supported by the art.



Never happened, what you are talking about is a shot to the head from what the writer described as a BAKG.




Scan?

WW can be shot with a bullet and even killed. last i checked, thor can't

Batjobbing

Didn't WW kick Batman's ass after that throw?

Out of curiosity, why is anything but their blunt force durability even relevant in this fight?

Originally posted by batdude123




I assumed we were referencing Classic Thor. Wonder Woman is just as durable.

She isn't as durable as Classic or Current Thor. Claiming otherwise is completely asinine.

Originally posted by Zeitgeist
Out of curiosity, why is anything but their blunt force durability even relevant in this fight?

I'm unsure. Doesn't much matter as Thor outclasses her in both categories.

She's plenty durable to blunt force trauma and durable enough.

Her vulnerability to piercing projectiles is simply a result of the trademark of deflecting said projectiles with her bracelets. It has no real bearing on her blunt force durability.

Speed kills. And in combination with skill it's the reason she'd win in pure hand to hand.

Originally posted by Larceny
She isn't as durable as Classic or Current Thor. Claiming otherwise is completely asinine.

She's easily as durable as Classic Thor.

Current's odinpowered.

Originally posted by Sado22
WW can be shot with a bullet and even killed. last i checked, thor can't

You checked wrong.

She's been shot.

She was fine.

Originally posted by Soljer
She's easily as durable as Classic Thor.

Current's odinpowered.

She is NOT as durable as classic thor. but she is not that far behind though

Originally posted by Soljer
She's easily as durable as Classic Thor.

Originally posted by Soljer
You checked wrong.

She's been shot.

She was fine.

I believe she has been hospitalized by bullets before, there is also the time she tried to block a bullet but wasn't wearing her bracers and the bullet penetrated her arm.

being hospitalized is fine?
you really are arrogant aren't you?

Sado be quiet worm.

no can do, BRO

Originally posted by Sado22
being hospitalized is fine?
you really are arrogant aren't you?

Low showing.

She's been shot to no effect.

Where does arrogance come into the picture?

What about when she was shot in the arm?

I believe it was in the somewhat recent storyline where she went back in time.

Originally posted by Sado22
no can do, BRO But its like watching a retard trying to debate.

Originally posted by Soljer


Quoting it isn't going to make it any less untrue.

Originally posted by Larceny
Quoting it isn't going to make it any less untrue.

One could likely say the same to you and you other Thor pal.

Repeating "Thor's more durable" doesn't really lend much credence. I'd really like to see what Thor's managed that Diana couldn't.

Originally posted by Sado22
being hospitalized is fine?
you really are arrogant aren't you? You really are dumb aren't you!!

Originally posted by Soljer
One could likely say the same to you and you other Thor pal.

Repeating "Thor's more durable" doesn't really lend much credence. I'd really like to see what Thor's managed that Diana couldn't.

That's unexpected. I'm shocked at you Soljer.

Let's see..... He's capable of facing top tiers without being completely mauled.

Seriously though. He's taken an extended beating from Arshiem, went head on with a bomb that was supposedly capable of destroying a planet, took to no ill effect a blast that was the equivalent to an exploding sun, etc. If he goes WM it gets even worse for her. Her advantages are skill and speed. Otherwise, physically, she's outclassed.

the name calling has to stop, thx.

Realistically I see WW winning but for some reason I can't see it happening in comics.

Originally posted by Larceny
She isn't as durable as Classic or Current Thor. Claiming otherwise is completely asinine.

It's asinine to say she's as durable as Classic Thor? Clearly an ignorant statement.

Originally posted by batdude123
It's asinine to say she's as durable as Classic Thor? Clearly an ignorant statement.

Ignorant? Far from it. Factual is a more suitable term.

....you didn't get it.
damn....

Originally posted by Larceny
That's unexpected. I'm shocked at you Soljer.

Let's see..... He's capable of facing top tiers without being completely mauled.

Seriously though. He's taken an extended beating from Arshiem, went head on with a bomb that was supposedly capable of destroying a planet, took to no ill effect a blast that was the equivalent to an exploding sun, etc. If he goes WM it gets even worse for her. Her advantages are skill and speed. Otherwise, physically, she's outclassed.

