• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

STRONGEST One-Punch Man Discussion Thread!

Kachon123 said:
Plus, even if we discard the whole, "crust, or no crusts" arguments, Oceans are part of the earth's surface, and you can't "wipe out" oceans by scorching, so scorching is still out of the window.
Click to expand...
Most of the surface is measured above the ocean. Also, he could just not be vaporizing the ocean like he would be scorching land.
 
They don't say vaporize/sear, smoulder/disintegrate, melt, etc. They just say scorch. Even if you want to say that doesn't work, then fine, you've invalidated the original. What's the point in tacking on a completely unproven method just because it's heat based?

Another thing is that oceans don't melt either. They're already liquid and would just boil away into vapour. So I can't even believe that I'm getting so much slack for this when part of the counter argument is that it must affect the ocean.

Here's an idea. Why don't we just avoid giving it a calculation entirely and just mention these discrepancies in a note on the page? That seems like a far more logical course of action than making huge assumptions to me.

@Tetsu Both ends were like 50% higher. The high end is also a little higher than the original.
 
Last edited:
Ourosboros said:
CSRC is 1586 petatons.

If some of CSRC's energy survived the Serious Punch, that was because Saitama A) underestimated how much energy he needed to cancel CSRC by a little or B) said energy was outside the Serious Punch's area of effect. Since Saitama is normally pretty good at proportioning the power of his punches for his enemies, I think it's B), that also makes sense the way the serious punch and CSRC were fanning out from their respective origin points
Click to expand...
Well. In addition to the direct frontal impact of Saitama's punch, only the impact on the back side showed a larger area of impact than the original area of the csrc. I disagreement that the scope isn't good enough.
 
ByAsura said:
Some forms of concrete melt, some forms also don't because they just completely lose integrity. Even the site you nabbed from (a Quora-esque site, no less) says this. If it can melt the surface of the planet, that's completely up to you to prove because we don't actually have any statement suggesting he can. Also, you were the one who brought up the argument that stone doesn't scorch, I'm just debunking that argument and showing that it actually scorches before it melts.

Firey as they are (something I never disagreed with and can also prove my point), Boros' blasts produce destructive shockwaves even more than they melt stuff. You need to read the manga again.

It could very well scorch the surface, though. Also, as I told Emirp, noting suggests that the entire crust of the planet will be scorched, surface can just refer to the top layer and not the crust/upper crust. Notably, you can't scorch water in the first place, and many surface-wiping feats/statements actually don't refer to the literal crust of the entire planet.

No, vaporization is pulled out of thin air. Literally nothing suggests full-scale vaporization and melting.
Click to expand...
Concrete isn't stone, it's a composite material. I know you already know that, my point is that saying that concrete doesn't melt in a typical fashion has nothing to do with whether or not stone "scorches". When I say "scorch" I am referring to the combustion process. Broadly, we could take scorching to mean disfiguring a substance. When you do that to stone, particularly heat resistant stone like granite, it melts. Granite does not start deforming in such a fashion until it is pretty much melting and that is 75% of the crust that is being destroyed here. If you heat up the atmosphere high enough to scorch all of the crust (AKA melt it), you're probably just making the process more energy intensive. After all, CSRC needs to effect nearly all of the crust, if that energy is being transmitted through the atmosphere first it's going to be a lot more inefficient that it would be if we looked at the energy to heat up all the crust to said point, just because of the surface area problem. And the ocean problem.

I see that there's something I don't understand here, I thought that A) concrete was a mixture of various silicates and other components B) each component has a melting point and C) when all of those melting points are reached, you would have a liquid substance- that is to say the concrete has melted. What does "losing integrity" mean, if not the various substances turning into a liquid? Do most forms of concrete remain a solid until they are heated up so much that they vaporize, never or only briefly becoming a liquid?

Telling me to reread the manga isn't going to help. Do you know how much time I spent working on the CSRC calc? 20 hours. I reread the chapter too many times to count and analyzed each panel with destruction as I did so. So I must be missing something else- when you say that you see shockwaves, can you trace what you're referring to? I don't see any shockwave lines/cloud deformation/other shockwave indicators when I read chapters 35 and 36 and look at Boros's blasts. Are you looking at the giant plumes of flame (there's arguably some smoke in there as well) and categorizing these as shockwaves?
 
