Prove that Civil War Iron Man Was Weaker than Avengers Iron Man

Avatar image for nfactor1995
nfactor1995

14311

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I've seen this "argument" made so many times on the battles forum that I decided to create this thread here and try to figure out what the legitimate argument actually is that supports this idea that Iron Man in Captain America: Civil War was noticeably and/or substantially weaker than previous incarnations, particularly his Avengers version. Too often I have seen attempts at low-balling the likes of Aldrich Killian, Cap, and Bucky by people saying stuff like Iron Man in Civil War and Iron Man 3 was much weaker than previous incarnations, therefore the feat of beating or competing with him is null or unimpressive.

So basically what I'm asking you to do (if you believe this theory yourself) is to make the argument here that Civil War Iron Man is weaker than Avengers Iron Man. You can use in-universe logic, scaling, feats, statements etc to support your case.

THE ONE CAVEAT: You cannot - CANNOT - use the Cap and Bucky vs Iron Man fight to justify the idea that Civil War Iron Man is weaker. This is the one rule for this thread. You must prove that the Iron Man suit was shown to be noticeably and/or significantly weaker throughout the entirety of Civil War, either by feats, statements, or logical inferences, not taking the final fight into account (as this is the most common argument I've seen made, and it is honestly quite the sketchy argument).

Avatar image for buildhare
buildhare

9751

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Would really like to see someone try

Avatar image for deactivated-5d731ee5de2e9
deactivated-5d731ee5de2e9

8670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It wasn't weaker. It was the same material as the other suits, it's just the mcu consistency issues

Avatar image for havenless
Havenless

3299

Forum Posts

11

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Havenless

Well okay then, for 2/3 of his onscreen action he was similar to previous incarnations, and then for the final 1/3 he was noticeably depowered. So if you put your fingers in your ears and say loudly, "la la la la la," whenever someone brings up the pinnacle of the movie, then yes it would be much harder to justify such a proclamation.

Avatar image for ldm
LDM

5365

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Would really like to see someone try

Avatar image for ready_4_madness
Ready_4_Madness

23817

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Ready_4_Madness

He's not, but excuses are made.

Avatar image for pipxeroth
pipxeroth

10000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Good luck lol.

Avatar image for tsciallsolle3451
TSciallsolle3451

999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I've seen this "argument" made so many times on the battles forum that I decided to create this thread here and try to figure out what the legitimate argument actually is that supports this idea that Iron Man in Captain America: Civil War was noticeably and/or substantially weaker than previous incarnations, particularly his Avengers version. Too often I have seen attempts at low-balling the likes of Aldrich Killian, Cap, and Bucky by people saying stuff like Iron Man in Civil War and Iron Man 3 was much weaker than previous incarnations, therefore the feat of beating or competing with him is null or unimpressive.

So basically what I'm asking you to do (if you believe this theory yourself) is to make the argument here that Civil War Iron Man is weaker than Avengers Iron Man. You can use in-universe logic, scaling, feats, statements etc to support your case.

THE ONE CAVEAT: You cannot - CANNOT - use the Cap and Bucky vs Iron Man fight to justify the idea that Civil War Iron Man is weaker. This is the one rule for this thread. You must prove that the Iron Man suit was shown to be noticeably and/or significantly weaker throughout the entirety of Civil War, either by feats, statements, or logical inferences, not taking the final fight into account (as this is the most common argument I've seen made, and it is honestly quite the sketchy argument).

If you are gonna play it THAT way, we use the feats shown at the airport: NONE of the feats that Tony performed are as impressive as shown in Avengers.

Avatar image for buildhare
buildhare

9751

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By buildhare

@tsciallsolle3451 said:
@nfactor1995 said:

I've seen this "argument" made so many times on the battles forum that I decided to create this thread here and try to figure out what the legitimate argument actually is that supports this idea that Iron Man in Captain America: Civil War was noticeably and/or substantially weaker than previous incarnations, particularly his Avengers version. Too often I have seen attempts at low-balling the likes of Aldrich Killian, Cap, and Bucky by people saying stuff like Iron Man in Civil War and Iron Man 3 was much weaker than previous incarnations, therefore the feat of beating or competing with him is null or unimpressive.

