• 95 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman (Man of Steel movie version)

vs

Thor (Thor/Avengers movie version)

Random encounter, in-character.

Who wins, and how?

#2 Posted by Cybrilious4 (1766 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman Curbestomps

- He'll just speed blitz Thor and throw so many punches to the face Thor passes out.

#3 Edited by Lordlloyd7 (40 posts) - - Show Bio

Hmm superman i would say.

#4 Posted by lachydotc (31 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman

Movie Thor gets thrown around like a Whimp constantly and doesnt stand like a GOD at all!

#5 Posted by Ancient_0f_Days (11829 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: dude......there have been two Avengers vs MoS Superman already, the whole team, and then someone added in the X-Men in the second one ......

Man of Steel vs The Avengers - Battles - Comic Vine

X-Men + Avengers vs Man of Steel - Battles - Comic Vine

He stomped the first thread, meaning he stomped Hulk, Iron Man, and yes...Thor via speed blitz. and it was stated within the second one that had Professor Xavier not been in the line up of X-men and Avengers, he'd solo that one too. I don't know if you've seen these but with this in mind, how do you imagine this thread going end?

#6 Edited by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: dude......there have been two Avengers vs MoS Superman already, the whole team, and then someone added in the X-Men in the second one ......

Man of Steel vs The Avengers - Battles - Comic Vine

X-Men + Avengers vs Man of Steel - Battles - Comic Vine

He stomped the first thread, meaning he stomped Hulk, Iron Man, and yes...Thor via speed blitz. and it was stated within the second one that had Professor Xavier not been in the line up of X-men and Avengers, he'd solo that one too. I don't know if you've seen these but with this in mind, how do you imagine this thread going end?

I saw plenty of posts saying that the Avengers would win.

I think this battle is still relevant and debatable.

#7 Posted by dondave (34609 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman for the pawnage

#8 Posted by HBKTimHBK (5240 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman, he blitzes and even if Thor tries to fight back, Superman is a better fighter.

#9 Edited by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman, he blitzes and even if Thor tries to fight back, Superman is a better fighter.

In theory Thor should be a better fighter. Superman had no fighting training whatsoever that I saw in the movie.

#10 Edited by CalebHara (2329 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman STOMPS.

#11 Posted by Decoy Elite (30041 posts) - - Show Bio

@hbktimhbk said:

Superman, he blitzes and even if Thor tries to fight back, Superman is a better fighter.

In theory Thor should be a better fighter. Superman had no fighting training whatsoever that I saw in the movie.

The massive discrepancy in stats makes this irreverent.

#12 Edited by Vaeternus (9410 posts) - - Show Bio
#13 Posted by zr0c00l (856 posts) - - Show Bio

Laughable stomp for the man of steel. Thor is nowhere close in the movies

#14 Edited by HBKTimHBK (5240 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@hbktimhbk said:

Superman, he blitzes and even if Thor tries to fight back, Superman is a better fighter.

In theory Thor should be a better fighter. Superman had no fighting training whatsoever that I saw in the movie.

#15 Posted by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@hbktimhbk said:

Superman, he blitzes and even if Thor tries to fight back, Superman is a better fighter.

In theory Thor should be a better fighter. Superman had no fighting training whatsoever that I saw in the movie.

And what did Superman do in the movie to show that he's a better fighter than Thor?

#16 Edited by dondave (34609 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: He doesn't need to be a better fighter if Thor can't touch him. It's the same argument in the comics but to a lesser degree here

#17 Posted by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

@dondave said:

@willpayton: He doesn't need to be a better fighter if Thor can't touch him. It's the same argument in the comics but to a lesser degree here

Why are you telling me this?

#18 Edited by texasdeathmatch (13171 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman. He may not be a better fighter, but it's not like Thor was pulling any impressive H2H moves with the Hulk. And then there's the whole durability, speed, and strength thing.

#19 Edited by dondave (34609 posts) - - Show Bio

@dondave said:

@willpayton: He doesn't need to be a better fighter if Thor can't touch him. It's the same argument in the comics but to a lesser degree here

Why are you telling me this?

You were if I'm reading it correctly said that Thor fighting skills should help him match or defeat Superman. I countered that his skill is for nought if he cant use it on Superman

#20 Edited by Cybrilious4 (1766 posts) - - Show Bio

@Deranged_Midget

#21 Posted by Immortal777 (6949 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor's head is going up someone's a$$.

