After being bombarded with a massive dose of gamma radiation while saving a young man's life during an experimental bomb testing, Dr. Robert Bruce Banner was transformed into the Incredible Hulk: a green behemoth who is the living personification of rage and pure physical strength.
..hmm, it puzzles me how Wolverine has often been able to "hang" with Hulk, despite having no super-powers, whereas the Mighty Thor has if anything taken worst beatings. I know Wolvie, who is also a favourite of mine, has those claws and that adamantium skeleton, but surely he just doesn't have the physical strength to do much with his claws to someone built like the Hulk and adamantium skeleton or not, wouldn't a single punch take the head off of someone who did not have a super enhanced physical structure? ...does it bug any other Hulk fans out there that Wolverine often wades into Hulk going toe to toe?
True, hadn't really thought about that particular angle. Everywhere the Hulk hits Logan should turn that flesh to paste, up to the metal bone, or peel it off. I've seen their fights written where Logan was using skills for a while, actually dodging and such, but once they are actually trading blows, it's silly to me.
The reason Wolverine is able to hang with Hulk is due to his power set. The adamantium skeleton and healing factor combined let him soak Hulk's main way of damage (Blunt force), and his claws provide the necessary tools to leave damage on Hulk. Combined with his superior superhuman speed and top tier fighting skill he is able to out maneuver Hulk. This is why Wolverine is game for Hulk. Not saying he beats Savage Hulk or anything like that, but these are the reasons he can keep up with him in a fight.
well wolverine usually takes on the dumb brute version. When the hulk actually is in his smarter personality this happens:
Head won't get taken off...but his brain does turn to goo.
These fights are just to show you how ballsy wolverine is. No one actually expects him to win
Yeah, don't get me wrong, Wolverine has always been one of my top 3 or 4 favourite marvel, but I still don't quite know how he manages to do so well in his fights with Hulk compared with, say Thor who has super strength, endurance and "that" hammer. Unless his head is somehow fused by adamantium onto his spinal column (and if it was he wouldn't be able to turn his head-lol!!), I cant see how him being stronger than human (he is only Cap America strength level) would stop his head coming right off if given a blow by Hulk who has enough power to punch through mountains!
@theacidskull: I forgot you didn't like that panel :P
Anyway, the reason why Wolverine seems to do better than Thor in their fights comes down to speed, healing factor and adamantium claws ultimately. Wolverine is able to keep away from a lot of Hulk's hits in their fights and use his claws to penetrate Hulk's skin and soak up damage from his healing factor. In contrast, Thor is a slow brawler and whilst he has the raw power to go toe to toe with Hulk, he doesn't have the speed to avoid his hits as regularly as Logan. Wolverine danced around Thor in their fight and Thor admitted Logan was faster than him despite what the Thor fans say otherwise. However, it takes more than speed to beat an opponent and realistically, all it takes is a few good hits to KO Logan for good. Hulk's now faster thanks to Waid so that levels the playing field greatly.
What really got me was how that damn coyote never managed to get the roadrunner? Remember this is Marvel, its fiction, its not science, its not a nature documentary. This is the company where Stan Lee emphasized the idea that a Daredevil vs Thing encounter could be entertaining, long before snarky internet posters started pretending to know… what would really happen if characters met up. Wolverine doesn't have super powers? He kind of has super powers man, heh heh. Main reason here is that Wolverine was introduced as a Hulk villain. Like come on, we can't forget that was his first appearance and story. He was designed to have a fair chance of hanging with Hulk. That also being said humans (in general) and Wolverine (specifically here) are pretty tough and resilient. Unless Hulk's being retconned into having sword hands then the strength behind his punches should only be causing blunt damage - unless ironically Wolverine was strong enough to (attempt) to resist with his lower body and then its possible Hulk might punch something off, because of the addition of resistance.
So the two characters have history together and so writers will reference it time to time, and it helps they are super popular as well, its not that dissimilar to Batman and Superman. That and both characters also have a power trait that is very malleable in hands of writers. Hulk's strength and Wolverines healing factor and durability. Very inconsistent and to such an extent this inconsistency is even often a plot point for both. It would be more surprising if this match up didn't happen. That also being said Wolverine much like ever login' blue eyed Thing is usually clearly the underdog. Thor has his own unique and special dynamic with Hulk that also involves as much behind the scenes input and opinions. Which is another way of saying its probably not best to approach comparing the two as if we live inside the universe and the characters are real, because thats not what dictates what happens.
Thor admitted Logan was faster than him despite what the Thor fans say otherwise.
Just like the writer that said that said Wolverine would stand as good a shot against Superman and other iconic power house characters? =p
I mean if the writer had Superman say something similar I guess thats just the end of that story. Naturally Superman fans would say otherwise because hive mind and all that. =p
Just like Thor admitted Galactus might be near in power to Galactus? Despite what us real people know about fictional characters and claims and how they differ to real world assertions he admitted it so… =p
Just like many non Thor fans and Thor fans who have the ability to be objective and reasonable and understand fictional writing can acknowledge and understand that fictional characters aren't always the best sources of objective truths or facts? Or that fictional characters in shared ongoing universes will often be inconsistent and often are molded by writers to suit the purposes of stories? =p
@sc: The reason I said that is because it corroborates with Thor's other speed feats in combat. Thor fans can rant and rage all they want but when you have clear objective evidence of Thor not tagging street levellers in combat, one can clearly see that Thor's combat speed is nowhere near the level people think it is. I understand where you're coming from and you make the point intelligently as per usual but your logic fails to account for what the actual feats show and how consistent they are in Thor's showings in the comics. Fictional feats aren't always objective but when they build up a consistent picture, it can be presented as a good representation of what the characters are capable of.
