Best Fighters of Westeros

[The Brandon Stark]

Hey sentence, is that sarcasm. If it is, you're terrible at it. All I'm asking is an example of Bronn fighting someone with known skill. Not him see a nobody and saying "I can beat that guy" or saying that Bronn can kill half starved mountain men in rusty armor fighting with rusty weapons, so therefore he's great. Show me a fight were he killed or at least survived someone with actual skill. It doesn't exist. Period. Bronn is a sellsword and he'll never fight someone that has a good chance of beating him, therefore, it would be impossible for him to develop the skills to compete against the greats of the realm. You don't become a expert swordsman fighting footmen and peasants.

Please, just show me him fighting someone of skill. Please. Two old knights don't count. Bronn is a good fighter, better than the average fighter yes, but to be great, it takes someone that will test their skills against someone of equal talent. Bronn never fights anyone that might be hard for him. He picks his battles carefully as a smart sellsword should. He fights only when he is confident he'll win. He wants the gold, not the kills.

Use your sarcasm if you must, because you have no actual evidence to prove your bias. You have nothing to back your assumption.

Actually, even Tyrion compares Bronn to Jamie with skill of sword. Truth be told, the way Tyrion always talks up his brother it mat actually be that Bronn might even be better than Jaime. Vardis Egan is Captain of the Guard for the Eirie, no small feat and btw how bad ass do Shagga, Timmet, and the rest of the mountain clansmen turn out to be? Bronn kicked the piss out of them. Your argument sucks.

[Ahmrogar]

Please. My analogy was right on target: one certainly does not need to be a fighter (or a football player, or a basketball player, or violinist) to be able to recognize talent. This is particularly true in endeavors which are common or which a given person has a lot of exposure to even if they don't do it themselves. Even more particularly true for people who are observant and intelligent. Tyrion is arguably the most observant and intelligent person in the novels, and he had been around and observed fighters all his life...his brother is (or at least was) one of the best swordsmen in all of Westeros. If you seriously think Tyrion is unqualified to judge the ability of a fighter on these terms...well, then I don't think you are serious.

Agreed .

There's talent, there's hard work and there's people who have both. They are the truly great (Barristan, Jaime, the Hound, etc) if you have only one you can get good, but never that great.

I don't understand the insistence that Bronn is on the level as Jaime, Gregor, Robert, Loras, when that is no prof of it being true. Bronn is not a great swordsman. He is competent and no more. Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings. I don't mean to be the bad guy. Bronn just isn't great, good yes, but not great.

I disagree with part of this. Bronn is clearly better than just 'competent' he's good. He's not Loras Tyrell or the Hound though, I agree with that. I also agree that we've never really seen Bronn fight a well-matched enemy.

As for Vardis, yes, he was older and slower than Bronn, he is said to be a "doughty" fighter, but he's certainly no Jaime Lannister and probably not a Lyn Corbray or even a Robar Royce.

We don't have examples of everyone on your list either. You mentioned Jaime, Gregor, Robert and Loras as being above Bronn. I don't believe every one of those individuals has been noted as defeating an opponent of great skill. Some yes, but all?

I think it a mistake to discount Victarion Greyjoy due to reliance on armour. The best fighter should be about [Charlie Sheen Voice]Winning...[/Charlie Sheen Voice] not who is the best at . I do no know if Greyjoy could stand up to the Mountain as he is similar style, relying on strength and the Mountain is likely stronger, but he could certainly go toe-to-toe with anyone if each warrior took their favorite arms and armour. I don't know how much weight this has with the book fans, but Green Ronin's game rates Victarion very highly. Robert is one of the only "4" rated fighters therein, with Victarion (3 axes and brawling) and Jaime among the only "3" rated. I will look thorugh and see what influence GRRM had on this if I can find it.

I'm not sure I agree.

Victarion is a terror on the battlefield (although I believe Andrik the Unsmiling is said to be the best) he's big, her's strong and he's certainly a good fighter. However from his PoV chapter I don't really see him doing much impressive, he basically just lets his big size and heavy armour let him soak up the hits while he cuts down and knocks around men smaller and lesser armoured than he.

