Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So I said it in the Obi vs Connor thread, so shall it be done...

Aragorn vs Connor, both have their claymore swords for weapons and thats it. To the death in a grassy field, who wins?

Sorry, but Aragorn has the experience here. Aragorn battles entire armies.

The superhuman ranger that's 90 years old but is still around his early 30's, and one of the best swordsman in a world of superhuman swordsman.

Didn't Connor use a katana instead of a claymore? Anyway, haven't watched Highlander for some time but if I recall, Macleod was born in the 1500's which would make him around 500 yrs old plus whenever they kill another immortal they absorb all the skill, experience and power of that immortal.

That means Connor has a huge huge experience advantage over Aragorn. And the only thing stopping me from saying this is a complete stomp in favor of Connor is due to crappy choreographed sword fights of that era.

Does Aragorn know he needs a decap to win?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Does Aragorn know he needs a decap to win?

I completely forgot about that. Even if he did know, that's still a huge disadvantage for him.

Is there evidence any of the immortals were on the level of say an Uruk-Hai? Haven't seen any of them in years.

Originally posted by KingD19
Is there evidence any of the immortals were on the level of say an Uruk-Hai? Haven't seen any of them in years.

In Highlander II, when Connor Macleod was old and weak he was still able to break off a steel/iron railing to use as a weapon.


Forward to 0:25

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFH9ThefbU4

In the end though, Connor doesn't need to be as strong as Urukhai. Strength probably won't be as big a factor in this fight as will be skill. He's also way more durable than either Aragorn or an Urukhai.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Didn't Connor use a katana instead of a claymore? Anyway, haven't watched Highlander for some time but if I recall, Macleod was born in the 1500's which would make him around 500 yrs old plus whenever they kill another immortal they absorb all the skill, experience and power of that immortal.

That means Connor has a huge huge experience advantage over Aragorn. And the only thing stopping me from saying this is a complete stomp in favor of Connor is due to crappy choreographed sword fights of that era.


Aragorn is hundreds of years old as well. Either way, A Broad Sword and a Katana blade are two different blades. Katana blades are made for slicing and not piecing or stabbing. A Katana blade is obviously going to have more efficiency in slashing than it would stabbing or piercing. These are what the swords are designed to do. In samurai, times, armor was designed EXTREMELY different than it was in medieval times. Katana baldes are folded at least a thousand times in their creation. /Most braod swords are folded 5-600 times. This doesn't mean they can't defend against a samurai blade or pierce a samurai's armor.

In short, Katana blades are no more deadly than a properly made broad sword. Yes, Katana /blades can cut through layers of steel but not through layers of reinforced steel of a broad sword. There is no way, McCloud defeats aragorn here. Aragorn, Is battle hardened.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Aragorn is hundreds of years old as well. Either way, A Broad Sword and a Katana blade are two different blades. Katana blades are made for slicing and not piecing or stabbing. A Katana blade is obviously going to have more efficiency in slashing than it would stabbing or piercing. These are what the swords are designed to do. In samurai, times, armor was designed EXTREMELY different than it was in medieval times. Katana baldes are folded at least a thousand times in their creation. /Most braod swords are folded 5-600 times. This doesn't mean they can't defend against a samurai blade or pierce a samurai's armor.

In short, Katana blades are no more deadly than a properly made broad sword. Yes, Katana /blades can cut through layers of steel but not through layers of reinforced steel of a broad sword. There is no way, McCloud defeats aragorn here. Aragorn, Is battle hardened.

1. Aragorn is around 90 yrs old if I'm not mistaken.

2. Katanas are not folded a thousand times, they just have a thousand folds. Most katanas are folded somewhere between 10-13 times. Folded 10 times, a katana blade would have 1024 folds. Folded 11 times it would have 2048. Etc.

3. Aragorn uses a longsword, not a broadsword.

4. Longsword blades are not folded. The reason a katana blade is folded is because Japan had crappy iron. They had to fold the blade in order to even out the carbon distribution in the steel. Europe (being a larger place with more trade coming in) had access to higher quality steel and they had no need to fold the blades because they were strong enough as is.

5. If we're going to use accurate representations of the swords, then the katana will most likely bend out of shape from just a few full contact whacks with the longsword. But since this is the realm of movies I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and assume both swords would last longer than the combatants themselves.

6. Don't see how Aragorn is more battle hardened than Macleod when Macleod is a couple centuries older plus has all the experience gained from his killed opponents.

7. Macleod is unkillable unless his head is decapitated. Aragorn can be killed with a decapitation, a stab to the heart, exsanguination, etc.

Can't look at the video. Lionsgate blocked it apparently.

And Aragorn tossed a probably 230+lb dwarf made even heavier by heavy armor and weapons like a rag doll when he threw Gimli onto the bridge. Remember Aragorn while not truly immortal, is descended from the First Men(basically 40k Space Marines but in the past), making him far more powerful than most people alive in Middle Earth by the time of the trilogy.

How many people did Conner actually beat?

Originally posted by KingD19
Can't look at the video. Lionsgate blocked it apparently.

And Aragorn tossed a probably 230+lb dwarf made even heavier by heavy armor and weapons like a rag doll when he threw Gimli onto the bridge. Remember Aragorn while not truly immortal, is descended from the First Men(basically 40k Space Marines but in the past), making him far more powerful than most people alive in Middle Earth by the time of the trilogy.

I'm going to try and go through a few Highlander videos when I get the chance. But just pulling from memory, I know the immortals were easily breaking off steel and iron pipes or grills here and there. Either to use as weapons or to just get out of their way. Their swords swings were usually enough to cut through chain and slim steel poles.

In the end though when fighting with swords, it's more skill and speed that will count and not so much strength, unless there is a huge difference in strength.

Aragorn has plenty of skill and speed as well. His kill count should be massively higher than Conner's considering all he does is fight and kill shit his entire life of 90+ years by the time the trilogy starts. Hell his kill count int he 3 movies alone probably overshadows Connor's.

Originally posted by FrothByte
1. Aragorn is around 90 yrs old if I'm not mistaken.

2. Katanas are not folded a thousand times, they just have a thousand folds. Most katanas are folded somewhere between 10-13 times. Folded 10 times, a katana blade would have 1024 folds. Folded 11 times it would have 2048. Etc.

