Who was tougher, Roman legionary or a modern spec ops soldier

While it is true Roman Legionaries came from all different walks of life, and were not given near as much training as today's modern SF, it still stands true that those that survived the first few battles became formidable foes. The reason the Roman Empire was on the top of the world is because of the Roman Army. They knew how to fight, and how to do it well. I also believe that most of them were in top physical condition, which our modern SF operators also are. Julius Ceasor marched his men 20 miles a day, who were weighed down with a shield, gladius, pila, and a pack, as well as armor, at the end of which they would build fortifications before sitting down to a simple, small meal. The next morning they would wake up and do it all over again. When they faced an enemy, they would fight for hours at a time, with only temporary lulls in battle. With stamina and strength to complete this, I believe they made up in physical condition and experience in hand-to-hand combat compared to a SF operator's wits and fighting ability. They may not have been as good, technically, against a SF operator, but they had the know-how. SF soldiers are very smart, and are trained in many different skills. However, I believe that many of these skills are oriented to things such as stealth, survival training, modern tactics such as explosives and firearms, and electronics, most of which would be irrelevant in a standup fight against a Roman Legionary. While it is true that SF operators are formidable hand-to-hand combatants, I don't believe that their knowledge of many different moves is a huge advantage against a veteran Legionary. Legionaries did fight more as a team then individually, but so do SF teams. In fact, that is one of the reasons (in my opinion) that they are so deadly; acting as a team and each doing their part in a mission fluidly and efficiently, as well as watching their buddy's back. Legionaries also fought as team, which is what made them so successful: The testudo formation, their charges, fighting as one cohesive unit rather other armies such as barbarian tribes, who tended to throw themselves headfirst into the fight. The Legionaries where also highly disciplined, and it took a lot to route a unit. It is true that the Romans lost thousands of men in battles, but their battles consisted of many thousands of soldiers, and if you look at the Roman Army's track record, it is quite impressive. Modern SF don't lose thousands of men because they work in tiny groups, doing more black ops missions then head on combat. Back to a one-on-one fight however, I believe that an experienced Legionary would know how to handle himself quite well against a modern SF. A Roman soldier was dedicated to 20 years of service, with an additional five as reserve. That is quite a long time. And they were usually on campaign for years at a time, fighting, sieging, and marching. Fifteen years in, a Legionary would be quite capable of handling himself. An SF operator will know a wider array of moves, but the Legionary has the experience of charging into battle countless times, and each time killing as many people as he could with a short sword. Tips and new moves were also handed down from veterans, and even in training, they were drilled constantly on core moves and then sparred with each other, one on one. I am sure, even in battle, at times it was every man for himself. So while today's SF are a very special kind of soldier, and some of the best we have in the world today, I believe that a Roman Legionary's extensive experience in hand-to-hand combat would easily prove a match, as well as both of their top physical conditions, which I believe would also benefit the Roman more, as he would have experiences of ancient battles that the modern SF soldier has never encountered.