Now, maybe this is because the guys he's fighting are all second-class and no match, so he doesn't need to try, or maybe this is his style. But it's inconclusive.

[Hnim]

I think it a mistake to discount Victarion Greyjoy due to reliance on armour. The best fighter should be about [Charlie Sheen Voice]Winning...[/Charlie Sheen Voice] not who is the best at . I do no know if Greyjoy could stand up to the Mountain as he is similar style, relying on strength and the Mountain is likely stronger, but he could certainly go toe-to-toe with anyone if each warrior took their favorite arms and armour. I don't know how much weight this has with the book fans, but Green Ronin's game rates Victarion very highly. Robert is one of the only "4" rated fighters therein, with Victarion (3 axes and brawling) and Jaime among the only "3" rated. I will look thorugh and see what influence GRRM had on this if I can find it.

This is medieval fantasy. Contrary to popular belief, a man in plate armor has a (usually) overwhelming advantage against an unarmored man, so long as he is not as cumbersome as Gregor. Bronn bested Vardis because he was clearly the superior fighter in pretty much every way, he was smarter in the conservation of his energy, he was faster, had more endurance, younger, was fighting with a familiar blade. Heavily armored is the way people fight in Westeros. In fact, it's somewhat inaccurate, as many knights use one-handed swords, which are in fact next to useless against plate armor. Anyway, I assumed "best fighter" did not exclusively mean skill, but a "who would win" situation.

[sentence]

Hey sentence, is that sarcasm. If it is, you're terrible at it. All I'm asking is an example of Bronn fighting someone with known skill. Not him see a nobody and saying "I can beat that guy" or saying that Bronn can kill half starved mountain men in rusty armor fighting with rusty weapons, so therefore he's great. Show me a fight were he killed or at least survived someone with actual skill. It doesn't exist. Period. Bronn is a sellsword and he'll never fight someone that has a good chance of beating him, therefore, it would be impossible for him to develop the skills to compete against the greats of the realm. You don't become a expert swordsman fighting footmen and peasants.

Please, just show me him fighting someone of skill. Please. Two old knights don't count. Bronn is a good fighter, better than the average fighter yes, but to be great, it takes someone that will test their skills against someone of equal talent. Bronn never fights anyone that might be hard for him. He picks his battles carefully as a smart sellsword should. He fights only when he is confident he'll win. He wants the gold, not the kills.

Use your sarcasm if you must, because you have no actual evidence to prove your bias. You have nothing to back your assumption.

I am sorry I did not pretend to be sarcastic.

I fully agree with you about Bronn. And that was also my opinion regarding LF.

english is not my native lenguage so I could have been missunderstood. but anyway, as told yo before, I share your opinion about Bronn.

[wolfeyoung]

Actually, even Tyrion compares Bronn to Jamie with skill of sword. Truth be told, the way Tyrion always talks up his brother it mat actually be that Bronn might even be better than Jaime. Vardis Egan is Captain of the Guard for the Eirie, no small feat and btw how bad ass do Shagga, Timmet, and the rest of the mountain clansmen turn out to be? Bronn kicked the piss out of them. Your argument sucks.

Did Bronn fight Timmet, or Shagga? Nope. Bronn killed half-starved, ill-equipped savages and nothing more.

And as far as the mountain men. Well, pre-Tywin equipping them they actually sucked. Even Tyrion was able to dodge their attacks and kill them and this man has stunted legs and bad back, waddles when he walk, not someone that has a lot of agility on their feet. The mountain men that attacked Catelyn (who also killed a few and her having never trained at fighting) were not written as great fighters. Mean, savage, cruel, yes, great warriors, no. For some reason they didn't become great until they met up with Tywin, then Martin turned them into badasses. Of course, Tywin gave them better gear and fed them and gave them better horses.

And it has been said repeatedly in the books that Tyrion's place was with books while Jaime's place was with the sword. Tyrion did not grow up in the training yard with Jaime. Tyrion is not Yoda. I don't really care about Tyrion's assessment of Bronn. Bronn is good, but not great. Tyrion would not know enough about swordsmanship to understand the difference, because to him, nearly ever able bodied man is better than him.