3. Aragorn uses a longsword, not a broadsword.

4. Longsword blades are not folded. The reason a katana blade is folded is because Japan had crappy iron. They had to fold the blade in order to even out the carbon distribution in the steel. Europe (being a larger place with more trade coming in) had access to higher quality steel and they had no need to fold the blades because they were strong enough as is.

5. If we're going to use accurate representations of the swords, then the katana will most likely bend out of shape from just a few full contact whacks with the longsword. But since this is the realm of movies I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and assume both swords would last longer than the combatants themselves.

6. Don't see how Aragorn is more battle hardened than Macleod when Macleod is a couple centuries older plus has all the experience gained from his killed opponents.

7. Macleod is unkillable unless his head is decapitated. Aragorn can be killed with a decapitation, a stab to the heart, exsanguination, etc. \


Katana blades are only folded 100-200 times. Master blades are folded a 1000 times but it's extremely rare to find that Don't challenge me on this. I grew up next to a blacksmith. We had many debates on this issue. I would always argue that a, Katana blade was sharper. He would always respond, that "yes, Katana blades are sharper but only in a slashing manner. He would always argue that a, Katana blade could never pierce a medieval suit of armor if it was used to stab/pierce the armor. He would also go into detail to explain how samurai, didn't utilize much armor and the armor, that they did use could all be easily pierced and ruined by a, Katana blade or a poorly crafted, European blade. The mythical, blades we always here about regarding, Katana blades were ones that were rarely produced and ones that were made for very specific individuals.

A highly crafted medieval, broad sword was designed to pierce just as many layers of steel than a finely crafted Katana blade was.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Sorry, but Aragorn has the experience here. Aragorn battles entire armies. Connor has more 1v1 experience.

Originally posted by Mindset
Connor has more 1v1 experience.


How?

Aragorn, has fought and toppled entire armies?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
How?

Aragorn, has fought and toppled entire armies? By fighting more 1v1 duels.

Actually, nm, was thinking of Duncan.

!V! duels are dwarfed when compared to multi-duels that he completely owns. At least i would think. Anytime you see aragron fighting more than one enemy, he is destroying the competition. Atleast when we compare McCloud. McCloud never fights more than one opponent. Or, atleast when he does, he is getting his ass beat. Argorn, has showcased, MULTIPLE times where he takes one numerous enemies on his own and rocks them. If you, REALLY want proof, i will provide. McCloud NEVER takes on more than ONE enemay alone. ;-)

So let me know because i know Aragorn aways beats McCloud.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
\


Katana blades are only folded 100-200 times. Master blades are folded a 1000 times but it's extremely rare to find that Don't challenge me on this. I grew up next to a blacksmith. We had many debates on this issue. I would always argue that a, Katana blade was sharper. He would always respond, that "yes, Katana blades are sharper but only in a slashing manner. He would always argue that a, Katana blade could never pierce a medieval suit of armor if it was used to stab/pierce the armor. He would also go into detail to explain how samurai, didn't utilize much armor and the armor, that they did use could all be easily pierced and ruined by a, Katana blade or a poorly crafted, European blade. The mythical, blades we always here about regarding, Katana blades were ones that were rarely produced and ones that were made for very specific individuals.

A highly crafted medieval, broad sword was designed to pierce just as many layers of steel than a finely crafted Katana blade was.

Do you even know what it entails to "fold" a blade? You get a rectangular chunk of steel, heat that up and then hammer it continuously to an elongated flat piece of steel. That will take hours and hours. Then you fold it, and then hammer it again flat. That will take hours again. A katana blade folded 10-13 times takes a master smith months to make. It's ridiculous to try and fold it a hundred times, let alone a thousand. Like I said, a blade folded 10 times already has 1024 folds (2 raised to the power of 10) and that's where the confusion comes in. People think it's folded a thousand times. It is not, it simply has a thousand or so folds.

Besides, do you know what the purpose of folding the blade is? It's to leech off excess carbon. Too much carbon makes the steel brittle. But fold it too many times and you leech the carbon out too much. Too little carbon and the steel is too soft.

Neither longsword nor katana can cut through high-end Samurai armor. Latter design longswords however could probably stab through it. To be fair though, neither katana or longsword could stab or cut through plate armor. You'd have to go through gap points and samurai armor have way more gaps than full plate armor.

Katanas are usually sharper than longswords because katanas have a harder steel edge and thus can retain sharpness better. Longswords however were made of a springier steel and was a lot more durable. Whereas katanas would bend if placed under enough stress, longswords normally just spring back into shape.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
!V! duels are dwarfed when compared to multi-duels that he completely owns. At least i would think. Anytime you see aragron fighting more than one enemy, he is destroying the competition. Atleast when we compare McCloud. McCloud never fights more than one opponent. Or, atleast when he does, he is getting his ass beat. Argorn, has showcased, MULTIPLE times where he takes one numerous enemies on his own and rocks them. If you, REALLY want proof, i will provide. McCloud NEVER takes on more than ONE enemay alone. ;-)

So let me know because i know Aragorn aways beats McCloud. He usually uses the enemies numbers against them.

And they're fodder.

And this isn't a 1 vs. many match. It's 1 vs. 1, so obviously the person who has more experience in duels has an advantage.

After all, how many skilled opponents has Aragorn dueled one on one? There was Lurtz and then?

Originally posted by KingD19
The superhuman ranger that's 90 years old but is still around his early 30's, and one of the best swordsman in a world of superhuman swordsman.

True, I believe he lived to be 210

Which still makes him a couple centuries younger than Macleod.

Mcloud. More experienced. Been doing these 1v1's much longer. A shit ton more durable with his healing factor and damage soak.

Aragorn needs the decap which he isnt even aware of. They are probably close skill wise, and while aragorn is quite the beast, Connor has absorbed power, strength, skill, from plenty of other immortals to put him as a solid match.

Connor after a good fight. He will land a killing blow at some point while simply outlasting Aragorn.

Does Aragorn not have knowledge about the decap? Basic opponent knowledge and all that?

Also I don't see Aragorn being outlasted considering he was in constant action for all 3 movies and never once even seemed tired.

If this was book version Aragorn wins. He had the blood of the Numenoreans and never, once in the entire books was unsure of himself or in real danger. He pretty much destroyed everything he fought. He could run for weeks without stopping.

