histories greatest fighter.

[steampunk42]

for a while now i have always considered the Samurai to be the greatest warrior/fighter in the history of mankind for his training fighting style, and discipline. now i wonder what others consider to be the greatest warrior, please tell me who you consider the best fighter ever. rules: must be a real fighter. can be from any time period. give two reasons why you think they are the best. no chuck Norris (we already know he is the best his ego needs no more inflation.

 

[Jaywebbs]

Mr. T.

'nuff said.

Fool.

 

[MrNickster]

I think Samurai are definitely some of histories greates warriors thanks to their weapons, martial arts and discipline, but they have very fucked up views on honour. You lose a battle but live, don't go on living-kill yourself to preserve your family's honour. Very dumb to me.

When I think great warriors, I think Gladiators. War criminals who kill men and beasts for others entertainment, whose lives are dedicated to fighting-That makes a fiersome warrior.

 

[Aerodyamic]

Miyamoto Musashi certainly has a lot of anecdotes attributed to him concerning his overwhelming fighting ability, so as individual fighters go, I'd probably put him hear the top.

Beyond that, someone how has very little to lose...

 

[Danallighieri]

Well the Shaolin Monks were pretty insane fighters(not doing all the fancy aesthetically pleasing stuff they do now, while that is cool, ain't really practical)

 

[Omegatronacles]

It's a very difficult call to make. Samurai were definitely great fighters, but so were European swordsman from the same period.

To make sense of that, consider this hypothetical situation - A 17th century Samurai fights a 17th century Fencer. Who wins?

The Samurai, unarmoured but with a heavier weapon (assume it is a Katana) capable of severing a limb should it connect. (I know Samurai had armour, but they did not generally wear it all the time.)

The Fencer dressed in lightweight armour (breastplate only) but with a sword capable of quick penetrating thrusts and slashes. (A sabre or epee.)

The Samurai would be overconfident. He would dismiss the Fencers blade as too lightweight and flimsy to be of any use in a fight.

The Fencer would be unable to use his weapon to block the Samurai's attacks, as his weapon would shatter should it attempt to deflect a strike from the Katana.

So who would win?

When I think great warriors, I think Gladiators. War criminals who kill men and beasts for others entertainment, whose lives are dedicated to fighting-That makes a fiersome warrior.

Most Gladiators were slaves with little to no combat experience, although there were disgraced members from the legions in their ranks. Gladiator schools did exist, but these generally focused on how to put on a good show for the audience, and the martial training provided usually amounted to "hold it by the non pointy end, stick the pointy end into the other guy", and the equipment they trained with and used in the ring was most likely battlefield pickings.

If a Gladiator showed particular skill and promise, then further training and higher quality equipment may have been provided, depending on who owned him. Occasionally an experienced fighter would enter into the Gladitorial ring for the challenge, to prove a point, on a dare etc.

This is not to say that Gladiators were weak, as from day one there would be a high degree of learn quickly or die quickly, and a desperate man is a very dangerous man, but in a one on one encounter with a fighter with serious training, the Gladiator would usually come out worse for wear.

I know that this is a gross oversimplification of the entire Gladiator class, but I could type on for hours if I tried to go into serious detail.

I don't know that any one group could be labeled histories greatest fighters, but if I had to vote it would be Jimmy McPerson.

 

[Verlander]

My love for you is like a trcuk... BEZERKER!

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

So... Like... Is this supposed to be a deadliest warrior thread or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior

Well when pitted against a Celt, the Samurai PWN'd, but the spartan (my personal favourite) apperantly beat the ninja and the Samurai both.

Even without those odds, I'd say Spartan beats all. They were trained to ignore pain and kill their opponent no matter the circumstances

 

[Lust]

Mr. T.

'nuff said.

Fool.

Nope. Mr. T cowers in fear when he hears the name of the greatest warrior who ever lived.............Captain Falcon.

 

[El Poncho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill#Second_World_War

This man is histories greatest fighter.

 

[WrongSprite]

Spartans were pretty much a warrior race. Pretty much built for killing from birth.

 

[gamer_parent]

welcome to the premise of the show "Deadliest Warrior", where their methods of simulation revolves around weapon physics, reach, and pretty much not much else. (What with them being unable to replicate the same exact skillsets of each)

and don't be foolish. The 17th century samurai would very much wear armor, which means unless your 17th century fencer was head and shoulders more skillful than the samurai, the samurai will by virtue of their equipment have the upper hand. It's the same thing if you pit a medieval knight against a fencer. Now, if the fencer pulled out a pistol....

Saying things like "the samurai would be overconfident" is neither here nor there. We're not talking about an individual here. Unless you're saying all samurais were arrogant fools who think someone with a smaller sword is powerless to hurt them.

 

[steampunk42]

ive read about this man, great might not be the word...more crazy...but then again crazy and great do go hand in hand now and then

 

[VanityGirl]

Spartans.
These guys were trained since they were born to be badass soldiers. Of course, later in time, Spartans, like the Samurai would be rendered useless.

 

[CouchCommando]

Horde-Mongol. Just for shear awesome fear factor of a reputation.
Solo Warrior- Post Norman conquest Knight (yes I know they got raped by long bows etc, but I would certainly prefer to have one at bow shot range than in my face.)
Infantry-Roman legionary.

 

[RagnorakTres]

Depends on the situation and the skills called for.

Single weapon combat, I'll take a samurai over just about every single other trained warrior in the history of the world. Best idea? Probably not, but I like 'em, and katana have been proven to shear straight through plate metal.

Single hand-to-hand combat, let me put it this way: Muay Thai (Thai boxing) has gone up against almost every Chinese martial art ever developed and only lost to one, Choi Li Fut, and even then it was a close thing.

