# Who would win?



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2003)

Tai Chi swordmaster vs Kenjutsu swordmaster?  Why?


----------



## Blindside (Nov 10, 2003)

I'm going to fall back on the old refrain:

"There are no superior styles, only superior individuals."

Lamont


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2003)

Come on now.  Superior technique exists.  Throughout history people have perfected different weapons and different techniques and these innovations have won these conflicts.  I think that if you were able to ask a samurai or a chinese swordsman, they would be able to give an answer.  Although their answer would be predictable.  

Upnorthkyosa


----------



## jkn75 (Nov 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Come on now.  Superior technique exists.  Throughout history people have perfected different weapons and different techniques and these innovations have won these conflicts. *



You are correct to say that superior techniques exists. But technique is different from style.  Style is the fundamental foundation that someone draws from. This is what separates the Tai Chi and Kenjutsu swordmasters in appearance. 

If there was only one superior technique, all styles would look the same. Why practice anything else if one technique will guarantee you victory? Well, as we know from our martial arts practice, there is no one move that will end every conflict. Hence we practice different techniques and applications in order to prepare for the conflict. 



> _Originally posted by Blindside_
> *"There are no superior styles, only superior individuals."*



I agree with this. In a battle, the winner will be the one with the superior technique, that day at that time. The style will not be as important as the individual. The set of techniques that individual draws from will not make his technique more superior, only the individual can make those moves superior. Does that make that style superior? Not neccesarily, because the next day, the winner could go out and lose to someone else with a different style who had superior technique, and they lose the next day to someone elseand so on. Every loss does not mean that a style is ineffective, that individual may have been poorly trained, or fought someone too advanced, etc. Styles have survived because the people who trained in them survived and were able to teach others or write down the information. 

So if you are asking who would win the fight, I agree with Blindside, the superior individual. If you are asking which style is better, I also agree with Blindside, there are no superior styles.


----------



## someguy (Nov 10, 2003)

As for who would win which is better an apple or an bannana.  I'll leave you to connect the dots on the rest of my message


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2003)

Lets look at european fencing as an example of my points.  Sword arts evolved as technique was refined and became deadlier.  Earlier swords were heavier and used more slashing mostions.  Later swords were lighter and used quick thrusting motions.  The reason that the lighter swords replaced the heavier swords is because the techniques with the thrusting swords were superior.  (granted this also may have something to do with the invention of the firearm and the disolution of armor)  If you read the histories, though, there was a time when people with heavy swords fought the people with lighter and the success of those with the lighter was measurably better.  

I am wondering if there is a similar trend among the tai chi sword and kenjustsu arts.  Surely there must be history of encounters between the two.  Perhaps one of the reasons that this question is not being answered is because we don't really have a basis to answer it.  People don't go and duel with swords on a regular basis now days.  And if they do, its more of a sport with rules and much of the art has been lost.  (kendo)  So, what think?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Blindside (Nov 10, 2003)

Ye gods man, you have raised yet another hoary debate!  

You started out with samurai vs. X, you are just lucky you didn't say European Knight.

Now you are into the cut vs. thrust debate.

Weaponry needs to be placed into context.  A 16th century courtier is going to look damn silly standing on a 14th century battlefield with a smallsword in his hand.



> If you read the histories, though, there was a time when people with heavy swords fought the people with lighter and the success of those with the lighter was measurably better.



Please cite some examples, let us critique what actually happened.  

Lamont

PS Rob Roy doesn't count.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2003)

What's wrong with Rob Roy?  I thought the whole grab the sword bit was excellent!

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Saitama Steve (Nov 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Tai Chi swordmaster vs Kenjutsu swordmaster?  Why? *



The answer is.......My granny with her rolling pin ! 

If both swordsmen are highly proficient in their art, they are both dangerous to each other. Either one will win, one will lose or both will die.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2003)

No nationalism?  No bias?  You are all great guys.  Yet, the hottest places in hell are reserved for the nuetral.  Take a side.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2003)

Which is better:
European sword arts or Arab sword arts?
They specifically fought major wars over several hundred years, so there should be resources to dig into.

