Fighters that you (controversially) think are overrated

[AdamGB]

Any fighter in history there is little footage of. Fact. Unless you're a hardcore creationist how can you possibly judge fighters you haven't actually seen? And if you haven't seen them then how can you possibly rate their opposition, who are even more obscure by association?

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)

[laughing]. By this ridiculous standard, a military historian can make no assessment of Julius Cesar or Alexander the great or Napoleon as a general. After all, there is no footage! Nobody cvan make a judgement on Shakespeare's plays either as we have no footage of them being performed the way he wanted them performed.

Stupid analogy... historical generals are only assessed against their contemporaries. Nobody looks at Napoleon through nostalgia tinted, vintage glasses and says that the armies and commanders of today just don't match up, he'd beat them and that has era was some mythical, glorious age of warfare.

You can judge napoleon against wellington... but could you really judge either against rommel? The enviroment and context that they existed had operated in had changed dramatically and more is known about rommel. History is written by the victor and the more history something is.. the less flaws you'll see.

All too often people are only too happy to compare old fighters that they've seen little of (and even less of their opposition, to accurately judge their standing) against modern fighters... without the context needed to properly do so.

(this post was in no way shape or form intended to rile Marblehead. fact.)