Movie version though MIGHT go to Highlander.

Movie version is the exact same version.

Originally posted by KingD19
Movie version is the exact same version. NO, it's not. Not even remotely close. Did you read the LOTR? At all? Like, Ever?


Not that it matters as this is movie Aragorn.

Aragorn wins.

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
NO, it's not. Not even remotely close. Did you read the LOTR? At all? Like, Ever?


Not that it matters as this is movie Aragorn.

Yep, read all 3 books. Read the Hobbit. Read the Silmarillion. Next question?

It's not close because they can't do everything on screen they can do in the book, but it's as close as they could get and is a pretty faithful interpretation.

Originally posted by KingD19
Yep, read all 3 books. Read the Hobbit. Read the Silmarillion. Next question?

It's not close because they can't do everything on screen they can do in the book, but it's as close as they could get and is a pretty faithful interpretation. Read them all as well. Glad you have.

Anyway, my point is not just that Movie Aragorn is weaker than his book counterpart (which he is), but his entire portrayal is different. I like the movies for the most part...and I even like Viggo's Aragorn as it works for general audiences and makes for a more relatable hero.

But aside from the physical differences, Aragorn in the books never doubted who he was. He never shied away from duty or responsibility. He knew he was the baddest mofo around and let everyone know it. He was borderline cocky.

Aragorn, and with minor difficulty

What I can't understand is why people are thinking Aragorn is more skilled than Macleod. Whom has Aragorn fought that isn't fodder? Only Lurtz from what I recall and he had a hard time with that, almost lost if I recall.

Also, why is everyone ignoring the fact that Macleod has a healing factor and a lot more durable than Aragorn.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm going to try and go through a few Highlander videos when I get the chance. But just pulling from memory, I know the immortals were easily breaking off steel and iron pipes or grills here and there. Either to use as weapons or to just get out of their way. Their swords swings were usually enough to cut through chain and slim steel poles.

In the end though when fighting with swords, it's more skill and speed that will count and not so much strength, unless there is a huge difference in strength.

The Kurrgan had slight superhuman strength

http://41.media.tumblr.com/af3ab98a749edaed6dd51de06b40d0e6/tumblr_mtggi4WYYc1rvlq2no1_500.png

Originally posted by FrothByte
What I can't understand is why people are thinking Aragorn is more skilled than Macleod. Whom has Aragorn fought that isn't fodder? Only Lurtz from what I recall and he had a hard time with that, almost lost if I recall.

Also, why is everyone ignoring the fact that Macleod has a healing factor and a lot more durable than Aragorn.

Mostly because Duncan simply wasn't that impressive in his fight sequences, nor were the people he fought. TBH, most times as I recall (been awhile since I watched the movies), he struggled quite a bit in his final fights. Even winning through other trickery besides a straight up sword fight.

I'm certainly not saying he's not skilled, the problem is, I just seen Aragorn as more skilled going by their fights. I'm not sure why you thinking one v one fights proven more than One vs. many. It's actually the opposite. Think about the preposition that Aragorn would've struggled more if he fought one v one compared to fighting hundreds. It makes no sense. It's much harder to fight multiple people off than one v one. Aragorn has that in spades, Duncan, not so much. That to me is the difference here.

Duncan isn't in this thread.

So you think fighting multiple fodder is more impressive than fighting 1 skilled opponent? Would you then say beating 3 average guys on the street is more impressive than beating Mike Tyson in his prime?

Besides, Connor has fought multiple opponents as well. Just check his wartime flashbacks.

He's also defeated other immortals within the first few seconds of their duel. So it is not true that he steuggles always. Did you ever watch any Highlander movie? You don't even know his name

Originally posted by FrothByte
So you think fighting multiple fodder is more impressive than fighting 1 skilled opponent? Would you then say beating 3 average guys on the street is more impressive than beating Mike Tyson in his prime?

Besides, Connor has fought multiple opponents as well. Just check his wartime flashbacks.

He's also defeated other immortals within the first few seconds of their duel. So it is not true that he steuggles always. Did you ever watch any Highlander movie? You don't even know his name

You see that's the problem with calling them fodder, it's plainly disingenuous and not the actual case. We know the Elves are elite in their fighting skill, and themselves very old and experienced. To say nothing of their heighted well beyond human agility and speed, eyesight etc etc. In fact, one could very well say beyond anything shown by the highlander in any move save the last one. Again though, there was context to that. Point is, they are elite, and yet they were dying by the hundreds by this "fodder". Now, if it was always in a tag team situation, and not one v one, we could cut them some slack... but that would further prove my point regardless. In numbers they are lethal and deadly. So the fact that Aragorn was killing them by the hundreds brings the point home that should be evident by now.

What's worse, many times they didn't need to kill them in a tag team, many were shown killed one v one as well. Further reinforcing the point, that they aren't "fodder" as you trying to paint them as. At worst, they are deadly in numbers, guess what, Aragorn was pwing them in numbers. That is beyond anything Connor ever showed. Which is the point, and why he feel he's superior fighting skill wise.

Granted, there is a healing factor to deal with and I agree that is why this becomes interesting. The decapitation is kind of a non point for me. I believe Aragorn would have that knowledge based on forum rules, and even if not, he's skilled and smart enough to figure it out. Being that I believe he's ahead skill wise, he'd land blows before being killed, and thus see the regen first hand. What do all of us think when we see that or Jason or Freddy.. like damn, let me chop off their head and see wtf happens then. So in either case I believe that is a non issue. Only made worse by Aragorn doing that in the movies.

Haven't seen them lol. Okay bud. It's funy cause NO. 2 or 3 is one of my favorites and most hate it. The one with M.V.P. in it.

Fodder.

Aragorn has lopped off a few heads in LOTR, its one of his go to moves so I don't think his knowledge of that weakness really matters, he'd prolly go for the head eventually anyways.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
You see that's the problem with calling them fodder, it's plainly disingenuous and not the actual case. We know the Elves are elite in their fighting skill, and themselves very old and experienced. To say nothing of their heighted well beyond human agility and speed, eyesight etc etc. In fact, one could very well say beyond anything shown by the highlander in any move save the last one. Again though, there was context to that. Point is, they are elite, and yet they were dying by the hundreds by this "fodder". Now, if it was always in a tag team situation, and not one v one, we could cut them some slack... but that would further prove my point regardless. In numbers they are lethal and deadly. So the fact that Aragorn was killing them by the hundreds brings the point home that should be evident by now.