Oh wait, both sides won and lost...

We can conclude that there is no such thing as a 'superior' art.

Just better warriors.

:asian:


----------



## Saitama Steve (Nov 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *No nationalism?  No bias?  You are all great guys.  Yet, the hottest places in hell are reserved for the nuetral.  Take a side.
> 
> upnorthkyosa *




Nah you take a side and we'll just laugh at you for being foolish


----------



## jkn75 (Nov 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *No nationalism?  No bias?  You are all great guys.  Yet, the hottest places in hell are reserved for the nuetral.  Take a side.
> 
> upnorthkyosa *



Yes, we all have a bias towards a certain side or style and reasons for it. But I've been on these boards long enough to know how this will play out:

I select style A because... 

Style A? no way, style B would walk all over him. 

Uh uh, Style A

No B.. 

flame, flame, flame 

Style C would beat them both

 flame, flame, flame. 

Swords are dumb, good 200 years ago, guns rule now..

flame flame flame

Mod Note: forum closed due to flaming. 

I try not to bite on this stuff. 

I'm sure at times there were innovations that came around and the old stuff had to battle the new stuff and the new stuff triumphed in battle. Then the old stuff would retool itself for battling the new stuff and would either change so much as to become new itself or become modified old stuff to prepare for the new knowledge that came about. But we see a number of styles still survive because of the ideas they tried to promote. I'm not seeing only one style of Asian sword fighting. The Koreans, Chinese and Japanese have different styles and none seem vastly superior.

I don't train in sword because of the marauders running down the street. There are ideas and ideals in that training that we try to adapt to ourselves, so we can improve ourselves as martial artists. 

If you think that style A would win over style B, that's great. But as has been discussed, when fighter A and fighter B are staring at each other across a field of battle (cue dramatic music), the winner will not be the style, it will be the individual. 

:asian:


----------



## Randy Strausbaugh (Nov 11, 2003)

Consider also that kenjutsu was designed to be used by and against an armored warrior, while taijiquan developed as a civilian form of self defense.  An armored samurai would have a certain advantage due to the limited targets the armor would offer the taiji practitioner.  On the other hand, if the samurai were without armor, he would probably, out of habit, find it difficult to make full use of his opponent's unarmored state.  The above is, of course, a generalization.  As such, it probably contains more holes than cheese.  So, adding to previous posts, not only is it the individual, it's also a matter of terrain and situation.



> _Originally posted by someguy _
> *...which is better an apple or an bannana.*



Man, now THAT'S a tough one- they both have appeal.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2003)

I think that healthy debate is a good tool to learn about a system.  I am new here and I guess, if posts are regularly flamed, I won't be asking for that kind of thing outright.  Still, taking a position and arguing it, even if you don't agree is a good way to learn.  Sometimes verbal sword play is just as fun as the real stuff.  

I basically started training in Tai chi sword about a year and a half ago.  I know about 90 percent of the form.  When I learn it up to my instructors standards (about another 1.5 years), he will let me practice the applications with the two man dance.  My sword experience, as you see, is a bit limited.  Perhaps there are other ways to enlighten then a free for all discussion.

Besides it is obvious that all of you are "too wise" to be drawn in with such simple fients.  I will have to be more subtle to evoke discussion


----------



## jkn75 (Nov 11, 2003)

It's not that there are a lot of flame wars, it's just that style vs style seems to bring those out. I am happy to discuss differences between styles, advantages or disadvantages of styles and our preferences for styles. 

I love debate, debate is what makes this forum great but in order to get a debate going instead of a flame war, careful questioning is required. 

You have brought up great ideas:  

In the opinion of those who practice Tai Chi sword, what are the advantages of this system vs. say, Kenjutsu sword practice? 

