Of the Blademasters, who are the top 5?

[Entreri]

Look, I'm not trying to say all the Randlander BM's are better than or even equal to LTT, Sammy and Be'lal. All I'm saying is that Lan is.

 

Lets look at some events.

 

Rand becomes very good but is still lacking against Be'lal in the Stone.

Then, a while later after more intensive training and practice with Lan, the Aiel and testing himself against multiple skilled opponents, he matches up with Toram Riatin pretty equally.

The same Toram Riatin that Lan dispatches in mere minutes. I don't know about you but that speaks volumes as to the ridiculous level of skill Lan holds.

 

I'm sorry but we're talking about a guy that was and has not only trained religiously with the sword since he could walk, over 40 years straight now, he has close to the same amount in actual battle experience where the sword was his main weapon.

Vs 3 guys that practiced the sword as a hobby, whose main weapon and means of fighting was through channeling anyway.

 

Rand is not as good as Lan, certainly. But Rand at that time did not have all of LTT's memories.

 

I do not think LTT is as good as Lan either. However, it would not be too surprising if LTT = Lan = Jearom in blademaster skill. LTT was the alpha male of an entire Age, nobody was his equal.

 

 

Rand vs. Toram:

 

Rand was taking it too casually: "You will be confined in that" (coat); "Those gloves will slip cousin. You want a firm grip". Even so, he drew with Toram and he was not really trying to win the contest, just to test Toram. If it was a real fight, Rand would have killed him...killed Valda, Ryne, Galad, Gawyn...all with the exception of Lan.

 

Then right away Toram pulled off a Valda: "practice sword streaking toward Rand's head". Toram was likely as good as Gawyn, possibly Galad level.

 

Lan dispatched Toram in less than a minute. I think there is a considerable gap between Lan and Rand. Still Rand > Galad > Gawyn or anyone else not named Lan.

[Entreri]

With a one handed sword forms, and some time training, why wouldn't the DR beat either Galad or Gawyn? Now you are questioning the rankings of the Creator/RJ? LOL. LMAO!

 

 

He's not arguing with the creator/RJ though. Rand's rank was dropped after losing his hand.

 

Most certainly he is: "RJ could not rank his characters effectively." I find it amusing.

 

Once Rand learns the forms using a one handed sword, give a year so, he will be back. His battle prowess, physical strength, stamina and most importantly his mental strength will put him back in the rankings. Of course he will die before then...but if he was to get a two handed body with all of LTT's knowledge...forget about it.

[idiostock]

He won't ever be as good with one hand as he could have with both, though. With one hand he loses a great deal of the control and precision two hands grant. If a foe hits his blade at an angle he isn't prepared for, he can't recover. He can let go of the sword or break his wrist.

 

Naturally, though, Rand can cast while fighting.

[Entreri]

He won't ever be as good with one hand as he could have with both, though. With one hand he loses a great deal of the control and precision two hands grant. If a foe hits his blade at an angle he isn't prepared for, he can't recover. He can let go of the sword or break his wrist.

 

Naturally, though, Rand can cast while fighting.

 

good point

[Mats Spare Hat]

Bo Jackson laughs at all who discount the idea of being great at more than one thing.

 

Bo wasn't "great" at either sport, he was just good and maybe very good at times.

Either way, he was not the best and that's what we're talking about here.

He wasn't Jim Brown nor was he Willie Mays.

 

 

Well that's fine too. Jim Brown was an epic lax player as well.

 

Stands to reason that even if your main sport is football, or if your main vocation is channeling the one power, you can still be totally awesome at something that originated as a hobby, or a secondary pursuit. That being said, as JB's quoted as saying "I'd rather play lacrosse six days a week and football on the seventh."

 

Almost as though, conceptually, football filled the hobby role for JB, in a similar way for which swordplay very well may have for LTT.

