Talk:Superhuman strength

Explain me

If the super power is strength, i dont understand why slam tazmanian(from Loonatics Unleashed) and sanson(from the biblia) isnt are named here. please explain me.greetings

--Lizzie Rivera 23:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Because we can't name everyone that is super strong. Joeking16 (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

More details

Part of superhuman strength that has been touched on in this article, is the latent invulnerability. In other words, all characters, even in mythology, have some degree of invulnerability, otherwise they would be crushed by their own strength. Imagine if hulk punched a wall and broke his hand with the wall. The two powers are usually combined to some degree, at lesat to the point that the character can actually use their strength without hurting themselves. Even spider-man has some invulnerability to the point that he doesn't get bruises, and breaks his bone when he lifts a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acecool79 (talk • contribs)

All that goes very briefly and summarised in the "feats" section as a noted observation. Do not over expand, which would reach into original research territory.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, without a degree of body toughening someone with super strength when they tense their muscles they could crush their own bones. Especially people like the Hulk and Spiderman, Spiderman is a class 30 (30 tonnes he can lift in recent record) and the Hulk has unlimited strength so they will need it.

Samson Reference

I removed the reference to Samson under the section devoted to mythological characters. Samson has a prominent place in the Christian faith, so there are numerous people who believe him to have really existed. I added Thor to the list since he and Hercules are characters that are accepted to have been myths, due in part to them being associated with dead religions. Odin's Beard 23:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How do some people believing bullshit mean that somehow it must!!!11!11one be true? The bible is a fictional work, and there is absolutely no doubt about it. You can only believe this crap if you have a serious case of schizophrenia. — 94.220.255.59 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythology doesn't necessarily mean that something is untrue; it's more an indicator of cultural signifigance. For instance, see the Wikipedia article on Christian mythology.

Noclevername 05:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, Thor and Hercules are probably still worshipped by some people. That being the case, why are they under the "In fiction" section? It seems terribly biased, and offensive to people of religious beliefs (besides, there may be some historical basis for people like Samson). I'm putting it in its own section. RobbieG 15:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Superhuman strength

Would it be appropriate to note in this article some problems with superhuman strength, especially at the higher levels? For example, I can recall some discussions on whether Superman could really lift, say, a supertanker, without causing it to collapse around his hands. This in turn was explained away with a sort of telekinetic field that allowed his strength as I recall. FrozenPurpleCube 04:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. The article needs expansion beyond "list of notable examples of characters who possess superhuman strengh".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is something that should be considered, but i think that the biggest problem would be balance. Numerous times when i picked someone or something up and ended up dropping it because i couldn't balance it properly and then lifted a far heavier object with ease because i could balance it. Also i think someone should make a section where we can tell people our theories of acheiving supehuman strenght amongst other attributes:)

Worried about this article

I have this terrible fear it's going to degenerate with everyone who happens across it adding everyone they can think of with superhuman strength. The category already exists. Maybe someone should think of creating List of fictional characters who possess superhuman strength.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say remove the Superman parodies. That alone should cut it down. I'm taking out a few minor characters.

Noclevername 05:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

Since the concept originated in mythology, isn't that far more relevant than fiction? RobbieG 15:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no. It's a concept primarily belonging to contemporary fiction. If a vote has to be taken and mythology has to be kept, it would not belong separately from the fiction lists. What would be good, would be a cited PROSE section about uses of superhuman strength in mythology. That would be excellent.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I might do that later or maybe someone else will; right now I'm a little busy, so that may have to wait. Could you please clarify, though - are you calling religion fictional? I think a number of people could get very offended by that implication. RobbieG 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're definitely anything, but I would say the way they're presented is very different - and much older than - contemporary fiction, and therefore only belong with context affixing their relevance to the topic. For example, it would start "the concept of strength beyond human limits can be found in early beliefs of..." and going on to describe "demi-God Hercules bla bla bla" and "Biblical figure Samson used his strength to... and lost it when...". We should use {{bibleref}} too, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Adrenaline

When outside of a certain Bill Bixby show did adrenalized strength become classed as "superhuman"? If humans can do it, it's not super, it's human strength. --Noclevername (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If a human can do it, it should be deemed human strength. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Superhuman & Inhuman strength

Hi everyone, can Inhuman strength be a redirect to the article Superhuman strength? I didn't feel the difference, and tried to google for it. There is a comment by Ron Marz, where "superhuman & inhuman strength" were simply described as "stronger than human". Can this source be a good cause to create a redirect? Because I often see this expression (inhuman strength) in the articles.--91.78.97.10 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition

The article currently describes superhuman strength as follows "It is the ability for any human to be stronger than normally possible given their proportions.", isn't superhuman strength physical strength which exceeds human capabilities? Superman is frequently described as having superhuman strength, however, as a non-human character, he cannot meet the article's current definition of superhuman strength. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

delete?

This seems like an obscure topic. The article has no detail. And it ends up being definitional. Cut it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No consensus in 2007 and recommendation to keep and improve. 3 years later and it still sucks. Kill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Article improvement suggestion

The phrase has referred historically to feats of strength actually accomplished, which exceed the writer or observers expectations of what is possible (women lifting cars off their children, etc). It ALSO can refer to fictional accounts of feats of strength that are beyond any human beings range of ability (heracles, superman, etc). And i must remind people that in any discussion of fictional accounts of strength, there is absolutely no requirement that the feats conform to any known laws of nature, and that not conforming is not inherently notable. They are FICTIONAL. if superman wants to lift a mountain (which of course cannot be done from a single point without stress fractures), it will be lifted exactly as the comics writer intends it to be lifted. there is no inherent contradiction. however, if another writer (not us) wants to comment on the physical impossibility of certain superhuman feats of strength, and those comments are notable, then they can be added (a parallel example is "the physics of star trek", which debunks most of the star trek physics). This article can be about these two parallel ideas, with references to books on interesting incidents of strength beyond the norm for individuals, and notable fictional examples (with a "see also" to superhero, and people can find the endless articles on various superheros through that). If this article becomes a list of every instance of fictional superhuman strength, followed by an intense analysis of how those feats violate various laws, then we find ourselves back in grade school arguing whether a golden dragon could defeat darkseid. ok, as william shatner once said, "get a life":)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think most of that stuff would be pretty OR and better handled off wiki as an original essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

should every English phrase or concept have an article?

I mean should there be an article on "bigger than a breadbox". (And I'm terrified to look if this exists.) -teh IP

• Agreed. Wikipedia is not a phrase dictionary. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• CaptMarvelAdventures6.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)