Catelyn also comments that Bronn is one of the fiercest fighters she has seen. Does that mean that Bronn is on a level with Jaime? No. Catelyn hasn't been in a war, not until she follows along with Robb later in the books. Catelyn, during all the wars was protected behind Riverrun or Winterfell. She saw jousting, tourney-sword melees, and soldiers training, but not war. Her opinion will not put him with the greats, it only means he is much better than a common soldier. Yes, Bronn is good, but not one of the greats.

Vardis is Captain of the Guard. Does that make him a good swordsman? Well, is Ned a good swords man, he was the commander of many battles? Actually even Martin says that Ned is competent. Vardis is also competent too. And Vardis is now old and past his prime, so he was an old, former competent fighter, with too much armor and a sword that isn't balanced to his liking. Vardis had lost that fight before it even started, hence why Bronn, after seeing Vardis chosen, championed Tyrion. Bronn would never have championed Tyrion without knowing who is was going to fight.

To go into a bit more detail of the mountain road fight. Tyrion had no armor on and neither did Catelyn. Catelyn was armed only with a dagger. The clansmen outnumbered them 3 to 1 and yet, Tyrion and Catelyn neither suffered any moderate wound despite the fact that both were in the thick of the fight, with Tyrion killing clansmen, several of them. Pre-Tywin, the mountain men were not a formidable foe. Savage, cruel, dangerous, bloodthirsty, yes. Skilled fighters? No. Martin made them great when they met up with Tywin.

And after the mountain men/Vale, Bronn is never seen doing any fighting. Tyrion talks him up a few times, but no real fighter remarks on Bronn's skill.

@ Sentence. I apologize for my comment to you. I should think before I type.

[SerFelixCulpa]

Hey sentence, is that sarcasm. If it is, you're terrible at it. All I'm asking is an example of Bronn fighting someone with known skill. Not him see a nobody and saying "I can beat that guy" or saying that Bronn can kill half starved mountain men in rusty armor fighting with rusty weapons, so therefore he's great. Show me a fight were he killed or at least survived someone with actual skill. It doesn't exist. Period. Bronn is a sellsword and he'll never fight someone that has a good chance of beating him, therefore, it would be impossible for him to develop the skills to compete against the greats of the realm. You don't become a expert swordsman fighting footmen and peasants.

Please, just show me him fighting someone of skill. Please. Two old knights don't count. Bronn is a good fighter, better than the average fighter yes, but to be great, it takes someone that will test their skills against someone of equal talent. Bronn never fights anyone that might be hard for him. He picks his battles carefully as a smart sellsword should. He fights only when he is confident he'll win. He wants the gold, not the kills.

Use your sarcasm if you must, because you have no actual evidence to prove your bias. You have nothing to back your assumption.

The fact remains that GRRM provides plenty of evidence that Bronn is a formidable fighter, and indeed, Tyrion thinks him one of the best he has ever seen. You can sneer at Tyrion's qualifications to make such a judgment all you like, but I think most of us realize Tyrion's opinion there would be enough even beyond all the other evidence. Notwithstanding this, every time we point out something that weighs toward showing Bronn is an exceptional fighter, you not only deny it, but attempt to claim it shows that he's nothing but average. It's quite tiresome, and frankly, you are also inconsistent about it. As Kaitscralt points out, very few of the undisputedly great fighters have ever been established as having defeated another undisputedly great fighter. Your standard is simply impossible for someone like Bronn to meet no matter how good he is, and frankly, for almost everyone else too.

Even beyond the direct evidence, GRRM has put Bronn there (partially) to demonstrate a point about "reputation" in his world: that just because people like Jaime Lannister or Barristan Selmy are famous knights from rich and famous families who also happen to be world-class fighters doesn't mean they are the only world-class warriors in the realm. People like Jaime have reputations based both on their ability and the fact that they're the Westerosi equivalents of celebrities. Point being: there are plenty of people (like Bronn) who are not from famous families, not rich, and who are every bit as competent as the famous knights who owe their reputations to their birth at least as much as to their ability.