@sc: The reason I said that is because it corroborates with Thor's other speed feats in combat. Thor fans can rant and rage all they want but when you have clear objective evidence of Thor not tagging street levellers in combat, one can clearly see that Thor's combat speed is nowhere near the level people think it is. I understand where you're coming from and you make the point intelligently as per usual but your logic fails to account for what the actual feats show and how consistent they are in Thor's showings in the comics. Fictional feats aren't always objective but when they build up a consistent picture, it can be presented as a good representation of what the characters are capable of.
It doesn't really, more so it corroborates with the simplistic notion some fans have regarding the nature of characters, fiction and feats. The very same simplicity that leads to generalizing competing or conflicting ideas as belonging to "Thor fans" because naturally only they would hold a biased view. Alternatively as lazy is to say everyone else who doesn't hold to that reasonable idea is a Thor hater? When one starts using the world clearly followed by projecting a point of reference then using a reference point as what people think… "near the level which people think" well that hardly sounds objective at all. In relies on an assumption and depends on the assumption. In fact it sounds like a claim attempting to sound more objective than it really is by tacking on the term clear. Like an argument from authority. Like if the situation is more nuanced and less clear why don't I just say that it is clear, clear and obvious for even greater authority?
You say my logic fails, but then you don't actually demonstrate why your use of the terms "actual feats" is more valid than potential competing claims to the term, nor do you establish why your use of the term consistent really is consistent. How many writers who have written super hero characters like Thor and Superman have you asked about Thor's speed abilities? How many times does Thor's speed adjust to match other characters? How many times does that happen to other characters, like Gladiator, Hyperion, Superman, Wonder Woman, Sentry, Silver Surfer? Can you name one character who consistently acts in a way that their highest speed feat should mean they can? Do you disagree that most if not all are inconsistent with their highest example?
Fictional feats are never objective. They at best can only sound objective and be presented or believed as such. You use the term capable, but that is a funny term to use in the context of fiction, since by default fictional characters are by definition capable of anything. A better application may be to sell the idea that prehistory (of a character) establishes a basis of which to provide commentary on consistency and inconsistency and the context behind - and in that case you would rather make the point that Thor's has suggested Wolverine is faster than him rather than Thor's speed in inconsistent? Which would naturally address your statement as well as a host of others than neither car for the fandom or lack of towards the character? I don't know, to me, just seems like an odd point to stick to/reference over and over. People rarely mention the time Thor said Galactus was nearly as powerful as Odin, or probably the dozens and dozens of weird things he has said. 0__0
The reason Wolverine is able to hang with Hulk is due to his power set. The adamantium skeleton and healing factor combined let him soak Hulk's main way of damage (Blunt force), and his claws provide the necessary tools to leave damage on Hulk. Combined with his superior superhuman speed and top tier fighting skill he is able to out maneuver Hulk. This is why Wolverine is game for Hulk. Not saying he beats Savage Hulk or anything like that, but these are the reasons he can keep up with him in a fight.
Summed up nicely.
I even think the wolverine could beat guys like the thing for example.
I agree that Wolverine can take a majority over the Thing. As for Hulk, he can probably take a majority over Grey Hulk and other versions below him, but once you start going to stronger versions of Hulk, then I think he bites off a little more than he can chew.
It doesn't really, more so it corroborates with the simplistic notion some fans have regarding the nature of characters, fiction and feats. The very same simplicity that leads to generalizing competing or conflicting ideas as belonging to "Thor fans" because naturally only they would hold a biased view. Alternatively as lazy is to say everyone else who doesn't hold to that reasonable idea is a Thor hater? When one starts using the world clearly followed by projecting a point of reference then using a reference point as what people think… "near the level which people think" well that hardly sounds objective at all. In relies on an assumption and depends on the assumption. In fact it sounds like a claim attempting to sound more objective than it really is by tacking on the term clear. Like an argument from authority. Like if the situation is more nuanced and less clear why don't I just say that it is clear, clear and obvious for even greater authority?
Simplistic? How is it simplistic to see half a dozen+ feats of Thor not hitting street levellers, one old classic feat of him hitting a foe in 'microsecond reaction times' and conclude that Thor possesses slow combat speed? The argument from authority that your rebuttal is aimed at falls short of targeting the actual context of what the scan/feat says or shows. IE Thor being shown up by Captain America, Spider-Man, Wolverine and more. Your argument relies equally on the assumption that some feats need to be considered above others when the sheer weight and consistency of such scans demonstrates that Thor possesses slow reactions.
You say my logic fails, but then you don't actually demonstrate why your use of the terms "actual feats" is more valid than potential competing claims to the term, nor do you establish why your use of the term consistent really is consistent. How many writers who have written super hero characters like Thor and Superman have you asked about Thor's speed abilities? How many times does Thor's speed adjust to match other characters? How many times does that happen to other characters, like Gladiator, Hyperion, Superman, Wonder Woman, Sentry, Silver Surfer? Can you name one character who consistently acts in a way that their highest speed feat should mean they can? Do you disagree that most if not all are inconsistent with their highest example?
