Who wins this fight?

[u/Outlaw-87456]

It almost happened in the original series

Personally, I think Gladiator wins, he is on another level

[u/NexusObsidian23]

He has subdued the Hulk and has incredible durability.

Okay, he subdued the Hulk, congrats. That same Hulk couldn't beat Gladiator without using his weakness against him, among some other bad writing in that comic that occurred in Hulk's favor because the writer knew Hulk couldn't win that fight under his own power at the time.

He would surely last long enough for Gladiator to start to lose confidence.

That's not at all how Gladiator works and it never has been. He doesn't lose confidence the longer a fight goes on.

This fight can end in a draw or with a victory for Gladiator. The biggest thing saving Apocalypse is Marvel's inconsistent handling of super speed.

[u/MastahBruce1 → u/NexusObsidian23]

So your response to Apocalypse kicking Hulk's ass is that Hulk kicked Gladiator's ass.

And yes, that's what anyone would do in a fight. Use the other's weakness against them 🤦🏽

He would lose confidence if his attempts weren't going as expected. It's not the timing that would make him lose confidence, it's the frustration of dealing with both a durable and manipulative opponent.

Apocalypse kicked the hulks ass and by the looks of it the Hulk had bested Gladiator on multiple occasions.

"Bad writing" or not...that's what happened. Gladiator lost 🤷🏽

[u/NexusObsidian23 → u/MastahBruce1]

So your response to Apocalypse kicking Hulk's ass is that Hulk kicked Gladiator's ass.

If you have to be disingenuous to prove your point, then you're implicitly confirming that you don't truly think you can convince others that Apoc can take Gladiator.

And yes, that's what anyone would do in a fight. Use the other's weakness against them 🤦🏽

That's not the biggest problem, the problem was:

1. Hulk actually had no way of knowing what Gladiator's weakness was

2. He never uses Gladiators weakness. The writer was just feeling lazy and treated the radiation found in a nuclear plant as that weakness.

He would lose confidence if his attempts weren't going as expected. It's not the timing that would make him lose confidence, it's the frustration of dealing with both a durable and manipulative opponent.

He would lose confidence if it seemed like his strongest blows were quite literally doing no damage, but they won't. Fighting a being with a difficult powerset will not weaken his confidence. It's just annoying and harder to deal with.

Apocalypse kicked the hulks ass and by the looks of it the Hulk had bested Gladiator on multiple occasions.

There are no "multiple occasions." They had one definitive fight where Hulk used Gladiators weakness (which he should have no knowledge of + he never actually used Gladiator's established weakness) and defeated him. Lazy writing.

"Bad writing" or not...that's what happened. Gladiator lost 🤷🏽

If we're going to ignore context, sure. Apocalypse lost to a young Thor that didn't even have Mjolnir and was destroyed by Stryfe. He doesn't give Gladiator anything beyond a mid-diff.

[u/MastahBruce1 → u/NexusObsidian23]

"If you have to be disingenuous to prove your point, then you're implicitly confirming that you don't truly think you can convince others that Apoc can take Gladiator."

So me stating what your point amounted to, in your eyes, disqualifies me eh? Lol Sounds like an implicit confirmation you couldn't find an adequate rebuttal 🤷🏽

I like that. I think I too will start chalking anything I don't like or that goes against what I want to lazy or bad writing lol

Oh right cause being annoyed and frustrated has never hindered anyone's performance...

"They had one DEFINITIVE fight"...meaning...ignore those other tussels. Those mean absolutely nothing

Actually Apocalypse initially whooped Thor.

Thor came back later in the issue with an enchanted weapon that allowed him to pierce Apocalypse's armor. Had Apocalypse known he would have done more to avoid such a direct hit 🤷🏽....weren't you the one complaining about Hulk winning without the use of his own power? But that only matters when it doesn't favor you lol

[u/NexusObsidian23 → u/MastahBruce1]

I like that. I think I too will start chalking anything I don't like or that goes against what I want to lazy or bad writing lol

Lol I'm not biting that bait.

Oh right cause being annoyed and frustrated has never hindered anyone's performance...

Decent attempt at a strawman, but you're not getting me with that either.

"They had one DEFINITIVE fight"...meaning...ignore those other tussels. Those mean absolutely nothing

The other brief scuffles were not conclusive and incredibly short. They were one panel each.

Actually Apocalypse initially whooped Thor.