What are the styles strengths/weaknesses? 

Do Japanese sword styles have an advantage over others, if so why? 

As styles have developed, what lead to one style overtaking another on the battlefield? in the training hall? in the East? in the West? 

These type of questions have been asked before and some may need to be revived. Your ideas are good but starting out with the question: who will win A or B? may not provide what you are looking for. 
Welcome to Martialtalk and I hope you keep posting your questions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2003)

I originally posted this thread for fun.  There was no intent to maliciously stir things up, fyi.  Not that anyone has really said that, but my conscience has adlibed from the accumulated responses.  

Anyway, the point, I think I am trying to get around too, the serious one, starts like this.  UFC changed the rules, in my opinion, of how one views martial arts.  The success of grappling caused people, including myself, to include that into our repetoire of techniques.  I started a journey in kodokan judo that led me to traditional jui jutsu, for instance.  (alongside Tang Soo Do, which is my primary art) 

Anyway, I wonder if there is not a similiar pattern among sword arts?  Do fencers of differing styles get together, hammer out the rules and spar?  Perhaps there are few rules and the sparring looks more like dog brothers?  If so, is there a style that comes out on top?  

In my opinion, its foolish to deny that jui jutsu dominated the UFC until people started to learn more grappling.  Then, in the same light, wouldn't it be foolish to deny the existance of superior technique?  Ask "what if" and then speculate.  

Personally, I think that european fencing is pretty darn dangerous.  In fact, I think that the quick in and out movements, the economy of motion, and the deadliness of the rapier would be a tough match for other swords styles.  The footwork in fencing would keep a person relatively safe from danger and the quickness of attack could really keep a foe off balance.  

With that being said, I would say, from my limited experience, that many of the chinese broadsword techniques, would be very effective against someone armed with a katana because the use the strategy above.  Therefore, if two equally skilled individuals faced each other in a duel, I believe the tai chi swordmaster would come out on top.  

Please disabuse my errors

upnorthkyosa


----------



## jkn75 (Nov 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *I originally posted this thread for fun.  There was no intent to maliciously stir things up, fyi.  Not that anyone has really said that, but my conscience has adlibed from the accumulated responses.  *



I think people who've been on these forums don't want flames, so we try to diffuse situations as soon as possible. 



> *Anyway, the point, I think I am trying to get around too, the serious one, starts like this.  UFC changed the rules, in my opinion, of how one views martial arts.  The success of grappling caused people, including myself, to include that into our repetoire of techniques.  I started a journey in kodokan judo that led me to traditional jui jutsu, for instance.  (alongside Tang Soo Do, which is my primary art) *



Some people were aware of this before the UFC craze. I would often hear of cross training in grappling and striking arts. It then developed into its own art: Mixed Martial Arts. 



> *Anyway, I wonder if there is not a similiar pattern among sword arts?  Do fencers of differing styles get together, hammer out the rules and spar?  Perhaps there are few rules and the sparring looks more like dog brothers?  If so, is there a style that comes out on top?  *



If anyone has any stories about this, I would love to hear them. One concern about this is, like UFC, you may be limited by the rules you set. 



> *In my opinion, its foolish to deny that jui jutsu dominated the UFC until people started to learn more grappling.  Then, in the same light, wouldn't it be foolish to deny the existance of superior technique?  Ask "what if" and then speculate.   *



If grappling was so spectacular, why didn't it stay the standard? The fighting evolved into MMAs who were well rounded in both striking and grappling. It may continue to further evolve back into striking. What then? In that situation which technique is superior? IMO the technique that the winner uses is superior but how long does it stay that way? How many fights/ situations does one person or style have to win to become superior? 