Stealth ops, whether the goal is sabotage or assassination or whatever, call for the best of the best. I'd probably accrue a team built from the bottom up with that in mind: Ninja, Navy SEALS, pirates, etc, etc.

Large scale combat of any type calls for Andrew "Ender" Wiggin. No contest.

[sub]Welcome to the Internet, where the men are men, the women are men and the children are FBI agents. --Unattributed[/sub]

 

[gamer_parent]

Depends on the situation and the skills called for.

Single weapon combat, I'll take a samurai over just about every single other trained warrior in the history of the world. Best idea? Probably not, but I like 'em, and katana have been proven to shear straight through plate metal.

Single hand-to-hand combat, let me put it this way: Muay Thai (Thai boxing) has gone up against almost every Chinese martial art ever developed and only lost to one, Choi Li Fut, and even then it was a close thing.

Stealth ops, whether the goal is sabotage or assassination or whatever, call for the best of the best. I'd probably accrue a team built from the bottom up with that in mind: Ninja, Navy SEALS, pirates, etc, etc.

Large scale combat of any type calls for Andrew "Ender" Wiggin. No contest.

[sub]Welcome to the Internet, where the men are men, the women are men and the children are FBI agents. --Unattributed[/sub]

I don't think "Shear through" is quite accurate. I mean, just look at the impact tests on Deadliest warrior. It was a katana swinging full strength at a chainmail. The chainmail pretty much absorbed most of the blow.

And Muai Thai can beat most Chinese martial arts because most Chinese martial arts you see are DEAD schools. Just as European sword fighting has pretty much lost it's proper lineage is now dependent upon enthusiasts to reconstruct it from scratch, most Chinese martial arts have not been taught in deadly combat capacity since... well... since the Taiping rebellion. The only exception to this? Sanshou, which is what is taught to the Chinese law enforcement and the style that MMA fighter Cung Le practices.

 

[Omegatronacles]

welcome to the premise of the show "Deadliest Warrior", where their methods of simulation revolves around weapon physics, reach, and pretty much not much else. (What with them being unable to replicate the same exact skillsets of each)

and don't be foolish. The 17th century samurai would very much wear armor, which means unless your 17th century fencer was head and shoulders more skillful than the samurai, the samurai will by virtue of their equipment have the upper hand. It's the same thing if you pit a medieval knight against a fencer. Now, if the fencer pulled out a pistol....

Saying things like "the samurai would be overconfident" is neither here nor there. We're not talking about an individual here. Unless you're saying all samurais were arrogant fools who think someone with a smaller sword is powerless to hurt them.

Welcome to the Escapist, stay out of the basement, and if you click quote rather than reply I'll receive a handy little message telling me you're talking to me.

As I said in my original post, I know that Samurai's wore armour. I have a suit of Samurai armour. I know what it looks like. I also know how much it weighs. And I know that unless the Samurai was on guard duty or marching out for war, his armour would have been kept in a chest or cupboard at home. So in my hypothetical encounter, the Samurai is not wearing armour.

The Samurai as a warrior class was extremely arrogant. It's a matter of record. If you weren't a Samurai, you were nothing. If you did not wield a Samurai's weapon, your weapon was nothing. The Samurai would dismiss the Fencers blade, because it was half the thickness and a hand shorter than the Katana.

The answer to the question who would win is actually quite simple.

Does the Samurai's first attack connect with the Fencer?

Yes - The Samurai wins.
No - The Samurai is fucked.

Again, this is a matter of record. All those drawn out Japanese swordfights you see on tv and in the movies? They never happened. A real fight between 2 Samurai boiled down to who attacked first, and did that attack hit?

 

[gamer_parent]

welcome to the premise of the show "Deadliest Warrior", where their methods of simulation revolves around weapon physics, reach, and pretty much not much else. (What with them being unable to replicate the same exact skillsets of each)

and don't be foolish. The 17th century samurai would very much wear armor, which means unless your 17th century fencer was head and shoulders more skillful than the samurai, the samurai will by virtue of their equipment have the upper hand. It's the same thing if you pit a medieval knight against a fencer. Now, if the fencer pulled out a pistol....

Saying things like "the samurai would be overconfident" is neither here nor there. We're not talking about an individual here. Unless you're saying all samurais were arrogant fools who think someone with a smaller sword is powerless to hurt them.

Welcome to the Escapist, stay out of the basement, and if you click quote rather than reply I'll receive a handy little message telling me you're talking to me.

As I said in my original post, I know that Samurai's wore armour. I have a suit of Samurai armour. I know what it looks like. I also know how much it weighs. And I know that unless the Samurai was on guard duty or marching out for war, his armour would have been kept in a chest or cupboard at home. So in my hypothetical encounter, the Samurai is not wearing armour.

The Samurai as a warrior class was extremely arrogant. It's a matter of record. If you weren't a Samurai, you were nothing. If you did not wield a Samurai's weapon, your weapon was nothing. The Samurai would dismiss the Fencers blade, because it was half the thickness and a hand shorter than the Katana.

The answer to the question who would win is actually quite simple.

Does the Samurai's first attack connect with the Fencer?

Yes - The Samurai wins.
No - The Samurai is fucked.

Again, this is a matter of record. All those drawn out Japanese swordfights you see on tv and in the movies? They never happened. A real fight between 2 Samurai boiled down to who attacked first, and did that attack hit?

ahh, nifty. didn't know that it sends you PMs for replies.

well, I suppose that's a valid point. But then... that's kind of like giving them a rather arbitrary handicap. I mean, I get it, but that just turns it around to the circumstances that they fight in.