The reason I said that is because your logic attempts to point out flawed instances of Thor supposedly reacting to characters like Gladiator or the Surfer when, upon closer observation, none of them actually use their speed properly against Thor. To do so would make the battle unfair for Thor when he is, for all purposes, Marvel's Superman in power status. Thus, even though he has few decent speed feats, faster opponents like Gladiator job against him because the writer doesn't utilise their speed properly based on their other showings. To properly deal with your assertion, I'll cite a wiser debater than me in the form of CitizenBane to fully answer your question
PIS and CIS
Determining what is done for the plot and what is done because of the characters involved can be hard for some people. Superman is a prime case. In comics, Superman rarely uses his speed offensively. This is done for plot, to prolong the story and make it interesting (though it can also be said that it's a part of his character and not done solely because it benefits the story). In comics, Superman doesn’t kill. He does not spare his enemies because of the plot, he spares them because it’s part of his character not to kill thanks to how he was raised. In battles on the forum we include CIS, but not PIS, so Superman uses his speed but generally doesn’t kill unless otherwise stated. (“Bloodlust”)
Fictional feats are never objective. They at best can only sound objective and be presented or believed as such. You use the term capable, but that is a funny term to use in the context of fiction, since by default fictional characters are by definition capable of anything. A better application may be to sell the idea that prehistory (of a character) establishes a basis of which to provide commentary on consistency and inconsistency and the context behind - and in that case you would rather make the point that Thor's has suggested Wolverine is faster than him rather than Thor's speed in inconsistent? Which would naturally address your statement as well as a host of others than neither car for the fandom or lack of towards the character? I don't know, to me, just seems like an odd point to stick to/reference over and over. People rarely mention the time Thor said Galactus was nearly as powerful as Odin, or probably the dozens and dozens of weird things he has said. 0__0
I never said they were. But you're missing the point of the question. Unless there's some reason given for it, it would be ridiculous if Batman started flying for a random reason since despite what his zealous fanboys think, he's an ordinary human with no powers. Consistently, Batman has been portrayed as an ordinary human in what feats he can perform. Similarly, other heroes are fairly defined in what powers they exhibit and what feats they perform. With enough similar sets of fictional feats, one can build a consistent pattern of what certain characters can do, That's how serious debaters on here present their cases based on what the character they're arguing for can do. That in itself shows why Thor's lackluster speed feats are consistent with the prehistory and context of the character you cite.
Wolverine's secret for staying up against the jade giant for long times is his power set.His adamantium skelleton,his superhuman speed and skills is what keeps him on his feet after a few blows from the giant.He can't put him down but he certainly can do some damage on Hulk's body and slow him down for awhile but for no longer than a few minutes.Logan is not on the same league as Hulk and we all know it but he is more than capable of keeping Hulk busy for a few minutes.
Half a dozen feats is simplistic when compared to reading 95 percent of Thor's comic appearances, and similar percentages of all the characters he interacts with further degrees of separation to those characters and who they interact with, knowing behind the scenes context and opinions and clarifications, disagreements. Having a good idea and understanding about what actions occur within the stories and what mechanics would allow for them to be loosely translated to more objective terms. Thats how its simplistic.
What argument from authority are you referring to? Did you misunderstand my comment about how adding terms like clearly don't automatically make something clear? I am saying often when a person invokes that term its not because what they are trying to demonstrate is clear at all, often its just an exaggeration attempting to add more authority or weight to an argument. Like as an example of demonstration, obviously I am clearly right with my arguments (am I actually clearly right and if I was why would I have to state that I am? It should probably be self evident - unless of course I was just trying to pad my argument to make it sound better) so I think you may have misunderstood what I mean there?
I am not sure you honestly understand my argument? It doesn't rely on assumptions. In your own words could you tell me what my argument is, just so we are on the same page?
Except it seems like a very poor interpretation of my logic and hardly my logic at all, rather your own flawed interpretation. These are fictional characters, none of them have speed too use, they have writers who depict them having abilities of which speed is one. What you just are is a claim, an assertion. So what reasoning do you have to justify that "none of them actually use their speed properly against Thor" hm? Thor's very creation and design as many of his peers was to be pretty flexible as per the stories he was situated in, and Thor especially because of the type of stories Lee and Kirby wanted to tell. To suggest that he had to be adjusted in order to allow the character to have a chance against other characters when the character was designed to be a deus ex machine type character (ask old, new, current Marvel writers/editors what's the heaviest he can lift and they say a lot, ask them how powerful he is, and its very powerful) seems to overlook that about the character. It also ignores how writing works, hence my questions to you, which for some reason you didn't seem to answer. A character doesn't act the way you want so they are jobbed? Could it be that one simply does not understand the idea of a writers intent not matching up with a readers expectation? So I vehemently disagree with your notion that Gladiator jobs to Thor. Its a battles forum term that prefers simplicity over accuracy. It lacks knowledge of context about Marvel history and basic creative writing. Oh and sure, I mean writers are not physics professors, and they definitely aren't making their stories or characters consistent but I can point at pretty much every single top tier Marvel and DC character and explain how wildly inconsistent they are. Hence again, my question, and how easy it is to flip around which characters are supposedly jobbing and have far more low feats apparently when compared with their best speed feat. You'd have to answer me though. ^_^.
The PIS and CIS is alright, but if you wish to get technical, everything is pretty much due to the plot, including Superman's origin and existence. Since the character is an ongoing character though we deal with multiple plots and each one in turn starts to develop and chisel out a character and a character that will start to have inconsistencies and consistencies. So sure Superman rarely uses his speed because of the plot, Superman also gets to use speed because of the plot, and his speed will fluctuate across plots and plot elements affects his speed, and plot will increase and decrease his speed, and other factors like the fact he is in a shared universe adds new context, and what other characters he interacts with will as well, ditto their stories and plots and overreaching universe wide plots and direction. Applies to all characters. So at some stage we can attempt to distinguish what's a part of the character and consistent with that character and thus what plots that may conflict/compete with the character but its very subjective stuff and the reasons why the plots work that way hold a lot of context as well.
