• 175 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by Susanoo (5909 posts) - - Show Bio


 vs 

 

Battlefield: LA

No human is alive.

Both are willing to kill.

Hancock's wife is on the moon.

 

Who wins?

#2 Posted by Assman (1848 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor + Mjolnir>Hancock imo  more versatile with his abstract powers with Mjolnir.

#3 Posted by Ramtha07 (1291 posts) - - Show Bio


Movie Thor owns.

Just saw it in 3D last night BTW.  It was all I'd hoped. They did not power Thor down too much either... some pretty amazing feats in that movie. So ya, I go with Thor. (Though the "I'll stick your head up HIS arse" feat still takes the LOL cake)

#4 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio

Hancock wins. Nothing Thor would do would even hurt Hancock and Hancocks movie strength and durability feats are far above Thors movie feats in the same categories.
#5 Posted by Jazzitup (870 posts) - - Show Bio
@weaponmaster said:
"

                    Hancock wins. Nothing Thor would do would even hurt Hancock and Hancocks movie strength and durability feats are far above Thors movie feats in the same categories.

                   

                "

Thor did insane things in the movie like causing an earthquake, summoning lightning and whirlwinds, easily taking apart everything including the Destroyer armor. I don't think Hancock's strength feats are above causing an earthquake.
#6 Posted by Iron_Turtle (583 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor came back to life and took out the Destroyer armour.

Hancock got shot and ran away from his wife.
#7 Posted by pooty (11246 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jazzitup: @Iron_Turtle:  Didn't see Thor but saw Hancock. According to the movie Hancock, Hancock had no weaknesses to physical harm. Even though the girl knocked him around he showed no pain at all. Also Thor beating the Destroyer under his own power is unheard of.  Hancock also show no limits to his strength from throwing whales to carving out the moon to stopping trains.
#8 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jazzitup said:
"

                    @weaponmaster said:
"

                    Hancock wins. Nothing Thor would do would even hurt Hancock and Hancocks movie strength and durability feats are far above Thors movie feats in the same categories.

                   

                "
Thor did insane things in the movie like causing an earthquake, summoning lightning and whirlwinds, easily taking apart everything including the Destroyer armor. I don't think Hancock's strength feats are above causing an earthquake.

                   

                "


A localized earthquake, summoning lightning, and whirwinds arent insane feats relatively speaking. A speeding train did no damage to Hancock, nor did being hit by a semi and a crane. Hancock exhibited super speed several times, which Thor did not (Thor flew fast, but thats about it). Odin, who is more powerful than Thor, had his eye taken out by a frost giant. Hancock would not have even felt that attack.

 

Sif pierced the destroyer armor with a spear which shut him down temporarily so obviously the armor is not anywhere near as durable as in the comic books. Loki was giving Thor all he could handle in hand to hand for a few minutes, Hancock would not even have felt any of it nor would he have needed to block Lokis strikes as they wouldn't have hurt him whatsoever.

 

 

Thor caused an earthquake in a structurally unsound environment that was partially made up of ice

 

 Hancock threw a 40 ton grey whale over half a mile easily, stopped and destroyed a  speeding train instantaneously with zero damage to himself, took a bullet to the face point blank with no damage, moved faster than the eye can see many times, shrugged off a rocket prepelled grenade, was exposed to flames without any damage whatsoever. His movie feats are far above Thors.

 

I like Thor and Loved the movie. But this isn't about personal feelings or emotions, it's about movie feats. Nothing Thor could do in the movie would even scratch Hancock, but Hancock could easily hurt Thor in many many ways.

#9 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Iron_Turtle said:
"

                    Thor came back to life and took out the Destroyer armour.
Hancock got shot and ran away from his wife.


                   

                "


Odin Brought Thor Back to life and defeated a extremely de-powered destroyer armor that sif even pierced with a spear and shut down temporarily.

The Op stated that Hancocks wife is on the moon so the proximity/power drain won't affect him. Hancock will be at full strength, speed and invulberability that wont go away.

 

You're letting your emotions and lack of integrity affect your post.

#10 Posted by Nefarious (20659 posts) - - Show Bio

Movie Thor.

