Originally posted by juggerman
Oh don't get me wrong, I think Jon is an excellent fighter in this universe. My contention is that people seem to think fighting multiple low skilled opponents equals being able to beat a single higher skilled opponent. In a melee fight you use different tactics than against one guy. Plus Bronn fights dirty which again Jon has had trouble with before. And finally, Bronn had his dagger that he can whip at Jon's throat with crazy accuracy. That would likely end the fight right there.To be fair, if this were a straight up, no BS, one sword only and no armor for each match up then I'd side with Jon. But where anything goes, my money is on Bronn
EDIT: I just realised I didn't answer your question. Wildlings are indeed killers but again, how they fight is important. Jon has been training from a young age by a Master at Arms who taught him how to properly hold a blade, how to swing it, how to parry, feint, dodge and all manner of other techniques to use while in combat facing an opponent of equal or greater skill. The Wildlings could never hope to replicate such extensive training in the wilds of the True North. I would liken it that time the UFC had Marines come in and fight professional fighters. Marines are trained to kill in a multitude of ways this was a specific discipline that the MMA guys had a shit ton more experience in. Yeah they're good fighters compared to your average Joe but be was by no means hot shit in that area
As far as the Dothraki, we have no idea how Bronn stacked up in a actual sword fight. What we saw was the Bloodrider was superior to Bronn on horseback and it has been stated in the series that they train on horse all their lives. So it's understandable that he out performed Bronn while mounted.
My main contention with your arguments is that although I see your point,I don't see why you think Bronn's feats are better. Considering that for every feat Bronn has, Jon has one better. So my main issue with your stance is that you seem to be applying some form of double standard.
Originally posted by FrothByte
My main contention with your arguments is that although I see your point,I don't see why you think Bronn's feats are better. Considering that for every feat Bronn has, Jon has one better. So my main issue with your stance is that you seem to be applying some form of double standard.
I never said Bronn has better feats.
Originally posted by juggermanJon is pretty adaptable - while he had problems with Tanner, he was able to fight against Styr (even though Styr disarmed him), and I don't think he ever struggled with a fighting style, other than against Karl.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think Jon is an excellent fighter in this universe. My contention is that people seem to think fighting multiple low skilled opponents equals being able to beat a single higher skilled opponent. In a melee fight you use different tactics than against one guy. Plus Bronn fights dirty which again Jon has had trouble with before.
I just realised I didn't answer your question. Wildlings are indeed killers but again, how they fight is important. Jon has been training from a young age by a Master at Arms who taught him how to properly hold a blade, how to swing it, how to parry, feint, dodge and all manner of other techniques to use while in combat facing an opponent of equal or greater skill. The Wildlings could never hope to replicate such extensive training in the wilds of the True North. I would liken it that time the UFC had Marines come in and fight professional fighters. Marines are trained to kill in a multitude of ways this was a specific discipline that the MMA guys had a shit ton more experience in. Yeah they're good fighters compared to your average Joe but be was by no means hot shit in that area
As far as the Dothraki, we have no idea how Bronn stacked up in a actual sword fight. What we saw was the Bloodrider was superior to Bronn on horseback and it has been stated in the series that they train on horse all their lives. So it's understandable that he out performed Bronn while mounted.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
Jon is pretty adaptable - while he had problems with Tanner, he was able to fight against Styr (even though Styr disarmed him), and I don't think he ever struggled with a fighting style, other than against Karl.
And he had problem with dirty fighting while he fought honorable himself -later on, he spit Styr in the face.That wasn't my point, actually. My point is that Wildlings are usually as good as the random soldiers Bronn beat - though guys like Blooriders, Lords and Knights are better. And after all, it's still impressive to beat 3 somewhat skilled opponents in a few seconds.
Yeah, I know, they haven't even crossed blades, and the random Dothraki has some good showings. I'm just saying that Dothraki are another example of good fodder without any special training.
Based on what is it a bloodrider, though?
Jon is very adaptable but as stated he has trouble in fights that aren't straight up. Bronn fights dirty and I think that's enough to edge it in his favor since Jon has shown issues against fighters like that
I would place soldier fodder over wildling fodder simply due to training and discipline but I can see why you might place them evenly
No sure what you meant by that last question though
Originally posted by juggermanFair enough.
