@lilbroomstick: I’m not arguing that his high ends should be disregarded and his lowends should be used. I think it makes more sense to use performance against characters at a vague amount.
While actually looking at stats the character has on his own merit. There’s nothing wrong with for example saying Ironman’s repulsors can harm Thor or that The Thing can rock Hulk with a punch but it’s more efficient to look at what the repulsors or The Thing can do on their own merit without scaling on characters who have their own personal feats.
Iron Man and generally everyone got most of their clear destruction feats in the classic days. Iron Man has shattered mountains with the shockwaves of his punches, bursted through a mountain the size of Manhattan, tanked a West Coast destroying blast, casually moved/cracked an entire man-made island, and survived an explosion that was powerful enough to be felt in China. Iron Man does get more feats like that with extremis tanking 5 nukes at less than 5% power and his space armor surviving another West Coast destroying blast but generally he now focuses more on speed since that seemed to be the least focused stat in the past. I mean if Thanos hasn't destroyed a planet in a while does that mean his feats of fighting the avengers should be disregarded until he destroys more planets? I just think with the feats Iron Man already has shown without scaling it should be enough for his feats that require scaling to be valid. It's like saying Bleeding edge/extremis are weaker than the classic armors in everything besides speed despite it being shown that's not the case.
I do think Thing benefits from scaling more than Iron Man does based off the arguments made for him and the fact that the greatest strength feat I remember for him was in the 30,000 ton range.
The difference between Thanos and Ironman though is that Ironman has several long running series that’s why it’s fair to compare him to Thor and Hulk who perform feats on their own without scaling to other characters because the protagonist of heroes rather actually get series where we get to see them display feats on their own.
Consistently Thanos rides on the fact also that he’s displayed above Thor, Hulk, ETC. If Thor implies he’s going to kill Thanos yet fails to do so or his attack after suggesting his intent on killing Thanos does no damage whatsoever it makes more sense to scale Thor’s best feats to that attack because we understand the narrative is to suggest Thanos is physically superior to Thor.
If Darkseid who doesn’t have many appearances given he doesn’t have his own long running title consistently is shown to overpower Superman who attempts to get in a grappling match with him but next panel is overwhelmed. Thats fair to scale off Superman’s best feats because we have consistency of Darkseid being physically above Superman.
That makes sense right?
I honestly think the Immortal Hulk thing for The Thing is blown out of proportion as well and on top of the idea that a scan from the 60s or so saying he gets stronger over time doesn’t really help his case. If he’s getting put on the ground by War Machine after grabbing him. I don’t follow The Thing but I struggle to believe that Immortal Hulk thing is some form of consistent for him. Not that I don’t think The Thing is capable of lasting in fights against high tiers given he has a consistency of doing so and the fact he’s a brick with little to no versatility so that helps him showing wise in regards to scaling more here against Ironman in a H2H fight.
Not arguing for either but I don’t think scaling on high or low ends is a good way to determine a victor.
You know you have a point. I just think with impressive non scaling feats + consistently showing he can contend with powerhouses(even winning some fights) + making things that far exceed high tier level + having an armor that was consistently impressive with little to no low-end feats(bleeding edge) + having an armor that tanked Dyson Sphere destruction(Endo-sym) + there being instances well Marvel flat out relies on scaling to show how strong Iron Man is + impressive agility, skill, and intelligence would be enough to say Iron Man would take Thing handily and could give guys like Hulk/Thor a run for their money. It doesn't help with the fact that I'm not sure if Thing will even keep the power he was said to display in this thread despite(to my knowledge) not having anything recent that says Thing is just stronger. I mean the way I see it, Thing has always had his high tier moments every once in a while with no explanation. If Iron Man does something similar with no explanation then I likely wouldn't count it but as I told the other user Iron Man usually has reasons/context behind what he does while Thing just seems to rely on pure willpower/determination. I have to use some scaling if scaling is the only thing being used on Ben's side, but from what I know Ben isn't above Hulk, Rulk, or Namor(not consistently anyway).