#11 Posted by Manchine (4173 posts) - - Show Bio

I would have to say Hancock..... I don't see any way Thor could hurt Hancock.  Since Hancock physically can't be hurt.
#12 Posted by Sydpart2 (1092 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah...only thing I think Thor might be able to do to even effect Hancock might be to hit him with lightning...but even then I don't know.

#13 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio
@weaponmaster: Loki never had an edge on Thor. Thor could've easily stopped him in an instant as he did to take out his clones. He had no intention of killing his brother. He was easily holding back. Both Hancock and Thor had their own feats in their respective universes. I say Thor would win due to having a larger set of abilities due to Mjolner. Yes, Hancock was never been hurt in the film besides when he fought his mate, but nothing in the film posed a threat to him. Guns, Street thugs, a train? It's not really that impressive.We can't completely judge Thor yet as he hasn't displayed more of his potential, but Hancock does have him beat in the strength department so far. I would say they are equal in flight speed. Thor had impressive durability. Taking on countless frost giants, the Giant frost monster, and the Destroyer(weakened) without a scratch. What Thor took on was far more impressive than what Hancock had endured.
Moderator
#14 Posted by Ramtha07 (1291 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget said:
"

                    @weaponmaster: Loki never had an edge on Thor. Thor could've easily stopped him in an instant as he did to take out his clones. He had no intention of killing his brother. He was easily holding back. Both Hancock and Thor had their own feats in their respective universes. I say Thor would win due to having a larger set of abilities due to Mjolner. Yes, Hancock was never been hurt in the film besides when he fought his mate, but nothing in the film posed a threat to him. Guns, Street thugs, a train? It's not really that impressive.We can't completely judge Thor yet as he hasn't displayed more of his potential, but Hancock does have him beat in the strength department so far. I would say they are equal in flight speed. Thor had impressive durability. Taking on countless frost giants, the Giant frost monster, and the Destroyer(weakened) without a scratch. What Thor took on was far more impressive than what Hancock had endured.

                   

                "

Agreed.
#15 Posted by TheUltimateSurvivor (840 posts) - - Show Bio
Hancock.
#16 Posted by D3athstroke (3919 posts) - - Show Bio

Hancock

#17 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget said:
"

                    @weaponmaster: Loki never had an edge on Thor. Thor could've easily stopped him in an instant as he did to take out his clones. He had no intention of killing his brother. He was easily holding back. Both Hancock and Thor had their own feats in their respective universes. I say Thor would win due to having a larger set of abilities due to Mjolner. Yes, Hancock was never been hurt in the film besides when he fought his mate, but nothing in the film posed a threat to him. Guns, Street thugs, a train? It's not really that impressive.We can't completely judge Thor yet as he hasn't displayed more of his potential, but Hancock does have him beat in the strength department so far. I would say they are equal in flight speed. Thor had impressive durability. Taking on countless frost giants, the Giant frost monster, and the Destroyer(weakened) without a scratch. What Thor took on was far more impressive than what Hancock had endured.

                   

                "


Youre basing your stance on emotions and not logic.

 

What abilities did Njolnir exhibit in the movie that would even hurt Hancock?

 

The train stoppage was extremely impressive. Thor got hit by a frost giant and knocked back and down. Hancock didnt even flinch.

 

This isn't about Thors "potential" this is about feats he showed in the movie and none of them would even affect Hancock.

 

What was Thor hit with in the movie that does the damage of a train at full speed? He blocked things that Hancocks would simply shrug off.

 

How is Thor going to deal with Hancocks Super-speed?

#18 Posted by Iron_Turtle (583 posts) - - Show Bio
@weaponmaster: 
1) When did I indicate I was emotionally involved in this discussion?
2) Integrity? Sounds like serious business.
#19 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Iron_Turtle said:
"

                    @weaponmaster: 
1) When did I indicate I was emotionally involved in this discussion?
2) Integrity? Sounds like serious business.


                   

                "


Your post indicated it.

 

I am assuming you are trying to be humorous with your second comment?

#20 Posted by Ramtha07 (1291 posts) - - Show Bio
@Iron_Turtle said:
"

                    @weaponmaster: 
1) When did I indicate I was emotionally involved in this discussion?
2) Integrity? Sounds like serious business.


