DEATH BATTLE

The Hulk and Todd Ingram are two completely different characters in two completely different settings with two completely different powers and two completely different personalities.

Your comparison doesn't work when you consider the fact that The Hulk is not always at his maximum power while there's no reason to assume that Todd Ingram isn't always using his maximum power

And drawing two logical conclusions is not "a lot of logical leaps and assumptions".

edited 19th Oct '16 3:30:39 PM by EpicBleye

Sure there is. The supermarket.

Here's the thing about restraint. Vegeta has no restraint either, but that doesn't mean he blows up the galaxy with every punch. You can be an impulsive, violent maniac and still know how to keep your power in check.

Todd Ingram destroyed a supermarket, but Todd Ingram is a continent-buster. If he was constantly using his full power in everything, there wouldn't be a Canada after that. If every single thing he ever did was done with the power to destroy a continent, he would have destroyed the continent at some point.

He does not at any point destroy the continent. Erego, at no point is he using enough power to destroy the continent.

edited 19th Oct '16 3:32:09 PM by TobiasDrake

Or, you know, he can just condense that power into a smaller form, just like half the characters in fiction are capable of doing.

Again, the supermarket imploded (keeping all the energy within that area) and Todd can concentrate his psychic powers.

Amy vs. Ramona is probably the first Death Battle I've been disappointed in.

Most of the "implausible" Death Battle victories seem to be the result of the Sliding Scale of Seriousness Versus Silliness and how it can affect a character's power level when power level is taken dead straight. I'm perfectly fine with power level being taken dead straight because that is the point of this series. It just would not work otherwise. Gaara vs. Toph, and Yang vs. Tifa did come up with reasoning for both character's victories, and although I do not want to argue about that right now I'd say it was not overly flawed. This battle was OK, for the most part. Amy does indeed overpower Ramona. The problem I have with it is that it completely brushes aside Ramona's ability to control Subspace. They outright say that Ramona overpowers Amy inside Subspace, they outright say that Amy is not of a tactical mind. I do not see how it would occur to Amy, who is stated to smash first and ask questions later, not to face Ramona head on, even if there are fifty of her. If they provided some sort of reasoning as to why Amy could beat her even within Subspace, then I would have accepted it, but it seems that they just gloss over a major point in order to give the battle a proper conclusion.^note And before you accuse me of favoritism, keep in mind that I've never read, seen, or played Scott Pilgrim.

...???

Edit: To be more clear, I'm going off of what Wiz and Boomstick said at the end of the episode.

I am perfectly fine with the episode now that I hear this. Carry on.

edited 19th Oct '16 3:48:37 PM by GM_3826

Dang, rewatching and now I heard that heroin joke.

There is nothing Ramona can do within, or with Subspace that augments her fighting ability changes the fight. Gideon Graves is the one who took Subspace and weaponized it. Ramona uses it basically for Chaos Control-like teleportation.

• She keeps weapons in there (like most dames).
• She flees from bad relationships using it (like most dames)
• It's basically a pocket dimension in her backpack.

I don't know why there needs to be special reasoning to "beat her even within Subspace." It's not like Ramona's powers increase exponentially there, as far as I remember. She's not Raven from Teen Titans.Sure there were clones of her in there but Amy is still, arguably more powerful.

Yeah, that clicked a moment after I edited. They did say "Ramona had an advantage in Subspace," but I'm at a loss for where they got that from because she doesn't exhibit any boosts.

Subspace is supposed to be a literal "tunnel" into a person's mind, and Gideon was able to control Ramona's mind through it. But that was exclusively his thing, Ramona did nothing of the sort.

edited 19th Oct '16 3:53:24 PM by Soble

Hrh-hrm.

PROCEED.

Maybe Hulk will fight Alex Mercer. Make me happy Screwattack.

I'm personally hoping that they save Alex Mercer for a fight against Carnage.

"In the actual comic she was able to temporarily overpower Gideon who was already immensely powerful in subspace. Not just through numbers one can assume."

