Jump to content

Raw STR: Marvel


lensman

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Kristopher

-major snip that does not relate to my post-

Someone then attempts to explain this by asserting that in the fictional setting, people who can attain that greater level don't become athletes, and athletes don't attain that level of performance. However, this gives us more questions than answers, as such a situation is a serious departure from human nature as we know it.

 

I have yet to see anyone explain this serious difference in human nature.

 

This is what I'm talking about. Most comic books show absolutely no sign that the writers have gone through this kind of thought process.

 

Kristopher,

Last night I was watching the first season of Smallville on DVD.

(I am sure that this will be dismissed out of hand, since it tends to disagree with your very well entrenched opinion, and since you have the easy outs of saying "TV not Comics" and/or "DC not Marvel". Don't mean to be rude, but the last time I attempted to make a case in this thread, you were rather dismissive, so I am just preparing in advance.)

 

In the first few episodes, Clark was discussing playing on the High School Football team.

His father replied that he could accidentally hurt someone, and that his powers were not given to him do do something as unimportant as being a football star.

There is a similar scene in Superman:The Movie (Christopher Reeve).

There are also similar themes in the origin of Spiderman.

 

I realize that these are "Superhumans" not "Peak Humans" (another easy out), but it appears that, in the world of comic books, people with exceptional abilites appear to think that it is more appropriate to do something like "fight crime" or "help humanity" than play professional sports.

 

On the villainous side, those with "Peak Human" (or greater) abilities, either seem to have personality problems that would not be acceptable to even the NBA or NFL (even if they will allow a "rapist" to play, I don't think they would accept a "casual killer" who actually killed people on the playing field!).

Those who are a bit more subtle, appear to think that something like sports is "beneath them".

I don't know what the current retcon is, but at one time Bullseye was supposed to have been a Pitcher in Professional Baseball. Obviously, once he discovered the other uses his talents could be put to, he decided on a "higher calling".

 

I am not attempting to argue the "real world" logic of these actions. I am saying that in the "Comic Book" world, there is support for the idea that people with "peak human" (and greater) abilities, tend to go into "alternative" activites, they don't just play Pro Football.

 

Also, in a world where Superhumans did exist, I could easily see a "stigma" attached to "Peak Humans". Much like the current steroid problem, anyone who exhibited talents that were too much above "average" would be suspected of being a metahuman, and it would be deemed "unfair" for them to compete in the normal leagues.

Unless there was a hard rule in the universe that every "superhuman" could be detected by a "urine test", people would tend to eye everyone who seemed "too good", with enough suspicion to end their career in professional sports.

 

KA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 740
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by KA.

Kristopher,

Last night I was watching the first season of Smallville on DVD.

(I am sure that this will be dismissed out of hand, since it tends to disagree with your very well entrenched opinion, and since you have the easy outs of saying "TV not Comics" and/or "DC not Marvel". Don't mean to be rude, but the last time I attempted to make a case in this thread, you were rather dismissive, so I am just preparing in advance.)

 

In the first few episodes, Clark was discussing playing on the High School Football team.

His father replied that he could accidentally hurt someone, and that his powers were not given to him do do something as unimportant as being a football star.

There is a similar scene in Superman:The Movie (Christopher Reeve).

There are also similar themes in the origin of Spiderman.

 

I realize that these are "Superhumans" not "Peak Humans" (another easy out), but it appears that, in the world of comic books, people with exceptional abilites appear to think that it is more appropriate to do something like "fight crime" or "help humanity" than play professional sports.

 

On the villainous side, those with "Peak Human" (or greater) abilities, either seem to have personality problems that would not be acceptable to even the NBA or NFL (even if they will allow a "rapist" to play, I don't think they would accept a "casual killer" who actually killed people on the playing field!).

Those who are a bit more subtle, appear to think that something like sports is "beneath them".

I don't know what the current retcon is, but at one time Bullseye was supposed to have been a Pitcher in Professional Baseball. Obviously, once he discovered the other uses his talents could be put to, he decided on a "higher calling".

 

I am not attempting to argue the "real world" logic of these actions. I am saying that in the "Comic Book" world, there is support for the idea that people with "peak human" (and greater) abilities, tend to go into "alternative" activites, they don't just play Pro Football.