                   

                "

I'll profer a second opinion here and say that you didn't sound emotionally involved at all actually. And you are right to make light of comic book debaters that try to question your integrity. Sounds a little too combative for the occasion indeed.
#21 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio
@weaponmaster said:

" @Deranged Midget said:

"

                    @weaponmaster: Loki never had an edge on Thor. Thor could've easily stopped him in an instant as he did to take out his clones. He had no intention of killing his brother. He was easily holding back. Both Hancock and Thor had their own feats in their respective universes. I say Thor would win due to having a larger set of abilities due to Mjolner. Yes, Hancock was never been hurt in the film besides when he fought his mate, but nothing in the film posed a threat to him. Guns, Street thugs, a train? It's not really that impressive.We can't completely judge Thor yet as he hasn't displayed more of his potential, but Hancock does have him beat in the strength department so far. I would say they are equal in flight speed. Thor had impressive durability. Taking on countless frost giants, the Giant frost monster, and the Destroyer(weakened) without a scratch. What Thor took on was far more impressive than what Hancock had endured.

                   

                "


Youre basing your stance on emotions and not logic.

 

What abilities did Njolnir exhibit in the movie that would even hurt Hancock?

 

The train stoppage was extremely impressive. Thor got hit by a frost giant and knocked back and down. Hancock didnt even flinch.

 

This isn't about Thors "potential" this is about feats he showed in the movie and none of them would even affect Hancock.

 

What was Thor hit with in the movie that does the damage of a train at full speed? He blocked things that Hancocks would simply shrug off.

 

How is Thor going to deal with Hancocks Super-speed?

"
 I never said one is far superior to the other. I simply compared them.

We don't know how the mystical properties of Mjolnir would affect Hancock since he hasn't faced anything remotely close to that in his universe.
   
The train stoppage was impressive but Hancock readied himself and was prepared for the impact. Thor was cocky and had no preparation. He jumped head first into battle.

How do you know that? Everything Hancock achieved Thor could easily replicate. Throwing a whale? Flying fast? Stopping a train? I already mentioned Hancock could be superior to Thor in the strength department but that doesn't give him the win.

Yes, Thor never stopped a direct hit from a train. I doubt Hancock would easily shrug off Mjolnir thrown at him at full speed. Thor demolished many Frost giants with one throw, dropped the Destroyer(weakened I know), and destroyed the Rainbow bridge(Bifrost) with the power of Mjolnir.

What super speed? He never ran, he never had a fast combat speed. It was all flight speed. Thor demonstrated the same.
Moderator
#22 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget said:
"

                    @weaponmaster said:

"

                    @Deranged Midget said:

"

                    @weaponmaster: Loki never had an edge on Thor. Thor could've easily stopped him in an instant as he did to take out his clones. He had no intention of killing his brother. He was easily holding back. Both Hancock and Thor had their own feats in their respective universes. I say Thor would win due to having a larger set of abilities due to Mjolner. Yes, Hancock was never been hurt in the film besides when he fought his mate, but nothing in the film posed a threat to him. Guns, Street thugs, a train? It's not really that impressive.We can't completely judge Thor yet as he hasn't displayed more of his potential, but Hancock does have him beat in the strength department so far. I would say they are equal in flight speed. Thor had impressive durability. Taking on countless frost giants, the Giant frost monster, and the Destroyer(weakened) without a scratch. What Thor took on was far more impressive than what Hancock had endured.

                   

                "


Youre basing your stance on emotions and not logic.

 

What abilities did Njolnir exhibit in the movie that would even hurt Hancock?

 

The train stoppage was extremely impressive. Thor got hit by a frost giant and knocked back and down. Hancock didnt even flinch.

 

This isn't about Thors "potential" this is about feats he showed in the movie and none of them would even affect Hancock.

 

What was Thor hit with in the movie that does the damage of a train at full speed? He blocked things that Hancocks would simply shrug off.

 

How is Thor going to deal with Hancocks Super-speed?



                   

                "
 I never said one is far superior to the other. I simply compared them.

We don't know how the mystical properties of Mjolnir would affect Hancock since he hasn't faced anything remotely close to that in his universe.
   