[Axon]

Khal Drogo would kill most of the guys on this list.

[Ranzadule]

I think Drogo was a bad man, but I think armoured bad-asses would have no trouble with him. Average soldiers may shrink from the barbaric fury, but not real knights in armour.

[seppuku]

A fight that was seven against three. A fight that ended with only two people walking out alive. A fight that Ned admits to his son that he would have died in, had someone not attacked Arthur Dayne while Arthur Dayne was attacking Ned.

And? None of that proves that Ned does not belong in a top tier caste of fighters. By virtue of two men surviving out of seven (and we don't know if Howland was wounded or not) implies that Ned was skillful enough to survive that long against 3 of the best blades in the known world. End result: Ned lives.

Dayne was written as the Michael Jordan of Westeros. I'm not arguing that Ned was a better fighter than him if you actually read was written the previous posts. But he definitely belongs in the same "class" or "tier" the op was discussing.

Irrelevant. Lots of kids trained with Cus D'Amatio, not all of them ended up being Mike Tyson.

You're right. Ned ended up as more an Evander Holyfield. And the guy that killed Arthur Dayne and fought Jaime Lannister evenly. Those two credentials alone put him in a top tier of "Westeros warriors".

The thing about the battlefield is that it's different from duelling, which is what we're talking about. On the battlefield Ned was more likely to fight while riding a horse. Plus he was a nobleman, so he was more likely to be captured than killed. Consider the fight between the nobleman and Tyrion in Game of Thrones, the nobleman has Tyrion pinned down and repeatedly tells Tyrion to yield. Plus Ned was a commander, and thus he would've been disengaged from most of the fighting in order to manouvere his troops, like Robb or Tywin do.

Your post again is unsupported. Robert talks about Ned fighting on the battle field 'with him'. And the show has Barristan mention that he's seen Ned slay dozens of fine Knights.

You based your theory on generalized notions that directly contradict what characters in the books have portrayed.

Jaime wasn't trying to kill Ned. Like they said, if Jaime killed Ned then Tyrion might've died. Jaime was playing with Ned. Throughout that whole fight you saw Jaime smiling and laughing, mostly because Ned was trying his hardest to kill him and Jaime wasn't, yet they still looked about equal.

All of Jaimie's advances were skillfully countered. Jamie showed nothing of an advantage during the fight. It was a draw by definition before the guard stepped in. That scene doesn't get written without Martin's ok.

Martin's take on Ned is that Ned was an average fighter at best.

That's blatantly wrong, as Martin gave obvious hints of the opposite.. As the evidence suggests. What we see from Ned is a modest man that won't talk himself up that doesn't compete in tournaments.

Don't get me wrong, Ned is a brave man, Ned is an honourable man, but his bravery and his honour lead him to ignore overwhelming danger because it's "the right thing to do". We don't know exactly what Howland Reed did to stop Arthur Dayne from killing Ned, but we do know that the fight went something like this:

That has nothing to do with his skill as a fighter. And you're right, we don't know the details one way or the another. But Ned still survived. That reality alone conveys Ned isn't an easy kill or lacking skill.

5 fighters + Ned + Howland Reed

2 of the Kings Guard + Arthur Dayne

Fight commences

At some point Arthur Dayne has Ned on the ropes and is about to kill him

Howland Reed does something

Arthur Dayne dies.

^ That above sequence is canon. There is no reason to think that in a one on one fight Ned wouldn't be utterly destroyed by Arthur Dayne. We have Ned's own admission that Arthur Dayne did beat him, we have the fact that in a seven against three fight, that's two people for each of the Kings Guard, only two walked out alive. Arthur Dayne, Gerold Hightower and Oswell Whent were what Samuel L Jackson would describe as Bad Mutha Fuckers. Ned was not.

And Ned's survival just shows what a BMF he is. That was only confirmed by his showing against Kingslayer. Something we already knew and was obvious from the get go though.

Nothing from that sequence degrades Ned's skill in anyway. If he was merely average, none of the 7 would have walked out of there alive.