 

Also, in a world where Superhumans did exist, I could easily see a "stigma" attached to "Peak Humans". Much like the current steroid problem, anyone who exhibited talents that were too much above "average" would be suspected of being a metahuman, and it would be deemed "unfair" for them to compete in the normal leagues.

Unless there was a hard rule in the universe that every "superhuman" could be detected by a "urine test", people would tend to eye everyone who seemed "too good", with enough suspicion to end their career in professional sports.

 

KA.

 

I'm not going to dismiss your example out of hand. However, I don't think Superman falls under the rubric of "peak human" that we've been so ernestly discussing. He's not human, first of all, and even if he was, he'd be still be unlike Cap and Bats in that he's not even supposed to be within the bounds of normal human potential.

 

I don't think that "peak but still not superhuman" individuals playing pro sports would be that much of a danger to the other athletes, since just like in the real world, they'd all be up there in 98th percentile.

 

If Bullseye had ever been a baseball pitcher, I'm not sure why he would leave that profession (look at how much he could make without risking death, jail time, etc). If he had some motivation or personality aspect that could explain his eventual career choice, that would be fine. If you read through the Purple Gang on the thread bearing their name, you'll notice that I at least attempted to give some solid reason as to why each one took up extralegal activities. Which also deals with "allowing villains on the playing field": why would someone with those abilities become a villain in the first place?

 

At the very least, I'd like to see some solid logic within the confines of the comics setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic within the confines of the comics setting is there.

 

Someone who sees his parents gunned down as a child and swears to avenge them, and having apparently no physical defects, and happening to be filthy rich - can train to excel as an acrobatic martial artist/scientist/detective at a level few if any Olympic athletes could match.

 

As to consequences, comics do raise these issues from time to time and give explanations for why some things change but why everyday life appears very much like our own. Reed Richards can cure a genetic disease but it doesn't mean he cures all of them. The government can afford to have a special power armored unit to guard superpowered prisoners but can't afford to have hundreds of suits on hand. There have even been examples in comics of characters with super powers who choose to live normal lives or "cash in" on them. And there have been athlete stories in comics as well. It's all there but it's a serial form. It's not going to tell the stories in any kind of orderly or balanced fashion because the primary stories they tell are the ones that sell. Mutants sold books really well for a long time so mutant stories became far more prevalent. Stories about guys who are exceptional physically but not more exceptional than Olympic athletes don't seem to sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agent X

The logic within the confines of the comics setting is there.

 

Someone who sees his parents gunned down as a child and swears to avenge them, and having apparently no physical defects, and happening to be filthy rich - can train to excel as an acrobatic martial artist/scientist/detective at a level few if any Olympic athletes could match.

 

As to consequences, comics do raise these issues from time to time and give explanations for why some things change but why everyday life appears very much like our own. Reed Richards can cure a genetic disease but it doesn't mean he cures all of them. The government can afford to have a special power armored unit to guard superpowered prisoners but can't afford to have hundreds of suits on hand. There have even been examples in comics of characters with super powers who choose to live normal lives or "cash in" on them. And there have been athlete stories in comics as well. It's all there but it's a serial form. It's not going to tell the stories in any kind of orderly or balanced fashion because the primary stories they tell are the ones that sell. Mutants sold books really well for a long time so mutant stories became far more prevalent. Stories about guys who are exceptional physically but not more exceptional than Olympic athletes don't seem to sell.

 

That's a big point - look at how successful sports comics are now. The only ones that come to mind (if you can stretch the term 'sport') as the wrestler comics, and although I haven't even looked at them, I think they have powers too.

 

There's been other threads on the psychological problems of the super-people. They all have screws loose, and so do the world that accepts them - one of the basic genre conventions.

 

I just wanted to ask about the "car-lifting granny" mystery. Two questions:

 

1) For my own edification on the argument:

 

I know one side argues that that can be used to illustrate human potential and the other uses that to show the problems of such acts (and the limits of potential therein). I also know that if you accept car-lifting grannies into the illustration of human potential, then you are using real-world facts, despite the general consensus that human potential in comics is unrelated to the real world. Doesn't that weaken the argument? If it's based on the disconnect with reality, then it isn't needed for the argument. I can see using it in a counter argument, but not as a support. Despite my own beliefs, the argument is fairly complete, just relies on accepting that fact (and anything that weakens that weakens the argument, IMO). Again, after reading three or four pages to catch up I may be completely backwords in my question, in which case just let me know I am wrong on that and this is an apology in advance if that is the case.