 

Being great at one thing, channeling/football, doesn't exclude you from being able to be amazing at something completely different - regardless of whether or not you wanted to refer to that something else as being a hobby, as the origin's place the practice of LTT's swordplay.

 

We don't see how long LTT may have practiced the sword, we don't know what his first hand dueling experiences are, against who, how good of an opponent he faced off against, how many folks he fought at one time, how often he put those skills to use.

 

All of that taken into account, you can still tout the idea that Lan's equal to, or better than LTT. The huge wrinkle in that claim is that we're given all of these examples through the entire series of how proficient Lan is, first hand accounts, multiple duels, multiple opponents.

 

We don't get anything even close to that for LTT, in his time. No examples, no first hand accounts, no descriptive practice sessions, etc. All we have is a second hand account from a Forsaken hinting that they refined swordplay from what used to be a game, and hinting that Demandred was the perennial second in alot of things.

 

Saying Lan is equal to or better than an LTT, Be'lal, or Sammael just sounds ridiculous. Lan has trained for the majority of his able life, say for around 40 years, we know that. LTT was what, over 300 years old when he went loony toons? Vast majority of that time we don't have a freakin clue how he lived his life, how much time he put into what he did on a daily basis. We know more about toilet paper on a daily basis than we do about the life experience of LTT. There's very much zilch for comparative basis on swordplay between Lan & LTT, or any other Forsaken.

 

Lan is the present age of Randland has to offer, right now.

 

BUT, there's no hard evidence to support that he's equal to, or better than LTT/Sammael/Be'lal were, and what we do know about those three, their abilities to channel the one power, doesn't disqualify them at all from having been able to put just as much time, and effort, or even applying naturally gifted ability into their swordplay.

 

 

Knowing alot about your guy, but next to nothing about the other guy...Making comparisons over which one's better, when that's the circumstance, just comes off kinda dopey.

[MierinWru]

On a sidenote I think they all pretty much suck at sword fighting since they're mostly using one-handed swords without a shield. :(

 

They're either being very silly or Jordan didn't bother studying medieval sword fighting techniques at all. I suspect it's the latter. He probably thought he knew enough about it from watching Hollywood movie... which all depict sword fighting wrong, too. :(

 

 

[Mandro]

Jordan was using midevil JAPANESE swordfighting Kendo stylization. The Katana is a two handed sword, and at best there is a half shield made of bamboo to protect.

 

As for Gawyn, I don't know if Gawyn is better, or if he was expressing a desperation. I don't believe Galad is better than Gawyn, but Rand full bore I believe is superior than both, and Lan is greater.

 

So I would say

1) Lan

2) rand (pre arm)

3) Tam

4) Gawyn

5) galad.

 

I put Tam up ahead of the G's because Tam is smart enough to approach it as a soldier, not a petulant child lashing out at a challenge.

[Duskfire]

If LTT was that good a swordsman, wouldnt Demandred have trained to become good at swords just to spite him?

 

In any case, Mat would beat them all :P

[capuga]

Jordan was using midevil JAPANESE swordfighting Kendo stylization. The Katana is a two handed sword, and at best there is a half shield made of bamboo to protect.

 

As for Gawyn, I don't know if Gawyn is better, or if he was expressing a desperation. I don't believe Galad is better than Gawyn, but Rand full bore I believe is superior than both, and Lan is greater.

 

So I would say

1) Lan

2) rand (pre arm)

3) Tam

4) Gawyn

5) galad.

 

I put Tam up ahead of the G's because Tam is smart enough to approach it as a soldier, not a petulant child lashing out at a challenge.

 

Galad being better than Gawyn is per Brandon. Making it a fact. Arguing that Gawyn seems to have more moments of sword awesome in the books than Galad is reasonable though.

[Entreri]

If LTT was that good a swordsman, wouldnt Demandred have trained to become good at swords just to spite him?