What's worse, many times they didn't need to kill them in a tag team, many were shown killed one v one as well. Further reinforcing the point, that they aren't "fodder" as you trying to paint them as. At worst, they are deadly in numbers, guess what, Aragorn was pwing them in numbers. That is beyond anything Connor ever showed. Which is the point, and why he feel he's superior fighting skill wise.

Granted, there is a healing factor to deal with and I agree that is why this becomes interesting. The decapitation is kind of a non point for me. I believe Aragorn would have that knowledge based on forum rules, and even if not, he's skilled and smart enough to figure it out. Being that I believe he's ahead skill wise, he'd land blows before being killed, and thus see the regen first hand. What do all of us think when we see that or Jason or Freddy.. like damn, let me chop off their head and see wtf happens then. So in either case I believe that is a non issue. Only made worse by Aragorn doing that in the movies.

Haven't seen them lol. Okay bud. It's funy cause NO. 2 or 3 is one of my favorites and most hate it. The one with M.V.P. in it.

The elven and human army combined in Two Towers were outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Urukhai. Of course they were dying by the hundreds. That doesn't mean the Urukhai are on the same level as the elves.

Fact is, you really have no way to prove the Urukhai's skill. Other than Lurtz, none showed that great skill. Boromir was killing them left and right. Legolas and Gimli were killing them left and right. In fact, when did the Urukhai look formidable?

I'm providing facts about MacLeod to back up my position:

1. He's older than Aragorn by a few centuries
2. He absorbs all the skill, knowledge and experience of any other immortal he faces
3. He's been in multiple battles and wars over the ages
4. He can't be killed other than by decapitation
5. He's very durable and has a healing factor

You on the other hand are giving a lot of guesswork just to excuse your position. Basically what you're saying is "Aragorn killed a lot of (featless) orcs and that proves he's a better swordsman than Connor".

Originally posted by FrothByte
Fact is, you really have no way to prove the Urukhai's skill. Other than Lurtz, none showed that great skill. Boromir was killing them left and right. LOL. Boromir was one of the greatest warriors of his day. He was an INSANE fighter and killed more Uruks than the movie even showed. I believe he killed 39 of them before he fell. Boromir would have been a pretty good match for Aragorn. So, you cannot discount him.Again, Legolas and Gimli at the battle of Helm's Deep each killed over 40 Uruk-hai. They were, again, incredibly formidable fighters. To try and make the Uruks look bad for losing to these legendary fighters is hilariously silly.

1. That is irrelevant
2. That's fine, he doesn't do much with it then, for the most part...sadly.
3. Again, irrelevant. Aragorn was pretty much slaughtering creatures/evil men his entire life too.
4. And Movie Aragorn decapitated Lurtz
5. Aragorn is incredibly durable as well. He also heals faster than normal men, AND has healing hands. They kind of showed this in the movies when he heals Eowyn and Faramir. Aragorn is basically a "Super soldier".

Interesting fight. I actually think Aragorn's lack of knowledge about the decap could prove to be his downfall (assuming that is the case and he has no knowledge of it). If Aragorn goes for a killing stroke that isn't a decap and it actually connects, but doesn't do the job, that moment of surprise should be all the opening someone with Connor's skill level needs to get a potentially crippling/fatal stroke of his own in. And unlike Connor, Aragorn doesn't need to lose his head to die.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Interesting fight. I actually think Aragorn's lack of knowledge about the decap could prove to be his downfall (assuming that is the case and he has no knowledge of it). If Aragorn goes for a killing stroke that isn't a decap and it actually connects, but doesn't do the job, that moment of surprise should be all the opening someone with Connor's skill level needs to get a potentially crippling/fatal stroke of his own in. And unlike Connor, Aragorn doesn't need to lose his head to die. Nah. Conner tried to backstab Duncan (to quote Stark, "DICK MOVE BANNER", and he still lost that fight. Also his footwork and swordsmanship in that fight are the reasons he was decapitated. Lurtz would have killed Conner in that showing, let alone Aragorn.

What happened between Connor and Duncan, another immortal, is not the situation I am suggesting. Striking a surprised opponent up close is a lot different to running at someone's back while yelling. But that all depends on how much knowledge Aragorn has. If he knows he has to hack off body parts from the start, it will be a different match. Either way, as I mentioned before, I think this is an interesting fight.

Originally posted by FrothByte
The elven and human army combined in Two Towers were outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Urukhai. Of course they were dying by the hundreds. That doesn't mean the Urukhai are on the same level as the elves.

Fact is, you really have no way to prove the Urukhai's skill. Other than Lurtz, none showed that great skill. Boromir was killing them left and right. Legolas and Gimli were killing them left and right. In fact, when did the Urukhai look formidable?

I'm providing facts about MacLeod to back up my position:

1. He's older than Aragorn by a few centuries
2. He absorbs all the skill, knowledge and experience of any other immortal he faces
3. He's been in multiple battles and wars over the ages
4. He can't be killed other than by decapitation
5. He's very durable and has a healing factor

You on the other hand are giving a lot of guesswork just to excuse your position. Basically what you're saying is "Aragorn killed a lot of (featless) orcs and that proves he's a better swordsman than Connor".

There is no guesswork involved at all here, only unquestioned facts that you don't seem willing to accept. Here are the facts, and they are indisputable:

1. Elves have heightened reflexes, agility, strength & perception along with other variables. They are also very experienced and skilled in battle. In fact, one could argue, they showed more speed, agility, reflexes than another C.M. has ever shown

2. These same Elves were dying in larger numbers against these guys you're calling "fodder" . Some because they were being tag teamed, but other times, they simply got beaten one v. one.

Thus, the implication is no matter how you slice it, they are very deadly in numbers and some can kill Elves one v one. There are no two ways about it, and the only logical deduction that can be made from the movies. Yet, we are also left with these facts:

1. Aragorn took on some of these same guys while vastly outnumbered (just as the Elves were) and never, not once, did he even come close to dying really. Shit, he barely even had a mark on him for most of the confrontations. Even in one v one situations, he always came out on top.

