@thewatcherking:You're not making it easy now, are you? Ok, let's go lol
Thor cannot tag Clark with his regular hammer attacks and throws (at least, not any time soon) Disagree
Loading Video...
In the above fight, you can see that Thor isn't much faster than Hulk. They can trade blows equally, and both can tag each other without a problem. For example, Thor fails to react to Hulk's charge at 0:43, and Hulk manages to react to and counter Thor flying in at 1:50.
The same Hulk cannot even touch highly skilled, quick, and agile peak humans like Black Widow:
He's on the level of super soldiers as far as skill and speed is concerned.
Wonder Woman, however, is leagues above super-soldiers in speed. Her seeing bullets in slow motion ensure that. And yet, Superman had an entire fight with Flash out of her perception... If Diana couldn't even perceive Clark, she wouldn't be able to touch him if he didn't want her to. Thor, who is quite a lot slower than Diana, shouldn't be able to either.
The Godblast will be Thor's first move Disagree
OK? That gives Superman even more time to do whatever he wants to Thor out of the god's perception.
Superman can hit Thor hundreds of times before Thor conjures the blast Disagree
It took Thor 10 seconds to summon the blast against Graviton, and 6 seconds against the Frost Giants. Superman was able to attack 7 times, all out of Diana's perception. You know how Diana perceives bullets. That means that Clark can attack seven times before a bullet moves a couple of feet, meaning that Clark's fight with Flash happened in less than a hundredth of a second. So basically, Clark can hit Thor over 4 000 times before Thor can summon the Godblast.
Superman can get out of the way a moment before Thor unleashes the lightning If Thor is calling it from the sky then I disagree
Why? Thor makes his Godblast from a swing from Mjolnir. Why can't Clark move behind Thor as Thor is moving his hand?
Superman can dodge Thor's lightning after it is released Nope
But Loki, someone who isn't that much faster than Thor, can?
Loading Video...
Also, did you see how long that took to charge?
Superman can snap Thor's neck Disagree
Ok, I'm fine with that. I just realized that it's harder to snap a neck than to K.O. through punching, so no point in arguing this.
Conclusion:
Under the circumstance that Superman can hurt Thor with his attacks, he will win, as he has a ridiculous amount of time to pound on his opponent.
Can Superman tank Thor's lightning(godblast/regular lightning)?
Regular lightning - definitely. The blast he used against the Frost Giants - yes, but barely. The blast against Graviton - no.
Can Superman tank Thor's blunt force attacks?
Yes.
Will Thor be unable to tag Superman?
With hammer swings and throws - yes (at least for a few days). With lightning AoE and such - he'll tag him eventually, but it should also take hours.
Can Superman dodge Thor's lightning?
Yup. There is no reason to assume that Thor's lightning is as fast as natural lightning, there is only counter-evidence (Loki). Superman should be able to dodge it after it is released.
Can Superman hurt Thor?
Yes, it will take a lot to put him down, but it is definitely within Superman's capabilities.
Is Superman stronger than Thor?
I'd say their lifting strength is similar. Thor has an outlier of slowing down the fall of Manhattan, but Superman's tectonic outlier surpasses it. Hulk has been shown to struggle holding up a SHIELD Quinjet, Rulk has struggled to lift the Statue of Liberty and a boat, and both of them were depicted as Thor's superiors in terms of pure strength. Superman casually lifted a 7500 ton building. However, there is other evidence pointing at Thor being stronger than Superman, which I'll let you bring up when you do, which makes me conflicted.
Striking wise, I don't recall any impressive feats without Mjolnir. With Mjolnir but no lightning, Thor can strike opponents pretty far distances, but Superman's train punch covers those, and him punching Doomsday miles away blows them out of the water.
Only gonna counter these points because I've discussed the other points enough for my brain to know its time to just agree to disagree
The first two feats are kinda outliers. Graviton was stated to be as powerful as a black hole,
by feats Graviton could lift cities throw people all the way to the moon could lift cities, could contain Thor,
Loading Video...
