True Masters of the Blade

[condonmc]

Why is that guy, talking about popcorn?

[Yamahako]

Direct quotes identifying the order of the Blademasters is all well and good. However, its always better to show than tell.

 

Saying that Galad is better that Gawyn means very little, when the text appears to show the opposite is true.

Does it really? We have no real way of comparing their later accomplshments against one another, not in any meaningful sense. Galad beats a blademaster, Gawyn beats some bloodknives. Fine. Now, how does Valda compare to three bloodknives? If we have no way to answer that we have no way to say one is better than the other. Perhaps the bloodknives would have torn Valda to shreds if he was in Gawyn's position. On the other hand, he might have despatched them with no trouble. The text in no way shows Gawyn to be worse. It shows Galad was considered the better, but it gives us nothing to say the positions are the same or reversed since. The author's comments are the only reliable evidence we have - and they say Galad is better. So the evidence in book says he was better, since then it is inconclusive, but out of text we know he is better still.

 

That's kind of my point. The text SAYS that Galad is still better. The text doesn't SHOW that Galad is still better. We know that Rand had a hard time against a Seanchan blademaster, and by the stories reckoning - should have lost. We know that Galad was fighting a difficult fight against Valda. So, Seanchan have good blademasters, and Galad had a difficult time with a blademaster. We know that NO ONE beats Blood Knives. The idea was considered laughable to a Seanchan. I would assume that a Bloodknife is better than a blademaster then. So Gawyn beats 3 people who individually should be better than a Seanchan blademaster. We know that Seanchan blademaster's aren't super bad or anything - and the text is constantly showing how the Seanchan are good warriors.

 

So I take it as fact that Galad is the better swordsman, as that's the story that's been presented by the writers. But I don't think its shown in the text. In a very short span of time, we see that Galad wins a difficult battle against a blademaster. We know that he won 3 out of 5 matches with another blademaster - so this blademaster must be very good. We know that the Seanchan blademasters are decent because of viewing Rand's fight with one - and another Seanchan believing that the Terangral enhanced Bloodkives are UNBEATABLE, so we will assume that a seanchan blademaster (no slouch) would not stand a chance. That means that either, the text is not corroborating what the authors are stating - or - Valda was so good that he could have taken 3 bloodknives, which would be an even more difficult feat than Rand killing 3 copies of the seanchan blademaster that he fought.

 

There aren't easy direct comparisons - but it isn't quite so bad as apple's an oranges.

 

Lan > Rand > Galad > Gawyn > Valda > 3 bloodknives

1 bloodknife > any seanchan blademaster

 

Maybe we should rate the swordsman by the number of bloodknives they could handle? So, Valda is a 3 bloodknife blademaster, Gawyn is a 4, Galad is a 5, Rand is a 6 (pre hand loss), and Lan is a 7?

 

We'll just have to chalk Rand's first fight to his lower level of experience at that time.

 

But then that makes Mat a 7 Bloodknife fighter (maybe 8 since he won?), and we know Tam is better than he is (8 bloodknives), and Abell is even better (9 bloodknives?).

 

I propose the new unit BK to describe all fighters from here on out. 1 BK = 2 SBM (Seanchan Blademaster), so Abell could probably take on 18 Seanchan blademasters!

 

I defy anyone to argue with my impeccable logic.

[Never]

Maybe in WoT Galad is the better swordsman, but if so, both authors have done a poor job of showing it. That's a fact. It is what it is. Make your own list if you don't believe me, or refute mine.

 

Look at it this way...If we were in the final book and everyone kept saying Rand was the Dragon, but he had done absolutely nothing that indicated this, then we'd be having a debate over whether he was the Dragon. If, as an author, you want to make a claim, be prepared to validate it, or don't bother.

 

 

There is a MAJOR difference between the situation you are referring to, and the hypothetical scenario you present; in one, you have a small piece of trivia, while the other includes the biggest, most important thing in the series.

 

See, who's better between the two is nothing more than a theoretical interest of the fanbase atm, and not really that big a deal. So why would Robert Jordan care which one of the two has actually had the most impressive fights? What you say about the Dragon isn't even comparable.

