You're the one making the claim that Hancock can take Superman's punches. Logistically speaking, you're the one who should be able to substantiate your claims.
In any case, you most certainly can't prove that Hancock can take Superman's punches indefinitely. It's like trying to say that just because a person can take a bullet with no problem that he can also take a nuclear explosion just as easily... with absolutely nothing to offer as proof other than the bullet feat.
__________________ Poppa's comin home to sling some dick.
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
And you can prove that?
What I was implying was that they had equal durability, not that Hancock's was superior.
Logistically speaking, yes.
Agreed. That's ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous to say that the person wouldn't be able to take the nuclear explosion with no proof other then "well he hasn't done it before", especially if said person took the bullet without any trouble, as well as taking two hundred pounds of C4 and being shot with a cruise missle without any trouble. It's a sticky situation.
Me saying Hancock has no limit to his strength or durability is just as bad as you giving him a limit that you ca't prove exists.
I usually stay out of debates like this. Bu I wuv Will Smith and hate Dark-Jaxx.
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
I wasn't talking specifically to you.
But by saying that Hancock can take all this punishment but can not take Supe's punches, even though there is no proof saying so other then "He hasn't done it before", is putting a limit on Hancock's abilities. I agree that thread should be closed.
And according to you that means we must assume he does not have one. Which is a No-Limit fallacy.
Superman has not just provided a little more force than what Hancock has been shown to take, he has shown to be able to hit with MUCH more force than what Hancock has been shown to take.
2. It is relevant, considering Superman has shown signifigant force to not only pin Hancock to the ground with one arm if he wanted, but can probably rip him in half.
1. Because when I troll, it's art. You're just an average troll at best.
2. The fact that Hancock's best durability feat, going through the atmosphere, pales to Superman's power feats, like turning the planet fast enough to turn back time.
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
That's not power that's speed.
But regardless, the fact that he went through the atmosphere effortlessly means that that isn't his limit. He can take more then that, much more since it was effortless. That being the case, there's still no proof Supers can rip him in half.
1. Speed is a large part of strike force. Flying that speed at Hancock will fvck him up.
2. O RLY? You can't even prove how "effortlessly" he went through the atmosphere. You have no idea. Superman has feats that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>going through the atmosphere, like going through the atmoshpere while carrying a continent of Kryptonite with a piece of Kryptonite still in his side.
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
Strike force has nothing to do with turning back time. All I was referring to was that moving fast enough turn back time was not a product of his strength so much as his speed. And you'd have to prove that it would **** hancock up. There's no proof saying that Hancock will get even a single scratch, actually. You're trying to put a limit on him that does not exist. He's taken everything that's been thrown at him without even a scratch. Just because he hasn't taken a hit with Supes strength behind it doesn't mean he can't, since we don't know his limits.
Can you prove that he had to use effort to go through the atmosphere? Considering he managed to do it even though he was on death's door and had just recovered from being dead, I'd guess that it really doesn't take all that much effort. *shrug*
Irrelevant. And he had just been sun dipped, though that's also irrelevant.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 24th, 2008 12:30 AM
