Excellent point phantom, but I'm having trouble seeing how you think Boromir and Faramir are equal. Faramir is a good fighter, but he's more like his dad, he can fight, but more of a thinker. Where Boromir is the pure fighter. Even in Faramir's mind ("Appendices: The Stewards") none in Gondor could match his brother.

I agree that eventhough Gimli killed 42, Boromir's final stand is impressive. Gimli possibly had more kills, but just the description Pippin gives us really gets us to see Boromir's last stand well...
Through this account, Boromir halted the orcs twice, and on the third time they took him. I thought the way PJ did this scene, was good, and suitable to my liking, however he doesn't show well the account Pippin gives. It wasn't just one orc standing back and shooting arrows at Boromir, it was a bunch of orcs and "a rain of arrows: always at Boromir." Ok, my rant is over, on to some of the rankings...

Faramir, I'm having trouble seeing how you can give Legolas and Glorfindel the same ranking? Glorfindel the elf who drove off the Nazgul, the elf who slew a balrog, and he has the same fighting skill as Legolas? Also, I disagree with Gimli being a lesser fighter then Legolas, Gimli did kill more in Helm's deep, and Aragorn commented on his wonderful axemanship (as well as Eomer and Gamling).

TpotSS, I agree I would give Elladan and Elrohir a 9 (if not close to 9). They were just plain out crazy orc hunters, and I believe were called the best orc fighters in the third age (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'd also agree that 9.4 is suitable for Glorfindel.

Boromir, I dont know much about Glorfindel, so I gave him points based on what I know of him from FOTR, and everyone has their opinions and mine is that Legolas is just a more skilled fighter than Gimli.

I'm not saying any one has to agree with me, I'm simply saying this is what I think and this is why. I think that's what was asked for, to go on and say why you think Legolas is a better fighter then Gimli? I said I don't think so, and here's why....

I know in the movie Gimli killed one more than legolas at helms deep,in the book what was the killing difference?

(oh ya and i only made it a .5 difference between them, so there virtually tied)

well.. i think gothmog was pretty good.. he was certainly powerful. gandalf and the witchking as well. only because they have powers beyond the others that you have listed though.

The Count at Helm's Deep
 

It was the same in the book, Faramir. Legolas got 41, Gimli 42. However, we should make note of Legolas' killing of the fell beast with the Bow of Galadriel. I really don't think there's much in it between these two.

While perhaps not the best fighter in LOTR based on textual evidence, I believe Eomer "did the best." His last stand on the Pelennor Fields is my favourite passage in the book (except perhaps for the love scene between Eowyn and Faramir). He is mentioned as having come out of the battle unscathed, as only Aragorn and Imrahil succeeded in doing.

Best Fighter
 

I think the best fighter was Aragorn, as a Ranger he was a fighter, that was literally all he did.

The best fighter certainly cannot be based on if he was defeated or not. I mean, look at Ken Jennings from Jeopardy. So just because some are undestroyable such as the King of the Dead, doesn't make them the best fighters. After all, he who is highest falls hardest. So what does that mean? People with more power, such as Gandalf, Sauron and the Witch King, have much greater weaknesses.

But if it were to come down to hand-to-hand combat, battle to the death in a sumo ring, then there are a few things to consider.

Stamina: Obviously Elves and Dwarves would last longer in a physical fight then men and wizards would. They're built for it.

Strength: What race is strongest, again, toss up between Elves and Dwarves.

Agility: Jeez, this isn't really leaving a lot of room for men is it?

So I've come to the conclusion that if they were to have an All-Middle-Earth wrestling tournament, Elves and Dwarves would probably kick bum because of how they're built and because they're so much older then men. I think that Gandalf wouldn't fare well in such a showdown if he couldn't use supernatural powers. Yes, he's a good fighter, he's lived a long time but he has the misfortune of being trapped in the body of a decaying man. Not good for a lasting opponent.

So who's the best fighter? In terms of Third Age type warriors, I'm tempted to say Aragorn only because I can see his spirit and skill beating most of the other candidates. He'd find a way...and that's very important. But then I wonder if her could take on Legolas? Or Gimli, or Elrond for that matter!

'Ello Bill
 

May I throw in a balrog?

"Ai, Ai! A Balrog has come!" Elves are scared.

"Oh crap, it's Durin's Bane." Dwarves are scared.

"What is this new devilry?" Men are either scared or curious. Probably both.

"Oh crap, it's a balrog of Morgoth. I'm in trouble now." Wizard is scared.