 

Also, you and Kael Pyralis propose that the books suggest that Gawyn is in fact the better swordsman. I disagree; the books suggest that both are very, very good, but there's no evidence to suggest that one is, in fact, better than the other. One has done more impressive things on-screen, I will agree, but that doesn't suggest that he is better than one who hasn't had the opportunity to show of skills in the same way.

 

The fact that Gawyn works harder does not in fact suggest anything. That is just a fact in and of itself; it has no value in determining who's better, only who works harder.

 

I would agree that, were I to guess based solely on what's written in the books, I would guess Gawyn. But that has nothing to do with looking at the evidence, just at looking at each's number of achievements. As long as neither has failed, we have no real ground for comparing the two.

[Suttree]

So, Seanchan have good blademasters, and Galad had a difficult time with a blademaster. We know that NO ONE beats Blood Knives.

 

Which of course does not mean Seanchan Blademasters<Bloodknives. They are assassins, not fighters. If they fought straight up a blademaster would destroy them. No one beats them because they usually kill before people know they are there, not because they are the most skilled warriors. Notice when the lights went out Gawyn dispatched them with relative ease. Put Galad into the same situation and we don't know what the result would be. Based on earlier descriptions of how much more skilled he is, how much easier everything comes to him it's not hard to guess he would have fared better.

 

Edit: Just read your entire post. Pretty funny, well done.

[Jak o' the Shadows]

Bloodknives are so scary because of the ter'angreal (sp?) rings that make them basically invisible.

 

Once that advantage was gone. They were not even all that good.

 

 

 

I think the Seanchan think a lot of things that are no longer valid in Randland. They seem like a very self-opinionated people that can do no wrong. I have no doubt that they fear bloodknives more than a blademaster as bloodknives are an extension of the Empresses' power...and when I bloodknife comes for you you don't see it coming, it's an assassin, and it's a message to EVERYONE ELSE that you've displeased the Empress (and are dead for it).

 

I do not think it's because their skill is so paramount, but rather what they represent. The fear of having them unleashed on you.

[damandred]

Sutree said:

 

Any contest of skill, regardless of what it is, with a large sample size such as Galad and Gawyn dueling Hammar best of 5 will be won by the more skilled opponent the "majority" of the time. Not sure what about that is difficult to understand.

 

 

.....................................

 

 

That is just simply not true. As someone with a brother just a year younger, who grew up playing the same sports as me, I find the above claim ridiculous.

I am better at pool than he, while cannot hit a dart board, which he has won trophy's for, I'm good at football, he cricket ect.

People have different skills simple as.

[Suttree]

Sutree said:

 

Any contest of skill, regardless of what it is, with a large sample size such as Galad and Gawyn dueling Hammar best of 5 will be won by the more skilled opponent the "majority" of the time. Not sure what about that is difficult to understand.

 

 

.....................................

 

 

That is just simply not true. As someone with a brother just a year younger, who grew up playing the same sports as me, I find the above claim ridiculous.

I am better at pool than he, while cannot hit a dart board, which he has won trophy's for, I'm good at football, he cricket ect.

People have different skills simple as.

 

Of course, that goes without saying but you mistake my meaning. Any contest of skill, whether it be tennis or swords will be won the majority of the time by the more skilled person(in that particular discipline) when you take things out over best of 5.

[AlwaysLurking]

I look at this entire situation a bit differently.

 

In real life, when you reach the pinnacle of anything, there are usually always several other people standing with you, just as fast, just as big, just as strong, just as skilled etc, or whatever it may be.

 

In a competition, one of these people will come out on top, so what makes the difference?

Does the winner want it more? Does the winner have something the others don't? I don't have an answer, but that is how I look at this situation.

 

I can easily see Lan getting touched in a meaningless sparing match. He is not the type that needs other men's praise to be comfortable in his own skin.

 

I think this list that RJ made really only applies when death is on the line. In that sense, Lan will always win, he is the deadliest in the land. It would not matter if you beat him in practice 10 out of 10 times, if you fought him in battle, you would loose.

