Jon Snow vs. Robb Stark

[zammey12]

I think these threads are fun. So, who would win in a combat? Jon or Robb. Weapon if choice. Flat ground, no surroundings.

[Ser Pearce]

Jon would. he says Robb's better with a lance but he's better with a sword. Plus Jon has Longclaw and Robb didnt have Ice.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Methinks that it would be better at games but anyway. I think that is was said that Robb was better at lance but Jon better with sword. So Jon.

[Robb_Warged]

I like Robb more but I say Jon wins.

Jon, as a main character who lives longer, gets a lot more combat experience and practice. So Jon. Jon even killed Robb in that dream of his

[Frey Pie]

I think Jon is the more naturally talented. However Robb's been in huge battles and led his men from the front against the best that the Westerlands can offer, knights trained from birth. So i think at the time of Robb's death he would have beaten Jon but current Jon is better than Robb ever was

[The Khal Who Rode West]

Robb would. The A Game of Thrones quote is from 2 years before Robb's death yet people continue to cite it when it's clearly invalidated by Robb's successes on the battlefield that Jon never accomplished.

Robb's the better warrior.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Robb would. The A Game of Thrones quote is from 2 years before Robb's death yet people continue to cite it when it's clearly invalidated by Robb's successes on the battlefield that Jon never accomplished. Robb's the better warrior.

That means being a good general not being a good fighter.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

With lances, Robb. With swords, Jon.

[The Khal Who Rode West]

That means being a good general not being a good fighter.

This would be the case if we didn't know that Robb fought from the frontlines as that's what Ned taught him to do. Robb was fighting.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

This would be the case if we didn't know that Robb fought from the frontlines as that's what Ned taught him to do. Robb was fighting.

Yet he had his bodyguards around him. There is no reason to not agree with the books on that matter.

[Frey Pie]

Yet he had his bodyguards around him. There is no reason to not agree with the books on that matter.

Yet at the Whispering Wood he came back with a different horse. His shield was also described as battered.

At the Crag he was one of the first through the gates

[Chaircat Meow]

Robb has had a lot more experience of actual combat than Jon, so he might have an advantage.

[The Khal Who Rode West]

Yet he had his bodyguards around him. There is no reason to not agree with the books on that matter.

God forbid the frontline is just Robb Stark himself! The Young Wolf indeed that he won every battle by himself! Why'd he even bother calling his banners when he's such a fearsome warrior?

Even Aegon the Conqueror had bodyguards. I have no idea what point you are trying to make that Robb had guards. He was still there fighting. He wasn't Tywin Lannister sitting on a hill with 20,000 men between him and the line of battle. He was on the frontline.

And the books also have Stannis saying that Robb is better than Jon but I suppose we'll only take the one quote from before either goes on to prove just how good they are instead of the later quote and each other's later demonstrations of their abilities as proof of who is better.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Yet at the Whispering Wood he came back with a different horse. His shield was also described as battered.

At the Crag he was one of the first through the gates

That means that he fought no one denies that. The point isn't if he fought the point is that since we know that Jon is a better fighter there is no reason to deny it.

And the books also have Stannis saying that Robb is better than Jon but I suppose we'll only take the one quote from before either goes on to prove just how good they are instead of the later quote and each other's later demonstrations of their abilities as proof of who is better.

How many times exactly Stannis had seen Robb fighting?

[The Mountain That Flies]

With lances, Robb. With swords, Jon.

This. Jon has never ridden into combat, so Robb had the advantage there. And while Robb has been in more battles, a one-on-one duel isn't the same thing as warfare combat, and Jon has had more time to practice his dueling while Robb's been steadily marching.

[Son of Man]

I would bet on Jon against Robb. The Night Watch and the wildlings hardened Jon. I concede that Robb may have had more experience fighting trained knights in battle. That gives him the technical edge over Jon. But Jon has faced a lot of physical and mental hardships during his time with the wildlings. He knows what it's like to live in constant danger. That's what passes for their version of street smarts. It will be close but when the fight starts to drag on and both men can barely lift their shields, it will be Jon.

[Crimsonsmile]

God forbid the frontline is just Robb Stark himself! The Young Wolf indeed that he won every battle by himself! Why'd he even bother calling his banners when he's such a fearsome warrior?

Even Aegon the Conqueror had bodyguards. I have no idea what point you are trying to make that Robb had guards. He was still there fighting. He wasn't Tywin Lannister sitting on a hill with 20,000 men between him and the line of battle. He was on the frontline.

And the books also have Stannis saying that Robb is better than Jon but I suppose we'll only take the one quote from before either goes on to prove just how good they are instead of the later quote and each other's later demonstrations of their abilities as proof of who is better.

Just like Eddard would never beat Jaime one on one, Robb would not win one on one. Your giving Robb an army when clearly it's a face off. Give him an army and you got a fight otherwise it's gonna be Jon.

[Make Shadowbabies Not War]

In a duel I'd have to say Jon. He is clearly stated to be well practiced in fighting one or two men via his training with the Watch, and even defeats the best the Watch has in Iron Emmet. Robb is still an undoubtedly good fighter, as seen in that he fought on the front lines of so many battles, but would have had a lack of practice in duels since leaving Winterfell, whereas Jon's training focussed heavily on them.

[Frey Pie]

That means that he fought no one denies that. The point isn't if he fought the point is that since we know that Jon is a better fighter there is no reason to deny it.

How many times exactly Stannis had seen Robb fighting?

Jon says he's a better fighter at the start of the series. Robb is a very different character by the end. So is jon but Robb is fighting seasoned knights and training with seasoned knights. The standard of men that Jon is training with just isn't that high For quite a while. I think it's quite fair to say

GOT- Jon is the better fighter

Clash and Swords- Robb is the better warrior

Dance- Jon is now better then robb ever was or will be

[The Khal Who Rode West]

That means that he fought no one denies that. The point isn't if he fought the point is that since we know that Jon is a better fighter there is no reason to deny it.

How many times exactly Stannis had seen Robb fighting?

You're really just proving my point. Jon is the only one saying that he's better than Robb (it's not an objective fact and btw he only mentioned swords - battles involve lances), and he said that before either had a chance to prove themselves. You're acting like Jon said that after they just fought each other in ASOS. He said that in AGOT. You are taking a statement that misses out on 2 years worth of combat for Robb and Jon and trying to say that it's still a relevant showcase of their abilities.

For example, tomorrow is July 6th. 2 years ago on July 6th, 2013 Anderson Silva was the UFC's middleweight champion. By July 7, 2013 Chris Weidman was the UFC's middleweight champion as he knocked out Anderson the night before. Two years later and Chris Weidman is still the UFC middleweight champion and Silva is not. You are currently trying to say in this discussion that Anderson Silva is better than Chris Weidman because 2 years ago he was the champion and Chris was not. Does this put things into perspective about how ridiculous you are sounding by saying that we should ignore the last 2 years and focus on how things stood in the past instead of looking at how things stand now?