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

A few minutes ago, I commented on the Odin vs Gah Lak Tus thread and it got me to thinking about our tendency (and yes I am guilty of this too; I was guilty of the following in the very thread I referenced above) to use High Showings automatically to prove that one character can beat another...

Case in point, Odin; in the eyes of many, he is a confirmed Galaxy Buster and as a result people argue that he can defeat many opponents just by unleashing said attack on them and ending the fight immediately...

But on Average how often does Odin do this? In my current opinion, not enough (especially not any time recently; you got to go back to the 90's to see Odin performing at that level) for him to automatically unleash such power in a versus fight...

So I guess my question is, where do we draw the line in such arguments? At what point can High Showings be used (unless specifically specified) to argue for a character when said character hasnt performed at that level for a long time or when said showing is significantly beyond that characters norm?

Kmc logic
Use high feats for character you want to win, but use low to average feat for characters you'd like to lose

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Kmc logic
Use high feats for character you want to win, but use low to average feat for characters you'd like to lose



Most of the time, this does seem to be the case...

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Kmc logic
Use high feats for character you want to win, but use low to average feat for characters you'd like to lose

High showing shouldn't be used when they exceed logically what the characters station would allow

Also many high showings have context the poster tends to leave out...

Ofcourse feats must be taken along with their context but, generally speaking low-feats are usually a sign of a writer making a short-circuit to the ending his story needs.

High-end feats represent a character's potential and average feats just testify to the easy/difficult 'life' he leads, story-wise.

Feats are what they are, feats. Writers don't generally write them and expect them to be used in versus forums. Feats ate what they are used to represent. You see a characters like Hal whose average isn't one shooting beings who have the power of 7 emotional entities. You dont see the forums using that as a liable attack.
Yet you see the same argument being used for characters like Superman or Thor, who in 30+yrs of feats will eventually to an insane feat.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Kmc logic
Use high feats for character you want to win, but use low to average feat for characters you'd like to lose
KMC logic?

Try any discussion ever.

At least with people from the murricahs

Originally posted by pym-ftw
High showing shouldn't be used when they exceed logically what the characters station would allow

I agree with this...

But 1st lets relate this to Odin; I dont believe that Skyfathers should have Galaxy Busting power...

This belief combined with the fact that Galaxy Busting is typically something Skyfathers dont do in combat situations makes me believe that Odins Galaxy Busting ability should not be allowed in a Versus debate unless one is specifically including High Showings...

What do you think about that?

Originally posted by janus77
Ofcourse feats must be taken along with their context but, generally speaking low-feats are usually a sign of a writer making a short-circuit to the ending his story needs.

High-end feats represent a character's potential and average feats just testify to the easy/difficult 'life' he leads, story-wise.

I'm not sure if I agree with the part about High-End Feats...

Do you really think a High Herald should be capable of doing something that the combined might of 3 High End Skyfathers failed to do and it not be blatant PIS?

I think something of that maginitude goes beyond "character's potential."

i've always been confused why so few call pis on high feats. everyone quickly calls low feats pis, but high feats are 'potential'. why do high feats carry more validity for so many? i have no idea.....typical portrayals are what should be used most often in the forum imo. lowballing and highballing are weak ways to make a case and most recognize that around here now-a-days.....

Odin can destroy galaxies, which flows into the range he can attack a being in.

The probably is the effectiveness of it when you consider he was using these attacks against a pussy like Seth, although he did trash him with it...

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Odin can destroy galaxies, which flows into the range he can attack a being in.

The probably is the effectiveness of it when you consider he was using these attacks against a pussy like Seth, although he did trash him with it...

No doubt, Odin has done it, but is that his average or is that a high feat for him?

Based on his quantity of fights and the fact that many of said fights have come against foes more powerful than Seth, I'd say that busting a galaxy is outside of his norm...

How many times has he faced Surtur and busted Galaxies while fighting him?

Odin fought a massively amped Set (not Seth) and their battle didnt bust Galaxies....

Against Galactus, Odin didnt do anything that even remotely suggested he had Galaxy busting power...

What about the massively amped Odin versus the Celestials?

And once again, Odin hasnt done any galaxy busting since the 90's...more than 13 years ago.

With all of that stated, I dont think there can be any argument that Odins Galaxy Busting is beyond his norm (or the norm for any Skyfather for that matter)...

