Garou Lifting Strength Calc Discussion

[Kachon123]

In this thread, the additions for Garou for the last couple chapters were added, including his new AP, Keys, Lifting Strength, and more. In there, arguments were made regarding the different calculations for Garou's Lifting Strength should be used.

The first version, Class Y (Zamasu_Chan)

The second version, Class Z (Therefir)

This thread will be used to discuss which calc makes the most sense based off of logic and what we see in the manga. Please try to stay on topic and make this straightforward so we can wrap this up as soon as possible.

 

[Megaraptor149]

Following this

 

[WrongIdea21]

I'm waiting for some input first but I think Therefir's Calc is better.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

I prefer Zamasu's version. The frame of time between Garou piercing into the Earth and the plate actually bulging outside of the planet was long enough for a group of human civilians to react to the environmental damage around them, so fifteen seconds is reasonable.

 

[Second22]

I think Class Y is too high. for Garou now And shockwave feat is unlikely to be LS, so Class Z is the safest.

 

[KLOL506]

Eh.... both of these calcs represent different feats.

One is pushing through the crust, the other is causing a big-ass continent to rise up.

 

[Panache_x]

Eh.... both of these calcs represent different feats.

One is pushing through the crust, the other is causing a big-ass continent to rise up.

The one for LS is 100% preferable
The misconception of it being AP has been the main problem

Eh.... both of these calcs represent different feats.

One is pushing through the crust, the other is causing a big-ass continent to rise up.

 

[PrinceofPein]

What’s the point of this thread, only one of this calc is for LS and even that one is iffy

 

[RatherClueless]

Neither are LS. What's even the point of this? As of now nobody has explained why this is a LS feat rather than just coming from the impact outside of "isn't it obvious?", which isn't a valid argument when you can't even point out even one reason as to why it is obvious.

 

[Chariot190]

I'd assume it's because it's a push-esque attack of which the impact itself is derived from the force of the push, in which, under wiki standards, pushing qualifies for LS.

 

[RatherClueless]

I'd assume it's because it's a push-esque attack of which the impact itself is derived from the force of the push, in which, under wiki standards, pushing qualifies for LS.

You'd have to proof it happened without the AP of the initial impact or find a way of subtracting it. Even that's iffy though, as continuing to move at a certain speed is different than accelerating to a certain speed.

 

[Chariot190]

Why are you telling me this? You asked why, I gave you the reason why people are doing it. I really don't give a **** if it's applied or not so I'm not really the person you should be arguing with.

 

[KLOL506]

@AbaddonTheDisappointment @Migue79 @CloverDragon03 @Dark-Carioca @DemonGodMitchAubin @DontTalkDT Sorry to drag you guys into this again but we really need some assistance here.

 

[KLOL506]

The one for LS is 100% preferable
The misconception of it being AP has been the main problem

Not denying that.

What I meant was, are those the same events? Is the crust-busting feat really the same feat as the tectonic plate rise? Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read that chapter.

 

[Kachon123]

You'd have to proof it happened without the AP of the initial impact or find a way of subtracting it. Even that's iffy though, as continuing to move at a certain speed is different than accelerating to a certain speed.

We see Garou continuing to push through in later panels. The chapter is in chronological order.

 

[Migue79]

Sorry to drag you guys into this again but we really need some assistance here.

Would it be okay if I could give my input a bit later? I am a little busy atm.

 

[Chariot190]

Not denying that.

What I meant was, are those the same events? Is the crust-busting feat really the same feat as the tectonic plate rise? Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read that chapter.

Both are part of the same attack.
Garou slams/pushes/whatever Saitama into the earth, shockwaves or whatever from the push, push up the crust on the other side of the planet.
They're technically the same event I guess? They're two different effects derived from the same action, sauce.

 

[KLOL506]

Both are part of the same attack.
Garou slams/pushes/whatever Saitama into the earth, shockwaves or whatever from the push, push up the crust on the other side of the planet.
They're technically the same event I guess? They're two different effects derived from the same action, sauce.

Ah. I see.

 

[RatherClueless]

Why are you telling me this? You asked why, I gave you the reason why people are doing it. I really don't give a **** if it's applied or not so I'm not really the person you should be arguing with.

