One-Punch Man: Beefcake's AP Calcs

[Damage3245]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss and debate a feat performed by Beefcake, in Chapter 3 of One-Punch Man.

The first version of the calc was created by Kachon123 and was accepted at being 5.35 Megatons (Small City level).

The second version of the calc was created myself and was accepted at being 17.84 Kilotons (Town level).

I'll making my argument for my calc in a subsequent post to leave the OP clear of arguments.

Since this will be a debate that does not focus on scaling at all but purely on the specifics of the calculations, I would ask that no non-Calc Group Member or non-Staff Member posts here with the exception of Kachon123. If you have something you want to bring up, bring it to either one of us, please.

 

[Damage3245]

There has been previous discussions about not using Beefcake's officially given height of 270 m (from the databook) due to "inconsistent visuals" in the manga. And I do not deny that there are some inconsistent visuals where Beefcake's size is portrayed differently from one moment to the next.

However I do not think that inconistent visuals alone are enough to discredit an officially given figure anymore. The precedent of the size of the Seireitei in Bleach for example, is currently accepted as being well over a 1000 kilometers in diameter due to an official statement in one of the Bleach movies. This is despite numerous visuals contradicting this official statement, but we use the size derived from the statement anyway for calculations. I'm not trying to drag in other verses into this, but just looking for reasonable precedent to make an evaluation for this.

So the existence of inconsistent visuals does not automatically discredit a figure given to us for the character's height.

Moreover, the databook also states that the crater Beefcake creates is "over 100 meters in diameter" which to me suggests a smaller size than the figure in Kachon's calc which has the diameter of the crater at nearly two kilometers.

When it comes to scaling references for the size of the crater, I've used Beefcake's whole height when he is clearly seen and measured in the relation to the crater. Whereas Kachon123 has used a single-storey building in the background of the panel which is measured to be 1 pixel tall. When you get to measurements that tiny for pixelscaling, you invite a lot of room for exaggeration in the calculation.

To use another one of our recently accepted guidelines, the object that is the focus of the panel is more likely to be more reliable for measurements; Beefcake and the Crater are drawn with detail and are the central focus of the panels... The tiny buildings in the background are minor details and seem to me a lot less reliable than the character actually standing next to the crater.

 

[Kachon123]

Going to copy paste what I said in the other thread


I don't agree with either of your methods. We agreed in this CRT that Beefcake's sizes are too inconsistent to be used.

In both of your versions in your blog, you use Beefcake to find the volume of the cater. Due to Beefcake's sizes being vastly different in different panels and shots, how do we know that his hand is the same size in the first panel you used to pixel scale as it was in the second one?

Thus, I think that my calc should remain, although my crater pixel scaling does need to be fixed.

Adding on to my point about Beefcake's inconsistent sizes, we see in this panel:



That Beefcake's hand is not 87 meters wide, as your calc suggests, further cementing the point that Beefcake should never be used as a metric.

 

[Kachon123]

Moreover, the databook also states that the crater Beefcake creates is "over 100 meters in diameter" which to me suggests a smaller size than the figure in Kachon's calc which has the diameter of the crater at nearly two kilometers.

This is not true.

"over 100 meters" means over 100 meters. It does not suggest that it's anywhere close to 100 meters specifically. It only says that it's larger than 100 meters, which both calcs fall under.

 

[Damage3245]

@Kachon123; the calc involving Beefcake's hand is not a part of this anymore.

This is not true.

"over 100 meters" means over 100 meters. It does not suggest that it's anywhere close to 100 meters specifically. It only says that it's larger than 100 meters, which both calcs fall under.

I said it "suggests to me" meaning it's my personal interpretation. I did not say that the crater was only 100 meters wide. Just that if it was intended to be more than a kilometer across, it seems more likely it would say "The crater is over 1 km wide" rather than "Over 100 meters wide".

 

[Kachon123]

@Kachon123; the calc involving Beefcake's hand is not a part of this anymore.

It is, because the calc is using something we can't use

 

[Kachon123]

it seems more likely it would say "The crater is over 1 km wide" rather than "Over 100 meters wide".

Why?

 

[Damage3245]

Why?