Since they can be destroyed, I count them as mortal, even though it would probably live until the end of time with no interruptions. Wielding terror alone, a balrog is enough to scare off most. It would be enough for me, methinks. Cloaked in shadow and flame, that takes care of a few more. And you can't say that using fear and fire doesn't count as fighting, because in a fight, you use the tools given to you, and that's what a Balrog's got. With flaming sword and whip, we've just taken out nearly everybody else. Throw in powerful magic and a heck of a lot of experience and most fighters are in big trouble. And the wings. Don't forget those. Any opponents will be so busy trying to document proof that the Balrog can kill them with no trouble at all.

Fea

In a battle (army vs. army), stamina is very important. Battles can last for days.

But in a one-on-one duel to the death. Ha!

A one on one duel would rarely last long enough for stamina to come into play. An evenly matched duel could be over in twenty seconds. Any weapons expert would tell you that. There are so many chances and openings to win and the action moves so fast. Duels in movies last way longer than real life duels, and even movie duels aren't very long if you think about it.

Toss stamina out. Any respectable warrior would have enough stamina to do a duel.
Why would you say this? I thought that the men of Numenor were known for their size and strength. Turin was possibly the strongest being ever, and he was a man.
I'd say that it's Dwarves that would come up short on agility. And I remember a quote in the Sil that said that Turin grew to be as agile as any elf, so it's not as if elves own this category.
Nope, I doubt it.
I don't think so. First, think of how physically imposing the balrog was. Second, think about how Gandalf fought him. Did Gandalf say "I put spells on him and shot him with magic!"? No, Gandalf said "I hewed him". He fought him with a sword. Gandalf may have looked old, but he had plenty of physical ability. I seem to remember Pippin noting his strength when Gandalf lifted Faramir out of the pyre as if he weighed nothing.
I imagine Aragorn would paste Gimli and beat down Legolas. Elrond- I wouldn't know. Aragorn's pretty awesome, but it'd really be tough to bet against big E.

Ah, but we're not discussing normal warriors are we. My point on stamina is that I'd bet that a one on one would be that much more evenly matched. Fights are longer if no-one has the upper hand, right? I'm not a fencer, or anything like that, I would just imagine that if say two great warriors fought each other, neither would back down and both would be good enough to avoid death longer than normal people.

Yes, you are right, and I did not take this into account. I was merely sliming the candidates list by eliminating most men. Most men, after all, have no special anything, especially if they don't have the motivation or hope.

It's hard to say if Dwarves are agile or not...I've never heard anyone say they were or weren't. But they are famed fighters so I made the assumption that they are. Turin was not a normal man, and my points, like I said, were just meant to slim the piles a little. Turin was amazing and definately a strong contender, man or no.

Yes, but it did kill him, and the only reason he came out of that was because of his "powers" if I may use that word.


Compared to Pippin, definately. But in the description of Wizards it clearly states that they were old men for a reason, meaning that indeed though their hearts were strong, that their bodies were weak.

It's hard to say really, for Legolas and Gimli at least because for Aragorn to summon enough of his personal strength in order to beat them, he'd have to have good motivation. That's Aragorn's strength, his hope and his heart. However, if he was simply told to try and kill Legolas for example, I think his human heart would be overpowered by Legolas's elven powers of skill and concentration.

Good post, my good Lord, I love these kind of debates. I hope you post again and point out any faults in this post.

And has anyone played the trading card game? What warrior card (or whatever they're called) is the strongest?

What? Someone inviting me to post a second time? It must be my birthday or something. :p
If neither "would back down" then the fight would be very very short. Like I said before, there's so many chances to gain the upper hand in a fight with just one swing or thrust and if one guy gets the upper hand the other one had better back off quick or he's dead within two seconds.

If you get in a good blow on the other guy's leg his mobility is gone and it's easy to get him to fall down. You win pretty quick. If you get a good blow on his arm, then he's trying to match the strength and speed of your two good hands on your weapon with his one good hand on his weapon. You win pretty quick.

So it doesn't even take a mortal blow to make a fight be over quick.

Let's look at fights in general. Notice that fighting sports like boxing do certain things to lengthen the fight. They put padding on the fists of the fighters (making it harder to knock the other guy out), they make it illegal to punch in certain areas (making it easier to defend yourself), they don't let you grab your opponent or push them or kick them (limiting the ways you can gain an advantage), and finally they stop the fight every two minutes to allow the fighters to recover.

They've done an awful lot to make the fights longer, haven't they?

And yet, in most fights how long are the guys in the ring before one of them wins? Not too long.