[Chirios]

@ Seppuku:

The sequence does degrade Ned's skill, because it shows that Ned would have died but for someone else attacking Arthur Dayne. I don't think you quite comprehend how difficult it is to fight two people at the same time, especially if they're wielding deadly weapons. Even if you're armed chances are you'll still die, whether you're an expert with a blade or not, simply because if one of them get's behind you they can stab you while you aren't looking. Which is exactly what happened to Arthur Dayne, Dayne was about to kill Ned, Reed attacked Dayne, Dayne died. Whether he survived Reed's attack and then was stabbed in the back by Ned, or was stabbed in the back by Reed is irrelevant. Ned lost, and survived because someone else interfered in the fight.

Also, yes, the books don't mention Ned fighting on the battlefield, but he was a nobleman, so he would've been on horseback. The books do mention that Ned was a battlefield commander, and given that Robb likely learned his ability to command from his father, it's likely that he would have commanded as his father did, on horseback, from a position where he was free to give orders if the battlefield changed.

Third the show does change quite a lot of things, it's a different continuity. Catelyn wanted Ned to go to KL in the books, she doesn't in the show. Catelyn told Jon that she wanted him to die in the books, she doesn't in the show. Cersei never loved Robert in the books, she used to hope in the show. The book continuity is different from the show continuity, and in the book continuity, Ned was an average swordsman, but a skilled battlefield commander, who was honourable to a fault and thus was willing to fight against people he knew damned well he couldn't win against because it was the "right thing to do".

I'm not saying that he was a pub swordsman, obviously he's better than most, but amongst the professional swordsmen he's not champions belt material. Jaime is. Barristan is. Ned isn't.

And I can't remember where, but in an interview George did say that Ned was an average fighter.

[SerFelixCulpa]

And? None of that proves that Ned does not belong in a top tier caste of fighters. By virtue of two men surviving out of seven (and we don't know if Howland was wounded or not) implies that Ned was skillful enough to survive that long against 3 of the best blades in the known world. End result: Ned lives.

Dayne was written as the Michael Jordan of Westeros. I'm not arguing that Ned was a better fighter than him if you actually read was written the previous posts. But he definitely belongs in the same "class" or "tier" the op was discussing.

You're right. Ned ended up as more an Evander Holyfield. And the guy that killed Arthur Dayne and fought Jaime Lannister evenly. Those two credentials alone put him in a top tier of "Westeros warriors".

Your post again is unsupported. Robert talks about Ned fighting on the battle field 'with him'. And the show has Barristan mention that he's seen Ned slay dozens of fine Knights.

You based your theory on generalized notions that directly contradict what characters in the books have portrayed.

All of Jaimie's advances were skillfully countered. Jamie showed nothing of an advantage during the fight. It was a draw by definition before the guard stepped in. That scene doesn't get written without Martin's ok.

That's blatantly wrong, as Martin gave obvious hints of the opposite.. As the evidence suggests. What we see from Ned is a modest man that won't talk himself up that doesn't compete in tournaments.

That has nothing to do with his skill as a fighter. And you're right, we don't know the details one way or the another. But Ned still survived. That reality alone conveys Ned isn't an easy kill or lacking skill.

And Ned's survival just shows what a BMF he is. That was only confirmed by his showing against Kingslayer. Something we already knew and was obvious from the get go though.

Nothing from that sequence degrades Ned's skill in anyway. If he was merely average, none of the 7 would have walked out of there alive.

Let's get this straight: Ned's survival in a seven against three fight on the seven side of the fight proves what a BMF he is? Where only Ned and one other of the seven lived? That establishes that the three were BMFs: it establishes nothing either way about the seven. Seven merely "average" people could very well defeat three superb fighters in combat: it's more than a two to one advantage. Nor is anyone saying that the seven were "merely" average, though we have no real way of knowing anything about any of them except Ned.

Nor does Ned's fight with Jaime prove anything. Jaime had no intention of killing Ned, it's clear in the book that he's toying with him. Again, hanging a good showing against Jaime as "proof" of Ned's sword mastery on that evidence is simply several leaps too far.

