Off My Mind: Is Hulk The Strongest There Is?

Avatar image for strongestonethereis
#151 Posted by StrongestOneThereIs (7064 posts) - - Show Bio

Anyone that feels he isn't doesn't know the character or his feats 
There are those who can challenge him but he has always proven to be the strongest 
That's "strongest" people. Not the most powerful.
Avatar image for roadbuster
#152 Posted by roadbuster (1159 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

" Do you think I am saying its a fact that Hulk can lift any amount because it hasn't been proven he can't?  "

@Mainline said:
" @SC said:
"  The quote you made of mine, of course applying to definitive proof, of course, educated guessing and reasoning can bypass any need for proof, in one is not trying to state something, is or isn't proven.  "
Being coy isn't concise.  So, despite the implication, you've not met the burden of educated guessing or reasoning to "bypass any need for proof" with your "show me a limit" strawman. "
@SC said: 

"As it stands, while one can't prove that Hulk can lift a weight he never has before, its a very reasonable assumption to think, given his anger fluctuates in strength, and has been refereed to limitless on many occasion, that a lifting a weight thats a third of the weight of the earth, is not something unlikely. "

Avatar image for sc
#153 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline said:
"
@SC said:

" Do you think I am saying its a fact that Hulk can lift any amount because it hasn't been proven he can't?  "

@Mainline said:
" @SC said:
"  The quote you made of mine, of course applying to definitive proof, of course, educated guessing and reasoning can bypass any need for proof, in one is not trying to state something, is or isn't proven.  "
Being coy isn't concise.  So, despite the implication, you've not met the burden of educated guessing or reasoning to "bypass any need for proof" with your "show me a limit" strawman. "
@SC said: 

"As it stands, while one can't prove that Hulk can lift a weight he never has before, its a very reasonable assumption to think, given his anger fluctuates in strength, and has been refereed to limitless on many occasion, that a lifting a weight thats a third of the weight of the earth, is not something unlikely. "

"
Forgive my lack of understanding, a reasonable assumption is not proof of evidence, are you wishing to me to go into detail, on why I believe its a reasonable assumption to think that Hulk can increase his strength to be able to lift a third of the Earth's planet? Or is it something else?
Moderator
Avatar image for roadbuster
#154 Edited by roadbuster (1159 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:

"a reasonable assumptionis notproof of evidence "

@SC said:

" educated guessing and reasoning can bypass any need for proof"

Avatar image for omarfish
#155 Posted by Omarfish (18 posts) - - Show Bio

Wasn't Ghost Rider the only one able to beat him in WWH, but just chose not to?

Avatar image for sc
#156 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline said:
" @SC said:
"a reasonable assumption is notproof of evidence "
@SC said:
" educated guessing and reasoning can bypass any need for proof"
"
Okay, you wish to be vague for whatever reason. I'll have to simply guess your point since like I said, its not apparent to me. 
 
A reason and reasoning are two different things. If a person is aware that they are reasoning and making an educated guess about something, they are not insisting those things are proof.  
 
I think if you tickled Hulk enough, he would eventually turn back into Banner, I haven't seen this happen before, or am I aware of any cases Hulk was tickled, but if he is laughing and having fun, his anger goes away, natch, he turns into Banner.  
 
With above, no proof is needed. Its just reasoning and guesswork. There is no insistence of above being right, or demonstrating any proof that tickling Hulk, would, turn him back into Banner.  
 
Just like one could say that think, Hulk being tickled, may make him stronger, they don't need proof either. If this person, believes however that because Hulk hasn't had his feet tickled and subsequently turned into Banner, is proof that he is right about his assertion, because the earlier person has presented no proof that Hulk would be depowered by Banner, but he himself doesn't offer any proof either, then yeah. Flawed argument in that instance. Either one could potentially be right or wrong, and both could actually be wrong and right. All it takes is a comic the following week, depicting Hulk being tickled to see what happens. In a week one of them could have proof.  
 
If one is aware they have no proof of a specific action/feat,  and no one has any proof contradicting their guesses and theories then A-Okay, no harm no foul.  
 
A person aware they aren't stating the facts or truth, has no need for proof, so need for proof is bypassed. They may have objective evidence which supports their reasoning, so is this what you are asking me for? 
Moderator
Avatar image for roadbuster
#157 Posted by roadbuster (1159 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said: 
They may have objective evidence which supports their reasoning"  
 @SC said: 

"a reasonable assumption is not proof of evidence

@Mainline said:
 despite the implication, you've not met the burden
 @SC said: 
Either one could potentially be right or wrong, and both could actually be wrong and right.
Avatar image for battlemage
#158 Posted by BattleMage (1197 posts) - - Show Bio
@spidey 15 said:
" @BattleMage said:
" @spidey 15 said:

" @BattleMage: WTF are you talking about?  Oh and Superman is by far stronger. Let me know when Hulk will be able to move something that weighs as much as 1/3 of the planet. =] "

Just off you're head, how much weight is that?  Oh, and the Hulk can, he just haven't been in that situation yet. And if ever is he'll do it without the help of a lantern! Take care "
Obviously much more than what Hulk has ever lift or pull..... Oh, speculation. I love speculation. If you can prove it, it will be good. If you can not prove that Hulk can do the same, then he can not.  Oh, and superman pulled 1/3 of the planet alone! The other 2/3 has been pulled by Wonder Woman and Manhunter. =] "
LOL
Avatar image for sc
#159 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline said:
" @SC said: 
They may have objective evidence which supports their reasoning"  
 @SC said: 

"a reasonable assumption is not proof of evidence

@Mainline said:
 despite the implication, you've not met the burden
 @SC said: 
Either one could potentially be right or wrong, and both could actually be wrong and right.
"
I am not trying to met the burden, I aren't trying to insist there is proof for something, there isn't actually proof for, or insist others need to prove something, in order to proof my supposed proof isn't actually proof. 
  
I am totally sweet and content with Hulk's limits yet to be explained in depth with any hard facts.
 