So basically what I'm asking you to do (if you believe this theory yourself) is to make the argument here that Civil War Iron Man is weaker than Avengers Iron Man. You can use in-universe logic, scaling, feats, statements etc to support your case.

THE ONE CAVEAT: You cannot - CANNOT - use the Cap and Bucky vs Iron Man fight to justify the idea that Civil War Iron Man is weaker. This is the one rule for this thread. You must prove that the Iron Man suit was shown to be noticeably and/or significantly weaker throughout the entirety of Civil War, either by feats, statements, or logical inferences, not taking the final fight into account (as this is the most common argument I've seen made, and it is honestly quite the sketchy argument).

If you are gonna play it THAT way, we use the feats shown at the airport: NONE of the feats that Tony performed are as impressive as shown in Avengers.

Name them, which feats do you think he got in avengers that are wildly more impressive than taking no damage to his suit after having stacks of cars dropped on him, or knocking out Giant-Man?

Think it might be worth pointing out that there is an entire page on Iron Man's Civil War suit in the guidebook and there is no mention of having reduced power or physicals at all;

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for cosmic_templar
Cosmic_Templar

2571

Forum Posts

831

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@buildhare: Well, in Avengers he managed to survive getting hit by Mjolnir.

Avatar image for those_eyes
those_eyes

17291

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

avenger tony was more impressive

Avatar image for tsciallsolle3451
TSciallsolle3451

999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@tsciallsolle3451 said:
@nfactor1995 said:

I've seen this "argument" made so many times on the battles forum that I decided to create this thread here and try to figure out what the legitimate argument actually is that supports this idea that Iron Man in Captain America: Civil War was noticeably and/or substantially weaker than previous incarnations, particularly his Avengers version. Too often I have seen attempts at low-balling the likes of Aldrich Killian, Cap, and Bucky by people saying stuff like Iron Man in Civil War and Iron Man 3 was much weaker than previous incarnations, therefore the feat of beating or competing with him is null or unimpressive.

So basically what I'm asking you to do (if you believe this theory yourself) is to make the argument here that Civil War Iron Man is weaker than Avengers Iron Man. You can use in-universe logic, scaling, feats, statements etc to support your case.

THE ONE CAVEAT: You cannot - CANNOT - use the Cap and Bucky vs Iron Man fight to justify the idea that Civil War Iron Man is weaker. This is the one rule for this thread. You must prove that the Iron Man suit was shown to be noticeably and/or significantly weaker throughout the entirety of Civil War, either by feats, statements, or logical inferences, not taking the final fight into account (as this is the most common argument I've seen made, and it is honestly quite the sketchy argument).

If you are gonna play it THAT way, we use the feats shown at the airport: NONE of the feats that Tony performed are as impressive as shown in Avengers.

Name them, which feats do you think he got in avengers that are wildly more impressive than taking no damage to his suit after having stacks of cars dropped on him, or knocking out Giant-Man?

Think it might be worth pointing out that there is an entire page on Iron Man's Civil War suit in the guidebook and there is no mention of having reduced power or physicals at all;

No Caption Provided

Depends on what you meant by more impressive.

I don't deny that logically, Iron Man's technology gets more advanced as he continues to tinker with them. And indeed it shows by greater versatility as the article you posted had described of the feats in Civil War. Better versatility meaning, easier for him to handle a wider variety of stuff - As seen in Civil War he is able to perform: AI analyzing combat styles, armor's internal defenses, restraining devices, etc etc. None of that is seen in Avengers.