So how are we left with anything other than, Aragorn has feats beyond anything C.M. has ever shown? He's never been shown fighting off groups such as these and coming out on top. To say nothing of the fact that even using the sword skills we see from him, he doesn't seem to be as skilled. He doesn't seem as fast, as strong nor as skilled. What you call guess work, I call these things listed above as very factual.

BTW, I totally forgot to address your analogy before. Being that I've shown them not to be "fodder" and actually deadly in numbers. The true analogy would be, would it be harder to fight 3 Donovan Ruddoch's or one Mike Tyson. That the more appropriate analogy, and the answer is simply, I'd be more impressed beating 3 Razor Ruddoch's

Watching Tyson one punch a group of 12 well trained boxers while they were all trying to beat him down at once, and getting away without even a split lip would impress me more than any of his 1v1 fights against champions.

Also despite their being large numbers of Uruk(as they were tank bred), they were known far and wide as the elite of Sauron's forces, and the most deadly ground troops he had access to. They were basically the evil version of elves as they were better fighters, stronger, etc... than all the other orcs and goblins and stuff like the elves were to normal humans.

Originally posted by KingD19
Watching Tyson one punch a group of 12 well trained boxers while they were all trying to beat him down at once, and getting away without even a split lip would impress me more than any of his 1v1 fights against champions.

Also despite their being large numbers of Uruk(as they were tank bred), they were known far and wide as the elite of Sauron's forces, and the most deadly ground troops he had access to. They were basically the evil version of elves as they were better fighters, stronger, etc... than all the other orcs and goblins and stuff like the elves were to normal humans.

Precisely king

Originally posted by KingD19
Watching Tyson one punch a group of 12 well trained boxers while they were all trying to beat him down at once, and getting away without even a split lip would impress me more than any of his 1v1 fights against champions.

Also despite their being large numbers of Uruk(as they were tank bred), they were known far and wide as the elite of Sauron's forces, and the most deadly ground troops he had access to. They were basically the evil version of elves as they were better fighters, stronger, etc... than all the other orcs and goblins and stuff like the elves were to normal humans.

Show me any footage of Uruks actually being trained to fight. As far as I recall, they were born from mud, given weapons and armor then sent to war.

They're big and strong but not once did I see them actually look skilled.

So Tyson fighting 12 well trained boxers is a false equivalency.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Show me any footage of Uruks actually being trained to fight. As far as I recall, they were born from mud, given weapons and armor then sent to war.

They're big and strong but not once did I see them actually look skilled.

So Tyson fighting 12 well trained boxers is a false equivalency.

Now they are just untrained guys born from mud? Jesus.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Now they are just untrained guys born from mud? Jesus.

Hey man, if you can prove me wrong I'll happily apologize. Show me them receiving a decent amount of training. Or actually just show me them training. Show me them displaying any actual skill.

Do we see Legolas train? No, we see him kick ass. Do we see Bane train? No, we see him kick ass. Do we see Thor train, No we see him kick ass. Do we see Ozy train, no we see him kick ass. Do we see Sauron train.. Balrog train...? I could go on and on across most movies. You get the point bud, seeing them training is not remotely required to prove skill. In fact, showing them kicking ass is exponentially more important to proving skill.

Have you not seen the movies? If you haven't, I understand why you're asking the question. If you have, I have no clue why you're asking it. They are shown killing Elves, Men, Dwarves by the hundreds. Guess what, that counts for vastly more than showing them banging swords together training. Please, that is proof of their skill. Their proof of their skill and formidability are the dead Elves, men and Dwarves on the ground.

By the way, why don't you refute the post I made above (which you still haven't addressed).. since it's seemingly to easy to do.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi


So how are we left with anything other than, Aragorn has feats beyond anything C.M. has ever shown? He's never been shown fighting off groups such as these and coming out on top. To say nothing of the fact that even using the sword skills we see from him, he doesn't seem to be as skilled. He doesn't seem as fast, as strong nor as skilled. What you call guess work, I call these things listed above as very factual.

Uhuh. And Aragorn has 1 feat where he went up against a decent opponent and barely survived. He has zero feats of fighting off a skilled opponent and easily winning, which Connor has lots.

Seeing as this is a 1 vs. 1 match, I have to question your insistence on disregarding Connor's experienced fighting skilled opponents and concentrating instead of Aragorn beating up fodder. Because at the end of the day, the Uruks only defeated the Elves through sheer numbers. Whereas we see the Elves actually displaying skill, the Urukhai are pretty much hack and slash tanks.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Do we see Legolas train? No, we see him kick ass. Do we see Bane train? No, we see him kick ass. Do we see Thor train, No we see him kick ass. Do we see Ozy train, no we see him kick ass. Do we see Sauron train.. Balrog train...? I could go on and on across most movies. You get the point bud, seeing them training is not remotely required to prove skill. In fact, showing them kicking ass is exponentially more important to proving skill.

Have you not seen the movies? If you haven't, I understand why you're asking the question. If you have, I have no clue why you're asking it. They are shown killing Elves, Men, Dwarves by the hundreds. Guess what, that counts for vastly more than showing them banging swords together training. Please, that is proof of their skill. Their proof of their skill and formidability are the dead Elves, men and Dwarves on the ground.

By the way, why don't you refute the post I made above (which you still haven't addressed).. since it's seemingly to easy to do.

Legolas and Thor at least have some massive skill feats. Plus, they weren't just a few days old. The urukhai were only a few days to a few weeks old before they were sent to war.

What post above are you talking about? That they needed more than 10,000 orcs to kill a combined army of a thousand Elves and Humans? With a lot of those humans untrained boys? With the elves numbering only a couple hundred? There was only 1 dwarf in that fight that I recall. Anyway, that's not a show of skill, that's a show of overwhelming numbers.

Froth, you're better than this. I conclusively proven you don't need to see training to show skill. That has been conclusively established. So your premise has already been thrown out the window. That is all I was required to do, and listed countless examples to back up it being completely thrown out.

The hundreds of Dwarves that died were to an inferior group than the one faced at the two towers. This is clearly pointed out in describing them, and King even quoted the lines. That inferior group of Orcs killed Hundreds of Dwarves, Elves and Men in BO5A. Thus, Sauron's army in LOTR trilogy, was even more formidable and deadly. Guess what, Aragorn was slicing through them like a knife through butter. Doing something and beating a group C.M. was never shown beating.