The train stoppage was impressive but Hancock readied himself and was prepared for the impact. Thor was cocky and had no preparation. He jumped head first into battle.

How do you know that? Everything Hancock achieved Thor could easily replicate. Throwing a whale? Flying fast? Stopping a train? I already mentioned Hancock could be superior to Thor in the strength department but that doesn't give him the win.

Yes, Thor never stopped a direct hit from a train. I doubt Hancock would easily shrug off Mjolnir thrown at him at full speed. Thor demolished many Frost giants with one throw, dropped the Destroyer(weakened I know), and destroyed the Rainbow bridge(Bifrost) with the power of Mjolnir.

What super speed? He never ran, he never had a fast combat speed. It was all flight speed. Thor demonstrated the same.



                   

                "

 

In the movie Mjolnir did not affect any magical based creature any differently. You are using conjecture and speculation.

 

 

Youre making excuses for Thor. Blows that affected thor in the movoe and attacks that Thor Blocked with Mjolnir would not have affected Hancock in the least.

 

You are again basing what you doubt on emotions and not on emperical evidence. Mjolnir was not even shown in the movie to cause even as much damage as a train at full speed would cause except perhaps, debatebly, the earthquake, which was used on very porous rock that was partially ice as well. Hancock was unharmed by being struck by someone as strong as he is with a truck and a tractor. 

 

Thor destroyed Bifrost after many, many, many blows.

 

Ok. Your last comment tells me you either have not seen Hancock, have a poor memory, or are pretending to not remember. Hancock cut off the villains hand by throwing a  flattened metal lamp shade and grabbed the detonator before the thumb came of the switch. That is super-speed. Not just flight speed.

 


 

#23 Posted by AQD (63 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor

#24 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio
@weaponmaster: it took many hits yes, but it's something Hancock could never do. How do you know he super sped to grab it? He cut his hand off and his grip could've still be on the trigger for a second for him to fly towards him. He did the same thing to the other thugs in the bank. He was fast enough to FLY through in an instant without being seen. We never saw him run over, therefore it didn't happen. I already mentioned Hancock could be stronger and probably more durable but in a slight margin. He has no speed advantage. 

As stated before, Thor has yet to show more feats in his upcoming sequel and the Avengers.
Hancock would win as of now 6/10.
Moderator
#25 Posted by cattlebattle (12833 posts) - - Show Bio

I pull for Hancock, he was basically an analogue for Superman, Thor was impressive, but his maelstrom attacks would not do much against Hancock

Online
#26 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget said:
"

                    @weaponmaster: it took many hits yes, but it's something Hancock could never do. How do you know he super sped to grab it? He cut his hand off and his grip could've still be on the trigger for a second for him to fly towards him. He did the same thing to the other thugs in the bank. He was fast enough to FLY through in an instant without being seen. We never saw him run over, therefore it didn't happen. I already mentioned Hancock could be stronger and probably more durable but in a slight margin. He has no speed advantage. 

As stated before, Thor has yet to show more feats in his upcoming sequel and the Avengers.
Hancock would win as of now 6/10.


                   

                "


Something Hancock could never do? Again this is emotionally based on your part. Hancock Hurled a 40 ton grey whale nearly half a mile (maybe more). Thor showed no strenght feats even near that.

 

It was super speed. You are just being childish.When the tendons in the wrist are severed the hand instantanously ceases to grip.

 

Hancocks is stronger and more durable in large margins and the movie feats showed this.

#27 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio
@weaponmaster: It's not emotion, I'm stating facts. Destroying the Bifrost took strength and obviously the power of Mjolnir was applied to it.. Arguably his best strength feat in the film yes. Hancock hadn't displayed any other strength besides holding his ground and stopping the train and that obviously isn't his greatest strength feat. Ok, say it was super speed. We still didn't see him use it in combat. He is just a straight up brawler with no technique. Thor is vastly more skilled than Hancock is and it showed when he was a mortal dispatching highly trained Shield agents. He could easily do the same to Hancock.
Moderator
#28 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget said:
"

                    @weaponmaster: It's not emotion, I'm stating facts. Destroying the Bifrost took strength and obviously the power of Mjolnir was applied to it.. Arguably his best strength feat in the film yes. Hancock hadn't displayed any other strength besides holding his ground and stopping the train and that obviously isn't his greatest strength feat. Ok, say it was super speed. We still didn't see him use it in combat. He is just a straight up brawler with no technique. Thor is vastly more skilled than Hancock is and it showed when he was a mortal dispatching highly trained Shield agents. He could easily do the same to Hancock.

