Comic Battle >> View Thread
1 2  >> All
Author
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583


Because the posts for the previous thread ran off the page, I'm continuing it here. I'm responding to Aang.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      For the hundredth time, the ranking is not my objection.


    Ok, cool. We agree that Supes should be ranked higher. I can certainly close the book on that.


Nope. Just because that hasn’t been the subject of my concern, doesn’t mean I agree with you on that subject. You just engaged in the logical fallacy known as affirming a disjunct. My take is that the criteria for this ranking in indeterminate. If it wasn't clear to you before, I don't even know what it means to be ranked higher or lower here, and apparently you don't either because when I asked you to explain, all you could say was being ranked higher means being ranked higher. Your only stated criterion is who would win in a fight, yet Spider-Man is ranked #1 over Green Lantern and the Flash, so I'm not sure that's the case.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I'm not the one who brought up opinion as a measure of currency on this board. Bk Ray did in his original post. He wrote, "No one has argued about Superman being top, as he is the king of the herald levelers." That basically says, hey, no one's objected, i.e., no one's given their opposing opinion, so it must go without saying that Superman should be at the top of the list. My rebuttal, using his criteria and not mine, is that plenty of people have spoken up on this in the past, actually most of it post-Avengers/JLA. Then I went into why people can validly hold that opinion. Unlike Bk Ray, I don't believe it's the consensus of opinion itself that validates whether Thor can or should beat Superman a preponderance of the time, but why people hold that opinion. And I've given those reasons over and over again in this thread. That's why I find you overly dismissive of others' opinions to the point that you think your reasoning is worth 1000 times theirs. So to answer your question, no, fan opinion is not the highest currency on this board, but the reasons people hold those opinions are the highest currency on this board.


    And I repeat for the 100th time, that the reasons you give just aren't good enough to make Thor a favorite over Supes, not when the story shows otherwise.


And I repeat for the 100th time, I'm talking about degree of certainty. I'm not saying my reasons are absolute proof that Thor is a favorite over Superman, only that there is sufficient evidence that people could hold that as a sensible opinion. You're saying, nope, that one fight in one comic trumps all. That even though the majority on this board holds that opinion, that opinion is completely wacky because nothing remotely close is as important as that one fight in that one issue.


    Quote:
    And I said it's the published story that matters than 1,000 fan opinions, not my reasoning. Let's get that straight. I'll kindly ask you not to twist my words around. The problem is you expect me to accept your evidence even when it is pales when put next to the actual hard evidence and get bent out of shape when I don't.


You say it pales next to the hard evidence, but you can't explain why. This entire thread is you just asserting without explaining, basically just repeating, it just does, it just does, it just does. Why aren't Thor's victories over Gladiator, Hyperion, and Captain Marvel (Billy Batson)(which was not fan-voted) good evidence that Thor can also beat Superman? Why aren't Thor's victories over Galactus, Ego the Living Planet, and Glory good evidence that Thor can also beat Superman? Why does Spider-Man beating Firelord not count but Superman beating Thor counts? Also, I’m not “bent out of shape” and am quite enjoying this exchange of ideas. I enjoy debates.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      It has nothing to do with feelings. It has to do with evidence. Does Thor really not have decades of continuity that says he can beat Superman much if not most of the time? Thor's beaten Galactus, Ego the Living Planet, Glory, and Mangog, opponents much more powerful than Superman. Thor stalemated a Count Nefaria, who Jim Shooter said he intended to be Superman power-wise and this was Silver Age Superman. Post-Crisis Superman didn't even exist at the time. Thor's beaten Gladiator, Hyperion, and Shazam/Captain Marvel, all roughly Superman's equals. But I get it. Nothing else counts for you except that one issue.


    Are you saying Superman hasn't beaten any foes more powerful than himself or Thor? Somehow, I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, I think he does it quite often over the course of his history. Both characters have also lost to foes that they should have beaten. That's the nature of the comics. Their histories should cancel each other out and guess what we're left with. Yup, the story.


Nonsense. Histories don't just cancel each other out. Characters' entire histories is what we use to evaluate them. Every hero has beaten more powerful foes, that doesn't mean every hero's history cancels out. If that's the case, then Spider-Man is superior to Firelord.


    Quote:
    The story that showed in a direct and fair fight for the highest stakes that Supes pulled out a hard-earned but undisputed win. I think based on that story, it is very fair to think Superman would win more often than not.


My whole point is that there is more to it than that one issue.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I don't know that to be the case at all and you either can't or won't explain why. Firelord wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Hulk wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Juggernaut wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Yet to you those victories don't mean anything, but the Thor-Superman fight does. So either your rule about in-comic fights doesn't work or you only choose to apply it when it suits you.


    And I have to say your evidence isn't nearly enough, sorry. Certainly not after JLA/Avengers. I think were both smart enough to grasp context. We both know what the context was in each of those examples that your brought out.


I just explained to you that no, I don’t know what any big difference in context is between my examples and the Thor-Superman fight and asked you to explain the difference. And your response is exactly the same, to claim that I actually know it. I don’t. Tell me.


    Quote:
    Is there context why Thor lost to Superman?


Of course. And this context provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Superman should beat Thor, but it also provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Thor should beat Superman. My entire argument is that the degree of certainty going one way or the other is not something that “goes without saying.” I don’t care that your opinion is Superman should be ranked higher. I care whether you think that “goes without saying,” and if that is the case, I’ve given you lots of evidence as to why it shouldn’t “go without saying.”


    Quote:
    I'm also surprised that you would think I would formulate my opinions in a vacuum. Why would you think those stories you mentioned would be the only guidelines on how I should formulate my opinion with those characters and how they would do against each other? Dear me, whoever said that JLA/Avenger is exclusively the reason why my opinion is, LOL?


You’re joking, right? Every time I’ve brought up anything else in this thread, and I’ve brought up a lot, you immediately dismiss it as unimportant and you point only to this one issue for your opinion. You just wrote above that Thor and Superman’s histories cancel each other out and that leaves only this single story! That’s the definition of you saying JLA/Avengers is exclusively why your opinion is what it is.




How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Aang


Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369




    Quote:
    Quote

    Because the posts for the previous thread ran off the page, I'm continuing it here. I'm responding to Aang.


    Quote:

    Quote:
    For the hundredth time, the ranking is not my objection.


    Ok, cool. We agree that Supes should be ranked higher. I can certainly close the book on that.


    Nope. Just because that hasn’t been the subject of my concern, doesn’t mean I agree with you on that subject. You just engaged in the logical fallacy known as affirming a disjunct. My take is that the criteria for this ranking in indeterminate. If it wasn't clear to you before, I don't even know what it means to be ranked higher or lower here, and apparently you don't either because when I asked you to explain, all you could say was being ranked higher means being ranked higher. Your only stated criterion is who would win in a fight, yet Spider-Man is ranked #1 over Green Lantern and the Flash, so I'm not sure that's the case.

So, you do object to the ranking? Where did I say being ranked higher means being ranked higher? My take is overall value and since the category is muscle - then that shouldn't be too hard to figure out. I never stated any opinions on any other categories so I hardly think they should be brought up here.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:
    I'm not the one who brought up opinion as a measure of currency on this board. Bk Ray did in his original post. He wrote, "No one has argued about Superman being top, as he is the king of the herald levelers." That basically says, hey, no one's objected, i.e., no one's given their opposing opinion, so it must go without saying that Superman should be at the top of the list. My rebuttal, using his criteria and not mine, is that plenty of people have spoken up on this in the past, actually most of it post-Avengers/JLA. Then I went into why people can validly hold that opinion. Unlike Bk Ray, I don't believe it's the consensus of opinion itself that validates whether Thor can or should beat Superman a preponderance of the time, but why people hold that opinion. And I've given those reasons over and over again in this thread. That's why I find you overly dismissive of others' opinions to the point that you think your reasoning is worth 1000 times theirs. So to answer your question, no, fan opinion is not the highest currency on this board, but the reasons people hold those opinions are the highest currency on this board.


    And I repeat for the 100th time, that the reasons you give just aren't good enough to make Thor a favorite over Supes, not when the story shows otherwise.


    And I repeat for the 100th time, I'm talking about degree of certainty. I'm not saying my reasons are absolute proof that Thor is a favorite over Superman, only that there is sufficient evidence that people could hold that as a sensible opinion. You're saying, nope, that one fight in one comic trumps all. That even though the majority on this board holds that opinion, that opinion is completely whacky because nothing remotely close is as important as that one fight in that one issue.

Again, why do you assume I am formulating my argument singularly on that JLA/Avengers? It is not so. It does carry the heaviest weight as far as evidence goes and combine that with who Superman is then I am quite comfortable to say that Superman would/should be ranked higher. If you think that differing opinions other than mine are whacky then those are your words, not mine. LOL.


    Quote:

    Quote:
    And I said it's the published story that matters than 1,000 fan opinions, not my reasoning. Let's get that straight. I'll kindly ask you not to twist my words around. The problem is you expect me to accept your evidence even when it is pales when put next to the actual hard evidence and get bent out of shape when I don't.


    You say it pales next to the hard evidence, but you can't explain why. This entire thread is you just asserting without explaining, basically just repeating, it just does, it just does, it just does. Why aren't Thor's victories over Gladiator, Hyperion, and Captain Marvel (Billy Batson)(which was not fan-voted) good evidence that Thor can also beat Superman? Why aren't Thor's victories over Galactus, Ego the Living Planet, and Glory good evidence that Thor can also beat Superman? Why does Spider-Man beating Firelord not count but Superman beating Thor counts? Also, I’m not “bent out of shape” and am quite enjoying this exchange of ideas. I enjoy debates.

I have explained why I think your evidence is not up to snuff in my books, you just don't listen. I value direct results above circumstantial AvsBvsC ones but not to say the aggregate histories don't matter. In this particular case, Superman has at least the same resume as Thor AND has a direct win.That to me sways the evidence in Superman's favor. 


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:
    It has nothing to do with feelings. It has to do with evidence. Does Thor really not have decades of continuity that says he can beat Superman much if not most of the time? Thor's beaten Galactus, Ego the Living Planet, Glory, and Mangog, opponents much more powerful than Superman. Thor stalemated a Count Nefaria, who Jim Shooter said he intended to be Superman power-wise and this was Silver Age Superman. Post-Crisis Superman didn't even exist at the time. Thor's beaten Gladiator, Hyperion, and Shazam/Captain Marvel, all roughly Superman's equals. But I get it. Nothing else counts for you except that one issue.


    Are you saying Superman hasn't beaten any foes more powerful than himself or Thor? Somehow, I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, I think he does it quite often over the course of his history. Both characters have also lost to foes that they should have beaten. That's the nature of the comics. Their histories should cancel each other out and guess what we're left with. Yup, the story.


    Nonsense. Histories don't just cancel each other out. Characters' entire histories is what we use to evaluate them. Every hero has beaten more powerful foes, that doesn't mean every hero's history cancels out. If that's the case, then Spider-Man is superior to Firelord.

Again you misrepresent what I say. I didn't say every hero's histories, I said Thor and Superman's. It wasn't like Superman was featless and didn't have great victories going into JLA/Avengers. 


    Quote:
    Quote:
    The story that showed in a direct and fair fight for the highest stakes that Supes pulled out a hard-earned but undisputed win. I think based on that story, it is very fair to think Superman would win more often than not.


    My whole point is that there is more to it than that one issue.

Yes, but t I'm comfortable to say hat issue and everything else supports my opinion.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:
    I don't know that to be the case at all and you either can't or won't explain why. Firelord wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Hulk wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Juggernaut wasn't depowered in his loss to Spider-Man. Yet to you those victories don't mean anything, but the Thor-Superman fight does. So either your rule about in-comic fights doesn't work or you only choose to apply it when it suits you.


    And I have to say your evidence isn't nearly enough, sorry. Certainly not after JLA/Avengers. I think were both smart enough to grasp context. We both know what the context was in each of those examples that your brought out.


    I just explained to you that no, I don’t know what any big difference in context is between my examples and the Thor-Superman fight and asked you to explain the difference. And your response is exactly the same, to claim that I actually know it. I don’t. Tell me.

So did Spiderman not trick Juggs into cement? Context. Did Firelord not turn off his other cosmic powers when he lost to Spiderman? Context. 


    Quote:
    Quote:
    Is there context why Thor lost to Superman?


    Of course. And this context provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Superman should beat Thor, but it also provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Thor should beat Superman. My entire argument is that the degree of certainty going one way or the other is not something that “goes without saying.” I don’t care that your opinion is Superman should be ranked higher. I’m care whether you think that “goes without saying,” and if that is the case, I’ve given you lots of evidence as to why it shouldn’t “go without saying.”

Well, what was the context that Thor lost? If you're really hung up on goes without saying/certainty, I don't think it means Thor loses 100% of the time. I've already said that many times. I said Superman wins the majority. Where is the disconnect there?


    Quote:
    Quote:
    I'm also surprised that you would think I would formulate my opinions in a vacuum. Why would you think those stories you mentioned would be the only guidelines on how I should formulate my opinion with those characters and how they would do against each other? Dear me, whoever said that JLA/Avenger is exclusively the reason why my opinion is, LOL?


    You’re joking, right? Every time I’ve brought up anything else in this thread, and I’ve brought up a lot, you immediately dismiss it as unimportant and you point only to this one issue for your opinion. You just wrote above that Thor and Superman’s histories cancel each other out and that leaves only this single story! That’s the definition of you saying JLA/Avengers is exclusively why your opinion is what it is.

Nope. You've brought up stuff that was extraneous. I already told you that JLA/Avengers AND everything else is what makes me comfortable with my opinion.  With JLA/Avengers being the PRIME piece of evidence. Even without JLA/Avengers one could muster a very good argument for Supes. JLA/Avengers just brought it solidly over the top. Not sure why you are pushing for exclusivity. 







