Previous Post Quote: Superman barely beat Thor in that fight. After the fight was over, the Avengers jumped on Superman. Superman was exhausted and went down easy after the Avengers jumped on him. The reason why Superman was exhausted was because he and Thor are peers and the fight with Thor took a lot out of him. I bet Herc with his mace could have put Supes down by himself, or Iron Man, or Wonderman by themselves. But all the Avengers jumped in because they all have such a love for Thor. Your scan supports what Primetime said. It doesn't defeat him. And I disagree completely! If an allout Thor with Hammer charged etc cannot overcome Superman and it takes that squad of Avengers to do the deed it makes no sense at all that they would choose to beat a defeated opponent THAT hard. Heck look at Hercs Mace for an idea of the ferocity packed into that attack - You're saying the Avengers would beat/kill a weakened opponent like that just because he'd rendered Thor unconcious in a fair fight?! That wasn't a known scumbag villain like Nefaria or Ultron so the rationale doesn't add up. I Just Don't agree with the logic. Quote: Daveym, no one doubts you have extensive knowledge. And an impressive collection. But the doubt lies in the logic behind some of your interpretations. Here is one flaw in your logic which others, including myself, have pointed out regarding how these characters compare: Quote: You've asked for evidence that Thor, Hulk, Namor, Herc, etc, can match Supes' strength feats in recent years. For example, you assume Thor cannot pull a planet (with the same help Supes had I assume) until we actually see him do it. And until that happens he can't be as strong as Superman. But here's the rub. Have we ever seen Darkseid pull a planet? Have we ever seen Kalibak or Mongul pull a planet? What about Captain Marvel? Going by your own logic, none of those characters are peers of Superman in the strength department because they don't have the feats to back it up. Well turn that around and apply it to Marvel for a second - I've never seen Mangog do anything but beat Thor up... so is he not going to be merely *equal* to Juggernaut or Perrikus for example? I've never seen any evidence Thor or Namor could even remotely show Sentry's physical superiority over the opponents he's crushed - How am I wrong to say therefore Sentry is clearly way stronger than them? I have never seen Namor unequivocally lift a mountain whereas The Hulk arguably has shown the capacity to, so is Namor the clear inferior? Ditto Thor etc? I only *know* that Namor is as strong as Thor/The Hulk because they have met and fought, Just as I only know Superman & Captain Marvel even out because they have met and fought. Just as I can only call Majestic/Apollo as they too have fought. The rest HAS to be down to what the characters have been seen to do and what their average performance is. That is the only method to deciding whether Thor can match a Dragonball character or Wonderman is any match for Omni-Man, the evidence showns Omni-man would kill Wonderman but according to your philosophy Wonderman would actually be a match, and that is absurd. That is not using provenance and it is not certainly not evaluating the facts between the two given characters. That is what I strongly object to - If I see Superman taking a star exploding on him and him sandwiched between two planets both in the same year among a trend for similar feats stretching back years I then have actual inarguable proof he can survive the Silver Surfers Morg/Ravenous takedowns where he detonates a planet.... whereas with Thor or the Hulk I have no such evidence and no reason to think such a thing possible! It's like arguing Wonderman or Ben Grimm can take a Nuke, where's the reason for even thinking it? I would love to see someone try and argue that, maybe i'll start a thread.... I continually marvel at the fact despite his now prodigous track record so many just lump Superman with Wonderman more or less. Given the Silver Surfer as an example has shown planetary level firepower only twice in his entire carreer why does the same rule no apply to him I wonder. Quote: But we know that's not true. We know, given the way they've interacted, that they are peers in strength. Same with Thor. We can tell, from the way the Thor/Superman fight went, that they must be relative peers in strength. Thus, we know that Herc must be Supes' relative peer. And Hulk must be his relative peer. Based on the way these characters have interacted with each other for 45 years. The problem by proxy is if you yourself take crossovers as literal in the way you're doing you still have to accept that Superman logically would crush the Hulk/Namor/Gladiator etc as THEY have never proved as convincingly superior to Thor as Superman eventually did. Thor laid on everything in that fight, and it wasn't enough. Quote: This has been brought up many times and I've yet to see you address this counterargument. I just did. Not for the first time either. If you think Thor somehow rivals Superman physically solely because of JLAvengers that's no buisiness of mine. What i strongly object to is the hopscotch logic you employ to justify the rest. Luke Cage Has matched Ben Grimm/Ironclad/Rhino/the Hulk/Hiroim - so is Cage actually class 90+? I've seen Wolverine & Samson Match the Hulk - But are they peers? If the Hulk can shatter Continents/Mountain ranges/planets or whatever on an Ad-Hoc basis what was the OTT Worldbreaker phase about? Why was it necessary? If you're saying evidence is a mere formality to saying 'x' equaly to 'Y' what is the point of this board? I can just say "Savage Dragon beats the Hulk" using that approach.... because using your notion anything goes.