 

In any case, Mat would beat them all :P

 

Certainly Mat would beat almost anyone. Only people I see beating him are Lan, Rand and Rhuarc. Lan is just too good. Rand (two hands) being the much greater ta'veren and #2nd bladmaster. Rhuarc being the best of the Aiel. Perrin would lose to Mat and so would any other blademaster or anyone else for that matter.

[MarkDiLillo]

For everyone out there making the all-time list...

 

Sammael was number one. He was a professional athlete prior to the war, and he was noted as being the world champion in swords. Not even Lan would come close to his level of skill.

[MierinWru]

For everyone out there making the all-time list...

 

Sammael was number one. He was a professional athlete prior to the war, and he was noted as being the world champion in swords. Not even Lan would come close to his level of skill.

 

Because AoL world champions are better than 3rd Age world champions by default?

 

This thread is so full of random claims presented as facts. :)

 

 

People said nobody would ever equal the power (saidin/saidar) of AoL Forsaken, too. Guess what, everybody seems to beating them these days. :p

[MarkDiLillo]

For everyone out there making the all-time list...

 

Sammael was number one. He was a professional athlete prior to the war, and he was noted as being the world champion in swords. Not even Lan would come close to his level of skill.

 

Because AoL world champions are better than 3rd Age world champions by default?

 

This thread is so full of random claims presented as facts. :)

 

 

People said nobody would ever equal the power (saidin/saidar) of AoL Forsaken, too. Guess what, everybody seems to beating them these days. :p

 

 

No - because the AoL was very much like modern times in its own way. If you compare modern sports over the years there is a natural progression towards improving records, training, athleticism, etc. The reasoning behind this improvement over the years is because participants have a larger knowledge base to analyze, study, train, and improve their diet so that they can be better. In the AoL, the sport of swords had very likely undergone this transition slowly and surely. Meaning that Sammael has most likely analyzed thousands of hours of video footage of opponents using the sword, prepared for every scenario, trained in the best methods possible, and competed/trained regularly against the best such training and technology could provide.

 

How many 1950's athlete can beat a modern athlete? In anything? Now compare a modern athlete to an athlete from the middle ages of history. Unless we're missing some important details, it is a very safe assumption to say that Sammael could flatten anyone with the sword.

 

The only disadvantage he would have would be that we have limited information regarding how often he used the sword in actual physical combat and not as a sport.

[MierinWru]

The only disadvantage he would have would be that we have limited information regarding how often he used the sword in actual physical combat and not as a sport.

 

You make that sound like a small disadvantage whereas I think it's a huge one. Doing any martial art for sports means you don't learn to actually kill or wound your opponent. Whereas real fighting is only about that.

[Mats Spare Hat]

The only disadvantage he would have would be that we have limited information regarding how often he used the sword in actual physical combat and not as a sport.

 

You make that sound like a small disadvantage whereas I think it's a huge one. Doing any martial art for sports means you don't learn to actually kill or wound your opponent. Whereas real fighting is only about that.

 

 

Sooo...you're saying learning to punch, kick, and throw people around doesn't teach you how to...punch, kick & throw people around?

 

Take boxing as a sport: How do you score points - by landing punches. How would a boxer hurt somebody, not as a sport - by landing punches.

 

Same with Kendo, how do you score points? By landing strikes. How do you wound or kill an opponent - by landing strikes.

 

How do martial arts MMA fighters win matches? By beating the piss out of their opponent, knocking them out, forcing them to submit. How would an MMA fighter kill or wound an opponent in a real fight...by beating the piss out of them, knocking them out, breaking their arm/leg/neck.

 

It's not the huge difference you might perceive it to be. In all those examples you're trained to hit & land blows. That's what those sports are about, and not so coincidentally, that's what wounding & killing requires.

 

When you learn how to punch somebody in the face, you're learning to punch somebody in the face - regardless of it's application in sport, or in a brawl. When you learn to strike at someone with a sword, you're learning how to strike someone with a sword, regardless if it's in a kendo match or a duel to the death.