Could you post any scans of those events? Not that I am doubting you, far from it actually, but it sounds interesting and I'd like to read it myself.

-Evangel94

Originally posted by Evangel94
Could you post any scans of those events? Not that I am doubting you, far from it actually, but it sounds interesting and I'd like to read it myself.

-Evangel94

Yeah, I got you.

Batdude, where'd you go?

Originally posted by ultimatethor
Nah its more like dis

Strength goes to thor

Speed WW

Fighting skill goes narrowly to WW

Durability most definitely THOR. Using hulk /thor fights to judge thors durability as weak is just purely stupid. Or are u saying that if wonderwoman was hit enough times by the hulk she would not be koed?
Thor has never been koed by the hulk in a few punches. I am not evn sure when the hulk eva koed him at all( might hv happened). Most of the times thor is bruiosed and battered but still fighting

Experience thor as well.

Winner THOR

There's no proof that Thor is stronger thus giving both the benefit of the doubt we say they are even here.

WW is fairly more skilled than Thor. This is because her martial art is superior to all known martial arts on Earth. Thor's art is not superior to most arts on Earth.

Thor has trouble been hit in the head by uber strong beings (like Hulk or Juggs). WW can be hit by an sun amped Superman from the Sun to the Earth, reenter the atmosphere, and super crash into the Earth making a huge crater. This alone proves that her physical blunt durability is at least equal to Thor's.

Also WW is about as old as Thor and thus has about the same amount of experience. So how does experience goes to Thor?

So Thor has 0 advantages in this fight. So how does he win?

Originally posted by Larceny
Not to mention Thor's taken bullets from high caliber machine gun bullets from a fighter jet, machine gun fire, and a head on attack from the disintegrator beam.

Thor has never taken a head on attack from the disintegrator beam.
Are you lying or just not a true Thor fan as we though?

People here are arguing general durability when they should be arguing physical blunt (non-sharp) durability. People assume that since WW has some slight problems with piercing objects then this reflects her blunt force durability. This is a false assumption. Her durability decreases exponentially the sharper the object is (I think because of a curse or how she was made). In other words, sharp piercing objects don't have anything to do with her ability to take a non-sharp object such as a fist. She can take a bullet about equal as Thor and a fist better than Thor. So how is Thor's physical blunt durability necessarily better than hers?

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has never taken a head on attack from the disintegrator beam.
Are you lying or just not a true Thor fan as we though? I believe he is referring to Current Thor who did take the beam head on.

Originally posted by h1a8
There's no proof that Thor is stronger thus giving both the benefit of the doubt we say they are even here.

There is more proof that he is, than otherwise.

When he starts to need other peoples help in a constant manner in doing high strength feats like she does, you can have a case.

Originally posted by h1a8
WW is fairly more skilled than Thor. This is because her martial art is superior to all known martial arts on Earth. Thor's art is not superior to most arts on Earth.

Load of crack that is. If Diana fougth just h2h with Batman, she would lose most of the time. Comic top tiers arent more skilled than the street level types. Its a comic rule staple.

Thats how guys like Batman and the Masterof Kung Fu have any use for writers.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has trouble been hit in the head by uber strong beings (like Hulk or Juggs). WW can be hit by an sun amped Superman from the Sun to the Earth, reenter the atmosphere, and super crash into the Earth making a huge crater. This alone proves that her physical blunt durability is at least equal to Thor's.

Lets see the difference you got here: Thor gets hit in the head of Hulk and Juggs and doesnt usually gets knocked out, while it only took Diana one hit of Superman to take a brief nap.

Originally posted by h1a8
Also WW is about as old as Thor and thus has about the same amount of experience. So how does experience goes to Thor?

So Thor has 0 advantages in this fight. So how does he win?

Thor is obviously (and painfully at that) older. Not that it matters, because experience in comics is worth to almost nothing. Thats how "younger" folks like Deathstroke can hang with people they shouldnt.

Your "reasoning" as usual finds lacking.

Originally posted by Soljer
Low showing.