Jon is very adaptable but as stated he has trouble in fights that aren't straight up. Bronn fights dirty and I think that's enough to edge it in his favor since Jon has shown issues against fighters like thatI would place soldier fodder over wildling fodder simply due to training and discipline but I can see why you might place them evenly
No sure what you meant by that last question though
I'd put Sellswords > wildlings. But random soldiers that are probably part of the smallfolk? Nah.
Based on what is the Dothraki that killed Bronn's horse a blood rider?
Originally posted by Ursumeles
Fair enough.I'd put Sellswords > wildlings. But random soldiers that are probably part of the smallfolk? Nah.
Based on what is the Dothraki that killed Bronn's horse a blood rider?
If we put 1 average Wildling against 1 average soldier I'd think the soldier would win more often than not. Training, weaponry, discipline, and armor advantages mean something.
I don't know honestly. What's the different ranks of Dothraki? I've heard of a Dothraki Screamer but I'm not sure if that's a rank/type or if it's just cuz they scream when they attack
I mean, it depends - both the wildlings in CB & Bolton soldiers had no problem sacrificing their lives, though the soldiers indeed have better weaponary. Not that it makes much of a difference for Jon, though.
Idk tbh, but the bloodriders are guys like Qotho - the best fighters & right hands of their khal. Drogo had only three of them (though I don't know if there are always three), so it's a special rank.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
I mean, it depends - both the wildlings in CB & Bolton soldiers had no problem sacrificing their lives, though the soldiers indeed have better weaponary. Not that it makes much of a difference for Jon, though.Idk tbh, but the bloodriders are guys like Qotho - the best fighters & right hands of their khal. Drogo had only three of them (though I don't know if there are always three), so it's a special rank.
I think it does make a difference. You fight differently against a person with no armor vs a person with armor. Same for differences in weaponry
I think you're right in that Bloodriders are a specific type of Dothraki so there's no reason to assume Bronn's opponent was one. But all the men are trained on horseback from the time they are old enough to ride so even some of the worst fighters would still be superior on horseback to most Westerosi men
I mean it as in slaughtering several opponents in a few seconds is impressive either way. And at least the northern armor seems easy to pierce. But fair enough.
Obviously, Dothraki are the best riders in the world. It seems like only knights, lords & the likes are trained to ride, which would make sense considering the prize of horses, and even then the best Dothraki should be > most of the Westerosi on horseback (with exceptions like Loras and Jaime).
Originally posted by Ursumeles
I mean it as in slaughtering several opponents in a few seconds is impressive either way. And at least the northern armor seems easy to pierce. But fair enough.Obviously, Dothraki are the best riders in the world. It seems like only knights, lords & the likes are trained to ride, which would make sense considering the prize of horses, and even then the best Dothraki should be > most of the Westerosi on horseback (with exceptions like Loras and Jaime).
Well to be fair the Westerosi blades are made specifically to pierce Westerosi armor
Agreed
Originally posted by Ursumeles
He said several times he thinks that Bronn wins because of his style & dagger... 😬
Understood. And I'm asking for any proof/feats to back up that position, which is the norm for debates here. You state your opinion and others ask you to back it up. Pretty standard procedure.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Which is why I'm questioning why you still think he wins.... since feats is what we use in mvf.
Dirty fighters give Jon mucho trouble as we've seen and Bronn is a dirty ass fighter so that gives him an advantage. And that dagger toss he used against the Dornishman would be a potential fight ender.
Originally posted by juggerman
Dirty fighters give Jon mucho trouble as we've seen and Bronn is a dirty ass fighter so that gives him an advantage. And that dagger toss he used against the Dornishman would be a potential fight ender.
Jon has fought against barbarians, cannibals, traitors, enemy soldiers, thieves, murderers, rapists, undead humans, white walkers, undead bears and giants.... but for some reason you think he'll have trouble with someone just because they fight dirty?
What, you think all the rest of those opponents he fought followed honorable rules of combat??