Top Tier Fighters.

[Yougottawanna]

"I do however believe that many people have jumped onto this very odd bandwagon. First point seems to be that Gregor is a Top Tier fighter....while Oberyn Martell seems to maybe make second tier. This is absurd, in that Oberyn could have killed Gregor within the first couple of swings, but wanted to punish him."

I don't agree with this at all. First, about sword vs. spear, Oberyn CHOSE the spear to fight Gregor with, probably because he thought it would be the best weapon to take on a huge brute like Gregor. Second, Oberyn lost I think because he got cocky. Bronn was honest about his own chances against Gregor in single combat when Tyrion asked Bronn to champion him, Oberyn seemed dismissive of Gregor's skills - and paid the price.

Oberyn beat Gregor because of better gameplanning I think.

"The reason why the Mongols were so successful was because they used the honor system that most other cultures had against them. While most cultures of the time period felt that it was "honorable" to meet your opponent head-on in battle, the Mongols fought with hit-and-run tactics that at the time most cultures would consider "cowardly". The Mongols didn't care about bravado, they just wanted to win."

While we're starting to get off topic, I don't really think this is true though I agree with the rest of your post. The mongols used hit and run tactics so exclusively because they were great horsemen and almost their entire fighting force was on horseback. They also had superior technology in some cases (stirrups and compound bows).

Their opponents didn't use more traditional infantry tactics because they thought they were more honorable, they used them because they didn't have the personnel to do anything else. A large percentage of the eastern european and chinese armies weren't on horseback and were often hastily conscripted peasants with very little training. The mongol hordes, in contrast, were career soldiers and much better suited to those types of tactics.

[xerobull]

Great list; I would put Illyn Payne in the second tier.

And how about the Vale lords? It's Friday afternoon, so my head is a bit cloudy, but I know that there were some descriptions of the vale lords fighting prowess in AFFC.

[Steve Moss]

I don't see any evidence that she could hold her own against a top tier fighter (or any fighter for that matter--we get a lot more bravado from her than action sequences). That said, she shouldn't be discounted solely because she's a woman. I've fought in the SCA and done some sparring with western martial arts groups against woman, and while it's true that they are generally weaker and have less muscle mass, there is more to fighting than simply overpowering an opponent. Speed, intelligence, range control and proper technique can go a long way toward closing the gap with a stronger opponent. The SCA/WMA do not necessarily equate with actual medieval combat, given that it is training and not to the death, but it still helps illustrate why the best fighter isn't necessarily the biggest or strongest. I don't think a well-trained woman would be automatically destroyed going against a middling fighter or even a "good" one.

That said, I concede that a freakishly strong, thick skinned wench like Brienne would still probably have the best chance

As a former fencer I did a lot of co-ed fencing. I am also an average size guy, 5' 10" and 175 lbs. While what you say is true, and there is more to combat then size and strength, it doesn't change the fact that bigger, stronger men have a clear advantage against women, even big, strong and skilled women.

For example, in my second year I consider myself to have been a "average" male fencer (I got much better by year 4). Despite that, I was on par (my observable result) with the best of the women fencers at my school. They would beat me, and I would beat them, depending on the day. By year four there was no contest and it was entirely one sided in my favor.

There was one exception to this. In my fourth and last year, at my "peak", a woman fencer who later went onto the Olympics easily cleaned my clock (5-2). Three quick points, however. First, she had been fecning since childhood and was far more experienced (even though I was good by male standards I was not anywhere close to top tier). Second, we were fencing her weapon (foil) while I fenced saber. I do not know how things would have gone with a saber. Though to be fair, her foot work and timing was fantastic and I suspect that she would have won in any event. Third, I was hung over. But since this was not uncommon for me at the time, I do not know whether it impacted the result. Bt it helps salve my pride.

The point is that skill counts for a lot. So does strength, size (particularly reach), speed, coordination and ennumerable psychological factors. Discounting any advantage is a precursor to disaster. And men, due to basic biology, have a lot of personal combat advantages starting out, even before skill is factored in, which place women at a disadvantage.

Another example would be professional sports. No matter how good a woman athlete might be, even big ones, a male athlete of comparable skill will usually come out on top.

Steve

[Andhaira]

Well hopefully we will find out more evidence from later books about the Harlaw knight. (who also weilded a valyrian steel blade I will add, to be fair).