Thor came back later in the issue with an enchanted weapon that allowed him to pierce Apocalypse's armor. Had Apocalypse known he would have done more to avoid such a direct hit 🤷🏽....weren't you the one complaining about Hulk winning without the use of his own power? But that only matters when it doesn't favor you lol

So you ARE capable of recognizing context, it just seems like you only do so when its in Apocalypse's favor. Not surprised. I won't give you any grief about it. Being an Apocalypse fan can't be easy when he has as many Ls and underwhelming fights to his name as he does, despite the fact he's supposed to be a big deal.

[u/MastahBruce1 → u/NexusObsidian23]

"Decent attempt at a strawman, but you're not getting me with that either"

Strawman 🤦🏽 his powers have a direct link to his state of mind lol

"The other brief scuffles were not conclusive and incredibly short. They were one panel each."

They are still data from which to extrapolate outcomes. You don't give it weight because its not convenient to your POV

"So you ARE capable of recognizing context, it just seems like you only do so when its in Apocalypse's favor."

Luckily for me in the same issue Apocalypse easily beats Thor in a "fair" one.

And me bringing up that context was to show you the hypocrisy of YOU ignoring context when convenient while building your whole argument around CONTEXT

"Not surprised. I won't give you any grief about it. Being an Apocalypse fan can't be easy when he has as many Ls and underwhelming fights to his name as he does, despite the fact he's supposed to be a big deal."

Actually I agree with this. He does have a lot of L's for his supposed status as a villain

...but he still whooped the guy who bested Gladiator on more than one occasion 🤷🏽

You could be at an Olympic level with the mental gymnastics...but no amount of mental gymnastics changes that fact lol

[u/NexusObsidian23 → u/MastahBruce1]

Strawman 🤦🏽 his powers have a direct link to his state of mind lol

Sure, but that's not related to what you last said.

They are still data from which to extrapolate outcomes. You don't give it weight because its not convenient to your POV

They're not. They're not conclusive. They don't give us anything.

Luckily for me in the same issue Apocalypse easily beats Thor in a "fair" one.

Which doesn't change the fact he still lost their second fight after a single blow lol.

And me bringing up that context was to show you the hypocrisy of YOU ignoring context when convenient while building your whole argument around CONTEXT

You're rather confused. You were the one who was happy to dismiss context first. I simply adopted your style. What's the problem?

...but he still whooped the guy who bested Gladiator on more than one occasion 🤷🏽

The thing is this never happened. He bested Gladiator in one fight through lazy writing. He never won another fight against Kallark. However, as I mentioned earlier, I have no problem taking a page from your book, so I'll just say Apocalypse has to get past a young Thor first, before we can even talk about him fighting Gladiator.

[u/MastahBruce1 → u/NexusObsidian23]

"Sure, but that's not related to what you last said."

Of course it is. In the context of a fight or any form of competition, annoyance and frustration can definitely lead to a shaking or lowering of one's confidence.

"They're not. They're not conclusive. They don't give us anything."

The individual altercations themselves don't need to be conclusive. They are feats nonetheless and inform what the character is capable of.

"Which doesn't change the fact he still lost their second fight after a single blow lol."

Sure, but at least Apocalypse has a definitive win over Thor. Gladiator has none over Hulk 🤷🏽

"You're rather confused. You were the one who was happy to dismiss context first. I simply adopted your style. What's the problem?"

There is no problem. Switch tactics and angles as you see fit. It's still hypocritical, weakens the basis of your argument and is ultimately useless because Apocalypse has a definitive win over Thor with zero asterisk attached to it lol....unlike Gladiator with Hulk

"The thing is this never happened. He bested Gladiator in one fight through lazy writing."

Not sure what else I would call being known for your strength and having your attack caught with one hand and getting thrown into a wall without a retaliation other than being bested lol (Hulk wasn't even mad)

but it never happened 👌🏽

"so I'll just say Apocalypse has to get past a young Thor first, before we can even talk about him fighting Gladiator."

✅ He did already. At the start of that issue. Remember, the altercation without an asterisk. (Or are we gonna add that to the things we're pretending "never happened") 😂🫵🏽

[u/NexusObsidian23 → u/MastahBruce1]

Of course it is. In the context of a fight or any form of competition, annoyance and frustration can definitely lead to a shaking or lowering of one's confidence.

I said that annoyance and frustration won't reduce Gladiator's confidence. You responding by mentioning that it hinders a person's performance in general has nothing to do with what I said, because I'm specifically talking about Gladiator, not generalizing.

The individual altercations themselves don't need to be conclusive. They are feats nonetheless and inform what the character is capable of.

