Talk:Leo Bonhart/@comment-85.248.59.101-20180910122911

With all the respect:

Considering fight Geralt vs. Leo people seem to constantly ignore one crucial fact - Sapkowsky is unbelievably inconsistent when it comes to his novels.

Leo is gifted, experienced and fearless (that is great advantage). Maybe he killed 3 witchers, maybe it was fair fight. To eliminate doubts lets say he did. Not all witchers are equal. And than he killed a few thugs who mostly even did not have proper training in swordfight.

Geralt - naturally gifted. Moreover, enhanced abilities due to brutal training and mutations. And it is not just ability to see in the dark, resist toxins but also means enhanced physical abilities. In novels and short stories he killed at least 2 assassin groups (once hurt), disarmed few thugs with broom and bare hands, wiped the floor with the band of Renfri = bunch of experienced thugs with good fighting skills (not like Rats), killed Renfri. During massacre of Cintra he exterminated elven commando, 10 warriors if I remember, described by their leader as a very experienced ones. During some of these fights he used potions but in case of Blaviken/Renfri and Cintra he did not.

Thus when Sapkowski needed it for theatrical effect, Geralt was almost inhuman even without potions and moments later he was almost unable to hold his own. Thus compared to Leo, who is described in one-fashion manner, Geralts description is extremely inconsistent.

And fights with monsters - you have to fight on their turf, thats obviousle extremely dangerous as well as when you try too many times you will inevitably run out of luck once. Thus being hurt does not mena that Geralt is weak. Maybe on contrary - fact that he was able to survive gives rather credits to his skills.

In more consistent manner - Geralt would be able to put down Leo in fight with clearly higher chance than vice versa.