Um, your not offended or upset by my posting are you? Your last couple of posts seem to contradict your original posting replies. lol
Moderator
Avatar image for battlemage
#160 Posted by BattleMage (1197 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
" @spidey 15 said:
" @SC: In order to know if someone is capable of something, we are using their feats. This is what i'm trying to say. If Hulk has not the said feats to prove that he can't, then the character who has the superior feats, is obviously stronger until the other prove otherwise. Hulk has not prove that he is stronger than superman and superman has the superiority in feats. We can not say that Hulk can do the same or better, because he has never shown that he can. Your examples of muffins does not help here because of feats, he can do it.  My smiley is my mark....lol I always post it. =] "
 
In order to know if someone is capable of something, you use their feats. Knowing what someone is capable of, is again, vastly different, to proving what someone is capable of. There isn't something that just applies to Hulk, its logic. You can use preexisting evidence to help determine the likelihood of something being likely or likely, but thats something different to what you were doing granted by your express wording.   The burden of proof is not on someone arguing for Hulk in this instance, unless, a person was arguing that Hulk, can, undoubtedly, lift such a weight, he may have never before. Then, the burden of proof would be on them to indeed prove this. Likewise, you are claiming Hulk can't lift something, what is your proof? Proof as in not your opinion or burden of proof argument. Your statement needs your proof especially if you are saying its proven. If you saying that he hasn't so far, then thats not actually proof. Proof would be showing me an example, where Hulk was unable to say lift an inferior rate and we knew he lacked the capacity to grow angrier or so on, and thus increase in strength.   Hulk doesn't need to be proven superior to Superman because him not having proof of that, is not proof he isn't either.   We can say that Hulk may do better, since we don't know. Hulk has no physical limit to his strength. Superman may not either. Hulk's strength may fluctuate faster. There are more questions here than answers.   My example works perfectly here, according to your logic, since Superman has never lifted a muffin i have made, there that is proof that he can not. My muffin example points out the rather flaw in your logic regarding what is evidence or proof.      
:)
Avatar image for sc
#161 Edited by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@HexThis said:

" Is Hulk the strongest? It's a possibility, I guess, but I was so offended by World War Hulk on the basis that him being able to plow through almost everyone in the MU is just not realistic at all, whatsoever.   Brute force like his means next to nothing to me. Kitty Pryde could've simply flown a plane through his head, phased it, phase out of the plane, and unphased and he'd be dead and I'm sure there are hundreds of possibilities similar to that one.   So he's the strongest? So what. He still has no control over his powers, he's not that bright when he's gone feral, and he makes his problems everyone else's. Forget all these comparisons, Hulk is just downright annoying. "

 
Oh, I missed this, its something i agree with too to a degree. World War Hulk.  A lot of World War Hulk issues, seem designed to appeal to Battle Board and feat type fans. Strange.  
 
All the hard work being done with Ares writing elevating him to more than the generic one note, easy beat villain and back to square one. Cuckoo's and Emma, and Xavier, ineffectiveness with their telepathy when certain individuals can possess resistance, but nothing skilled telepaths can't practice around. After what Hulk did to Colossus, I am surprised Kitty wasn't less forgiving.  
 
I agree Hulk can be annoying, too bad right now, he has a degree of control over his powers and is actually quite bright even with a degree of feral. (He was in a fight and appeared angry, but thunderclapped in order to shift large amounts of sand to save people further on, in buildings that had become unstable during his own fight. He actually worked out where sand from a beach, needed to be surrounding buildings to save people... lol) 
 
There are good Hulk stories though, I hope some issues don't put you off him too much. 
Moderator
Avatar image for roadbuster
#162 Edited by roadbuster (1159 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:

 Your last couple of posts seem to contradict your original posting replies. lol "

Took you long enough. :P 
 
I pointed it out in my original post.  That you were nitpicking a negation which only obfuscated the intentions of the poster.  Then by further picking nits, repetition, and being off-topic you only cloud the actual issue... to the point  you weren't sure if you needed to return to the original point already addressed in the original post, where you weren't sure of my motives, and where you weren't sure of what I was saying.  And that was just me using quotations... imagine if I had posted lengthy responses?  To me, this is spam and you should cut an argument a break and attempt to fill in the gaps of its intentions and spirit rather than being a slave to structure to the detriment of communication.
Avatar image for sc
#163 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline said:
" @SC said:
 Your last couple of posts seem to contradict your original posting replies. lol "
Took you long enough. :P "
 
Oh that was your point?  lol
 
You must understand I am frequent scenarios with children and people who can't always express themselves without contradicting themselves, I am thus naturally very patient and not without my own idiosyncrasies, hence my willingness to reply to you to try and understand whatever it was you were trying to say. Possibly gullible for me to do so, but I find it better that way.  
 
Now I now, you have nothing to say, I can leave and to attempt to throw the topic back on track, so to no one in particular, I don't think the Hulk is the strongest, but I definitely think he can lift a planet under easier circumstances than most and he is a lot stronger than a lot of characters. I have of course have no hard proof of this, but I am guessing no one has any proof that disputes what I say. 
Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#164 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline said:
" @SC said:

 Your last couple of posts seem to contradict your original posting replies. lol "

Took you long enough. :P  I pointed it out in my original post.  That you were nitpicking a negation which only obfuscated the intentions of the poster.  Then by further picking nits, repetition, and being off-topic you only cloud the actual issue... to the point  you weren't sure if you needed to return to the original point already addressed in the original post, where you weren't sure of my motives, and where you weren't sure of what I was saying.  And that was just me using quotations... imagine if I had posted lengthy responses?  To me, this is spam and you should cut an argument a break and attempt to fill in the gaps of its intentions and spirit rather than being a slave to structure to the detriment of communication. "
 
Again its not nitpicking to me. Thats your projection. The definition of proof and how that is used in a disagreement to me, can be as important as whether Superman can move planets but Hulk can't. 
 
To me, you actually intended to spam to prove some sort of point? What? That people should post according to your standards? I am sorry, I simply don't have the type of ego to project any sort of expectations on how others should post or right to question their intent. So you attempted to mimic me to teach me, I should not post how I feel comfortable posting?  
 
My point was simple, I don't disagree with anyone who believes that Hulk can't attain strength similar to Superman, there is simply no proof that he has that as a limit. My emphasis is on the proof vs lack of proof? 
 
Could you possibly, if possible, attempt to you know, discuss the actual arguments/characters, comics, than other posters posting methods and habits? Please? Or like I said, if you are upset or offended?!?! Well I apologize. 
Moderator
Avatar image for roadbuster
#165 Posted by roadbuster (1159 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
" Again its not nitpicking to me. Thats your projection. "
Actually, it was yours since you expressed his intent several posts past- the burden and absence of proof.  Your long winded emphasis on "lack of ability" and rote repetition of said wind as if it were gem-like, resulted only in the consternation and confusion of the person you replied to- much like your inability to ferret out the meaning of my illustrative mimicry.  Such effort spent on a technical debating point not relevant to the characters themselves (as proven by illustrations using muffins and years not even surpassing two decades) is- pretty clearly- a non-point that none are seriously debating or capable of sustaining.  In other words, endless repeating 2+2=4 in variation is not impressive or relevant even if the other party said 2+2=5.  The weight of persuasion has nothing to do with that and repeatedly covering negation does nothing to further the argument, just confusion- whereas "spotting" the other party their intentions actually allows discussion to go forward. 
 
The tremendous irony is, of course, that the very same argument that so drove your repetitive protest- that the absence of a feat must equal inability- is exactly the same argument applied to yours- that the absence of a limit feat must equal limitlessness... to which you will quickly retreat to the realm of "mere non-proven belief" without extending the same courtesy to the other party, holding that they must be asserting fact whereas you are merely stating belief.
Avatar image for eyz
#166 Posted by Eyz (3187 posts) - - Show Bio

Hulk really is the Strongest There Is! :P
 
I mean, he's basically Marvel's answer to Superman. Although both completely different characters and type comics.