You know the post I'm referring to... the post you have responded to which laid out the facts you are seemingly dismissing. You keep referencing that they needed numbers to kill all those people.. that proves my point.... They are deadly in numbers.. Guess what, Aragorn killed them left and right with barely a scratch on him.

You can't further get around that elves were shown to be above anything C.M. has ever shown speed, agility, reflex wise.. as well as being super skilled and experienced in battle. If their movement feats are above anything C.M. has shown.. yet they were still being killed left and right... yet Aragorn wasn't.. How you can't grasp that this might mean Aragorn is more skilled is beyond me.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Froth, you're better than this. I conclusively proven you don't need to see training to show skill. That has been conclusively established. So your premise has already been thrown out the window. That is all I was required to do, and listed countless examples to back up it being completely thrown out.

Training is not needed to showcase skill IF there has actually been skill shown. Unfortunately, none of the Urukhai other than Lurtz has shown any actual skill. Which is why I questioned their training. If you can provide them showcasing actual skill then that's something different. And no, 10,000 orcs killing a few hundred Elves does not showcase skill. It simply shows that they are far inferior to Elves.



Yes, and those orcs were getting knocked out by rocks thrown by old women. Meaning if those orcs were that easily defeated, then the dwarves/elves/men they defeated were pretty crappy as well.



Err... 10,000 Orcs being able to kill a few hundred men and a few hundred elves is proof of their skill despite them actually losing that fight? Yeah... you need to work on your reasoning skills.

Yes, I'm not saying Aragorn is not a skilled fighter. Problem is all he ever did is kill fodder. Fodder that, even outnumbering the enemy 10 to 1 still lost the battle. What I'm questioning here is that Aragorn has never, not once, have any decent feat where he went up against a skilled opponent and easily won. He went up against 1, who was Lurtz, and almost lost. Now I have to wonder why you keep dodging that fact. Heck, I don't even know if Lurtz was actually skilled or just strong.





Yes, but Aragorn did not defeat Elves did he? He defeated Urukhai whom the Elves would have slaughtered if not for the fact that they were severely outnumbered.

What I can't grasp is why you keep ignoring Macleod's huge advantages (healing regen, massive experience advantage, ability to absorb other immortal skill and experience) and keep focusing on Aragorn beating fodder.

Why do you keep belaboring a point that doesn't prove your case, it only reinforces mine, is quite perplexing to say the least. Nobody is arguing that they didn't outnumber their foe, and that is why they would've likely won. The numbers prove how formidable and deadly they can be in numbers. Which is exactly why we see them kill Elves, men and Dwarves by the hundreds. Mind you not all tag teaming them, but let's say that was the only way, that doesn't detract from my point. They still killed very skilled warriors and yet never once came close really to killing Aragorn... in fact he killed them by the hundreds.

Please, you don't even believe the Elves were weak, nor the Dwarves. You know better than that. The Elves have beyond human abilities in both physical attributes and skill. As well as being hundreds of years old, and very experienced in battle. They were still killed. Aragorn, even while surrounded by these same foe, was mowing them down.

Once we understand the premise that Elves have done, and do things C.M. was never shown doing both skill wise and physical attribute wise... yet they still died.. and Aragorn didn't. It's very easy to deduce, maybe, just maybe Aragorn is more skilled.

Nobody is ignoring anything, that is the reason why he's still in the fight and it's competitive. I just believe that Aragorn's skill will shine throw in the end.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Why do you keep belaboring a point that doesn't prove your case, it only reinforces mine, is quite perplexing to say the least. Nobody is arguing that they didn't outnumber their foe, and that is why they would've likely won. The numbers prove how formidable and deadly they can be in numbers. Which is exactly why we see them kill Elves, men and Dwarves by the hundreds. Mind you not all tag teaming them, but let's say that was the only way, that doesn't detract from my point. They still killed very skilled warriors and yet never once came close really to killing Aragorn... in fact he killed them by the hundreds.

Please, you don't even believe the Elves were weak, nor the Dwarves. You know better than that. The Elves have beyond human abilities in both physical attributes and skill. As well as being hundreds of years old, and very experienced in battle. They were still killed. Aragorn, even while surrounded by these same foe, was mowing them down.

Once we understand the premise that Elves have done, and do things C.M. was never shown doing both skill wise and physical attribute wise... yet they still died.. and Aragorn didn't. It's very easy to deduce, maybe, just maybe Aragorn is more skilled.

Nobody is ignoring anything, that is the reason why he's still in the fight and it's competitive. I just believe that Aragorn's skill will shine throw in the end.

Aragorn killed them by the hundreds? BS. Please stop exaggerating. Aragorn never took them on ALL AT THE SAME TIME. The orcs will usually come at Aragorn 1 or 2 at a time while the rest just hang back and look menacing.

In Aragorn's very first fight with the Urukhai, he kills about 3 of them in succession (again not at the same time) runs up the staircase to bottle neck the flow, kills a couple more, jumps down, kills one more... and then Legolas and Gimli come to help him out.

I'll check on other videos just to be sure but AFAIK Aragorn never took on more than 3 Uruks at the same time. Heck, I'm fairly certain they always attack only 1 or 2 at a time while the rest just hang back and waited their turn.

So the basis of your entire argument is flawed. Aragorn never defeated scores of Uruks at the same time since they usually attack him only in 1s or 2s. What you can say is that he has ridiculous amounts of endurance. In that I'll agree with.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Aragorn killed them by the hundreds? BS. Please stop exaggerating. Aragorn never took them on ALL AT THE SAME TIME. The orcs will usually come at Aragorn 1 or 2 at a time while the rest just hang back and look menacing.

In Aragorn's very first fight with the Urukhai, he kills about 3 of them in succession (again not at the same time) runs up the staircase to bottle neck the flow, kills a couple more, jumps down, kills one more... and then Legolas and Gimli come to help him out.

I'll check on other videos just to be sure but AFAIK Aragorn never took on more than 3 Uruks at the same time. Heck, I'm fairly certain they always attack only 1 or 2 at a time while the rest just hang back and waited their turn.