But raw power in terms of battle capability wise? It doesn't seem the case. Since the OP wanted to compare just feats between the same character for two different movies, I'm doing just that: Avengers' Iron Man showed that he can fight hordes of enemy aliens, while Civil War's Iron Man showed him struggling with a ragtag group of less powerful superheroes (Except Scarlet Witch).

If the OP wants to show that Civil War Iron Man wasn't weaker than Avengers' Iron Man, he/she should have just used the versatility aspect as I did, and add in that Civil War's Iron Man was holding back which is why his feats seemed... inferior.

Avatar image for buildhare
buildhare

9751

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By buildhare

@cosmic_templar:

Not as good as it's made out to be. Thor was weakened by dark energies from his transport to earth (post 23).

@tsciallsolle3451

But raw power in terms of battle capability wise? It doesn't seem the case. Since the OP wanted to compare just feats between the same character for two different movies, I'm doing just that: Avengers' Iron Man showed that he can fight hordes of enemy aliens, while Civil War's Iron Man showed him struggling with a ragtag group of less powerful superheroes (Except Scarlet Witch).

You're overrating the chitauri a lot, they were superhumans with energy weapons. They were in no way more impressive then Team Cap if we're talking reasonable numbers. Towards the end of the midtown battle Stark was getting damaged and grounded so the idea that he can take on entire hordes single handily is wrong.

If the OP wants to show that Civil War Iron Man wasn't weaker than Avengers' Iron Man, he/she should have just used the versatility aspect as I did, and add in that Civil War's Iron Man was holding back which is why his feats seemed... inferior.

And I don't think the purpose of this thread was to argue weapons and versatility (which is why he was able to eliminate so much fodder in Avengers), more so the argument that his physicals were nerfed.

Avatar image for rbt
RBT

36496

Forum Posts

1387

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By RBT

@nfactor1995:

THE ONE CAVEAT: You cannot - CANNOT - use the Cap and Bucky vs Iron Man fight to justify the idea that Civil War Iron Man is weaker.

And why not? We had tons of evidence in the fight alone that the suit was considerably weaker but we can't use those?

Avatar image for buildhare
buildhare

9751

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By buildhare

@rbt said:

@nfactor1995:

THE ONE CAVEAT: You cannot - CANNOT - use the Cap and Bucky vs Iron Man fight to justify the idea that Civil War Iron Man is weaker.

And why not? We had tons of evidence in the fight alone that the suit was considerably weaker but we can't use those?

Because people use circular logic like "They Hurt him so he's weaker", But how did they hurt him? "Because he's weaker" But why is he weaker? "Because they hurt him" that to try and justify it.

And what evidence? There is one lone moment in that entire fight I would say is outright PIS (Bucky pushing back Iron Man with his regular arm) within the context of the fight itself (in other instances Tony was overpowering Bucky everywhere easily bar the arm).

If you're going to seriously try and use the argument that Bucky overpowering his wrist with his bionic arm means Tony can't be at his regular levels...don't. He has significantly more strength in that one arm then the rest of his body, overpowering a single appendage of someone stronger then him overall doesn't contradict that in the slightest. I know @arcus1 has already done a great job of trying to explain this to you.

Preemptively calling @tayssti to debunk the inevitable use of the tank shell feat.

Avatar image for tsciallsolle3451
TSciallsolle3451

999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@tsciallsolle3451

But raw power in terms of battle capability wise? It doesn't seem the case. Since the OP wanted to compare just feats between the same character for two different movies, I'm doing just that: Avengers' Iron Man showed that he can fight hordes of enemy aliens, while Civil War's Iron Man showed him struggling with a ragtag group of less powerful superheroes (Except Scarlet Witch).

You're overrating the chitauri a lot, they were superhumans with energy weapons. They were in no way more impressive then Team Cap if we're talking reasonable numbers. Towards the end of the midtown battle Stark was getting damaged and grounded so the idea that he can take on entire hordes single handily is wrong.