                   

                "


There is no way to quantify how durable Bifrost actually is and the fact that it took him many many many blows even with Mjolnir is not that impressive a feat. As i stated, Hancocks strenght feats are vastly superior to thors and not marginally so.

 

Hancock displayed many strength feats. Did you even see the movie?

-He tossed around a 3 ton SUV like it was a twig,

-he threw a greay whale (they average 40-50 tons) for at least a half a mile easily,

-He tossed a little boy into the upper atmoshpere very easily,

-he stopped a speeding, multi-car train instanly by leaning into it.

-he threw a candybar with the force and speed of a bullet.

 

We didnt see the superspeed, but we know it was used and we see the results of it.

 

Hancocks was a warrior in many cultures and was not just a "straight up brawler". he simply did not need to utilize skill because of his immense strenghth, speed,  and durability.

 

Thor could not even Hurt Hancock and he is too slow to hit Hancock unless Hancock let him so he could not dispatch Hancock at all but Hancock could defeate Movie Thor easily.

 

 


 

#29 Posted by svtballa (287 posts) - - Show Bio

hancock wins easily..his movie feats are rediclious thos trains weigh aroun 60-100 tons and traveling at 20-30 mph.he leaned into it and didnt budge..that is beyone impressive..he carved out the moon..and threw a candy bar with the force of a bullet.

#30 Posted by Kallarkz (3303 posts) - - Show Bio
@Iron_Turtle said:

Hancock got shot and ran away from his wife.
"
Going with Thor

But with the above quoted comment...at least keep to the context of the movie.
#31 Posted by AgentofDeath (430 posts) - - Show Bio

The angry drunk black man takes this fight

#32 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio
@weaponmaster: I know that it took many hits. As you said, we don't know how durable it was. You are indeed correct in the fact that Hancock is stronger than Thor. Although tossing a child wasn't that impressive. The candy bar bit was cool though. And yes, I have seen the movie, several times.

Hancock protected his wife in almost all of his past lives and he probably had some degree of skill but none to match Thor.

Thor not being able to hurt Hancock is a ridiculous statement. Yes, he is significantly stronger and more durable but it's not as if Thor is some average joe. He could land some damage and if he uses his superior fighting skills correctly, he could give Hancock quite a fight if it comes down to close quarters considering Hancock never displayed any combat speed of any sort.

 
Moderator
#33 Posted by Sgtcrispy (414 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor.

#34 Posted by madrid_san (1805 posts) - - Show Bio

I think Thor was holding back against Loki, if he went all out, he would have destroyed not only Loki, but Asgard as well. We'll see how strong he will be in the Avenger's movie.
#35 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget said:
"

                    @weaponmaster: I know that it took many hits. As you said, we don't know how durable it was. You are indeed correct in the fact that Hancock is stronger than Thor. Although tossing a child wasn't that impressive. The candy bar bit was cool though. And yes, I have seen the movie, several times.

Hancock protected his wife in almost all of his past lives and he probably had some degree of skill but none to match Thor.

Thor not being able to hurt Hancock is a ridiculous statement. Yes, he is significantly stronger and more durable but it's not as if Thor is some average joe. He could land some damage and if he uses his superior fighting skills correctly, he could give Hancock quite a fight if it comes down to close quarters considering Hancock never displayed any combat speed of any sort.

 


                   

                "


Tossing a child isn't what is impressive. Tossing a child into the upper atmosphere with casual strength is what was impressive. You say you have seen the Hancock several times but your comments don't show this.

 

 

Hancock didn't have past lives. He has lived one lifetime but lost his memory in the latter portion of his life. He is not like hawkman and is has not been reincarnated. How do you know his skill couldnt match Thor? Hancock is an immortal who has been a warrior his entire existence, the same as Thor.