She's been shot to no effect.

Where does arrogance come into the picture?

Guess what. So has Thor.

And yet he isent attributed with the same kind of "invulnerability" of Superman and Hulk have. For obvious reasons.

And neither is Diana for that matter. But even with that apart, he is cleary overall more resistant to damage. Hell, its a part of his character to keep getting up all broken and still ready to figth. Im discounting of course current Thor, because i dont belive one bit, its the OP wanted to use..is it?

Originally posted by h1a8
Let's seeStrength is even (even though I think WW is stronger)

This one is easily replied. How many times Thor needed someone`s help to perform at high levels of strength? How many times WW needed the same?

Originally posted by h1a8
Speed goes to WW

This is a fistcuff. Not to mention, she doesnt do combat speed. No matter what internet myths sport.

Originally posted by h1a8
Fighting skill goes to WW

Correct. Altho the difference isent that radical, or anything.

Originally posted by h1a8
Blunt durability goes to WW (Thor couldn't have withstood the punch that sent WW from the sun to earth in seconds since Hulk has koed him with far less power)

She was napping with one shot.

Hulk never came close to pull that one off to Thor. Ever.

Originally posted by h1a8
Experience is about even (WW is thousands of years old too)

No, it isent. Hes easily older. But like i said, this quality doesnt matter in the comic book setting.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has no advantages over WW. None!
The only way it is possible for someone to say that Thor wins is through sheer fanboyism.

Of course.

Now, go fetch me a sandwich, gender traitor.

I'll go with WW after thinking it over. She is strong enough to go toe 2 toe Thor. And I think fighting skills may put her a little over in this fight.

Originally posted by olympian
There is more proof that he is, than otherwise.

When he starts to need other peoples help in a constant manner in doing high strength feats like she does, you can have a case. No offense but that is dumb a$$ logic. Since when did Thor ever try to tow the Earth? Hell, WW needed more help than me before, but am I stronger?

And where is the proof that he is stronger?


Diana would beat Batman if she had the same strength, speed, and stamina as him. This is because her art with experience is superior to batman's.

Where are you getting "nap" from? Superman's hit was trillions of times harder than those two and she still didn't ko (NOT EVEN FOR A MICROSECOND).


I agree. Experience almost means nothing.
But I just wanted to show that Thor doesn't even have an advantage here either. And Thor is not necessarily older when she is also thousands of years old.

There is 0 proof that Thor can take physical blows better than Diana. This is a fact.

Originally posted by h1a8
No offense but that is dumb a$$ logic. Since when did Thor ever try to tow the Earth? Hell, WW needed more help than me before, but am I stronger?

Its factual logic.

Thor towed the Midgard Serpent alone and the struggle was shaking off the globe.

Thor armwrestled Hercules and the struggle was said enough to shake a planet off its orbit.

WW doesnt have that unless its with help. And i dont think its by a coincidence. Lets face it, its not just the Earth, its everytime she is connected with a big towing feat. She is cleary strong enough to pull wins and hurt him, but given what we read, she isent stronger than him. And in my view not directly equal either.

Originally posted by h1a8
Diana would beat Batman if she had the same strength, speed, and stamina as him. This is because her art with experience is superior to batman's.

You would wish for it, im sure.

But no. Street level beats Top tier in figthing skills. Always have.

Originally posted by h1a8
Where are you getting "nap" from? Superman's hit was trillions of times harder than those two and she still didn't ko (NOT EVEN FOR A MICROSECOND).

In the panel where its stated she blacked out.

So, she migth have been taking a nap for a microsecond after all, no?

Originally posted by h1a8
I agree. Experience almost means nothing.
But I just wanted to show that Thor doesn't even have an advantage here either. And Thor is not necessarily older when she is also thousands of years old.

And i agree. But there is no reason to say Diana equals his experience or anything like it means something in comics.

And factually, she may be a thousand of years older and a smidge more, but Thor is easily centuries more.

Originally posted by h1a8
There is 0 proof that Thor can take physical blows better than Diana. This is a fact.

No, its your opinion.