 

I mean look up a match with somebody landing an overhand strike to somebodys head/face, or a strike to the body/arm/hands and then tell me you haven't learned how to kill somebody. Hell watch a Rocky movie and say, yeah well...it's not like he knows how to actually hurt anybody.

 

...Shhheeeeeesh

[Kal11]

The only disadvantage he would have would be that we have limited information regarding how often he used the sword in actual physical combat and not as a sport.

 

You make that sound like a small disadvantage whereas I think it's a huge one. Doing any martial art for sports means you don't learn to actually kill or wound your opponent. Whereas real fighting is only about that.

 

 

Sooo...you're saying learning to punch, kick, and throw people around doesn't teach you how to...punch, kick & throw people around?

 

Take boxing as a sport: How do you score points - by landing punches. How would a boxer hurt somebody, not as a sport - by landing punches.

 

Same with Kendo, how do you score points? By landing strikes. How do you wound or kill an opponent - by landing strikes.

 

How do martial arts MMA fighters win matches? By beating the piss out of their opponent, knocking them out, forcing them to submit. How would an MMA fighter kill or wound an opponent in a real fight...by beating the piss out of them, knocking them out, breaking their arm/leg/neck.

 

It's not the huge difference you might perceive it to be. In all those examples you're trained to hit & land blows. That's what those sports are about, and not so coincidentally, that's what wounding & killing requires.

 

When you learn how to punch somebody in the face, you're learning to punch somebody in the face - regardless of it's application in sport, or in a brawl. When you learn to strike at someone with a sword, you're learning how to strike someone with a sword, regardless if it's in a kendo match or a duel to the death.

 

I mean look up a match with somebody landing an overhand strike to somebodys head/face, or a strike to the body/arm/hands and then tell me you haven't learned how to kill somebody. Hell watch a Rocky movie and say, yeah well...it's not like he knows how to actually hurt anybody.

 

...Shhheeeeeesh

 

There is a big difference between sport and a real fight psychologically. Some guys are great fighters when they are getting hit with gloves or a stick and know they are not in any real danger. Even if you are outmatched and beaten there is the safety net of a ref stepping in to pull the guy off of you, the match is over. There are also rules that prevent certain things. I have a lot experience in both competitive fighting/training and the real thing and it is two different worlds entirely.

[MarkDiLillo]

Now that we have people coming out of the woodwork claiming to have experience with real fighting and competitive fighting...this is just turning plain ridiculous.

 

The comparison here is similar to suggesting that the greatest swimmer from the Middle Ages in Europe could beat Michael Phelps today. It won't even be close.

[Guest mike03]

Personally, I don't think that it really matters much once you get to a certain level. As the top blademasters, I'm sure that they could each defeat the other depending on circumstances, situations, and styles. Just look at Galad's fight with Valda. Clearly Valda was more skilled, but he was also cocky and played with Galad when he probably should have tried to finish him sooner. Maybe he would have done it quickly in a battle on the field, but he was probably trying to humiliate Galad because he challenged him to a duel. Ultimately, Galad outsmarted him in that situation, but that doesn't make him better as a swordsman. It only takes the one fight to end a person's life, so anyone could win.

 

However, if we are talking best of 100 battles with practice swords or something like that, I would guess that Lan is the best of the age due to his consistency as he seems to always be on without mistakes. That's tough to beat over time.

 

Regarding LTT versus Lan, I don't think that we have any idea who would be better. I don't think that the sport comparison works because no sport is exactly the same. You can compare past athletes in certain sports where there are times, such as swimming or track. Swimmers have new technology and learn how to train better, and you can directly compare times. However, sports such as boxing or tennis are different because you are competing with another individual, which directly affects how you perform. For example, certain boxing styles allow fighters to perform better against certain opponents, much like a certain tennis style will make it easier to beat some opponents, but more difficult against others.