If the OP wants to show that Civil War Iron Man wasn't weaker than Avengers' Iron Man, he/she should have just used the versatility aspect as I did, and add in that Civil War's Iron Man was holding back which is why his feats seemed... inferior.

And I don't think the purpose of this thread was to argue weapons and versatility (which is why he was able to eliminate so much fodder in Avengers), more so the argument that his physicals were nerfed.

A good way to gauge the power level of the character is to see the scale of the battle - damage done, battle environment, etc.

Avengers' Iron Man's battle scene was an entire city, flying all around the place and fighting hordes of enemies which can overwhelm Team Cap minus Scarlet Witch (Yes, its hundreds vs a group of street levelers). Civil War's Iron Man's battle scenes was merely an airport.

Avatar image for angeljax
AngelJax

12564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By AngelJax

@buildhare said:

Name them, which feats do you think he got in avengers that are wildly more impressive than taking no damage to his suit after having stacks of cars dropped on him,

He did suffer damage. His armor sustained multiple major contusions and it only took one car to do so, not a flurry of them.

or knocking out Giant-Man?

Tony needed Rhodey to perform that feat. And it didn't even knock Scott out, it only winded him.

This is wildly inconsistent with the Tony that was literally catching cars flung at him in his first film and getting significantly more advanced with each movie.

Avatar image for apex_pretador
APEX_pretador

22444

Forum Posts

50

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

will prove

Avatar image for rbt
RBT

36496

Forum Posts

1387

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@buildhare:

Because people use circular logic like "They Hurt him so he's weaker", But how did they hurt him? "Because he's weaker" But why is he weaker? "Because they hurt him" that to try and justify it.

Not really. It wasn't just about Cap and Bucky hurting Tony. It was about Bucky outright dominating Tony in a physical battle. Whenever Bucky tried to overpower Tony, he succeeded. That's a huge fall from the guy who kicked Thor through a tree. From Thor(the guy who matched Hulk's strength) crushing his armor, we went to Bucky crushing it.

And what evidence? There is one lone moment in that entire fight I would say is outright PIS (Bucky pushing back Iron Man with his regular arm) within the context of the fight itself (in other instances Tony was overpowering Bucky everywhere easily bar the arm).

From top of my head, there are at least 3 instances.

Overpowering with metal arm
Overpowering with metal arm
Overpowering with normal arm
Overpowering with normal arm

And the time when Bucky pushed Tony to the wall and Tony had to blow Buck's arm off to get out. Overpowering using whole body strength. Whenever Bucky tried to overpower Tony, he did.

If you're going to seriously try and use the argument that Bucky overpowering his wrist with his bionic arm means Tony can't be at his regular levels...don't. He has significantly more strength in that one arm then the rest of his body, overpowering a single appendage of someone stronger then him overall doesn't contradict that in the slightest. I know @arcus1 has already done a great job of trying to explain this to you.

No. I am using three instances of Bucky outright overpowering Tony to prove that Bucky was at least Tony's physical equal.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b60e98a8eb99
deactivated-5b60e98a8eb99

11591

Forum Posts

275

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It's not like all the armors need to have the same powerlevel.

Avatar image for rudebomberboy01
RudeBomberBoy01

4561

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yeah no. It's quite obvious the suits do not follow a linear power level. You have Tony in older suits performing much more impressive feats than his recent/modern ones.

More advanced suit =/= more powerful. Example would be the MK 42 compared to his MK 3, 4 ,6, 7 and 45 suits. Had Cap and Bucky gone up against (especially) his MK 6 suit, I don't think they have what it takes to even dent that suit.

In other words, Iron Man wasn't "weaker" in CW, the suit he used just wasn't as powerful as his older ones. Oh and plot.

Avatar image for stormshadow_x
StormShadow_X

18632

Forum Posts

767

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 23

Avatar image for afrk
Afrk

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It wasnt so much that his armour was weaker but that he was jobbing so hard. The only explanation for this is that he did not want to use lethal force. Why would yoy ever punch someone when you have hundreds of more powerful range weapons?