From his Formspring page.
Tom, who's more powerful: Galactus or a Celestial? I'd put my money on Galactus over any single Celestial.
http://www.formspring.me/TomBrevoort
Sweet.
Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 7
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Just because that hasn’t been the subject of my concern, doesn’t mean I agree with you on that subject. You just engaged in the logical fallacy known as affirming a disjunct. My take is that the criteria for this ranking in indeterminate. If it wasn't clear to you before, I don't even know what it means to be ranked higher or lower here, and apparently you don't either because when I asked you to explain, all you could say was being ranked higher means being ranked higher. Your only stated criterion is who would win in a fight, yet Spider-Man is ranked #1 over Green Lantern and the Flash, so I'm not sure that's the case.

    So, you do object to the ranking?


I neither object nor affirm the ranking because there is no established criteria for the ranking. I think the whole thing is just a resource management thought experiment for people to figure out how to get the best team based on what they can spend, so the person who developed the ranking purposefully put better buys lower in the rankings, thus, no one should ever take Spider-Man at $5 over Green Lantern at $3 if one wants to max out your team. Similarly, no one should take Superman at $5 over Thor at $3. And for the vast majority of responses here, that held true.


    Quote:
    Where did I say being ranked higher means being ranked higher?


You stated that tautology right here:

http://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=comicbattles-2017011820452294&layout=thread

You wrote, "Ranked #1 meaning he deserves to be ranked highest/most expensive in that particular category." Ranked #1 means he deserves to be ranked highest. Really?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        And I repeat for the 100th time, I'm talking about degree of certainty. I'm not saying my reasons are absolute proof that Thor is a favorite over Superman, only that there is sufficient evidence that people could hold that as a sensible opinion. You're saying, nope, that one fight in one comic trumps all. That even though the majority on this board holds that opinion, that opinion is completely whacky because nothing remotely close is as important as that one fight in that one issue.

    Again, why do you assume I am formulating my argument singularly on that JLA/Avengers?


Because that's the only source you've ever gone to citing. You even went so far as to say the rest of Thor's and Superman's histories don't matter.


    Quote:
    It is not so. It does carry the heaviest weight as far as evidence goes and combine that with who Superman is then I am quite comfortable to say that Superman would/should be ranked higher.


Which for the 101st time, is not what I am concerned with. I am discussing the degree of certainty, whether Superman being above Thor goes without saying.


    Quote:
    If you think that differing opinions other than mine are whacky then those are your words, not mine. LOL.

Then answer this question: Can an informed person reasonably and sensibly hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman a preponderance of the time given the evidence in comic books?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You say it pales next to the hard evidence, but you can't explain why. This entire thread is you just asserting without explaining, basically just repeating, it just does, it just does, it just does. Why aren't Thor's victories over Gladiator, Hyperion, and Captain Marvel (Billy Batson)(which was not fan-voted) good evidence that Thor can also beat Superman? Why aren't Thor's victories over Galactus, Ego the Living Planet, and Glory good evidence that Thor can also beat Superman? Why does Spider-Man beating Firelord not count but Superman beating Thor counts? Also, I’m not “bent out of shape” and am quite enjoying this exchange of ideas. I enjoy debates.

    I have explained why I think your evidence is not up to snuff in my books, you just don't listen. I value direct results above circumstantial AvsBvsC ones.


You haven't explained that until just now. Before when I brought up these examples, here was your response:

http://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=comicbattles-2017011704264381&layout=thread

"Again with the mental contortions." See, that's just ad hominem that doesn't explain anything. But you keep bringing this back to you. My original point was whether Superman being above Thor "goes without saying." The "goes without saying" part is what I have trouble with. I think there is plenty of evidence for people to believe that Superman would beat Thor, but I also think there is plenty of evidence that Thor would beat Superman, so I don't have the slightest problem with someone who believes the former. I have a problem with someone stating there is no substantial evidence that Thor would beat Superman. That's where the "goes without saying" comes in. That you seem not to understand this seems deliberately obtuse of you.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Are you saying Superman hasn't beaten any foes more powerful than himself or Thor? Somehow, I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, I think he does it quite often over the course of his history. Both characters have also lost to foes that they should have beaten. That's the nature of the comics. Their histories should cancel each other out and guess what we're left with. Yup, the story.


        Nonsense. Histories don't just cancel each other out. Characters' entire histories is what we use to evaluate them. Every hero has beaten more powerful foes, that doesn't mean every hero's history cancels out. If that's the case, then Spider-Man is superior to Firelord.

    Again you misrepresent what I say. I didn't say every hero's histories, I said Thor and Superman's. It wasn't like Superman was featless and didn't have great victories going into JLA/Avengers.

Ah, so we have another rule. Other characters' histories matter, just not Thor and Superman's. Just like other evidence matters when Spider-Man beats Firelord or Hulk, it just doesn't matter when it comes to Thor and Superman. How convenient.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The story that showed in a direct and fair fight for the highest stakes that Supes pulled out a hard-earned but undisputed win. I think based on that story, it is very fair to think Superman would win more often than not.


      My whole point is that there is more to it than that one issue.

    Yes, but t I'm comfortable to say hat issue and everything else supports my opinion.

So then you agree that "and everything else" matters. Good. Because when I bring up ANYTHING else, you don't think it matters. Then Thor and Superman's histories do matter, because you can't have it both ways.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I just explained to you that no, I don’t know what any big difference in context is between my examples and the Thor-Superman fight and asked you to explain the difference. And your response is exactly the same, to claim that I actually know it. I don’t. Tell me.

    So did Spiderman not trick Juggs into cement? Context.


Is it not a fair fight to use your environment against your opponent? If Thor or Superman knocked each other out with a nearby boulder would it not count? Juggernaut could have tossed Spider-Man into the concrete if he wanted to use that tactic. There's nothing unfair about it.


    Quote:
    Did Firelord not turn off his other cosmic powers when he lost to Spiderman? Context.

When and why would Firelord turn off his cosmic powers while fighting Spider-Man? I'm pretty sure this did not happen, which I will check on when I get home to the actual comic.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Of course. And this context provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Superman should beat Thor, but it also provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Thor should beat Superman. My entire argument is that the degree of certainty going one way or the other is not something that “goes without saying.” I don’t care that your opinion is Superman should be ranked higher. I’m care whether you think that “goes without saying,” and if that is the case, I’ve given you lots of evidence as to why it shouldn’t “go without saying.”

    Well, what was the context that Thor lost?


For one thing, we know that Thor holds back in the vast majority of his fights. In my scan of his fight with Gladiator, they are fighting evenly until Thor says he will no longer hold back, and then right away he knocks Gladiator into semi-consciousness. After that, Gladiator refuses to try to kill Thor again because, as Gladiator states to Zarkko, "He's too strong." Thor also fought Superman without using any versatility. I think it's a given in a rematch, Thor would use a lot more energy projection, Mjolnir's defensive capabilities instead of just wading through Superman's heat vision, even teleportation. If it were truly a fight of the highest stakes, Thor could even use a godblast. Ocean Master took down Superman with lightning not that long ago. There's no reason why Thor couldn't do the same.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I'm also surprised that you would think I would formulate my opinions in a vacuum. Why would you think those stories you mentioned would be the only guidelines on how I should formulate my opinion with those characters and how they would do against each other? Dear me, whoever said that JLA/Avenger is exclusively the reason why my opinion is, LOL?


      You’re joking, right? Every time I’ve brought up anything else in this thread, and I’ve brought up a lot, you immediately dismiss it as unimportant and you point only to this one issue for your opinion. You just wrote above that Thor and Superman’s histories cancel each other out and that leaves only this single story! That’s the definition of you saying JLA/Avengers is exclusively why your opinion is what it is.

    Nope. You've brought up stuff that was extraneous. I already told you that JLA/Avengers AND everything else is what makes me comfortable with my opinion.  With JLA/Avengers being the PRIME piece of evidence. Even without JLA/Avengers one could muster a very good argument for Supes. JLA/Avengers just brought it solidly over the top. Not sure why you are pushing for exclusivity.


Are you not the one who said that Superman and Thor's histories cancel each other out and so we don't have to take those into account, and only that one issue of JLA/Avengers is what we're left with? And if what I've brought up (Thor beating Gladiator, Hyperion, Captain Marvel, and others much more powerful than Superman) is extraneously, what is less extraneous than those examples that makes you think Thor can give Superman a good fight? Or do you think there is no evidence of that and ALL evidence is on Superman's side?





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Aang


Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369





    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    Just because that hasn’t been the subject of my concern, doesn’t mean I agree with you on that subject. You just engaged in the logical fallacy known as affirming a disjunct. My take is that the criteria for this ranking in indeterminate. If it wasn't clear to you before, I don't even know what it means to be ranked higher or lower here, and apparently you don't either because when I asked you to explain, all you could say was being ranked higher means being ranked higher. Your only stated criterion is who would win in a fight, yet Spider-Man is ranked #1 over Green Lantern and the Flash, so I'm not sure that's the case.

    So, you do object to the ranking?


    I neither object nor affirm the ranking because there is no established criteria for the ranking. I think the whole thing is just a resource management thought experiment for people to figure out how to get the best team based on what they can spend, so the person who developed the ranking purposefully put better buys lower in the rankings, thus, no one should ever take Spider-Man at $5 over Green Lantern at $3 if one wants to max out your team. Similarly, no one should take Superman at $5 over Thor at $3. And for the vast majority of responses here, that held true.

I never argued someone should take Superman at 5$ over Thor at $3. I said Superman deserves to be at $5.I would think there would be logical correlation between the price and the quality of the item based on the category that was given. The category for Supes and Thor is "muscle". I think Supes deserves his ranking at the category "muscle". No more, no less.


    Quote:
    Quote:
    It is not so. It does carry the heaviest weight as far as evidence goes and combine that with who Superman is then I am quite comfortable to say that Superman would/should be ranked higher.


    Which for the 101st time, is not what I am concerned with. I am discussing the degree of certainty, whether Superman being above Thor goes without saying.

I said I agreed that Supes will win more often than not, not that he will win 100% of the time. You have me confused with somebody else.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    If you think that differing opinions other than mine are whacky then those are your words, not mine. LOL.

    Then answer this question: Can an informed person reasonably and sensibly hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman a preponderance of the time given the evidence in comic books?

If the evidence is strong enough, yes. I disagree that the evidence is strong enough. From what I know of the general rules of battleboard debates (I know this particular one doesn't have any official rules), a printed fight should have more weight than than theoretical conclusions. 


    Quote:
    You haven't explained that until just now. Before when I brought up these examples, here was your response:

    http://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=comicbattles-2017011704264381&layout=thread

    "Again with the mental contortions." See, that's just ad hominem that doesn't explain anything. But you keep bringing this back to you. My original point was whether Superman being above Thor "goes without saying." The "goes without saying" part is what I have trouble with. I think there is plenty of evidence for people to believe that Superman would beat Thor, but I also think there is plenty of evidence that Thor would beat Superman, so I don't have the slightest problem with someone who believes the former. I have a problem with someone stating there is no substantial evidence that Thor would beat Superman. That's where the "goes without saying" comes in. That you seem not to understand this seems deliberately obtuse of you.

Err, you're the one who changed the subject to "Ignore anything that contradicts you". 


    Quote:
    "Again with the mental contortions." See, that's just ad hominem that doesn't explain anything. But you keep bringing this back to you. My original point was whether Superman being above Thor "goes without saying." The "goes without saying" part is what I have trouble with. I think there is plenty of evidence for people to believe that Superman would beat Thor, but I also think there is plenty of evidence that Thor would beat Superman, so I don't have the slightest problem with someone who believes the former. I have a problem with someone stating there is no substantial evidence that Thor would beat Superman. That's where the "goes without saying" comes in. That you seem not to understand this seems deliberately obtuse of you.

Err, I don't know if you know this but I'm not the one who say "goes without saying". I said I agreed with BK saying Supes has won 100% of the time. 


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    Are you saying Superman hasn't beaten any foes more powerful than himself or Thor? Somehow, I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, I think he does it quite often over the course of his history. Both characters have also lost to foes that they should have beaten. That's the nature of the comics. Their histories should cancel each other out and guess what we're left with. Yup, the story.


    Nonsense. Histories don't just cancel each other out. Characters' entire histories is what we use to evaluate them. Every hero has beaten more powerful foes, that doesn't mean every hero's history cancels out. If that's the case, then Spider-Man is superior to Firelord.

    Again you misrepresent what I say. I didn't say every hero's histories, I said Thor and Superman's. It wasn't like Superman was featless and didn't have great victories going into JLA/Avengers.

    Ah, so we have another rule. Other characters' histories matter, just not Thor and Superman's. Just like other evidence matters when Spider-Man beats Firelord or Hulk, it just doesn't matter when it comes to Thor and Superman. How convenient.

LOL, dear me, how do you keep making this leaps? Why do you think their histories don't matter? You actually think if Thor had an established history that is more formidable than Supes that I wouldn't take it into consideration?  You make it seem that the comparative histories of Supes and Thor are slanted towards Thor. They are not.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    The story that showed in a direct and fair fight for the highest stakes that Supes pulled out a hard-earned but undisputed win. I think based on that story, it is very fair to think Superman would win more often than not.


    My whole point is that there is more to it than that one issue.

    Yes, but t I'm comfortable to say hat issue and everything else supports my opinion.

    So then you agree that "and everything else" matters. Good. Because when I bring up ANYTHING else, you don't think it matters. Then Thor and Superman's histories do matter, because you can't have it both ways.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:
    I just explained to you that no, I don’t know what any big difference in context is between my examples and the Thor-Superman fight and asked you to explain the difference. And your response is exactly the same, to claim that I actually know it. I don’t. Tell me.

    So did Spiderman not trick Juggs into cement? Context.


    Is it not a fair fight to use your environment against your opponent? If Thor or Superman knocked each other out with a nearby boulder would it not count? Juggernaut could have tossed Spider-Man into the concrete if he wanted to use that tactic. There's nothing unfair about it.