> * Personally, I think that european fencing is pretty darn dangerous.  In fact, I think that the quick in and out movements, the economy of motion, and the deadliness of the rapier would be a tough match for other swords styles.  The footwork in fencing would keep a person relatively safe from danger and the quickness of attack could really keep a foe off balance.
> 
> With that being said, I would say, from my limited experience, that many of the chinese broadsword techniques, would be very effective against someone armed with a katana because the use the strategy above.  Therefore, if two equally skilled individuals faced each other in a duel, I believe the tai chi swordmaster would come out on top.   *



This is a tough call. It would all depend on the training of the people involved. 

For example, Korean swordsman would spar against people with spears. A spear has stabbing and some slashing techniques but it is a longer weapon than another sword. It hits differently but is somewhat similar. The first time a Korean swordsman met a person who used stabbing attacks, that would be the training the swordsman would draw upon. If he survived he would then train against stabbing sword attacks so in the future he would be ready for it. 

Martial arts are dynamic. New things come along and those new situations require new thoughts and adaptations. These adaptations are then incorporated into the old art. The old art doesn't disappear though. 

If the Katana user had done some training with stabbing attacks he may do OK. 
The reverse is true with the TaiChi swordsman. If he can deal with the slashing motions he would do OK. 

:roflmao: Maybe I'll get Soul Caliber II and use a stabbing swordperson vs a katana sword person and just have them duke it out .


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2003)

I guess video games, unless someone wants to organize a mixed sword fencing competition is the only way to judge techniques and learn.    Of course a guy could actually learn the techniques!  Then make a call.

Anyway, to clarify my point about the UFC.  Grappling was supreme until everybody started to train in grappling and learned counters.  Still, most bouts are finished on the ground in that arena, though.  Which brings me back to the subject of swordplay.  I wonder what the polish silver medalist fencing expert in another thread would have said about this discussion?  From some of the books that I've read, they've painted the picture that thrust fencing was superior to slash because of the reasons i've state above.  

I guess it could be like grappling though.  When someone learns the counters, then its a free for all.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 11, 2003)

Does luck and skill play a part here in this issue?  A less skilled person with luck could conceivably beat a better skilled person on an off day....

- Ceicei


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ceicei _
> *Does luck and skill play a part here in this issue?  A less skilled person with luck could conceivably beat a better skilled person on an off day....
> 
> - Ceicei *



Luck's always a part of it, IMHO.  I spar regularly with people of higher skill and experience levels.  I do land shots.  Heck, 1 could simply slip and open themselves up for a strike, y'know?


----------



## arnisandyz (Dec 1, 2003)

Katana = very powerful 2 handed weapon 

TaiChi straitsword - fluid, agile, primarily thrust weapon

depends on how each swordsman handles there own strengths and the others weaknesses.


----------



## someguy (Mar 16, 2004)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> Katana = very powerful 2 handed weapon
> 
> TaiChi straitsword - fluid, agile, primarily thrust weapon
> 
> depends on how each swordsman handles there own strengths and the others weaknesses.


Katana can be used 1 handed suchas for the case of Musashi.   I know what your saying though I think


----------



## Christopher Umbs (Mar 16, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Anyway, I wonder if there is not a similiar pattern among sword arts? Do fencers of differing styles get together, hammer out the rules and spar? Perhaps there are few rules and the sparring looks more like dog brothers? If so, is there a style that comes out on top?
> 
> Upnorthkyosa


I've done well taking Western Martial Arts (WMA) against FMA (under FMA rules with FMA sized weapons), but not even all WMA groups can agree on a single set of rules.  I fight under the Assoc. For Historical Fencing rules (www.ahfi.org) for unarmored styles.

The big arguments seem to be when to call the halt.  As soon as the hit lands (and thus ignoring any late hits), one fencing time after the hit, or 'a few seconds' after the hit.  There are a lot of Wolverine wannabees in WMA who think that they can get hit 3 or 4 times on the way in and start grapling since they feel that adreniline conquers all.  

I don't believe that people pop like baloons when they get hit, but I prefer rules that do it that way.