Really its more that Batman is intended to be an ordinary human. It would actually be pretty easy to make the case that Batman behaves like no ordinary human, physically and mentally because despite what I just said about intent his writers and editors aren't aiming for accuracy they are aiming for ongoing profit with an ongoing comic book character. They are aiming for the idea and general perception, and they are balancing out the ordinary human bit with extraordinary resolve, motivation, dedication and discipline. Its also subjective to some degree in, and ridiculous that Batman is wearing a bat suit to fight crime when Bruce Wayne should probably eliminate it a lot faster. Except again its not about accuracy and Batman has 1000's of stories, so how we apply the term consistently here is going to be very tricky and contingent on what we mean by "ordinary human" and his various feats. To shorten this, do you dispute that its more about writer intent and perception when it comes to Batman and how he is received or do you that that feat consistency is more important than that?
Your idea of "fairly defined" may differ to what my definition of "fairly defined" is, and based on how this conversation has gone I think my argument and definition world be more nuanced and accurate. This is what the mega ultra ultimate serious debaters at the Universe Debating Championship Finals of which I just won for the 56th year in the row do. You be careful about the positive claims you make, because you carry a burden of proof and hold accountability for the validity of reasoning you use to establish the claims, especially when it comes to fiction. Especially fiction because 1. You can't just oversimplify characters/stories/scenes and actions into "feats" and ignore the context behind how and why characters have abilities and how those abilities adhere to adapt and evolve to fulfill the plots and universe requirements. 2. Normal fiction with one writer and character can be prone to inconsistency, adding hundreds more of both not only invites it, but ensures it. This destroys the concepts of facts and truths because in reality, you can establish falsehoods, but in a medium where facts and truths can change, exist simultaneously alongside competing and conflicting facts and truths, falsehoods can't be established so there can be no true sense of objectivity which means there is always discretion and relativity. So when it comes to making assertions and claims about characters, abilities or anything in fiction and trying to debate it? You have to have a good understanding of such things and knowing and establishing context where applicable. For example… I have not actually made many positive claims rather I have criticized yours and the potential methodology/reasoning behind them and how limited I think they were. You were the one that made positive claims/assertions - but your counter arguments have mainly involved applying reasoning and arguments you think I might make. Even though I didn't make them. Methinks you are too use to arguing people in Battles and not people who debate at the Universe Debating Championship Finals which has a much higher standard =p - because I actually agree Thor has lackluster speed feats, just relatively speaking every single Marvel and DC character does as far as speed portrayals. The other thing about Thor is that its far far more consistent that when he faces a character his speed is scaled to provide more interesting interactions not because he is helped by the writer or his adversary is short changed, but because thats always been the character. He harks back to before the days a Marvel Universe was established, and like most characters then, no limits applied because the hero was intended to win no matter. When the shared universes started to actually be shared universes with cross overs and the like, writers had to start deciding how these characters that always won would interact with each other, and what would happen when two heroes clashed. Things got trickier but characters also had to start conforming. This is why you have some writers like Frank Tieri who legitimately thinks Wolverine can give Thor, Hulk, Superman, Wonder Woman a good fight and why I don't necessarily think thats crazy of him. Writer intent demonstrates this about Thor and other characters. Knowing how fiction works cements this about Thor and other characters.
The metal skeleton does indeed make hims turdy with a healing factor or keep it going, but without metal flesh like cyber his outer meatbag would be smashed away. Meh it's just popular characters, not really good comic logic even. Super suspension of desbelief
Wolverine's secret for staying up against the jade giant for long times is his power set.His adamantium skelleton,his superhuman speed and skills is what keeps him on his feet after a few blows from the giant.He can't put him down but he certainly can do some damage on Hulk's body and slow him down for awhile but for no longer than a few minutes.Logan is not on the same league as Hulk and we all know it but he is more than capable of keeping Hulk busy for a few minutes.
this
Logan isn't in the same league but his abilities make for an interesting match against Hulk as he won't go away so easily.
Given enough time (and not too much) Hulk would crush Wolverine.
Half a dozen feats is simplistic when compared to reading 95 percent of Thor's comic appearances, and similar percentages of all the characters he interacts with further degrees of separation to those characters and who they interact with, knowing behind the scenes context and opinions and clarifications, disagreements. Having a good idea and understanding about what actions occur within the stories and what mechanics would allow for them to be loosely translated to more objective terms. Thats how its simplistic.
What argument from authority are you referring to? Did you misunderstand my comment about how adding terms like clearly don't automatically make something clear? I am saying often when a person invokes that term its not because what they are trying to demonstrate is clear at all, often its just an exaggeration attempting to add more authority or weight to an argument. Like as an example of demonstration, obviously I am clearly right with my arguments (am I actually clearly right and if I was why would I have to state that I am? It should probably be self evident - unless of course I was just trying to pad my argument to make it sound better) so I think you may have misunderstood what I mean there?
I am not sure you honestly understand my argument? It doesn't rely on assumptions. In your own words could you tell me what my argument is, just so we are on the same page?