 

It is simply impossible to compare individual battles anyway, a win is a win, you have no way of knowing if that battle represented the limit of that individual or not. And it is completely impossible to compare ANY sparring match. There is no urgency in a sparring match, death is not on the line.

[Beniare2]

Maybe its cause they are assassins sure a bloodknife is a demon in combat with enchanced strength/speed etc and could beat most people in a fight but normally you just dont see them coming. When a bloodknife is after you die without knowing the fight has started lol (Back Stab for 20d6) =p. They are good but not the best in open combat.

 

Like the age old Ninja vs Samurai debate:

In open combat a ninja would probably lose to a fully armed and armored Samurai, But how often would that happen the sneaky bastard would kill him in his sleep.

 

This is just a theory thats all.

[Reptyle]

Maybe in WoT Galad is the better swordsman, but if so, both authors have done a poor job of showing it. That's a fact. It is what it is. Make your own list if you don't believe me, or refute mine.

 

Look at it this way...If we were in the final book and everyone kept saying Rand was the Dragon, but he had done absolutely nothing that indicated this, then we'd be having a debate over whether he was the Dragon. If, as an author, you want to make a claim, be prepared to validate it, or don't bother.

 

 

There is a MAJOR difference between the situation you are referring to, and the hypothetical scenario you present; in one, you have a small piece of trivia, while the other includes the biggest, most important thing in the series.

 

See, who's better between the two is nothing more than a theoretical interest of the fanbase atm, and not really that big a deal. So why would Robert Jordan care which one of the two has actually had the most impressive fights? What you say about the Dragon isn't even comparable.

 

Also, you and Kael Pyralis propose that the books suggest that Gawyn is in fact the better swordsman. I disagree; the books suggest that both are very, very good, but there's no evidence to suggest that one is, in fact, better than the other. One has done more impressive things on-screen, I will agree, but that doesn't suggest that he is better than one who hasn't had the opportunity to show of skills in the same way.

 

The fact that Gawyn works harder does not in fact suggest anything. That is just a fact in and of itself; it has no value in determining who's better, only who works harder.

 

I would agree that, were I to guess based solely on what's written in the books, I would guess Gawyn. But that has nothing to do with looking at the evidence, just at looking at each's number of achievements. As long as neither has failed, we have no real ground for comparing the two.

 

Yes the two are comparable, because it's basically validation of the author's stance...If by this time we had not seen Rand do anything worthy of being considered the Dragon, then there would be debate as to whether he was...If Galad has only had one duel, which he barely won, but his brother has remained practically untouched in almost all his fights (Before y'all pounce I too am aware that he was almost killed fighting the bloodknives)...You gotta think that the one the author is representing as the better swordsman just ain't...And if he is, then someone fell short of providing adequate proof that he is.

 

I understand one (Rand) is more relevant to the entire story...I'm not debating significance, I was using it as an example to demonstrate the fact that the author(s) has not done his job in convincing SOME of the readers...Then you have your die-hard fans who don't need validation...Kind of an Emperor's new clothes scenario...someone in the crowd finally had to shout out, "Hey, that guy's naked!"

[Suttree]

Yes the two are comparable, because it's basically validation of the author's stance...If by this time we had not seen Rand do anything worthy of being considered the Dragon, then there would be debate as to whether he was...If Galad has only had one duel, which he barely won, but his brother has remained practically untouched in almost all his fights (Before y'all pounce I too am aware that he was almost killed fighting the bloodknives)...You gotta think that the one the author is representing as the better swordsman just ain't...And if he is, then someone fell short of providing adequate proof that he is.

 

Again I ask, give us proof of where Gawyn is shown to the better fighter. Galad beat Valda and single handedly destroyed the mob in Somara coming out unscathed. On top of that we have all of the characters who says he is better, we are told he learns faster and is more skilled and we have him faring better in two objective results. Now for Gawyn we have no idea how he defeated Hammar and Coulin and he came close to being killed against the Bloodknives a fight in which Brandon said he was "luckier than he thinks". You keep saying the authors show Gawyn to be better. Well prove it.

 

I just made microwave popcorn.