 Did Spiderman overpower Juggs, no. Did Spiderman temporarily remove Juggs from the fight? Yes. I believe that's what they term "BFR", correct? I would say that counts for context. Now, if Thor knocked Supes out in the story after fighting for greatest stakes and fighting giving their all, then I would struggle to find context.


    Quote:
    Quote:
    Did Firelord not turn off his other cosmic powers when he lost to Spiderman? Context.

    When and why would Firelord turn off his cosmic powers while fighting Spider-Man? I'm pretty sure this did not happen, which I will check on when I get home to the actual comic.

I might be mis-remembering the fight. If I am wrong, I apologize.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:
    Of course. And this context provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Superman should beat Thor, but it also provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Thor should beat Superman. My entire argument is that the degree of certainty going one way or the other is not something that “goes without saying.” I don’t care that your opinion is Superman should be ranked higher. I’m care whether you think that “goes without saying,” and if that is the case, I’ve given you lots of evidence as to why it shouldn’t “go without saying.”

    Well, what was the context that Thor lost?


    For one thing, we know that Thor holds back in the vast majority of his fights. In my scan of his fight with Gladiator, they are fighting evenly until Thor says he will no longer hold back, and then right away he knocks Gladiator into semi-consciousness. After that, Gladiator refuses to try to kill Thor again because, as Gladiator states to Zarkko, "He's too strong." Thor also fought Superman without using any versatility. I think it's a given in a rematch, Thor would use a lot more energy projection, Mjolnir's defensive capabilities instead of just wading through Superman's heat vision, even teleportation. If it were truly a fight of the highest stakes, Thor could even use a godblast. Ocean Master took down Superman with lightning not that long ago. There's no reason why Thor couldn't do the same.

I have to say those are hard sells. One can say Supes holds back just as much or even more than Thor. Doesn't Superman have other esoteric powers he didn't use as well? Why didn't he speed-blitz given how mach faster he is? How could Thor use the godblast with a foe as fast as Superman? What would keep him from getting knocked out given that the blast seems to need some measure of windup? Remember, JLA/Avengers was a limited series with a multitude of heroes. Even if the actual fight scenes were limited in number, I think it's fair to assume the writer meant to convey that both heroes were fighting to their best abilities given the stakes. That would make more sense than otherwise.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    I'm also surprised that you would think I would formulate my opinions in a vacuum. Why would you think those stories you mentioned would be the only guidelines on how I should formulate my opinion with those characters and how they would do against each other? Dear me, whoever said that JLA/Avenger is exclusively the reason why my opinion is, LOL?


    You’re joking, right? Every time I’ve brought up anything else in this thread, and I’ve brought up a lot, you immediately dismiss it as unimportant and you point only to this one issue for your opinion. You just wrote above that Thor and Superman’s histories cancel each other out and that leaves only this single story! That’s the definition of you saying JLA/Avengers is exclusively why your opinion is what it is.

    Nope. You've brought up stuff that was extraneous. I already told you that JLA/Avengers AND everything else is what makes me comfortable with my opinion.  With JLA/Avengers being the PRIME piece of evidence. Even without JLA/Avengers one could muster a very good argument for Supes. JLA/Avengers just brought it solidly over the top. Not sure why you are pushing for exclusivity.


    Are you not the one who said that Superman and Thor's histories cancel each other out and so we don't have to take those into account, and only that one issue of JLA/Avengers is what we're left with? And if what I've brought up (Thor beating Gladiator, Hyperion, Captain Marvel, and others much more powerful than Superman) is extraneously, what is less extraneous than those examples that makes you think Thor can give Superman a good fight? Or do you think there is no evidence of that and ALL evidence is on Superman's side?

Again, I never said there is zero evidence for Thor at all. As a matter of fact, I think he will win some fights given how close they are. I just think there ismore evidence that Superman will win more than not. 







From his Formspring page.
Tom, who's more powerful: Galactus or a Celestial? I'd put my money on Galactus over any single Celestial.
http://www.formspring.me/TomBrevoort
Sweet.
Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 7
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Then answer this question: Can an informed person reasonably and sensibly hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman a preponderance of the time given the evidence in comic books?

    If the evidence is strong enough, yes. I disagree that the evidence is strong enough.


Okay, so you do think the majority of the board is unreasonable or uninformed since they frequently rank Thor higher than Superman.


    Quote:
    From what I know of the general rules of battleboard debates (I know this particular one doesn't have any official rules), a printed fight should have more weight than than theoretical conclusions. 

Indeed it should, but it's not the only evidence, which is why even though Spider-Man beat Firelord and Hulk and Iron Man in printed fights, Spider-Man is not usually considered superior to them. Likewise, sure Superman beat Thor in a printed fight. But Thor has also beaten numerous Superman analogues in printed fights. Some, like Gladiator, have displayed strength feats like destroying a planet and hanging out in a star that surpass any by post-Crisis Superman.


    Quote:
    Err, I don't know if you know this but I'm not the one who say "goes without saying". I said I agreed with BK saying Supes has won 100% of the time. 

You wrote, "Why wouldn't BK think it goes without saying Supes should be #1? I would say that's fair based on JLA/Avengers." So you are someone who says it "goes without saying."


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Are you saying Superman hasn't beaten any foes more powerful than himself or Thor? Somehow, I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, I think he does it quite often over the course of his history. Both characters have also lost to foes that they should have beaten. That's the nature of the comics. Their histories should cancel each other out and guess what we're left with. Yup, the story.


            Nonsense. Histories don't just cancel each other out. Characters' entire histories is what we use to evaluate them. Every hero has beaten more powerful foes, that doesn't mean every hero's history cancels out. If that's the case, then Spider-Man is superior to Firelord.


          Again you misrepresent what I say. I didn't say every hero's histories, I said Thor and Superman's. It wasn't like Superman was featless and didn't have great victories going into JLA/Avengers.


        Ah, so we have another rule. Other characters' histories matter, just not Thor and Superman's. Just like other evidence matters when Spider-Man beats Firelord or Hulk, it just doesn't matter when it comes to Thor and Superman. How convenient.

    LOL, dear me, how do you keep making this leaps? Why do you think their histories don't matter? You actually think if Thor had an established history that is more formidable than Supes that I wouldn't take it into consideration? You make it seem that the comparative histories of Supes and Thor are slanted towards Thor. They are not.


Really? You think they are exactly equal? Not counting villains who are primarily Avengers or Justice League foes, Thor's rogue's gallery is comprised of the Absorbing Man, Celestials, Demogorge, the Destroyer, Ego the Living Planet, Galactus, Hela, Karnilla, Kurse, Loki, Mangog, Mephisto, the Midgard Serpent, Pluto, Perrikus, Surtur, and Ymir. Superman's most formidable foes are Bizarro, Brainiac, Cyborg Superman, Darkseid, Doomsday, General Zod, Gog, Kalibak, Lex Luthor, Mongul, Mr. Mxyzptlk, and Superboy Prime. Are you really going to tell me that those two lists are exactly equal in power level?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Is it not a fair fight to use your environment against your opponent? If Thor or Superman knocked each other out with a nearby boulder would it not count? Juggernaut could have tossed Spider-Man into the concrete if he wanted to use that tactic. There's nothing unfair about it.

    Did Spiderman overpower Juggs, no. Did Spiderman temporarily remove Juggs from the fight? Yes. I believe that's what they term "BFR", correct? I would say that counts for context.


If by "temporarily remove" you mean Juggernaut was trapped in that cement for weeks, then yes, he was "temporarily" removed. But fights aren't won just on power alone but on smarts or Batman wouldn't be half the hero he is.


    Quote:
    Did Firelord not turn off his other cosmic powers when he lost to Spiderman? Context.


I checked this out and Firelord never turns off his cosmic powers against Spider-Man and he fully intends to kill Spidey and is frustrated that Spider-Man is able to evade his every blast with his spider sense. What Firelord does consider is blowing up the whole city and Spider-Man with it but decides against it because it would not be honorable. So aside from Firelord's honor, which one would argue is an innate part of his character, it's a clean fight and a clean win for Spider-Man.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      For one thing, we know that Thor holds back in the vast majority of his fights. In my scan of his fight with Gladiator, they are fighting evenly until Thor says he will no longer hold back, and then right away he knocks Gladiator into semi-consciousness. After that, Gladiator refuses to try to kill Thor again because, as Gladiator states to Zarkko, "He's too strong." Thor also fought Superman without using any versatility. I think it's a given in a rematch, Thor would use a lot more energy projection, Mjolnir's defensive capabilities instead of just wading through Superman's heat vision, even teleportation. If it were truly a fight of the highest stakes, Thor could even use a godblast. Ocean Master took down Superman with lightning not that long ago. There's no reason why Thor couldn't do the same.

    I have to say those are hard sells. One can say Supes holds back just as much or even more than Thor.


Except since we're taking context into account, being on Marvel Earth was causing Superman to act terribly out of character in that story so that he was erratic, condescending, and uninhibited, so unlikely to be holding back like his usual self.


    Quote:
    Doesn't Superman have other esoteric powers he didn't use as well? Why didn't he speed-blitz given how mach faster he is?


It's likely Superman used his super speed in the first two panels of the fight, first to dodge Thor's blow then to instantly fly right back down and strike Thor.


    Quote:
    How could Thor use the godblast with a foe as fast as Superman? What would keep him from getting knocked out given that the blast seems to need some measure of windup?


Because Thor can grab somebody, hold them, and godblast them from his body like he does to Durok here, someone stronger and more durable than Superman:




    Quote:
    Remember, JLA/Avengers was a limited series with a multitude of heroes. Even if the actual fight scenes were limited in number, I think it's fair to assume the writer meant to convey that both heroes were fighting to their best abilities given the stakes. That would make more sense than otherwise.


You know the other clear win in that issue of Avengers/JLA is Iron Man and Hawkeye beating Captain Atom and Green Arrow. Given that Hawkeye and Green Arrow are pretty even, are we then to take this issue as overwhelming evidence that Iron Man is superior to Captain Atom?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Every time I’ve brought up anything else in this thread, and I’ve brought up a lot, you immediately dismiss it as unimportant and you point only to this one issue for your opinion. You just wrote above that Thor and Superman’s histories cancel each other out and that leaves only this single story! That’s the definition of you saying JLA/Avengers is exclusively why your opinion is what it is.


        Nope. You've brought up stuff that was extraneous. I already told you that JLA/Avengers AND everything else is what makes me comfortable with my opinion.  With JLA/Avengers being the PRIME piece of evidence. Even without JLA/Avengers one could muster a very good argument for Supes. JLA/Avengers just brought it solidly over the top. Not sure why you are pushing for exclusivity.


      Are you not the one who said that Superman and Thor's histories cancel each other out and so we don't have to take those into account, and only that one issue of JLA/Avengers is what we're left with? And if what I've brought up (Thor beating Gladiator, Hyperion, Captain Marvel, and others much more powerful than Superman) is extraneously, what is less extraneous than those examples that makes you think Thor can give Superman a good fight? Or do you think there is no evidence of that and ALL evidence is on Superman's side?

    Again, I never said there is zero evidence for Thor at all. As a matter of fact, I think he will win some fights given how close they are. I just think there ismore evidence that Superman will win more than not.


So I ask again, what is the less extraneous evidence that Thor will make it a close fight than what I've brought up?





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Braugi




is it who would win in a fight with the others listed, the most powerful, both, etc.

All of those are reasonable assumptions, but could have very different results...

for instance, I think a lot of people would argue Silver Surfer is more powerful than Thor, but that Thor would win in a fight (I actually think they're REALLY close to equal in overall power, but Thor wins in a fight because of how they usually fight.

I think a Thor vs. Superman fight sans politics involved is a tossup, but I also think Thor is more powerful (though I recognize good arguments for Superman being more powerful, and the last couple years of Thor, especially with the more recent 'reveal' about Mjolnir's nature probably will end up changing my opinion)....

But also recognize this list seems like a hastily thought out thing...as zvelf brought up, Spider Man above Green Lantern? I'd give him a decent chance against Flash, and an outside chance against the weaker lanterns, but any of the elite lanterns would be HEAVY favorites....and you saw the furor over Cable at a buck....

BUT, if I'm looking at a list of superheroes, and I'm trying to decide who I would pick on my team, who would be the first on your list (if you get every mainstream, non cosmic (in an abstract type sense))

I could see arguments for Superman, but also for the Surfer, Martian Manhunter, Thor, even guys like Dr. Fate or Dr. Strange, or Orion, or a handful of other guys. Does any one of them 'go without saying'?

Go without saying is pretty much saying 'its a foregone conclusion, and there is no reasonable argument otherwise', while I could certainly argue that a character without a weakness to kryptonite or magic who is competitive might be a better pick. If Thor has the sixty second limitation, you might disqualify him too. You might pick MM because of his psi, shapeshifting, etc. making him able to be highly effective when a flying brick wouldn't be, or Xman from back in the day, or someone else.

All in all, if I had to pick one single person to be the first pick on a super team that might face any type of threat in any environment, Superman probably would NOT be my first pick. He'd be great 99 percent of the time, but others would be better in that 1 percent, and essentially as effective the rest of the time as well.


Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:
    is it who would win in a fight with the others listed, the most powerful, both, etc.


Right there are several ways one can interpret criteria for the ranking once you get into details.


    Quote:
    for instance, I think a lot of people would argue Silver Surfer is more powerful than Thor, but that Thor would win in a fight (I actually think they're REALLY close to equal in overall power, but Thor wins in a fight because of how they usually fight.


Agreed.


    Quote:
    I think a Thor vs. Superman fight sans politics involved is a tossup, but I also think Thor is more powerful (though I recognize good arguments for Superman being more powerful, and the last couple years of Thor, especially with the more recent 'reveal' about Mjolnir's nature probably will end up changing my opinion)....