Not when those feats deal strictly with how fast Thor moves in combat in contrast to the 95% of his other appearances where he's bashing stuff with Mjolnir or throwing down some thunder and lightning. The reason why these are more credible when added with the weight of the writer of the scene is that cumulatively, they form a solid interpretation of what said feat was and how it can be utilised in a character's capabilities when discussing their feats on the battle forums. What I meant by assumptions is that your case relies on the theory that certain disagreements and changing views on certain feats are liable to change when so far, that hasn't really been shown to be the case with Thor's combat speed.
Except it seems like a very poor interpretation of my logic and hardly my logic at all, rather your own flawed interpretation. These are fictional characters, none of them have speed too use, they have writers who depict them having abilities of which speed is one. What you just are is a claim, an assertion. So what reasoning do you have to justify that "none of them actually use their speed properly against Thor" hm? Thor's very creation and design as many of his peers was to be pretty flexible as per the stories he was situated in, and Thor especially because of the type of stories Lee and Kirby wanted to tell. To suggest that he had to be adjusted in order to allow the character to have a chance against other characters when the character was designed to be a deus ex machine type character (ask old, new, current Marvel writers/editors what's the heaviest he can lift and they say a lot, ask them how powerful he is, and its very powerful) seems to overlook that about the character. It also ignores how writing works, hence my questions to you, which for some reason you didn't seem to answer. A character doesn't act the way you want so they are jobbed? Could it be that one simply does not understand the idea of a writers intent not matching up with a readers expectation? So I vehemently disagree with your notion that Gladiator jobs to Thor. Its a battles forum term that prefers simplicity over accuracy. It lacks knowledge of context about Marvel history and basic creative writing. Oh and sure, I mean writers are not physics professors, and they definitely aren't making their stories or characters consistent but I can point at pretty much every single top tier Marvel and DC character and explain how wildly inconsistent they are. Hence again, my question, and how easy it is to flip around which characters are supposedly jobbing and have far more low feats apparently when compared with their best speed feat. You'd have to answer me though. ^_^.
The PIS and CIS is alright, but if you wish to get technical, everything is pretty much due to the plot, including Superman's origin and existence. Since the character is an ongoing character though we deal with multiple plots and each one in turn starts to develop and chisel out a character and a character that will start to have inconsistencies and consistencies. So sure Superman rarely uses his speed because of the plot, Superman also gets to use speed because of the plot, and his speed will fluctuate across plots and plot elements affects his speed, and plot will increase and decrease his speed, and other factors like the fact he is in a shared universe adds new context, and what other characters he interacts with will as well, ditto their stories and plots and overreaching universe wide plots and direction. Applies to all characters. So at some stage we can attempt to distinguish what's a part of the character and consistent with that character and thus what plots that may conflict/compete with the character but its very subjective stuff and the reasons why the plots work that way hold a lot of context as well.
Isn't it fairly obvious what I mean by writer limitations of their use of speed against Thor? And you say I have a flawed interpretation of events. Let's take feat A where Gladiator uses his speed to blitz the GOG
Or how about Gladiator and Hyperion moving in nanoseconds
Yet when fighting Thor, all Hyperion does is fly straight at him without constructively using his speed as he does against Gladiator. This is what I mean by writer limitations of character's abilities
Thus, your point about consistency is reversed in my favour when we see consistently what certain characters are capable of and how limited their use of power is when fighting Thor, a slower opponent. Such is the case in other mismatched fights.
As for your last point, if you read the last part of that other PIS point thoroughly, you'd see that on the battle forums, these feats are taken for consistency's basis. And based on what feats Superman regularly shows, we focus on the priority of those feats over him getting tagged by Toyman's gadgets or by Blockbuster's hits.
Your idea of "fairly defined" may differ to what my definition of "fairly defined" is, and based on how this conversation has gone I think my argument and definition world be more nuanced and accurate. This is what the mega ultra ultimate serious debaters at the Universe Debating Championship Finals of which I just won for the 56th year in the row do. You be careful about the positive claims you make, because you carry a burden of proof and hold accountability for the validity of reasoning you use to establish the claims, especially when it comes to fiction. Especially fiction because 1. You can't just oversimplify characters/stories/scenes and actions into "feats" and ignore the context behind how and why characters have abilities and how those abilities adhere to adapt and evolve to fulfill the plots and universe requirements. 2. Normal fiction with one writer and character can be prone to inconsistency, adding hundreds more of both not only invites it, but ensures it. This destroys the concepts of facts and truths because in reality, you can establish falsehoods, but in a medium where facts and truths can change, exist simultaneously alongside competing and conflicting facts and truths, falsehoods can't be established so there can be no true sense of objectivity which means there is always discretion and relativity. So when it comes to making assertions and claims about characters, abilities or anything in fiction and trying to debate it? You have to have a good understanding of such things and knowing and establishing context where applicable. For example… I have not actually made many positive claims rather I have criticized yours and the potential methodology/reasoning behind them and how limited I think they were. You were the one that made positive claims/assertions - but your counter arguments have mainly involved applying reasoning and arguments you think I might make. Even though I didn't make them. Methinks you are too use to arguing people in Battles and not people who debate at the Universe Debating Championship Finals which has a much higher standard =p - because I actually agree Thor has lackluster speed feats, just relatively speaking every single Marvel and DC character does as far as speed portrayals. The other thing about Thor is that its far far more consistent that when he faces a character his speed is scaled to provide more interesting interactions not because he is helped by the writer or his adversary is short changed, but because thats always been the character. He harks back to before the days a Marvel Universe was established, and like most characters then, no limits applied because the hero was intended to win no matter. When the shared universes started to actually be shared universes with cross overs and the like, writers had to start deciding how these characters that always won would interact with each other, and what would happen when two heroes clashed. Things got trickier but characters also had to start conforming. This is why you have some writers like Frank Tieri who legitimately thinks Wolverine can give Thor, Hulk, Superman, Wonder Woman a good fight and why I don't necessarily think thats crazy of him. Writer intent demonstrates this about Thor and other characters. Knowing how fiction works cements this about Thor and other characters.