So just imagine how short a fight would be with absolutely no rules, no padding, and no time outs. They'd be as long as a street fight. Have you ever seen two guys get mad at each other and decide to go at it? Those sort of fights usually lasts five to ten seconds.
And dwarves and elves have a "special anything"? They're just a different race, that's all.
Dwarves are known for being warlike, but "famed fighters"? Certainly not any more famous than men. Think of every great battle exploit by a dwarf or dwarf army and I can give you three or four great battle exploits by men.
No, not just compared to Pip. Gandalf lifted Faramir like he was a toothpick. I know I couldn't do that, and I'm not old and decrepit at all.

don't forget about Gil-Galad! even though hes gone to the great haven in the sky, he still took on Sauron, a maia!

I totally agree! Eomer was supposed to be quite proficent on the battle feild. Boromir and Faramir too.

If your immortal you can't be "killed". But technically immortals would win....


Anywhooo !

Elly :D
________
High & low blood pressure forums

I would have to agree with Halbarad that Hurin is the greatest mortal warrior ever. He was brave valiant and noble. He was the last to survive the fighting and killed 70 troll guards of Gothmog while crying "Aure Entulava! Day shall come again". And then to top it off for twenty five years or so ( I forget the exact number of years) he was held by Morgoth and he defied him the whole time and never gave in...mentally that's pretty tough.

In the Third Age during the War of the Ring I believe one of the greatest fighter had to be Boromir, just because his battle prowess was displayed of killing many Uruks and because he was wounded by the arrows of the enemies. He was not fighting the orc breeds of Mt.Gundabad or the underground breed of Moria. These were orcs which stood as tall as men, and were more ferocious then the average orc. Put in the valour he fought with in his heart, he was indeed a true warrior. However due to the early time of his death, his future accomplishments and thus further acccountability as a warrior are lost.

I don't know if anyone has said this, but I think Pippin slaying a troll at the Black Gate is pretty impressive. I mean look at him... he is between four and five feet tall and this troll is huge. Thats got to count for something.

I'd also say either Merry or Eowyn, seeing as how the two of them together put the Witch King out of the picture. That might have involved a bit of luck but hey, everyone gets lucky sometime.

I'm sure that Aragorn is described as the best hunter and the best swordsman of his time and I'd have to agree that he was the mightiest warrior of his time.
Boromir was, I think, better than Faramir in terms of a battle. I'm sure that the recapture of Osgiliath by Gondor was creditied more to Boromir than Faramir, and there is little mention of his 111 day journey to Rivendell for the Council, but the few mentions of it describe it as being a very tough and very dangerous journey to make. I would give him the edge over Faramir.

The last few days, before seeing this thread, I have been thinking about who was the greatest warrior among men. I had made a shortlist of men from the different ages: Barahir, Beren, Hurin, Huor, Turin, Elendil, Isildur, Earnil, Aragorn, Boromir, with a few others like Tuor, Eorl, Faramir, as outsiders.

I personally think that Turin was the mightiest, with Hurin and possibly Aragorn the next in line.

From the original list of the thread, Gandalf and Gothmog were both Maia that were clothed in bodily form while Elrond and the WitchKing were both boosted by rings of power. So they should have an edge over the rest.
Of the rest, I would give Boromir the advantage, for the reasons stated above.

p.s. I have been reading these forums for a while and now I've finally registered and this is my first post. I'm so happy to be a Downer :)

What makes a best fighter best? Lust for gold? power? or is it just born best?


there are obviusly many ways to be best, not just how many baddies you can kill, for example, Turgon could be the best fighter because he knew when and when not otattack because he was smart, but Feanor could be the best fighter because he charged recklessly at the enemy.


think about it,

Gil-"The Duke"-Galad

When talking about mental combat, Sauron wuold be total winner. He's just more powerful than Saruman, Gandalf, Galadriel or Elrond. Gandalf says that he can't beat Sauron.

And have you all forgotten the ents?!! Aren't they (in a way) great warriors?

YES!!!! Definitely Glorfindel by far!!!! After all, he helped the company the most, and was able to outride the Ringwraiths. Keeping one's head in the face of danger is a quality important in a fighter.

I think we should stick with the original 20 people given at the beginning of the thread. It might just be me but it's a bit unfair comparing balrogs (or ents) to Mortals and smaller races and I think needs to be seperated into their own categories.

...and again i say there are many ways to be the best fighter, not just brute strength or how many kills...

I think we are looking at this from the wrong angle. Let's take Hurin and Turin as our examples.

Can we really say that one was better than the other? Say we work out that Hurin was 0.00001% better than his son. Does that mean that if they played out a one-on-one fight 100 times that Hurin would always win? Of course not.

Hurin might have been disturbed during his sleep last night and so not quite as prepared as Turin. Turin might step in the one little puddle on the ground thus losing his balance ever so slightly during a critical point of the fight.