Avatar image for strongestonethereis
#167 Posted by StrongestOneThereIs (7064 posts) - - Show Bio
@HexThis said:
"Is Hulk the strongest? It's a possibility, I guess, but I was so offended by World War Hulk on the basis that him being able to plow through almost everyone in the MU is just not realistic at all, whatsoever.   Brute force like his means next to nothing to me. Kitty Pryde could've simply flown a plane through his head, phased it, phase out of the plane, and unphased and he'd be dead and I'm sure there are hundreds of possibilities similar to that one.   So he's the strongest? So what. He still has no control over his powers, he's not that bright when he's gone feral, and he makes his problems everyone else's. Forget all these comparisons, Hulk is just downright annoying. "

You are describing Savage Hulk 
Have you been keeping up with him lately? 
Avatar image for sc
#168 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline said:
" @SC said:
" Again its not nitpicking to me. Thats your projection. "
Actually, it was yours since you expressed his intent several posts past- the burden and absence of proof.  Your long winded emphasis on "lack of ability" and rote repetition of said wind as if it were gem-like, resulted only in the consternation and confusion of the person you replied to- much like your inability to ferret out the meaning of my illustrative mimicry.  Such effort spent on a technical debating point not relevant to the characters themselves (as proven by illustrations using muffins and years not even surpassing two decades) is- pretty clearly- a non-point that none are seriously debating or capable of sustaining.  In other words, endless repeating 2+2=4 in variation is not impressive or relevant even if the other party said 2+2=5.  The weight of persuasion has nothing to do with that and repeatedly covering negation does nothing to further the argument, just confusion- whereas "spotting" the other party their intentions actually allows discussion to go forward. 
 
The tremendous irony is, of course, that the very same argument that so drove your repetitive protest- that the absence of a feat must equal inability- is exactly the same argument applied to yours- that the absence of a limit feat must equal limitlessness... to which you will quickly retreat to the realm of "mere non-proven belief" without extending the same courtesy to the other party, holding that they must be asserting fact whereas you are merely stating belief. "
 
All the points I reply to to me have significance, if they don't to you, or anyone one else, you do realize you aren't forced to reply right? So again, I reject your notion of nitpicking.  
 
Thats just me and my posting style, I repeat a lot. I find others repeat a lot too. Much of your post here I find repetitive, I am not sure about your intent though so I leave it there.  
 
My inability to realize your mimicry has already been explained by myself. If I was to be honest, and I mean no offense by this, you have a strong penchant of suggesting the motivations and reasoning behind my actions. You realize those things are not yours to decide right?  Thus many of your statements here make little sense to me, since it sounds like your projection of what's relevant or important, you don't need me to talk about whatever priorities you wish to discuss. 
 
If the person I was replying to was confused, they could have merely asked me to elaborate. Or clarify. They have not. They stopped replying and I am sorry, but I am still not sure what your point is? Could you explain please without projecting your ideas on how or why I post?  
 
The only area I wished for my discussion the other poster was where it went. Their argument to me, was self defeating. I have again no problem if they think Superman is stronger than the Hulk. How you react so strongly to this, I have no idea?  
 
You still have not grasped my argument at all, it was never the absence of a feat must equal limitlessness. It was absence of proof that confirms Hulk has a limit, there may also be absence of proof that demonstrates Hulk's strength to the level that was required by the poster in question. There was just general lack of proof all around. What we do know and have evidence for, is explanation of Hulk's physical strength being described as being limitless. Likewise evidence for his ability to increase his strength. There is good evidence, not proof that Hulk could lift a weight as one he believes there is proof he can't. (in which case I ask for said proof) 
 
I didn't extend courtesy no, I merely asked questions to better understand in what context or definition they might be using the term proof. I found it fairly consistent, so continued to argue that point. 
 
Are you a poster that fears not having the final say? Like I said before, feel free to critique my argument, but isn't it plain trolling if you are attempting to nitpick my posts to supposedly prove to me, I was nitpicking? I can genuinely assure you, as mundane as it sounds, replying to a poster about how they used the word proof to me, was as relevant to the discussion. My interest was piqued, most of the definitions of key words in this entire discussion, greatly change the entire context of posts. One poster stated that Hulk beat Juggernaut in World War Hulk, another said that Juggernaut showed he was stronger in the same instance? Is one of them wrong? Is one of them right? Are they both wrong or right? Taking issue with the words that use, to me, clarifies all that and leads to common ground. So definitely not nitpicking. I believe if you think its nitpicking, and stubbornly wish to explain my motivations and arguments even if they contradict what I am actually saying they are, we'll just end up going around in circles.  
  
So uh, just tell me what you want me to say? Or if you have a genuine point you wish to discuss, rather than accusation what is it? Could you if possible, please let me know if your a Superman fan, or if you dislike the Hulk. Just some questions. You of course don't have to answer, I am just curious now. 
Moderator
Avatar image for 00_raiser
#169 Posted by 00 Raiser (450 posts) - - Show Bio

Hulk is probably the Strongest in the Marvel Universe. No doubt about it. I have seen the Hulk do some things where all you can say is HOW IN THE WORLD!? Him being stronger then Superman. Hmmmm I think it would be a double knock out just cause there is regular Superman and there is serious Superman. Serious Superman can go toe to toe with people like Darkseid.

Avatar image for sparky_buzzsaw
#170 Posted by Sparky_Buzzsaw (89 posts) - - Show Bio

I agree for the most part.  It's hard to rate some of the heroes with cosmic powers against the Hulk, but yeah, I'd argue that he has to be the single strongest character in the Marvel universe at the moment.  But that's really the great thing about comics - stuff like this can change at the drop of a hat, and debates like this will probably live on for decades.

Avatar image for spidey_15
#171 Posted by spidey 15 (17883 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
" @spidey 15 said:
" @SC: In order to know if someone is capable of something, we are using their feats. This is what i'm trying to say. If Hulk has not the said feats to prove that he can't, then the character who has the superior feats, is obviously stronger until the other prove otherwise. Hulk has not prove that he is stronger than superman and superman has the superiority in feats. We can not say that Hulk can do the same or better, because he has never shown that he can. Your examples of muffins does not help here because of feats, he can do it.  My smiley is my mark....lol I always post it. =] "
 