Goodness this last para is massive. How do you find the time to write this all? And you're a part of a debating championship? The name seems off but a search seems legit. In any case, your analysis overlooks the real context of these feats. You're falling into the trap of only seeing the forest and not the trees which is the opposite of that age old proverb heh. In the constraints of the universe in which these feats are performed, one can evidently see that character A lifted so much and character B lifted so much. Unless there comes a point in the story where the character's powers are changed, one can demonstrate that the feats performed fit the parameters of what abilities that character has and what feats they can perform with them. The inconsistency is levelled out to regular showings of what certain characters can do thus strengthening the case made by debaters. Furthermore, I think that your style of debating doesn't really suit what debates occur on the battle forums since the parameters you described differ massively from what's expected on the battle forums. This ultimately is why I have a problem with your analysis, intelligent as it is because it doesn't address the specific battle forum applicable instances that debaters on here are used to. As for writers who think street level characters can fairly beat powerhouses, one must see that this is evidently fallacious, false logic used that would fall into the category of PIS unless special circumstances were established. And even those are PIS. Such instances include the recent KO of Hulk by Wolverine stabbing his claws in Hulk's head when in a proper battle, Hulk's healing factor would shrug it off and he'd then proceed to manhandle Wolverine. See why that opinion is a crazy one to hold depending on the proper writer intent of character's feats? A proper use of fictional feats gives a more reliable impression of what they mean on here,
@bezza: someone tried to cut his head off t hey couldn't all the connecting areas are adamantium too like a chain link. Clearly they just made this up or people would keep ripping his arms and legs and head off.
When discussing and establishing context it actually does matter, so your not when those feats etc etc is voided. Again, by ignoring that context your simplify the whole process, which is a legitimate thing to do, but it void your use of the term credible. Do you think context is not important? This isn't the Battles forums. My case doesn't rely on theories or assumptions, I criticized positive claims and statements you made. You have inserted claims about me, possibly because its easier to attempt to find holes in positive statements you think I have made rather than defend against criticisms made against your statements? How about this, do you disagree with the statement: Thor's depiction of speed is inconsistent. Yes or no?
Isn't it fairly obvious what I mean by writer limitations of their use of speed against Thor? And you say I have a flawed interpretation of events. Let's take feat Or how about Gladiator and Hyperion moving in nanoseconds. Yet when fighting Thor, all Hyperion does is fly straight at him without constructively using his speed as he does against Gladiator. This is what I mean by writer limitations of character's abilitiesThus, your point about consistency is reversed in my favour when we see consistently what certain characters are capable of and how limited their use of power is when fighting Thor, a slower opponent. Such is the case in other mismatched fights. As for your last point, if you read the last part of that other PIS point thoroughly, you'd see that on the battle forums, these feats are taken for consistency's basis. And based on what feats Superman regularly shows, we focus on the priority of those feats over him getting tagged by Toyman's gadgets or by Blockbuster's hits.
Isn't it fairly obvious I am the god of pickles and any who doubt my claims of the greatest break dancer shall be doomed to eternity of bad jazz? With your statement you make presumptions about the writer and their views on the character. Thats the problem that you do not address. So it can be obvious what you might be trying to get at, what's not obvious is why you think I should take your presumptions for granted. Hence why I say flawed interpretations of events because you still have not clarified the use of the argument from authority, nor have you answered a number of my questions and you have made incorrect assumptions that I have corrected. Its all very innocent stuff but you have become a bit evasive. Either you acknowledge you have made errors and decided not to follow up on them which I am okay with or you still don't understand what points I have made which is fair as well heh heh.
You give examples which are both inconsistent with the characters featured and feats that are replicated by others also inconsistent by those others. In Gladiator and Hyperion can move in nanoseconds, then as someone who probably has spent more time thinking about, understand and knowing how nanoseconds work than most writers, I can tell you about 95 percent of all Gladiators and Hyperions appearances are filled with CIS or PIS. So its not just when they fight Thor that they fail to use their speed constructively. Its in most of their appearances. Something thats also true of Thor in many of his appearances. Its almost as if they are fictional characters and writers aren't that consistent with their abilities and tailor make their stories based on who the characters are interacting with and what environments they are in… its almost as if because Gladiator is in space a lot and role as antagonist to X-Men, a team whose priority emphasis team work rather than raw power means he (and the fact he is a Superman analogue) will demonstrate great speed and awe with his speed… yet if you put him in a team book with Beta Ray Bill and Nova his speed feats and awe is less significant… I mean its almost like that. Hah imagine that? next thing you'll tell me that the new Hyperion in Avengers is being written around Thor and Hulk level because thats where his writer sees him - hah but that can't be right because nano second speed feats… =p
My point about consistency carries no presumptions, it explains consistency and what possibilities lie with it, including the possibilities you insist on, you in turn are making exclusive positive assertions about it which is what I refute and criticize no? So the idea that your think it favors your point makes me think you don't understand my point. Let me try and simplify it. Dan Jurgens has write a Thor versus Gladiator fight okay? I'll assume you are aware of this. Lets say I went up to him in person and I said to him - "Yo Dan Jurgens, big fan, you had Thor beat Gladiator in one of your issues, but obviously Gladiator would beat Thor based on speed feats, so when you wrote that confrontation you obviously decided to ignore Gladiators abilities to make it a fair fight for Thor right? Otherwise is no way he could win right Dan Jurgens?" now as I understand it, you believe Dan Jurgens would say yes? Am I correct?
