Who will win in a fight? knight or samurai and rapier vs. katana (sick of vs. Questions, look inside)?

Question

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

Why the hell am I posting two freaking jhon clements articles on "knight" vs. "Samurai" and "katana" vs. "rapier" and why am I posting such a stupid topic?

The answer to all the "wrestler vs. boxer", "muai thai vs. wing chun", "mcdonalds vs. burgerking" questions is within those articles. At least the bruce lee vs. jet li questions we have some of that information.

Read the articles, and you will find the failure in logic of those questions.

Sure it is easy to say that a MT guy will kill a wc guy, but what if the wc guy is 350lbs and the mt guy is 150?

What if the wrestler is 135 and the boxer is 275? What if the boxer has a glass jaw?

Note: if you want to cheat- skip to the last paragraph of the articles.

size is always a factor- technique can overcome it to a point.

Doesn't bjj have a "rule of thumb" for the "belt level of skill" to take care of a weight advantage?

I'm not saying it might not be interesting to ask this, but if you are going to compare styles it is not a "who will win?" comparison. to analyze and compare how they fight is legit. to say "who will win?" is not an answerable question.

Answer 1

Great post! Too bad it won't stop the who vs. who questions. You could point out that the early UFC took advantage of that exact point when selecting it's fighters to represent their style. Roland Payne represented Muay Thai in UFC 3 and he was the smallest competitor in the competition. Emanuel Yarborough represented Sumo and was billed as 'The largest professional athlete in the world'. Of course, as a Sumo wrestler, he didn't have any strikes or submissions in his arsenal. Keith Hackney, representing Kenpo Karate, broke his hand on Emanuel's head from repeated strikes. After the match, Keith had to withdraw from the competition, while Emanuel walked out with no more than a bloody nose and a bruised ego. So who really won that fight? Officially it was Hackney. But in the street, you don't get to withdraw just because you hurt your hand. In the street, Yarborough would have got up and pummeled Hackney.

The point is, that while entertaining, these matches still don't determine what style or what fighter is better. By the way, Steve Jennum came in as an alternate and defeated Harold Howard who had already fought one fight and was thrown from his game plan when Royce Gracie forfeited the semi-final match due to fatigue.

Long story short: Your absolutely right!

Answer 2

I believe it is the same armed or unarmed. The better fighter wins. Both swords and their fighting styles have their strengths and weaknesses, just like unarmed styles.

Like you, I hate those questions and have stopped answering them for the most part. It isn't worth my time. I feel the same about "what is the best MA?" blah blah blah.

Barring accident or stupid luck, the best fighter, the one with the skill, technique, and experience, wins every time. There are no superior arts, there are only superior artists.

Answer 3

good points! the style isn't as important as the skills and ability levels of the people within that style.. size isn't always (the deciding)** factor though.. some styles like BJJ can overcome a pretty big difference in size..


**edited because you are right..size is always a factor..just not always the deciding factor..

Answer 4

Bluto, you funny MOFO, no I wont become a preist! I love your sence of humor though bro! And as for your question, I know one who teaches english sword, rapier, and kendo. He told me that each style has it's own advantage, and weaknesses, some of them due to the swords.

Answer 5

Man Bluto you are one resourcefull....
Cool stuff
Thanks

Answer 6

to those that just dont get it...sigh...

to Bluto, can we give you the 10 points?

Answer 7

good articles