 

2) For both sides of the argument:

 

In the game, you do realize that for the car-lifting grannie to do that, she needs to have that strength already. Given the "no {unimportant] NPC will ever be able to push" restriction, no one, unless the granny suddenly becomes and important NPC, will be able to duplicate that feat. That's why they need heroes, since normal people have no chance whatsoever to do that. And if granny has a 30 Str, then she should probably be a hero (Aunt May, herald of Galactus?).

 

3) OK, so I thought of another question: Have there been any examples of normal human abilities to use as a standard of comparison? I can't think of any off-hand. Otherwise, all we have to go on is the writer's words that people like Batman and Cap are still human, despite all they can do. That's the circular argument I referred to (I think I did, maybe not) - we know that the things cap and batman can do are peak human because they are the things that cap and batman can do. For my mind, if they can do something that someone can do with superpowers (and by that I mean, we know they are superhuman, and they possess similar strength, dex/agility/etc, since thor can lift what cap can but that's not hard for him), then maybe there's room for doubt (at least in my mind). For example, is cap as agile as spider-man? I'd answer no, so that's one for the human column. Does that kind of analysis make sense? Build up a list of comparisons and see where things go. I mean, if the comic writers said that superman is peak human (well, how about captain comet, since he's an evolved-peak human), would we use that as the standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by badger3k

That's a big point - look at how successful sports comics are now. The only ones that come to mind (if you can stretch the term 'sport') as the wrestler comics, and although I haven't even looked at them, I think they have powers too.

 

There's been other threads on the psychological problems of the super-people. They all have screws loose, and so do the world that accepts them - one of the basic genre conventions.

 

I just wanted to ask about the "car-lifting granny" mystery. Two questions:

 

1) For my own edification on the argument:

 

I know one side argues that that can be used to illustrate human potential and the other uses that to show the problems of such acts (and the limits of potential therein). I also know that if you accept car-lifting grannies into the illustration of human potential, then you are using real-world facts, despite the general consensus that human potential in comics is unrelated to the real world. Doesn't that weaken the argument? If it's based on the disconnect with reality, then it isn't needed for the argument. I can see using it in a counter argument, but not as a support. Despite my own beliefs, the argument is fairly complete, just relies on accepting that fact (and anything that weakens that weakens the argument, IMO). Again, after reading three or four pages to catch up I may be completely backwords in my question, in which case just let me know I am wrong on that and this is an apology in advance if that is the case.

 

2) For both sides of the argument:

 

In the game, you do realize that for the car-lifting grannie to do that, she needs to have that strength already. Given the "no {unimportant] NPC will ever be able to push" restriction, no one, unless the granny suddenly becomes and important NPC, will be able to duplicate that feat. That's why they need heroes, since normal people have no chance whatsoever to do that. And if granny has a 30 Str, then she should probably be a hero (Aunt May, herald of Galactus?).

 

3) OK, so I thought of another question: Have there been any examples of normal human abilities to use as a standard of comparison? I can't think of any off-hand. Otherwise, all we have to go on is the writer's words that people like Batman and Cap are still human, despite all they can do. That's the circular argument I referred to (I think I did, maybe not) - we know that the things cap and batman can do are peak human because they are the things that cap and batman can do. For my mind, if they can do something that someone can do with superpowers (and by that I mean, we know they are superhuman, and they possess similar strength, dex/agility/etc, since thor can lift what cap can but that's not hard for him), then maybe there's room for doubt (at least in my mind). For example, is cap as agile as spider-man? I'd answer no, so that's one for the human column. Does that kind of analysis make sense? Build up a list of comparisons and see where things go. I mean, if the comic writers said that superman is peak human (well, how about captain comet, since he's an evolved-peak human), would we use that as the standard?

1) The car lifting grannies was a counter argument to the idea that we were even that certain about what human potential really is in the Real World. It was not an acceptance of Real World Measurements to determine what Peak Human is.

 

2) I guess car-lifting grannies don't happen under Hero Rules but heroes can chuck a half a ton of weight at peak human strength and lift over 3,000 pounds off the ground.

 

3) I have tried to come to some of my conclusions this way, comparing Cap and Power Man for instance. Captain Comet is a mutant who has the peak human traits of someone who has "evolved", I believe, 100,000 more years(?) It's some huge number. He's definitely superhuman as far as present-day comic book characters go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agent X

1) The car lifting grannies

 

This is a great name for a band.