And Hulk with difficulty could power through his gravity that even kept Thor on his buttocks feats for Thor are already provided above
there is no contradiction to his tectonic feat or Bruce's statement about him being stronger than a planet
yes because a hidden newspaper headline, and a statement from a guy who has never even seen the mother boxes work are undeniable and concrete evidence as a feat that we watched with our own eyes. Tell me if you had accepted Watcher's Cav would you have used those feats cause I'm pretty sure even the DCEU Trinity of wankers wouldn't vote for you then lol
but Superman punched Doomsday a farther distance in space.
keyword in space a place where there is zero air resistance
Superman can definitely hurt him with his punches, and enough of them would eventually put Thor down
alright, so Superman can hit harder than 500 tones of force falling from orbit smack dab in his chest and a building falling down on him
and only being K.O.ed by a city-busting blast.
Thor first absorbed the blast and then slammed himself into Kang's forcefield at uber high speeds. It wasn't just the city busting beam.
reventing them from being pure durability feats.
but what? How does that make any sense. How did he use his power against a building falling down on him and tanking 500 tons worth of weight falling on top of him?
Superman (in an arguably weakened state) surviving a nuke (that is arguably one of his weaknesses) is on the same level.
Superman in a weakened state also had a living energy absorber standing in front of him and would've died had not been for the solar radiation.
but he won't be able to summon it before Superman blitzes him.
how can Superman even hurt him again and like I showed above Thor's storms can cover a good portion of the planet and cover Asgard which in the comics is the size of the United States. Superman can't avoid that
Superman can simply snap his neck...
yes because Superman's first move is the neck and has totally snapped the neck of someone even half as durable as Thor
In the above fight, you can see that Thor isn't much faster than Hulk.
Here is a problem you have whenever you debate against EMH characters, you like to downplay them to make it seem the character you are debating for stands a chance. But really I could do the same, Superman was unable to get to where batman was before he appeared behind him.Sure, you can bring up this is batman, and how he has training but that doesn't make his speed superhuman(not to mention his suit wouldn't help at all). If you want to prove Superman won't be tagged, just use his feats and say they're way above Thor's, don't resort to lowballing.
hey can trade blows equally, and both can tag each other without a problem.
Hulk's not slow, and really this is a feat for hulk.
For example, Thor fails to react to Hulk's charge at 0:43,
For him to fail to do it, something would have to hint that he actually tried to.
and Hulk manages to react to and counter Thor flying in at 1:50.
Nice speed feat for Hulk.
The same Hulk cannot even touch highly skilled, quick, and agile peak humans like Black Widow:
He was trying his best not to hurt them, so he was basically using kiddy gloves while doing this. Not to mention, he is able to react to a missile right after this in an effort to save them(even appears to be moving at comparable speeds to it).
So this was a failed attempt at lowball.
Thor is pretty fast, he's an arrow-timer, and fast enough to dodge a missile after it's fired, but not all the time...
He didn't see the other two, but without lowballing he isn't slow. As seen here, here, and here.
He's on the level of super soldiers as far as skill and speed is concerned.
Not really, I don't care about skill but he has near hypersonic reaction speed based off consistently being able to react to energy beams and as well as missiles.
Wonder Woman, however, is leagues above super-soldiers in speed. Her seeing bullets in slow motion ensure that. And yet, Superman had an entire fight with Flash out of her perception... If Diana couldn't even perceive Clark, she wouldn't be able to touch him if he didn't want her to. Thor, who is quite a lot slower than Diana, shouldn't be able to either.
His combat speed isn't as high as Superman's, but his reaction speed is high enough to say that he can react to him, he merely wouldn't be able to trade blows at the speeds that Supes and Flash were fighting.
OK? That gives Superman even more time to do whatever he wants to Thor out of the god's perception.
Not sure what the confusion is, I don't think Thor will use it right off the bat. But I don't think he needs to either.
6 seconds against the Frost Giants.
Took two seconds at best here.
Superman was able to attack 7 times, all out of Diana's perception. You know how Diana perceives bullets. That means that Clark can attack seven times before a bullet moves a couple of feet, meaning that Clark's fight with Flash happened in less than a hundredth of a second. So basically, Clark can hit Thor over 4 000 times before Thor can summon the Godblast.