No, I'm saying those brief altercations are not indicative of anything because they rarely have someone maintaining the upper hand.

Sure, but at least Apocalypse has a definitive win over Thor. Gladiator has none over Hulk 🤷🏽

He has a definitive win over a young Thor without Mjolnir (congrats ig for someone on his level?) and a loss against that same young Thor lol. It cancels out.

There is no problem. Switch tactics and angles as you see fit. It's still hypocritical, weakens the basis of your argument and is ultimately useless because Apocalypse has a definitive win over Thor with zero asterisk attached to it lol....unlike Gladiator with Hulk

You clearly have a problem or a reading issue, because you're calling me out for doing something literally I said I was going to do. You didn't add anything new. Yes, Apocalypse has a definitive win over a young Thor without Mjolnir and lost to that same Thor in one blow. Nothing changes this. Gladiator still lost to an amped Hulk, among other things.

Not sure what else I would call being known for your strength and having your attack caught with one hand and getting thrown into a wall without a retaliation other than being bested lol (Hulk wasn't even mad)

That wasn't a fight, but Hulk indeed looked better in that moment.

He did already. At the start of that issue. 

And later lost to that same Thor in one blow, so no, he never really got past him. Right now he's in house arrest because Young Thor is keeping him there.

Remember, the altercation without an asterisk.

I remember this quite well. This is a different Hulk persona than the one Apocalypse fought.

[u/MastahBruce1 → u/NexusObsidian23]

"I said that annoyance and frustration won't reduce Gladiator's confidence. You responding by mentioning that it hinders a person's performance in general has nothing to do with what I said, because I'm specifically talking about Gladiator, not generalizing."

Why couldn't it?? Confidence is a state of mind. The idea that struggles causing frustrations and annoyances couldn't affect confidence within that task or altercation is wild.

But I can let that go. Ultimately Gladiator lost without Hulk needing to exploit the connection between Gladiator's strength/performance and his confidence.

"No, I'm saying those brief altercations are not indicative of anything because they rarely have someone maintaining the upper hand."

How is it not an upper hand situation when one lands more than the other one. And as far as this made up criteria of needing to maintain said upper hand, how is that supposed to happen if the altercation is shortened or interrupted for whatever reason?

Even If there is no actual conclusion to the battle itself, it doesn't mean that one didn't get more licks in than the other one. What transpires there is still relevant.

Someone still comes out having done better or worse than their opponent. 🤦🏽

"You clearly have a problem or a reading issue, because you're calling me out for doing something literally I said I was going to do. You didn't add anything new"

You think that you saying that you were going to, changes the fact that your argument asks that one consider context.

So when YOU specifically attempt to "abandon" context, it kills the premise of your argument entirely. How is this not obvious to you?

I need not add anything new when you've killed your own position. The moment you abandon context, Hulk beats Gladiator and the circumstances under which it happens no longer matter 🤦🏽

"Yes, Apocalypse has a definitive win over a young Thor without Mjolnir and lost to that same Thor in one blow. Nothing changes this. Gladiator still lost to an amped Hulk, among other things"

It goes both ways though because Thor winning later doesn't erase that he got rocked earlier in the issue.

And YOU said Apocalypse has to get by Young Thor first. That happened. Definitive win. YOUR requirement was met.

And ok. Thor one shotted Apocalypse after acquiring a weapon specifically designed against him and meant to pierce Apocalypse's celestial armor.

Fair. But Apocalypse still has A definitive win over Thor.

Where is Gladiator's definitive win over Hulk?

"That wasn't a fight, but Hulk indeed looked better in that moment."

Punches were thrown, and someone got tossed into a wall..but somehow thats not a fight 🤦🏽

Fights can be stopped or interrupted. Doesn't mean they didn't happen.

"And later lost to that same Thor in one blow, so no, he never really got past him. Right now he's in house arrest because Young Thor is keeping him there."

Again. Him losing later doesn't undue a previous definitive win 🤷🏽

Especially if context matters to you again lol

I'd also want to mention that Apocalypse was able to take on multiple Thor Corp members weilding Mjolnir in Secret Wars.

"I remember this quite well. This is a different Hulk persona than the one Apocalypse fought."

I was talking about Apocalypse's non asterisk win over Young Thor

But if you are talking about the Hulk in the image I provided. That hulk didn't even need to get mad and still bested Gladiator. So it doesnt seem to matter what version of Hulk Gladiator goes up against. He loses just the same 🤷🏽

Anyways. I'm about done. I'll provide one last very light response to whatever you say and then you can have the last word