Because that would be a better metric for conveying its size.

Say you had a building that was more than a kilometer tall. It would be underselling it a bit if you described as "over 100 meters tall", even if that's strictly true.


But this is the most minor point of my argument. It is not what is convincing me that my calc is more likely.

 

[Recon1511]

Bump

 

[Recon1511]

Another bump

 

[Recon1511]

Bump squared

 

[Recon1511]

Bump again

Uh, shouldn't more CGM/Staff be pinged here?

 

[Recon1511]

I bump again because I got a CRT I made like 2 weeks ago paused until this resolves

 

[Damage3245]

I'm currently awaiting a response to my previous posts.

I'm heading offline now but if there's no change on this thread by tomorrow I'll tag some staff.

 

[Kachon123]

I'm currently awaiting a response to my previous posts.

There's nothing really to respond to?

Tagging other members would be helpful as its completely up to whether someone believes that saying "more than 100 meters" can mean more than 1kilometer or not.

 

[Damage3245]

There's nothing really to respond to?

Tagging other members would be helpful as its completely up to whether someone believes that saying "more than 100 meters" can mean more than 1kilometer or not.

That's not the only point I brought up. But if you don't want to argue it further, I can discuss the points with CGM's instead.

 

[Recon1511]

I remember that someone suggested using one of the roads near Beefcake and the crater to pixelscale

 

[Kachon123]

That's not the only point I brought up. But if you don't want to argue it further, I can discuss the points with CGM's instead.

I never said that I don't want to discuss further.

What other points do you have?

 

[Therefir]

This isn't really about inconsistent visuals, it's about calculating the feat, and if Beefcake contradicts the size of those buildings and roads, then we should ignore him entirely, as the size of the crater is our only concern, not Beefcake.

 

[Damage3245]

Agreed on the first part. The other visuals of Beefcake are irrelevant. I'm just comparing Beefcake (who we have a canon height for) to the crater directly.

((A height value we even have on Beefcake's page already too)).

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

Imma voice my opinion on this

While we do have official stated sizes for Beefcake, it's clear that this is a case of Author/Editor not knowing how sizes work
In cases like these where the statements of thing are ridiculously contradictory Primary Source material, we usually disregard them (Official Marvel Databooks classifying Thor and Hulk as 100 tonners is a prime example)

Not to mention that using the statements in the guidebook at face value besides already being tremendously off scale to the feat shown would ALSO result in the proposed crater being smaller than beefcake himself (More than 100 meters means between 100 and 200) which has been disproven by both Damage and Kachon's calcs

The fact is we should use the Manga's (Primary Canon) showing of the feat in which the Crater itself which is what we are scaling, is shown to dwarf skyscrapers in size as opposed to a Guidebook (Secondary Canon) stated size and diameter

 

[Damage3245]

@Shmeatywerbenmanjenson That's not true. For Bleach we have several visuals contradicting an "officially stated size" but we use the officially stated size for calculations and ignore the contradictions.

Also "more than 100 meters" doesn't mean "smaller than 200 meters".

Plus it'd be hypocritical as hell given that we acknowledge that Beefcake's height is 270 meters on his profile.

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

@Shmeatywerbenmanjenson That's not true. For Bleach we have several visuals contradicting an "officially stated size" but we use the officially stated size for calculations and ignore the contradictions.

And we have several of instances of other verses doing the exact opposite

I don't see why that one instance of using official sizes should apply to all verses

It should be done on a case by case bases like this

Also "more than 100 meters" doesn't mean "smaller than 200 meters".

That's VS battle wiki brainrot for ya, going by our standards itd be under that.

However if this is your stance on the matter then it could just as easily be the nearly 2 kilometers found in Kachon's calc

Plus it'd be hypocritical as hell given that we acknowledge that Beefcake's height is 270 meters on his profile.

I don't see this as a valid reason to discredit the massive discrepancy between the Crater's shown size and Beefcake's stated size

At worst this just mean we'd have to discuss whether it's usable or not

This has no bearing on the calc in any way though so just discuss that later

 

[Damage3245]

And we have several of instances of other verses doing the exact opposite

I don't see why that one instance of using official sizes should apply to all verses

It should be done on a case by case bases like this

Sure. But that doesn't make the best option to try and scale to a single pixel as a reference for sizes.

Beefcake is drawn pretty clearly and directly next to the crater. Why is a single pixel structure in the background the better measuring stick?

That's VS battle wiki brainrot for ya, going by our standards itd be under that.

However if this is your stance on the matter then it could just as easily be the nearly 2 kilometers found in Kachon's calc

It could, but I've presented other reasons for why the 2 km figure is not the most likely to be accurate. I never presented the statement from the databook as being something that singlehandedly discredited the calc.

I don't see this as a valid reason to discredit the massive discrepancy between the Crater's shown size and Beefcake's stated size

At worst this just mean we'd have to discuss whether it's usable or not

This has no bearing on the calc in any way though so just discuss that later

There doesn't seem to be a massive discrepency to me between the crater and Beefcake. More like trying to rely on background objects as being more representative of the true size.

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

Sure. But that doesn't make the best option to try and scale to a single pixel as a reference for sizes.

Beefcake is drawn pretty clearly and directly next to the crater. Why is a single pixel structure in the background the better measuring stick?

I didn't say Kachon's calc was perfect I'm just saying it's a better representation of what we see than using a stated size that's barely higher than the average skyscraper which in panel would fit under Beefcake's foot

I am completely open to discussing different ways to scale the image

BESIDES using the official height

I believe Kachon mentioned using roads as a way to find the size

Or even measuring a skscraper and using Wikipedia's stated starting size
"A skyscraper is a tall, continuously habitable building having multiple floors. Modern sources currently define skyscrapers as being at least 100 meters (330 ft)[1] or 150 meters (490 ft)[2] in height, though there is no universally accepted definition, other than being very tall high-rise buildings"

 

[Damage3245]

I didn't say Kachon's calc was perfect I'm just saying it's a better representation of what we see than using a stated size that's barely higher than the average skyscraper which in panel would fit under Beefcake's foot

I am completely open to discussing different ways to scale the image

BESIDES using the official height

I believe Kachon mentioned using roads as a way to find the size

Or even measuring a skscraper and using Wikipedia's stated starting size
"A skyscraper is a tall, continuously habitable building having multiple floors. Modern sources currently define skyscrapers as being at least 100 meters (330 ft)[1] or 150 meters (490 ft)[2] in height, though there is no universally accepted definition, other than being very tall high-rise buildings"

Well, if there's a road near Beefcake that is 5 pixels wide (and there does seem to be), then Beefcake's height be roughly 262.07 meters tall in comparison to it.

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

Well, if there's a road near Beefcake that is 5 pixels wide (and there does seem to be), then Beefcake's height be roughly 262.07 meters tall in comparison to it.

I'd like to see how you got that

Personally I'm more for the building height version of the calc as these are roads near metropolitan areas which can be very big

Road sizes also don't have a standard size and can contain any number of lanes

The one in panel is very low detail so assuming anything is risky

Meanwhile we have several standing skyscrapers which are more clearly defined than the roads or floor heights which in my opinion would be the best to scale

 

[Damage3245]

@Shmeatywerbenmanjenson As far as I can tell the buildings are extremely low detail too. Plus I see other structures on there which are seemingly one storey tall but appear larger than 1 pixel.

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

They show more detail than the highway does and you don't need to assume as much to scale the building as opposed to the highway

So imma lay down the three option we have

1. Floor scaling - Hard to tell due to the low detail of the background buildings. The average floor height is 4.3 meters not the entire single story building

2. Highway Scaling - Assumptive as there is no average size for a highways listed, only average lane size. Assuming number of lanes while better is still unreliable

3. Skyscraper scaling - Assumes that the tallest building on panel meets the minimum requirements to be considered a skyscraper, that being 100 meters





I personally prefer method 3 and I already did the measurements and the sizes it lists for other in frame objects is not impossibly small or big

I found that the highest building was 15 px in height which means a m/pp value of 6.666666667

Then I found the length of the highway in frame which was 6.38 px

Which gives us a size of 42.53333334 meters

That sound big but when your remember that the average lane width is 3.7 meters and an average highway has 6 of those

For a total of 27.6 meters for the average highway and that's ignoring the barriers between both sides which would probably add about 5 meters

Which is not crazily different from our found number

 

[Kachon123]

They show more detail than the highway does and you don't need to assume as much to scale the building as opposed to the highway

So imma lay down the three option we have

1. Floor scaling - Hard to tell due to the low detail of the background buildings. The average floor height is 4.3 meters not the entire single story building

2. Highway Scaling - Assumptive as there is no average size for a highways listed, only average lane size. Assuming number of lanes while better is still unreliable

3. Skyscraper scaling - Assumes that the tallest building on panel meets the minimum requirements to be considered a skyscraper, that being 100 meters





I personally prefer method 3 and I already did the measurements and the sizes it lists for other in frame objects is not impossibly small or big

I found that the highest building was 15 px in height which means a m/pp value of 6.666666667

Then I found the length of the highway in frame which was 6.38 px

Which gives us a size of 42.53333334 meters

That sound big but when your remember that the average lane width is 3.7 meters and an average highway has 6 of those

For a total of 27.6 meters for the average highway and that's ignoring the barriers between both sides which would probably add about 5 meters

Which is not crazily different from our found number

Had a similar idea but just without the extra 5 meters. It got accepted

One-Punch Man: Beefcake Makes a Crater Redux

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Damage3245]

Okay, but do you see how arbitrary your methods are for measuring the size of the crater? By picking out a random building you could get 1800+ meters diameter for the crater. By picking out a random road (a road pretty far away from the crater), you could get 4100+ meters for the diameter.

Where is the reliability here?

At least my method is based on a source of canon information and doesn't require use to assume the size of any objects. It is also the reference object that have been given the most detail and attention compared to random background features.

 

[Kachon123]

Okay, but do you see how arbitrary your methods are for measuring the size of the crater? By picking out a random building you could get 1800+ meters diameter for the crater. By picking out a random road (a road pretty far away from the crater), you could get 4100+ meters for the diameter.

Where is the reliability here?

You had an issue with the fact that a building was 1 px, so we used something else.

Also, your issue with the road that was "pretty far away from the crater" is quite frankly a stupid worry, as the shot that the panel is from is on a semi-birds-eye-view, meaning it'd have a negligible ±.

 

[Damage3245]

Will address that tomorrow.

 

[Kachon123]

Will address that tomorrow.

Address what exactly?

 

[Damage3245]

Address what exactly?

Your post, I meant. Out of time tonight so will continue the discussion tomorrow.

 

[Kachon123]

Alright.

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

Okay, but do you see how arbitrary your methods are for measuring the size of the crater? By picking out a random building you could get 1800+ meters diameter for the crater. By picking out a random road (a road pretty far away from the crater), you could get 4100+ meters for the diameter.

Where is the reliability here?

At least my method is based on a source of canon information and doesn't require use to assume the size of any objects. It is also the reference object that have been given the most detail and attention compared to random background features.

It may be arbitrary but it is infinitely more accurate to what is shown than a 100+ meter crater and a 270 meter Beefcake
I also don't agree with the road Kachon used


No amount assumptions with building sizes and road sizes will ever match the inconsistency of entire SKYSCRAPERS being less than 20 meters tall

Using the method we have laid out at least result in some consistency regarding sizes (ex. roads being around 40 meters wide if we use the skyscraper method)

Not to mention even if Beefcake is drawn inconsistently he is still drawn consistently towering above skyscrapers to the point that they're never even shown to go above his knee

270 meters is simply to small for this type of dwarfing we see in quite literally every panel he's ever shown in

 

[Kachon123]

I also don't agree with the road Kachon used

Why?

 

[Shmeatywerbenmanjenson]

Why?

You should use the one closer to the middle of the crater instead of farther in the background

 

[Kachon123]

You should use the one closer to the middle of the crater instead of farther in the background

Also, your issue with the road that was "pretty far away from the crater" is quite frankly a stupid worry, as the shot that the panel is from is on a semi-birds-eye-view, meaning it'd have a negligible ±.