So the basis of your entire argument is flawed. Aragorn never defeated scores of Uruks at the same time since they usually attack him only in 1s or 2s. What you can say is that he has ridiculous amounts of endurance. In that I'll agree with.

This is another failed argument Froth and you know it. It doesn't matter HOW they were attacking him, why, because they were attacking him in the same manner they killed Elves, men and dwarves. It matters not how they attacked him, they attacked him in much the same manner and got killed over and over again. Yet, other Elves (physically superior to C.M.) as well as far more versed in large scale battles, died to these "fodder". What's worse, some of them died one v one at times, and not just by getting outnumbered. Thus, how they attacked Aragorn in again irrelevant. They attacked him, in whatever way you want, he lived they died. Other people can't say the same. It's really that simple. Based on battle feats, he's above C.M. it's that simple

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
This is another failed argument Froth and you know it. It doesn't matter HOW they were attacking him, why, because they were attacking him in the same manner they killed Elves, men and dwarves. It matters not how they attacked him, they attacked him in much the same manner and got killed over and over again. Yet, other Elves (physically superior to C.M.) as well as far more versed in large scale battles, died to these "fodder". What's worse, some of them died one v one at times, and not just by getting outnumbered. Thus, how they attacked Aragorn in again irrelevant. They attacked him, in whatever way you want, he lived they died. Other people can't say the same. It's really that simple. Based on battle feats, he's above C.M. it's that simple

First, you're going to have to prove that the Urukhai were killing elves 1 on 1 in a fair manner. 2nd, you're talking about featless elves. We don't even know how good these elves were. Every single elf with decent fight scenes were decimating uruks. So basically, Aragorn killing 1-2 Uruks at a time doesn't really show him having superior skill. The uruk's skill level is unknown. You're doing a whole lot of guesswork to back up your argument. I'm just giving you facts

Originally posted by FrothByte
First, you're going to have to prove that the Urukhai were killing elves 1 on 1 in a fair manner. 2nd, you're talking about featless elves. We don't even know how good these elves were. Every single elf with decent fight scenes were decimating uruks. So basically, Aragorn killing 1-2 Uruks at a time doesn't really show him having superior skill. The uruk's skill level is unknown. You're doing a whole lot of guesswork to back up your argument. I'm just giving you facts

Incorrect Haldir was an elite elf who lead them to the deep to protect it. He was also shown killing them all over the place. Guess what, he eventually got killed by this "fodder" You ask, I submit facts.

Watch the battle scenes for God's sake, you'll notice one v one confrontations (sometimes not at the forefront of the picture) killing Elves in seemingly one v one battles. Other times they seemed to get overwhelmed, which again, doesn't disprove my case. it only reinforces it. They were coming at the Elves the same way, huge battles, multiple engagements all over the place. Elves died, Aragorn didn't. It's really that simple. The conclusively shows his skill.

Lastly, we know what Elves can do and their history. We know they are very skilled in battle and this couldn't have been pounded into our heads anymore clearly than it was. It was practically smacking us in the face both in verbal dialogue and in action. So stop trying to pretend these elves that were killed were somehow weak Elves. Even the weakest Elf is beyond human level in pretty much every single way. Guess what, they could killed. Aragorn sliced through them with ease. NO matter the situation.

Aragorn wins. He was the best fighter by far in the books, and even his movie version has shown that when the time comes, He'll decapitate his opponents. Lurtz lost his head. So will Conner.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Incorrect Haldir was an elite elf who lead them to the deep to protect it. He was also shown killing them all over the place. Guess what, he eventually got killed by this "fodder" You ask, I submit facts.

Watch the battle scenes for God's sake, you'll notice one v one confrontations (sometimes not at the forefront of the picture) killing Elves in seemingly one v one battles. Other times they seemed to get overwhelmed, which again, doesn't disprove my case. it only reinforces it. They were coming at the Elves the same way, huge battles, multiple engagements all over the place. Elves died, Aragorn didn't. It's really that simple. The conclusively shows his skill.

Lastly, we know what Elves can do and their history. We know they are very skilled in battle and this couldn't have been pounded into our heads anymore clearly than it was. It was practically smacking us in the face both in verbal dialogue and in action. So stop trying to pretend these elves that were killed were somehow weak Elves. Even the weakest Elf is beyond human level in pretty much every single way. Guess what, they could killed. Aragorn sliced through them with ease. NO matter the situation.

If you are giving featless elves this much skill by virtue simply of them being elves, I can do the exact same thing to immortals. Each one of the immortals Connor has killed have also killed other immortals, meaning they'd have dozens if not hundreds worth of immortal skill, knowledge and experience. And a lot of these immortals Connor killed within a few seconds.

Haldir killed Uruks left and right. Yes he eventually fell, but that just proves my point that Uruks are nothing but fodder. How many Uruks was he able to kill before he fell in battle hmm??

I'm still waiting for you to show me actual feats of Urukhai that show them as skilled warriors instead of just brutes.

Originally posted by FrothByte
If you are giving featless elves this much skill by virtue simply of them being elves, I can do the exact same thing to immortals. Each one of the immortals Connor has killed have also killed other immortals, meaning they'd have dozens if not hundreds worth of immortal skill, knowledge and experience. And a lot of these immortals Connor killed within a few seconds.

Haldir killed Uruks left and right. Yes he eventually fell, but that just proves my point that Uruks are nothing but fodder. How many Uruks was he able to kill before he fell in battle hmm??

I'm still waiting for you to show me actual feats of Urukhai that show them as skilled warriors instead of just brutes.

Difference being, as you claim, we can't see the immortals that were killed by the immortals Connor in turn killed. We never saw them fight much if at all. On the contrary we see, the Elves, men and Dwarves killed by what you're calling "Fodder" here. Stark difference.

Further, we see in the D.O.S. Legolas almost killed by inferior Orcs... In one instance Thorin threw and axe to save him. In another his love shot an arrow out of the air with an arrow. Point is, you can't say Legolas is a crappy fighter, and yet even he was almost overrun.