Also, I just want to mention the following about arthur that one of the reason he was known as a great knight was because he, apparently, actually praticed the virtues knights are supposed to follow in deed, such as being noble, helping the fellow man, etc etc. That is what really made him great, and what really made the older kingsugard great. (not that they were terrific in combat, but that they could not be bought off, were loyal, etc etc) Thats why I said Oakheart was more of a 'true' kingsguard, since in an arianne chapter she is thinking how oakhearts love making had been clumsy, as in he had not been with a girl before. This shows that oakheart took his vows seriously prior to this point.

And could anyone refresh my memory w.r.d. to who the heck andrik the unsmiling is and why he's considered to be a good warrior???

[Oorag]

Re: Gregor vs. Oberyn

I was one of the guys who put Oberyn below Gregor. While I fully admit that Oberyn had Gregor nailed in their duel, this was partly because Oberyn was given the opportunity to plan the engagement to his utmost favor. Gregor's size and strength basically require you to plan everything around just taking him down. If Oberyn had bumped into Gregor on a battlefield, Oberyn probably would have been cut int two.

Re: Jorah

I got the impression that Jorah was basically average for a knight, which still meant that he was better than most men on a battlefield. His comments on his ability confirm that for me.

Re: Ilyn Payne

I got the impression that Payne wasn't particularly good, at least at the time of AFFC. I believe Jaime says he's pretty rusty, as he's been in a job that hasn't required him to fight for a long time. Still, he occupied a pretty important post for the Lannisters, so I think he'd at least be third tier in his prime.

[Reskyr]

Another example would be professional sports. No matter how good a woman athlete might be, even big ones, a male athlete of comparable skill will usually come out on top.

Steve

Hey Steve. We're getting off-topic now, which I suppose I invited by bringing this angle into it. I agree than men generally have some advantages that lend themselves to physical combat, and once you get to the top tier (professional sports, in your example), that becomes doubly true. However, I saw a female professional basketball player visit my university (her name escapes me at the moment), and she played pickup with us. I'm a very mediocre basketball player, but there were some guys there from the college team who thought they would school her. Big mistake. While they were bigger and stronger, they were not as skilled, and they were made to look like fools. Now, basketball is not medieval combat, and she was an elite player player second or third tier men, so the example probably breaks down, but you probably get my point.

To get back on topic, Brienne is successful in the books in part because she understand the male ego involved and incorporates that into her strategy. Does that make her first tier? IMO, no. She is still a warrior of summer (or, perhaps autumn now) who manaages to make her opponents egos one of her weapons. If she fought the same fighters ten times, she might win her some, but not the majority. I imagine smart combatants would not underestimate her more than once or twice. I would put her more at second tier, possilbly third, although she could presumably rise out of sheer stubborness and a refusal to quit.

Back to off-topic for one more sec, there has been a fad in the US of women joining wrestling teams in the last fiftee years or so. Most of them seem to do it simply to prove they can, and most don't do much more than that. But there have been a few who consistently beat their opponents at the same weight class, and one or two that really excelled. Again, not first tier, and no swords or armor in play, but it just goes to show--if a women is dedicated enough, disciplined enough, and willing to take a world of crap to do it, they can avoid embarrassing themselves or getting destroyed, which was what I was objecting to in the other post.

I promise to stay on target now.

Regarding Gregor/Oberyn, I don't think it was better skill that gave Gregor the victory, but hubris on Oberyn's part. He had the fight won and he felt the need to draw out that confession, assuming that Gregor was finished. Oops. Oberyn salad.

Had he just gone for the kill, he would still be having threesomes and baiting Tyrion. He was the smarter fighter, and bested a clearly bigger and stronger opponent--critical error or not, he seems like, on that particular day at least, he was the better fighter.

But that's one of the things about this series I realy like. First tier is a fluid, fluid thing (especially when a giant mashes your skull open for all the world to see). It seems like even the best are vulnerable and make mistakes (Oberyn and hubris, Sandor and drunkenness, Dayne forgetting about Frogger), and on any given day even the arguably top tier can lose. And the rest get brought back down to earth when their hands are lopped off or their faces burnt to a crisp.

[Yougottawanna]

That's a good point about Gregor and Oberyn. But I still think that it was a much more even match than the guy who said Oberyn could have killed Gregor at any time was saying.

About women in wrestling: First, women have been competing in men's wrestling for a while now, it's nothing new. Two things should be noted about that: 1. wrestling has weight classes and women compete against guys who are their same size and 2. this only happens at the high school level basically. Once you get to the college div2 and div1 level, the women just don't have the upper body strength to compete with the men anymore.