Chris


----------



## Cyrus (Apr 21, 2004)

I truly believe its all a matter of the individual. I am also new here but the way i've always seen it when the question arises between two diffrent styles "which ones better." or "who would win." I firmly believe that the person training under the style makes the decision before he even fights because if that person thinks that he/she has learned everything that they can learn about the particular style then I think that their ignorance would get the best of them giving themselves a greater chance of losing than the person who even though he/she "mastered" a style so to speak would continue training in that style to further enhance his/her techniques in diffrent fashions or styles. Another big factor that would definetly attribute would be if he/she would continue to practice the style but look deeply into the way they executed their attacks or their defense by seeing your own flaws and weakness before the enemy does would definetly give you a greater advantage during a fight.

"You must know your limits, Then you must break them."
"To understand this you must first see the extent of your abilities then see the progression beyond yours of anothers."


----------



## OULobo (Apr 22, 2004)

Sounds like it all comes down to four things; environment, style, skill, luck. The environment effects the abilities of the style and the traits of the individual, the style effects the weapons and techniques used, skill allows for experience and conditioning, and luck is always a factor. You have to take at least these things into account over just style.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 22, 2004)

Christopher Umbs said:
			
		

> I've done well taking Western Martial Arts (WMA) against FMA (under FMA rules with FMA sized weapons), but not even all WMA groups can agree on a single set of rules.  I fight under the Assoc. For Historical Fencing rules (www.ahfi.org) for unarmored styles.
> 
> The big arguments seem to be when to call the halt.  As soon as the hit lands (and thus ignoring any late hits), one fencing time after the hit, or 'a few seconds' after the hit.  There are a lot of Wolverine wannabees in WMA who think that they can get hit 3 or 4 times on the way in and start grapling since they feel that adreniline conquers all.
> 
> ...



Sounds like they are discounting the effects of pain and shock. There is nothing more terrifying then knowing you are probly going to die.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 22, 2004)

I have to lean toward the fighter not the style argument here.

It comes down to system/artistic mastery/experience and personal make up.

If the kenjutsuka is more experienced at facing the opposing style, he may have the advantage - but only if he has learned to adapt his techniques and tactics to the threat (artistic mastery), is fit enough, isn't suffering some emotional/fear response to the point of incapacitation (personallity make up)...

or vice versa.

Which is a better tool a hammer or a saw?  context, application, tool user, make up/quality of the tools themselves....

what is the criteria for the comparison? Are all the factors being weighed into the evaluation?


----------



## OULobo (Apr 22, 2004)

That's a good theory, loki.


----------



## AaronLucia (Aug 28, 2004)

Let me give you my opinions on who would win..

Samurai vs. Ninja = Ninja
Knight vs. Ninja = Ninja
Kenjutsu Swordmaster vs. Ninja = Ninja
Tai Chi Swordmaster vs. Ninja = Ninja
Godzilla vs. Ninja = Ninja
M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank vs. Ninja = Ninja
U.S. Special Forces vs. Ninja = Ninja
God vs. Ninja = That's a tough one..but also no question who the winner is. Ninja of course!


----------



## Blindside (Aug 28, 2004)

> Let me give you my opinions on who would win..
> Samurai vs. Ninja = Ninja
> Knight vs. Ninja = Ninja
> Kenjutsu Swordmaster vs. Ninja = Ninja
> ...



Well, it is good to see that you are unbiased, may I refer you to:

http://www.realultimatepower.net/

Lamont


----------



## GarethB (Aug 29, 2004)

I'm sorry but you're ALL wrong. The answer to any X vs Y question is that Elvis would win. Why? He has all that cool alien technology and he's been perfecting his technique by flipping deep fried banana sandwiches at my local Burger King. It's true, I see him every time I go there.


----------



## AaronLucia (Aug 29, 2004)

Elvis? Oh man...that is one thing i never thought of...a Ninja would be hard pressed to beat him....

But in the end...we all know who would.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Sep 9, 2004)

I would venture to say It will be the one with the most spirit!