Which brings us right back to GRRM's clear statements to the effect that Ned was an adequate swordsman, but Brandon Stark was the real fighter in the family. Ned is not bad, and likely not just "average," but there is literally zero canon support for claiming he is a "BMF" fighter or otherwise belongs in the highest tier of fighters described in the books.

[oba]

Nor does Ned's fight with Jaime prove anything. Jaime had no intention of killing Ned, it's clear in the book that he's toying with him. Again, hanging a good showing against Jaime as "proof" of Ned's sword mastery on that evidence is simply several leaps too far.

I agree with you with respect to Ned's swordsmanship, but Ned and Jaime don't actually fight in the book. That fight scene was added to the TV series.

[SerFelixCulpa]

I agree with you with respect to Ned's swordsmanship, but Ned and Jaime don't actually fight in the book. That fight scene was added to the TV series.

True, Ned is just knocked off the horse and breaks his leg in the book. So the point is even stronger that Ned is never demonstrated to be in the top tier of fighters.

The TV series clearly varies from the books in this regard: by setting up a "martial" rivalry between Ned and Jaime early on (the scene at Winterfell with Jaime baiting Ned about fighting in tourneys), by Barristan gratuitously noting he had seen Ned cut down many fine knights when they were talking at the Hand's Tournament, and by portraying Ned and Jaime as more or less evenly matched at least to the point where Ned got stabbed by the anonymous Lannister guardsman. (Though, knowing what I know, I would incline to believe Jaime was toying with Ned there...however, new TV viewers with no knowledge of the books probably are happier believing Ned and Jaime are roughly on par with each other, and it makes the fight more "dramatic" for TV purposes.)

[oba]

The TV series clearly varies from the books in this regard: by setting up a "martial" rivalry between Ned and Jaime early on (the scene at Winterfell with Jaime baiting Ned about fighting in tourneys), by Barristan gratuitously noting he had seen Ned cut down many fine knights when they were talking at the Hand's Tournament, and by portraying Ned and Jaime as more or less evenly matched at least to the point where Ned got stabbed by the anonymous Lannister guardsman.

(Though, knowing what I know, I would incline to believe Jaime was toying with Ned there...however, new TV viewers with no knowledge of the books probably are happier believing Ned and Jaime are roughly on par with each other, and it makes the fight more "dramatic" for TV purposes.)

My wife pretty much falls into the latter category (much as I've tried to get her to read the books, she's really never gotten into them) and it was clear that this worked as far as she was concerned. That is, she thought Ned and Jaime were supposed to be two evenly matched swordsmen. She even asked me, before episode 5 aired whether or not we'd ever see a "showdown" between the two.

The only point I'll disagree with you on is that we're supposed to think Jaime was toying with Ned. I think the viewer was supposed to be left with the idea that they were more or less evenly matched and that it was an inconclusive result. Otherwise it makes no sense to basically build up Ned (on the show, not in the books) the way they did and to establish that martial rivalry in the first place. At the end of the day it's not something that has a major impact on the storyline either way.

[SerFelixCulpa]

My wife pretty much falls into the latter category (much as I've tried to get her to read the books, she's really never gotten into them) and it was clear that this worked as far as she was concerned. That is, she thought Ned and Jaime were supposed to be two evenly matched swordsmen. She even asked me, before episode 5 aired whether or not we'd ever see a "showdown" between the two.

The only point I'll disagree with you on is that we're supposed to think Jaime was toying with Ned. I think the viewer was supposed to be left with the idea that they were more or less evenly matched and that it was an inconclusive result. Otherwise it makes no sense to basically build up Ned (on the show, not in the books) the way they did and to establish that martial rivalry in the first place. At the end of the day it's not something that has a major impact on the storyline either way.

I don't think we're disagreeing at all: the clear intent of the show was to leave the viewer in suspense about who was "better." As a matter of filmed drama, it works much better that way. Me (and a lot of older fans) I think tended to project into the fight that Jaime was toying with him since we know that Jaime is the superior swordsman. Particularly because Jaime was smiling and appearing to enjoy the fight whereas Ned was more grim and less showy about it.