In order to know if someone is capable of something, you use their feats. Knowing what someone is capable of, is again, vastly different, to proving what someone is capable of. There isn't something that just applies to Hulk, its logic. You can use preexisting evidence to help determine the likelihood of something being likely or likely, but thats something different to what you were doing granted by your express wording.   The burden of proof is not on someone arguing for Hulk in this instance, unless, a person was arguing that Hulk, can, undoubtedly, lift such a weight, he may have never before. Then, the burden of proof would be on them to indeed prove this. Likewise, you are claiming Hulk can't lift something, what is your proof? Proof as in not your opinion or burden of proof argument. Your statement needs your proof especially if you are saying its proven. If you saying that he hasn't so far, then thats not actually proof. Proof would be showing me an example, where Hulk was unable to say lift an inferior rate and we knew he lacked the capacity to grow angrier or so on, and thus increase in strength.   Hulk doesn't need to be proven superior to Superman because him not having proof of that, is not proof he isn't either.   We can say that Hulk may do better, since we don't know. Hulk has no physical limit to his strength. Superman may not either. Hulk's strength may fluctuate faster. There are more questions here than answers.   My example works perfectly here, according to your logic, since Superman has never lifted a muffin i have made, there that is proof that he can not. My muffin example points out the rather flaw in your logic regarding what is evidence or proof.   Oh okay, cool. Its always nice to know smiley people.  "
You use for feats for more things. You show feats to compare someone's level of a certain ability with someone else. According to feats, spider-man is more agile than Daredevil. According to feats, Daredevil is more skilled than Moon Knight. And according to feats, superman is stronger than Hulk. BattleMage said that Hulk can do the same, but he has never been in that situation. And i said that he was speculating, because Hulk has never shown that ability, so how does he know that Hulk can do it? 
My point was not that Hulk can not do it because he has shown the inability to do it. My point was that since Hulk has never shown that ability,we Don't know if he can so there is no point on debating this because he has not shown the ability. And until he show it, according to on panel proof, superman is stronger. It's that simple. 
 
Glad that you like smiley people. 
=]
Avatar image for freddy_mercurial
#172 Posted by Freddy.Mercurial (152 posts) - - Show Bio

"Also, what would Silver Surfer be without the Power Cosmic? "
 
" To me, one hundred and fifty billion tons is quite a bit. I'd like to see other characters lift that without any sort of cosmic powers to assist them."  
 
Um, I suppose GAMMA RADIATION isn't a factor in the HULK's incredible might???
 
Is this your BEST argument as to why HULK is stronger than Silver Surfer???
 
WEAK! 

Avatar image for roadbuster
#173 Posted by roadbuster (1159 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline said:
" The tremendous irony... exactly the same argument applied to yours- that the absence of a limit feat must equal limitlessness... to which you will quickly retreat to the realm of "mere non-proven belief" without extending the same courtesy to the other party, holding that they must be asserting fact whereas you are merely stating belief. "
@SC said:
" It was absence of proof that confirmsHulk has a limit. . . . What we do know and have evidence for, is explanation of Hulk's physical strength being described as being limitless. Likewise evidence for his ability to increase his strength. There is good evidence, not proof that Hulk could lift a weight as one he believes there is proof he can't. (in which case I ask for said proof)  I didn't extend courtesy no."
@spidey 15 said:
" BattleMage said that Hulk can do the same, but he has never been in that situation. And i said that he was speculating, because Hulk has never shown that ability, so how does he know that Hulk can do it? My point was not that Hulk can not do it because he has shown the inability to do it. My point was that since Hulk has never shown that ability,we Don't know if he can so there is no point on debating this because he has not shown the ability. And until he show it, according to on panel proof, superman is stronger. It's that simple."
The absence of a limit feat (despite there actually being quite a few- but let's not get historical story facts get in the way for now) does not constitute limitlessness; hearsay does not constitute "good evidence" if it's not proof for the purposes raised by the other party- it just represent airy unsubstantiated belief of no relevance- and the capstone... spidey15's intentions made as clear as they were transparent from the beginning despite the unnecessary nitpicky detour on your part. - If you're going to spout airy beliefs without proof then others can too; if you're going to demand proof then your own assertions are going to have to meet those standards; and if you took 2 seconds to apply common-sense caveats to the original response clarity could have been achieved.
Avatar image for roadbuster
#174 Posted by roadbuster (1159 posts) - - Show Bio

 Here are Greg Pak's stated views on the Hulk's strength (in WW Hulk):

Visemoon: ... toward the end Hulk became the World Breaker and reached a whole other level in terms of strength and power. At that time who would have had the power and strength to stop Hulk if he continued his onslaught? Thanos, Mangog or maybe Galactus himself? Or was Hulk at a point that no one could have stop him but himself?

GP: Hulk was stronger than any mortal -- and most immortals -- who ever walked the Earth. But even I wouldn’t go so far as to say he could take down a cosmic figure like Galactus -- although he’d probably give the ol’ planet eater a pretty fierce case of indigestion.

Mohammad Zaki: The first question I have for you is that the Hulk can lift 100 tons at his normal level, without being hyped up, now Hercules was seen lifting the Statue of Liberty, dragging the S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier, and island of Manhattan, and lifting Godzilla, so shouldn't Hercules be a lot stronger than Hulk? I understand Hulk gets stronger as he gets madder, but it should be fair to show that Hercules is already stronger than Hulk and Hulk needs to really reach his limits of anger to challenge Hercules for a good fight, no?

GP: That’s a good point. When the Hulk’s happy and calm, there are a handful of heroes who just might be strong enough to beat him. But the trick is that once a fight actually starts, the Hulk gets mad. And the madder he gets, the stronger he gets. And then it’s all over. 
 
Here, we see all the interpretations in play... the Subjective in that GP ascribes to Hulk absolutes and relies on the catch phrase mechanism.  The objective by acknowledging Galactus (and "[some] immortals") is actually stronger... but quickly tempered by the Technical by redefining it to those who have walked the Earth.  And again, the Mechanical in the catch phrase leading to a citation of infinite Potential in absolute Subjective terms ("It's all over") ignoring lateral thinking and tactics (Technical).  The point is his strength is, for the most part, a truism rather than reason.  It is nearly impossible to discuss Hulk's limits without making reference to if not outright stating his catch phrases at some point as totems of "proof".  When we nail it down to specific tasks of strength instead, others may be better suited to achieve those tasks than Hulk on a routine basis.

Avatar image for shaianwillems
#175 Posted by Shaianwillems (28 posts) - - Show Bio

Hulk is totally the Strongest Marvel character that Lives!

Avatar image for noray
#176 Posted by Noray (33 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline: Epic post man. Too bad most people either didn't read it because it's too long or your point went right over their heads 'cuz BIG WERDS.
 
Anyway I think you're right and I appreciated that post despite it being insanely nerdy (I, of course, am a nerd)
Avatar image for biteme_fanboy
#177 Edited by BiteMe-Fanboy (8950 posts) - - Show Bio

I like how in every other Hulk thread Hulk is called overrated and not that strong, but once a cool cat like G-Man makes a Hulk thread recognizing his powers, everyone seems to fall in love and agree.