Finally, don't forget that Brienne is not an ordinary woman. She's written as a woman who has the size and athletic ability of not only a man but a large man. That combined with her accomplishments (won a melee, fought Jaime to a draw which is impressive even if Jaime wasn't 100%) makes her a much better candidate for the first tier than Asha, who doesn't deserve to be there at all in my opinion.

[madkasel]

I promise to stay on target now.

Regarding Gregor/Oberyn, I don't think it was better skill that gave Gregor the victory, but hubris on Oberyn's part. He had the fight won and he felt the need to draw out that confession, assuming that Gregor was finished. Oops. Oberyn salad.

Had he just gone for the kill, he would still be having threesomes and baiting Tyrion. He was the smarter fighter, and bested a clearly bigger and stronger opponent--critical error or not, he seems like, on that particular day at least, he was the better fighter.

Oberyn's entire reason for serving as Tyrion's champion was to be matched up against Gregor and "draw out that confession" -- he didn't care about Tyrion. Getting the confession got him killed, yes, but the confession was his goal.

[scented dragonglass candles]

I want to be REAL specific in my list. The requirements for this list are: alive at the end of aFFC, a good swordsman, and Westerosi.

Number one at this point is vague, as we see little from the book, but these are definately top tier.

-Lyn Corbray

-Victarion Greyjoy

-Bronn Stokesworth

-Brienne of Tarth

-Garlan Tyrell

-Barristan Selmy

The next tier is made up of those who would die against the first tier, but still are kick ass.

-Andrik the Unsmiling

-Jaime Lannister (well, maybe not)

-the Umbers (they're still around)

-Jon Snow

-Loras Tyrell

-Darkstar

-Strongboar

-Randyll Tarly

-Bronze Yohn Royce

This tier is made up of commanders- still Westerosi, still alive.

-Brynden Tully

-Randyll Tarly

-Roose Bolton

-Victarion Greyjoy

-Kevan Lannister

[Steve Moss]

Historically? read "A Knight in History" Frances Giles, and historically, Knights had a huge advantage in one-on-one and/or small skirmish encounters even if the numbers were ridiculously against them, despite the fact that they only made up one-tenth of a standard European army. The advantage only heightened even furthur in the 14th century when plate came about. The reason why historians bring up Agincourt or a story when a peasant defeats a knight one-on-one and such, is not because results like this were so common, but because they were so rare.

Actually, this is somewhat incorrect. Disciplined infantry almost always defeated mounted knights. The problem was the lack of disciplined infantry in the middle ages. Usually, the infantry that fit the bill was dismounted knights and men at arms.

As to Agincourt being a rare event, it was anything but during the 100 years war. The English archer (coupled with dismounted knights serving as heavy infantry) consistently defeated the English. It was not until Guesclin's scorched earth policy, coupled with large numbers of crossbowmen and mobile (though awkward) artillery, arrived on scene that the Frech reversed the English success.

As for the Mongols, they won because they were fighting poor Eastern European countries (with small amount of Western European allies), plate armor was yet to be invented, recent evidence showing that the Europeans may have been outnumbered (actually primary sources already say that they were outnumbered, but it was ignored until recently because of past ignorance towards western medieval history), longbow has yet to be invented/West little to no emphasis on archery, European tactics until the 14th century were terrible, and because of the fact that the Mongols were brilliant tactitians, which there is no evidence to support that Martin's Dothraki are good tactitians, judging by their encounter with the Unsullied. While the Mongols conquered the world, the Dothraki seem stuck in one place.

The reason why the Mongols were so successful was because they used the honor system that most other cultures had against them. While most cultures of the time period felt that it was "honorable" to meet your opponent head-on in battle, the Mongols fought with hit-and-run tactics that at the time most cultures would consider "cowardly". The Mongols didn't care about bravado, they just wanted to win. The Dothraki don't appear to have advanced to this point yet, actually, they seem more likely to fight with reckless bravery then the Westerosi.

The Mongols are descibed by many historians as being far ahead of their time in working as a group or unit, almost equivilant to Napolean's armies. Do you really think the Dothraki come close in group disipline?

The Mongols were the most disciplined military force of their time. This, more than anything else, contributed to their successes.

The Mongols also understood the limitations of their tactics. They despised the western crossbow which could outrange their bow. And it wasn't for nothing that their expansion stopped at the Hungary, being the end of the steppe. The day of Hun-like raids in Western Europe were a thing of the past, considering the extent of forticfications.