 

It's the best. Disregard what anyone else tells you, or any other conflicting personal accounts of authority to the contrary. It's here now and in my face, and like so fresh on my taste buds that it's so obviously the most-best.

 

 

*tongue in cheek

 

Ace.

[damandred]

Sutree said:

 

Any contest of skill, regardless of what it is, with a large sample size such as Galad and Gawyn dueling Hammar best of 5 will be won by the more skilled opponent the "majority" of the time. Not sure what about that is difficult to understand.

 

 

.....................................

 

 

That is just simply not true. As someone with a brother just a year younger, who grew up playing the same sports as me, I find the above claim ridiculous.

I am better at pool than he, while cannot hit a dart board, which he has won trophy's for, I'm good at football, he cricket ect.

People have different skills simple as.

 

Of course, that goes without saying but you mistake my meaning. Any contest of skill, whether it be tennis or swords will be won the majority of the time by the more skilled person(in that particular discipline) when you take things out over best of 5.

 

 

 

This I agree with up to a point were in as I think skill can only take you so far.

I don't know if you are familiar with the game of snooker, but there is a snooker player called Ronnie O' Sullivan who, is widely acknowledged as the most naturally gifted player to ever play the game. But does he win every tournament he enters? No. Not even the majority. In fact he might win 1 or 2 tournaments a season.

That's because when you compete at the top of any sport, being the most skilled sometimes isn't enough. It comes down to determination, desire and mental strength.

It is possible to beat somebody vastly more skilled than yourself if you have the above qualities and they do not.

[Reptyle]

Yes the two are comparable, because it's basically validation of the author's stance...If by this time we had not seen Rand do anything worthy of being considered the Dragon, then there would be debate as to whether he was...If Galad has only had one duel, which he barely won, but his brother has remained practically untouched in almost all his fights (Before y'all pounce I too am aware that he was almost killed fighting the bloodknives)...You gotta think that the one the author is representing as the better swordsman just ain't...And if he is, then someone fell short of providing adequate proof that he is.

 

Again I ask, give us proof of where Gawyn is shown to the better fighter. Galad beat Valda and single handedly destroyed the mob in Somara coming out unscathed. On top of that we have all of the characters who says he is better, we are told he learns faster and is more skilled and we have him faring better in two objective results. Now for Gawyn we have no idea how he defeated Hammar and Coulin and he came close to being killed against the Bloodknives a fight in which Brandon said he was "luckier than he thinks". You keep saying the authors show Gawyn to be better. Well prove it.

 

I just made microwave popcorn.

 

It's the best. Disregard what anyone else tells you, or any other conflicting personal accounts of authority to the contrary. It's here now and in my face, and like so fresh on my taste buds that it's so obviously the most-best.

 

 

*tongue in cheek

 

Ace.

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time and it annoys the pig. Translation: Nothing I say would convince you anyway, so why bother? Perhaps I have I haven't provided convincing evidence to you, but it isn't as though you've made your case other than "Well everyone says so, so there!"

 

Here, try this for size...Let's say that Galad and Gawyn are tennis players (tennis, you like this, right?)...Wellll, ifff weeee werrrre to judggge bassed onnnn matchessss wonnnn, thennnn Gawynnnn hassss haaaaad moorrrre winnnnsss.

 

And to quote a person of little known fame:

 

Any contest of skill, whether it be tennis or swords will be won the majority of the time by the more skilled person(in that particular discipline) when you take things out over best of 5.

[Suttree]

Sutree said:

 

Any contest of skill, regardless of what it is, with a large sample size such as Galad and Gawyn dueling Hammar best of 5 will be won by the more skilled opponent the "majority" of the time. Not sure what about that is difficult to understand.

 

 

.....................................

 

 

That is just simply not true. As someone with a brother just a year younger, who grew up playing the same sports as me, I find the above claim ridiculous.

I am better at pool than he, while cannot hit a dart board, which he has won trophy's for, I'm good at football, he cricket ect.

People have different skills simple as.

 

Of course, that goes without saying but you mistake my meaning. Any contest of skill, whether it be tennis or swords will be won the majority of the time by the more skilled person(in that particular discipline) when you take things out over best of 5.