Emirp sumitpo said:
Isn't that what we're arguing as well? What are you proposing exactly?

I think using the 183 petaton explosion calc is probably the safest method for now
Click to expand...
The 183 petaton explosion method isn't energy intensive enough to destroy the crust, most of that energy would be mitigated by the oceans and reach the oceanic crust too diluted to do serious damage. Plus, I don't see how that formula accounts for destroying the crust via "scorching", it was made before we even knew about that.
 
Murata’s statements are basically given ‘possibly’ ratings unless they’re contradicted (such as him saying Bomb is stronger than Bang), in which case they aren’t included at all.
 
I've already given my opinion that I think we should just remove the calc and leave a note, so after this, I think I'll just be finished with arguing about Boros.
Ourosboros said:
Concrete isn't stone, it's a composite material. I know you already know that, my point is that saying that concrete doesn't melt in a typical fashion has nothing to do with whether or not stone "scorches". When I say "scorch" I am referring to the combustion process. Broadly, we could take scorching to mean disfiguring a substance. When you do that to stone, particularly heat resistant stone like granite, it melts. Granite does not start deforming in such a fashion until it is pretty much melting and that is 75% of the crust that is being destroyed here. If you heat up the atmosphere high enough to scorch all of the crust (AKA melt it), you're probably just making the process more energy intensive. After all, CSRC needs to effect nearly all of the crust, if that energy is being transmitted through the atmosphere first it's going to be a lot more inefficient that it would be if we looked at the energy to heat up all the crust to said point, just because of the surface area problem. And the ocean problem.
Click to expand...
Concrete is commonly referred to as stone, so I thought's that what you meant, especially since the term itself can refer to either natural rock or building materials. As for any form of rock, they all scorch at the right temperature. Here is a photo of scorched granite. Even blowing mountains to blackened charred rubble can count.

No, no, no. I'll have none of that sophistry. Scorching does not mean completely disfiguring, let alone melting everything, even in the broadest of contexts. It's all surface level. Even if it did mean what you said in an extremely broad sense, most people just use it in the context of burning a surface.

You're assuming he's referring to literally all of the Earth's crust. Just because he said surface, that does not mean every bit of crust on the Earth.

Or, you know, he's just burning the surface out right, which is far less energy intensive than either of those.
Ourosboros said:
I see that there's something I don't understand here, I thought that A) concrete was a mixture of various silicates and other components B) each component has a melting point and C) when all of those melting points are reached, you would have a liquid substance- that is to say the concrete has melted. What does "losing integrity" mean, if not the various substances turning into a liquid? Do most forms of concrete remain a solid until they are heated up so much that they vaporize, never or only briefly becoming a liquid?
Click to expand...
Many forms of concrete burn up (like become charred ashes or tiny fragments) and don't melt, which is what I said in the original. Although, I'll admit that it's probably not most forms. I also told you my point was that concrete typically scorches before it melts.

Anyway, this part of the discussion is irrelevant given that you weren't even talking about concrete.
Ourosboros said:
Telling me to reread the manga isn't going to help. Do you know how much time I spent working on the CSRC calc? 20 hours. I reread the chapter too many times to count and analyzed each panel with destruction as I did so. So I must be missing something else- when you say that you see shockwaves, can you trace what you're referring to? I don't see any shockwave lines/cloud deformation/other shockwave indicators when I read chapters 35 and 36 and look at Boros's blasts. Are you looking at the giant plumes of flame (there's arguably some smoke in there as well) and categorizing these as shockwaves?
Click to expand...
I don't care how much time you spent reading the manga. Boros fires a total of 2 energy blasts, and only one of them hits anything (even the one that doesn't directly hit anything still fragments). His aura and punches also don't melt stuff like they do in the anime, or at least not to anywhere near the same level. In fact, they actually eliminate air friction.