Also, pick up "The Tartar Khan's Englishman", the Mongols had several losses against the Austrians led by Duke Frederick, one where the Mongol's chief diplomat was captured, then executed. Its too bad the Mongols left Western Europe before a large-scale battle took place.

I think the then inhabitantsof Western Europe would disagree with you.

The tactics used in Westeros are similar to 15th century Medieval England, particuarilly large emphasis on the Longbow, would have done very well against Tartar horse archers, or in this case, Dothraki. The Mongols did wear armor that was comparable to the knights of the time period (before plate). The Dothraki don't. Again, there is no evidence to support that the Dothraki were the tactical geniuses the Mongols were, plus I think the hit-and-run tactics used by the Mongols would be considered cowardly to Martin's Dothraki.

Also, Jorah never says that the Dothraki would destroy Westeros.

Agreed. The Europe of the 15th century was not the Europe of the 13th. 15th century Europe would have crushed the Mongols. It was around this time that Russia, a relatively backward country, threw off the Mongol yoke.

Steve

[Oorag]

And could anyone refresh my memory w.r.d. to who the heck andrik the unsmiling is and why he's considered to be a good warrior???

He's considered by several people in Westeros of being the toughest Ironman. At the kingsmoot, he was the largest man in attendance. When he stood for one of the claimants, Aeron took it as a big deal. He was also one of the men given castles by Euron because the loss of such a noted fighter would weaken Euron'a opposition among the remaining Ironmen.

[Reskyr]

That's a good point about Gregor and Oberyn. But I still think that it was a much more even match than the guy who said Oberyn could have killed Gregor at any time was saying.

About women in wrestling: First, women have been competing in men's wrestling for a while now, it's nothing new. Two things should be noted about that: 1. wrestling has weight classes and women compete against guys who are their same size and 2. this only happens at the high school level basically. Once you get to the college div2 and div1 level, the women just don't have the upper body strength to compete with the men anymore.

Finally, don't forget that Brienne is not an ordinary woman. She's written as a woman who has the size and athletic ability of not only a man but a large man. That combined with her accomplishments (won a melee, fought Jaime to a draw which is impressive even if Jaime wasn't 100%) makes her a much better candidate for the first tier than Asha, who doesn't deserve to be there at all in my opinion.

Yougottawanna,

I agree about the wrestling. I did mentione the weight classes, and I wasn't trying to imply it occurred on all levels. But my point about armored combat is this--while a brute like Gregor will surely use his size, reach and strength to his advantage, a weaker opponent can overcome that if he is smarter and keeps him at bay, negating some of his advantage. In real combat, especially in the age of plate, combatants would often resort to grappling (where strength and mass and leverage obviously come into play) because, in part, the armor is mostly proof against one handed swords and a variety of other weapons. Your best bet is to get the other guy off his feet, and stick a dagger in his eye, or break his arm, or failing that, get his helm off and smash his face in with your gauntlet. Works too.

However, in earlier eras, or if fighting in armor less protective than plate, you can (and often would) fight from distance, using range, footwork, feints, etc. to set up your shots and win the day. Grappling migh have happened, but it might not have been the best strategy. And while strength is always a bonus in any armored combat, it's benefit isn't as great when you're fighting from a distance, making passes, using range, etc.

Brienne is clearly a freak, but I still maintain a weaker female could give a stronger male a good fight if she used other elements of fighting to her advantage and protected her disadvantages (did everything possible to avoid grappling, getting bull-rushed, etc.), just as Oberyn fought a much, much stronger Gregor. First tier? Maybe not. Brienne is the only one we've seen who could possibly make it there, although I don't see her there now.

I haven't seen Asha do this though. She is likely a better captain or tactician than duellist or single combat fighter.

[ThatWierdGuy]

I think the then inhabitantsof Western Europe would disagree with you.

I'm not sure what you mean by the sentence, though I agree with a lot of what you said. I simply cited a book that after Mohi the Mongols had several small skirmishes in Austria. There were some successful and some failed small battles, but before the Austrians could meet the Tartars on the field, Khan got his letter and the rest is history. The entire book is dedicated to the life of Khan's chief diplomat, who along with 6 Mongol commanders, was captured by the Austrians in Wiener Neudlt.