I replied to the reasoning in the comment. Not you specifically (it was you as in "the ppl pushing for this"). No need to feel so attacked, lol.

 

[Damage3245]

Seems hard to prove that the "lifting" was a result of Garou striking the Earth or him subsequently pushing downwards after that. If it is the former, then lifting strength obviously doesn't apply.

 

[Kin201]

A possible rating should be used in this case then.

 

[RatherClueless]

If something doesn't qualify it doesn't qualify.

 

[Kin201]

Did you manage to prove that the former is definitely the case?

 

[RatherClueless]

Did you manage to prove that the former is definitely the case?

I do not have to disprove a claim that not only has no evidence for it, but also goes against occams razor. That's not how debating works, lol

 

[LaserPrecision]

I do not have to disprove a claim that not only has no evidence for it, but also goes against occams razor. That's not how debating works, lol

They're not asking you to disprove a claim. They're asking you to prove your affirmative claim. Or to quote them "did you manage to prove that the former is definitely the case?".

 

[RatherClueless]

They're not asking you to disprove a claim. They're asking you to prove your affirmative claim. Or to quote them "did you manage to prove that the former is definitely the case?".

ok, just gonna make sure we are all talking about the same claim here.

The claim in question is "The lifting did (not) come from Garou(, but the impact)", right?

 

[LaserPrecision]

ok, just gonna make sure we are all talking about the same claim here.

The claim in question is "The lifting did (not) come from Garou, but the impact", right?

I presume so? The way I interpreted, they want to know why the feat being caused by the impact as opposed to a push that supposedly followed (or prior?) is more valid. Which would supposedly make it a lifting strength feat. (I'm extremely neutral on the topic as I'm not caught up at all with One Punch Man, so I'm not against or with you to clarify).

 

[RatherClueless]

I presume so? The way I interpreted, they want to know why the feat being caused by the impact as opposed to a push that supposedly followed is more valid. Which would supposedly make it a lifting strength feat. (I'm extremely neutral on the topic as I'm not caught up at all with One Punch Man, so I'm not against or with you to clarify).

Well, yeah. In that case what I said stays the same. I honestly don't need to prove anything. Burden of proof is on them.

 

[LaserPrecision]

Well, yeah. In that case what I said stays the same. I honestly don't need to prove anything. Burden of proof is on them.

The burden of proof is on both parties actually. Both have made positive assumptions. Their's is that it was derived by the push. Yours is that it was derived from the impact. Until one of you provides evidence, you're posting equal interpretations. Resulting in an equivocal conclusion. This means at best, this would be considered an ambiguous feat, which would result in a "Possibly" or "Likely" proposal for Garou's profile.

The burden of proof would only not be on you if you only made a negative claim, i.e. "The continent shifting was not derived from the push". However, you also posited a positive claim that requires proof. You can't duck giving proof for your claim too, just because they haven't.

How can constructive discourse be achieved if you're unwilling to defend your point?

 

[RatherClueless]

The burden of proof is on both parties actually.

That's not true. The burden of proof is on the party not favoured by occams razor. The one with the simplest assumption does not need to disprove nor prove anything unless there is evidence to the contrary, which there isn't. If someone punches through two bricks, I do not have to prove it was a punch, even if someone else makes a claim that it was pushing from the second brick onwards, as the punch only broke the first brick. One is the simplest assumption while the other is a baseless assumption. Unless there is concrete evidence that the more complex assumption is true, it should not be assumed.

 

[RatherClueless]

Also, just to be clear. I am not denying that he wasn't continuing to push into the ground. His thrusters were clearly still going. My point is that unless this was done with 0 influence of the impact, this isn't LS.

If someone wants to make the claim that it was done by him pushing and only him pushing, that needs evidence.

Giving a likely/possibly for headcanon on how his impact dispersed into the surroundings does not fly.

 

[LaserPrecision]

That's not true. The burden of proof is on the party not favoured by occams razor.

Then prove yours is favored by Occam's razor, simple as that. You can't just state it is without presenting evidence. Opposition can just as easily make the claim their's is favored by Occam's razor.

The one with the simplest assumption does not need to disprove nor prove anything unless there is evidence to the contrary, which there isn't.

I am aware of occams razor, prove yours is favored here. That's all you have to do, it's not hard.