 

No, Thor not being able to hurt Hancock is not ridiculous. Thor never exhibited any damage output that would even phase Hancock. I don't think you realize the kinetic energy a train delivers via it's weight and speed and density. Movie Thor could not harm Hancock in any way. Conversely Hancock would be able to easily cause Thor Damage. Thors fighting skills are not necessarily superior to Hancocks. As i stated, Hancock is an immortal who has been around for eons as a warrior. Just as Thor has.

 

 Hancock did use superspeed it was just off-camera. Throwing a candybar at bullet speed fps is further evidence of superspeed.


 

#36 Posted by DeadpoolvIronFist (2417 posts) - - Show Bio

Hancock stomps.

#37 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio
@weaponmaster: Throwing the candy bar was all strength. They both hit each other at the same time but the damage to Hancock slowly kicked in. And technically yes, he did have past lives. He lived in different cultures, constantly changing his identity to avoid the people trying to kill him and his wife.


Moderator
#38 Posted by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deranged Midget said:
"

                    @weaponmaster: Throwing the candy bar was all strength. They both hit each other at the same time but the damage to Hancock slowly kicked in. And technically yes, he did have past lives. He lived in different cultures, constantly changing his identity to avoid the people trying to kill him and his wife.




                   

                "


Wrong. A powerlifter that is many times stronger can styill not throw a baseball as fast as a pro baseball pitcher. Throwing fast has more to do with speed and very little to do with strength, especially when throwing something that weighs as little as a candy bar. The bullet damage didn't "Kick in", Hancock was damage butadrenalin/shock ketp him from realizing that he was damaged. No, he did not have several lives, he had one life with several indetities and experiences and they changed to keep people from realizing they were immortal. You were simply wrong when you stated that he had past lives and are now trying to cover for it.

 

With that stated this is completely irrelevant. Hancock would defeat Movie Thor. Arguing minutiae won't change that.

#39 Posted by mark5 (1213 posts) - - Show Bio

What did thor do in the movie that outclasses hancock? Haven't seen it yet, but looking forward to it. 

#40 Posted by jayskee (1905 posts) - - Show Bio

thor
#41 Posted by GTG12 (1575 posts) - - Show Bio

Well thor does have a weapon and a wider variety of abilities so i guess im leading towards him.
#42 Edited by venomoushatred1001 (12334 posts) - - Show Bio

Just saw Thor. Movie Thor wins.
#43 Posted by DMRxxASSASSIN (96 posts) - - Show Bio
@Jazzitup said:
" @weaponmaster said:
"

                    Hancock wins. Nothing Thor would do would even hurt Hancock and Hancocks movie strength and durability feats are far above Thors movie feats in the same categories.

                   

                "
Thor did insane things in the movie like causing an earthquake, summoning lightning and whirlwinds, easily taking apart everything including the Destroyer armor. I don't think Hancock's strength feats are above causing an earthquake. "


technically it was an ice-quake


 

#44 Posted by Thepowercosmic (940 posts) - - Show Bio

Hancock 

#45 Posted by Postacrat (496 posts) - - Show Bio

Hancock easily, some of the people saying Thor are the same people you will see in a lot of threads claiming Thor can beat anybody especially SUPERMAN...The arguments have been made, Hancock is stronger, faster, more durable than Thor in his films. In truth I personally think he could beat his comic book counter part too...

#46 Posted by emperorznb (1673 posts) - - Show Bio

I think I'm gonna go with Hancock.

#47 Posted by buttersdaman000 (9779 posts) - - Show Bio

Hancock easily. Movie Thor isnt impressive at all. 

#48 Posted by czarny_samael666 (17174 posts) - - Show Bio

Hancock after hard battle.

#49 Posted by Saren (25698 posts) - - Show Bio

@buttersdaman000 said:

Hancock easily. Movie Thor isnt impressive at all.
Moderator
#50 Posted by babylinkz (546 posts) - - Show Bio

Handcock easily , thor would get thrown around like the whale, plus handcocks speed feats were farrrrr beyond what thor displayed, ....to be honest im a little surprised here, ever time i read threads in this fourm the preson with faster speed feat is always qouted as being able to stomp and ect ect ....but yet here we are with handcock having far better speed feat then thor but because its THOR people just cant let go of the fact hed lose here its not the comic version