 

Also off topic:

 

I think it was Boomerang who was a pitcher at one time, rather than Bullseye. Meyers was kicked out of the Australian Baseball League (I wonder if one exsists) for taking bribes, and outfitted by the Secret Empire. ( Maybe Bullseye was a pitcher too, I don't know that much about his background.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof that Marvel doesn't follow an exponential system for Str.

 

In Avengers Unplugged #1, Count Nefaria punches a maximum density Vision straight upwards, at least 100 feet. In the process, Vision goes crashing through 5 floors of Omnium Steel, each one about 5 feet thick, and then through about 5 feet of solid rock. In Champions terms, each 5' Omnium Steel floor would probably be about 20 def and 18 body.

 

The scary part is that the Vision comes flying back down a few panels later... :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Agent X

1) The car lifting grannies was a counter argument to the idea that we were even that certain about what human potential really is in the Real World. It was not an acceptance of Real World Measurements to determine what Peak Human is.

 

2) I guess car-lifting grannies don't happen under Hero Rules but heroes can chuck a half a ton of weight at peak human strength and lift over 3,000 pounds off the ground.

 

3) I have tried to come to some of my conclusions this way, comparing Cap and Power Man for instance. Captain Comet is a mutant who has the peak human traits of someone who has "evolved", I believe, 100,000 more years(?) It's some huge number. He's definitely superhuman as far as present-day comic book characters go.

 

1) OK, thanks for clearing that up for me - I wasn't sure when I wrote it.

 

3) The other way is to look from the opposite end - look at people like Hawkeye or the black widow (was going to say Black Panther, but I'd consider him superhuman with the herbage). See if the comics illustrate anything that they can't do and cap can. That doesn't quite settle the peak human question, since they aren't close (you'd assume that, since the writers never say so). Oh well, a lot of work - your way seems easier than a full-out analysis, which in any case probably wouldn't settle anything.

 

I forgot if Comet was 100,000 or 1,000,000 - I think it was 100,000 though. I used him since (to me) peak human means humans at their full potential - and he seems closer to a humans (or rather humanity as a race) full potential to me. Of course, when I thought of that, I completely blanked on what the definition for non-evolved heroes is (ie - an individual human being), so the peak-human bit for CC is not good for the argument. It really is a whole 'nother argument and doesn't belong in this thread. The rest of it (the "its whatever the writers say it is") is what I meant anyway. Long day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WhammeWhamme

So what exactly *do* people think of defining Captain America as the uppermost limit of what a 'human' basic biological structure could be designed to achieve?

 

i.e. as powerful as you can get without non-human genetics or biochemistry.

 

Seems to me to tie 'he's blatantly superhuman' in with 'only a man...'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by WhammeWhamme

So what exactly *do* people think of defining Captain America as the uppermost limit of what a 'human' basic biological structure could be designed to achieve?

 

i.e. as powerful as you can get without non-human genetics or biochemistry.

 

Seems to me to tie 'he's blatantly superhuman' in with 'only a man...'.

 

I gave mine, but I'll add one point - he's superhuman. and: if nothing else, his bodies ability to not-produce (or slowly produce) fatigue poisons, and his abilty to survive the freezing waters of the ocean (and maybe other things) have been attributed to the super-soldier serum. I don't agree with the idea that the serum pushed his body to its maximum potential, I feel that the serum provides the effects (or changed his genetics) - when the serum was removed from him (the first time, since I think its happened several times IIRC), he suffered from it - that implies to me that the serum provides some of his abilities, and that removed the "human" limit for him. He doesn't show any overt abilities (like goliath, say), and it's good PR (and especially was during WWII) to keep him in peoples mind as something that anyone could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

This is a great name for a band.

 

Also off topic:

 

I think it was Boomerang who was a pitcher at one time, rather than Bullseye. Meyers was kicked out of the Australian Baseball League (I wonder if one exsists) for taking bribes, and outfitted by the Secret Empire. ( Maybe Bullseye was a pitcher too, I don't know that much about his background.)

 

No argument about Boomerang, but at one time the Baseball Pitcher thing was part of Bullseye's origin. I think I read it in the OHOTMU, but I don't have it handy for pages and dates.