 

 

 

This I agree with up to a point were in as I think skill can only take you so far.

I don't know if you are familiar with the game of snooker, but there is a snooker player called Ronnie O' Sullivan who, is widely acknowledged as the most naturally gifted player to ever play the game. But does he win every tournament he enters? No. Not even the majority. In fact he might win 1 or 2 tournaments a season.

That's because when you compete at the top of any sport, being the most skilled sometimes isn't enough. It comes down to determination, desire and mental strength.

It is possible to beat somebody vastly more skilled than yourself if you have the above qualities and they do not.

 

Sigh. Of course the scrappy underdog can occasionally beat someone more skilled with the qualities you mention in a single contest. The point is when you enlarge the sample size in any sporting contest out to best of 5, the better competitor will win the majority of the time. The original point came from someone saying there is not that much of a difference between beating Gawyn winning 2/5 verse Galad winning 3/5 which is of course false. It is for that very reason in tennis when tournaments move to the Grand Slams(which play best of 5 instead of best of 3) that you see Djokovic, Fedrer or Nadal win every tournament. Also for the record there is absolutely zero evidence to show Galad is lacking in determination or mental strength it is a moot point.

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time and it annoys the pig. Translation: Nothing I say would convince you anyway, so why bother? Perhaps I have I haven't provided convincing evidence to you, but it isn't as though you've made your case other than "Well everyone says so, so there!"

 

Here, try this for size...Let's say that Galad and Gawyn are tennis players (tennis, you like this, right?)...Wellll, ifff weeee werrrre to judggge bassed onnnn matchessss wonnnn, thennnn Gawynnnn hassss haaaaad moorrrre winnnnsss.

 

And to quote a person of little known fame:

 

Any contest of skill, whether it be tennis or swords will be won the majority of the time by the more skilled person(in that particular discipline) when you take things out over best of 5.

 

 

Aww come on mate, take a deep breath it's just a debate. Don't get eggy on us now. Instead of being evasive back up your claim if you can.

 

Your example obviously falls flat because there is no common opponent and no way to base strength of victory. That was exactly Ananta's point above. Far from me just saying everyone says so we have.

 

1. Valid in text opinions from multiple characters. Galad is more skilled and pick things up far more quickly.

 

2. Two objective results in which Galad(one of them being the best of 5 you were kind enough to include above) is shown to be better.

 

3. Life or death victory over a blademaster, which to me is the most impressive feat.

 

4. Single-handedly destroyed the mob in Somara.

 

5. Galad is part of a military organization in which training would be part of his daily routine. So what are we shown in text that proves Gawyn would suddenly vault past him despite learning more slowly and being less talented?

 

Now counter to the author's list and what is written in text you claim Gawyn is quite clearly portrayed as better but have provided nothing from the text indicating this is the case. Show me don't snow me.

[Ananta]

 

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time and it annoys the pig. Translation: Nothing I say would convince you anyway, so why bother? Perhaps I have I haven't provided convincing evidence to you, but it isn't as though you've made your case other than "Well everyone says so, so there!"

 

Here, try this for size...Let's say that Galad and Gawyn are tennis players (tennis, you like this, right?)...Wellll, ifff weeee werrrre to judggge bassed onnnn matchessss wonnnn, thennnn Gawynnnn hassss haaaaad moorrrre winnnnsss.

 

And to quote a person of little known fame:

 

Any contest of skill, whether it be tennis or swords will be won the majority of the time by the more skilled person(in that particular discipline) when you take things out over best of 5.

 

 

I don't really get your tennis reference, since that's like saying that "quantity beats quality" when comparing them. Me beating 100 kids would make me better boxer than Klitschko, simply because I've had more wins?

 

Because Gawyn has never beaten Galad 1 vs 1.

[damandred]

Sutree said:

 

Any contest of skill, regardless of what it is, with a large sample size such as Galad and Gawyn dueling Hammar best of 5 will be won by the more skilled opponent the "majority" of the time. Not sure what about that is difficult to understand.

 

 

.....................................

