Subj: Agreed as well, as physicability goes (nt)Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:16:58 am EDT
Reply Subj: Pertty Much right on!!! NT
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:07:04 pm EDT
| > > There's no question that Marvel's strongest roughly equal D.C.'s strongest, and that Herc is probably as strong (or almost as strong, or stronger than) WW. I hate that it's the case, because I find DC feats to be pretty silly, and long for the days when the most you might ever accomplish is pushing over a building.|
> > Nevertheless, we know from JLA v. Avengers that Thor is roughly equal to Supes, and that Herc is roughly equal to Thor. To the extent WW is as strong as Supes, she's as strong as Thor and Herc. I don't buy that she's as strong as any of them, personally, for reasons that are pretty obvious. If WW is as strong as Supes but more skilled, then she should beat him every time. Arguing a la J that she's never gone all out against him simply misses the point. That is, arguing that she's never gone all out against him explains why she's never beaten him, but it doesn't explain DC's position that Supes is top dog, i.e., if she is his physical equal, then DC's position that Supes is top dog is false. You can't have it both ways, citing DC editorial as canon yet pointing to the fact of her superior skills. She's either very skilled and not as strong, or DC's not telling the truth.
> > Frankly, I think she's not as strong, but in the ballpark, not as durable, not as fast, but a way better fighter, and consequently just as formidable. Supes, CM, BA, Herc and Thor, however, are slightly above her pay grade.