Avatar image for sc
#178 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@spidey 15 said:
" @SC said:
" @spidey 15 said:
" @SC: In order to know if someone is capable of something, we are using their feats. This is what i'm trying to say. If Hulk has not the said feats to prove that he can't, then the character who has the superior feats, is obviously stronger until the other prove otherwise. Hulk has not prove that he is stronger than superman and superman has the superiority in feats. We can not say that Hulk can do the same or better, because he has never shown that he can. Your examples of muffins does not help here because of feats, he can do it.  My smiley is my mark....lol I always post it. =] "
 
In order to know if someone is capable of something, you use their feats. Knowing what someone is capable of, is again, vastly different, to proving what someone is capable of. There isn't something that just applies to Hulk, its logic. You can use preexisting evidence to help determine the likelihood of something being likely or likely, but thats something different to what you were doing granted by your express wording.   The burden of proof is not on someone arguing for Hulk in this instance, unless, a person was arguing that Hulk, can, undoubtedly, lift such a weight, he may have never before. Then, the burden of proof would be on them to indeed prove this. Likewise, you are claiming Hulk can't lift something, what is your proof? Proof as in not your opinion or burden of proof argument. Your statement needs your proof especially if you are saying its proven. If you saying that he hasn't so far, then thats not actually proof. Proof would be showing me an example, where Hulk was unable to say lift an inferior rate and we knew he lacked the capacity to grow angrier or so on, and thus increase in strength.   Hulk doesn't need to be proven superior to Superman because him not having proof of that, is not proof he isn't either.   We can say that Hulk may do better, since we don't know. Hulk has no physical limit to his strength. Superman may not either. Hulk's strength may fluctuate faster. There are more questions here than answers.   My example works perfectly here, according to your logic, since Superman has never lifted a muffin i have made, there that is proof that he can not. My muffin example points out the rather flaw in your logic regarding what is evidence or proof.   Oh okay, cool. Its always nice to know smiley people.  "
You use for feats for more things. You show feats to compare someone's level of a certain ability with someone else. According to feats, spider-man is more agile than Daredevil. According to feats, Daredevil is more skilled than Moon Knight. And according to feats, superman is stronger than Hulk. BattleMage said that Hulk can do the same, but he has never been in that situation. And i said that he was speculating, because Hulk has never shown that ability, so how does he know that Hulk can do it? My point was not that Hulk can not do it because he has shown the inability to do it. My point was that since Hulk has never shown that ability,we Don't know if he can so there is no point on debating this because he has not shown the ability. And until he show it, according to on panel proof, superman is stronger. It's that simple.  Glad that you like smiley people. =] "
 
You can use feats for more things, and less things as well. If characters have feats which are objectively comparable, then you can you know, actually compare them without introducing subjective element. Comparing an actual feat, to an absence of feat however, does lead to conclusive proof, are you sure you actually don't use such a comparison to justify your reasoning?  
 
Spider-man has more agility feats than Galactus, Living Tribunal, in large part because we haven't seen any agility feats from Living Tribunal, since we have not seen Living Tribunal have the need to be agile, but its a likely conclusion giving his powers would allow him to be if he chose.  
 
According to feats, subjective feats and objective, we can tell Spider-man is more agile than Daredevil, not, because Spider-man has feats that Daredevil does not have, but Spider-man has relatively objective feats, than Daredevil in a similar position has also not achieved. A hypothetical comparison is that over the course of their histories, both Spider-man and Daredevil have been shot out. If we could objectively tell that Spidey used his agility to avoid more bullets than Daredevil, we could prove that Spider-man is in fact more agile than Daredevil. IIn any case, both Spider-man and Daredevil have shown limitations with their agility and other traits. Situations where a limit was shown. If either character failed to lift a car, we don't need proof either way, to show they would not be able to lift a truck. Our proof is them reaching their limit with the car. By the same token, if Spider-man is able to lift a bike, and if we have never seen Daredevil lift a bike, that is not proof that Daredevil can't lift a bike, because he doesn't have that feat. We only know or have proof that he can't lift more than a car. We have both other subjective and objective reasons to argue either way the amount he can lift up to a car's weight.  
 
If you point is to show merely that the Hulk has never shown this ability thats cool. My point is that that isn't actually proof he can't, and in most situations, with most characters, your point would be extremely logical to the point of almost actually being proof in itself. Since almost all Marvel and DC characters have hit and reached some strength limit way, way less than anything that weighs a quarter of the Earth, much less than a third. Its proof that Daredevil can't lift that weight, if he can't lift a truck, its proof that Colossus can't, if Colossus can't lift a aircraft carrier.  
 
Hulk is somewhat different though. In Shadowland, we have seen from a secondary source, Daredevil increase his agility. Would you agree that Daredevils agility has increased? Maybe not to the extent that he is now more agile than Spider-man, but based on the past and 'feats' of his, Iron Fists and Wolverines, we could certainly conclude reasonably his stats are improved.  
 
Well, with Hulk, there is no secondary source, its a natural part of the character and power to increase his stats. One big one is strength, and its a constant and so far, we have not seen a limit for it. Well, occasionally we do, like the most recent example I can think of was when he initially fought Red Hulk, his strength was not able to overcome the situation he was in. However thats probably one of the most overused but most loved Hulk story devices, in many issues later, and many instances later, Hulk's strength has proven, sufficient. His base at the time of Secret Wars feat according to Marvel was like less than 100 tons. As due to his powerset, when his mind, body is strained, put under stress and lots of other things, his strength can fluctuate to deal. Depends on the situation.  
 
The main point being, if we look at the fluctuation there, its proof his strength isn't static. Now throw out an objective feat to prove Hulk's got a limit below any other static number that you wish. I am saying you can't, not that you can't or won't have sound logic or reasoning behind your opinion if you can't, and I am not here to prove he can. I don't recall any situation the Hulk has been in where we objectively knew an object a third of the Earth's size was opposing him. Like many others though, there are sound and logical reasons to suggest he could, if put in such a situation. His durability has proven sufficient enough to allow him to destroy an asteroid three times the size of the Earth. Not so much a strength feat, but it would have been pretty irresponsible of the Hulk to wait until it landed on Earth in order to lift it to prove something.  
 
When we look at all sorts of other subjective evidence, like the fact Hulk can use his strength well against characters like Thor and Hercules and Gladiator, characters who have used there strength to lift weights close to if not exactly if not more. This is not proof either. Its an unknown quantity to me if Atlas is actually holding the entire planet up or you know, just Greece, or a mountain or is just delusional. Or maybe Hercules can't apply or his strength well against the Hulk.  
 
According to the feats, Superman has demonstrated more and better strength feats than Hulk, not proven he is stronger. Superman and Hulk actually demonstrated more and better strength feats than Marvel's TOAA. Of course we know that if put in any similar position Marvel's TOAA would always demonstrate more absolute anything.  
 
Or point seems to have changed quite a lot to what your were insisting on prior lol, but thats cool, I know its different now.  
 
I would say that if you don't see the point on discussing/debating if he can or not, that is also alright, but you probably realize that almost all character comparisons in comics, involve using subjective elements and evidence to further speculate what characters can do, most people seem to enjoy it, thats the point (for them) and there are other points to it as well. Without knowing it as a fact, you seem more than happy to speculate, based on evidence vs lack of evidence rather than evidence that indicates otherwise that Superman is stronger than Hulk. Even though objectively he hasn't proven he is, and many writers have gone on the record that they think Hulk may be stronger, so imagine if one of them wrote a Superman/Hulk strength showdown. Similarly for a Hulk fan having to com to grips if a writer who though Superman was stronger wrote... So I must presume you see some point stating your opinions anyway, and have  reason to speculate.  
 
