Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat Jan 24, 2015
Posts: 7,676
In Reply To

Subj: Re: and yet
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:32:09 am EST (Viewed 282 times)
Reply Subj: Re: and yet
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 at 05:05:33 am EST (Viewed 319 times)

Previous Post

    They were other stories, with other author intent, so how can they be relevant in your own worldview, given how you yourself pointed it out as a dealbreaker for the two fights we were comparing before? also, Kalibak was already defeated beforehand (in just a couple of panels and in 3 punches by the way, not exactly a prolonged fight) when Access called on Superman, because the heroes were already fighting each other.

Actually Kalibak wasn't defeated. Darkseid merely called off his minions just one page later.

And the heroes started fighting after that.

    So no comparison on that ground, it wasn't thor needing help, it was Access needing the heroes to stop fighting and calling on the one he would expect to be able to break such a fight without being antagonistic to everyone and making it worse. Reading the scans doesn't make you an expert if all you do is decontextualize them and cherrypick only the parts that help your point.

Uh, if you are not able to read some simple scans, don't try and antagonize someone who actually does.

    i mean, that for you is superman "shrugging off" a Thor hit

    If you actually read the second issue, Superman was up and punching Thor in the jaw just a moment later.

    So yes, Superman did shrug off Thor's hit. Thor only ate dirt.

      and then the next contact they have is this, which then is of course not proof that Thor is stronger than Manhunter Or Superman even though he tankes a double punch from them to no effect, and it's of course not proof Supes needed help or anything.


    But then Superman goes ahead and KTFO Thor. So no it doesn't means Thor is stronger than

      and yet, for you this somehow is proof that KAlibak, who gets koes by the double punch, is stronger than Thor who absolutely needed help to win?

    Kalibak isn't koed there.

      i smell double standards. if you think it's because he says Kalibak is as strong as the Hulk, Thor says it almost all the time someone is a good enough fight, he does the same for Manhunter, who is sometimes likewise said to be as strong as superman. It's just a frame of reference to say that they are in a comparable position powerwise. he did it for the Minotaur before curbstomping him once he stopped holding back on him because of that, to the point even Ulik intervention making it a 2 on 1 doesn't hold when Thor gets serious and rushes both at the same time.

    Yes, he does say that. But when you actually read the comic, both Darkseid and Access made it clear that Thor is losing against Kalibak.

    Nothing could make it clearer than that.

      when someone is said to be "as strong as" it's usually meant as a general statement to say they are peers in equal plot conditions. But it's not a foregone conclusion given the variability implied by the potential range of characters; i mean, look here how Thor faces in direct hand to hand to someone said to be directly 4 times as strong as he is in a direct strenght contest...

    So you concede that Kalibak was at least a peer to Thor? Superman treats him like a nuisance.

    From a non canon story? Good.


      i repeat, i agree with Jurgens that in their "base forms" Superman is probably going to be stronger and a lot faster than Thor in a normal fight, and Thor would be by far the better fighter and slightly more powerful, with a magical easy win if he chose to use it (wich he usually doesn't preferring to fight directly). So without having any potential for plot indiced growth included, Supes would probably win 6/10 as long as thor doesn't use magic (which is a BIG part of his powerset though). he would have a similar degree of chance with a "base" Hulk unless he really pissed him off a lot (something i don't think supes would be likely to do being a good guy who usually always talks first).

    Nothing can be further from what actual comics show. Thor has never been portrayed as more powerful than Thor and easy win factor against either Superman or Hulk.

      but as for their relative upper tier of feats, they are pretty much on the same level, infinite/conceptual (breaking history, moving destiny, lifting infinity, things like that) is their upper level of strenght shown, and they beat or killed similar level of characters, from the Skyfather to the Cosmic Being in their best feats under their own character powerset range. Both have denied beings that are pratically the Editors incarnated in the comics (Supes defied the Monitors, Thor defied Those Who Sit Above in the Shadows) And both have been beaten by character far less than their base tier would indicate when at their lowest. So given the possible overlap, both can win a phisical fight given on the context of such an occasion.

    But Superman is the go to guy for such feats. Thor isn't.