Avatar image for mazahs117
MAZAHS117

15555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Was he really weaker? I just thought he was holding back

Avatar image for nickzambuto
nickzambuto

29288

Forum Posts

5083

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26  Edited By nickzambuto

IIRC Iron Man's rotor blades feat in Avengers was calqed at thousands of tons.

Before powering up he was able to hurt Thor and kick him through a tree and withstand his strikes. And after powering up, his strength was dead even with Thor.

Then in AoU we've got Rhodey's tank feat and Iron Man supporting that huge cargo carrier ship.

The guy has many feats painting him as class 100+. Cars falling onto him should not deal injury. Yes Tony did ultimately continue the fight afterwards, so the cars didn't oneshot him, but a hundred tonner should have received NO damage. Tony shouldn't have even been knocked down by a mere car, when in the very first movie at like, 17% power in an armor some 40 marks below his current one, he was able to catch a car flung at him hard by Iron Monger.

The AI stated that the armor itself suffered multiple "confusions" and when Tony was out of the suit he wore a sling around his arm. So him continuing the battle isn't indicative of him tanking the cars, so much as Tony just being tough. Because both him and the armor were clearly damaged.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

27973

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

IIRC Iron Man's rotor blades feat in Avengers was calqed at thousands of tons.

Before powering up he was able to hurt Thor and kick him through a tree and withstand his strikes. And after powering up, his strength was dead even with Thor.

Then in AoU we've got Rhodey's tank feat and Iron Man supporting that huge cargo carrier ship.

The guy has many feats painting him as class 100+. Cars falling onto him should not deal injury. Yes Tony did ultimately continue the fight afterwards, so the cars didn't oneshot him, but a hundred tonner should have received NO damage. Tony shouldn't have even been knocked down by a mere car, when in the very first movie at like, 17% power in an armor some 40 marks below his current one, he was able to catch a car flung at him hard by Iron Monger.

The AI stated that the armor itself suffered multiple "confusions" and when Tony was out of the suit he wore a sling around his arm. So him continuing the battle isn't indicative of him tanking the cars, so much as Tony just being tough. Because both him and the armor were clearly damaged.

Falcalcs are iffy, and when it comes to stuff like the rotor blades and supporting the carrier, that's a feat for Tony's thrusters more so than lifting strength. I think trying to say he's a 100 tonner is kinda excessive

Tony wasn't knocked down by a mere car, he was knocked down by Scarlet Witch flinging a bunch of cars down on him. Good for Wanda

He was not even with Thor in terms of strength. Thor (who for this fight was somewhat weakened) was clearly stronger, and once he started taking Tony seriously he was quite clearly more powerful

Avatar image for nfactor1995
nfactor1995

14311

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rbt:

And why not? We had tons of evidence in the fight alone that the suit was considerably weaker but we can't use those?

That "evidence" consists of people being incredulous that Cap and Bucky are capable of hurting and competing with Iron Man in CQC. The arguments I see essentially amount to "Iron Man competed with Thor, therefore the super soldiers (despite their pretty incredible feats) shouldn't be able to compete with Iron Man." So basically, because this fight messes with their preconceived hierarchy of fighters within the MCU, they decide to disregard this fight or make excuses (possibly legit, possibly not) that something must have been wrong with Iron Man.

The fight itself can lead to a number of conclusions, some of which include:

  • Iron Man was nerfed
  • Iron Man was holding back (doesn't make sense with Bucky)
  • The fight was legit, and Cap and Bucky really are just that powerful

And most everyone jumps onto the first one. So the purpose of this thread was to look at the rest of his showings in the movie to prove whether he was actually significantly weaker throughout the movie.

Avatar image for tayssti
Tayssti

1330

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Thanks for the tag @buildhare. Been kinda MIA on this site with work/school/life stuff. Ill keep any eye on this one.