[Kal11]

Now that we have people coming out of the woodwork claiming to have experience with real fighting and competitive fighting...this is just turning plain ridiculous.

 

The comparison here is similar to suggesting that the greatest swimmer from the Middle Ages in Europe could beat Michael Phelps today. It won't even be close.

 

I have a couple years of amateur boxing experience from when I was teenager, seven years as an infantryman including the Iraq invasion and occupation in '03, a few hundred hours of combatives (mostly Jiu Jitsu based) instructor training as well extensive periods of teaching it and doing on-post tournaments, and I grew up a whiteboy in Detroit. I would say I am more than qualified to consider myself experienced. Try keeping the jerk off comments to yourself.

[MarkDiLillo]

Now that we have people coming out of the woodwork claiming to have experience with real fighting and competitive fighting...this is just turning plain ridiculous.

 

The comparison here is similar to suggesting that the greatest swimmer from the Middle Ages in Europe could beat Michael Phelps today. It won't even be close.

 

I have a couple years of amateur boxing experience from when I was teenager, seven years as an infantryman including the Iraq invasion and occupation in '03, a few hundred hours of combatives (mostly Jiu Jitsu based) instructor training as well extensive periods of teaching it and doing on-post tournaments, and I grew up a whiteboy in Detroit. I would say I am more than qualified to consider myself experienced. Try keeping the jerk off comments to yourself.

 

And I am a gold medalist in karate at the Beijing Olympics. Also, I am a grandmaster and world champion sumo wrestler.

 

 

See how easy that was? And hence my point.

[Kal11]

Now that we have people coming out of the woodwork claiming to have experience with real fighting and competitive fighting...this is just turning plain ridiculous.

 

The comparison here is similar to suggesting that the greatest swimmer from the Middle Ages in Europe could beat Michael Phelps today. It won't even be close.

 

I have a couple years of amateur boxing experience from when I was teenager, seven years as an infantryman including the Iraq invasion and occupation in '03, a few hundred hours of combatives (mostly Jiu Jitsu based) instructor training as well extensive periods of teaching it and doing on-post tournaments, and I grew up a whiteboy in Detroit. I would say I am more than qualified to consider myself experienced. Try keeping the jerk off comments to yourself.

 

And I am a gold medalist in karate at the Beijing Olympics. Also, I am a grandmaster and world champion sumo wrestler.

 

 

See how easy that was? And hence my point.

 

Where did I claim to be a champion of any sort? Having experience in the military and martial arts isn't exactly fantastical, it is pretty common actually. If we want to take your attitude why even bother reading a forum? Everybody is just a liar.

[Mats Spare Hat]

Kal11: On Psychology I agree.

 

The post I had commented on raised the issue that "Doing any martial art for sports means you don't learn to actually kill or wound your opponent. Whereas real fighting is only about that."

 

Riiigghht, learning how to punch somebody in the face, doesn't actually teach you how to punch somebody in the face. Okay bud, sure!

 

It is totally whacky to suggest that the training, skill and experience involved in sport, wouldn't translate & prepare you for being able to wound & kill. For instance learning how to throw a punch, or how to swing a bokken, grappling, kicking somebody in the face, etc.

 

With regard to rules though - I'll pick on Kendo - You're still learning how to strike with a 'blade' on someone's person. Score points with strikes to the head, the arms, thrust to the neck, blade to the body. All within the rules. Take those rules away, take away the protective clothing, replace wooden sword for hard steel. Those skills translate to wounding & killing pretty freaking well.

 

Martial arts too. Take away the rules, and you've still been trained to kick, punch, throw, grapple - all capable of wounding & killing. Granted it's pop-culture, but the movie Bloodsport makes for a great example of this.

 

Learning through sport though, how to punch somebody in the face, how to defend your person, how to put your sword into someone's neck, aggressive & defensive mindsets - all of those skills remain regardless of safety nets & rules. When you learn how to punch, you're learning how to punch. When you learn how to put a sword across somebody's torso, you're learning how to put your sword across somebody's torso.