He doesn't need a god blast, and these numbers seem incredibly random(like I question how accurate this is). And I would like to point out how Superman wasn't fighting at those speeds throughout the entirety of his fight with the justice league, so I doubt think he would be able to sustain those speeds throughout this entire fight unless you can prove otherwise.
Why? Thor makes his Godblast from a swing from Mjolnir. Why can't Clark move behind Thor as Thor is moving his hand?
I said no to the godblast, and I don't think he needs it...
But Loki, someone who isn't that much faster than Thor, can?
This logic doesn't work.It's a circular logic type of fallacy. The thing is that if Loki is genuinely fast enough to dodge it....then he is faster than Superman, or if the feat isn't consistent for him, then it's outlier.
You can't use Loki as a way to say Superman can dodge it, because it would just mean Loki> Superman in speed or it's an outlier for Loki.
Also, did you see how long that took to charge?
There have been times that he has launched his lightning in a second, it's not always that long.
Regular lightning - definitely.
He has no feats of resisting electricity at all, and regular lightning is still pretty powerful.They have feats like bringing Galactus to his knees
The blast he used against the Frost Giants - yes, but barely.
Feats against electricity?
The blast against Graviton - no.
K, so once Thor goes for this(pretending Superman lasts long enough) he will be one shotted, as he can't tank it or dodge it.
Yes.
Can you show me him tanking attacks like this?
Gallery
Clashing with Bi frost(large building sized) creating shockwaves
Brings Galactus to his knees with a hammer strike
Knocks off the head of Ultron. It was unlocked admittedly but it's still impressive since the body was made of pure adamantium and he clearly would have to break it to do that.
One shotting multiple super skrull.
With hammer swings and throws - yes (at least for a few days). With lightning AoE and such - he'll tag him eventually, but it should also take hours.
You're highly exaggerating his speed and stamina.
Yup. There is no reason to assume that Thor's lightning is as fast as natural lightning, there is only counter-evidence (Loki)
That's the poorest excuse for counter evidence ever, Loki reacting to it is a feat for him, that doesn't prove that it's not lightning speed.
. Superman should be able to dodge it after it is released.
Show me that lightning timing feat he has.
Yes, it will take a lot to put him down, but it is definitely within Superman's capabilities.
Based on what feat?
I'd say their lifting strength is similar. Thor has an outlier of slowing down the fall of Manhattan, but Superman's tectonic outlier surpasses it.
Unlike Thor we don't know how Superman did it, or even if he did it at all. The fact that it's off screen makes the newspaper an unreliable source for the feat, meanwhile we did see Thor do it. If we're calling it outlier then can't we say the same about Superman's fight with Flash? It's not like any other speed feat Superman has is that impressive.
Hulk has been shown to struggle holding up a SHIELD Quinjet
And yet he thrown heavier objects into deep space, quit lowballing just so you can have an "argument".
, Rulk has struggled to lift the Statue of Liberty
Gritting your teeth isn't proof of strugging.
and a boat,
Come on now.
and both of them were depicted as Thor's superiors in terms of pure strength.
Red Hulk was never depicted as superior to Thor, not at all.
Superman casually lifted a 7500 ton building. However, there is other evidence pointing at Thor being stronger than Superman, which I'll let you bring up when you do, which makes me conflicted.
I'd love to see Superman do something like this
With Mjolnir but no lightning, Thor can strike opponents pretty far distances, but Superman's train punch covers those,
Please, Thor's feat against someone like Red hulk is better than that(and that's not anywhere near his best feat).
and him punching Doomsday miles away blows them out of the water.
@_kingoflatveria: The green gas only turned people into gamma monsters and he has to press the device in order to amp himself with it.He did amp himself against hulk but hawkeye reverted him to normal.
Here is a problem you have whenever you debate against EMH characters, you like to downplay them to make it seem the character you are debating for stands a chance. If you want to prove Superman won't be tagged, just use his feats and say they're way above Thor's, don't resort to lowballing.
I would be lowballing if Thor's consistent feats were much better, and I was still choosing the low-end ones. However, Thor being on Hulk's level speed-wise is extremely consistent.
There are numerous more examples proving Thor's speed to be on Hulk's level. You would have to provide feats of Thor being much faster than Hulk in order to prove that I am lowballing, or using low-end feats.