#23 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@hbktimhbk said:

Superman, he blitzes and even if Thor tries to fight back, Superman is a better fighter.

In theory Thor should be a better fighter. Superman had no fighting training whatsoever that I saw in the movie.

Theoretical statements get us no where. By that logic, I could state that Superman should be able to utilize the same speed feats as Faora due to them sharing the same powers. Is it plausible? Yes. Does that mean I could use it? No, because he's never demonstrated those feats and neither has Thor in terms of "superior" hand-to-hand.

Regardless of that fact, Thor doesn't have the speed nor durability to hang with Clark. Heat vision could play into the battle quite nicely as well but there is little difference in strength.

Moderator
#24 Posted by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@hbktimhbk said:

Superman, he blitzes and even if Thor tries to fight back, Superman is a better fighter.

In theory Thor should be a better fighter. Superman had no fighting training whatsoever that I saw in the movie.

Theoretical statements get us no where. By that logic, I could state that Superman should be able to utilize the same speed feats as Faora due to them sharing the same powers. Is it plausible? Yes. Does that mean I could use it? No, because he's never demonstrated those feats and neither has Thor in terms of "superior" hand-to-hand.

Theoretical statements might not be as good as facts, but they're better than statements which are completely lacking in either facts or theory. That's why I asked for feats to prove the statement above.

Saying that Thor in theory should be a better fighter than Superman is not the same as trying to attribute Faora's feats to Superman. Thor should be a better fighter because he's lived much longer and has been a warrior for a long time, while Superman has been a fisherman and a busboy.

Are you seriously telling me that a 30-year-old fisherman/busboy/farmer is going to be as good a fighter as a thousand-year-old warrior, from a warrior culture, whose main hobby in life seems to be fighting in wars?

#25 Posted by Bronze_Surfer (2966 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I doubt he is as good a fighter but he did beat Faora, Zod, and some other Kryptonian who were all more trained but he was faster and stronger.

#26 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

Theoretical statements might not be as good as facts, but they're better than statements which are completely lacking in either facts or theory. That's why I asked for feats to prove the statement above.

Saying that Thor in theory should be a better fighter than Superman is not the same as trying to attribute Faora's feats to Superman. Thor should be a better fighter because he's lived much longer and has been a warrior for a long time, while Superman has been a fisherman and a busboy.

Are you seriously telling me that a 30-year-old fisherman/busboy/farmer is going to be as good a fighter as a thousand-year-old warrior, from a warrior culture, whose main hobby in life seems to be fighting in wars?

I don't agree whatsoever. The entire basis behind how we debate is backed up by visible feats given and presented to us. Theoretically stating a character can do something is just grasping for straws in my opinion because there is nothing to back up the ability for a character to present such feats.

The only time Thor has ever demonstrated any sort of hand-to-hand feats was when he was powerless and beating up a bunch of featless SHIELD guards, who were stated to be "highly trained". Thor never once demonstrated that level of skill again, so it'd be completely out of character for him to do so.

Obviously Thor "should" be the superior warrior due to his extended lifespan but he's done nothing to prove so in battle with his powers so it's a moot point in my opinion. Additionally, Faora, Zod and Non were all genetically raised as warrior and clearly showed superior skill throughout the film but Clark still managed to take on two at a time and gain minor footholds due to flight.

Thor has no speed feats, at all. He has no hope of keeping up with Clark. And before his flight is brought up, he never used it in combat and it has no maneuverability whatsoever.

Moderator
#27 Edited by BWANASIMBA (353 posts) - - Show Bio

The problem with this matchup is that Thor hasn't shown any strength feats whatsoever. Fantastic striking feats yes, primarily with Mjolnir (he did stagger Hulk with his punches and a knee to the face though, but Hulk's feats are outclassed by Superman as well) but the only thing we've seen him lift is that big table with a crap load of food on it... and technically he flipped that. Also, in terms of durability feats he's drastically beneath Superman, and speed wise he's beneath him too in both combat speed and flight/ travel speed.

The one thing I give Thor is that his striking feats with Mjolnir are high enough I'd say he could hurt Clark if he hits him as hard as he can, but that's a big if as Clark is much faster than he is. Also, he is more skilled than Clark. Note, although Clark did best/ stalemate several Kryptonian soldiers in Man of Steel, one must keep in mind these soldiers didn't have his experience with Kryptonian powers, didn't have his potential and as such were arguably not as powerful as he was (well, except for maybe Zod and the big soldier, who I am assuming was Non). They also were much more vulnerable to the Kryptonian environment than he was as he overcame it (again, he has superior potential) and none of them save Zod and Faora had time to overcome the sensory overload they had to deal with when their armor was busted.