Actually no, Battle forums do pay mind to consistency but its actually simplicity they take prioritize because thats more "fun" and its more accessible and this is because comics are inherently inconsistent, especially the ones from the big two, especially the characters with over 20 years of history and multiple writers. There is an illusion of consistency but many other factors affect it in odd ways so when attempting to make claims and assertions about this supposed consistency context is oft necessary. There are many instances of writers flatly disagreeing or having differences of opinions about details important to the characters and you can't have valid sense of consistency within this context. Naturally you can have both accuracy and consistency as priorities but there will be situations where one must be sacrificed and context can demonstrate why and what was sacrificed. Like when BMB wrote that Bucky killed Hitler when Human Torch killed Hitler but Tom Brevoort insisted that they both did which they both may have and some story about Hitler clones was suggested but in this situation - well context matters.
Feats is a way to highlight what some consider exceptional demonstrations showcasing an ability, but if we are talking about things objectively here and looking for consistency then we have to look at everything. Including non feats and just every single moment a character experiences on panel and even off panel, and the kicker - absence of evidence not being evidence of absence and how that applies in fiction. Superman regularly shows a massive deficiency in speed, maybe not to Battle posters talking about feats but to anyone who adequately knows speed, speed application and validity and soundness in claims and assertions and understanding of fiction especially shared universe fiction. Though the answer is also apparent as well, Superman is not a character intended to provide a realistic simulation of speed, he's a character meant to be enjoyed by fans and sell comics and sell merchandize/product. Its not important that is speed is inconsistent, most people either won't care, won't understand, or some other similar combo. Some people focus on some feats more than others and give an assigned value to some because it helps them categorize and classify something and in the Battles context its usually for the purpose of coming up with an answer to a question that is inherently subjective by virtue of being about a fictional character.
Heh heh sorry. Well, I find it interesting (not Thor or speed per say) but how and why people formulate arguments and view things such as objectivity and subjectivity and how they express arguments and apply critical thinking and how they view fiction. I actually kind of love it, so thank you for indulging me with this interest my friend. I also think that its important stuff we should all think about (again heh heh not the comics) but how we reason and form arguments and opinions because we may be having a fun and silly conversation right now, but sometimes in real life I (and others) have to talk about serious important things with people, like religion, abortion, ethnicity and stuff to do with say gay marriage and debating and arguing about that stuff can be really hard and really intense so I think its good to practice on the lighter stuff, especially with friendly and cool people you like, like yourself. Oh I was actually a part of a debating championship at high school, but the stuff I said in my earlier post was false, I was trying to sound silly on purpose because it was my way of saying that - by me saying all that stuff doesn't give me any special credibility - because I feel the same way about "how things are done in the Battles" - because I know what its like in Battles, and Battles arguing/debating relies on certain idiosyncrasies and liberties that wouldn't fly in proper debating about big things like science, religion, politics, etc but Battles debating is usually more for fun. Again its a lot simpler and I prefer accuracy.
Okay back to on point stuff, you can try and throw proverbs at me, but a lot of your statements seem empty to me. This is a large reason why I think my paragraphs are so long. Like you make an assertion about my analysis but don't directly explain why it does what you claim. You make an assertion about an error I supposedly made. Then you make an assertion supposedly to prove your point. Then give an example supposedly meant to support your assertion/point but often your assertion about me is incorrect, your example supports a point but it doesn't do it exclusively nor does it acknowledge alternatives and in some cases competing points to your own. Sometimes which I'll point out as a way to demonstrate that by your attempts to lay claim to that example proving your point and it alone you are oversimplifying the matter. For example = in the constraints of the universe in which these feats are performed, one can evidently see that character A lifted so much and character B lifted so much. Sometimes we can even see what is motivating character A and B and differences there, sometimes we do not. A week from that moment we could see the same thing happen and with a different result. Sometimes we may know what changed sometimes we may not. In reality when it comes to mechanic actions, they are hardly ever uniform, especially when it comes to intensive output. I could carry on here, but what I have done is establish is that context is important. In fiction the in story context is not only important but the creative context is also important. You can't ignore context, it determines everything. I was a Battles mod at a different site for a few years. I know Battles forums pretty well, well enough to agree with you that how I debate isn't popular in Battle forums, but this isn't the Battles forums, and technically I am not really debating you. I am critiquing your statements and how valid and sound they are not against Battles logic but real world logic and reason. I guess if you are tired of this you can just say you are using Battles logic/reasoning but its up to you, and whether you feel your statements are accurate and valid and sound by real world logic and reason. A lot of your claims and we should acknowledge that essentially you are making claims and I aren't making claims (rather I am pointing at holes in your claims and offering alternatives that potentially exist and by virtue of existing undermine your claims because you can't offer solid and valid reasons why your claims are exclusively superior except for appealing to the idea that "this is just how its done in battles" - so I also respect that you are in the tougher position and doing a great job mind you) but back to your main point, a lot of your claims just don't have that much strength. Like it would take a whole lot of work by you to actually prove that writers consciously undermine other characters to give "Thor" a fair chance. You can't demonstrate with some scans or appeals to Battles idea and understanding of consistency. Alternatively I am not saying the direct opposite, rather I explaining some context which calls into doubt your positive knowledge claim. Hence I can be lazy and not even try to definitively prove my assertion since I am not the one that made the initial positive claim/assertion.