For him to fail to do it, something would have to hint that he actually tried to.
Oh, so Thor just let Hulk hit and tackle him out of his good heart? Thor's face in that particular instance clearly demonstrated that he was unable to dodge the attack.
He was trying his best not to hurt them, so he was basically using kiddy gloves while doing this. Not to mention, he is able to react to a missile right after this in an effort to save them(even appears to be moving at comparable speeds to it).
Yes, if you don't want to hurt someone, you hit with less power. You don't move slower. Natasha was able to completely outmaneuver Hulk, the fact that he was holding back did not make him slower. As for the missile, yes, it's an impressive feat, but a missile still travels considerably slower than the speed of sound.
I am not saying that that means Thor is slow, as Hulk himself can easily react to missiles and occasionally catch arrows. I am saying that Hulk and Thor pale in comparison to Wonder Woman in combat speed and reactions, as they often cannotarrow-time or dodge missiles.
Not really, I don't care about skill but he has near hypersonic reaction speed based off consistently being able to react to energy beams and as well as missiles.
Why would you say that that puts his react speeds at hypersonic levels? What makes you say that those beams are faster than bullets?
Please answer:
Do you agree that Wonder Woman is considerably faster than Thor?
Do you agree that Wonder Woman is considerably faster than Hulk?
Do you agree that Thor and Hulk operate at similar speeds combat and reaction wise?
But really I could do the same, Superman was unable to get to where batman was before he appeared behind him.Sure, you can bring up this is batman, and how he has training but that doesn't make his speed superhuman(not to mention his suit wouldn't help at all).
I actually strongly believe that Superman was amped in Justice League. I know that you believe so too:
Even the people who didn't consider him amped agreed that he got more powerful, whatever the reason was, and the main category that experienced a boost was speed. This evident by Diana doing just as good against Doomsday as Superman did (maybe even better), and yet not even being able to perceive him in Justice League.
This also explains why Superman couldn't always bullet-time in MoS and as you brought up, had trouble with Batman's stealth, and yet managed to react to Flash speeding in from the side while he's wrestling with 3 powerhouses, and then have a whole fight before those powerhouses could react.
So no, feats that occurred before JL cannot act as counter-evidence, especially to Clark's speed.
Took two seconds at best here.
Yes, Thor can summon his regular lightning much quicker. It is his Godblast that takes a long time.
He doesn't need a god blast, and these numbers seem incredibly random(like I question how accurate this is). And I would like to point out how Superman wasn't fighting at those speeds throughout the entirety of his fight with the justice league, so I doubt think he would be able to sustain those speeds throughout this entire fight unless you can prove otherwise.
He wasn't fighting at those speeds all the time because he didn't need to. He could easily outmuscle all the powerhouses and they couldn't budge him, he only needed to go into super-speed to tag Flash. He also wasn't bloodlusted, in which case he would aim to dismantle Thor as quickly and efficiently as possible.
As for the reliability of those numbers, they're not completely accurate, but they're rather close.
Diana can casually perceive and react to bullets from several feet away:
Let's say that the distance between them is 10 feet. A bullet can travel that distance in less than a hundredth of a second. That means that Diana can easily react in that time.
Yet, she didn't even change positions while Superman fought Flash. That means that their fight took place in less than a hundredth of a second. Superman was able to attack 7 times, and can definitely attack Thor even more, as he actually had to worry about tagging Flash, while Thor will basically be a motionless punching bag.
This logic doesn't work.It's a circular logic type of fallacy. The thing is that if Loki is genuinely fast enough to dodge it....then he is faster than Superman, or if the feat isn't consistent for him, then it's outlier.
You can't use Loki as a way to say Superman can dodge it, because it would just mean Loki> Superman in speed or it's an outlier for Loki.
Or it could mean that the fictional magical lightning summoned by fictional mystical gods isn't the same as natural lightning... Why are you excluding this possibility? It's not like we haven't had numerous examples of fictional lightning not being as fast as regular lightning. You even stated that you don't believe speedster lightning to be as fast as natural lightning:
I agree that speed force lightning as well as livewire's electricity both don't move at lightning speeds
So what makes Thor's lightning any more quantifiable? Also, if we assume Thor's lightning to be as fast as regular lightning, we must do the same for Ares' lightning, shouldn't we? The same lightning that Diana reacted to, the same Diana who couldn't perceive Clark...