If someone punches through two bricks, I do not have to prove it was a punch, even if someone else makes a claim that it was pushing from the second brick onwards, as the punch only broke the first brick.

In your case, the result is definitive. You yourself stated for the analogy, making you word of god, that the punch broke both of the bricks. We know the most simple conclusion to come to from the get-go. When feats become ambiguous, it's not as simple. For example, if you stated someone punched 1 brick, and it broke, but the brick beneath that brick also broke without specifying how that second brick broke, you have to make interpretations based on the physical evidence. In that case anyways, physical evidence isn't always required, such as in texts with no illustrations.

Also, just to be clear. I am not denying that he wasn't continuing to push into the ground. His thrusters were clearly still going. My point is that unless this was done with 0 influence of the impact, this isn't LS.

If someone wants to make the claim that it was done by him pushing and only him pushing, that needs evidence.

Giving a likely/possibly for headcanon on how his impact dispersed into the surroundings does not fly.

I'm not sure how strict the LS standards are here, but is it true (preferably staff members) that there needs to be absolutely zero influence from the impact for it to count as lifting strength? I've seen feats used for lifting strength that involved some impact. Such as one of Sonic's lifting strength feats that involve him leaping into and pushing off the face of a golem, that pushed the golem back. In that case, the foot still impacted the golem, but wasn't the contributing factor, it was Sonic pushing back against it after making contact with it that caused it to fly back. In this case, that would mean some impact was involved. So does that mean any feat involving impact is invalid? (Although going by the definition of impact, that would make a lot of lifting strength feats invalid, for the most part feats involving pushing)

Likely/Possibly is for when a feat is ambiguous and a conclusion can't be reached.

 

[Damage3245]

@Jibz; Stop posting that.

 

[Jibz]

Fair enough, i just commented it so i'd be able to get notif's from this place as i was invested in the convo here founded in the original Garou CRT. I'll just say following instead (even though its lame and they effectively do the same thing)

ballsack

 

[RatherClueless]

Then prove yours is favored by Occam's razor, simple as that. You can't just state it is without presenting evidence. Opposition can just as easily make the claim their's is favored by Occam's razor.

In your case, the result is definitive. You yourself stated for the analogy, making you word of god, that the punch broke both of the bricks. We know the most simple conclusion to come to from the get-go. When feats become ambiguous, it's not as simple. For example, if you stated someone punched 1 brick, and it broke, but the brick beneath that brick also broke without specifying how that second brick broke, you have to make interpretations based on the physical evidence. In that case anyways, physical evidence isn't always required, such as in texts with no illustrations.

The fact that you can't visualize someone breaking two bricks by slamming their hand through them, without immediately assuming it was the punch, kind of proves my point tbh.

In the case of Garou, we see him charging into the ground and there is never an indication that it switched from that to lifting. Saying that it must be lifting because he kept pushing is like saying a punch is only ever just AP if they stop the moment they hit the surface of the object they want to punch.

My claim is that since there is no indication of the impact ever stopping, so we shouldn't make assumptions on what is or isn't LS. Since we can't make assumptions, we can't determine LS

The other side claims that at an exact point X (with no evidence) it changed from Impact to LS

I claim one feat, because I can't prove anything, they claim two without proving anything. If one of those two isn't far simpler than the other than I rly don't know.

I'm not sure how strict the LS standards are here,

Not as strict as they should be.

I've seen feats used for lifting strength that involved some impact.

Two wrongs don't make a right

I'll just clarify the physics real quick.
Pushing or lifting means accelerating an object that was stationary to you. What do I mean by that?

Let's assume a car rolling down a street, moving at 2m/s. If you now push it, your arms arms must have been moving at the same speed as the car (2m/s). If your hands hit the surface of the car at a greater speed than that, you hit the car, rather than just pushing it, meaning you'd have to subtract that additional energy from the result. Now while this is negligible at slow speeds, it certainly isn't at great ones like here.

If an object is already moving, the force you require to keep it like that is vastly lower than what you need to get it to that speed. In the case of the car it'd be the force of friction/drag. This calc however assumes it's equal to accelerating it to that point which isn't proven anywhere.

