Who has the greatest striking in the MCU/DCEU?

Surtur?

@karkus: He's no fun, he obviously dwarfs everone else. Title is a bit misleading though

Captain Marvel under these conditions.

Thors charged hammer swings are greater tho.

DD and Mjolnir Thor.

I’d say JL SM and Thanos in second.

Doomsday can completely deflect Superman's bullrushes with punches.

That's far better than anyone else here by a lot.

@thespartanb345t: The problem with Doomsday is that he has no quantifiable feats. He never lifted anything heavy or punched and destroyed a landmass. He’s just stronger than Superman and that’s it.

Thor with Mjolnir has the best feats

Doomsday in DCEU, Thor in MCU (or maybe Carol if she would have distance to speed-up).

Superman or Thor.

Carol or Thor

Thor

Thor + Mew Mew

Bump

JL Superman should due to his speed and strength.

Thor with a charged Mjolnir / Stormnbreaker attacks then in no particular order Doomsday, Thanos and Superman.

DD or Thor

Superman

The guy who almost killed Thor and Hulk in half a dozen hits.

Thanos or Thor.

1. Thor not even debatable

2. Thanos with the ability to hurt high tiers

3. Hulk with Surtur feat

4. Superman with DD bfr punches/ Carol with Sanctuary feat

Doomsday is tricky to be honest. Diana was laughing of his blows literally and Superman koed her with 2 headbutts, not forgetting a box of grenades disoriented her to the point she couldn't understand Steve comiting suicide

@the_hajduk: But we know that he can deflect Superman's bullrushes, which are > the World Engine, who's forces were felt through the Earth's core.

So he's the best here by a large margin.

It's impressive if one believe Superman is TOAA. If Superman is judged by what he is, what he's done and the feats he has, it isn't much.

Who did DCEU Superman ever hurt with overwhelming force?

The DCEU JL's heavy hitter isn't Superman - it's Wonder Woman with sword. Heck - a case can be made that DCEU's Superman most potent weapon isn't a strike, but his heat-vision.

No matter the outlandish collateral damage, DCEU Superman is a mid-heavy hitter when it comes to damaging someone.

@thespartanb345t: Like I said, his only feat is scaling from Superman. Thanos at least has a variety of feats that show us how effective he is in different situations. Only person to KO the Hulk, breaking Stark armor with each punch, punching Mjolnir out of the worthy’s hands.

What do you mean by the WE was felt through the earth’s core?

@the_hajduk: Obviously, because there isn't much left to destroy once his AoE levels a city.

And DD's scaling is literally dozens of magnitudes above anyone here.

I'm on mobile right now so I can't show the picture, but the World Engine was shown driving it's force through the entire Earth and onto the other side (or at least to the middle) to terraform the Earth. Superman is REALLY strong if he flies through THAT.

And Doomsday completely deflected Superman's best bullrush.

Since Thor can’t charge, Doomsday would have the best striking.

Thor’s lightning punches are pretty awesome as well.

The Kryptonians stomp with striking

Hmmm

Thor with a charged strike with Mjolnir.

Thanos with almost killing Thor and Hulk with a few punches

Doomsday negating Supermans bullrush/Superman with his distance strikes/Carol blowing through everything/Thor's lightning amped punches

In general, lifting feats should not be used to evidence striking ability. That's not how it works.

And somebody withstanding a punch which sends them flying hundreds of metres displays said character's durability... not the weakness of the blow.

Peter and Ego with their constructs.

@rogueshadow: I don't think the writers generally differentiate between the two, and imagine strength and striking to go hand in hand. For example, Freddy's "super-strength test" consists of Billy's striking a pillar, after which Freddy exclaims "you have super-strength!"

If we're going to go by how it works in real life, then what factors contribute to the power of a punch? Skill (good form), speed (at which the fist travels), and mass (of the fist). Well then, shouldn't Daredevil hit harder than Thor? Matt is much more skilled, generally considered to be faster, and the mass difference is insignificant. There are numerous examples like these, in which this real life logic doesn't match the characters' intended standing.

I definitely agree to an extent, because many verses are simply ignorant of what you described, but that should then only be considered when actually proven to be the case for that universe.