 

I just think it's completely bogus to suggest that learning a skill under the umbrella of sport, doesn't prepare you to succeed in being able to wound or kill.

 

Would you go tell JC Van Damme he couldn't hack it in a fight, because he's just a movie star and only trained for sporting competition?

[Kal11]

Kal11: On Psychology I agree.

 

The post I had commented on raised the issue that "Doing any martial art for sports means you don't learn to actually kill or wound your opponent. Whereas real fighting is only about that."

 

Riiigghht, learning how to punch somebody in the face, doesn't actually teach you how to punch somebody in the face. Okay bud, sure!

 

It is totally whacky to suggest that the training, skill and experience involved in sport, wouldn't translate & prepare you for being able to wound & kill. For instance learning how to throw a punch, or how to swing a bokken, grappling, kicking somebody in the face, etc.

 

With regard to rules though - I'll pick on Kendo - You're still learning how to strike with a 'blade' on someone's person. Score points with strikes to the head, the arms, thrust to the neck, blade to the body. All within the rules. Take those rules away, take away the protective clothing, replace wooden sword for hard steel. Those skills translate to wounding & killing pretty freaking well.

 

Martial arts too. Take away the rules, and you've still been trained to kick, punch, throw, grapple - all capable of wounding & killing. Granted it's pop-culture, but the movie Bloodsport makes for a great example of this.

 

Learning through sport though, how to punch somebody in the face, how to defend your person, how to put your sword into someone's neck, aggressive & defensive mindsets - all of those skills remain regardless of safety nets & rules. When you learn how to punch, you're learning how to punch. When you learn how to put a sword across somebody's torso, you're learning how to put your sword across somebody's torso.

 

I just think it's completely bogus to suggest that learning a skill under the umbrella of sport, doesn't prepare you to succeed in being able to wound or kill.

 

Would you go tell JC Van Damme he couldn't hack it in a fight, because he's just a movie star and only trained for sporting competition?

 

Yes you do learn technique, I don't disagree with that. Although depending on the discipline it can be a disadvantage. Take a pure boxer for example and throw him into an MMA fight with a someone of comparable skill, more often than not the boxer is going to get wrecked. They don't have the skillset to defend grappling and kicking, while one of the first things you learn in BJJ is how to avoid taking punches while securing a clinch or takedown. Likewise taking an MMA guy and throw him into a street fight where groin shots, throat strikes, kicking a downed opponent and numerous other things that are prohibited and hence not trained for and his odds go down.

 

Looking at how psychology effects training/competition versus the real thing there is a definite impact on skill. You might have the technique with say a sword but are you really willing to run it through somebody's neck? Do you have the same confidence in your ability to defend yourself when failure means maiming or death? Can you maintain the same level of calmness and practice or do you become nervous and uptight when confronted with someone that wants to kill or severely hurt you? How willing are you to engage someone that you worry is more talented than you? Those types of things will make someone hesitate or become sloppy if they do not have the proper make up mentally. Plenty of guys are great marksman or infantrymen in training but have trouble pulling a trigger or staying calm when it is pointed at a real person who is shooting back.

 

Not everyone has it in them to be callous or sadistic even if they have the talent physically. I have known some guys that are great at MMA or boxing and enjoy the sport but are at heart really nice guys, in a real situation they won't press out of fear of hurting someone. It makes them restrained. You mention JCVD, he might take a punch like sissy (I have no clue tbh, maybe the guy is hardcore). Go watch the first couple UFCs when it was essentially a no holds barred contest and drew in guys from various disciplines. There were quite a few guys that thought they were accomplished fighters but when they got hit for real or put in an uncomfortable spot you can see the shock and panic on their faces.

[MarkDiLillo]

Do either of you actually think Sammael is presented in a way that says hes a wimp who cant hack it in real combat?

