Connor McLeod vs Aragorn

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.