He has no feats of resisting electricity at all, and regular lightning is still pretty powerful.They have feats like bringing Galactus to his knees
I believe Galactus' best durability feat was tanking Thor's attacks... Nothing else to make this Thor feat impressive.
Feats against electricity?
I don't know, I feel like in fiction, if you can take one kind of attack, you can also take a different kind of attack with similar power, as long as the character doesn't have a specific weakness. Reeves Superman doesn't have feats against electricity either, but it doesn't mean that he can get one-shotted by a dude with a taser.
I can also apply the same logic to Thor. He has no feats against anything even near as hot as Superman's heat vision (10 000 degrees Farenheit). But Thor did take extremely powerful energy attacks and blunt force, so I don't use this lack of heat resistance feats against him.
K, so once Thor goes for this(pretending Superman lasts long enough) he will be one shotted, as he can't tank it or dodge it.
If he gets hit, yes, he'll be one-shotted, but he should be able to dodge it or counter. It takes a long time to build up that blast, and Superman wouldn't be standing around waiting. While Thor is spinning his hammer, yelling "beware the might of Mjolnir," Superman can fly up to Thor, punch him a few dozen times, make him drop the hammer, or simply get behind him to dodge the attack.
Can you show me him tanking attacks like this?
Yup.
1.
This shockwave is more impressive than the one Thor and the Frost Giant created, as it actually destroyed the ground, while Thor's only broke the ice and moved the snow.
2.
Galactus has barely any durability feats. This Zod punch should cover it:
3.
No, Thor would not have to break Adamantium to take off the head of Ultron, considering that as you said, it was unlocked. Earlier, Thor was unable to make a scratch on that same Ultron with a lightning-amped strike. Ultron didn't even budge.
Feats for those skrulls? Anything to suggest that they can take the following fall without a scratch?
You're highly exaggerating his speed and stamina.
I already analyzed speed. As for stamina, I guess you can argue that Clark will eventually slow down, but Thor doesn't have any impressive stamina feats either... he will also slow down and become tired as time goes on.
That's the poorest excuse for counter evidence ever, Loki reacting to it is a feat for him, that doesn't prove that it's not lightning speed.
Yea, but we know that Loki isn't fast. Therefore, we can either assume it's an outlier, or we can logically assume that Thor's lightning isn't as fast as natural lightning. I already addressed this point above.
Show me that lightning timing feat he has.
He's got no legit lightning timing feats, but using your logic, Diana is a lightning-timer, and she is slower than Clark.
Also, show me the lightning speed feat or statement that Thor's lightning has.
Based on what feat?
His train punch on Namek was calculated to be over 11 000 tons of force. I don't see Thor no-selling that. Also, if Superman realizes that he cannot hurt Thor, he can use more unorthodox methods, such as HV in Thor's eyes or mouth. Before you say that he has never done that, Clark was also never bloodlusted, and never faced an opponent he couldn't put down with punches who was also far slower.
Unlike Thor we don't know how Superman did it, or even if he did it at all. The fact that it's off screen makes the newspaper an unreliable source for the feat, meanwhile we did see Thor do it. If we're calling it outlier then can't we say the same about Superman's fight with Flash? It's not like any other speed feat Superman has is that impressive.
Well, if Clark did it, chances are, it is with pure strength. If he did it with his HV, then that's fine too, as that means that Superman's HV is powerful enough to move a tectonic plate. Now, about how reliable it is. The directors specifically made a newspaper headline stating that Clark moved a tectonic plate. Do you really think that they intended for the headline to be fallacious? At the end of the day, the writers are making a story, and it is always best to follow it. Also, the chances of a misleading newspaper being released when the topic is so significant are microscopic.
We've already discussed outliers. It doesn't matter whether or not a similar feat was performed, as long as there is no counter-evidence. There is no counter-evidence of Superman being as fast as the Flash after resurrection (which we both believe made Superman more powerful overall), so no, the Flash feat isn't an outlier.
And yet he thrown heavier objects into deep space, quit lowballing just so you can have an "argument".