So for two similar cases, (Hurin and Turin, Legolas and Gimli, Boromir and Faramir) I think it's inappropriate to conclude that one is a better fighter than the other.

It's like in football: Brazil and Argentina are two of the best in the world right now. But circumstances dictate; I would not say that one team is better than the other because the two have proved in recent times that they can both defeat the other. Neither is best, they are two of the best, and possibly the two best.

There are clear cut cases: Aragorn is a better fighter than Gamling, say. As for the original list, we can eliminate some. Get rid of Legolas and Gimli, obviously. Hurin and Turin would come very near the top of everyone's list, but there's no definitive order to place those two. All we can really say is that Hurin and Turin are near the top, not which one is at the top.


EDIT: For the sake of argument (i.e. my argument) let's just suppose that Hurin and Turin were on the original list. :o

Ah, we've moved on to the history of Middle-earth by now, right? Right? You all saw it, I didn't start it! If you don't want to, then my points are still applicable. Just sub Hurin and Turin with....um.....'Gorn and Boromir.

The best warrior obviously had to be smart and cunning so I'd say it would have to be Gil-Galad, Aragorn, Eowyn and Elindil. Eowyn may not seem that good, but she did kill the Witch-King with a broken arm and not that many people could have done that. Gil-Galad and Elindil killed Sauron while he was wearing the Ring and Aragorn was just smart, quick and strong like all the others.

Boromir was a good commander in Gondor, and he was wise and his sense of duty was strong. I mean look what he did just to try and keep Merry and Pippin safe, most people would turn around and run faced with the odds that were presented at Amon Hen.

So in the original list it's a toss up between Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Legolas, and Gimli. Really the possibilities are endless and it depends on your opinion. In reality they all were the best in their particular areas.

What about outside influences?
 

Think of other things going on in somebody's life and mind during a battle.

Aragorn: "If I lose this battle, my world will be destroyed, my foster father will be disappointed, I will be dead, I will lose all chances of spending the rest of my natural life with my soul mate, my friends will be killed."

That's a lot of pressure, don't you think? But even so, look at the comparison for later:

"If I lose this battle, I will have died fighting to save my country, the people I love, and goodness everywhere. And my sacrifice may just give my friends the time they need to succeed where I can not."

Aragorn is arguably the best fighter of the 3rd Age. Not only is he physically powerful, but he has mentally combatted Sauron and come out on top. Also, he has strove with the above thoughts and pressures and still emerged victorious. These stresses alone are enough to break a normal man, but Aragorn cast aside all selfishness and marched to battle, pitying lesser men rather than scorning them, in a diversion that should have cost him everything.

But don't just look at my reasoning and agree with me, because where is the fun of that? Think of the stresses and psychological stuff going on with our heroes, and then relate to me [us] who you think is the best fighter given personal circumstances.

Entirely true. Then again, figuring out that Hurin is "0.00001%" better than Turin is exactly what this thread is for, since he would be, by a small margin, a better fighter. :p

Not that I think Hurin is. I'd be inclined to give Turin the edge, but you're right that they both should be near the top (if not at the top).
Leave Eowyn off and it might be a decent list. And saying "Elendil" would make it even better.
Because she's not good enough to be on that list.
She happened to be the one standing there when he was made vulnerable by Merry's magic sword.
Rosie Cotton could've done that.

Stab the guy in the face with a sword while he's just sitting there. Who can't do that?

I agree, to a point, with LoDL about Eowyn. Although she's got the shield-maiden status going for her, her defeat of the Wikkie was almost a given.

1) she had the prophecy going for her. You can see my opinions on prophecies on this thread.

2) she had a shield. He had a big scary mace, yes, and yeah, it broke her arm, but physically, all she did was stop it. She didn't counter it, she didn't take it from him per force, she just stopped it.

3) his main weapon was fear. Her fear for her uncle's life (or at least honorable death) simply over-powered her fear of the big scary jerk.

Sure, she's great. I'm not denying it. Heck, Eowyn's one of my favorite characters. But she's certainly not one of the best fighters. One of the most stubborn, sure; but one of the most careless as well. Being an emotional and slightly suicidal gal doesn't qualify you to rank with Aragorn, Gil-Galad, or those other guys for best fighter status.

Perhaps its better to think of it in sections:

Magic and Melee

In magic it'd be Gandalf and perhaps you should divide Melee up again into close range weponry and long range. But thats just my opinion..

By the 'we' I mentioned in "we work out that Hurin was 0.00001% better" I meant 'silly people'. :p

I would have thought the absurdity of such a conclusion was apparent.