I don't see why that should be the case. Mjolnir now contains the most powerful cosmic storm to have ever existed, one that nearly rivals Odin in power. Though there are now hints of Jane Thor tapping into that power, it's obvious that Thor had not been doing so. The retcon however opens that potential up, and that would make Thor even more powerful than before.


    Quote:
    But also recognize this list seems like a hastily thought out thing...as zvelf brought up, Spider Man above Green Lantern? I'd give him a decent chance against Flash, and an outside chance against the weaker lanterns, but any of the elite lanterns would be HEAVY favorites....and you saw the furor over Cable at a buck....


That's why I doubt the creator of the rankings prized ranking accuracy over creating a thought experiment/game out for choosing the best team for the buck.


    Quote:
    I could see arguments for Superman, but also for the Surfer, Martian Manhunter, Thor, even guys like Dr. Fate or Dr. Strange, or Orion, or a handful of other guys. Does any one of them 'go without saying'?

    Go without saying is pretty much saying 'its a foregone conclusion, and there is no reasonable argument otherwise', while I could certainly argue that a character without a weakness to kryptonite or magic who is competitive might be a better pick. If Thor has the sixty second limitation, you might disqualify him too.


Exactly. My whole point is that there is room for debate. You or I can disagree where we come down in the debate, but the subject of the accuracy of the rankings can be debated within reason.






How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Aang


Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369




    Quote:
    Quote


    Quote:

    Quote:
    Then answer this question: Can an informed person reasonably and sensibly hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman a preponderance of the time given the evidence in comic books?

    If the evidence is strong enough, yes. I disagree that the evidence is strong enough.


    Okay, so you do think the majority of the board is unreasonable or uninformed since they frequently rank Thor higher than Superman.

I disagree with their opinion. If you want to label them as with those adjectives, knock yourself out but I won't.  I am so comfortable with my choice that I have no interest in the labeling anybody anything. Why would you even herd me towards that? The combined Marvel/DC creative and editorial team deemed Superman should win in that story.  Combine with my belief that Superman's history suggests he is at very least as formidable of Thor seals it for me. I can ask you if you think those guys are an unreasonable and uninformed lot, but I won't





    Quote:
    Quote:
    From what I know of the general rules of battleboard debates (I know this particular one doesn't have any official rules), a printed fight should have more weight than than theoretical conclusions. 

    Indeed it should, but it's not the only evidence, which is why even though Spider-Man beat Firelord and Hulk and Iron Man in printed fights, Spider-Man is not usually considered superior to them. Likewise, sure Superman beat Thor in a printed fight. But Thor has also beaten numerous Superman analogues in printed fights. Some, like Gladiator, have displayed strength feats like destroying a planet and hanging out in a star that surpass any by post-Crisis Superman.

But that's just it, if Superman didn't have a history of ridiculous feats that easily equal or even surpass Thor's, I would agree with you. But he does. I also think in that magnitude of an event as Jla/Avengers, those comparative histories were carefully considered by Busiek, Breevoort, Alonzo, Perez and all creative and editorial staff from both sides - and decided that it would make sense for Superman to win. Straight up hero to hero with no obvious context result in the story.


    Quote:
    Quote:
    Err, I don't know if you know this but I'm not the one who say "goes without saying". I said I agreed with BK saying Supes has won 100% of the time. 

    That's not all you said. Look at your post here: http://www.comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=comicbattles-2017011720313135&layout=thread

    You wrote, "Why wouldn't BK think it goes without saying Supes should be #1? I would say that's fair based on JLA/Avengers." So you are someone who says it "goes without saying."

I did not take "goes without saying" as assuming 
supes winning 100% of the time.  If that is indeed the connotation of the phrase then I agree, it probably doesn't apply. If it means (as I took it) that it means Supes should win most of the time then I don't see anything wrong with it.


    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    Are you saying Superman hasn't beaten any foes more powerful than himself or Thor? Somehow, I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, I think he does it quite often over the course of his history. Both characters have also lost to foes that they should have beaten. That's the nature of the comics. Their histories should cancel each other out and guess what we're left with. Yup, the story.


    Nonsense. Histories don't just cancel each other out. Characters' entire histories is what we use to evaluate them. Every hero has beaten more powerful foes, that doesn't mean every hero's history cancels out. If that's the case, then Spider-Man is superior to Firelord.


    Again you misrepresent what I say. I didn't say every hero's histories, I said Thor and Superman's. It wasn't like Superman was featless and didn't have great victories going into JLA/Avengers.


    Ah, so we have another rule. Other characters' histories matter, just not Thor and Superman's. Just like other evidence matters when Spider-Man beats Firelord or Hulk, it just doesn't matter when it comes to Thor and Superman. How convenient.

    LOL, dear me, how do you keep making this leaps? Why do you think their histories don't matter? You actually think if Thor had an established history that is more formidable than Supes that I wouldn't take it into consideration? You make it seem that the comparative histories of Supes and Thor are slanted towards Thor. They are not.


    Really? You think they are exactly equal? Not counting villains who are primarily Avengers or Justice League foes, Thor's rogue's gallery is comprised of the Absorbing Man, Celestials, Demogorge, the Destroyer, Ego the Living Planet, Galactus, Hela, Karnilla, Kurse, Loki, Mangog, Mephisto, the Midgard Serpent, Pluto, Perrikus, Surtur, and Ymir. Superman's most formidable foes are Bizarro, Brainiac, Cyborg Superman, Darkseid, Doomsday, General Zod, Gog, Kalibak, Lex Luthor, Mongul, Mr. Mxyzptlk, and Superboy Prime. Are you really going to tell me that those two lists are exactly equal in power level?

Are you saying histories and rogues galleries are the same thing? What I was saying is that Superman's overall history of formidability is the very least equal to Thor or even superior. That is no doubt  one of the reasons why the writing and editorial teams of both sides decided that Superman. would win. I mean, it has to be. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. 


    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    Is it not a fair fight to use your environment against your opponent? If Thor or Superman knocked each other out with a nearby boulder would it not count? Juggernaut could have tossed Spider-Man into the concrete if he wanted to use that tactic. There's nothing unfair about it.

    Did Spiderman overpower Juggs, no. Did Spiderman temporarily remove Juggs from the fight? Yes. I believe that's what they term "BFR", correct? I would say that counts for context.


    If by "temporarily remove" you mean Juggernaut was trapped in that cement for weeks, then yes, he was "temporarily" removed. But fights aren't won just on power alone but on smarts or Batman wouldn't be half the hero he is.

Yes, but that is the context I was talking about besides the fact that Spidey is the hero and Juggs the villain. What similar context was there when Superman beat Thor, I wonder.


    Quote:


    I checked this out and Firelord never turns off his cosmic powers against Spider-Man and he fully intends to kill Spidey and is frustrated that Spider-Man is able to evade his every blast with his spider sense. What Firelord does consider is blowing up the whole city and Spider-Man with it but decides against it because it would not be honorable. So aside from Firelord's honor, which one would argue is an innate part of his character, it's a clean fight and a clean win for Spider-Man.

Just for the record, I did apologize for mis-remembering that story although I do still think there was context. All through the that story Spidey freely admitted he was outmatched and didn't think he could win. The hero factor was strong in this story. Thor vs Supes has no overriding hero factor from either side.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:
    For one thing, we know that Thor holds back in the vast majority of his fights. In my scan of his fight with Gladiator, they are fighting evenly until Thor says he will no longer hold back, and then right away he knocks Gladiator into semi-consciousness. After that, Gladiator refuses to try to kill Thor again because, as Gladiator states to Zarkko, "He's too strong." Thor also fought Superman without using any versatility. I think it's a given in a rematch, Thor would use a lot more energy projection, Mjolnir's defensive capabilities instead of just wading through Superman's heat vision, even teleportation. If it were truly a fight of the highest stakes, Thor could even use a godblast. Ocean Master took down Superman with lightning not that long ago. There's no reason why Thor couldn't do the same.

    I have to say those are hard sells. One can say Supes holds back just as much or even more than Thor.


    Except since we're taking context into account, being on Marvel Earth was causing Superman to act terribly out of character in that story so that he was erratic, condescending, and uninhibited, so unlikely to be holding back like his usual self.

Didn't Thor initially draw first blood in an earlier story by hitting Superman with arguably a chep Mjolnir shot? I hardly think that's holding back. Also, with the stakes as they are and the dialogue in the fight, I don't think there's anything that would make me assume that Thor was holding back.


    Quote:

    Quote:
    Doesn't Superman have other esoteric powers he didn't use as well? Why didn't he speed-blitz given how mach faster he is?


    It's likely Superman used his super speed in the first two panels of the fight, first to dodge Thor's blow then to instantly fly right back down and strike Thor.

Yeah, but he did not speed-blitz Thor as his powerset would allow him in theory.


    Quote:
    Because Thor can grab somebody, hold them, and godblast them from his body like he does to Durok here, someone stronger and more durable than Superman:




One has to assume that Thor cannot employ that maneuver easily with Superman because otherwise he would've tried it given the stakes. Thor was trying his best to win, as was Superman.


    Quote:
    Quote:
    Remember, JLA/Avengers was a limited series with a multitude of heroes. Even if the actual fight scenes were limited in number, I think it's fair to assume the writer meant to convey that both heroes were fighting to their best abilities given the stakes. That would make more sense than otherwise.


    You know the other clear win in that issue of Avengers/JLA is Iron Man and Hawkeye beating Captain Atom and Green Arrow. Given that Hawkeye and Green Arrow are pretty even, are we then to take this issue as overwhelming evidence that Iron Man is superior to Captain Atom?

Which issue did this happen from the 4 issues. I'd like to check.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    Every time I’ve brought up anything else in this thread, and I’ve brought up a lot, you immediately dismiss it as unimportant and you point only to this one issue for your opinion. You just wrote above that Thor and Superman’s histories cancel each other out and that leaves only this single story! That’s the definition of you saying JLA/Avengers is exclusively why your opinion is what it is.


    Nope. You've brought up stuff that was extraneous. I already told you that JLA/Avengers AND everything else is what makes me comfortable with my opinion.  With JLA/Avengers being the PRIME piece of evidence. Even without JLA/Avengers one could muster a very good argument for Supes. JLA/Avengers just brought it solidly over the top. Not sure why you are pushing for exclusivity.


    Are you not the one who said that Superman and Thor's histories cancel each other out and so we don't have to take those into account, and only that one issue of JLA/Avengers is what we're left with? And if what I've brought up (Thor beating Gladiator, Hyperion, Captain Marvel, and others much more powerful than Superman) is extraneously, what is less extraneous than those examples that makes you think Thor can give Superman a good fight? Or do you think there is no evidence of that and ALL evidence is on Superman's side?

    Again, I never said there is zero evidence for Thor at all. As a matter of fact, I think he will win some fights given how close they are. I just think there ismore evidence that Superman will win more than not.


    So I ask again, what is the less extraneous evidence that Thor will make it a close fight than what I've brought up?

Let's make this clear, I think the fight was close but Supes was said to have the extra dial he could employ to win solidly more often than not. It was close, but Superman caught a lightning-charged full Mjolnir shot with his left hand, while on his back, and then knock Thor unconscious with his other hand. That was pretty damn impressive.

I'll also tell you what I would have tosee to change my opinion. If I saw Thor beat Superman in a context-free fight. Knowing that all the creative sides who had a hand in that fight won't hurt either. Otherwise, I would have to see undeniable proof that Superman's body of history is less formidable than Thor's. I am skeptical anybody has that kind of evidence.






From his Formspring page.
Tom, who's more powerful: Galactus or a Celestial? I'd put my money on Galactus over any single Celestial.
http://www.formspring.me/TomBrevoort
Sweet.
Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Then answer this question: Can an informed person reasonably and sensibly hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman a preponderance of the time given the evidence in comic books?


        If the evidence is strong enough, yes. I disagree that the evidence is strong enough.


      Okay, so you do think the majority of the board is unreasonable or uninformed since they frequently rank Thor higher than Superman.


    I disagree with their opinion. If you want to label them as with those adjectives, knock yourself out but I won't.  I am so comfortable with my choice that I have no interest in the labeling anybody anything. Why would you even herd me towards that? The combined Marvel/DC creative and editorial team deemed Superman should win in that story.  Combine with my belief that Superman's history suggests he is at very least as formidable of Thor seals it for me. I can ask you if you think those guys are an unreasonable and uninformed lot, but I won't


You already answered that they were. Look right above. I asked you if an informed person could reasonably hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman and you answered no. Therefore, the majority of posters on this board who hold that belief are either uninformed or unreasonable according to your answer. There is no other logical alternative.


    Quote:
    But that's just it, if Superman didn't have a history of ridiculous feats that easily equal or even surpass Thor's, I would agree with you. But he does. I also think in that magnitude of an event as Jla/Avengers, those comparative histories were carefully considered by Busiek, Breevoort, Alonzo, Perez and all creative and editorial staff from both sides - and decided that it would make sense for Superman to win.


Woah, that’s a huge assumption. Far more likely, and something you’ve already admitted to, is the fact that DC would never allow their second most iconic character and hero with the longest history lose.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You wrote, "Why wouldn't BK think it goes without saying Supes should be #1? I would say that's fair based on JLA/Avengers." So you are someone who says it "goes without saying."


    I did not take "goes without saying" as assuming supes winning 100% of the time.  If that is indeed the connotation of the phrase then I agree, it probably doesn't apply. If it means (as I took it) that it means Supes should win most of the time then I don't see anything wrong with it.