In short, unless Thor has some serious upgrades/ feats in his next movie... Henry Cavill's Superman stomps him.

#28 Edited by phisigmatau (463 posts) - - Show Bio

Why do people act like Thor was going full on against Hulk? He clearly asks Banner to calm down during the fight!!

Thor has never been hurt, not even a lil in any movie.

The only thing Superman has on him is fight speed. It'll be interesting to see if Thor DW has him pulling off any speed feats, he is capable but we havent seen any..

#29 Posted by thanosii (1213 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor was fast enough to deflect lasers from destroyer and those aliens, he also blitzed that frost monster durable enough to tank 400percent blast from ironman with no effect. iron man leveled a building with it against war machine.

#30 Posted by phisigmatau (463 posts) - - Show Bio

@thanosii said:

Thor was fast enough to deflect lasers from destroyer and those aliens, he also blitzed that frost monster durable enough to tank 400percent blast from ironman with no effect. iron man leveled a building with it against war machine.

tru that

its not even so much that he was deflecting the lasers from the chitauri, it was HOW. With a flick of his wrist Thor stops like 5 lasers coming at him at the same time.

And for anyone who says the destroyer had a long charge time, Thor waited until after the beam was shot to react with a counter shot to the destroyer.

now now now

Thor isn't blitzing, supes, but he doesnt have to. He can react to the blitz effectively if you ask me. I think its still a toss up. I dont think either can seriously damage each other because their endurance has been absolutely bananas...

#31 Posted by Perezite (1432 posts) - - Show Bio

@thanosii said:

Thor was fast enough to deflect lasers from destroyer and those aliens, he also blitzed that frost monster durable enough to tank 400percent blast from ironman with no effect. iron man leveled a building with it against war machine.

You mean the same so called "lasers" that Cap was able to block against and stuff?

You do realize that not ALL dews are lasers, right?

#32 Posted by phisigmatau (463 posts) - - Show Bio

LOL Cap has a full body shield its not like he was reacting on some matrix ish

on top of that Cap gets taken out by a beam even with his full body shield

Thor was knocking back multiple beams at the flick of his wrist, cmon bro

#33 Edited by RAC14 (33 posts) - - Show Bio

superman survived falling from space and a mini black hole. thor only has the advantage in one area energy projection. superman is also too faster and has better relexes. he is also superior in uses his flight when fighting. thor also had to work too hard to get the upper hand on ironman. honestly he should be have the same showing against ironman as extremis. thor was also concerned about falling from the hellicarrier and escaped just before it hit the ground to break his fall

#34 Edited by HBKTimHBK (5240 posts) - - Show Bio

@hbktimhbk said:

@willpayton said:

@hbktimhbk said:

Superman, he blitzes and even if Thor tries to fight back, Superman is a better fighter.

In theory Thor should be a better fighter. Superman had no fighting training whatsoever that I saw in the movie.

And what did Superman do in the movie to show that he's a better fighter than Thor?

He fought better and faster, which is more than I can say for Thor. Your only argument seems to be trying to connect the dots based off what's on paper, which doesn't hold up when Superman has shown superior feats.

#35 Posted by Pokeysteve (8093 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman just wrecks Thor here. I like to see Thor take two Kryptonians at once.

#36 Edited by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

He fought better and faster, which is more than I can say for Thor. Your only argument seems to be trying to connect the dots based off what's on paper, which doesn't hold up when Superman has shown superior feats.

I didnt say MoS Superman wasnt faster. But being faster doesnt make him a better fighter. That has to do with skill. Flash is faster than Batman and can beat him in a fight any day of the week. That doesnt make Flash a better fighter than Batman. Or do you think it does?

As far as being "better"... well that's what I'm asking about, isnt it? You cant just say that he was better because he was better. Give me an actual example of Superman showing better fighting skill than Thor.

#37 Edited by HBKTimHBK (5240 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@hbktimhbk said:

He fought better and faster, which is more than I can say for Thor. Your only argument seems to be trying to connect the dots based off what's on paper, which doesn't hold up when Superman has shown superior feats.

I didnt say MoS Superman wasnt faster. But being faster doesnt make him a better fighter. That has to do with skill. Flash is faster than Batman and can beat him in a fight any day of the week. That doesnt make Flash a better fighter than Batman. Or do you think it does?