Avatar image for firstolympian
FirstOlympian

694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The AI stated that the armor itself suffered multiple "confusions" and when Tony was out of the suit he wore a sling around his arm. So him continuing the battle isn't indicative of him tanking the cars, so much as Tony just being tough. Because both him and the armor were clearly damaged.

He suffered contusions. What the hell is a confusion?

Avatar image for deactivated-5d6bc0cd36084
deactivated-5d6bc0cd36084

12991

Forum Posts

676

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Avatar image for firstolympian
FirstOlympian

694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By FirstOlympian
Avatar image for rbt
RBT

36496

Forum Posts

1387

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@nfactor1995:

That "evidence" consists of people being incredulous that Cap and Bucky are capable of hurting and competing with Iron Man in CQC. The arguments I see essentially amount to "Iron Man competed with Thor, therefore the super soldiers (despite their pretty incredible feats) shouldn't be able to compete with Iron Man." So basically, because this fight messes with their preconceived hierarchy of fighters within the MCU, they decide to disregard this fight or make excuses (possibly legit, possibly not) that something must have been wrong with Iron Man.

Iron Man's fight with Thor is a perfectly logical argument. The strength gap between Thor and Cap(or Bucky) is humongous. No matter how incredible feats Cap and Bucky has, they all pale in comparison to those of Thor. And if in Avengers, it took Thor to crush Tony's armor and in CW Bucky replicated that feat, the logical assumption is that the suit was less durable. There is no other way to look at it unless you are arguing that Bucky's strength is comparable to that of Thor's. Which is not true, looking at their feats.

It doesn't mess with hierarchy or anything. Its a ridiculous showing, which you should either disregard as PIS if you are arguing that Iron Man wasn't nerfed or should assume that he indeed was. You can't have both.

The fight itself can lead to a number of conclusions, some of which include:

  • Iron Man was nerfed
  • Iron Man was holding back (doesn't make sense with Bucky)
  • The fight was legit, and Cap and Bucky really are just that powerful
  • He was nerfed for reasons already mentioned.
  • He was holding back as well. Yes, even with Bucky. While he was pretty angry, he was still holing back considering he could have used uni-beam to disintegrate Bucky anytime. Being angry an being bloodlusted is not the same thing.
  • They are not. They have no feats to suggest that they are even in same ballpark as Thor.

And most everyone jumps onto the first one. So the purpose of this thread was to look at the rest of his showings in the movie to prove whether he was actually significantly weaker throughout the movie.

The battle was a part of movie. Which is where we got to see just how weak Tony's armor was. I have provided three instances of him being outright overpowered by Buck.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

27973

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rbt said:

@nfactor1995:

That "evidence" consists of people being incredulous that Cap and Bucky are capable of hurting and competing with Iron Man in CQC. The arguments I see essentially amount to "Iron Man competed with Thor, therefore the super soldiers (despite their pretty incredible feats) shouldn't be able to compete with Iron Man." So basically, because this fight messes with their preconceived hierarchy of fighters within the MCU, they decide to disregard this fight or make excuses (possibly legit, possibly not) that something must have been wrong with Iron Man.

Iron Man's fight with Thor is a perfectly logical argument. The strength gap between Thor and Cap(or Bucky) is humongous. No matter how incredible feats Cap and Bucky has, they all pale in comparison to those of Thor. And if in Avengers, it took Thor to crush Tony's armor and in CW Bucky replicated that feat, the logical assumption is that the suit was less durable. There is no other way to look at it unless you are arguing that Bucky's strength is comparable to that of Thor's. Which is not true, looking at their feats.

It doesn't mess with hierarchy or anything. Its a ridiculous showing, which you should either disregard as PIS if you are arguing that Iron Man wasn't nerfed or should assume that he indeed was. You can't have both.