It means neither of those things or at least your second statement does not sufficiently capture what “goes without saying” means. Saying that Superman should be ranked above Thor “goes without saying” means that no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn. It means no one can reasonably believe Thor can be ranked above Superman. It goes without saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It goes without saying that Hulk is stronger than Aunt May. Do you really have that degree of inarguable certainty that Superman should beat/is more powerful than Thor?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Really? You think they are exactly equal? Not counting villains who are primarily Avengers or Justice League foes, Thor's rogue's gallery is comprised of the Absorbing Man, Celestials, Demogorge, the Destroyer, Ego the Living Planet, Galactus, Hela, Karnilla, Kurse, Loki, Mangog, Mephisto, the Midgard Serpent, Pluto, Perrikus, Surtur, and Ymir. Superman's most formidable foes are Bizarro, Brainiac, Cyborg Superman, Darkseid, Doomsday, General Zod, Gog, Kalibak, Lex Luthor, Mongul, Mr. Mxyzptlk, and Superboy Prime. Are you really going to tell me that those two lists are exactly equal in power level?


    Are you saying histories and rogues galleries are the same thing?


Not exactly, but they are highly correlated. Thor faces cosmic/planetary threats more often than Superman in solo stories.


    Quote:
    What I was saying is that Superman's overall history of formidability is the very least equal to Thor or even superior.


Based on what other than your assertion? Now if you include pre-Crisis Superman in the mix, you’d have a point, but post-Crisis Superman? Can post-Crisis Superman make Galactus flee? Can he absorb an explosion that would destroy one fifth of the entire universe? Can Superman beat Mephisto on three different occasions in Mephisto’s own realm? These are all things Thor has done under his own power without tapping into outside sources. Superman only has one regular foe who rivals or surpasses Thor’s most powerful nemeses, Mr. Mxyzptlk, and Superman always has to resort to tricking him, not overpowering him. Thor has overpowered Galactus and Mephisto and Ego the Living Planet and Pluto.


    Quote:
    That is no doubt  one of the reasons why the writing and editorial
    teams of both sides decided that Superman. would win. I mean, it has to be. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.


You need to work harder on that imagination. As if both writing and editorial teams sat down and tabulated both characters’ long histories of wins and losses and debated this like sports writers. As if either Marvel or DC cared nearly as much about continuity as fans do. The outcome makes perfect sense if DC editorial took the absolute position that their most powerful hero Superman can’t lose and there would be no comic if he was going to be written to lose. As Vidar already pointed out, Superman is far more important to DC than Thor is to Marvel.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Because Thor can grab somebody, hold them, and godblast them from his body like he does to Durok here, someone stronger and more durable than Superman:


    One has to assume that Thor cannot employ that maneuver easily with Superman because otherwise he would've tried it given the stakes. Thor was trying his best to win, as was Superman.


Uh, no. This is another wild assumption. Thor does not try to utilize the godblast every time there are super high stakes or he would try to use it a lot more than the half dozen times he’s tried in his entire 50+ year history. This goes back to what I was saying before about writers putting the needs of the story ahead of characters’ auto-win powers like Magneto’s blood tricks or Kitty’s phasing people into the ground here:

http://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=comicbattles-2017011812340291&layout=thread


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Remember, JLA/Avengers was a limited series with a multitude of heroes. Even if the actual fight scenes were limited in number, I think it's fair to assume the writer meant to convey that both heroes were fighting to their best abilities given the stakes. That would make more sense than otherwise.


      You know the other clear win in that issue of Avengers/JLA is Iron Man and
      Hawkeye beating Captain Atom and Green Arrow. Given that Hawkeye and Green Arrow are pretty even, are we then to take this issue as overwhelming evidence that Iron Man is superior to Captain Atom?


    Which issue did this happen from the 4 issues. I'd like to check.


Avengers/JLA #2.





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Aang


Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369




    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    Then answer this question: Can an informed person reasonably and sensibly hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman a preponderance of the time given the evidence in comic books?


    If the evidence is strong enough, yes. I disagree that the evidence is strong enough.


    Okay, so you do think the majority of the board is unreasonable or uninformed since they frequently rank Thor higher than Superman.


    I disagree with their opinion. If you want to label them as with those adjectives, knock yourself out but I won't.  I am so comfortable with my choice that I have no interest in the labeling anybody anything. Why would you even herd me towards that? The combined Marvel/DC creative and editorial team deemed Superman should win in that story.  Combine with my belief that Superman's history suggests he is at very least as formidable of Thor seals it for me. I can ask you if you think those guys are an unreasonable and uninformed lot, but I won't


    You already answered that they were. Look right above. I asked you if an informed person could reasonably hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman and you answered no. Therefore, the majority of posters on this board who hold that belief are either uninformed or unreasonable according to your answer. There is no other logical alternative.

Nope, I said I disagree with their interpretation of their information. No I don't think the Thor voters are uninformed, I just think the writers and editors of that story are more informed in comparison. Not interested in putting labels on people as you seem to want me to. 


    Quote:
    Quote:
    But that's just it, if Superman didn't have a history of ridiculous feats that easily equal or even surpass Thor's, I would agree with you. But he does. I also think in that magnitude of an event as Jla/Avengers, those comparative histories were carefully considered by Busiek, Breevoort, Alonzo, Perez and all creative and editorial staff from both sides - and decided that it would make sense for Superman to win.


    Woah, that’s a huge assumption. Far more likely, and something you’ve already admitted to, is the fact that DC would never allow their second most iconic character and hero with the longest history lose.

Huge assumption? Not really.

"The fact is, everyone on the creative team and the edtiorial oversigh at both companies all agreed that it made sense for Superman to beat Thor." - Kurt Busiek

http://comicvine.gamespot.com/images/1300-2932730


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:
    You wrote, "Why wouldn't BK think it goes without saying Supes should be #1? I would say that's fair based on JLA/Avengers." So you are someone who says it "goes without saying."


    I did not take "goes without saying" as assuming supes winning 100% of the time.  If that is indeed the connotation of the phrase then I agree, it probably doesn't apply. If it means (as I took it) that it means Supes should win most of the time then I don't see anything wrong with it.


    It means neither of those things or at least your second statement does not sufficiently capture what “goes without saying” means. Saying that Superman should be ranked above Thor “goes without saying” means that no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn. It means no one can reasonably believe Thor can be ranked above Superman. It goes without saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It goes without saying that Hulk is stronger than Aunt May. Do you really have that degree of inarguable certainty that Superman should beat/is more powerful than Thor?

Very well, if that's the definition of the phrase "without saying", then and if BK meant it to be that way, then I don't agree. I've been very clear to say I think Superman should mean more often than not, not 100%.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:
    Really? You think they are exactly equal? Not counting villains who are primarily Avengers or Justice League foes, Thor's rogue's gallery is comprised of the Absorbing Man, Celestials, Demogorge, the Destroyer, Ego the Living Planet, Galactus, Hela, Karnilla, Kurse, Loki, Mangog, Mephisto, the Midgard Serpent, Pluto, Perrikus, Surtur, and Ymir. Superman's most formidable foes are Bizarro, Brainiac, Cyborg Superman, Darkseid, Doomsday, General Zod, Gog, Kalibak, Lex Luthor, Mongul, Mr. Mxyzptlk, and Superboy Prime. Are you really going to tell me that those two lists are exactly equal in power level?


    Are you saying histories and rogues galleries are the same thing?


    Not exactly, but they are highly correlated. Thor faces cosmic/planetary threats more often than Superman in solo stories.

So does it mean Superman wouldn't be able to beat Thor's rogues given the chance? I'd like to see proof that he wouldn't be able to.


    Quote:
    Quote:
    That is no doubt  one of the reasons why the writing and editorial
    teams of both sides decided that Superman. would win. I mean, it has to be. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.


    You need to work harder on that imagination. As if both writing and editorial teams sat down and tabulated both characters’ long histories of wins and losses and debated this like sports writers. As if either Marvel or DC cared nearly as much about continuity as fans do. The outcome makes perfect sense if DC editorial took the absolute position that their most powerful hero Superman can’t lose and there would be no comic if he was going to be written to lose. As Vidar already pointed out, Superman is far more important to DC than Thor is to Marvel.

Again, it cuts both ways. Superman didn't speed-blitz Thor or use Torquasm Vo. It's not "wild assumption" at all. I do agree that the story called for Superman to win because as I have posted above, the writing and editorial staff meant Superman to win. That is the simplest and and most logical conclusion to have.

There very well may be a political aspect to it but  I haven't seen any editorial comments anywhere saying as such. Even if there were, I doubt it is the only impetus to have all parties agree to have Superman win. Why not have a draw? Batman and Cap had one after all. And you want me to use, imagination eh? Kinda imagine what they were talking about in those editorial sessions? Am I to imagine that those Marvel and DC staffs are um, uninformed and unreasonable? Naah.


    Quote:
    Quote:

    Quote:

    Quote:
    Remember, JLA/Avengers was a limited series with a multitude of heroes. Even if the actual fight scenes were limited in number, I think it's fair to assume the writer meant to convey that both heroes were fighting to their best abilities given the stakes. That would make more sense than otherwise.


    You know the other clear win in that issue of Avengers/JLA is Iron Man and
    Hawkeye beating Captain Atom and Green Arrow. Given that Hawkeye and Green Arrow are pretty even, are we then to take this issue as overwhelming evidence that Iron Man is superior to Captain Atom?


    Which issue did this happen from the 4 issues. I'd like to check.


    Avengers/JLA #2.

So Ironman and Hawkeye beat Caption Atom and GA duo vs duo. Do you think there was any oh, I don't know...teamwork at all? Like a sudden crossmatch to confuse the other duo and gain an advantage? This is not like the Superman Thor match, where they went at it mano a mano. Until after Supes won and other Avengers dogpiled Supes of course.








From his Formspring page.
Tom, who's more powerful: Galactus or a Celestial? I'd put my money on Galactus over any single Celestial.
http://www.formspring.me/TomBrevoort
Sweet.
Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 7
Aang


Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369





    Quote:
    is it who would win in a fight with the others listed, the most powerful, both, etc.

    All of those are reasonable assumptions, but could have very different results...

My assumption was overall formidability and value for the category. *shrug*, maybe the OP can validate.


    Quote:
    for instance, I think a lot of people would argue Silver Surfer is more powerful than Thor, but that Thor would win in a fight (I actually think they're REALLY close to equal in overall power, but Thor wins in a fight because of how they usually fight.

I am a subscriber of the former and agree that Thor does very well against the Surfer because he's warrior by nature. I've seen folks like Brevoort, Busiek and even DeFalco write the same on Avalro's boards and others.


    Quote:
    I think a Thor vs. Superman fight sans politics involved is a tossup, but I also think Thor is more powerful (though I recognize good arguments for Superman being more powerful, and the last couple years of Thor, especially with the more recent 'reveal' about Mjolnir's nature probably will end up changing my opinion)....

I don't begrudge you for having your opinion but I just don't share it. There may have been politics but I wonder why Marvel agreed to have the story printed if they felt that differently than how the story turned out. On the subject of Mjolnir and Odinson/Jane - it would be interesting if Mjolnir does indeed impart or withhold it's power based on how it likes it's wielder. That would be something.


    Quote:
    But also recognize this list seems like a hastily thought out thing...as zvelf brought up, Spider Man above Green Lantern? I'd give him a decent chance against Flash, and an outside chance against the weaker lanterns, but any of the elite lanterns would be HEAVY favorites....and you saw the furor over Cable at a buck....

    BUT, if I'm looking at a list of superheroes, and I'm trying to decide who I would pick on my team, who would be the first on your list (if you get every mainstream, non cosmic (in an abstract type sense))

I honestly haven't too heavily at the other categories. I just assumed that there was some correlation between the price tag of the hero vs the value and not some random listings. However, if you want to and for the sake of argument just take that Superman deserves to be on top of his category based on relative value as my argument, please feel free.


    Quote:
    I could see arguments for Superman, but also for the Surfer, Martian Manhunter, Thor, even guys like Dr. Fate or Dr. Strange, or Orion, or a handful of other guys. Does any one of them 'go without saying'?

I only considered the heroes on the list. For what it's worth, I also think while the Surfer is more powerful than Superman, I think Superman is overall more formidable. Superman is very good with fighting if he needs to be, not sure I can say the same for Norrin even though he's my favorite.

Welp, again, I didn't take "without saying" as equal to absolute certainty. My interpretation was that Superman should. 



















From his Formspring page.
Tom, who's more powerful: Galactus or a Celestial? I'd put my money on Galactus over any single Celestial.
http://www.formspring.me/TomBrevoort
Sweet.
Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Saying that Superman should be ranked above Thor “goes without saying” means that no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn. It means no one can reasonably believe Thor can be ranked above Superman. It goes without saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It goes without saying that Hulk is stronger than Aunt May. Do you really have that degree of inarguable certainty that Superman should beat/is more powerful than Thor?

    Very well, if that's the definition of the phrase "without saying", then and if BK meant it to be that way, then I don't agree. I've been very clear to say I think Superman should mean more often than not, not 100%.

The whole debate came down to this point for me, so I'm satisfied with this answer.





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Braugi




It makes Mjolnir more powerful, not Thor..... yes it's always been a part of him,but now is it really the power of Thor?



Posted with Google Chrome 51.0.2704.81 on Linux
Marv


Member Since: Sat Jan 24, 2015
Posts: 7,621


Well, it is a Storm, albeit a cosmic one, and Thor IS a God of thunder and storms... So i think on some level it should be. And the hammer does give "the power of thor" to those worthy who wield it, so the power inside is that of Thor on a conceptual level...

I think we might have to separate the Odinson or the wielder of mjolnir from the "conceptual" aspect that thunder godhood implies. Since being a god is mostly representing a conceptual archetipal figure, i suppose even Thor can "cease to be himself" as long as he isn t faithful to his inner nature, and he would be "Thor" only insofar he acts like it. He still has the power to call on thunder, still has his godhood to a measure, but if he isn't acting like Thor the Thunder God should, his ability to use his own powers seem to be affected negatively, to the point that not being worthy makes him lose most of his powers subconsciously.

