I know many people bring up feats for combat, like one shot durability feats, lifting feats and traverse speed feats = How well they would do in a fight. But the fact is, ACTUAL combat feats need to be accounted for.
So many people have the assumption that for characters who have super strength, that just because the character can lift more, means that they can hit harder. Sadly, that's not the case. I can use Arnold Schwarzenegger vs Bruce Lee and it's obvious who can lift more. But who's the one who's going to hit harder. Many people may disagree, but it is not correlated to how fast, or how hard a character can hit. Although, grip strength can possibly be correlated to lifting strength. But people rarely take that into account.
This doesn't apply to characters who can move instantly without the need to accelerate, like the Flash. However, let's use Superman for instance. He needs to increase his acceleration and velocity over time to get to high amounts of speed. He is restricted by physics (Or DC's version of physics anyway), unlike Flash with the Speed Force. These two types of speed should be separated as they are not the same things. So, Eventual Traverse Speed =/= Instantaneous Combat Speed.
So here's my theory. (Using Superman as an example again) Superman has been shown to survive supernovae which is impressive and it does give a sort of limit to his durability. However, think of it like this, did Doomsday have enough power to destroy supernovae? No, using his attacks, he eventually got Superman's durability down. What people should have taken into account is the force of Doomsday's attacks and how much Superman can take before finally collapsing. I'm not saying have a full blown math session determining how hard Doomsday can hit, but give some examples of how hard he can hit.
Some other factors to take into account:
Skill, Combat Education, Strategy, Vulnerability to some elements of the opponent, etc.
Anyway, just thought I'd give an opinion on how fights should be. Unless it's clearly spite.