clint Eastwood vs John wayne
who do you think would win if they batteled it out?
shareClint Eastwood....John Wayne is an icon in western movies but he's more of a hollywood cowboy. I also think that Clint Eastwood is the better gun handler. In his Leone trilogy he did some pretty impressive gun tricks. That being said it brings me back to my original point I think that Clint Eastwood is by far the better of the two.
shareHate to reply to a silly question like this, but what can you say, you suckered me in.
Fistfight: Clint has supposedly had a lot of boxing training, but Wayne sounds like no stranger to brawls himself if the legends can be believed. I give the technique edge to Clint, but Wayne eeks the win out just because he was so damn big.
Gunfight: Sure, Clint looks like he knows some tricks...but Wayne has 70 years as a real life good ol boy who loved to shoot and hunt to back him up. I'd guess Wayne was better with a gun.
Both two of the all time great western actors, but Wayne edges him in a fight (as he does as an actor...imo)
Eastwood in every catagory. John Wayne is the kind of "safe" westerns. Eastwood on the other hand does westerns the way they should be done. Dirty, gritty, and mean.
shareVery interesting question, hmmm...
Would you believe I once met the Duke's grandson, a Catholic priest, at a wedding? Anyway...
Wayne spent much of his life in terrible shape. I think it's pretty much known that he was a boozer, that he smoked the way other people BREATHE, and didn't keep fit at all. When shooting time was nearing he would go on a diet to look okay for the cameras.
Clint is another story completely! He's always been a rigorous health-and-fitness disciple. Even now, at 81, he continues to work out and avoid the fats.
Regarding size, neither fellow was appreciably bigger. In their primes both were 6'4". Look at the Duke in his 1940s movies and you'll see that he was NOT this hulking giant lots of people would like to believe. It was later on that he fattened up and looked huge. Clint remains a long, sinewy guy to this day.
If you follow boxing you know that truly "size means nothing". The heavyweight division is full of examples of smaller challengers beating larger fellows. I believe that Clint would lead the Duke around, quickly wear him out since he had no endurance, and put him out with combinations.
Gunfight: Sure, Clint looks like he knows some tricks...but Wayne has 70 years as a real life good ol boy who loved to shoot and hunt to back him up. I'd guess Wayne was better with a gun.
Eastwood disdained hunting (in 1969, he acerbically suggested that America should send hunters to Vietnam and bring back everyone else who did not want to be there), but he handled guns constantly in his Rawhide days and thus developed exceptional fast-draw ability. He also shot at firing ranges and his reflexes were both outstanding and fully evident from his Westerns. Frankly, I don't think that Wayne could compete with him there, and here's what Luciano Vincenzoni, screenwriter for For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, later stated.
CK: Is it right that during the filming of FDM, Eastwood and Van Cleef had a sort of bet on who was faster in drawing the gun, and that they counted actual film frames for that?
LV: No, I don't think so because I have never seen in my life a man so fast like Clint. I wrote many westerns after Leone. I wrote six, seven of them. I saw may actors like John Philip Law, Rod Cameron and others. I never saw any actor so fast like Clint.
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/classic/articles/vince.html
Fistfight: Clint has supposedly had a lot of boxing training, but Wayne sounds like no stranger to brawls himself if the legends can be believed. I give the technique edge to Clint, but Wayne eeks the win out just because he was so damn big.
Here was writer Bruce Jay Friedman's take on the matter in 1976, as originally published in Esquire in his article, "Some Thoughts on Clint Eastwood and Heidegger":
Which brings me to another question, one that's been crying out to be asked since I got into this. The Duke or Eastwood? In a fight, forget it. A good big man against a good little man. Sugar Ray versus Ali. The Duke with those big, good-natured ham hands would eventually win. Eastwood would hit him with some vicious, nasty, small man's punches and the Duke probably wouldn't even feel most of them. It's as if they'd be coming from one of his spitfires. And the ones he did feel, he'd fall back, shake the grogginess out of his head, rub his slightly stubbled cheek, say "I'll be darned"—and then he'd start using the good-natured hands and that would be all she wrote. The end of Eastwood. Or would it? Let's not get too cocky on this point, either us or the Duke. Because this is where I'd like to introduce a thought, something for the Duke to ponder. All along, we've been presupposing a fair fight. One of those saloon things where people get thrown over bars and the mirror breaks. What the Duke has to realize is that Eastwood has spent a lot of time abroad. And he just might come up with something crazy. Something the Duke has never seen. Something they didn't do in Laredo. Something out of Naples. Eastwood doesn't fight American, doesn't see any reason to. He'll pull the Duke's ear off. What would the Duke do then? Probably mumble something about go*ks and walk off the set. Or for argument's sake, let's say Eastwood didn't pull the Duke's ear off. What if he pulled something metaphysical, something no one ever tried on the Duke? All of a sudden the Duke would be punching thin air. He'd have to stop after a while and ask a rancher, "Listen, neighbor, wasn't I just fighting a tough little skinny fellow or was it my imagination?" With all of this, I'd still probably bet on the Duke because of his good-natured ham hands and the Iwo. But there'd always be the possibility of an upset, particularly if Eastwood was cornered and went over to the metaphysical.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/263509.html
Personally, I think that Eastwood would have possessed too much quickness and athleticism for the lumbering Duke.
Both two of the all time great western actors, but Wayne edges him in a fight (as he does as an actor...imo)
But while The Alamo is impressive enough, Eastwood blows Wayne away as a director. share
Clint eastwood, not saying The Duke is not good but
Clint has made better films than The Duke.
Eastwood did some impressive gun tricks in the Leone Films?
Well,there was close ups of an hand twirling the gun that was all.The only time you saw him twirl the gun in the same shot was in Good,Bad and Ugly and that was one twirl lol.A kid can do that.
Watch the Duke twirl a gun in Liberty Valance and The Searchers to see how it's done.
- - -
Fill your hand you son of a bitch!
Eastwood did some impressive gun tricks in the Leone Films?
Well,there was close ups of an hand twirling the gun that was all.The only time you saw him twirl the gun in the same shot was in Good,Bad and Ugly and that was one twirl lol. A kid can do that.
Watch the Duke twirl a gun in Liberty Valance and The Searchers to see how it's done.
Here's what Luciano Vincenzoni, screenwriter for For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, later stated.
CK: Is it right that during the filming of FDM, Eastwood and Van Cleef had a sort of bet on who was faster in drawing the gun, and that they counted actual film frames for that?
LV: No, I don't think so because I have never seen in my life a man so fast like Clint. I wrote many westerns after Leone. I wrote six, seven of them. I saw may actors like John Philip Law, Rod Cameron and others. I never saw any actor so fast like Clint.
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/classic/articles/vince.html
share