At least, that's how the angle Aaron is working in Unworthy thor looks like to me; the Gods are creature of belief to a certain extent, and their narrative superceeds their own corporeal aspects. They keep having ragnaroks and getting reborn in new bodies because of that very "abstract" nature of godhood, so bodies i think are secondaries to the "conceptual" aspect of such beings. In Unworthy Thor 3 Odinson feels the connection to "the thunder" that all other Thor in the multiverse used through the SW Ultimate Hammer, and says it is "the same thunder"; in Loki graphic novel he sees how the Thor/Loki story is told all over the multiverse, but it's always them to some extent.

i suppose that this also works kinda well with the Thor mythos, because of his story being mostly one of being ones best selves by overcoming arrogance and selfdeceit, with Loki playing the counterbalance as one who lives inside his own selfdeceit and practice deceit on a mythological scale.




Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.91 on Linux
Marvelfan




DC works at different power levels.

Although it can maybe be argued that Thor has top feats and wins comparable to Superman (but in no way superior) it is simply the case that his lower range in strength and power is simply below Superman's.

Thor was challenged by Hyde and Cobra, taken away his hammer by a hydraulic machine, had to struggle against types like El Toro Rocho, almost lost to Mongoose, struggled with Spiderman (ok, it was Masterson but still) and so on.

Superman has never had such low level fights (the only exception may be Superboy against Karate Kid which everybody agrees was and is nonsense) and only showed 'real' weaknesses such as against Kryptonite and, to some extent, magic.

Also, some of the assumptions in the ongoing arguments in this thread at odd, e.g. why would Superman be weaker than Durok?

Superman has always been written on higher levels than the Marvel characters and even in the new films the actors have said the same about the film versions.

If anything, it is bad writing then Thor could actually come up with the resistance that he did when he fought Superman in the cross-over.




Posted with Google Chrome 51.0.2704.79 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:
    DC works at different power levels.


That's a common statement, but it's baseless on reflecting on everything post-Crisis. Silver Age Superman and Superboy worked at different power levels and when we discuss them on this board, we always clarify that we are talking about Silver Age versions. Crisis on Infinite Earths happened over 30 years ago now, and the vast majority of the time here, we talk about post-Crisis DC characters, and every time they've interacted with Marvel characters in a crossover, their power levels are pretty comparable.


    Quote:
    Although it can maybe be argued that Thor has top feats and wins comparable to Superman (but in no way superior) it is simply the case that his lower range in strength and power is simply below Superman's.

    Thor was challenged by Hyde and Cobra, taken away his hammer by a hydraulic machine, had to struggle against types like El Toro Rocho, almost lost to Mongoose, struggled with Spiderman (ok, it was Masterson but still) and so on.

    Superman has never had such low level fights (the only exception may be Superboy against Karate Kid which everybody agrees was and is nonsense) and only showed 'real' weaknesses such as against Kryptonite and, to some extent, magic.


So Superman has never had such low level fights? Hmmm. Superman has been ko'd by 14-year old kid with telekinesis. Superman has lost to a whip developed by Cadmus. Superman has been one-shot ko'd by Dr. Light. Superman's been ko'd by a gas station explosion. We discussed two fights in this thread in which Firelord and Juggernaut were basically unaffected by similar explosions. Superman just struggled with Deathstroke over an entire issue. Superman has struggled against Batman for 30 years. Superman's most persistent arch villain is Lex Luthor who doesn't even have super powers.








    Quote:
    Also, some of the assumptions in the ongoing arguments in this thread at odd, e.g. why would Superman be weaker than Durok?


Because Durok was beating both Thor and Silver Surfer and broke the Surfer's board with his bare hands. Superman barely edged Thor alone.


    Quote:
    Superman has always been written on higher levels than the Marvel characters and even in the new films the actors have said the same about the film versions.


The film versions are not relevant to this discussion, but your assertion is only an assertion with no proof. I've already brought this up. Can Superman using only his own power cause Galactus to flee? Can Superman using only his own power beat Ego the Living Planet, who has beaten Galactus before? Can Superman beat Mephisto in Mephisto's own realm 3 different times? Can Superman beat Adam Warlock with the Soul Gem and the Silver Surfer at the same time? So has Superman really always been written on a higher level? Thor and Superman both have low showings and high showings. I'd say Thor's highest combat showings are higher than Superman's.








    Quote:
    If anything, it is bad writing then Thor could actually come up with the resistance that he did when he fought Superman in the cross-over.


Then all you're doing is saying the comics count only when they support your point of view and don't when they don't support your point of view.






How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
bouken red




In the same category (muscle), Superman is priced at $5, meanwhile a DC character who has been repeatedly said to be his near equal - Captain Marvel is priced only $1. In a category that includes Green Lantern and the Flash, Spider-man is priced $5, when he is nowhere near the power levels of either Flash or Green Lantern. I give Spidey zero chance against GL in a fair fight (meaning things are not stacked heavily against GL). In another category, Cable is only $1, meanwhile Wolverine is $5...forgetting that Cable is capable of so much more firepower, future tech, telekenethic powers, leadership, smarts and versatility than Logan. And Punisher outranked Cable! No way!

I think the ranking makes a lot of sense. Since Superman, Wolverine and Spider-man are all very popular, they will be selected almost automatically by their fans. So to make things interesting, the original poster put them on the highest price point to make selecting them expensive and he is no doubt testing how each of us would sacrifice some of our favorites to pick out the best team given the budget constraint of $15. It's really just that. Just because Superman was priced $5, it does not mean he is almost twice more powerful than Thor who is priced at $3. If that were the case, then Superman would be 5 times more powerful than Captain Marvel, which is of course insane.


Posted with Google Chrome 43.0.2357.93 on Linux
Marvelfan





    Quote:

      Quote:
      DC works at different power levels.



    Quote:
    That's a common statement, but it's baseless on reflecting on everything post-Crisis. Silver Age Superman and Superboy worked at different power levels and when we discuss them on this board, we always clarify that we are talking about Silver Age versions. The vast majority of the time, we talk about post-Crisis DC characters, and every time they've interacted with Marvel characters in a crossover, their power levels are pretty comparable.

yes, but these crossover are politics and do not reflect when you compare DC comics to Marvel comics


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Although it can maybe be argued that Thor has top feats and wins comparable to Superman (but in no way superior) it is simply the case that his lower range in strength and power is simply below Superman's.



      Quote:
      Thor was challenged by Hyde and Cobra, taken away his hammer by a hydraulic machine, had to struggle against types like El Toro Rocho, almost lost to Mongoose, struggled with Spiderman (ok, it was Masterson but still) and so on.



      Quote:
      Superman has never had such low level fights (the only exception may be Superboy against Karate Kid which everybody agrees was and is nonsense) and only showed 'real' weaknesses such as against Kryptonite and, to some extent, magic.



    Quote:
    So Superman has never had such low level fights? Hmmm. Superman has been ko'd by 14-year old kid with telekinesis.

It was still telekinesis, something mindlike if you want and this is likely to have different effects.

Superman has lost to a whip developed by Cadmus.
Well, yes there have been quite a lot of occasions where Superman was challenged by scientific, special weapons - this is normal and happens against almost all super heroes. This is significantly different from 'pure' power strength feats

Superman has been one-shot ko'd by Dr. Light.
I do not know under which circumstances and how.

Superman's been ko'd by a gas station explosion.
Ok, this is a low showing but not as low a several of Thors.  A gas station explosion can create a lot of energy.

We discussed two fights in this thread in which Firelord and Juggernaut were basically unaffected by similar explosions.

Superman just struggled with Deathstroke over an entire issue.
Wasn't Deathstroke prepared somehow?

Superman's has struggled against Batman for 30 years.
Yes, but Batman is always prepared in a quite convincing way and uses Superman#s specific weaknesses. Many of Thor's low showings are not against weaknesses (probably since he does not have any)
 
Superman's most persistent arch villain is Lex Luthor who doesn't even have super powers.
Sure, but this is similar to Batman. Lex uses special technology and other helping to play on Superman's weaknesses.

Well, I could win against Superman, even pre-Crisis, if you give me some Kryptonite. This would still not be a low showing for Superman.



    Quote:



    Quote:



    Quote:



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Also, some of the assumptions in the ongoing arguments in this thread at odd, e.g. why would Superman be weaker than Durok?



    Quote:
    Because Durok was beating both Thor and Silver Surfer and broke the Surfer's board with his bare hands. Superman barely edged Thor alone.
you use the crossover again which I said is politics. It sometimes even says so: "in my universe ...," sort of trying to explain the difference away.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Superman has always been written on higher levels than the Marvel characters and even in the new films the actors have said the same about the film versions.



    Quote:
    The film versions are not relevant to this discussion, but your assertion is only an assertion with no proof. I've already brought this up. Can Superman using only his own power cause Galactus to flee?
Quite possibly, yes, if Galactus is unprepared and does not expect such powerful being like Superman to oppose him.

Can Superman using only his own power beat Ego the Living Planet, who has beaten Galactus before?
Easily I would think

Can Superman beat Mephisto in Mephisto's own realm 3 different times?
Yes, I am quite sure about that

Can Superman beat Adam Warlock with the Soul Gem and the Silver Surfer at the same time? 
Yes, although Surfer is one really bad match for Superman, the only real bad match from Marvel.

So has Superman really always been written on a higher level? Thor and Superman both have low showings and high showings. I'd say Thor's highest showings are higher than Superman's.

Holding a black hole? Pressing the mass of the Earth for 5 days ... nothing that Thor has done 'in the normal world' comes even close

    Quote:



    Quote:



    Quote:



    Quote:

      Quote:
      If anything, it is bad writing then Thor could actually come up with the resistance that he did when he fought Superman in the cross-over.



    Quote:
    Then all you're doing is saying the comics count only when they support your point of view and don't when they don't support your point of view.





Posted with Google Chrome 51.0.2704.79 on Windows 10
JesusFan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 28,773



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        DC works at different power levels.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        That's a common statement, but it's baseless on reflecting on everything post-Crisis. Silver Age Superman and Superboy worked at different power levels and when we discuss them on this board, we always clarify that we are talking about Silver Age versions. The vast majority of the time, we talk about post-Crisis DC characters, and every time they've interacted with Marvel characters in a crossover, their power levels are pretty comparable.

      yes, but these crossover are politics and do not reflect when you compare DC comics to Marvel comics
        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Although it can maybe be argued that Thor has top feats and wins comparable to Superman (but in no way superior) it is simply the case that his lower range in strength and power is simply below Superman's.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Thor was challenged by Hyde and Cobra, taken away his hammer by a hydraulic machine, had to struggle against types like El Toro Rocho, almost lost to Mongoose, struggled with Spiderman (ok, it was Masterson but still) and so on.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                Superman has never had such low level fights (the only exception may be Superboy against Karate Kid which everybody agrees was and is nonsense) and only showed 'real' weaknesses such as against Kryptonite and, to some extent, magic.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                So Superman has never had such low level fights? Hmmm. Superman has been ko'd by 14-year old kid with telekinesis.

                It was still telekinesis, something mindlike if you want and this is likely to have different effects.

                And he was not braced and expecting that to happen!

                Superman has lost to a whip developed by Cadmus.
                Well, yes there have been quite a lot of occasions where Superman was challenged by scientific, special weapons - this is normal and happens against almost all super heroes. This is significantly different from 'pure' power strength feats

                Barda Rod has hurt him, and Diana Tiara, but those are literally weapons from gods///

                Superman has been one-shot ko'd by Dr. Light.
                I do not know under which circumstances and how.

                Was an issue when he attack Injustice Gang, and Killer Frost hit him, and then Light blasted him out.

                Superman's been ko'd by a gas station explosion.
                Ok, this is a low showing but not as low a several of Thors.  A gas station explosion can create a lot of energy.

                Same as Snake choking Hulk, Ship Mast KO Thor...

                We discussed two fights in this thread in which Firelord and Juggernaut were basically unaffected by similar explosions.

                Superman just struggled with Deathstroke over an entire issue.
                Wasn't Deathstroke prepared somehow?

                Yes, had special body armor able to absorb/dampen his blows, and hit him with a force of 60000 G to slow Supes down...

                Superman's has struggled against Batman for 30 years.
                Yes, but Batman is always prepared in a quite convincing way and uses Superman#s specific weaknesses. Many of Thor's low showings are not against weaknesses (probably since he does not have any)

                Matman wih prepping takes down any under Presense inb DCU, and even with his prep/tech/Green K, still shown can defeat him due to Supes holding back!
                 
                Superman's most persistent arch villain is Lex Luthor who doesn't even have super powers.
                Sure, but this is similar to Batman. Lex uses special technology and other helping to play on Superman's weaknesses.

                Lex is among smartest in all DCU, rates there with Brainaic, and he will do anything needed to defeat Superman, but still loses!

                Well, I could win against Superman, even pre-Crisis, if you give me some Kryptonite. This would still not be a low showing for Superman.

                Quote:

                  Quote:

                  Quote:

                    Quote:

                    Quote:

                      Quote:

                      Quote:

                        Quote:

                          Quote:
                          Also, some of the assumptions in the ongoing arguments in this thread at odd, e.g. why would Superman be weaker than Durok?

                        Quote:

                          Quote:
                          Because Durok was beating both Thor and Silver Surfer and broke the Surfer's board with his bare hands. Superman barely edged Thor alone.
                          you use the crossover again which I said is politics. It sometimes even says so: "in my universe ...," sort of trying to explain the difference away.

                          Quote:

                            Quote:

                              Quote:
                              Superman has always been written on higher levels than the Marvel characters and even in the new films the actors have said the same about the film versions.

                            Quote:

                              Quote:
                              The film versions are not relevant to this discussion, but your assertion is only an assertion with no proof. I've already brought this up. Can Superman using only his own power cause Galactus to flee?
                              Quite possibly, yes, if Galactus is unprepared and does not expect such powerful being like Superman to oppose him.