As far as being "better"... well that's what I'm asking about, isnt it? You cant just say that he was better because he was better. Give me an actual example of Superman showing better fighting skill than Thor.

Flash can beat Batman and doesn't need to be a better fighter to do so, and by faster I meant his fighting speed, of course he could just blitz Thor and be done anyway too.

Superman fought and kept up with 2 Kryptonians that were destroying Smallville, something that Thor was not shown capable of doing. Their fight speeds was almost like a blur with their punches at times, something Thor never did. Faora would take Thor down just as easily.

#38 Posted by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio


Flash can beat Batman, and by faster I meant his fighting speed, of course he could just blitz Thor and be done anyway too.

So we agree that being faster doesnt make you a better fighter.

Superman fought and kept up with 2 Kryptonians that were destroying Smallville, something that Thor was not shown capable of doing. Their fight speeds was almost like a blur with their punches at times, something Thor never did. Faora would take Thor down just as easily.

I still dont see evidence that Superman is a better fighter than Thor. Nothing you said there shows that. And, I'd be surprised if there was ANY evidence, since as I already pointed out Superman has ZERO fighting experience or training, and Thor has a thousand years of experience being a warrior.

He beat the Kryptonians, but... so what? He's obviously stronger and faster than they are, having been on Earth for 30 years and they for, what, 1 day? So not only does he have more power, he's accustomed to using it. Of course he's going to beat them.

Whether Faora would defeat Thor is irrelevant.

All I see is you claiming that Superman can beat people, so therefore he's a good fighter. Again we're back to the Flash analogy. Flash can beat a lot of people, it doesnt make him a good fighter. Galactus can beat a lot of people. It doesnt make him a good fighter.

#39 Posted by The Stegman (23163 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't see how Thor can win. Yes, in theory he is the better trained fighter, but

Feats>>>>Theory. The only time I can ever recall Thor actually showing fighting ability besides randomly hitting things with his hammer is when he was depowered and took down featless SHIELD guards. Even if we were to give the fighting ability edge to Thor, he is facing someone who has shown to be superior to him physically in every category, speed, strength, endurance, durability, and Superman beat Zod, a person who was literally born and raised to be a warrior, as well as taking on Faora and Non at once (coming out of it with literally not a scratch on him). Superman wins.

#40 Edited by HBKTimHBK (5240 posts) - - Show Bio

@hbktimhbk said:

Flash can beat Batman, and by faster I meant his fighting speed, of course he could just blitz Thor and be done anyway too.

So we agree that being faster doesnt make you a better fighter.

It makes you a much more difficult opponent if your punches are coming in a lot faster, Superman punched at times as if he were a blur, along with the rest of the Kryptonians on Earth. Thor never showed that sort of prowess in a h2h fight, whether you wish he did or not because of what is on paper.

Superman is able to fight on par with better opponents, how does that not show Superman's superior ability? And it's funny how you keep bringing up things that take place off screen, but offer no on-screen event where Thor showed superior prowess to Superman. The entire fight in Smallville is a feat in Superman's favor, he was able to fight at such high speeds and held his own with militarily trained aliens, who actually displayed skill.

If you say he's stronger and faster than they are, which he isn't by the way, then this fight should be even more in Superman's favor. Faora's speed is on a whole other level comparative to any of the Avengers, let alone what Superman can do. And by the way, I'm talking her ability to fight at a blur while integrating her own fighting style, not that she can blitz which she of course could. Superman had a very difficult time with them because they were better trained, and the difference between them and Thor is they showed it. That doesn't mean he couldn't win, he was holding his own and even showed he could handle himself trading blows with these 2 Kryptonians.

Whether Flash would defeat Batman is irrelevant.

Superman is a good fighter, therefore he can beat people more trained than he is, or at least hold his own with them. He was trading blows quite skillfully if he could keep up with trained warriors such as Faora and Zod. All I see is you claiming Thor is a better fighter because the movie told you he fought more than Superman, which falls apart in a debate you see. Because Superman actually demonstrated better prowess keeping up with 2 Kryptonians at once (both highly trained and utilizing very fast fighting speeds), and Zod. What did Thor do on screen that makes him so much better than Superman in regards to fighting, Superman held his own against 2 Kryptonians. Not because he was blitzing them, but because he was fighting them. Which is more than I can say for Thor.

#41 Posted by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio
#42 Edited by HBKTimHBK (5240 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

You seem to be under the impression that I think Thor can beat Superman.