 

 

That is just simply not true. As someone with a brother just a year younger, who grew up playing the same sports as me, I find the above claim ridiculous.

I am better at pool than he, while cannot hit a dart board, which he has won trophy's for, I'm good at football, he cricket ect.

People have different skills simple as.

 

Of course, that goes without saying but you mistake my meaning. Any contest of skill, whether it be tennis or swords will be won the majority of the time by the more skilled person(in that particular discipline) when you take things out over best of 5.

 

 

 

This I agree with up to a point were in as I think skill can only take you so far.

I don't know if you are familiar with the game of snooker, but there is a snooker player called Ronnie O' Sullivan who, is widely acknowledged as the most naturally gifted player to ever play the game. But does he win every tournament he enters? No. Not even the majority. In fact he might win 1 or 2 tournaments a season.

That's because when you compete at the top of any sport, being the most skilled sometimes isn't enough. It comes down to determination, desire and mental strength.

It is possible to beat somebody vastly more skilled than yourself if you have the above qualities and they do not.

 

Sigh. Of course the scrappy underdog can occasionally beat someone more skilled with the qualities you mention in a single contest. The point is when you enlarge the sample size in any sporting contest out to best of 5, the better competitor will win the majority of the time. The original point came from someone saying there is not that much of a difference between beating Gawyn winning 2/5 verse Galad winning 3/5 which is of course false. It is for that very reason in tennis when tournaments move to the Grand Slams(which play best of 5 instead of best of 3) that you see Djokovic, Fedrer or Nadal win every tournament. Also for the record there is absolutely zero evidence to show Galad is lacking in determination or mental strength it is a moot point.

 

 

The point I was trying to make is that the better competitor is not necessarily the most skilled. When you get to the top level of any event the margin in skill is usually very small, it is then when the above qualities became the deciding factor. I am not talking about underdogs or one off bouts whatsoever.

[Suttree]

I don't really get your tennis reference, since that's like saying that "quantity beats quality" when comparing them. Me beating 100 kids would make me better boxer than Klitschko, simply because I've had more wins?

 

Because Gawyn has never beaten Galad 1 vs 1.

 

It isn't quantity verse quality because we are talking about a skilled common opponent. Gawyn and Galad both fought Hammar in the training yard. We know that Galad was wining 3/5 bouts while Gawyn was surprised that one day he managed 2/5. Galad wins the majority of the time while Gawyn doesn't against a common opponent because Galad is the better of the two. This is one of the two objective results in which Galad is shown to come out on top.

 

The point I was trying to make is that the better competitor is not necessarily the most skilled. When you get to the top level of any event the margin in skill is usually very small, it is then when the above qualities became the deciding factor. I am not talking about underdogs or one off bouts whatsoever.

 

Aww there is the problem. When I said skilled, I actually meant better overall(my fault for phrasing it that way), since of course there is nothing about Galad that shows he is "solely" naturally talented. In fact Gawyn letting passion overrule him at times has an inherent weakness verse someone that can attain the void like Galad did against Valda. In that scenario Gawyn based on his character would have most likely flown into a rage which would not have helped in the slightest.

[jwood01]

Don't worry guys, Galad's going to get an epic fighting scene in the final book, then we can put it to rest.

 

Maybe one of them will turn to the shadow, and then they will face-off and we will have a definitive result of who is better: Gawyn or Galad.

 

Gawyn is sure emotional enough to be turned to the shadow for some purpose: i.e., saving Egwene's life.

 

But Galad deals in cold logic of right and wrong, maybe he will convince himself that the shadow is right for some reason and switch over.

[andrewks]

People are also forgetting that Eamon Valda nearly beat Galad in KoD. If I remember correctly, Galad had to use a little trickery by feigning exhaustion to slip in the death blow. Very un-Galad like to be honest.

 

Also in regards to Gawyn against the bloodknives, a sword should defeat a dagger every time. Don't let DnD rules or fantasy archetypes fool you... an elite swordsman has a HUGE advantage over a dagger user.