What I should have said is; lifting shouldn't be relevant to considerations of striking by default.

The force exerted is just the product of mass and acceleration (so the deceleration of the punch upon contact). So functionally, the speed of the punch and the mass the combatant can put into it.

Now, looking at some of these characters, specifically MCU, I think we can actually see how it comes into play --

The Hulk should weigh north of 1000 lbs and isn't slower by enough of a degree that Thor can hit harder, regardless of how much either character can bench. At least, assuming MCU Thor doesn't weigh 640 lbs like his comic-book counterpart, which I don't think we've seen any evidence of yet.

This is why Thor's striking was so drastically increased when he hit the Hulk with the enormous and heavy hammer in the arena. When he hit him with body shots with his fist, the punches had nowhere near the impact.

Thanos, on the other hand, is visibly much quicker than the Hulk, so despite weighing only 700 lbs (according to Brolin), he can generate more force in his punches. Thanos also has better technique than the Hulk, and likely applies a greater percentage of his mass into his punches than the Hulk.

Then also consider that the force of Hulk's punches are also distributed over a considerably larger surface area than Thanos and Thor, due to the size of their fists.

Across adecade of content, I'm sure there are plenty of moments that contradict this, but I think there's actually quite a bit to suggest that this is more in line with MCU logic to be honest. I actually think a lot of live-action media falls more into accordance with this (or at least somewhere inbetween), with plenty of inconsistencies of course, like most anything.

DD>>Superman>>Everyone else

@rogueshadow: In general, lifting feats should not be used to evidence striking ability. That's not how it works.

And somebody withstanding a punch which sends them flying hundreds of metres displays said character's durability... not the weakness of the blow.

Depends. If both opponents are peers, that underlines a lack of striking power indeed. Guys like Kryptonians, they don't have a mass that's relative to their strength; when they KB'd one another, it's still 250lbs people that are throw away, not 25 000lbs, the natural weight they would have if they were that strong.

IMO, the most rational explanation I can give for such disparity in striking result is that the Kryptonian fists lack in mass and hardness, not being comparable to an adjustated weapon. Most likely explanation, though, is that the directors wanted to highlight durability, but have done so at the expense of striking power.

Perhaps I'm missing something but as I see it, Kryptonians are simply durable enough to withstand the blows of other Kryptonians. I don't really see the issue with that.

The result of the strike and therefore the intended force behind it can be observed by its effects; they are sent hurtling hundreds of metres, they simply withstand it. Their durability is just that great.

Grant Ward.

This

Superman world engine feat is the best.

idk if superman tried THAT hard when he bullrushed doomsday.

@rogueshadow: About the war hammer, I would say that the writers acknowledge that weapons hit harder, but not necessarily the reasons as to why weapons hit harder, and if they do, they don't apply these same reasons on the characters themselves.

The Hulk-Thor-Thanos examples don't support anything at all, if I understood them correctly. Yes, Hulk should logically hit harder than Thor (because of mass), and yes, Hulk indeed hits harder than Thor in the MCU, but correlation isn't causation, and there could be a third factor (superior strength) that causes Hulk to hit harder. Same for Thanos. We know: a) Thanos should logically hit harder than Hulk (because of speed), and c) Thanos indeed hits harder than Hulk in the MCU, but there is also b) Thanos is stronger than Hulk, which could be the factor that causes c).

An appropriate example would be an MCU character who clearly hits harder but can't lift as much as another MCU character. The only one I can think of is Quicksilver, while there are countless examples supporting the opposite. There are dozens of MCU characters who hit way harder than they logically can, such as Thor, Loki, Valkyrie, Hela, every other Asgardian, Cap, Bucky, Jessica Jones, and even the big guys like Hulk and Thanos shouldn't logically hit nearly as hard as they do.

@rogueshadow: Perhaps I'm missing something but as I see it, Kryptonians are simply durable enough to withstand the blows of other Kryptonians. I don't really see the issue with that.