As for trained infrantry defeating knights, this is true due to the advantage pikes had over calvary, on the field, but not neccessarily one-on-one or if they didn't hold their line or were flanked. Which was why the English knights in the War of the Roses would dismount to fight pikemen, and they were pretty successful at it. source: The Book of the Knight by Stephen Turnbull. Gotz von Berlichingen is a great example of a very successful and feared knight, who's band of mercenaries consisted of many knights, who lived all the way into the Renaisance. He won most of his battles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tz_von_Berlichingen

[Arthur Dayne]

It salso funny that even though we have evidence of someone defeating 7 knights in the books, people have a problem with that but people put Jaime and Arthu Dyne up there even though we never really see them fight. (wow, jaime fought brienne, who nearly got killed by biter of all peeoepl who was UNARMED by the way...I guess that means jaime is the best of the best... ) And arthur dyne was killed by Ned Stark, who as we have seen was not really considered the best fighter int he realm you know. Oh yeah, Ned had help from a prong weilding howland...but that doesn't really help arthurs case now does it?

I disagree. Not much detail is put in the fight at the Tower of Joy. I wouldn't readily dismiss Ser Arthur Dayne. Seven, against three.

For all that we know Ser Oswell Whent and Ser Gerold Hightower perished in the initial assault by Eddard and the boys. I mean one man charging at yous is one thing, but they outnumbered them 2 to 1! For all we know Martyn Cassel, Theo Wull, Ethan Glover, Ser Mark Ryswell, and Lord Dustin were slain by Dayne himself? =)

Maybe not propable, but possible. I am curious to see more of that scene, it's actually my #1 mystery I want told in more depth. Ah... how he makes us wait.

[Arthur Dayne]

As for Arthur, who knows how much of his skill was due to his weapon, as Darkstar pointed out.

There's an old saying, "A knight is only as good as his sword." There's a lot of truth in that, but being he is Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, I would consider him DEFINATLY top tier. It takes skill to wield any sword, and Dawn goes only to those worthy to wield her.

[Ibanez]

I think that 3 people styand above anyone else in the series and in my book are really on their own level, they are:

Sandor Clegane - one of the fiercest men in all of westeros also one of the biggest. he is incredibly strong and almost as quick as anyone else plus he seems to be an extremely competent swordsman.

Syrio Forel - clearly the best 'sowrdsman' that we have eve seen in the books but ontop of that he is incredibly quick and his quickness easily makes up for his size. he claims to be somethingl iuke "the First sword of Bravos" i dont really remember but clearly he was reviered there although he said he got the job by recognizing some cat. he also defended himself with a stick agains 5 someodd knights. in the battlfield however he owuldnt be the best choice

Oberyn Martell - First off i owuld like to say that had we wanted it to be so Gregor would have died withing minuets of the fight happening. Oberyn clearly outwitted Gregor in that fight by relying on his speed and menuverability to kill him. to the pople that say hes good at exploiting weaknesses i say whats wrong with that? if he wanted to he could have dodged gregor all day untill Gregor died of exaustion. Gregor flat out didnt stand a chance especially if Oberyn had wanted to end it quickly. also as someone earlier had mention Oberyn wasn't even using his best weapon. in the duel in which he got his nickname he used a sword and won. Oberyn also said that he wore littel armour because against one of Gregors blows it owuldnt have really mattered and his spead was more important. This guy clearly knows how to prepare for a fight and i assume if he was taking the battlfield he owuld wear a little more armor.

After these three a top tier in no specific order would be:

Garlan

Arthur Dayne

Barristan Selmy (even old but he owuld be better if young)

Jaime

Loras

Victarion

Andrik the Unsmiling

Bronn (always been one of my favorites and will always be underestimated)

Aemon the Dragon knight

Qorin Halfhand (Jon is a competent fighter who has been training all his life and he admitted that he wouldnt have stood a chance at Qorin in a fiar fight where Qorin wanted to win and Ghost didnt interfere)

Second tier consists of many others i will name a few

Hotah

Balon Swann

Black Walder

The Blackfish

Randyl Tarly

Strongboar

Small/Great Jon

[ThatWierdGuy]

he also defended himself with a stick agains 5 someodd knights

Five guardsman actually, but still impressive.

[Yougottawanna]

" Oberyn clearly outwitted Gregor in that fight by relying on his speed and menuverability to kill him. to the pople that say hes good at exploiting weaknesses i say whats wrong with that?"

Nothing's wrong with that, of course, and kudos to Oberyn. The problem is that we don't really have a solid criteria for these lists, with respect to skill in melee, on horseback, etc... My verdict is that Oberyn is better in a duel type situation, but Gregor would be better on the chaos of the battlefield.