You are totally right about Eowyn. Fantastic though she is, it is silly to consider her one of the very best fighters of the stories.

In Defense of Eowyn
 

I am now addressing all the first-time readers of LOTR who were fooled by Eowyn's disguise.

As "Dernhelm", didn't Eowyn seem like the most deadly, suave, fearless and tremendous warrior we'd seen for quite a few pages?

Had she stayed Dernhelm, wouldn't we think the mysterious Rider's deed extremely impressive?

Aren't we slightly degrading her feat because we know who she is, her background, her inexperience...most damningly, her chromosomes?

"If some girl can do that, why, a turnip can."

Sounds to me like:

"If some hobbit can just toss in a ring, Sauron can be conquered by the average blue tit."

Don't belittle her achievement. She did finish Glorfindel's job and avenge the last King of Gondor. She did what we would have expected Aragorn to do; what was partly his ancestral duty to do. Alright, Master Holbylta rendered the Witch-king mortal; but it was Eowyn who rendered him dead.

Alright. That said, I do not think her the greatest fighter in the Lord of the Rings, a title I'd prefer to give to her brother...

Eowyn needs no defense, sir. It's just that she shouldn't really be on this thread. Although the mention of Pippin earlier was definitely sillier! :D

I'm not. And I'm not saying she's not awesome solely because of gender. Quite honestly, my chromosomes are screaming that Galadriel's got the best fighter status.

She took one of the 3rd Age's best fighters (Boromir) and with thought alone messed him up.

In physical contests back in the old Valinorian days, she won all the time.

She had the power to guard and use a ring of power without curruption, and admits on her own that had she the One, she could have ousted Sauron. Even without that extra power, she still keeps Lothlorien safe and secret.

And if you want physical prowess, she marched to Mirkwood beside Celeborn, leading their troops, and personal vanquished Dol Goldur.

Admits on her own? :eek:

Didn't Treebeard say that he was the oldest thing in existence? You can't go by Galadriel's boasts, surely? Even with the Ring she wouldn't have defeated Sauron.

As for physical prowess.......mmm.....perhaps you'd care to point out some examples?

Merely curious, is all. :D

So, everyone except for us, right Eomer?
Something being "0.00001%" better isn't absurd if it's true. It's a super-duper small margin, but if proven, it still counts. ;)
No.

If Dernhelm had been ambushed by orcs and slain ten of them, then I'd start to form an opinion of Dernhelm as a fighter.

But that never happened. All Dernhelm did was ride a horse. That is hardly a case for calling Dernhelm a "tremendous warrior".
Sheesh. You do realize that diminishing a woman's accomplishments does not make you sexist?
Not a very good comparison since the hobbit did NOT toss the Ring in. He failed, same as an "average blue tit" would've failed.
Then why defend her? Did one of us say something that was false?
Ha ha! :D And you believed her?
Yep. I've seen several threads that make that point.

Plus, even if she was capable, it wouldn't make her a good fighter, because she wouldn't be confronting Sauron one on one. It would be army versus army. Tolkien said in his letters (the famous letter 246, if I'm not mistaken) that one on one confrontation was not even contemplated.
Yes, with "thought"- not a sword.
Which makes her a good fighter?
Wasn't it mainly the huge army of elves that took care of Dol Guldur?

Actually, it was Celeborn and the Elvish warriors under his command who defeated the forces of Dol Guldur. Galadriel brought down the walls once Celeborn had dealt with its denizens, and I suspect that was accomplished more by her mental powers than her physical prowess.

That's not to denigrate Galadriel's physical abilities, but we really don't have enough to go on to assess her ability as a warrior. And Celeborn gets a bad enough press as it is - primarily from his wife ( :p ;) ) - so let's give credit where it's due.

Speaking of the Battle under the trees... i thought that it was cool when Thranduil and Celeborn met in the midst of the forest and they joined forces together againest the orcs

Allow me to insert a big wink. Remember, I'm not saying that I think Galadriel was the best fighter, I'm saying that if we're going by what chromosomes are saying, that that's what I would be saying.

The vague idea was that you would simply assume I knew what I was talking about and not make me defend my hastily written post. ;)

The following is an excerpt from a PM between myself and lord of dor-lomin. In the following quote, I was defending my post about Galadriel, as well as making a point about Eowyn:

I thought it applicable enough to this discussion to post.

So.....Pippin has a really good shot at being called Best Fighter? Because he's so small and weak which made killing hard for him.

That's like saying I'm the best guitarist in the world because I can play some decent tunes despite finding the actual playing really difficult. Unlike, say, Eric Clapton, for whom playing guitar comes so easily.