Fact would be to aknowlege that she blacked out, even for a moment when it was written that she did.

Originally posted by olympian
Its factual logic.

Thor towed the Midgard Serpent alone and the struggle was shaking off the globe. That feat is no longer any good. It has been totally debunked. The Serpent's body was in ethereal form as said in the panel. It was magically crushing the Earth.
Yet it didn't. This is called hyperbole (or exaggeration).
Again stupid logic. Needing help doesn't prove that you are weaker. Now if Thor did the same feats as WW without help then that most certainly proves that he is stronger. So, when Thor tows an Earth by himself then I will say that he is stronger. Till then I'm saying that WW is stronger (but will say that they are even for the sake of argument).


That's no proof that batman is better than WW in h2h.
You just used a faulty inductive argument.


Yet you said it giving the impression that she was knocked the uck out. It doesn't matter anyway since that feat was more impressive than anything Thor has withstood on the blunt physical force side.



A statement cannot be an opinion. A statement is defined as something that is true or false. Either there is proof that Thor is more durable to blunt force or there isn't. I say there isn't. So is my statement true or false?
Again this doesn't prove that WW has less blunt durability. Thor never got hit with that type of blunt force to even compare.

You really have to think about your logic. Because by your logic,
WW blacking out for an instant against an amped Superman punch proves Thing (or even Spider-man) has greater blunt durability than her. Do you see the faultiness of the logic here?

Originally posted by h1a8
That feat is no longer any good. It has been totally debunked. The Serpent's body was in ethereal form as said in the panel. It was magically crushing the Earth.

I dont recall that being said on panel, but what does it debunk exactly? That just because the kind of weigth involved is magical in nature, it doesnt count?

If we discount magic altogether, prepare to do the same with WW. Wich case in point the argument stands: she doesnt do this kind of "absurd" looking feats generally on her own. Thor does.

And there lies the difference between the two when discussing strength.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yet it didn't. This is called hyperbole (or exaggeration).

It didnt because the struggle lost its peak when the mountain where both wer standing, totally shattered. Its more than enough that the narration states what this kind of strengh can do or was about to do - not much differently than another character struggling with something, and the narration giving us the kind of effects of what is about to happen.

Its not like they wer really going to show the Earth shattering in half, would they?

If i recall, that is also implied in that same scene. Then again, if we are going to discount exagerations (according to you) shall we do equally for both?

Originally posted by h1a8
Again stupid logic. Needing help doesn't prove that you are weaker. Now if Thor did the same feats as WW without help then that most certainly proves that he is stronger. So, when Thor tows an Earth by himself then I will say that he is stronger. Till then I'm saying that WW is stronger (but will say that they are even for the sake of argument).

Sorry, H. My logic as faulty as it migth be, its cleary better than yours. What you present its basically nothing.

If WW only does those kind of feats, with help, then how can she be stronger or directly even with someone who does these kind of feats on his own? It makes no sense. What do you think its the writters intention?

Now, to be clear, i dont think your assertion of being even is totally out there. It really isent. I just think one obviously got better examples.

Originally posted by h1a8
That's no proof that batman is better than WW in h2h.
You just used a faulty inductive argument.

Sorry, but here you wont ever be rigth. You may not like it, and many sure dont. But its factual as the superhero genre is. In the majority of the cases the likes of Batman and Deathstroke are simply better at H2H than most if not all the top tiers. Gail Simone may show WW being better on her run and still almost all Batman writers, or JL writers (Morrison comes to mind), etc will show otherwise.

The reason for it, its also simple to understand. If they arent better than guys much more powerful than them - at something - they are for all porpuses a waste of paper. The way writers make them revelant is to enchant the whole meaning of "street level" type, wich is to be the guys with the best pure h2h style around.

Thats how Deathstroke makes WW and GL look bad. Or Captain with Hercules and Hulk.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yet you said it giving the impression that she was knocked the uck out. It doesn't matter anyway since that feat was more impressive than anything Thor has withstood on the blunt physical force side.

Thor has withstood punches from beings cleary ahead of Superman in strength and overall power, and wasent ko with a single punch - ever- that i recall. Not even passing out momentarily if going by memory.