I'll say, on a personal note, I am so thrilled that the series understands the books well enough to be able to deviate in matters like this and not have it really bother me. I was afraid going into it this would bother me enormously (as it almost always does when a property with which I already have familiarity is adapted into another medium) and so far it has not at all.

[SerArthurHeath]

My wife pretty much falls into the latter category (much as I've tried to get her to read the books, she's really never gotten into them) and it was clear that this worked as far as she was concerned. That is, she thought Ned and Jaime were supposed to be two evenly matched swordsmen. She even asked me, before episode 5 aired whether or not we'd ever see a "showdown" between the two.

The only point I'll disagree with you on is that we're supposed to think Jaime was toying with Ned. I think the viewer was supposed to be left with the idea that they were more or less evenly matched and that it was an inconclusive result. Otherwise it makes no sense to basically build up Ned (on the show, not in the books) the way they did and to establish that martial rivalry in the first place. At the end of the day it's not something that has a major impact on the storyline either way.

It is a little, because now they ought to do some work to establish that Jaime IS actually reasonably good with a sword either by going OTT in the Whispering Woods and the attempted escape from Riverrun or by demonstrating that Ned could really fight by showing the ToJ. Otherwise when Jaime is in chains and then is reflecting on losing his hand and people are still terrified of him, all people will remember was that he ok against mooks like Jory and the Karstarks but Ned would have beaten him (regardless of intent, this seems to be the standard new viewer interpretation of the fight) and he gets handed his arse by a girl. That is going to be a key issue on the show, because although we don't know how much martial experience Jaime has (unless GRRM is living in cloud coocooland/really inconsistent with his characters' reactions and knowledge bases I presume it is more than the Kingswood bandits) we have reason to believe that he is quite good with te sword and he is pretty sure he can beat ANYONE including Gregor still alive. In the show, we don't have access to his PoV or other people reflecting on his skill, we can only see what he does. Storywise he will lose to Brienne. She is unlikely to be 6'6" and ugly and built like an ox in the show. Viewers will forget that Jaime is starved and has been in prison for months and the weight and constraint of chains will not be as obvious in a tv medium. They will not reflect on how vital practice is to keeping up fighting technique, strength, instincts and stamina because there will be no PoVs to remind them, just as the writers seemed to forget this when they decided that someone who is in a judiciary and ruling job would beat one if the most highly regarded active knights in single combat. All the viewers will see, after a whole season of forgetting Jaime nearly winning Whispering Wood by himself by desperately charging Robb, is Jaime getting beaten by a slightly taller than average girl. It is going to look stupid.

[SerArthurHeath]

Sorry I'm on an iPhone and my ability to write on it is limited. I didn't realise how long that would be without any form of paragraphs.

[oba]

It is a little, because now they ought to do some work to establish that Jaime IS actually reasonably good with a sword

I don't think viewers will walk away with the idea that Jaime's not good with a sword. They just might not think he's as much of a "badass" as readers do. Not a huge loss, IMO, and I still don't think that will necessarily have a huge impact on the story.

Also, let's not forget that by the equivalent point in the books the only thing we'd really seen Jaime do was toss Bran from a window and lose his joust to the Hound (getting led away from the lists with the crowd laughing at him to boot). At this point in the show he's killed Jory and fought Ned (who the show has established as at least a very, very good fighter) to a stand-still as opposed to simply riding away and ordering the killing of Ned's men. We've also had Barristan talk about Jaime being "only 16" when he killed one of the Kingswood Brotherhood. I don't think Jaime's gotten short-changed on the show to this point as opposed to a similar stage in the book.

I guess I can see die-hard Jaime fans being disappointed, but, again, I honestly don't see why this would have a major impact on the overall storyline.

[SerArthurHeath]

Yeah but in the book we get his PoV. The show has to show and not tell

[oba]

Yeah but in the book we get his PoV. The show has to show and not tell

As readers, we didn't get Jaime's POV until Book 3. Viewers have, IMO, been given at least as much evidence of his skill with a sword as we readers were given by an equivalent point in Book 1.