I literally gave you the panel where it produces a destructive explosion. That's here and here, in the latter you can even see a triangular shockwave knock apart some of the ship's fins, and almost nothing is visibly melted in either of them (and that's with me giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming some of the blurred corners are melted metal). Most of the metal after is rent and torn apart, not melted, though you can see some melted metal at the epicentre.

That last part kind of harkens back to your point about energy processes, as things like explosions are way hotter at the epicentre than they are the outer fringes. So an attack capable of melting every ounce of the crust wouldn't just melt the crust, it'd crack open the planet.
 
Last edited:
Genos potentially crossed 5 kilometers in slightly under 5 minutes in one of the OVAs.
I don't suppose that would even be a good supporting feat right?
 
My favorite one is the one where Genos gets smacked by Saitama that his personality changes. He goes from either a good boy or a delinquent
 
Emirp sumitpo said:
Which?
Click to expand...
Well, it's not very important, but it's from One's sunman tweet.

This

@ONE_rakugaki He's such a last boss that even a one-punch man can have trouble with

@kurohei00
That's right. It was the cheat seems to be the only way to respond with cheat.

If there were many ways to respond with cheat, he would have said "ways", not way. so here we know to the only way is Saitama. This means Saitama can the only one to stop Boros at this point. This retroactive retroactively suggests Boros is superior to Tatsumaki.

It's also meaningful that ONE agrees that even Saitama needs to make an effort.

However, it is an old statement, so I asked the criteria.

Edit: cheats is typo
 
It's a pretty vague statement tho. I don't think that's enough to just straight up place Boros above Tatsumaki.
 
Wait if outright destroying the Atmosphere is just teraton rage then how is the serious punch’s atmosphere splitting getting into the Exaton range?
 
Can we like, make a discussion rule to prevent people trying to scale above Psykos and Tatsumaki based on extremely outdated statements?

It should be obvious that statements made several years ago don’t apply anymore, after the new feats that both characters have displayed.
 
LordTracer said:
Can we like, make a discussion rule to prevent people trying to scale above Psykos and Tatsumaki based on extremely outdated statements?

It should be obvious that statements made several years ago don’t apply anymore, after the new feats that both characters have displayed.
Click to expand...
It is unclear whether the statement from several years ago is not applicable. The current tier is purely a result of calc and there is no guarantee that the author has the same idea as calc. Of course, it is effective to use calc when it is unclear.

And this
One said

@ha_neu If I give a numerical value or a fixed expression about the strength, there will be more restrictions on the character setting, so I try not to do it outside the work as much as possible. In the future, there may be some depictions that can be used as a guide or reference, so I would be grateful if you could refer to that.

It can be seen that ONE is adjusts the character's strength to what he said rather than changing the character's strength setting.

I think rule that ignores ONE statement should not be instituted until there is solid evidence, and Boros's strength is completely based on assumptions, so the limits are not set properly.

Also, we can know new facts from the time point of that saying, and ONE did not distinguish the remake from the original when ONE already spoke of the reference point depiction of Saitama's power, despite the difference in the story(change of boros battle) from the remake and the original at that point. Therefore, we can see that the statements that are not completely changed through the direct description can be used without actually appearing in the story.

Edit:
I mean, it's only applicable to characters (or form etc) that exist in the story.
 
Last edited:
I don't get why people are bothered by the ratings when ONE says he doesn't care much about powerscaling his own series. Like I don't get the whole "narratively Boros has to be superior" when Boros has literally served his purpose and his strength compared to others doesn't affect his character at all, he's the dominator of the universe vs a monster human fusion that was blessed by God. If you guys really want to know what ONE's feelings are then check this out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LIFE_OF_KING
Minor addition for Saitama
Replies
11
Views
1K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
TyranoDoom30
OPM profiles possible renaming
Replies
6
Views
3K
Epiccheev
Epiccheev
Kachon123
One-Punch Man: Genos Profile Rework
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
WizardPowers101
Kachon123
One-Punch Man: Adding Willpower to Some Profiles
Replies
12
Views
2K
Kachon123
Kachon123
Phoenks
  • Locked
"Possibly" 3-C Saitama
2 3 4
Replies
149
Views
17K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Back
Top