Originally posted by h1a8
A statement cannot be an opinion. A statement is defined as something that is true or false. Either there is proof that Thor is more durable to blunt force or there isn't. I say there isn't. So is my statement true or false?

Its false.

Unless you consider Superman stronger than the Asgardian Destroyer, Thanos, Mangog, Surtur and the like. The fact that Thor pretty much have the most dangerous rogues gallery of the standart heroes speaks for itself.

Originally posted by h1a8
You really have to think about your logic. Because by your logic,
WW blacking out for an instant against an amped Superman punch proves Thing (or even Spider-man) has greater blunt durability than her. Do you see the faultiness of the logic here?

No. Im not comparing a mid tier or just a below top tier character with a top tier.

Im comparing a top tier with another top tier. And one of them usually faces stronger folk more often. Its that simple.

Originally posted by olympian
I dont recall that being said on panel, but what does it debunk exactly? That just because the kind of weigth involved is magical in nature, it doesnt count?

If we discount magic altogether, prepare to do the same with WW. Wich case in point the argument stands: she doesnt do this kind of "absurd" looking feats generally on her own. Thor does.

And there lies the difference between the two when discussing strength.
Look at the scan again. It says "ethereal". It even says in the OHOTMU that only the serpent's head materialized. And your analogy fails. WW used pure strength. If any magic helped her with the actually pulling or pushing then it would be a new power on her.


True. But exaggerations occur in statements and not in the showing.

I never stated who was stronger as a fact. So I have nothing to present. I was just stating that there is no proof that Thor is stronger. Am I correct here? If no then give me some undeniable proof that he is stronger. The feats have to be comparable. Meaning you must show that he can do something she can't. If you succeed then I will admit that Thor is stronger. I have no problem with that as I like Thor too.
That's what I'm saying. If Thor does those feats without help then he is clearly stronger. But the problem is he never did any of those feats on his own. So we have nothing to compare. Thus no proof.
The word 'obviously' is deceiving. This is a bold face lie. There is no strength feat Thor has that is obviously better than Diana's best. Yet I say that both their strength is even for the sake of argument. Because no one can prove that one is stronger than the other.


All that in invalid and moot. Thus it proves nothing. The fact of the matter is whether Diana's art is superior to all Earthly styles or not. Plus add the thousand of years of experience to this superior art.
Doesn't matter. Just was showing you that your logic was faulty.


That is a bold faced lie (the implication is a lie as well as the stated word). Thor has never ever ever ever withstood a punch like that. He hasn't even withstood a punch with the power of even a weak John Byrne superman. So whether Superman is weaker or not makes no difference. And this wasn't regular Superman. This is sun amped Superman. Which IMO is stronger than anyone that Thor has ever faced. This punch that WW took was from a sun amped Superman than knocked her from the Sun to the Earth faster than light. That alone puts her blunt durability at least equal to his.


I consider a sun amped Superman stronger than all you named (at their base strengths). Also, none of the ones you name struck Thor with the force Superman struck Diana with. Not even close.




Doesn't matter what you are comparing. Going by your exact words you used faulty logic. Thor has never been in the situation that WW has been to even compare. Thus you can't say he is more durable to blunt force as a fact (you can give your opinion though).

Originally posted by The Pict
Is trading blows with Hulk more impressive than trading them with the likes of Superman, Despero and Zoom? I don't think so.



we are talking about WW not superman, WW is not even close to supes in physical raw power. this has been debated for ever. Yes shes tough very tough. But most the time she fights a male combatant they tend to go easy on her and she goes ape shit.

WW is more on the strength level as martian manhunter, id say thor is a tad above that but bellow supes strength level.


there is no real gauge to go by casue writing varys alot.


WW is strong but without her arsenal of wepons (tiara,braclets laso) thoses dont bother me thery are apart of her character.

but when you bring in the shield and sword ..thats horse shit tell ya why.

WW is arguably fairly tough and can put up a fist fight for a while against supes but its still not even. Now picture a female body builder in a fight with a male body builder. Sure this female body builder would do well but prolly loose due to strength issues.