 

I always thought Rand's skill with the sword was a little too much Deus Ex Machina, especially early in the series against Turak. Be'lal could have killed him easily too but chose not to because he wanted Callandor. His skill does improve later in the series though.

 

Lan is light years ahead of anyone else. The only time he nearly lost was in his early 20s against Ryne in New Spring, which is probably around the same time he sparred with Sleete. Moraine and Lan were hardly at the tower after that.

[Elan Tedronai]

When it comes gawyn and galad skill level sanderson knows absolutely nothing. My brother was better than me in chess. That was 4 years ago. I destroy him now easily. The tower practise means nothing. Gawyn has beaten everyone before him. Doesn't matter if they were blademasters, aiel or legendary bloodknives. People evolve. they dont remain static

 

Gawyn started an organisation from scratch that threw down an entire warder revolt and took part in the biggest battle in the series. while his older brother had to join a military organisation to earn his stripes. Galad is overrated. when facing valda it was trickery and not skill that saved him. A ruthless valda would have laid him on the spot.

 

Gawyn>galad any day of the week.

[Reptyle]

Aww come on mate, take a deep breath it's just a debate. Don't get eggy on us now. Instead of being evasive back up your claim if you can.

 

Your example obviously falls flat because there is no common opponent and no way to base strength of victory. That was exactly Ananta's point above. Far from me just saying everyone says so we have.

 

1. Valid in text opinions from multiple characters. Galad is more skilled and pick things up far more quickly.

 

2. Two objective results in which Galad(one of them being the best of 5 you were kind enough to include above) is shown to be better.

 

3. Life or death victory over a blademaster, which to me is the most impressive feat.

 

4. Single-handedly destroyed the mob in Somara.

 

5. Galad is part of a military organization in which training would be part of his daily routine. So what are we shown in text that proves Gawyn would suddenly vault past him despite learning more slowly and being less talented?

 

Now counter to the author's list and what is written in text you claim Gawyn is quite clearly portrayed as better but have provided nothing from the text indicating this is the case. Show me don't snow me.

 

True true...My apologies for getting a bit high-strung...Now as to your belief that I'm being evasive? How so? I went so far as to make a list of Gawyn's and Galad's victories...Kinda put it right out there almost from the start...That wasn't good enough, so what exactly would suffice?

 

My example doesn't fall any flatter than your theory..."Galad is the best because a bunch of people said so.."

 

1. Again with the "Everyone says so..." I contest with, "Maybe because they haven't seen his brother fight?

 

2. Yep, in practice...I wonder if those he beat in practice would still say he's the best...Unfortunately, they can't, because his little brother killed them.

 

3. Yep, he won. He finally got one on the score board. It didn't seem to be an easy victory though...I believe I remember him getting cut up quite a bit...If memory serves Gawyn killed two swordsmen when he and Gareth Bryne were sneaking into the White Tower (perhaps in a single move, memory rusty)...Now these two weren't blademasters, but y'know that's kinda impressive...I think Garteh mused that Gawyn was one of the best he'd ever seen.

 

4. I don't recall it being single-handed, but again...he beat up on the peasants...Not exactly something to crow about.

 

5. As someone else said, Galad joined an organization, Gawyn started one...and it sounds like he was still training against the warders...don't think that Galad had many warders to "train" against...if he bothered.

 

Finally, don't close your post with one of my sayings after using the term "mate." It just don't go...I'm not going to sit here and pull up quotes...you can do your own research, what I did do, was give you a body count (see list in earlier post)...and if we're talking success for fighting men, that usually is the final/best answer.

 

You're basically attacking, because you have nothing...I've stood by what I've said, you can't bring anything to the table to refute it...Your list consisted of, "well everyone said so," "he beat one blademaster" oh and, "he killed the peasants."

 

I'm not the one blowing snow here.

[Suttree]

...

 

I saw the list but as many others have mentioned "kill count" tells us little as we have no idea how to compare the relative strength of victories. You are essentially saying Gawyn is portrayed better because he has more screen time.