----------



## someguy (Sep 9, 2004)

Actually the correct answere is the one with the gun :shotgun:   :samurai:  
Or godzilla.  Godzilla wins most of the time.


----------



## Hyaku (Sep 9, 2004)

Not a difficult question. To learn the sword you learn the heart. On confrontation they both manage to have the common sense not to attack each other. They both go home, they both win!


----------



## DeLamar.J (Sep 12, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Tai Chi swordmaster vs Kenjutsu swordmaster?  Why?


I think that when you have two people fighting who know what they are doing, the fight can always go either way because it only takes one slip up in a sword fight and your dead, if you go swimming, your going to get wet. If you fight, you most likely will get hit. The best fighter is not going to win 100% of the time, maybey 98%, but not 100%. There is always that chance of a lucky punch, or in this case a lucky chop. 
When both are good fighters, there is always a chance for the fight to go either way.


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 19, 2004)

I would guess that the kenjutsu swordman would win. As with all of the Japanese styles, they are power oriented, going right at, or, through the target, as fast as possible. They have simplified movements, which is what works when it comes down to it. The chinese systems maybe more sophisticated, but their movements are too circular, and they waste too much energy, being flowery, which would get you killed in a real self defense situation. The samurai culture was completely based on warfare and the perfection of those techniques. This is not to say the chinese styles are not, but, in my opinion, they lack that focus more than the japanese styles. If I was facing a sword duel and had to choose between these styles, I would go with the Kenjutsu, Respect to all!


----------



## te_greening (Nov 24, 2004)

appart from being a "what's your favourite?" type of question, i don't think you can get a real answer to this question.

samurai existed over a reasonably long period of time, as did chinese warriors (my knowledge of chinese history however is pretty limited). 

from my understanding of samurai history, the fighting style of samurai changed as did their role within their society did. they were sometimes primarily battle orientated, sometimes duel orientated, sometimes almost law-enforcement orientated.

the european swordsman also had different style, armour and technique depending on historical circumstance and their role in society. 

matching a fully armoured european knight to an unarmoured, daisho carrying samurai would probably be a fairly one sided. 
matching a fully armoured samurai against an unarmoured fencing duelist from a european style would probably be a fairly uneven too. 

back to the original question... from my brief research of chinese history i believe that chinese warriors from different times had various armour and sword and styles depending on their roles.

so who would win seems a bit unknowable when you take it so generally.

add to this that there were alway inept fighters, not all samurai were musahi.


----------



## still learning (Nov 26, 2004)

Hello, Who would win? I agree with those who say, the one with the most skill, Musashi fought many different types of weapons, and style of sword fighting. Why did he win? was it his style or skill? After 60 fights and his book on the five rings....you realize it was skill. 

  Is that why we have challenges all the time to prove the style? but wins by his skills?  ...Aloha


----------



## te_greening (Nov 28, 2004)

how about it you took both of them out of their usual setting, dropped them into an octagon, and gave them both baseball bats.


----------



## An Eternal Student (Nov 29, 2004)

I'd pay to see that.


----------



## te_greening (Dec 2, 2004)

o.k. i've found an octagon and some baseball bats....

anyone got a time machine?


----------



## RanaHarmamelda (Dec 3, 2004)

Heh heh heh heh --

Did anyone else see this and think of the absolutely terrible (and, therefore, really really good) kung fu movie "Duel to the Death"?

My answer? Citing "Duel to the Death" as my resource, they kill each other while fighting on a cliffside overlooking the ocean, in a sad and dramatic way. 

*grin*


----------



## Hyaku (Dec 7, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Katana can be used 1 handed suchas for the case of Musashi. I know what your saying though I think



Please dont drag Musashi into this thread. He would not be amused.


----------



## Captain Harlock (Dec 7, 2004)

Who would win?

The better fighter, with the best skills, and the best luck on that particular day of combat. Even a child with a butterknife can kill a trained warrior, if the child gets in a lucky shot.


----------