Originally posted by leonidas
i've always been confused why so few call pis on high feats. everyone quickly calls low feats pis, but high feats are 'potential'. why do high feats carry more validity for so many? i have no idea.....typical portrayals are what should be used most often in the forum imo. lowballing and highballing are weak ways to make a case and most recognize that around here now-a-days.....

IMO if going by feats alone, a lower feat is just as valid as a high end feat. If people debate in the spirit of how this forum is designed, then high end vs low end becomes a non issue...

Feats, showings, power set, portrayal... In whichever order. If you run to the "feats" card too often, then it won't be long before a counter feat from a lower showing is trumpeted.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
No doubt, Odin has done it, but is that his average or is that a high feat for him?

Based on his quantity of fights and the fact that many of said fights have come against foes more powerful than Seth, I'd say that busting a galaxy is outside of his norm...

How many times has he faced Surtur and busted Galaxies while fighting him?

Odin fought a massively amped Set (not Seth) and their battle didnt bust Galaxies....

Against Galactus, Odin didnt do anything that even remotely suggested he had Galaxy busting power...

What about the massively amped Odin versus the Celestials?

And once again, Odin hasnt done any galaxy busting since the 90's...more than 13 years ago.

With all of that stated, I dont think there can be any argument that Odins Galaxy Busting is beyond his norm (or the norm for any Skyfather for that matter)... It's not really a high feat though considering who he was using it on. It flows into scope of his power. Though it has to do with raw power itself, it's not necessary to showcase his power.

We know he can destroy galaxies in weaker forms. That doesn't mean he's using less power to damage more powerful beings when it fails to hurt Spider-Man two feet away. The feat isn't pis because galaxies are destroyed, the feat would be pis if say Celestials are destroyed from the backlash though.
Odin can destroy galaxies, which would come in handy against many Surfers, or Hulk or beings he could already one shot, but it doesn't make a lick of a difference against a Galactus.

Also, Odin's never fought Set. He would have been annihilated. You're thinking of Odin without the Odin Force (but drawing on Asgard) fighting Seth again.

Originally posted by leonidas
i've always been confused why so few call pis on high feats. everyone quickly calls low feats pis, but high feats are 'potential'. why do high feats carry more validity for so many? i have no idea.....typical portrayals are what should be used most often in the forum imo. lowballing and highballing are weak ways to make a case and most recognize that around here now-a-days.....

And it's hypocritical as well. If someone like Bats or Daredevil has a "high feat" it's instantly PIS. But when Thor or Supes does it, it's a "high feat". Smmh.

What's worse, feat used 30 years ago is apparently legit. You telling me on 30 years, that characters power level stayed the same? Bull

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
It's not really a high feat though considering who he was using it on. It flows into scope of his power. Though it has to do with raw power itself, it's not necessary to showcase his power.

We know he can destroy galaxies in weaker forms. That doesn't mean he's using less power to damage more powerful beings when it fails to hurt Spider-Man two feet away. The feat isn't pis because galaxies are destroyed, the feat would be pis if say Celestials are destroyed from the backlash though.
Odin can destroy galaxies, which would come in handy against many Surfers, or Hulk or beings he could already one shot, but it doesn't make a lick of a difference against a Galactus.

Also, Odin's never fought Set. He would have been annihilated. You're thinking of Odin without the Odin Force (but drawing on Asgard) fighting Seth again.

But he's only done it this once (against Seth) in actual combat Branlor...

And if that is not a High Feat for Odin (in combat situations), what has he done outside of his fight against Seth thats greater? What does he have under his belt that makes the Seth showing average?

Btw, I did make a mistake; you are correct, it was an amped Seth that he fought against in Asgard...not Set.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
I agree with this...

But 1st lets relate this to Odin; I dont believe that Skyfathers should have Galaxy Busting power...

This belief combined with the fact that Galaxy Busting is typically something Skyfathers dont do in combat situations makes me believe that Odins Galaxy Busting ability should not be allowed in a Versus debate unless one is specifically including High Showings...

What do you think about that?

I don't think it is where they open up at, same as people that argue instance bfr, Speedblitz, God Blast.. its an option and it is literally the max they could be forced to go to...

So no Odin isn't going to galaxy bust superman in a fight, but if he fought Galactus he might...

I hope that makes sence

Originally posted by xJLxKing
What's worse, feat used 30 years ago is apparently legit. You telling me on 30 years, that characters power level stayed the same? Bull



Power levels in comics fluxuate all the time...