Until he (Hulk) has shown a defined and clear physical strength limit then on panel proof for Superman, merely demonstrates he has more and better strength feats. It again, doesn't prove he is stronger, it doesn't proof Hulk is stronger, it doesn't prove Superman is stronger than Tyrant or Odin or that Superman has a clear or defined physical strength limit either. Hardly anything is actually proven here. To me, thats an even simpler truth.  
 
Do you actually wish for me, by the way, to show why people think Hulk can do it? (The strength thing?) It won't be factual proof, but there is tons of circumstantial and subjective evidence that makes such a claim highly legitimate.  
 
Smiley people are the best. Comics are a fun subject, its been nice to discuss these things with you. Have a nice day!
Moderator
Avatar image for spidey_15
#179 Posted by spidey 15 (17883 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: Sorry, but i think you didn't get my point, 
 
According to feats, superman has pulled 1/3 of the planet. So, has any of Hulk's feats come close to this one or are any of your feats superior to that? No. 
So, in order to determine who is stronger from these characters, we should check their feat. So for now, Supes has better feats, so it's better to assume that he is stronger because ON panel proof shows this to us. 
Someone can say that Hulk can do these kind of things or superior, but what is his proof? My proof that Superman might be stronger, is that he manage to accomplish a feat like pulling something that had the weight of the 1/3 of the planet. I at least have an on panel proof. But what is the proof of the guy that says that he can do if he is put in a similar situation? 
I understand your  point and it makes sense, but mine was a bit different.  
Yeah, it was a nice discussion. Have a nice day too! 
=]
Avatar image for sc
#180 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@spidey 15 said:
" @SC: Sorry, but i think you didn't get my point, 
 
According to feats, superman has pulled 1/3 of the planet. So, has any of Hulk's feats come close to this one or are any of your feats superior to that? No. 
So, in order to determine who is stronger from these characters, we should check their feat. So for now, Supes has better feats, so it's better to assume that he is stronger because ON panel proof shows this to us. 
Someone can say that Hulk can do these kind of things or superior, but what is his proof? My proof that Superman might be stronger, is that he manage to accomplish a feat like pulling something that had the weight of the 1/3 of the planet. I at least have an on panel proof. But what is the proof of the guy that says that he can do if he is put in a similar situation? I understand your  point and it makes sense, but mine was a bit different.  Yeah, it was a nice discussion. Have a nice day too! =] "
 
Then you must miss my point. Have I contended that any of Hulk's strength feats superior to that one? Not by any objective measure.  Its not something I find that important to argue or demonstrate reasoning with before we even get to wishing to prove. 
Determining who is stronger between two fictional characters, can be done again, by comparing objective feats. Determining who has better strength feats, so demonstrating that a fictional character character has more, actually only demonstrates that that character has better strength feats. That isn't evidence that he is stronger in of itself.  Only again, if the other character has demonstrated an inability to lift weights that are inferior of the character who demonstrates stronger feats. 
If someone says that they think Hulk can do those things or superior, they don't need proof, unless they insist that he can do those things, or you know, they wish to. 
I'll ignore the might be part in your next sentence for the moment, since its new. Your proof that you go on to cite, is only actually proof of Superman being strong. It doesn't speak anything of Hulk.  Comparing the two, you have proof of Superman having super feats of strength, but not being of super strength. Just like if Hulk lifted the measuring heaviest weighing object Superman has ever lifted, with one kg on top. It wouldn't prove Hulk is stronger, it simply proves he is capable of lifting a slightly larger weight. Is Superman can go one? Then so be it. Its when one of them reaches a point that they can't push though or lift that proof of one being stronger than the other happens. 
Your initial post was to a guy who asked you for proof that Superman is stronger than Hulk, right? Burden of proof was them. You don't need to find proof to assert Superman being stronger than Hulk to defend your position. You actually have proof of Superman supporting larger weights. Hulk needs to play catch up, but it doesn't mean he can't. Or that he technically isn't as strong. Like I said, hasn't reached a physical limit that hasn't been broken. 
The guy who asks you that question, has no proof. Possibly they could ask you, what is Superman's best grounded feat of strength? Possibly the more objective the better. 
If your introducing might into the statement, then the phrasing of proof is somewhat diluted. I agree Superman might be stronger, essentially even that Superman may have no limit as well. His strength could be essentially deus ex machina, which is pretty much the same as the Hulks. Might opens up the floodgates of numerous possibilities. Almost everyone wins lol 
Thanks man, all the best. ^_^
Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#181 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mainline said:
" @Mainline said:
" The tremendous irony... exactly the same argument applied to yours- that the absence of a limit feat must equal limitlessness... to which you will quickly retreat to the realm of "mere non-proven belief" without extending the same courtesy to the other party, holding that they must be asserting fact whereas you are merely stating belief. "
@SC said:
" It was absence of proof that confirmsHulk has a limit. . . . What we do know and have evidence for, is explanation of Hulk's physical strength being described as being limitless. Likewise evidence for his ability to increase his strength. There is good evidence, not proof that Hulk could lift a weight as one he believes there is proof he can't. (in which case I ask for said proof)  I didn't extend courtesy no."
@spidey 15 said:
" BattleMage said that Hulk can do the same, but he has never been in that situation. And i said that he was speculating, because Hulk has never shown that ability, so how does he know that Hulk can do it? My point was not that Hulk can not do it because he has shown the inability to do it. My point was that since Hulk has never shown that ability,we Don't know if he can so there is no point on debating this because he has not shown the ability. And until he show it, according to on panel proof, superman is stronger. It's that simple."
The absence of a limit feat (despite there actually being quite a few- but let's not get historical story facts get in the way for now) does not constitute limitlessness; hearsay does not constitute "good evidence" if it's not proof for the purposes raised by the other party- it just represent airy unsubstantiated belief of no relevance- and the capstone... spidey15's intentions made as clear as they were transparent from the beginning despite the unnecessary nitpicky detour on your part. - If you're going to spout airy beliefs without proof then others can too; if you're going to demand proof then your own assertions are going to have to meet those standards; and if you took 2 seconds to apply common-sense caveats to the original response clarity could have been achieved. "
 
Sure, let historical facts get in the way, demonstrate if you wish? Talking about strawman, when did say I absence of a limit constitutes limitlessness? Actually forget all that, the biggest part of your quote I wish to focus on, is your insistence of spidey15's intentions being clear. Feel free to call be blind, deaf and stupid, but they were not clear to me, they were not transparent to me.. It almost seems to me more like you read something in my post that rubbed you the wrong way, so resulted in much negative projecting and incorrect presumption of my argument. Your intent I still genuinely believe was to help or aid me and another poster's disagreement  by possibly clarifying the main point of another poster, if so, that is admirable and appreciated, however you have clearly failed at clearing anything up, and only created more needless disagreeing about disagreeing, and really have only projected your standards your thinking and more presumptions and a stubborn insistence that details valued important to others, aren't valued by you and are therefore 'nitpicking' If your going to start a conversation with another, maybe try not presuming, or projecting you importance on what they should talk about. If its something you consider as nitpicking, then how about moving on to discussion you don't think it nitpicking?  Are you a hairdresser or something? Awh man, I think i have used up my life quota of the word. What are you trying to demonstrate, that I care about the meanings of words too much? I do, lol 
 