I'm not going to reply to the rest because it's all been covered already.

I'd sure hope not, it would make this a spite thread. Anyway, no I'm under the impression that you're looking at what's on paper and not what happened on screen, I'm still anxiously waiting for examples of Thor's fighting ability that beats what Superman did.

Yes, I did my best to cover it all.

#43 Posted by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't see how Thor can win.

I agree with that.

Yes, in theory he is the better trained fighter

That was the only point I was trying to make, since someone said (without evidence, or even regard for reason) that Superman is a better fighter than Thor. It's not just theory to say that Thor is a better fighter. Logic tells us this, due to Superman not having any training or experience that we know of, and Thor having a lot.

The only time I can ever recall Thor actually showing fighting ability besides randomly hitting things with his hammer is when he was depowered and took down featless SHIELD guards. Even if we were to give the fighting ability edge to Thor, he is facing someone who has shown to be superior to him physically in every category, speed, strength, endurance, durability, and Superman beat Zod, a person who was literally born and raised to be a warrior, as well as taking on Faora and Non at once (coming out of it with literally not a scratch on him).

They may be "featless", but we can safely assume that they were highly trained. SHIELD is an elite organization above the military, I dont think they have untrained people guarding stuff and going on top-secret operations.

Thor taking on those SHIELD agents while depowered is not the same as Superman defeating Non and Faora. Thor was on a physical level playing field with the agents, but I've seen no evidence that Superman and Faora/Non were. From what we know about how Superman's powers work, we can also assume that Non/Faora were not at his power levels since they just arrived on Earth.

Also, I remember that Thor fought a battle against those Frost Giants (or whatever they were) in which he took on a rather large number. He seemed to show a lot of skill, and then proceeded to one-shot kill this large creature thing. Why are you ignoring that battle?

#44 Posted by The Stegman (23163 posts) - - Show Bio

@the_stegman said:

I don't see how Thor can win.

I agree with that.

@the_stegman said:

Yes, in theory he is the better trained fighter

That was the only point I was trying to make, since someone said (without evidence, or even regard for reason) that Superman is a better fighter than Thor. It's not just theory to say that Thor is a better fighter. Logic tells us this, due to Superman not having any training or experience that we know of, and Thor having a lot.

@the_stegman said:

The only time I can ever recall Thor actually showing fighting ability besides randomly hitting things with his hammer is when he was depowered and took down featless SHIELD guards. Even if we were to give the fighting ability edge to Thor, he is facing someone who has shown to be superior to him physically in every category, speed, strength, endurance, durability, and Superman beat Zod, a person who was literally born and raised to be a warrior, as well as taking on Faora and Non at once (coming out of it with literally not a scratch on him).

They may be "featless", but we can safely assume that they were highly trained. SHIELD is an elite organization above the military, I dont think they have untrained people guarding stuff and going on top-secret operations.

Thor taking on those SHIELD agents while depowered is not the same as Superman defeating Non and Faora. Thor was on a physical level playing field with the agents, but I've seen no evidence that Superman and Faora/Non were. From what we know about how Superman's powers work, we can also assume that Non/Faora were not at his power levels since they just arrived on Earth.

Also, I remember that Thor fought a battle against those Frost Giants (or whatever they were) in which he took on a rather large number. He seemed to show a lot of skill, and then proceeded to one-shot kill this large creature thing. Why are you ignoring that battle?

As I already said, Feats>>>speculation. The security guards were fodder no named agents who themselves showed no other feats besides fighting and losing to Thor. Just saying they're elite soldiers means nothing, after all, talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words.

You use the word "assume" a lot, while I showed proof of Superman's superiority. In the film, Earth's atmosphere gave Kryptonians heightened abilities. Nowhere did it state that the longer they stayed on Earth, the greater their abilities become. All of Zod's soldiers including Zod showed to be on par with Superman, plus having more military training than him, yet he still beat them.

As for the Frost Giants, I didn't ignore them. In my post, I said "The only time Thor ever showed any fighting ability besides randomly hitting things with his hammer, was with the SHIELD Agents" when fighting the Frost Giants, what did he do? Randomly hit them with his hammer and flew through them..with his hammer. Something Superman has duplicated with his fight with Zod, only for a much more prolonged period of time.

In the end, alluded to fighting experience has very, very little to do with a battle. The movie can say Thor trained for A thousand years with the toughest Norse warriors this side of Midgard, but that means nothing if he hasn't the feats to back it up. Superman has feats that put him above Thor physically and combat wise.