Bolg is another example, he didn't seem to posses some elite fighter skill and moves. He seemed to be all power and strength with some skill obviously mixed in. This illustrates how deadly "Brutes" as you call them can be. He went life and death with Legolas, one of the elite fighters of the Trilogies. Certainly holding his own in each and every encounter. He killed Kili who himself was killing Orcs left and right. He had Tauriel dead to rights on multiple occasions... who again was killing Orcs left and right. Shit, even took them on 2 v 1 and won. This illustrates the point, that even if we accept your premise that they were just brutes, brutes can be very deadly. The Urukhai were stronger and better fighters than who Tauriel and Kili were wading through, not bolg strong, but he point is strength can be a significant variable in ANY sword or h2h fight.

We see this in real life MMA fights, the most skilled and agile guy doesn't always win. Sometimes they are simply overpowered by strength and explosion. It's common. So while I reject your premise they aren't skilled at all, even if so, they are still deadly and deadly in numbers.

Guess what, Aragorn was tearing through them left and right. Even despite the odds and the chaoticness of the battle happening all around him, he still waded through them like knife through butter.

You dismiss Haldir showing as if he just got overwhelmed. That only reinforces my point. They are deadly in numbers. Even Elite elves went down. That is EXACTLY what I'm saying, Aragorn never went down. Ever. That's the case in point.

Please don't try and make the Elves anything other than elite fighters, which agility and speed NEVER EVER shown by Connor. We were literally smacked in the face with this fact in both words and actions. Yet you wanna go, well, maybe they were shitty elves. Please. That goes against everything we were taught about hem. Even then, I've shown elite elves either dying or almost dying from these guys. Guess what, Aragorn never did.

KT, I've got to be honest with you. I love to debate as much as the next guy but I'm too lazy to read through your wall of text.

All I can say is, do you have any clip at all where Aragorn gets attacked by more than 2 orcs as the same time? Because unless they did, then they never really attacked him "in numbers" as you keep saying.

I do not discount Haldir's death. But remind me again, wasn't he struck from behind?

Originally posted by FrothByte
1. Aragorn is around 90 yrs old if I'm not mistaken.

2. Katanas are not folded a thousand times, they just have a thousand folds. Most katanas are folded somewhere between 10-13 times. Folded 10 times, a katana blade would have 1024 folds. Folded 11 times it would have 2048. Etc.

3. Aragorn uses a longsword, not a broadsword.

4. Longsword blades are not folded. The reason a katana blade is folded is because Japan had crappy iron.

5. If we're going to use accurate representations of the swords, then the katana will most likely bend out of shape from just a few full contact whacks with the longsword.
6. Don't see how Aragorn is more battle hardened than Macleod when Macleod is a couple centuries older plus has all the experience gained from his killed opponents.

7. Macleod is unkillable unless his head is decapitated. Aragorn can be killed with a decapitation, a stab to the heart, exsanguination, etc.


Ok, Aragorn and McLeod aside, lets focus on the weapons of choice. The two weapons and styles of fighting that they use demand very different styles. The Bushido way of combat is usually only going to be effective when used against other Bushido users and this is because the, Katana blade, was designed for a very specific style of fighting. The Katana blade is nearly unmatched in slashing strikes but extremely ineffective in piercing blows.
The majority of sword fighting revolves around the piercing strike because it's the hardest to defend against. Either way, a European longsword is going to be just as effective in delivering a killing blow as a Katana blade if it's being used by a professional. I should also point out that Aragorns sword is no mere normal sword, however, i digress. I think we can both agree that this victor of this fight isn't going to be determined by the weapon but rather the person using the weapon.


I really don't see how anyone can argue that, Aragorn is not a more battle hardened veteran than, Macleod. Not only has, aragorn spent decades fighting endless armies he was the one leading those armies...,fighting at the tip of the spear.
Yeah, Macleod has been around for centuries as well but he amassed his experience fighting one on one duels every couple of decades. Between these sporadic bouts, Macleod lived his life blending into each culture trying to live a simple life. Aragorn Lived his centuries in nearly constant combat against countless odds. Aragorn is a master of fighting, regardless of what tool is at his disposal. I hate to resort to this, but if we're arguing film feats alone, MacLeod is an after thought. He struggles just to maintain competence against ONE opponent. Aragorn is constantly cutting through small armies without breaking a sweat.

You may say his emenies are fodder, but what on scree feats have we seen that suggests Aragorns fodder are any less relevant than the Single opponents that have bested and nearly bested Macleod?

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Ok, Aragorn and McLeod aside, lets focus on the weapons of choice. The two weapons and styles of fighting that they use demand very different styles. The Bushido way of combat is usually only going to be effective when used against other Bushido users and this is because the, Katana blade, was designed for a very specific style of fighting. The Katana blade is nearly unmatched in slashing strikes but extremely ineffective in piercing blows.
The majority of sword fighting revolves around the piercing strike because it's the hardest to defend against. Either way, a European longsword is going to be just as effective in delivering a killing blow as a Katana blade if it's being used by a professional. I should also point out that Aragorns sword is no mere normal sword, however, i digress. I think we can both agree that this victor of this fight isn't going to be determined by the weapon but rather the person using the weapon.


I really don't see how anyone can argue that, Aragorn is not a more battle hardened veteran than, Macleod. Not only has, aragorn spent decades fighting endless armies he was the one leading those armies...,fighting at the tip of the spear.
Yeah, Macleod has been around for centuries as well but he amassed his experience fighting one on one duels every couple of decades. Between these sporadic bouts, Macleod lived his life blending into each culture trying to live a simple life. Aragorn Lived his centuries in nearly constant combat against countless odds. Aragorn is a master of fighting, regardless of what tool is at his disposal. I hate to resort to this, but if we're arguing film feats alone, MacLeod is an after thought. He struggles just to maintain competence against ONE opponent. Aragorn is constantly cutting through small armies without breaking a sweat.

You may say his emenies are fodder, but what on scree feats have we seen that suggests Aragorns fodder are any less relevant than the Single opponents that have bested and nearly bested Macleod?


Hey man, no need to preach to me about longswords being better than katanas. I agree.

But Macleod doesn't fight using kenjutsu that I know of (bushido is not the martial art of the sword), he just uses a katana. And we know he's used it effectively against a variety of warriors.

I also don't know why everyone thinks Macleod only fights 1 vs. 1 duels. In majority of his flashbacks you see him fighting in war after war. Sometimes with swords, sometimes with guns.

Also, some of the immortals he's fought he defeated within a few seconds. Just watch his very first fight in the first movie.