 

I have, however, found some people on the web who seem to share my delusion ;)

http://www.samruby.com/Villains/Bullseye/bullseye.htm

 

http://daredevil.dreamhost.com/castene.htm

 

KA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy

I've got to agree on Bullseye. I ran across something a few days ago that made mention of the fact that he was a pitcher (unlike Northstar, who is a catcher----bud-dum-bum!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way,

 

My favorite comic used to be Rex Morgan M.D. but then I realized that the survival rate of his patients was much too high.

Totally unbelievable.

He is obviously using some type of "Regeneration"!

 

Then I switched briefly to Mary Worth but once I added up how old she should actually be, I discovered that her creators had obviously given her "Life Support: Longevity"

And they dared to do so in a character that "claims" to be human!

I stopped reading in total disgust at this breach in internal consistency.

 

KA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KA.

By the way,

 

My favorite comic used to be Rex Morgan M.D. but then I realized that the survival rate of his patients was much too high.

Totally unbelievable.

He is obviously using some type of "Regeneration"!

 

Then I switched briefly to Mary Worth but once I added up how old she should actually be, I discovered that her creators had obviously given her "Life Support: Longevity"

And they dared to do so in a character that "claims" to be human!

I stopped reading in total disgust at this breach in internal consistency.

 

KA.

:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KA.

No argument about Boomerang, but at one time the Baseball Pitcher thing was part of Bullseye's origin. I think I read it in the OHOTMU, but I don't have it handy for pages and dates.

 

I have, however, found some people on the web who seem to share my delusion ;)

http://www.samruby.com/Villains/Bullseye/bullseye.htm

 

http://daredevil.dreamhost.com/castene.htm

 

KA.

 

Originally posted by Allandrel

The OHOTMU does indeed mention Bullseye "foregoing a career as a professional baseball player." As for why he would give that up for crime: he's a homicidal maniac, people. He enjoys killing people. The money from being an assassin is just a benefit.

 

Patrick J McGraw

 

 

This seems to be pretty good proof that baseball is evil. :D

 

(I really don't know much about Bullseye's orign, just seemed odd that they'd pick the same origin for two assassins who operate at about the same level.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't Hawkeye draw a 300 lb bow? and he is NO MATCH for Cap, imo.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by badger3k

1) OK, thanks for clearing that up for me - I wasn't sure when I wrote it.

 

3) The other way is to look from the opposite end - look at people like Hawkeye or the black widow (was going to say Black Panther, but I'd consider him superhuman with the herbage). See if the comics illustrate anything that they can't do and cap can. That doesn't quite settle the peak human question, since they aren't close (you'd assume that, since the writers never say so). Oh well, a lot of work - your way seems easier than a full-out analysis, which in any case probably wouldn't settle anything.

 

I forgot if Comet was 100,000 or 1,000,000 - I think it was 100,000 though. I used him since (to me) peak human means humans at their full potential - and he seems closer to a humans (or rather humanity as a race) full potential to me. Of course, when I thought of that, I completely blanked on what the definition for non-evolved heroes is (ie - an individual human being), so the peak-human bit for CC is not good for the argument. It really is a whole 'nother argument and doesn't belong in this thread. The rest of it (the "its whatever the writers say it is") is what I meant anyway. Long day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by gewing

Doesn't Hawkeye draw a 300 lb bow? and he is NO MATCH for Cap, imo.

 

According to OHOTMU, Hawkeye has 3 bows. One has a string tension of 80 lbs, one has 75 lbs, and one has 60 lbs. I have no idea how string tension converts to draw strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy
Originally posted by Gary

According to OHOTMU, Hawkeye has 3 bows. One has a string tension of 80 lbs, one has 75 lbs, and one has 60 lbs. I have no idea how string tension converts to draw strength.

 

Maybe it's talking about 3 strings on the same bow (?). I know that compound bows have different settings for each "string" (even though they're all actually one cord). I do remember reading that he had a 200-300 lb pull on his bow. But, like you, I've really got no idea how string tension converts to draw strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes absolutely NO sense. he flat out stated a 300 lb bow in one issue. A 60 lb bow is a nice hunting weight, a 75 lb is heavier than most people use, and an 80 is about the same. I read about a guy hunting in Africa who had a 95 lb longbow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Gary

According to OHOTMU, Hawkeye has 3 bows. One has a string tension of 80 lbs, one has 75 lbs, and one has 60 lbs. I have no idea how string tension converts to draw strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...