This doesn't actually PROVE anything but is an interesting point that one of my friends brought up. Maybe that was Screw Attack's reasoning.

Part of the issue with dealing with Subspace is that Gideon (and everyone else) only escaped from Subspace because Ramona specifically blocked Gideon's attack with her bag (which was a representation of her mind and will), so even saying that you can just break out of Subspace with a strong enough attack is really really iffy.

However I'm not holding whatever happened in there against Amy or whatever since we really don't have anything to go on how powerful Ramona is in there. All we know is that Gideon was "all-powerful in her head, man" because of The Glow shenanigans and the fact that he's a dick.

edited 19th Oct '16 4:05:16 PM by EpicBleye

Or he just wasn't using continent-busting power with every punch, also like half the characters in fiction are capable of doing.

If you want to say Scott withstood continent-shattering blows, you have to prove that Todd was using continent-shattering strength when throwing those attacks. A missed punch that shatters Canada, for example, or even some exposition saying that he's condensed his full power into his blows. Does he even ever say he's holding nothing back and hitting Scott with 100% strength?

This entire argument is predicated on, "Well, it's in his personality so he just would," but that's an assumption.

Your argument is based on "Well it's never blatantly stated that he's using his full power so therefore he isn't even though it's against his personality", which is just as big of an assumption.

It's not an assumption to say there isn't sufficient data to call this a feat. The default state of a claim is false. The burden of proof is on you to show that your feat actually occurred.

This is not a debate between equally meritorious claims. This is a fact-check. Do the facts line up with the claim? Is there sufficient evidence to prove it true? If the answer is not Yes, then it is No.

edited 19th Oct '16 4:25:56 PM by TobiasDrake

I'm providing several evidences of proof which is backed up with consistency between personalities, events, and fights against other characters between volumes. You're just refusing to recognize them as evidence and just brushing them off since it isn't being explicitly stated "I AM TODD INGRAM AND I AM USING CONTINENT BUSTING POWERS ON SCOTT PILGRIM WHO IS JUST AS DURABLE AS RAMONA WHOM CAN TOTALLY KICK AMY ROSE'S ASS"

(Yes, that last sentence is an exaggeration and a joke)

I know exactly how the burden of proof works.

edited 19th Oct '16 4:31:53 PM by EpicBleye

Also implosions and stabbing aren't the same kind of attack. Maybe Ramona has +5 defense against piercing attacks?

So, for accuracy's sake, I just went back and revisited Scott Pilgrim & the Infinite Sadness.

Here's the thing about Todd's attacks. Not only is there no evidence that he's using the same amount of force that cratered the moon, there is actually physical evidence to the contrary. Most of his attacks involve punting Scott into objects. Todd doesn't really touch Scott much at any point, relying mostly on TK throws.

The hardest he hits Scott is when he sends him up into the air and lets him fall. That's not really Todd hitting him, though, so much as letting the Earth hit him. During Yang v. Tifa, the team estimated the force of terminal velocity as ~50 tons of force.

After that, the next hardest is when he knocks Scott through a brick wall. I'm not sure how hard of a hit this would take.

During the final showdown, he also lobs Scott several times into walls or the bar, but none of the blows are hard enough to actually break the object Scott collides with.

edited 19th Oct '16 6:54:18 PM by TobiasDrake

That still doesn't account for the implosion thing, which is definitely Todd using his full power, and of coursw there's the terminal velocity thing.

Regardless I doubt we're going to convince each other anytime soon (see: ever), so we should probably just agree to disagree at this point to avoid bogging up the thread. I have plenty of other issues with the battle as well (such as Amy using several forms of media despite being in very different universes and power scales, using an essentially made-up number for how big her hammer is, equating her speed with battle agility, her destroying the bag at all, etc).

The animation and music was good tho

edited 19th Oct '16 9:08:59 PM by EpicBleye

Does Hulk really stand a chance against his opponent?