 

[Damage3245]

Fair enough, i just commented it so i'd be able to get notif's from this place as i was invested in the convo here founded in the original Garou CRT. I'll just say following instead (even though its lame and they effectively do the same thing)

ballsack

There's a Follow button at the top of threads. You just need to click that.

 

[LaserPrecision]

The fact that you can't visualize someone breaking two bricks by slamming their hand through them, without immediately assuming it was the punch, kind of proves my point tbh.

Is that in reference to my revised version of your analogy? Are you trying to word this as in I can't comprehend it, or in cases where there isn't any illustrations and thus something can't be visualized?

In the case of Garou, we see him charging into the ground and there is never an indication that it switched from that to lifting. Saying that it must be lifting because he kept pushing is like saying a punch is only ever just AP if they stop the moment they hit the surface of the object they want to punch.

I'd draw the line when someone punches something, and the thing goes flying. If someone charges at something with their fist out, hits let's say (for an example) a giant box, and continued to run forward, pushing the box with their fist, I very much think that would be considered lifting strength. Unsure about the wiki, which is why I hope staff will clarify on that. If what I'm hearing from the opposing side is true, i.e. he slammed into the ground initially and then continued to push into the ground to which a continent shifted, then it does seem like a legitimate lifting strength feat.

My claim is that since there is no indication of the impact ever stopping, so we shouldn't make assumptions on what is or isn't LS. Since we can't make assumptions, we can't determine LS

It doesn't matter if the "impact" never stopped. What matter is if Garou at any point began pushing into the ground. If at any point he started pushing into the ground, it could become a Lifting Strength feat. If he merely punched the ground, and the continent went flying outwards (Not literally flying), that would simply be an AP feat, not LS. But if what I'm hearing is true (Garou slammed into the ground, and proceeded to push into it) lifting strength could very easily be warranted.

Impact also isn't a very good word to use. Literally any feat that involves pushing involves "impact", which is defined as "the action of one object coming forcibly into contact with another."

You impact an object you push when you press your hands against it to move it. That would invalidate most feats involving pushing despite it being a fully applicable method to derive lifting strength from.
Maybe I should read the chapter to give my own opinion instead of trying to defend both sides and give my thoughts on the feat.

I claim one feat, because I can't prove anything, they claim two without proving anything. If one of those two isn't far simpler than the other than I rly don't know.

Might have to reword that a bit. This sentence left me more confused than anything. No offense of course.

Not as strict as they should be.

Won't delve into that since it gets into more unrelated subjective territory.

Two wrongs don't make a right

I don't recall stating it did. I merely brought up an example feat that involved an "impact" and asked if it was valid. If it was valid, that would mean feats involving "impact" can be used to deduce lifting strength.

Let's assume a car rolling down a street, moving at 2m/s. If you now push it, your arms arms must have been moving at the same speed as the car (2m/s). If your hands hit the surface of the car at a greater speed than that, you hit the car, rather than just pushing it, meaning you'd have to subtract that additional energy from the result.

The implication here is if you're not pushing/moving an object at the same speed as the object was moving, it's not lifting strength? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

This would imply all pushing feats where the object was stationary before someone pushed against it is an AP feat, not a lifting strength feat. As far as "Lifting strength" would apply in real life, punching and pushing are almost identical, the difference being is brief and typically done with a fist, whilst punching is normally done over an extended time, usually with a palm. Of course, I know vs wiki is strict in this regard, which is fair. However, if Garo struck the ground, and continued to move, and the continued movement is what caused the continent to shift, lifting strength seems perfectly arguable. If it was solely the initial strike that caused the continent to shift (As in the moment he made contact with the ground), then I agree with you, it can't be used to dictate LS.

Edit: Did you mean if the car was moving in the same direction you're pushing it, or against you?

If an object is already moving, the force you require to keep it like that is vastly lower than what you need to get it to that speed. In the case of the car it'd be the force of friction/drag. This calc however assumes it's equal to accelerating it to that point which isn't proven anywhere.

You'd need to prove the initial impact gave the shifted continent any movement at all for this argument to work. If so, then I can agree with you. If we don't see the continent move at all from the initial impact with the ground, then getting lifting strength from it seems relatively fine.