Originally posted by pym-ftw
I don't think it is where they open up at, same as people that argue instance bfr, Speedblitz, God Blast.. its an option and it is literally the max they could be forced to go to...

So no Odin isn't going to galaxy bust superman in a fight, but if he fought Galactus he might...

I hope that makes sence

But in combat he's only Galaxy Busted once against Seth...

He has no combat feat greater than that, so thats a High Feat for him...isnt it?

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
But in combat he's only Galaxy Busted once against Seth...


he has also done it in thor #185, and more recently he contained all fires of creation.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
But he's only done it this once (against Seth) in actual combat Branlor...

And if that is not a High Feat for Odin (in combat situations), what has he done outside of his fight against Seth thats greater? What does he have under his belt that makes the Seth showing average?

Btw, I did make a mistake; you are correct, it was an amped Seth that he fought against in Asgard...not Set. So? Plus, as Infinity he was destroying many many planets, and then he healed all the damage with his sceptre, so he's got that as well.

Beat up Surtur for the easy one.

Evidently galaxy destroying attacks didn't annihilate Seth so I can't see how high of a feat that actually is. He has more powerful attacks being shown in comics by a good amount without damaging rocks below him.

The only thing the galaxy scan shows is that he shits on other collateral damage feats from a Hulk. And shows that he can damage a lot of stuff at once along with suns (which is pretty neat admittedly). It doesn't mark his power up, or show he was trying harder. It shows the scope of his power but doesn't up it. If anything it'd disperse it, but I digress.

He destroyed a galaxy. He didn't destroy a galaxy full of powerful beings.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
But in combat he's only Galaxy Busted once against Seth...

He has no combat feat greater than that, so thats a High Feat for him...isnt it?
First of all, another interesting thread LoM.

Now on to your question :
"High" feats are fine, IMHO, as long as they aren't "one time" things. If a character does X feat once in like 40 years time, then I consider that a plot device BUT if a character does X multiple times in their history then that's just the way they roll power wise.

For example : Odin and galaxy busting. It's not just a one time thing vs Seth, he's done it before against Forsung (or however you spell his name) and once more after that (can't remember the fight). Those are more than enough times to be considered a "galaxy buster" (I mean how many times does a galaxy busting opportunity arise?).

Also ,"High Showings" are fine as long as they don't reek of PIS/CIS.
Originally posted by operator616
he has also done it in thor #185, and more recently he contained all fires of creation.
I thought he BFRed it into another dimension?

Originally posted by zopzop


I thought he BFRed it into another dimension?

he did, doesn't change the fact that he managed to manipulate all the fires of creation and contain it in that dimension.

Zopzop, a high that reeks of Character-Induced-Stupidity? what?

Anyways, people will have high feats and low feats, but there are obvious incidents that just violate a character's abilities/history so much that there simply is no other explanation than a writer having no idea wtf he's talking about.

Like Black Panther's stuff with the Surfer, Thor getting stalemated in a wrestling match by BP's human bodyguard, etc. Obviously you shouldn't debate solely using high feats, but this is a forum filled with a lot of (at least some) people who have been reading thousands upon thousands of comics. People well into their 20s and 30s, that should be able to recognize shit that like, and call it for what it is.

People who know that sometimes, writers don't know what the **** they're doing

Highest feat- 3 Lowest feats= Real level of power

Originally posted by operator616
he has also done it in thor #185, and more recently he contained all fires of creation.

Who was he actively fighting in Thor 185?

^infinity, not the abstract though.

here's the fight:

http://i.imgur.com/aaTwQNc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/piVSTfd.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/YW9xNpN.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/g70BCbL.jpg

next issue is irrelevant to the fight.

The real problem with the average showings idea is determining what qualifies as "average".

Even if you've read every single appearance of a character (which is nigh-impossible for most well-known characters), finding the "average" involves considering many different circumstances (was the character powered up/weakened during a feat, were there extenuating circumstances, etc.) There's also the fact that many comic characters grow stronger over time, for example I'm currently going through the original FF run and it's commented on that they are constantly getting stronger, faster, more powerful, etc. So what was "average" for a character just a few years ago might not be "average" for them today. Then of course you have the problem of attempting to quantify every feat and seeing how they compare with each other.

Of course I'm not suggesting defining character capabilities only be extreme high-end feats, if a feat is clearly an outlier and way above what they can typically do (i.e. Superman beating Dominus, Odin casually absorbing multiverse-busting energies) etc. it should probably be discounted.