They're most likely using composite Banner, as he's the iconic Hulk, but does he have any feats that would compare to Doomsday or Asura?

Unless his opponent is actually Bane, Doomsday has defeated the Justice League and killed Superman by sheer force and is a growing resistant creature, and Asura.is a Demigod who beats the shit out of other Demigods.

The Hulk might have a chance against base Doomsday. However, the question is whether they are going to take into account that Doomsday will come back stronger and resistant to Hulk's powers and abilities.

If they are going with the Doomsday that is resistant to Superman, The Hulk is screwed.

edited 20th Oct '16 12:22:47 AM by Blurring

Hulk also exhibits rapid adaptability. Nick Fury theorized — and was proven right — that Hulk can adapt to hostile environments, even airless space.

Doomsday was created to kill Superman in a straight up fist-fight. That's the base we're working with, here, and he only got more durable since.

The Hulk has some impressive feats here and there, but not only do they require a specific set of circumstances (such as, say, believing that his enemies are responsible for destroying his home and killing his family), they probably still fall short of many of Superman's feats.

He was? I thought he was bioengineered on prehistoric Krypton to be an eternally-resurrecting monster that metamorphoses upon revival to become immune to whatever kills it?

The basic problem with going "Doomsday was strong enough 'kill' Superman, ergo he matches Superman's feats" (beyond being able to fight X other character rarely ever being an applicable "feat") is that while it's arguably technically accurate, it's something that falls victim to comic books infamous Power Creep, Power Seep, Era Specific Powers and just plain general narrative power level differences combined with Comic-Book Time.

For example, Death Battle analyzes Superman as significantly more powerful than he "actually" is (a tendency in a lot of their matchups) because they take individual events and takes them at face value, ignoring the fact that the exact level of Superman strength varies depending on the writer, and that comic book writers have a bad habit of trying to push the bar by having a scene where the characters do something even crazier and more broken than their last test of strength and ability, while not actually having that level of strength be a regular part of their powerset or even necessarily having it be reference. To Death Battle, their "regular" powerset is not as important as their strongest so you have the problem of using outliers to analyze the base.

The only real downside to that is that their analyses aren't always applicable to the characters in general because of it, but it might cause a problem with Doomsday's abilities, because it's them running on the coattails of another analysis like that. There's reason to assume he has infinite strength - for example - except for the fact that they've already given Superman infinite strength, and it doesn't make sense for Doomsday to win in a fistfight without it given that. Which means now we're assuming Doomsday has infinite strength, and the only thing sustaining their conclusions are their previous conclusions, or in short using themselves as evidence.

Or in short, using a separate character as the baseline for a characters' feats - as apposed to sticking exclusively to their own visible feats - is always going to be a problem, especially with superhero characters.

edited 20th Oct '16 1:54:09 AM by KnownUnknown

That's his Watsonian (that is, in-universe) backstory. I meant in a Doylist sense: he was created to be the enemy that kills Superman.

I do agree that power-scaling should be done carefully. Defeating someone doesn't necessarily mean you're stronger, or as durable, nor does it mean that it is relevant for the DB match-up (for example, Solid Snake defeating giant mechs or a psychic villain isn't necessarily an advantage when his opponent is Sam Fisher).

I feel the comparison with Superman makes sense, though. Hulk vs Doomsday is a contest of strength and durability (much like Flash vs Quicksilver was speed), so the fact that Doomsday regularly (out)matches Superman in those respects sounds pretty relevant (and not just Superman, Doomsday is a behemoth to any superhero that fights it).

While I don't think Superman's strength is literally infinite (DB's "no limits" argument, to me, has more merit as a general and narrative-focused statement than anything else), it is still pretty darn high. I do agree that outliers should be taken with a grain of salt, but there are multiple instances of Superman going to space, moving and/or breaking apart planets. Those seem pretty frequent, and Doomsday being capable of the same sounds plausible.

Hey, here's a crazy idea for Death Battle:

Sans and Papyrus vs. Wiz and Boomstick