Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By
bouken red

In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,615
Subj: This whole thing has gotten way out of hand. The rankings are not indicative of power levels. I think they were based mostly on popularity.
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 at 05:40:50 pm EST (Viewed 19 times)
Reply Subj: Whether Superman is above Thor goes without saying
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 09:53:26 am EST (Viewed 629 times)

Previous Post

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


      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.


      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.

    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.


      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.

    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.


      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.

    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.”

    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.

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.