[William Cloud Hicklin]

Part of the problem in this discussion is talking about "strength" as if it's a quantitative attribute, like something from an RPG: "Gandalf has strength X and the Witch-King has strength Y with a +15 Will of Sauron bonus; roll 3d8."

It just doesn't work that way.

Is a tank "stronger" than an infantryman? What if the infantryman has an antitank rocket? Were French knights "stronger" than English archers? For that matter, was Luthien "stronger" than Morgoth? Everything is situational.

And Tolkien generally avoided describing strength-on-strength contests directly. He carefully avoided having Gandalf fight the Witch-King or confront Sauron. We know nothing of the episode in Orthanc save that Gandalf felt that resistance was futile (a pox upon PJ's wizard-fu!). The fight with the Balrog comes closer but even that is told in retrospect and in very general terms. By the time we get to the Silmarillion, much of it is distant and mythological (and in keeping with T's affectation of provenance, would have to be, since all the Elves knew of Earendil's fight with Ancalagon was distant report and long sight- "But then Vingelot and the Great Eagles came, and there was a big fight in the sky, and then Ancalagon fell on the mountain!"

(Were I to get a rewrite, I'd take up the revised Second Prophecy of Mandos and have Turin fight from the boat while Earendil drove it, Iliad-style).