Now lets give her a nice metal knife, nah lets make it a 2 foot sword made of metal. This metal can pierce the skin of anyone, i mean both combatants.

Very simple the male body builder is almost gaurenteed to die , why?

Becasue the wepon the female combatant has is LEATHAL not a form of dmg dealing , it can kill.

the sword should have never been made a part of WW's charatcer and as far as im concerned .


its not.


the tiara laso and braclets will always be recognized as part of WW, the rest of her toys are just over powed crap some writers gave to her.

Not to mention she dont have the durability that thor has.

But for what its worth WW does have one thing in her favor. She has alot of built in anger and shes very agressive, But never the less i dont think she could last in a long fight with any of the big wigs in DC or marvel especially dc.

Originally posted by h1a8
Look at the scan again. It says "ethereal". It even says in the OHOTMU that only the serpent's head materialized. And your analogy fails. WW used pure strength. If any magic helped her with the actually pulling or pushing then it would be a new power on her.

WW`s strength is magical in nature. There: we just discounted that.

Its like you didnt even read the reply. What does it matter the nature of the weigth involved as long it physically affects something like the whole globe? The same way, what does it matter the nature or origin of the strength source of a given character being magic? Or the sun? Or rage?

Totally. Nothing.

Originally posted by h1a8
I never stated who was stronger as a fact. So I have nothing to present. I was just stating that there is no proof that Thor is stronger. Am I correct here? If no then give me some undeniable proof that he is stronger. The feats have to be comparable. Meaning you must show that he can do something she can't. If you succeed then I will admit that Thor is stronger. I have no problem with that as I like Thor too.
That's what I'm saying. If Thor does those feats without help then he is clearly stronger. But the problem is he never did any of those feats on his own. So we have nothing to compare. Thus no proof.

No.

He towed the Midgard Serpent alone. He armwrestle against Hercules alone. And if you want to bring more absurd feats into play he also moved the World engine alone.

WW, since the crisis, usually doesnt have such absurd feats written for her and the most impressive she got are with assist. The difference is again, somewhat telling.

Of course, since those big feats arent random for everyone even of this range, we can say that one average theyr strength is pretty close. But the difference is still there as it is.

Originally posted by h1a8
The word 'obviously' is deceiving. This is a bold face lie. There is no strength feat Thor has that is obviously better than Diana's best. Yet I say that both their strength is even for the sake of argument. Because no one can prove that one is stronger than the other.

Not unless you take the assists into account. Wich it seems you arent.

Originally posted by h1a8
All that in invalid and moot. Thus it proves nothing. The fact of the matter is whether Diana's art is superior to all Earthly styles or not. Plus add the thousand of years of experience to this superior art.
Doesn't matter. Just was showing you that your logic was faulty.

And again, you keep on not reading. Its like you reply on this thread not wanting to argue any valid points. What is the porpuse of that?

What you present, this theory of yours, its what would be common sense in the real word. Someone older and more experience at MA wins against someone younger at MA. But this is not the real world. Its comic books. Where certain unwritten rules are applied. And one of them is the reason why Deathstroke makes WW and a Green Lantern look less skilled than he is shown to be.

This is not to say they are actually going to win straigh on, only that this level is written to be better than the higher in one aspect: figthing skills. Its theyr stich.

Fell free to once more ignore what im writting.

Originally posted by h1a8
That is a bold faced lie (the implication is a lie as well as the stated word).

Appearantly you cant do better than say "its a bold face lie" to everything.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor has never ever ever ever withstood a punch like that. He hasn't even withstood a punch with the power of even a weak John Byrne superman.

I can only conclude with this that you never ever ever ever read Thor in your whole life.

Honestly, Byrne Superman? Wich Hulk isent stronger than that? Grey?

Originally posted by h1a8
So whether Superman is weaker or not makes no difference.

When you spilled things like this out loud, it should be enough to make you stop typing.

It matters, because hes weaker than some folks Thor routinely figths.

Originally posted by h1a8
I consider a sun amped Superman stronger than all you named (at their base strengths). Also, none of the ones you name struck Thor with the force Superman struck Diana with. Not even close.