                              Can Superman using only his own power beat Ego the Living Planet, who has beaten Galactus before?
                              Easily I would think

                              Can Superman beat Mephisto in Mephisto's own realm 3 different times?
                              Yes, I am quite sure about that

                              Can Superman beat Adam Warlock with the Soul Gem and the Silver Surfer at the same time? 
                              Yes, although Surfer is one really bad match for Superman, the only real bad match from Marvel.

                              So has Superman really always been written on a higher level? Thor and Superman both have low showings and high showings. I'd say Thor's highest showings are higher than Superman's.

                            Holding a black hole? Pressing the mass of the Earth for 5 days ... nothing that Thor has done 'in the normal world' comes even close

                              Quote:

                              Quote:

                                Quote:

                                Quote:

                                  Quote:

                                  Quote:

                                    Quote:

                                      Quote:
                                      If anything, it is bad writing then Thor could actually come up with the resistance that he did when he fought Superman in the cross-over.

                                    Quote:

                                      Quote:
                                      Then all you're doing is saying the comics count only when they support your point of view and don't when they don't support your point of view.



    Quote:

Truth ois that Superman is typically shown at being higher physical levesl than Thor, faster/stronger. more durable to all but Magic, and his fighting skills not that far under Odinson!




Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Linux
Marvelfan




Thor and others (Hulk) fare so well against him and why it is bad writing or 'explained away' ... another universe etc.

although, Hulk at his highest levels does match Superman in strength output. In fact, I think that Worldbreaker is the only character that can match and even surpass Superman (and I don't like Worldbreaker very much) 



Posted with Google Chrome 51.0.2704.79 on Windows 10
Oliva


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,780



    Quote:
    In the same category (muscle), Superman is priced at $5, meanwhile a DC character who has been repeatedly said to be his near equal - Captain Marvel is priced only $1. In a category that includes Green Lantern and the Flash, Spider-man is priced $5, when he is nowhere near the power levels of either Flash or Green Lantern. I give Spidey zero chance against GL in a fair fight (meaning things are not stacked heavily against GL). In another category, Cable is only $1, meanwhile Wolverine is $5...forgetting that Cable is capable of so much more firepower, future tech, telekenethic powers, leadership, smarts and versatility than Logan. And Punisher outranked Cable! No way!



    Quote:
    I think the ranking makes a lot of sense. Since Superman, Wolverine and Spider-man are all very popular, they will be selected almost automatically by their fans. So to make things interesting, the original poster put them on the highest price point to make selecting them expensive and he is no doubt testing how each of us would sacrifice some of our favorites to pick out the best team given the budget constraint of $15. It's really just that. Just because Superman was priced $5, it does not mean he is almost twice more powerful than Thor who is priced at $3. If that were the case, then Superman would be 5 times more powerful than Captain Marvel, which is of course insane.


Also, when Superman defeat the likes of Galactus, Ego with one strike, Glory, Surtur, etc. just let me know. Anyone here saying that Superman is more powerful than Thor or some of the characters like the Surfer- when he doers not control ANYTHING beyond the physical is just being extremely blatantly bias; seduced by his EXTREME popularity; or being a hardcore fanboy. The ONLY being that would anyone trouble- that controls only his physical and mental abilities in a devastating way (and not beyond) is the Martian Man Hunter, period!!! Superman concerns DC in a big Financial fashion and they will never let him loose in a crossover, as well as they should. However, Marvel does not feel the same with the likes of Thor- who they deliberately want to get rid off time and again.




Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:

      Quote:
      That's a common statement, but it's baseless on reflecting on everything post-Crisis. Silver Age Superman and Superboy worked at different power levels and when we discuss them on this board, we always clarify that we are talking about Silver Age versions. The vast majority of the time, we talk about post-Crisis DC characters, and every time they've interacted with Marvel characters in a crossover, their power levels are pretty comparable.

    yes, but these crossover are politics and do not reflect when you compare DC comics to Marvel comics


I compared DC comics to Marvel comics and gave you scans that discount this assertion.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      So Superman has never had such low level fights? Hmmm. Superman has been ko'd by 14-year old kid with telekinesis.

    It was still telekinesis, something mindlike if you want and this is likely to have different effects.

This is no excuse whatsoever. So you're saying Superman is particularly vulnerable to mental attacks? Thor is not and has notable psi resistance. Point to Thor.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Superman has lost to a whip developed by Cadmus.

    Well, yes there have been quite a lot of occasions where Superman was challenged by scientific, special weapons - this is normal and happens against almost all super heroes. This is significantly different from 'pure' power strength feats


No difference. It all counts.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Superman has been one-shot ko'd by Dr. Light.

    I do not know under which circumstances and how.

There were no mitigating circumstances. It counts.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Superman's been ko'd by a gas station explosion.

    Ok, this is a low showing but not as low a several of Thors.  A gas station explosion can create a lot of energy.

An unproven assertion.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Superman just struggled with Deathstroke over an entire issue.


    Wasn't Deathstroke prepared somehow?

Deathstroke was only prepared in how he's always prepared for anything.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Superman's has struggled against Batman for 30 years.

    Yes, but Batman is always prepared in a quite convincing way and uses Superman#s specific weaknesses. Many of Thor's low showings are not against weaknesses (probably since he does not have any)

Superman has specific weaknesses. Thor does not. Point to Thor.
 

    Quote:

      Quote:
      Superman's most persistent arch villain is Lex Luthor who doesn't even have super powers.

    Sure, but this is similar to Batman. Lex uses special technology and other helping to play on Superman's weaknesses.

Again Superman's weaknesses. You can't very well claim how much more powerful Superman is to Thor and not take into account that Superman has specific weaknesses to magic, energy draining, and Kryptonite. Thor once had a 60-second rule weakness, but that's been long gone.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Because Durok was beating both Thor and Silver Surfer and broke the Surfer's board with his bare hands. Superman barely edged Thor alone.


    you use the crossover again which I said is politics.


Sure, there is some politics involved, but that doesn't automatically disqualify every showing.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Can Superman using only his own power cause Galactus to flee?

    Quite possibly, yes, if Galactus is unprepared and does not expect such powerful being like Superman to oppose him.

What is Superman going to do, punch Galactus out? Give me a break.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Can Superman using only his own power beat Ego the Living Planet, who has beaten Galactus before?

    Easily I would think

Superman would easily beat Ego? Okay, I see it's pointless reasoning with you.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Can Superman beat Mephisto in Mephisto's own realm 3 different times?

    Yes, I am quite sure about that

You know that Mephisto is a magical entity who fights with magic and Superman has a weakness to magic, right? But you're sure Superman would beat Mephisto.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Can Superman beat Adam Warlock with the Soul Gem and the Silver Surfer at the same time? 

    Yes, although Surfer is one really bad match for Superman, the only real bad match from Marvel.

Then how would Superman win this "bad match"? How would Superman resist the Soul Gem's karmic blast while resisting the Surfer's ability to drain his solar power?


    Quote:
    Holding a black hole? Pressing the mass of the Earth for 5 days ... nothing that Thor has done 'in the normal world' comes even close


You said that DC works at different power levels than Marvel. Nope. At the highest showings, both are absurdly powerful. Thor absorbed an explosion that could destroy one fifth of the entire universe. That puts the power of a black hole or the mass of a single planet to shame. In direct tests of strength, Thor and Hercules have been shown to be equals. Hercules once held up the entire heavens. That also puts the mass of a single black hole or the mass of a single planet to shame. Thor once yanked the Midgard Serpent coiled around the Earth off of it, a feat comparable to or surpassing pressing the mass of the entire planet in that he had to pry against the resistance of something that large. Thor and Hulk once stalemated in an hour-long test of strength. Not long ago, Proxima Midnight placed the weight of a star on Hulk which Hulk supported. Umar once placed Thor beneath the weight of "a score of planets" and Thor broke free. Thor just survived fighting inside a star against Gorr the Godbutcher. Superman barely survives nuclear explosions. So why do you think DC works at different power levels than Marvel again?





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Marvelfan





    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        That's a common statement, but it's baseless on reflecting on everything post-Crisis. Silver Age Superman and Superboy worked at different power levels and when we discuss them on this board, we always clarify that we are talking about Silver Age versions. The vast majority of the time, we talk about post-Crisis DC characters, and every time they've interacted with Marvel characters in a crossover, their power levels are pretty comparable.

      yes, but these crossover are politics and do not reflect when you compare DC comics to Marvel comics



    Quote:
    I compared DC comics to Marvel comics and gave you scans that discount this assertion.

Maybe they discount it for you but not for me (and I am sure many others)


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        So Superman has never had such low level fights? Hmmm. Superman has been ko'd by 14-year old kid with telekinesis.

    It was still telekinesis, something mindlike if you want and this is likely to have different effects.

This is no excuse whatsoever. So you're saying Superman is particularly vulnerable to mental attacks? Thor is not and has notable psi resistance. Point to Thor.

I don't think that Superman is particularly vulnerable to mental attacks. It just seems that on this occasion he was. Although I do not remember a fight when Thor fell to a mental attack I am quite sure that there is one.
... and yes, I agree that Thor is mentally quite strong

    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Superman has lost to a whip developed by Cadmus.

      Well, yes there have been quite a lot of occasions where Superman was challenged by scientific, special weapons - this is normal and happens against almost all super heroes. This is significantly different from 'pure' power strength feats



    Quote:
    No difference. It all counts.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Superman has been one-shot ko'd by Dr. Light.

    I do not know under which circumstances and how.

There were no mitigating circumstances. It counts.

    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Superman's been ko'd by a gas station explosion.

      Ok, this is a low showing but not as low a several of Thors.  A gas station explosion can create a lot of energy.

    An unproven assertion.

    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Superman just struggled with Deathstroke over an entire issue.



    Quote:
    Wasn't Deathstroke prepared somehow?

Deathstroke was only prepared in how he's always prepared for anything.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Superman's has struggled against Batman for 30 years.

      Yes, but Batman is always prepared in a quite convincing way and uses Superman#s specific weaknesses. Many of Thor's low showings are not against weaknesses (probably since he does not have any)

    Superman has specific weaknesses. Thor does not. Point to Thor.
     

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Superman's most persistent arch villain is Lex Luthor who doesn't even have super powers.

      Sure, but this is similar to Batman. Lex uses special technology and other helping to play on Superman's weaknesses.

    Again Superman's weaknesses. You can't very well claim how much more powerful Superman is to Thor and not take into account that Superman has specific weaknesses to magic, energy draining, and Kryptonite. Thor once had a 60-second rule weakness, but that's been long gone.

    Quote:

With this logic Spider-Man or Captain America is more powerful than Superman since they both don't have any specific weaknesses.

uote]Because Durok was beating both Thor and Silver Surfer and broke the Surfer's board with his bare hands. Superman barely edged Thor alone.



    Quote:
    you use the crossover again which I said is politics.



    Quote:
    Sure, there is some politics involved, but that doesn't automatically disqualify every showing.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Can Superman using only his own power cause Galactus to flee?

      Quite possibly, yes, if Galactus is unprepared and does not expect such powerful being like Superman to oppose him.

    What is Superman going to do, punch Galactus out? Give me a break.

    Well, if Ben Grimm was able to do it, yes I think that Superman could do it. If he goes full throttle superspeed at Galactus and Galactus does not block somehow, I think Supes could knock him out or severally hurt him. You forget that Superman in his heyday was sometimes described as the most powerful being in the universe.

    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Can Superman using only his own power beat Ego the Living Planet, who has beaten Galactus before?

      Easily I would think

    Superman would easily beat Ego? Okay, I see it's pointless reasoning with you.

    Ego is slow. Superman could destroy Earth if he wanted to (even new version), so he can also destroy a living planet.

    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Can Superman beat Mephisto in Mephisto's own realm 3 different times?

      Yes, I am quite sure about that

    You know that Mephisto is a magical entity who fights with magic and Superman has a weakness to magic, right? But you're sure Superman would beat Mephisto.

    Superman has beaten strong magical opponents in the past. His weakness to magic is overrated.

    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Can Superman beat Adam Warlock with the Soul Gem and the Silver Surfer at the same time? 

      Yes, although Surfer is one really bad match for Superman, the only real bad match from Marvel.

    Then how would Superman win this "bad match"? How would Superman resist the Soul Gem's karmic blast while resisting the Surfer's ability to drain his solar power?

    He would know out Surfer, similar to the way Thanos did and avoids Soul Gem's karmic blast - or maybe he is even immune against it somehow

    Quote:

      Quote:
      Holding a black hole? Pressing the mass of the Earth for 5 days ... nothing that Thor has done 'in the normal world' comes even close



    Quote:
    You said that DC works at different power levels than Marvel. Nope. At the highest showings, both are absurdly powerful. Thor absorbed an explosion that could destroy one fifth of the entire universe. That puts the power of a black hole or the mass of a single planet to shame. In direct tests of strength, Thor and Hercules have been shown to be equals. Hercules once held up the entire heavens. That also puts the mass of a single black hole or the mass of a single planet to shame. Thor once yanked the Midgard Serpent coiled around the Earth off of it, a feat comparable to or surpassing pressing the mass of the entire planet in that he had to pry against the resistance of something that large. Thor and Hulk once stalemated in an hour-long test of strength. Not long ago, Proxima Midnight placed the weight of a star on Hulk which Hulk supported. Umar once placed Thor beneath the weight of "a score of planets" and Thor broke free. Thor just survived fighting inside a star against Gorr the Godbutcher. Superman barely survives nuclear explosions. So why do you think DC works at different power levels than Marvel again?

the problem that I have with most of Thor's ueber feats is that they are in the realm of Asgard - I never liked the realm of Asgard stories since they were totally imcompatible to the Thor in our world.




Posted with Google Chrome 51.0.2704.79 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:
    I don't think that Superman is particularly vulnerable to mental attacks. It just seems that on this occasion he was.


