vibius wrote:
LOL! You dismiss me with such utter disdain there!
After your statement about military training and "top-gun training missions" being based on competition, what other conclusion am I suppose to come to? If you knew anything on how military training is conducted, you would not have made such an absurd statement.
And you continue to try to belittle my position.
I didn't belittle or mock you at all. But when you put on armor and compete, it is still just a game. The armor, when referring to actual historical type you said you wore, is not there to save your life. So it's a costume. It's no different from paintball, Civil War reencating, or a Renaisance fair. Call it whatever you want, but in the end it's still playing. A few bruises, but every one goes home at the end of the day.
My position is that someone who is better trained and more skilled is more likely to prevail in a real duel. I don't think this is just me, it's been expressed by others in this thread too. Furthermore, I contend that a competition duel is a reasonably good means of determining who has more skill.
You are either not reading my posts, or you are intentionally misdirecting. I have ALWAYS contended that competition is a good place to test skills, and even included that I participate in them to do such. But what is being debated, and you are now avoiding, is that a winner of a competition is not proof of what will happen in real fight for your life. How good is all your skill if you freeze when you need to use it? How good are your techniques when the opponent doesn't play by competition rules? Can you bring yourself to take another's life? Anyone can pound their chest and answer these questions, but when you're not thinking clearly and the pucker factor is on hard squeeze because you know your life is in danger, it's a whole different story.
"If *I* have done any testing of (theory/technique/equipment)?" I've done loads, but this argument isn't about me, is it?
No it isn't about you. It's about the correct way to do testing. Even if you fought a thousand opponents, it would mean nothing to this whole debate. Why? Because there isn't enough diversity. For all we know, you may be a modern-day Musashi, some kind of sword saint. You could defeat every sworsmen in the the world with a hot dog. But any other person using your techniques and teachings would be killed in an instant.
I still think the evidence I cited is interesting. Of course it isn't conclusive! I never said it was. At least it gives some hope that somewhere in some dusty archive, someday, someone may find some well-recorded accounts of east/west duels that may shed some light on this topic.
It can't even be called evidence. There is no validation, and even on it's own it wasn't written with concern. It's no more than hearsay. I've heard that "evidence" before. I've also heard other versions where it's common that both fighters died, "samurai" by stabbing, and rapierist(not knight) by slashing. There are also "records" of samurai swords breaking European broadswords. My point is that you should not using a questionable source to support your argument because it detracts from credibility.
You put forth an argument that leaves no room for reasonable debate.
When the matter is life and death, there is no room. Only results matter. Those who debate and squabble about what could happen are nothing more than bleacher "experts".
You call into question the other guy's argument and evidence without providing but your own opinion, and then you condescendingly tell your opponent to lighten up!
Fine. Let's start in the beginning.
Based on my experience, I think the knight would easily win.
Tell me, how many samurai have you fought in a death match? How many men with swords of varying skill have you fought in a death match? How much real knight training and lifestyle have you had? How many Japanese sword practicitioners of different styles have you fought? How many life and death situations have you ever been in? Considering that there isn't a man alive who could make the decision based on their experience, why is it that you can? Flaw one.
Did you read mooncaller's post? And the J. Clement's article?
Even ordinary (unarmored) Portuguese sailors are known to have consistently beaten samurai:
http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showpost.php?s=c746e231422e9afa9acb626bb4deb368&p=103077&postcount=15
First off, they were not knights, but rapeirist(not sure if that's the correct term), so you're using misdirection to prove your point. We also know nothing of the skills of the Japanese fighter, nor the situations of the battles, or even the truth behind them. Second, taking twelve questionable cases, and calling it "consistently beating" is practically lying. So you used recorded hearsay, calling it fact, of a very limited scale to prove your point. Flaw two.
A Knight would have easily been as skilled in using his weapons as a Samurai, having trained from an early age (like 6).
Most records show they enter service at that age. Actual military and combat training do not begin until around 14. So essentially until 14, they were nothing more than servants, kinda like the Mr. Miyagi school of karate. :mrgreen: Here you are using a falsehood. Flaw three.
Then you began the whole tirade of how modern US military practice is based on competition, even starting screaming "baloney" to give yourself a sound of authority. Well, let's make this clear. You are WRONG. We've already gone through this, but competition only serves a small part of military training, and doesn't prove who will win wars. Fighting wars prove who will win wars. Speaking authority of a subject you have little or no knowledge about. Flaw four.
The only thing you got right was that it was not as easy to get behind a long sword and I conceded that to you. And I haven't spoken condescending to you at all. If you've taken any offense, that's an issue you'll have to deal with.
![[image]](http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Kijinnmaru-inconceivable.jpg){kind=link}