Its pretty telling that you dont read Thor. Not only that but your hierarchy is bogus.

All that ive named are stronger. And in the majority of the times, Thor doesnt go down with one punch.

Originally posted by h1a8
Doesn't matter what you are comparing.

Ok, stop now.

Its like replying to a brick wall. "It doesnt matter"? You trow here mid tiers that have nothing to do with the debate while im comparing characters of the same range and "It doesnt matter"?

Look, if you dont get something, then dont talk about the subject. Its easy.

what it all boils down to is that art of fighting is directed and produced and written by the same people who directed and produced and wrote SF, right oly?

Originally posted by olympian
Of course.

Now, go fetch me a sandwich, gender traitor.

LMFAO

Originally posted by Ricardo Potter
I read the C-Bomb one yesterday, they were going to test it but it was stolen so he never goy to, at that time he wasn't sure what he could take.

Just pointing out.
Thx for the correction, looking at your sign I remembered one more feat.When Thor used Mjolnir to reduce Juggernaut's invulnerability in their second fight, he wasn't handling Mjolnir so his physical strength was a bit reduced cause Mjolnir also enhances it, still he managed to do something no top tier has ever done, STUNNING the Juggernaut with his bare fists, considering the range of durability Marko possess, which surely is beyond Supes, it's a damn of a feat.

Originally posted by olympian
WW`s strength is magical in nature. There: we just discounted that.

Its like you didnt even read the reply. What does it matter the nature of the weigth involved as long it physically affects something like the whole globe? The same way, what does it matter the nature or origin of the strength source of a given character being magic? Or the sun? Or rage?

Totally. Nothing. Do you know what ethereal means? It means intangible, lacking material/mass and thus weight.


The Midgard Serpent feat is debunked. The armwrestling feat by Thor is not comparable since WW is said to be even stronger than D.C. Hercules. And there's no proof that Marvel Herc is stronger than D.C. Herc.
Thor didn't ever do the relevant things by himself. The midgard serpent thing doesn't prove anything. Until Thor is proven to do something she can't then he isn't necessarily stronger. Use better logic.

Of course, since those big feats arent random for everyone even of this range, we can say that one average theyr strength is pretty close. But the difference is still there as it is. I disagree.
That is probably why we use opinions when there is no proof available.

Being assisted doesn't prove that you are weaker. But being assisted while another not being assisted in a comparable feat does prove you are weaker. Why do you fail to see simple logic? Its nothing wrong with being wrong sometimes. Be humble my friend, for this is the key to success. I've admitted I was wrong countless times here before with absolutely no problem.
What is the theory of saying that WW's art is superior to all Earthly styles? It's a stated fact. Your argument is an inductive one (which is a weak type); it is also a faulty one. Thus your argument is a hot mess (no offense).


No I can't when it is indeed a lie (purposely said untruth).

Don't lie to yourself like that. I would bet a 100$ to a peanut that you know I read at least several Thor comics in my life. Otherwise it would be asinine to even debate against him with passion. Ask me how many Thor comics I have read and now own (through physical purchase). It's more than you think.
John Byrne superman can press billions of tons. You didn't know?

Being weaker has nothing to do with what punch was thrown harder. A punch that knocks someone from the Sun (against the sun's gravity) to the Earth in seconds (FTL) is astronomically stronger than a punch that knocks someone several feat. So how in the hell is a sun-amped Superman weaker. It is pure fanboyism to even say such things without proof. How do you know how strong a sun-amped Superman is? Do you know that it was shown that a sun-dipped (several minutes) Superman can overpower thousands of galaxies right?


There is no absolute complete hierarchy (only the abstracts and cosmics hierarchy are in tact). Why? Because abc logic fails in general. Character A can be a better matchup for Character B than Character C is (by unique power set) but Character C can be in a higher league than than A. A weak example is Booster Gold can beat Superman with kryptonite doesn't mean that he is in Superman's league.

Know that speed is Thor's kryptonite.
I debunked this above.


Stop trying to be persuasive to the point it becomes lies. You were twisting up words, leaving out words, etc. You must use exact words or what you say is either ambiguous or a lie.