 

This whole discussion is pointless. He was a the world champion at swords, was a soldier, and is a murdering maniac Forsaken. I think it's pretty clear that his skill from his sporting days will translate to the real world of swords. After all, Be'lal's did.

[ryanphlp2002]

Kal11: On Psychology I agree.

 

The post I had commented on raised the issue that "Doing any martial art for sports means you don't learn to actually kill or wound your opponent. Whereas real fighting is only about that."

 

Riiigghht, learning how to punch somebody in the face, doesn't actually teach you how to punch somebody in the face. Okay bud, sure!

 

It is totally whacky to suggest that the training, skill and experience involved in sport, wouldn't translate & prepare you for being able to wound & kill. For instance learning how to throw a punch, or how to swing a bokken, grappling, kicking somebody in the face, etc.

 

With regard to rules though - I'll pick on Kendo - You're still learning how to strike with a 'blade' on someone's person. Score points with strikes to the head, the arms, thrust to the neck, blade to the body. All within the rules. Take those rules away, take away the protective clothing, replace wooden sword for hard steel. Those skills translate to wounding & killing pretty freaking well.

 

Martial arts too. Take away the rules, and you've still been trained to kick, punch, throw, grapple - all capable of wounding & killing. Granted it's pop-culture, but the movie Bloodsport makes for a great example of this.

 

Learning through sport though, how to punch somebody in the face, how to defend your person, how to put your sword into someone's neck, aggressive & defensive mindsets - all of those skills remain regardless of safety nets & rules. When you learn how to punch, you're learning how to punch. When you learn how to put a sword across somebody's torso, you're learning how to put your sword across somebody's torso.

 

I just think it's completely bogus to suggest that learning a skill under the umbrella of sport, doesn't prepare you to succeed in being able to wound or kill.

 

Would you go tell JC Van Damme he couldn't hack it in a fight, because he's just a movie star and only trained for sporting competition?

 

Yes you do learn technique, I don't disagree with that. Although depending on the discipline it can be a disadvantage. Take a pure boxer for example and throw him into an MMA fight with a someone of comparable skill, more often than not the boxer is going to get wrecked. They don't have the skillset to defend grappling and kicking, while one of the first things you learn in BJJ is how to avoid taking punches while securing a clinch or takedown. Likewise taking an MMA guy and throw him into a street fight where groin shots, throat strikes, kicking a downed opponent and numerous other things that are prohibited and hence not trained for and his odds go down.

 

Looking at how psychology effects training/competition versus the real thing there is a definite impact on skill. You might have the technique with say a sword but are you really willing to run it through somebody's neck? Do you have the same confidence in your ability to defend yourself when failure means maiming or death? Can you maintain the same level of calmness and practice or do you become nervous and uptight when confronted with someone that wants to kill or severely hurt you? How willing are you to engage someone that you worry is more talented than you? Those types of things will make someone hesitate or become sloppy if they do not have the proper make up mentally. Plenty of guys are great marksman or infantrymen in training but have trouble pulling a trigger or staying calm when it is pointed at a real person who is shooting back.

 

Not everyone has it in them to be callous or sadistic even if they have the talent physically. I have known some guys that are great at MMA or boxing and enjoy the sport but are at heart really nice guys, in a real situation they won't press out of fear of hurting someone. It makes them restrained. You mention JCVD, he might take a punch like sissy (I have no clue tbh, maybe the guy is hardcore). Go watch the first couple UFCs when it was essentially a no holds barred contest and drew in guys from various disciplines. There were quite a few guys that thought they were accomplished fighters but when they got hit for real or put in an uncomfortable spot you can see the shock and panic on their faces.

 

 

This: An athlete would have an obvious physical advantage but a soldier's training is how to kill and not be killed using whatever method is required without thought of empathy or "fairness", this has to be taught to most people as it's not a society norm.