#45 Posted by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd sure hope not, it would make this a spite thread. Anyway, no I'm under the impression that you're looking at what's on paper and not what happened on screen, I'm still anxiously waiting for examples of Thor's fighting ability that beats what Superman did.

I'm looking only at what happened in the movies.

Thor showed fighting ability when he defeated the highly-trained SHIELD agents, while depowered. He showed skill in the battle against the Destroyer armor. He showed skill when fighting the frost giants where he was fighting against multiple enemies. Superman defeated people because of his raw power and speed. I also already pointed out that Thor has more training and experience than Superman.

Yes, I did my best to cover it all.

I meant that you stated things that I already covered, like again giving as example that Superman defeated people because he was faster than them. I already said that this is not the same thing as skill.

#46 Edited by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

You use the word "assume" a lot, while I showed proof of Superman's superiority.

No, you gave an argument for why Superman can defeat Thor. I never disagreed with that. But if you're claiming that you gave proof that Superman has more fighting skill than Thor, then I do disagree with that because you didnt.

In the film, Earth's atmosphere gave Kryptonians heightened abilities. Nowhere did it state that the longer they stayed on Earth, the greater their abilities become. All of Zod's soldiers including Zod showed to be on par with Superman, plus having more military training than him, yet he still beat them.

This makes no sense. If Zod and his people had the same abilities as Superman, then logically they should have defeated him. It didnt say in the movie that their abilities increased with time on Earth, but it also didnt say that they got full abilities just by showing up on Earth. But, what's obvious from the film is that it takes a while to get used to those abilities.

I'm not even convinced that the strength and speed the Kryptonians showed on Earth (except for Zod at the end) was due to their Kryptonian powers, and not from their battle armor.

#47 Posted by HBKTimHBK (5240 posts) - - Show Bio

Then what's with this "In theory" talk? In theory didn't happen in the movies, sure what you're saying makes sense, I'm not saying it doesn't. What I'm saying is the main argument for why Thor is a better fighter doesn't work in reality.

As stated already, the SHIELD agents are featless and are there for Thor to beat. They are not comparable to anything Superman has done. The Destroyer armor however can work, but what feats does he have against the Destroyer armor that Superman couldn't replicate? Superman was fighting multiple enemies too. More dangerous ones at that. Superman defeated people because he fought with raw power and speed, not that he was just blitzing everyone in sight and one shotting all these Kryptonians. Besides, it's not like he wasn't matched to where it was unfair. Superman's ability to punch faster and harder makes him a better fighter. Thor hasn't shown this training and experience. If it helps, I'll give you this: Thor *should* be a better fighter, that doesn't mean he is one.

Superman defeated people who were as fast as him. The Kryptonians he fought were not noticeably slower than him, and for the majority of the time, they seemed even faster. But his ability to fight faster and harder with blur-like and powerful punches makes him a better fighter. His skill was the fact that he kept up with these Kryptonians that were trained, that shows skill.

#48 Posted by WillPayton (9186 posts) - - Show Bio

If the SHIELD agents were featless, and that's your criticism... what feats do the Kryptonians that fought Superman have? I mean, I can say the same thing. The Kryptonians are more powerful than the SHIELD agents, but they're comparable to Superman. So... Thor defeated multiple people on his level who are supposed to be skilled, but we havent seen that skill or any of their feats before they fought Thor. Huh, sounds exactly like what Superman did.

If by "better" you mean he can defeat better people, then yes. I havent said he cant. But if by better you mean more skilled, then no. That's why I already brought up the Flash analogy. Flash can defeat many people because he can hit faster and harder, but it doesnt make him a better fighter.

#49 Posted by RudeBomberBoy01 (1662 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor doesn't have any impressive feats because nothing has really challenged him yet. He just ploughs through everything with little effort.

#50 Posted by HBKTimHBK (5240 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

The SHIELD agents came in and lost, quickly. It's what fodder does. The Kryptonians aren't fodder, they fought against Superman blow for blow. The SHIELD agents were easily taken care of, the Kryptonians weren't. The biggest difference, Kryptonians weren't fodder for Superman just to one-shot, the "highly trained" SHIELD agents were.

I said he was a better fighter, not a skilled one because of his strength and speed. In fact, I clarified this in the post you're quoting. His skill comes from the fact that he can keep up with militarily trained Kryptonians who are fighting quite skillfully as well.