Matt's post wasn't written in asshole, so Roger must have missed it.

Hulk is strongest one there is. Period. 

Nothing stops the Juggernaut.  Period. 

Neither means that either can't be beaten.  No one is stronger than the Hulk.  No physical force stops Juggernaut's forward momentum.  It's magic. 

"If you're going to throw a haymaker, you want to put your entire body into it, and ensure that you're going to get the most power possible out of your swing.  If you cock your right arm all the way back to New England, you're going to want to put your right leg forward, so that you get as much extension as possible -- so you can lean into the punch, as it were.  With the other leg out front, your punch would be limited in power, and you might even hurt yourself!  (If you think I'm kidding, step away from the keyboard and run a slow-motion simulation for yourself -- swinging with the right arm while the left leg is out front will give you a hell of a muscle pull, and will certainly limit the power and extension of your punch.)"

Have to disagree with you completly there Frank. JB had it absolutely correct. You have to have your left leg forward when throwing a right punch, otherwise you are not only off balance, but you cannot exude as much power. Symetry is the key in this, and any martial arts and/or boxing class will teach the same.

I was kind of disappointed with that Hulk/Gladiator fight. I don't think the Hulk would have such an easy time beating Gladiator, nor did I buy into the whole Hulk is exuding too much radiation for Gladiator to fight him properly.

> Some of the more powerful Hulk moments:

Only one of those examples involves strength that can be argued to be in excess of 100 tons ... the mountain example.  Knocking out Gladiator isn't quantifiable, neither is shredding Onslaught -- unless you assume that knocking out Gladiator and shredding Onslaught requires strength in excess of 100 tons and then use those examples to prove your assumption.  And that is merely affirming the consequent -- which is very. very dodgey.

With respect to the mountain -- the thing was still in contact with the ground; it wasn't as if Hulk hoisted it over his head, so the amount of weight he, in his own words, "just braced," not, note, lifted, would have been minimal.  For the sake of argument, though, let's assume that it was 150 billion tons and that he lactually lifted it.  That's -- what? --  the only such feat in 20-some-odd years  (or, at least, one of the extremely rare few)?  To go by that feat as representative of Hulk's typical strength level is silly, in my opinion.  That'd be like treating Superman's Earth-shatteriring feat during IC as representative of Superman's typical strength level -- it's not.  It's an anomalous high-end feat. 

Which brings me back to a point I've made elsewhere and hinted at here: All too often, I have noticed, Marvel fans judge their favorite characters by the characters' highest end depictions -- no matter how rare such depictions are, while ignoring how these characters are most usually portrayed.  And/or, they apply the high end, minority feats of other favorite characters to these characters' continuities to pump up their lists of achievements and improve their batting averages.  But, when it comes to DC characters?  Not so much.  Superman, or whomever, is typically defined by his low end depictions -- trends are ignored and his high end is dismissed as "ridiculous" or "unrealistic" -- and the rare, high end of feats of other characters are never applied transitively to his record of depictions.  Rather, the low end or, at best, average depictions of his peers/villains are applied to his record to water it down and "prove" that his own high end and average depictions are "WRONG!"

In addition, I find that Marvel fans commonly aren't all too critical with the feats they cite for Marvel characters.  The Hulk/mountain example above is an example of this: Hulk "just bracing" a mountain that is still in contact with the ground becomes "Hulk lifted a mountain!"  Champion setting off a series of "increasingly greater" (or however it was termed) reactions that leads to the destruction of a planet becomes "Champion destroyed a planet by himself in one hit!"  Thor lifting an "ethereal" serpent coiled about our planet becomes "Thor lifted a snake heavier than Earth!"  These fans ignore that: 1) Hulk was only "bracing" somehting that was supported by the ground; 2) Champion merely "lit the fuse," so to speak; and, 3) Ethereal is the opposite of "composed of mass," so the weight is moot.  Etc., etc.

But with DC characters' feats?  Those are commonly ripped to shreds -- not with any evidence provided by the books in which these feats occur, but with bizarre theories and off-panel "facts" that have no basis in the books at all.  So, Superman tossing a spaceship "the size of a small moon" becomes -- I am NOT kidding here, an Alvaros poster actually said this -- "Superman tossed a spaceship made with the density of chocolate," which downplays the strength magnitude of this feat.  Superman flying from Earth to the Sun and back in the span of a few panels becomes "Superman used a wormhole between Earth and the Sun," which downplays the speed of this feat.  And Superman absorbing the energy of a blast said to be capable of destroying "half a galaxy" becomes "Superman absorbed the trigger of a blast said to be capable of destroying 'half a galaxy,'" downplaying the invulnerability magnitude of this feat.  Etc., etc.

And don't even get me started on how any number of Marvel fans I have encountered rationalize away their favorite characters' low end depictions.  Thor fearing for his life when assailed by jungle spears becomes "Thor pretending that he was human against those spears."  Hulk straining lift a massive object becomes -- again, I am NOT making this up; it's from the same Alvaros poster above -- "Hulk holding back a fart."  And Silver Surfer getting knocked out by a crowbar shot to the back of his head becomes "Silver Surfer pretending to get knocked out to make his assailants feel good."

But with DC characters?  Take a guess.

It's all so damn confounding.

_FR

Jeff Lommel, John Mietus is correct: I addressed that thread originally to Roger Jackson to ask him specifically about the avatar. I figured Roger must've missed it.

JB wrote: (About Hulk's healing factor)...That's just lazy writing.

I wasn't happy when it was said that the Hulk had a healing factor. I always thought the reason that Hulk didn't normally get cut, bruised, etc., was that he was just really, really, really TOUGH.

I also was annoyed when all of the sudden Norman Osborne was said to have a healing factor, and that's why he didn't really die. Ugh. 

> I like my Hulk indestructible, with unlimited strength,

Literally "unlimited strength" or comic book "unlimited strength"?  If literally, then it'd be small potatoes for Hulk to bench the mass of, say, 80 hundred bajillion universes compacted into a single point.  You want THAT sort of "unlimited strength" for the guy?

Seems a bit high to me.  I'm a huge Superman fan -- but I don't want anything like that for the Man of Steel.

_FR