Beliefs don't require proof, thats lol a huge part of belief. Of course others can throw out beliefs without proof, we did I say that couldn't? Where did I demand proof again, besides pointing out that some would be needed to actually have legitimate proof of a claim. I have no common sense I am sorry. Thats just naturally who I am sorry as a person. I would very much like some, unfortunately 2 second, or 2 years won't bring it to me. My sense is very uncommon. Perhaps you can bear that in mind in your next reply to me, before you start to again, project or presume what is clear or transparent. Or better yet, since me and the original poster having the discussion are making headway, and I am slowly learning his meaning and he is mine, and we are doing so without veiled insults possibly you could find someone else around here who is nitpicking and ring the alarm?  
 
Like I said before, if your original intent was as I think it was, thank you for your attempt at bringing clarity. 
Moderator
Avatar image for powerherc
#182 Posted by PowerHerc (86188 posts) - - Show Bio
@G-Man said:
" @Vitality: Hulk did beat Hercules, Iron Man, Namor and Wonder Man at the same time in 1986. 

 
 
"
The Hulk didn't beat these guys.   
     He engaged all Iron Man and Wonder Man at the same time and was mopping the floor with them when Hercules fell out of the sky and drove the Hulk into the ground (he'd been dropped by Namor).  Then Namor engaged the Hulk and was swatted away.  Hercules and the Hulk then closed in battle with Herc knocking the Hulk flying with what looked to be some gigantic electrical conduit.  The Hulk then emerged from the rubble he was knocked into, rushed Herc and tackled him.  Herc and the Hulk then battle while the three other heroes watch.   
     Doc Samson joins the fray next, striking Namor and Iron Man at the same time and then being tackled by Wonderman.  Samson then punches Wonderman.  At this point Iron Man and Namor decide they've got enough to handle in dealing with the Hulk and decide to help Wonderman so they can finish Doc Samson quickly before returning to the battle with the Hulk.   
     While all of this is going on, Herc  and the mindless Hulk are fighting an evenly matched battle.  In the midst of his fight with the Hulk, Hercules notices his teammates fighting Doc Samson and decides to fight against Doc Samson as well because he "fights with mind as well as might" and is "therefore a warrior more worthy of the Prince of Power."  With all four Avengers now fighting Doc Samson and leaving him alone; the Hulk simply leaves.  That's how it all went down.  The Hulk did fight all of the Avengers shown on the cover, but he didn't fight them all at once,  and he quite certainly did'nt beat them.
Avatar image for rexic
#183 Posted by Maverick7 (89 posts) - - Show Bio

there is one who is stronger-Hulkpool.

Avatar image for mira
#184 Posted by mira (1545 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course...Hulk is strongest.

Avatar image for jthree47693
#185 Posted by JThree47693 (2721 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't see Hulk as being the strongest there is, even in the Marvel Universe. Now, maybe he is the strongest on Marvel earth, but the entire universe, not at all.
Avatar image for theworldbreaker
#186 Posted by Theworldbreaker (1681 posts) - - Show Bio
@Superguy1591:  sakaar is almost as big as the earht it slef though scence sakaar's equatinal diameter is 12,150km and earth's is 12,756 and sakaar has only 2 tect tonic plates and yet banner hulk (not even as strong as savage hulk) pulled them back together which would have to be almost 2/4 the weight of tte planet EACH and you may be familure with hulk beating gladiator (who is said to have hte strenagth to move planets because he took them out of orbit) you would probrobly dismiss that caus of glad's radiaton weakness but hulk also beat HYPERION who is pretty much equal to a well confident gladiator who has planet crushing streangth.
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#187 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio

 Hulk ended up fighting the X-Men, the new X-MenX-Factor and even Juggernaut.      


 
I saw the fight with Juggernaut, and when Cain was at full strength it seemed, at least to me, that he had a slight edge. If Professor X hadn't distracted him then I think he would have won after a very long battle. 
  

 While we're on the topic of World War Hulk, what about the events in issue #2. Hulk utterly defeated Iron Man,      


 
In Avengers: The Initiative it is shown that the SPIN Tech darts that Iron Man used on Hulk had been sabotaged. If not for that than Hulk would have been depowered and WWHulk wouldn't have happened. Tony Stark is smart enough to rely on a different means to take down Hulk rather than out-muscling him. 
  

 where Hulk fought against the Avengers, Fantastic Four, Spider-ManDaredevil and even Thor.    


 
Hulk has also lost to Spider-man, Iron Man, and Namor, just off the top of my head.   
  

 When I mentioned Hulk being the strongest there is in the Comic Vine office, Norm was quick to point out that Silver Surfer could be stronger. They were both in the gladiator arena on Sakaar.     


 
Silver Surfer appeared to be stronger than him there. He was easily walking right through all of the Gladiators, and once Hulk destroyed the obedience disk on him he stopped fighting by choice. Hulk proceeded to hit him. A lot. We're shown them talking later on and Surfer is none the worse for wear. Keep in mind that all this took place after Surfer went through a particularly rough time when he reached the planet.  
 

 Other impressive battles include withstandingBlack Bolt's full sonic powers in World War Hulk #1     


 
That Black Bolt was the skrull imposter, not the real deal. The general consensus is that he was weaker than the real Black Bolt. 
   
 

One of the earliest and most impressive displays of Hulk's strength I witnessed was in 1984's Secret Wars #4. In a battle of good vs. evil, the heroes ended up with a mountain thrown on top of them. According to the cover, it weighed one hundred and fifty billion tons. Guess who was underneath holding it up in order to save the heroes?      


 
Hulk stated that he wasn't holding it up so much as he was bracing it. Still extremely impressive, but that needs to be taken into account here.  
 

 While it may not count, there was also the DC Comics Vs. Marvel where Hulk went toe to toe with Superman.     


 
 Superman also one-shotted Juggernaut in a different crossover. Except for the Avengers/JLA crossover they are all non-canon.
  
 
I respectfully disagree with your argument that Hulk is the strongest one there is. Even in the picture you posted at the end of Hulk beating on Hercules, that only happened AFTER Herc had surrendered. In fact, Herc very well could have beaten Hulk if not for that. 
 