Is Wonder Woman's speed being accounted for here also, or are we leaving that out?

She's been shown fast enough to be put on tier with Flash and Supes. "Speeds that only WE can reach."

That and like Supes and Flash, She's fast enough to vibrate herself invisible...

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/462/supermanwwflashspeedgn2.th.jpghttp://img237.imageshack.us/img237/7352/supermanwwflashspeed1px8.th.jpg

Originally posted by h1a8
There's no proof that Thor is stronger thus giving both the benefit of the doubt we say they are even here.

WW is fairly more skilled than Thor. This is because her martial art is superior to all known martial arts on Earth. Thor's art is not superior to most arts on Earth.

Thor has trouble been hit in the head by uber strong beings (like Hulk or Juggs). WW can be hit by an sun amped Superman from the Sun to the Earth, reenter the atmosphere, and super crash into the Earth making a huge crater. This alone proves that her physical blunt durability is at least equal to Thor's.

Also WW is about as old as Thor and thus has about the same amount of experience. So how does experience goes to Thor?

So Thor has 0 advantages in this fight. So how does he win?

Would you stop using that one superman punch to judge her durability. Wonderwoman has been knocked out by far less force than that punch. You are indirectly implying dat if hulk hit wonderwoman multiple times in the hed she would hardly be affected which is bullshit. SS was taking hits/punches/smashes aimed to kill him from tenebrous and aegis and was not immediately koed. SS howevr has been hurt by the hulks continuous hits as well so using only one great durability feat is stupid.

Nextly WW is NOT as old as thor so he still gets the experience edge.

Wonderwoman really does not have many feats to show she cn fight at light speeds so i dont thik speed will be a factor and IMO thors is stronger and more durable so he wins

Originally posted by ultimatethor
Wonderwoman really does not have many feats to show she cn fight at light speeds so i dont thik speed will be a factor and IMO thors is stronger and more durable so he wins

What is it with people and fighting a FTL speeds?

Do people even get how fast light is? Even at a 10th of it's speed you're pwning biatches left and right in a slugfest.

Being slightly faster than an opponent is one thing...being VASTLY faster is a whole other story though.

Originally posted by Avlon
What is it with people and fighting a FTL speeds?

Do people even get how fast light is? Even at a 10th of it's speed you're pwning biatches left and right in a slugfest.

Being slightly faster than an opponent is one thing...being VASTLY faster is a whole other story though.

Really wondys feats do not give an acurrate account of HOW fat she was fighting. SO we dont know if she can fight at evn a tenth of light speed. Most of the feats are ambiguous and if we go by such then thor blocking a blured surfer gives him a great chance of nailing wonderwoman.

Originally posted by ultimatethor
Really wondys feats do not give an acurrate account of HOW fat she was fighting. SO we dont know if she can fight at evn a tenth of light speed. Most of the feats are ambiguous and if we go by such then thor blocking a blured surfer gives him a great chance of nailing wonderwoman.

To run around the world at speeds comparable to flash, or vibrate invisible while watching someone you have to be pretty fast.

Originally posted by Avlon
To run around the world at speeds comparable to flash, or vibrate invisible while watching someone you have to be pretty fast.

I am not doubting her speed overall but her fighting speed in particular has never been accurately accounted for. In addition she hardly ever speedblitzes and evn when she does we dont know how fast she is going

Originally posted by ultimatethor
Would you stop using that one superman punch to judge her durability. Wonderwoman has been knocked out by far less force than that punch. You are indirectly implying dat if hulk hit wonderwoman multiple times in the hed she would hardly be affected which is bullshit. SS was taking hits/punches/smashes aimed to kill him from tenebrous and aegis and was not immediately koed. SS howevr has been hurt by the hulks continuous hits as well so using only one great durability feat is stupid.

Nextly WW is NOT as old as thor so he still gets the experience edge. Doesn't matter as everyone here is using their character's
top feats to gauge their abilities (even you). It's fair game my friend.

WW is thousands of years old my friend. How do you figure that he is necessarily older? Do you know both there exact ages?