 

[KLOL506]

I'd draw the line when someone punches something, and the thing goes flying. If someone charges at something with their fist out, hits let's say (for an example) a giant box, and continued to run forward, pushing the box with their fist, I very much think that would be considered lifting strength. Unsure about the wiki, which is why I hope staff will clarify on that. If what I'm hearing from the opposing side is true, i.e. he slammed into the ground initially and then continued to push into the ground to which a continent shifted, then it does seem like a legitimate lifting strength feat.

You are right, if the person keeps their fist locked in and starts pushing against it right afterwards, after the punch fails to stop it, and the person is forced to wrestle it back with the fist, it'd indeed be LS. It'd be no different than pushing something back with open palms after grabbing said object and pushing hard. But yeah, you'd need to prove that they were actually continuously pushing/wrestling against said object after the fist/palm landed and didn't just poke it and let go to make it stop.

Assuming that is indeed what is happening here of course, and assuming the initial punch wasn't enough to move all that mass quickly enough and required more pushing force afterwards, this would indeed be LS.

 

[Phoenks]

I believe both are LS feats for reasons I don't really want to restate.

But the Class Z feat seems to make fewer people upset so

 

[RatherClueless]

Is that in reference to my revised version of your analogy? Are you trying to word this as in I can't comprehend it, or in cases where there isn't any illustrations and thus something can't be visualized?

It was in reference to what I said. I guess I misunderstood or you misunderstood or maybe we both did, so I'll clarify again. When I said "someone punches through 2 bricks" I did not mean that as WoG, but as that simply being what we observe. Basically "it looks like a punch", but people contest whether it is one.

If someone charges at something with their fist out, hits let's say (for an example) a giant box, and continued to run forward, pushing the box with their fist, I very much think that would be considered lifting strength.

That is a very different situation and I agree that you can get lifting strength from that. It wouldn't scale to the full thing, but if you know enough variables/you are capable of making reasonable assumptions based on what is shown it would be fine. A better example would be a little rocket flying into some jello like substance. Can you tell me how much of the distance it covers in the jello is from the initial velocity and how much is from it continuing to propell itself within it? Especially when you dont even know when or even if it decellerated or accelerated as all you get are a few pictures, most of them not even showing the rocket.

It doesn't matter if the "impact" never stopped

Yes it does because physics. To go back to the rocket example. If it simply shot right through the jello, would you scale it to LS? (Yes ik Garou never broke through all of earth. Not the point I want to make)

Impact also isn't a very good word to use. Literally any feat that involves pushing involves "impact", which is defined as "the action of one object coming forcibly into contact with another."

It's actually a very good word to use. If I place my hands on an object and then push, there is an impulse, but not an impact.

Might have to reword that a bit. This sentence left me more confused than anything. No offense of course.

Well, it's pretty simple. They claim you can split it into two (impact and LS) without bringing evidence as to why (you'd need to be able to give reason as to why it switched from impact to LS at the point you claim it did). I claim you can't do that because there is no evidence, thus making it one feat (Just the impact. Him continuing to push is just part of it which can not be differentiated).

The implication here is if you're not pushing/moving an object at the same speed as the object was moving, it's not lifting strength? Correct me if I'm wrong about that.

There are a few ways to get LS

1. Move an object from 0 to something (the classic of lifting weights)
2. Keep an object moving (moving something at a constant speed. The force you need to overcome here is equal to the force wanting to slow it down/stop it)
3. Increase the speed of a moving object (Pretty much the same as the first one. Instead of using the final velocity for acceleration you use the difference.)
4. Slow down the rate of decelleration (Applying less force than the force that is trying to stop the movement.)

The issue is that we clearly see the impact dent stuff, meaning it would be either 2, 3 or 4, which are all vastly different and more importantly yield far lower results. Worst of all, they are absolutely impossible to calc from a few manga panels that dont even show Garou. Especially option 2 and 4, which are the most likely case here.

punching and pushing are almost identical

From a physics point of view, they differ greatly, even if a punch is just a realy quick push.

and the continued movement is what caused the continent to shift

Funny thing is nobody has brought any proof for that yet. It's just a baseless claim as of now.

Did you mean if the car was moving in the same direction you're pushing it, or against you?

Same direction

Also, you should rly read the chapter, makes debating this kinda hard otherwise.