It is twofold; First, isn't it some kind of natural law that any specie can hurt one another inside the same specie? And second - this durability, that is so disproportionate when compared to their strength, has its very tangible limits, around a thrown train engine and a falling oil rig. So it is easy to deduce that they can't hit as hard with their fists.

The result of the strike and therefore the intended force behind it can be observed by its effects; they are sent hurtling hundreds of metres, they simply withstand it. Their durability is just that great.

What you are describing here, knockback, collateral, are secondary effects, as long as the intent was to incapacitate the target - which is the sought prime effect. When a Kryptonian strikes, the target is invariably in the same state as before the blow, except 60' further (because for some reason Kryptonians always use upward strikes).

Two fast facts; a) WW seems to be the DCEU JL's heavy hitter, with sword and b) a case can be made that DCEU Superman's strikes are but his second most potent attack after heat-vision.

I don't know of any such law so much as that it usually is the case as a product of evolution on earth. But applying such logic to an alien species seems tenuous at best. And one in a foreign atmosphere that has undergone what is effectively an abnormal development. And thrown train engine likely weighing many, many, many tons, moving at such incredible speeds would exert incredible force, so I don't really see how that is contradictory (?).

But the knockback effect is quantifiable... from it we can infer the force exerted upon the individual and how much they endured it. If the opponent is unaffected by it, that is simply a product of their durability... I don't think there's much else to take from it. That this force was insufficient to incapacitate the target should not lessen the feat in any sense.

I'm just not really seeing the issue to be honest.

1. This is a matter of opinion I suppose. Not much to say either way here, but I do think the fact that when Thor was carrying an extremely heavy weapon, his striking is suddenly magnified, says quite a lot to me at least.
2. But why should we default to an assumption that is not supported by physical law just because it's common in fiction? I obviously agree about correlation not equalling causation, and I'm not disregarding that strength and striking are quite often linked, and as I said the truth of the MCU may be somewhere in between. But my main point is that this should not be the default assumption, and the burden of proof is upon the person trying to prove that strength is directly applicable to striking, given that we know this not to be the case in any real physical sense.
3. I'd actually say that the plausibility of the strikes is kind of dependent on how fast the writers, directors etc. view these characters to actually hit to be honest, which is a little nebulous to me and I think the MCU has become drastically inconsistent between writers/directors, but that's a different conversation. Anyway, If we take Captain America (for example) and were to assume that his striking speed is intended to be several times that of the approximate human peak (45 mph), so let's arbitrarily say 180 mph, coupled with his 240 lbs mass and skill/technique that would effectively be superhuman by real world standard. This would give him massively superhuman striking power. And if we take Jessica Jones who you also mentioned, something often brought up is how her raw strength seems significantly greater than her striking in many cases. This is kind of getting off topic though.

Ignoring every detail of every character mentioned because they will inevitably result in tangents; I get where you're coming from, but my main point is that a lifting feat should not be converted into a striking feat by default, unless that is explicitly evidenced or stated to be the case in that verse.

The Hulk holding Avengers HQ (for example) is not directly applicable in any quantifable sense when considering his striking. There is not a lifting metric by which we can say, a character lift something weighing X amount = they can punch at X level.

Not sure if all of that made sense/was well articulated.

@anthp2000 said:

Grant Ward.

Also. This.

Not really

Not his best rush, maybe he can deflect superman when Clark comes at him from 5 feet away

Okay, now I'll show you.

The World Engine beams, which concentrated only on pushing their forces through the Earth's center and into the other side to terraform, were doing just that; being felt on the other side of the planet.

Even at the most conservative interpretation possible, the beams were at least felt until they hit the Earth's center, where they both met to make the "illusion" of going fully through.

So, regardless of what that means, it definitely puts DD above anyone here.

@mrnoital said:

@thespartanb345t said:

Doomsday can completely deflect Superman's bullrushes with punches.

That's far better than anyone else here by a lot.

Not really

Not his best rush, maybe he can deflect superman when Clark comes at him from 5 feet away

Nope.

First off, that gif that you used is the only time that Superman successfully blitzed DD, and it was from space after DD (and everyone else) thought that he was dead. Second, Doomsday adapted after he was blitzed, so that version was a weaker version than the one that deflected Supes's bullrush.