The fight itself can lead to a number of conclusions, some of which include:

  • Iron Man was nerfed
  • Iron Man was holding back (doesn't make sense with Bucky)
  • The fight was legit, and Cap and Bucky really are just that powerful
  • He was nerfed for reasons already mentioned.
  • He was holding back as well. Yes, even with Bucky. While he was pretty angry, he was still holing back considering he could have used uni-beam to disintegrate Bucky anytime. Being angry an being bloodlusted is not the same thing.
  • They are not. They have no feats to suggest that they are even in same ballpark as Thor.

And most everyone jumps onto the first one. So the purpose of this thread was to look at the rest of his showings in the movie to prove whether he was actually significantly weaker throughout the movie.

The battle was a part of movie. Which is where we got to see just how weak Tony's armor was. I have provided three instances of him being outright overpowered by Buck.

Why the assumption that only someone of Thor's strength could begin to break Tony's armor?

Thor was quite evidently stronger than Tony

I think the assumption you seem to be making is that Tony's roughly equal to Thor in terms of strength, when that's clearly not the case. Strong enough to contend with Thor under those circumstances, and with the help of his flight and repulsors, sure, but not actually as strong as Thor. Just like Cap and Bucky aren't actually as strong as Tony, but by virtue of their superior skill, the shield, and the arm were able to contend with him

Avatar image for rbt
RBT

36496

Forum Posts

1387

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arcus1: I never compared Tony's strength with that of Thor's. I was commenting on IM's durability. In Avengers, it took Thor's strength to damage Tony's armor. Bucky, who is nowhere near as strong as Thor should not be able to replicate the feat.

Avatar image for nickzambuto
nickzambuto

29288

Forum Posts

5083

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for webinyoureye11
webinyoureye11

7157

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By webinyoureye11

Iron mans best strength feats and striking feats come from use of momentum, either by flying and using all his power in the thrusters on his feet, or his hands to propel himself/limbs at fast speeds.

Take away momentum and leverage, and he's just a guy in a suit with enhanced strength comaparable to cap.

His showings in civil war are just the Russo brothers applying more real world limits on iron mans armor, whereas his previous appearances kinda went ham because RDJ has to be the star

Avatar image for firstolympian
FirstOlympian

694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By FirstOlympian
@nickzambuto said:

@firstolympian: Wow. Excuse me for making a typo.

Lol, sorry if it came out as aggressive, I was just poking fun.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

27973

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rbt said:

@arcus1: I never compared Tony's strength with that of Thor's. I was commenting on IM's durability. In Avengers, it took Thor's strength to damage Tony's armor. Bucky, who is nowhere near as strong as Thor should not be able to replicate the feat.

And why the assumption that only someone of Thor's strength could damage Tony's armor?

Avatar image for linsanel_doctor
linsanel_Doctor

8707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for majin77
majin77

431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided

Still don't understand why Tony doesn't just implement more stuff like this.

Avatar image for rbt
RBT

36496

Forum Posts

1387

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arcus1 said:
@rbt said:

@arcus1: I never compared Tony's strength with that of Thor's. I was commenting on IM's durability. In Avengers, it took Thor's strength to damage Tony's armor. Bucky, who is nowhere near as strong as Thor should not be able to replicate the feat.

And why the assumption that only someone of Thor's strength could damage Tony's armor?

Because if someone like Bucky could do it, Thor would have pulverized the armor and Tony's hand when he tried to crush the armor, instead of barely crushing it.

Avatar image for mrnoital
Mrnoital

8994

Forum Posts

3547

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By Mrnoital

he went from being shot out of the air by a tank with no damage, to getting multiple contusions when hit by cars

Avatar image for digitalshooter9
DigitalShooter9

3112

Forum Posts

65

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If you think he wasn't weaker than there is something wrong with you....