Well, writers who think fictional characters can beat other fictional characters. That doesn't fall into PIS, because if it did all stories would since characters are at the whim of creators desires. That and PIS is relative and most of Marvels and DC characters origins require "PIS" to even exist. Some people like me even swap out the S for Stupid and replace it with S as in Silliness. Plot induced silliness. Healing factors? PIS. Flying? PIS. Thats why its not really a crazy opinion to hold as far as fictional characters. Some fans might want a degree of consistency but its a relative thing. Each person has their own threshold and understanding and in fiction there can be a strong illusion of objectivity but its just that, an illusion. Its a valuable illusion too, a lot of writer effort and a lot of money is spent trying to make the illusion work - ideas about continuity and whats canon etc but its still an illusion and its foundation is still "PIS" and its still a medium thats inherently inconsistent and its still a medium that has no objectivity nor in story truths or facts in the same sense as in reality. Hence attempting to make claims as if any of what I said isn't accurate is to not be accurate. Reliable? If we asked all the current Marvel and DC writers about Thor's chances at fighting Gladiator, Hyperion, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc how do you think they will answer? Do you think many of them will focus on speed the same way you do? Or do you think they'll be more dismissive of it? Alright man, I need to go get some sleep, was nice chatting, I'll probably reply a bit later on if you reply. ^__^
@bezza: someone tried to cut his head off t hey couldn't all the connecting areas are adamantium too like a chain link. Clearly they just made this up or people would keep ripping his arms and legs and head off.
Didn't hulk break Wolverine into two in one story?!
Its rather scary how my thread has been hijacked by another argument about Thor's combat speed, how did that happen?!!!
Point I was making is whilst Wolverine has claws, healing factor and adamantium skeleton, I don't think he would have the physical strength to do much damage with them to Hulk, because Hulk is like 1,000 pounds of solid bone and muscle and can get up after being hit several blocks away by someone like Sentry...
...Then again, I suppose if a toddler swiped me with a carving knife I would still bleed, so maybe that's the key, its the sharpness of the claws...
Its rather scary how my thread has been hijacked by another argument about Thor's combat speed, how did that happen?!!!
Point I was making is whilst Wolverine has claws, healing factor and adamantium skeleton, I don't think he would have the physical strength to do much damage with them to Hulk, because Hulk is like 1,000 pounds of solid bone and muscle and can get up after being hit several blocks away by someone like Sentry...
...Then again, I suppose if a toddler swiped me with a carving knife I would still bleed, so maybe that's the key, its the sharpness of the claws...
That was in the Ultimates Universe. ^_^
Scary hijacking? Would you like me to apologize heh heh? Things like this tend to happen, I think this is like the 100th thread about Hulk and Wolverine too but as long as posters are being sincere not really a problem with discussion and questions. How does that happen?!?!
Using Sentry as a point of reference whilst logical in one context doesn't always work well in other contexts because it is impressive that Hulk can get up from that but this is comics. Wolverine has also survived nuclear like bomb blasts, Silver Surfer has been knocked out by a falling brick wall, Hulk has been choked out by a snake, Thor has been knocked out by a ordinary bullet so on. Wolverine has occasionally jumped in to fight Juggernaut and Juggernauts durability feats are even more extreme than Hulks. Except comics and the nature of fiction.
Funny you mention this fight, I only read it as recently as Saturday, because the UK monthly Hulk comic is on the Aaron run. I noticed that Hulk dealt with Wolverine quite comfortably and indeed in more recent years generally has too much in his talent locker for Logan.
@erkan12: That fight has some very strong artwork mistakes, although i see the tactic of stabbing wolverine with his own claws through his eyes as a plausible scenario. That being said, Hulk is more than capable of grabbing Wolverine by predicting his movements or waiting for the moment Wolverine gets within his range to grab him.
IMO, PIS/CIS aside, Hulk beats Wolverine 10/10, struggling in some scenarios more than others.
To make the plot interesting. With Hulk's power set, and his showings, he would dominate wolverine in a matter of literally 20 seconds. It's no contest. But see, that makes for a typically boring comic.
To make the plot interesting. With Hulk's power set, and his showings, he would dominate wolverine in a matter of literally 20 seconds. It's no contest. But see, that makes for a typically boring comic.
I think Hulk break adamantium nets before (more than once), so hulk can tear apart him like this...
Brings a new slant to Banes immortal words " I will break you"...
Actually despite what I put at the start of the thread, as Wolvie and Hulk are my favourite Marvel characters I quite enjoy their battles. The ultimate one being Wolverine v Hulk in "Old Man Logan", but it does seem unlikely that someone of Wolverine's limited physical strength could really do that much damage to Hulk, unbreakable claws or not...
Brings a new slant to Banes immortal words " I will break you"...
Actually despite what I put at the start of the thread, as Wolvie and Hulk are my favourite Marvel characters I quite enjoy their battles. The ultimate one being Wolverine v Hulk in "Old Man Logan", but it does seem unlikely that someone of Wolverine's limited physical strength could really do that much damage to Hulk, unbreakable claws or not...
Wolverine's claws are either portrayed as so sharp they cat cut through nearly anything regardless of strength or close to it. That is typically the only way he and X-23 hand with beings above streets.
Because hulk often limits himself against Logan, or holds back. Logan could take a majority over maybe grey hulk but not anything above that. Whenever hulk fights a team which includes Logan he makes short work of him, I love Logan but if hulks serious the fight should end pretty quickly.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment