I agree with you that feats don't necessarily mean anything, but could be relevant depending on the terms of the debate. If it's any version of wonder woman vs any version of Superman, then we don't have head to head battles to parse what may happen. But if we know that certain iterations of a hero can do certain things like punch a moon to death, or freeze atomic motion to almost absolute zero, then we may be able to determine what those abilities could do to an opponent if unleashed.

I do agree with you that if we are talking about a specific iteration of these characters, and they have battled in continuity, then that should take precedence over feats performed in that same era. However, sometimes author biases can even make those battles kind of irrelevant Darkseid is either the big bad of the DC universe or a chump blocker depending on who is writing him *cough* *Jurgens* *cough* and since he exists outside of the multiverse he should be unchanging regardless of era.

To clarify: I am a fan of WW, I am currently reading through Rucka's rebirth run and loving every minute. And I do like the idea of WW being on the level of Superman. We know Bruce has his contingencies to take out WW and Supes, so if WW and Supes are 50-50, then it brings balance to the Trinity. I just think it comes down to author bias somewhat, and that the DC editorial is generally biased towards superman.

I mean we could do what that one user did about 2 years ago and make something up about Wonder Woman having access to the God Source and just say she beats Superman like that

The problem with feats is a lack of consistency between writers. We've seen Batman beat the Justice League in one comic then get curb stomped by Wonder Woman in another. One second Wonder Man is as strong as Sentry the next he's getting battered by the villain of the week to show how strong they are. Shiva is the best martial artist on the planet unless Cassandra Cain or Tim Drake have anything to say about it etc

Until we establish a cohesive, uniform level of power for every character feats are basically arbitrary

I'm pretty sure she gave him his bo staff for beating her

I could be wrong but she's the Worf of DC so basically replace Tim with any character since she's probably lost to them too

Point remains the same

Interesting that Shiva comes up. I have had debates where people argue that WW has unparalleled fighting ability and tactical prowess, and then others (mostly with batfans admittedly) where it is argued that if WW didn't have her powers, she would get bodied easily by lady Shiva.

It's an author problem. Rubbery comic book logic

From what I recall; Wonder Woman is the best melee fighter in DC. Ergo a fight between Shiva and a depowered Diana would depend on if they're using swords or fists

But then again, feats aren't consistent soo...

I think non powered WW has a tactical advantage over Shiva, but that Shiva's fighting knowledge surpasses WW and would thus win.

However, there is some rubber there. Lady Shiva has trained her entire life to learn essentially every martial art. WW has only been trained in Amazonian techniques, but potentially for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Her mastery of Amazonian fighting would theoretically surpass Shiva's mastery of any individual art. Shiva's flexibility of technique, however would probably still give her the Win.