There are several people stronger than Hulk, imo, and even those who aren't can give him a good fight if they are smarter or better fighters than he is.
Avatar image for zoom
#188 Posted by Zoom (14751 posts) - - Show Bio

Ferro tagged you pretty good, G-Man.
Avatar image for static_shock
#189 Posted by Static Shock (53047 posts) - - Show Bio
@Ferro Vida:  What I took from the mountain feat was that the Hulk was only supporting it's weight as if fell on top of them. At the same time, he admitted that he could only hold it for a few seconds. It isn't as if he lifted it off the ground. Not saying you're wrong, I just wanted to add to what you were saying.
Avatar image for k4tzm4n
#190 Posted by k4tzm4n (41773 posts) - - Show Bio

Ferro FTW!
Moderator
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#191 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Static Shock said:
" @Ferro Vida:  What I took from the mountain feat was that the Hulk was only supporting it's weight as if fell on top of them. At the same time, he admitted that he could only hold it for a few seconds. It isn't as if he lifted it off the ground. Not saying you're wrong, I just wanted to add to what you were saying. "
Thanks, Static
Avatar image for static_shock
#192 Posted by Static Shock (53047 posts) - - Show Bio
@Ferro Vida: No problem.
Avatar image for ferro_vida
#193 Posted by Ferro Vida (34317 posts) - - Show Bio
@Risky said:
" Well, like others who are "the best at what they do" (Iron Fist being the best at martial arts but we also have Stick and Elektra, Shang Chi, The Cat and a gazillion others who claim to be Marvel's best martial artist, Punisher being the best shooter but that being contested by Domino, Solo and a few others, etc.) the fact that Hulk is stronger than Herc, Sentry or others is hardly debatable because of an uncomfortable habit that comics inevitably produce: Inconsistency.  Yeah, at times Hulk IS the strongest there is (without a discussion) but depending on the writer or storyline people like Thor, Herc, Sentry and at times even Wonderman (who lets face it is not really weak himself) have beaten him and Namor was stated to be stronger than Hulk when in the water, too. Juggernaut stated in Worl War Hulk X-Men "I beat you before, Hulk" saying he was stronger than Hulk before and Hulk was only able to let Juggy run past him, not beat him. Of course that was a battle tactic but it was absolutely NO feat of strength to avoid a battle he was uncertain if he could win.   There is this fact that he supported the mountain of several billion tons but Beta Ray Bill and Thor had an even more impressive feat of supporting a rock (I think it was Asgard but I'm not sure right now) during Secret Invasion or Godslayer (not sure again but I'm too lazy to dig through my collection right now) and noe of them was lucky enough to be able to support it with his back like Hulk does in this picture. If you ask me: Hulk is the strongest there is (like everybody else is) as long as the story demands it. "
Avatar image for cruz
#194 Posted by Cruz (36 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm the stronguest one there is! 
 
After a chilli cheese and bean burrito no one can stop me!

Avatar image for mrerbac
#195 Posted by MrErbac (136 posts) - - Show Bio

lol at the article saying Hulk fought Juggernaut. Yeah, for a short time, until he realized he still couldn't outpower and move Juggernaut. It's not like he beat Juggernaut physically. Juggernaut can only be stopped by telepaths getting into his head or the most powerful magic, neither of which Hulk possesses. Juggernaut is the strongest because he can summon the unlimited power of Cytorrak. He's also punched through dimensions before. Hulk has never done that.

Avatar image for lagoonman
#196 Posted by lagoonman (149 posts) - - Show Bio
@karkarov said:
" He is the physically strongest marvel character sure.  He is not the most powerful Marvel character. "
Avatar image for alpha1029
#197 Posted by Alpha1029 (46 posts) - - Show Bio

Hulk is the strongest there is, the more he gets angry the more he gets stronger and there is no limit, until he killed his opponent or wreck the entire planet... And the more you try to defend yourself against Th Hulk the stronger he gets, his even stronger Then Thor and the other Godlike cow face thing... it is not an insult I don't know his name and this is how I describe him, in an episode called planet Hulk where he was captures as a gladiator, and his just stronger then God... his even indestructibly, because he heals, his fighting skills are not too good, but he Is the Strongest and he can heal better then wolverine.

Avatar image for spidey_15
#198 Posted by spidey 15 (17883 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: I think you miss the point too. If we go by the logic of " he has not do it but it does not mean he can't " then it's like saying that spider-man can run faster than the light but he has not done it yet, Daredevil can jump higher than anyone but he has not done it yet, iron man can destroy 3 planets at the same time but he has not done it yet and stuff like that. That's why we use feats. We try to see who is stronger, faster, more agile etc... Superman for now, according to ON PANEL proof he is stronger than Hulk. If we assume that Hulk can do the same without having any showing close to it, then it's only speculation. 
=]
Avatar image for sc
#199 Posted by SC (18217 posts) - - Show Bio
@spidey 15 said:
" @SC: I think you miss the point too. If we go by the logic of " he has not do it but it does not mean he can't " then it's like saying that spider-man can run faster than the light but he has not done it yet, Daredevil can jump higher than anyone but he has not done it yet, iron man can destroy 3 planets at the same time but he has not done it yet and stuff like that. That's why we use feats. We try to see who is stronger, faster, more agile etc... Superman for now, according to ON PANEL proof he is stronger than Hulk. If we assume that Hulk can do the same without having any showing close to it, then it's only speculation. =] "
 
That is actually my point. I would, believe that its not impossible that Spiderman could run faster than light, and therefore, buy in to that logic that he might be able to run faster than light, IF, not for the fact that Spider-man has been in many instances where his speed was proven to be limited. In many instances his speed had a cap, like when Aunt May was shot, he showed he wasn't moving faster than the speed of light then, and when he has been hit when he has tried to avoid being hit. Other instances that suggest being able to move faster than the speed of light would used by him if he possessed it. AND, he has been shown to be unable naturally increase his speed by even double. Let alone multiple times beyond double. Then other characters and writers haven't told stated that Spiderman has the capacity for limitless speed. If those three things were rectified... Plus, Spider-man is still pretty physiologically a human. There are certain logical reasons there hindering his capacity for light speed travel. A Marvel character Joystick, you know their story right?  
 
I can't speak for you, or anyone else, but I use and many of the people I know, use feats to demonstrate a likelihood, to relative determine what should happen, could happen, and would happen. You argument actually changes around a bit, I understand and agree with your point if its that Superman has on panel feats and actions that are super to anything Hulk has. Beyond that though? Well, why not inform me of Superman's biggest and best grounded strength feats? Most of this subject is actually speculation. We can also actually know characters can do something, without them showing us they can, but again it comes down to likelihoods. We know that the Power Gem would increase Hulk's strength, even if we haven't seen it happen. By how much? That would be the speculation.  
 
To me, it feels like you are rigidly imposing how you would determine a battle thread but with lots of questions, the answer is a lot more open than what a select group of people decide to use to decide or more importantly  proof, who wins in such a battle thread. Its impatience with ambiguity. Its flawed. 
 
You do understand I am saying there is no proof for Hulk lifting everything that Superman has right? Just like there is no proof that he can't. Its speculation that he can and can't. Superman has proof for lifting the heavy things he has. Hulk has no proof that demonstrates objective comparison.. Those are very different discussions and points though.  
 
Take care man. =]
Moderator
Avatar image for turoksonofstone
#200 Edited by turoksonofstone (14913 posts) - - Show Bio

 Strongest one there is.
 Strongest one there is.

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.