Avatar image for marvelanddcfan24
MarvelandDCfan24

8844

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

He got beat by 2 guys who he couldve 1 shotted both he was "weaker" in the Marvel world but weakened by the writers/directors pis plus Russo Force Cap could probably beat thor solo thanos plus Tony said we need to be put in check BS he created ultron he needed to be put in check not cap deserved to get pisified

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

27973

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rbt said:
@arcus1 said:
@rbt said:

@arcus1: I never compared Tony's strength with that of Thor's. I was commenting on IM's durability. In Avengers, it took Thor's strength to damage Tony's armor. Bucky, who is nowhere near as strong as Thor should not be able to replicate the feat.

And why the assumption that only someone of Thor's strength could damage Tony's armor?

Because if someone like Bucky could do it, Thor would have pulverized the armor and Tony's hand when he tried to crush the armor, instead of barely crushing it.

Bucky was fighting for his life, Thor just wanted to get Tony out of the way. Also, Thor inflicted greater damage to the armor. Bucky's grip was enough to mess with the repulsor in the hand, while Thor was actually crushing the metal around the wrists

So Thor's damage was greater, and there's no real reason to think Thor couldn't have done more damage

Avatar image for uugieboogie
uugieboogie

13903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

It's pretty obvious Iron Man wasn't operating on his normal levels, especially when take into account his feats his other appearances in older armors. Iron Man was blown out of the sky and plummeted down hard enough to make a crater and only had paint discoloring. Tony himself had no damage yet after 3 cars dropping on him his suit suffered multiple contusions and he arm was in a sling. In the first Iron Man film he was thrown into a bus by Iron Man monger and then shot by a missile getting blown out unscathed (besides the prior damage from fighting Stane). Tbh it was one car that initially got him to the ground that should've never happened, especially when he caught a car while low on power. In the MCU tie in comics with his thrusters he was ble to keep a jet and keep a helicopter in the air. In AoU he able to keep the barge up after one of the thrusters gave out. Even Tony's striking power and repulsors appeared to be nerfed he was doing this in his first movie

Loading Video...

Even if you don't want to see his suit was "weaker" it certainly wasn't consistent with other armors and he certainly wasn't operating on the same level.

Avatar image for arcus1
Arcus1

27973

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By Arcus1

@uugieboogie:

To be fair, it wasn't just that a car dropped on him, it was Scarlet Witch flinging cars at him, who knows how much force she added to hit him? Plus, element of surprise, he wasn't braced for the impact, making it much easier to knock him down

As for the sling, I'm not sure if that's from the airport fight or from earlier injuries sustained in the fight with Bucky, could be a combo of both

Avatar image for aberdeen
Aberdeen

1113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Battle forum related things should be placed there. Period. If not, then maybe the character boards?

Avatar image for uugieboogie
uugieboogie

13903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@arcus1 said:

To be fair, it wasn't just that a car dropped on him, it was Scarlet Witch flinging cars at him, who knows how much force she added to hit him? Plus, element of surprise, he wasn't braced for the impact, making it much easier to knock him down

The average weight of modern cars are around 2 tons. All she did was casually pull them out of the garage (her energy isn't even around the cars anymore once they're out the garage falling) that shouldn't be compared to the weight of a jet, helicopter or that barge. The only low showing in that movie that can be explained is Rhodes getting his back broken from that fall (even though Iron Man fell the same distance in his first film with no damage and Rhodes in an older WM armor did a dive bomb through the ground in a tie comic IIRC and was completely fine) which could be chalked up to the suit not having power.

As for the sling, I'm not sure if that's from the airport fight or from earlier injuries sustained in the fight with Bucky, could be a combo of both

Fair enough, it very well could be. I actually almost forgot about their prior fight. But Tony was bloody bruised up from getting knocked around inside his suit from Cap and Bucky but didn't have a single scratch or sign of damage from his battle with Thor. And even though Thor was weakened he was still flinging Tony around and they were flying up mountains and slamming into the ground. After he was shot down by the tank he no visible damage and still moving around and operating fine. IMO it's clear they're trying to bring Iron Man a peg to separate him from the powerhouses (especially with Captain Marvel getting introduced).