Telekinesis is not a mental attack. And "this occasion," Dr. Light one-shotting him, the Bloodhound fight, and the Deathstroke fight all prove my point that Superman has had low showings, just like Thor has.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You can't very well claim how much more powerful Superman is to Thor and not take into account that Superman has specific weaknesses to magic, energy draining, and Kryptonite. Thor once had a 60-second rule weakness, but that's been long gone.


    With this logic Spider-Man or Captain America is more powerful than Superman since they both don't have any specific weaknesses.


Are you joking? Compared to Thor and Superman, Spider-Man and Captain America have plenty of weaknesses. Neither are remotely as durable. Neither are bulletproof and if Cap doesn't get his shield up in time, he could be killed by anything that could kill a normal human. Neither can survive in the vacuum of space. Both can drown relatively easily. Most importantly, neither have the offensive output that can offset their defensive deficiencies. Thor has Superman's offense without Superman's defensive deficiencies against magic and energy absorption.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      What is Superman going to do, punch Galactus out? Give me a break.


    Well, if Ben Grimm was able to do it, yes I think that Superman could do it. If he goes full throttle superspeed at Galactus and Galactus does not block somehow, I think Supes could knock him out or severally hurt him. You forget that Superman in his heyday was sometimes described as the most powerful being in the universe.


Except Ben Grimm never knocked out Galactus on his lonesome. He just happened to be the last one to hit Galactus after Thor, Iron Man, and most importantly Dr. Strange, who shut down Galactus' mind. And you know I've clarified we've been talking about post-Crisis Superman all along, so trying to bring in Silver Age Superman is disingenuous. Post-Crisis Superman has no chance against Galactus.


    Quote:
    Ego is slow. Superman could destroy Earth if he wanted to (even new version), so he can also destroy a living planet.


Prove it. Show me an example of in-continuity post-Crisis Superman destroying a planet.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You know that Mephisto is a magical entity who fights with magic and Superman has a weakness to magic, right? But you're sure Superman would beat Mephisto.


    Superman has beaten strong magical opponents in the past. His weakness to magic is overrated.


Superman would disagree with you. Here he says that he's as vulnerable to magic as any mere mortal:



Here magic is cutting Superman to ribbons:



Here Captain Marvel knocks Superman out with a magic punch:






    Quote:
    He would know out Surfer, similar to the way Thanos did and avoids Soul Gem's karmic blast - or maybe he is even immune against it somehow


"Somehow" I don't find your answer of how Superman would beat Warlock and Surfer at the same time very convincing.


    Quote:
    the problem that I have with most of Thor's ueber feats is that they are in the realm of Asgard - I never liked the realm of Asgard stories since they were totally imcompatible to the Thor in our world.


Thor is no more powerful in Asgard than he is on Earth. That's why Odin mated with Gaea to spawn Thor in the first place. Also, none of my examples take place in Asgard. Oh, and remember all those examples of Thor beating Superman analogues like Hyperion, Gladiator, and Captain Marvel (Batson)? Here is Superman's facing a Thor analogue:










How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Braugi




both relatively early post crisis, but....

Superman also struggled to lift the Daily planet globe, and in a crossover, struggled mightily against Venom.

All in all, both characters have their high showings and their low showings.  In strength and durability, a good case can be made for Superman to be superior, but not by much.

Overall power, a very good case can be made for Thor to be superior.  If Thor is also not subject to the 60s rule at the time, he also is well ahead in terms of lack of weaknesses, and is ahead in overall versatility.

A fight between the two would and should be epic though...



Posted with Apple Safari 9.1 on MacOS X
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:
    both relatively early post crisis, but....

    Superman also struggled to lift the Daily planet globe, and in a crossover, struggled mightily against Venom.

    All in all, both characters have their high showings and their low showings.  In strength and durability, a good case can be made for Superman to be superior, but not by much.

    Overall power, a very good case can be made for Thor to be superior.  If Thor is also not subject to the 60s rule at the time, he also is well ahead in terms of lack of weaknesses, and is ahead in overall versatility.

    A fight between the two would and should be epic though...


Agree with all of the above. There is ample evidence that Thor can beat Superman and Superman can beat Thor. My entire point throughout this thread is that evidence is not overwhelming in either direction.





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Bk Ray

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 8,914




    Quote:

      Quote:
      In the same category (muscle), Superman is priced at $5, meanwhile a DC character who has been repeatedly said to be his near equal - Captain Marvel is priced only $1. In a category that includes Green Lantern and the Flash, Spider-man is priced $5, when he is nowhere near the power levels of either Flash or Green Lantern. I give Spidey zero chance against GL in a fair fight (meaning things are not stacked heavily against GL). In another category, Cable is only $1, meanwhile Wolverine is $5...forgetting that Cable is capable of so much more firepower, future tech, telekenethic powers, leadership, smarts and versatility than Logan. And Punisher outranked Cable! No way!

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I think the ranking makes a lot of sense. Since Superman, Wolverine and Spider-man are all very popular, they will be selected almost automatically by their fans. So to make things interesting, the original poster put them on the highest price point to make selecting them expensive and he is no doubt testing how each of us would sacrifice some of our favorites to pick out the best team given the budget constraint of $15. It's really just that. Just because Superman was priced $5, it does not mean he is almost twice more powerful than Thor who is priced at $3. If that were the case, then Superman would be 5 times more powerful than Captain Marvel, which is of course insane.



    Quote:
    Also, when Superman defeat the likes of Galactus, Ego with one strike, Glory, Surtur, etc. just let me know. Anyone here saying that Superman is more powerful than Thor or some of the characters like the Surfer- when he doers not control ANYTHING beyond the physical is just being extremely blatantly bias; seduced by his EXTREME popularity; or being a hardcore fanboy. The ONLY being that would anyone trouble- that controls only his physical and mental abilities in a devastating way (and not beyond) is the Martian Man Hunter, period!!! Superman concerns DC in a big Financial fashion and they will never let him loose in a crossover, as well as they should. However, Marvel does not feel the same with the likes of Thor- who they deliberately want to get rid off time and again.


Superman has beaten Doomsday and Darkseid.

When has Thor ever beaten Hulk in a brawl or Thanos?






Moderator: Star Trek Board ''He stood alone at Gjallerbru... and that answer is enough.''
Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583



    Quote:
    Superman has beaten Doomsday and Darkseid.



    Quote:
    When has Thor ever beaten Hulk in a brawl or Thanos?




















How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Vangrab





    Quote:
    is it who would win in a fight with the others listed, the most powerful, both, etc.



    Quote:
    All of those are reasonable assumptions, but could have very different results...



    Quote:
    for instance, I think a lot of people would argue Silver Surfer is more powerful than Thor, but that Thor would win in a fight (I actually think they're REALLY close to equal in overall power, but Thor wins in a fight because of how they usually fight.



    Quote:
    I think a Thor vs. Superman fight sans politics involved is a tossup, but I also think Thor is more powerful (though I recognize good arguments for Superman being more powerful, and the last couple years of Thor, especially with the more recent 'reveal' about Mjolnir's nature probably will end up changing my opinion)....



    Quote:
    But also recognize this list seems like a hastily thought out thing...as zvelf brought up, Spider Man above Green Lantern? I'd give him a decent chance against Flash, and an outside chance against the weaker lanterns, but any of the elite lanterns would be HEAVY favorites....and you saw the furor over Cable at a buck....



    Quote:
    BUT, if I'm looking at a list of superheroes, and I'm trying to decide who I would pick on my team, who would be the first on your list (if you get every mainstream, non cosmic (in an abstract type sense))



    Quote:
    I could see arguments for Superman, but also for the Surfer, Martian Manhunter, Thor, even guys like Dr. Fate or Dr. Strange, or Orion, or a handful of other guys. Does any one of them 'go without saying'?



    Quote:
    Go without saying is pretty much saying 'its a foregone conclusion, and there is no reasonable argument otherwise', while I could certainly argue that a character without a weakness to kryptonite or magic who is competitive might be a better pick. If Thor has the sixty second limitation, you might disqualify him too. You might pick MM because of his psi, shapeshifting, etc. making him able to be highly effective when a flying brick wouldn't be, or Xman from back in the day, or someone else.



    Quote:
    All in all, if I had to pick one single person to be the first pick on a super team that might face any type of threat in any environment, Superman probably would NOT be my first pick. He'd be great 99 percent of the time, but others would be better in that 1 percent, and essentially as effective the rest of the time as well.





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 44.0 on Windows 7
Marvelfan





    Quote:

      Quote:
      I don't think that Superman is particularly vulnerable to mental attacks. It just seems that on this occasion he was.



    Quote:
    Telekinesis is not a mental attack. And "this occasion," Dr. Light one-shotting him, the Bloodhound fight, and the Deathstroke fight all prove my point that Superman has had low showings, just like Thor has.
Do you have scans of this Deathstroke fight? Did he have any special weapons?

Of course is Telekinesis a mental attack. It is an attack that creates some sort of force fields created by person with that skill. The physics of it is very unclear.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You can't very well claim how much more powerful Superman is to Thor and not take into account that Superman has specific weaknesses to magic, energy draining, and Kryptonite. Thor once had a 60-second rule weakness, but that's been long gone.



      Quote:
      With this logic Spider-Man or Captain America is more powerful than Superman since they both don't have any specific weaknesses.



    Quote:
    Are you joking? Compared to Thor and Superman, Spider-Man and Captain America have plenty of weaknesses. Neither are remotely as durable. Neither are bulletproof and if Cap doesn't get his shield up in time, he could be killed by anything that could kill a normal human. Neither can survive in the vacuum of space. Both can drown relatively easily. Most importantly, neither have the offensive output that can offset their defensive deficiencies. Thor has Superman's offense without Superman's defensive deficiencies against magic and energy absorption.

I think you see weakness in a very strange way. Captain America and Spider-Man dying in outer space is not a weakness, it is simply a limitation of their durability.

Kryptonite is a specific weakness in that it can be used as a weapon. In fact, it was 'invented' to give Superman any sort of weakness.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        What is Superman going to do, punch Galactus out? Give me a break.


      Well, if Ben Grimm was able to do it, yes I think that Superman could do it. If he goes full throttle superspeed at Galactus and Galactus does not block somehow, I think Supes could knock him out or severally hurt him. You forget that Superman in his heyday was sometimes described as the most powerful being in the universe.



    Quote:
    Except Ben Grimm never knocked out Galactus on his lonesome. He just happened to be the last one to hit Galactus after Thor, Iron Man, and most importantly Dr. Strange, who shut down Galactus' mind. And you know I've clarified we've been talking about post-Crisis Superman all along, so trying to bring in Silver Age Superman is disingenuous. Post-Crisis Superman has no chance against Galactus.



That is your opinion, not mine. The Sentry was claimed to have stalemated Galactus and in fact the Sentry was the closest to Superman at Marvel. I would have bought if Sentry had challenged Superman in a crossover.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Ego is slow. Superman could destroy Earth if he wanted to (even new version), so he can also destroy a living planet.



    Quote:
    Prove it. Show me an example of in-continuity post-Crisis Superman destroying a planet.

Well, I don't know an example since Superman does not want to destroy planets.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You know that Mephisto is a magical entity who fights with magic and Superman has a weakness to magic, right? But you're sure Superman would beat Mephisto.



      Quote:
      Superman has beaten strong magical opponents in the past. His weakness to magic is overrated.



    Quote:
    Superman would disagree with you. Here he says that he's as vulnerable to magic as any mere mortal:



    Quote:



    Quote:
    Here magic is cutting Superman to ribbons:



    Quote:



    Quote:
    Here Captain Marvel knocks Superman out with a magic punch:






      Quote:
      He would know out Surfer, similar to the way Thanos did and avoids Soul Gem's karmic blast - or maybe he is even immune against it somehow



    Quote:
    "Somehow" I don't find your answer of how Superman would beat Warlock and Surfer at the same time very convincing.

Sorry, I meant he would knock out Surfer similar to how Thanos did and if he knows about it he can easily avoid the karmic blast. He knocks Adam Warlock out before Adam can even think about some blasting.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      the problem that I have with most of Thor's ueber feats is that they are in the realm of Asgard - I never liked the realm of Asgard stories since they were totally imcompatible to the Thor in our world.



    Quote:
    Thor is no more powerful in Asgard than he is on Earth. That's why Odin mated with Gaea to spawn Thor in the first place. Also, none of my examples take place in Asgard. Oh, and remember all those examples of Thor beating Superman analogues like Hyperion, Gladiator, and Captain Marvel (Batson)? Here is Superman's facing a Thor analogue:

Yes, they are supposed to be analogues, I agree with that but they significantly below anything that Superman is.


    Quote:



    Quote:







Posted with Google Chrome 51.0.2704.79 on Windows 10
Isosceles


Member Since: Wed Jul 22, 2009
Posts: 1,367




    Quote:

    I think you see weakness in a very
    strange way. Captain America and Spider-Man dying in outer space is not a
    weakness, it is simply a limitation of their durability.

    Kryptonite is a specific weakness in that it can be used as a
    weapon. In fact, it was 'invented' to give Superman any sort of
    weakness.



I have an issue with this, because a weakness is anything that can be exploited to beat someone. It is a definately weakness for Cap and Spidey to be stuck in a vaccum or underwater as they can not breath without outside help. It will sure enough kill them if enough time goes by.

Same with Superman. Kryptonite is not an "auto" win, as has been seen many times. He has time to come up with ways get away from it or protect himself from it.

A vaccum (with no air to breath) very comparible to Superman's kryptonite weakness in that it is a limit of their durability. You can't have it both ways.

In an of themselves Cap and Spidey do not have a natural way (besides holding there breath for a handful of minutes) not drowning or sufficating. Same with Superman, he has no natural way of resisting kryptonite (unless you want to say absorb a TON of yellow sun light which seems to help protecting him but which he never does).






Posted with Mozilla Firefox 50.0 on Windows 7
1 2  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software