D: And I disagree completely! If an allout Thor with Hammer charged etc cannot overcome Superman and it takes that squad of Avengers to do the deed it makes no sense at all that they would choose to beat a defeated opponent THAT hard. Heck look at Hercs Mace for an idea of the ferocity packed into that attack - You're saying the Avengers would beat/kill a weakened opponent like that just because he'd rendered Thor unconcious in a fair fight?! That wasn't a scumbag villain like Nefaria or Ultron. I Just Don't agree with the logic.

>>>> I honestly interepreted that scene as this: The Avengers just witnessed their beloved Thor go down. And emotionally, they all piled onto Superman. If you were out with a whole group of your closest friends, and you witnessed one of them get laid out, would you alone get pissed off, or would the whole group collectively get pissed off? I assume everyone close to the person would get angry. That's how the heroes reacted. My honest interpretation.

D: Well turn that around and apply it to Marvel for a second - I've never seen Mangog do anything but beat Thor up... so is he not going to be merely *equal* to Juggernaut or Perrikus for example?
I've never seen any evidence Thor or Namor could even remotely show Sentry's physical superiority over the opponents he's crushed - How am I wrong to say therefore Sentry is clearly way stronger than them?
I have never seen Namor unequivocally lift a mountain whereas The Hulk arguably has shown the capacity to, so is Namor the clear inferior? Ditto Thor etc?

>>>>> When making comparisons, you have to make apples to apples comparisons. Mangog uses brute strength/invulnerability to literally toss Thor around like a rag doll. Plus, you also have to look at the text. I believe it's been explicitly said Mangog is on another level of strength. Look at the interaction. Second, it's possible Sentry is stronger than Thor. The best example is how he virtually stalemated a very strong version of the Hulk. This Hulk was said to be stronger than previous versions, which Thor stalemated. Again, that's character interaction. Third, Namor actually has a feat recently where he supported a whole island. So I don't think he is the clear inferior. I'd say Hulk is stronger, but Namor recently has been getting a push.

D: I only *know* that Namor is as strong as Thor/The Hulk because they have met and fought, Just as I only know Superman & Captain Marvel even out because they have met and fought. Just as I can only call Majestic/Apollo as they too have fought.

>>>>>> But you also know that Thor is relatively equal to Supes because they have fought. And we know Thor = Hercules through their multiple interactions. (arm wrestling draw comes to mind).

D: That is not using provenance and it is not certainly not evaluating the facts between the two given characters. That is what I strongly object to - If I see Superman taking a star exploding on him and him sandwiched between two planets both in the same year among a trend for similar feats stretching back years I then have actual inarguable proof he can survive the Silver Surfers Morg/Ravenous takedowns where he detonates a planet.... whereas with Thor or the Hulk I have no such evidence and no reason to think such a thing possible! It's like arguing Wonderman or Ben Grimm can take a Nuke, where's the reason for even thinking it?

>>>>> Now you're talking durability more than strength. If Hulk takes a nuke, and Ben Grimm dies from it, then I say Hulk has greater durability than Ben Grimm. If Superman lifts a mountain, and Hulk fails to lift a mountain of equal mass, I say Superman is stronger than Hulk. But you have to make apples to apples comparisons when comparing environmental feats. You say, "Superman survived being sandwhiched between two planets. Hulk survived a nuke. Therefore, Superman must be more durable." I say those are not apples to apples comparisons and until we see whether or not Hulk can survive being sandwhiched between two planets of equal mass we simply can't tell who has the greater durability. If you have no apples to apples environmental comparisons, all you can do is go by character interaction! Hulk's durability when fighting Hulk has been shown to be at the least equal to Superman's, therefore, I rate them all relative peers. I have addressed this with you before, and I still have yet to see a counterargument from you on this one specific point.

D: The problem by proxy is if you yourself take crossovers as literal in the way you're doing you still have to accept that Superman logically would crush the Hulk/Namor/Gladiator etc as THEY have never proved as convincingly superior to Thor as Superman eventually did. Thor laid on everything in that fight, and it wasn't enough.

>>>>>> I think Gladiator once knocked Thor out, but that's besides the point. Thor's fights with Hulk/Gladiator have all been very tough. So was his fight with Superman. Thor later said he now had Superman's measure. And Superman acknowledged Thor was a tough opponent, "the toughest he's ever faced". I think given how relatively equally all these interactions have been over the years shows they should be relative peers.

D: If you think Thor somehow rivals Superman physically solely because of JLAvengers that's no buisiness of mine. What i strongly object to is the hopscotch logic you employ to justify the rest. I've seen Wolverine & Samson Match the Hulk - But are they peers?

>>>>>>> You've seen Wolverine match Hulk in a fight. But not in strength. If the publishing company does their job right, you can tell strength levels from character interaction.