    And no, Thor can't beat Superman in a purely physical fight.

      it seems that you are willingly underestimating the shown potential for characters you like less by drawing conclusions not actually directly correlated to the comics themselves as a whole, but just focusing on specific occasions who are contextually based, ignoring the range the whole history permits to use in a battleboard for those you dislike, but then again since you then refuted to see similarities in showings who are pretty much comparable, and decided to see things only your own way and give more credence to one aspect instead of considering the whole, i don't really see how you can expect people to take your opinion as logically based.

      i tried to explain why it's plenty possible to consider Thor comparable to superman in a direct fight, but since you refuse to take any possibility, despite author intent (both Jurgens and Busiek said that it was possible for Thor to win such a rematch after all) or any range based discussion, under consideration and keep going back to specific occasions cristallizing them as if they were "the rule" just because they happened once, and worse misreading most of them as a one dimensional declaration of superiority, well, i can see when logical discourse fails and is no longer viable. No reason to keep arguing when the arguments are so evidently ill recieved and not wanted... Considering what busiek said in the post you yourself linked to, there is quite a bit of quantifying such things when there is no need to do so. and Peers can certainly block a hit from a peer and knock one out, it happens all the time in boxing matches; if two weightlifters who both can benchpress 400kg tried to push each other back, one of them will eventually lose even if they can lift the same amount. It all comes down to condition when peers fight, not lack of potential strenght or power on the side of the fighter. Otherwise the fight would not be necessary and the winner could be declared before they step into the ring. Not only Busiek, but pretty much most authors if pressed would agree that this is a true aspect to consider in comic fights. there is no quantifying it cleanly, it all depends on so many factors...

    Nice rant. What can happen is not what actually happened everytime Thor and Superman are compared.

      so, to conclude, i think it's not unreasonable to see Thor as very close to Supes in a fistfight; thanks to the relative nature of use of powerset depending on plot, it's pretty likely that the ratio of win/loss could vary wildly, if there is even a slight change in the conditions that tips it one way or another, but no one seem to be beyond the range of the other. Relatively also Thor is more likely to be able to exploit Supes weaknesses than the reverse, which is a point that in a full out fight should also be considered, in JLA/Avengers it was used during the last battle effectively, Vision had to expend all his solar power reserves to recharge Superman midway to make sure he got to the finish line.

    Except Thor isn't close to Superman in a fist fight. He lost while using a hammer for god's sake.

    You thor fans amuse me.

No, i meant that Kalibak is like Ulik, the Minotaur and Bi beast, a villain that can hang with Thor/Hulk at base unless they get really serious; to really punk kalibak even Supes can t take it easy after all, most of the win you showed were Supes unloading on him seriously. By your own reasoning, kalibak couldnt resume the fight, since Darkseid ran away because he couldnt face both teams and was losing. Anyway thanks for proving my point by restating your bias. It's pretty obvious that when superman is in the same position as Thor you overhype his role, when Thor is in the same position as kalibak you understate him, and when Thor is in the same position as Superman you diss him and try to lower the stock of his enemy. When Supes is in the same position as kalibak you would probably call it a win.

Nothing i could say would make you consider the argument fairily, no matter what the author themselves say. Brevoort said that in matter of strenght, he doesnt see difference for thor either with or without hammer, illogical as it might sound, so i dont consider the hammer as conceptually making him less strong by using it, especially if you consider how much the Odinpower can make him eventually.

I dont care about your opinion, since it s pretty obvious that you are distorting the authors ones to fulfill your need for Supes being unbeatable. The Comics must disappoint you a lot if you truly believe it. That one true fight they had tells that supes can beat thor, true. But not that he will all the time, not even necessarily most of the times; what it says is that it is a tossup. Its not one way, and no matter how much you try, you can t change that. Thor has on his own hurt Galactus far more than Superman ever did in that crossover even with herald powers added to his own, for example, but you didnt consider it in your original post. Why is that? Jurgens for example also said supes would certainly lose against even the thor of his issue one because magic, that doesn't count for anything?

I think you can count on the contraddiction inherent in a multi author based structure for at least some of the overlap i talked about, but it being contraddicting doesnt mean it cannot be true in such a narrative based medium. For someone who presents himself as such a good source fo all things continuity based you seem to not have a good grasp of the conceptual framework of comics. Also if that Thor story is ooc, how come the galactus crossover is an acceptable source? Is the Galactus/Darkseid crossover canon then? Because darkseid was utterly punked there.

Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.91 on Linux
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software