I actually stated that Hulk and Thor have better feats than that, and that is why I think Superman doesn't surpass them in strength, they're similar. Here are Hulk's, Thor's, and Rulk's standalone strength feats:
Hulk stopped a falling Quinjet and landed it safely (he was struggling)
Thor carrier a smaller Quinjet above his head (easily)
Hulk ripped out the Leader's Machine and threw it into space (struggling)
Rulk halfway lifted the Statue of Liberty (struggling)
Thor slowed down the descent of a huge portion of Manhattan
Thor stopped a Frost Giant's downward sword swing and overpowered him, sending him flying into a tower (struggling)
So there are 3 feats putting them far below Superman's building feat, 2 feats far above, and 2 feats below but they don't prove that Thor cannot lift heavier objects. So how was I lowballing with the Quinjet?
As for Rulk not struggling,
he literally roared from the effort. If he was strong enough to easily lift 7500 tons like Superman was, he'd be able to lift this 225 ton weight quickly, with one hand, and a smile on his face. He wouldn't be clenching his teeth, roaring, and looking like a deadlifter taking on a heavy load. Please be honest, looking at that GIF, do you really think that Rulk didn't struggle?
I'd love to see Superman do something like this
Overpowering the Frost Giant might be impressive based on his feats, but sending him flying isn't something Clark can't replicate. Frost Giants aren't that huge. They're about 10 times taller than the Ogres who are about 2 feet taller than Loki. If the Ogres are 8 feet tall, the giants are than 80 feet. They shouldn't weigh much more than a dozen tons tbh. How much would you say they weigh?
Please, Thor's feat against someone like Red hulk is better than that(and that's not anywhere near his best feat).
That wasn't a strike, that was a BFR. Mjolnir latched onto Rulk and carried him away. And what better non-lightning striking feats does Thor have?
.....He was in space, that's not impressive.
Eh, they were still close enough to the planet for its gravity to take effect, but yes, that makes the feat much less impressive.
Overall, I'd say that Thor would beat Clark in a contest of pure force and durability (if they took turns punching each other), but Thor wouldn't be able to one-shot him or no-sell Superman's attacks. However, Superman's speed easily gives him the win, allowing him to test out Thor's strengths and weaknesses. You think that Clark cannot hurt Thor? Fine. After realizing that, a bloodlusted Superman will go for dirtier methods, aiming for Thor's eyes or throat, or anything like that. His speed will let him utilize those weaknesses.
@shadyxv: No, but he’s never been bloodlusted either. He also never faced an opponent he will have trouble putting down physically, an opponent that is significantly outclassed in speed.
An average cargo ship weigh aproximately 50k tons. Giant man lifted it like it was nothing. Thor is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY stronger than that. Noone in the DCEU can do that.. He also held up a part of manhattan, with SEVERAL skyscrapers and other buildings on it. While also holding up like 150 meters of solid rock beneath it..
Overall, I'd say that Thor would beat Clark in a contest of pure force and durability (if they took turns punching each other), but Thor wouldn't be able to one-shot him or no-sell Superman's attacks. However, Superman's speed easily gives him the win, allowing him to test out Thor's strengths and weaknesses.
@maestromage: I'd rather just go over it here. One question first: do you think Clark was amped after his resurrection in JL, at least speed-wise? Or maybe Whedon had a different idea of his speed from Snyder?
@bladeoffury: I don't think he was amped, he just had better feats. I think partly due to the introduction of Flash, Superman kinda had to be more impressive speed-wise in JL. But I'm sure I could find some good speed feats for Thor if I look hard enough.
@maestromage: Thor has some decent speed feats, such as arrow-timing, dodging missiles, and a whole bunch of random projectiles. He also made some headway against Baron Zemo, who stomped Reaper, who did this. It wouldn't amount to much against Clark, however, so if Clark can hurt Thor at all, he should win due to the massive speed advantage.
A pretty good feat that establishes Thor's blunt force durability limit is this one:
Thor was down for 10 seconds after this skyscraper was dropped on him.
Clark probably demonstrated his best output against the World Engine, smashing it to bits while weakened and resisting its gravitational pull. The machine was so durable than it remained unscathed after its landing, which created a shockwave as big as a mountain that also displaced tens of thousands of tons of water.