And there is no reason why this isn't Clark's best bullrush here.

After the slower/weaker/not 100% blitz which you showed (I'm assuming he didn't immediately go all out Mach 2,000 blitz mode in his first blitz) failed and ultimately led to Doomsday adapting again, there is no reason to not go all out and blitz him at his absolute best from a decent distance. So, you really have three ways to think about this:

• Superman wasn't going his fastest or strongest in the gif that you posted, but he realized that he needed to step up his game and go as powerful as he could afterward (and he fails several times, so each time he probably tried even harder) and go from a distance that allowed him to give his all.
• Superman didn't go his fastest or strongest the first time, then still didn't improve because (???)

And since we already know that Clark's blitzes somehow don't damage the environment much from their sheer speed (none of his blitzes do major damage) and that Doomsday already decimated everything, there isn't much reason to believe that he couldn't blitz Doomsday at his absolute best, as if he were bloodlusted. Why?

Clark just saw this thing survive a nuke and get stronger as a result, and then his blitz does nothing to him at all. He knows that any attacks that don't immediately kill Doomsday will only amp him and he knows humanity has nothing in its arsenal capable of putting him down. Clark's mindset during the fight is that he needs to one-shot Doomsday so that it doesn't have a chance to adapt and that he needs to kill Doomsday, or else Earth is doomed. Clark doing anything but his very best blitz in that gif is completely contradictory to his character.

@arthur_morgan: I explained why Clark definitely did fight Doomsday at his best in the post right above this one.

Doomsday and 16-second chargeup Thor.

Doomsday. If Mjolnir was allowed for a charge up I probably would've picked Thor.

@rogueshadow:

But why should we default to an assumption that is not supported by physical law just because it's common in fiction? I obviously agree about correlation not equalling causation, and I'm not disregarding that strength and striking are quite often linked, and as I said the truth of the MCU may be somewhere in between. But my main point is that this should not be the default assumption, and the burden of proof is upon the person trying to prove that strength is directly applicable to striking, given that we know this not to be the case in any real physical sense.

Well, what we're trying to find is the writer's intent. With no data, we should assume that the writers intended for everything to work like it works in real life - that's our default assumption. However, if there are enough examples of writers being ignorant to it, the default assumption is overturned, as it becomes clear that writers don't generally intend for it to work like it does in real life.

You yourself mentioned that that's fine if it's proven for that specific universe:

And yes, it has been proven countless times in the MCU (I can find 50 examples if need be).

The writers definitely realize that weapons let characters hit harder, but they may not actually focus on the reasons why, and numerous examples show that they don't apply the same reasoning to the characters themselves.

You know, we often go against real world physics when they are commonly contradicted in fiction. Speedsters and sonic booms, for instance. In the real world, if something goes faster than the speed of sound, a sonic boom would be created. In fiction, however, it is very common for speedsters not to make sonic booms when breaking the sound barrier. This common occurrence overturned the default assumption for all universes.

If we take Captain America (for example) and were to assume that his striking speed is intended to be several times that of the approximate human peak (45 mph), so let's arbitrarily say 180 mph, coupled with his 240 lbs mass and skill/technique that would effectively be superhuman by real world standard. This would give him massively superhuman striking power. And if we take Jessica Jones who you also mentioned, something often brought up is how her raw strength seems significantly greater than her striking in many cases.

Fair enough on Cap, though I think that he needs to punch even faster than that to break submarine glass underwater. Regardless, if I take someone vastly superior to Cap, like Loki, this justification wouldn't work.

Jessica does have vastly superhuman striking tho, she killed a woman with one punch and briefly put down Luke Cage. This wouldn't be possible in real life, as she has little mass behind her punch, and her speed/skill isn't anywhere near as impressive as it needs to be.

About quantification, this would work when two characters are from the same universe. Thanos overpowering Hulk would mean that Thanos hits harder than Hulk, for instance, and this would be useful if Thanos didn't have striking feats of his own. Or, perhaps, if it was proven that character A from one verse is stronger than character B from another verse (he did something character B failed to do), it would also mean that character A hits harder than character B.