"i owuld like to say that had we wanted it to be so Gregor would have died withing minuets of the fight happening....Gregor flat out didnt stand a chance especially if Oberyn had wanted to end it quickly."

This is what I have a problem with. There's no evidence of this at all. The way the scene was written it sounded like Oberyn was biding his time and playing defense, waiting for Gregor to make a mistake.

"also as someone earlier had mention Oberyn wasn't even using his best weapon. in the duel in which he got his nickname he used a sword and won."

This is speculation as well. Does it ever say in the book he was better with a sword? Obviously he thought the spear was the best weapon to use against Gregor, unless he was so contemptuous of the mountain he willingly took a weapon to the duel that wasn't his best.

[Steve Moss]

I'm not sure what you mean by the sentence, though I agree with a lot of what you said. I simply cited a book that after Mohi the Mongols had several small skirmishes in Austria. There were some successful and some failed small battles, but before the Austrians could meet the Tartars on the field, Khan got his letter and the rest is history. The entire book is dedicated to the life of Khan's chief diplomat, who along with 6 Mongol commanders, was captured by the Austrians in Wiener Neudlt.

As for trained infrantry defeating knights, this is true due to the advantage pikes had over calvary, on the field, but not neccessarily one-on-one or if they didn't hold their line or were flanked. Which was why the English knights in the War of the Roses would dismount to fight pikemen, and they were pretty successful at it. source: The Book of the Knight by Stephen Turnbull. Gotz von Berlichingen is a great example of a very successful and feared knight, who's band of mercenaries consisted of many knights, who lived all the way into the Renaisance. He won most of his battles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6tz_von_Berlichingen

Hi. What a meant by the comment was that the inhabitants of WE would not think it was "too bad" that they missed a Mongol invasion (though I concede it would have answered many an arm chair general's, including myself, idle speculation). IIRC, the Pope had begun preaching an anti-Mongol crusade right around the time of the Mongol's incursions into Poland and Hungary. The WE, or at least the Papacy, were well aware of the threat the Mongols posed and doubtless breathed a sigh of relief when they moved on.

Disciplined infantry defeating the mounted knight pre-dates pikes. Henry I and II both fought battles, and defeated French forces, without archers by the simple expedient of dismounting their knights and inviting a French charge. The pike merely was a tool which made it easier to defeat mounted calvalry, and reduced man power costs (substitute a commoner with some basic training for a knight which required years).

Even earlier, the Franks (Charles Martell) used infantry to defeat the Moor invasion of France. History is replete with examples demonstrating the heavy cavalry is the *least* effective of the combined arms, dollar for dollar. A more accurate description as to why the lords gravitated to that role would be the cost. The cost of maintaining oneslef as a knight made one a member of an elite club. No peasants allowed. And so long as warfare was knight against knight, or knight against undisciplined rabble, they maintained their dominance. Once economies developed to the point that a free common class re-emerged, which could invest sometime in alternative training (bow, pike, sword & shield w/o horse), though not to the extent of the nobles, did the inherent tactical weaknesess of the mounted knight re-emerge.

Back on topic, here is my opinion of the fighters, as they stand now, warts and all:

Top tier (excellent, champion level):

-Sandor Clegane (if alive)

-Garlan Tyrell

-Barristan Selmy

-Hotah (?)(Prince of Dorne's bodyguard)

-Strong Belwas

-Gregor Clegane (move him up, if undead)

-Andrik the Unsmiling

-Loras Tyrell

Second tier (very good, noteworthy):

-Great John Umber (they're still around)

-Bronn

-Unsullied commander (name escapes me)

-Balon Swann

-Darkstar

-Strongboar

-Brynden Tully

-Lyn Corbray

-Victarion Greyjoy

-Bronn Stokesworth

-Bronze Yohn Royce

-SmallJohn Umber

-Randyll Tarly

-Iron Emmett

-Brienne of Tarth

-Jon Snow (improving rapidly)

Third tier (competent):

-Assorted surviving Kingsguard

-The Mad Mouse

-Gendry

-Stannis

-Ser Illyn Paine

-Jaime Lannister (well, maybe not)

-Kevan Lannister

-Lancel Lannister

Steve

[Yougottawanna]

You really have Jaime as THIRD tier? Come on, he's gotta be at least second, and in my opinion he's in the first.

I don't understand why so many people rank Areo Hotah so high. All we know about him is that his axe is sharp and he can kill a Kingsguard who already has a dozen crossbow bolts in him. Hotah may be good, but it's just speculation.