So, to compare, we have to ask ourselves if that falling building can smash something so durable to bits. I don't think the answer is so clear cut.
You misunderstand what I was saying regarding speed. What I meant was that I could probably find some speed feats for Thor that allow him to at least hang with Clark. It's not too ridiculous given that he and others have consistent hypersonic+ flight speed.
I would also like to take this point to say that Clark's speed isn't as insane as people often make it out to be. Him "statuing" Diana is fairly disengenous given that he had thrown her away (i.e. she wasn't really in a position to move anyways). Not to mention the fact that she tagged him later in the same fight on top moving in Barry's slow motion time (when he poked her sword towards her and she grabs it). Now, he is definitely faster than her don't get me wrong, and he also danced around Steppenwolf with his speed; I just simply think that the gap between the two is often exaggerated. Anyways, this isn't what I came here to argue, I just thought I'd throw it out there whilst we were on the topic
A pretty good feat that establishes Thor's blunt force durability limit is this one:
Thor was down for 10 seconds after this skyscraper was dropped on him.
Right, let's do this. Why on earth would this one random feat from episode show Thor's durability limit? Let's not even get into him having several better feats in other episodes, just looking at in within the context of the episode and it blatantly isn't anywhere close to his limit. Before this, Thor had been in a fight with the wrecking crew, taking several hits from them and tanking them. He then goes off to fight the Frost Giants who are invading Asgard, takes a few more hits from the Frost Giants (who are pretty damn strong). THEN he gets the skyscraper dropped on him, then he gets up, tanks even more hits from the frost giants and then goes on to have a whole fight with Loki and tanks several powerful attacks from him. Throughout this whole episode not once did a single of these attacks put him down for good, despite him taking them back to back. So how does it make any sense for that one random feat to be his limit? It's not as if it put him down or anything, he got up and took many more attacks no problem. And before you say "well it took him 10 seconds to get up so it means he was hurt a lot by it", that's just not a convincing argument. If it took him a while to get up and he was clearly injured then you'd have something but he was completely fine. If anything, I think it's more likely that this was just a ploy done by the writers to introduce tension by making it seem like Thor's in trouble and then having him emerge triumphant so to speak. You might think I'm reaching but they literally did this exact thing earlier in the episode in his fight with the wreckers. A cargo crate is dropped on him, the wreckers celebrate because he appears defeated and then Thor comes out literally unscratched. Thor having a skyscraper dropped on him here doesn't show his limit, not even close. I don't know why you went for this feat of all things when there are times Thor has been one-shotted or just normally KO'd in EMH but I digress.
Clark probably demonstrated his best output against the World Engine, smashing it to bits while weakened and resisting its gravitational pull. The machine was so durable than it remained unscathed after its landing, which created a shockwave as big as a mountain that also displaced tens of thousands of tons of water.
So, to compare, we have to ask ourselves if that falling building can smash something so durable to bits. I don't think the answer is so clear cut.
So let me see if I have this right. We're comparing a random throwaway durability feat for Thor that didn't even come close to KOing him to literally Clark's best feat by a mile.
Aight.
Regardless, even ignoring the World Engine feat being Clark's best (iirc) it still isn't enough to put down Thor. In the episode "Emperor Stark" Thor gets hit by Vision's 500 ton re-entry drop which was at least as impressive as the World Engine if not moreso. And how does he fair against it? The next we see him he's standing over Vision about to finish him off, completely fine.
So even Clark's literal best feat isn't enough to put down Thor. Looking at Clark's more consistent feats, there's even less of an argument for him being able to put Thor down. You'd be hard pressed to say he even hits as hard as the frost giants who Thor tanked many hits from in a single fight, let alone someone like Hulk.
As for Thor's offence vs Clark's durability, there are plenty of feats I could choose from but I'll just go with this one seeing as everyone has posted it so many times in the thread already:
Thor's big final move against Graviton. I'm sure you'll bring up "this took Thor a while to charge blah blah" but that's not my point. The reason I'm showing this feat is to demonstrate that EMH Thor is just on another level than DCEU Superman, and attacks like this (which isn't even is best feat mind you) are far above his paygrade.
Log in to comment