 

All the characters who say Galad is better have seen them both fight. In almost every case they are comparing their skills and they all find Gawyn wanting. People seem to forget in the fight with Valda, Galad drew first blood. Valda had two more hits than Galad in the fight before Galad landed the killing blow. That is far more impressive to me than beating assassins(per BS more luck than skill) or Tower Guards with Gareth. I realize Gawyn killed Hammar(although we don't know how) but we don't have to ask the other objective result, Mat is still alive and he unequivocally stated Galad was better.

 

As for the "snow" comment is was just a light joke. No harm meant. When I'm asking you to show proof with quotes(I already provided some) it's because I'm generally curious as to how you read it that way. Are the fight descriptions more impressive to your mind? Is that what makes him better? To show my good faith here is another quote...

 

Yet if they held the mob, it was Galad who broke them. He faced their charge as though awaiting the next dance at a ball, arms folded and unconcerned, not even bothering to bare his blade until they were almost on top of him. Then he did dance, all his grace turned in an instant to fluid death. He did not stand against them; he carved a path into their heart, a clear swath as wide as his sword's reach. Sometimes five or six men closed in around him with swords and axes and table legs for clubs, but only for the brief time it took them to die. In the end, all their rage, all their thirst for blood, could not face him. It was from him that the first ran, flinging away weapons, and when the rest fled, they divided around him. As they vanished back the way they had come, he stood twenty paces from anyone else, alone among the dead and the groans of the dying.

[MasterAblar]

When it comes gawyn and galad skill level sanderson knows absolutely nothing. My brother was better than me in chess. That was 4 years ago. I destroy him now easily. The tower practise means nothing. Gawyn has beaten everyone before him. Doesn't matter if they were blademasters, aiel or legendary bloodknives. People evolve. they dont remain static

 

Gawyn started an organisation from scratch that threw down an entire warder revolt and took part in the biggest battle in the series. while his older brother had to join a military organisation to earn his stripes. Galad is overrated. when facing valda it was trickery and not skill that saved him. A ruthless valda would have laid him on the spot.

 

Gawyn>galad any day of the week.

 

Wait, we're allowed to diregard author statements?

 

Alright people, it looks like Demandred=Taim is back on the table!

[damandred]

After reading ToM I too thought, that Gawyn could of surpassed Galad, but, BS says that's not the case,so, I suppose we will have to take him at his word.

[Entreri]

I look at this entire situation a bit differently.

 

In real life, when you reach the pinnacle of anything, there are usually always several other people standing with you, just as fast, just as big, just as strong, just as skilled etc, or whatever it may be.

 

In a competition, one of these people will come out on top, so what makes the difference?

Does the winner want it more? Does the winner have something the others don't? I don't have an answer, but that is how I look at this situation.

 

I can easily see Lan getting touched in a meaningless sparing match. He is not the type that needs other men's praise to be comfortable in his own skin.

 

I think this list that RJ made really only applies when death is on the line. In that sense, Lan will always win, he is the deadliest in the land. It would not matter if you beat him in practice 10 out of 10 times, if you fought him in battle, you would loose.

 

It is simply impossible to compare individual battles anyway, a win is a win, you have no way of knowing if that battle represented the limit of that individual or not. And it is completely impossible to compare ANY sparring match. There is no urgency in a sparring match, death is not on the line.

 

Yes, sparring is meaningless, nobody goes all out in practice.

 

The difference is the mental edge at the very top. Real life I heard fighters say 90%, some even saying 100% is mental.

 

Not only is Lan the fastest/strongest/most skilled fighter in Randland but the strongest mentally.

 

"Most dangerous man" Avienhda has ever known = Lan.

 

There isn't a blademaster Lan could not beat, including Jearom, due to this mental edge which he achieved like no human before AFTER Moraine died.

 

Prior to Moraine's death Lan = Rhuarc (according to Perrin, book 4), Rhuarc is implied to be the best of the Aiel, Aiel = best fighting society in the world.

 

 

Mentally strongest of the major fighters = Lan

 

Mentally weakest of the major fighters = Gawyn

 

 

If Galad fought Gawyn, my money would be on Galad. Gawyn KNOWS that Galad is better, how is he going to overcome this? Someone like Lan certainly would, but Gawyn, no.