Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:58 pm
woo! go fencing!
Evil Genius
Get your manga fix here
https://www.evil-genius.us/forums/
Swordplay and other fun sword stuffs.
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:04 pm
Bah, Kendo is better.
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:50 pm
Actually, I watched some Kendo classes and didn't like it.
Both of them (fencing and Kendo) are very little 'swordplay', and more 'who hits who first'.
If everything works as intended, I'll be doing fencing and Kendo classes, and Archery practice.
Oh, and fencing is better then kendo...lol
Both of them (fencing and Kendo) are very little 'swordplay', and more 'who hits who first'.
If everything works as intended, I'll be doing fencing and Kendo classes, and Archery practice.
Oh, and fencing is better then kendo...lol
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:43 am
In actual sword fighting, it is who hits first.
And Kendo looks less gay.
And Kendo looks less gay.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:52 am
Why dont you guys all save yourselves the trouble and learn how to shoot a gun.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:37 am
Thanks, I already know how.Buzkashi wrote:Why dont you guys all save yourselves the trouble and learn how to shoot a gun.
Btw, I was originally going to say Kenjutsu, but I didn't want anyone to misunderstand what I meant. Katanas do it better.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:35 am
style wise, yeah i think kendo looks much better and much less gay. but fencing has a certain elegance...maybe...
...
im going with the gun thing.
...
im going with the gun thing.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:15 pm
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:24 pm
two different sports. Fencing is meant to be moved at a fast pace, compared to kendo. Its like comparing the bat swing of a baseball player to the swing of a golf player.
However, each sport has its advantages.
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:35 pm
The video I posted is a somewhat more real comparison.
There are three swords (and styles) in fencing...
Foil: thin weapon, points only when you touch your adversary's torso with the tip of your sword). It was a dueling weapon. It's the one I'm wielding at the picture. THAT is the 'gay' weapon the lords used to duel. I fight with it, but it's not my chosen weapon.
Epee: The same, but the points are valid in the whole adversary's body. It's more 'real', but still ... only points with the tip.
Sabre: now THAT's what I'm talking about. The sword of cavalry, thew sword of the pirates. The points only count from the waist and above, since it's a cavalry weapon (you wouldn't hit the enemy in the legs). You can't cross your legs when you fight (like when you're on a horse back), and you can thrust and slash. All moves are valid. And that's the weapon that appear in the movie...
What do I mean is that, if in real life a fight would happen, the only fencing weapon that stood a chance would be a sabre. A foil or an epee would broke in the first parry
And yes, they're too different to compare. Kendo is ... 'stronger', you have more powerfull attacks, yet fast. Fencing (as a sport) relies only in speed, since there is an eletric aparatus to say if you touched the enemy - thought there is an necessary pression to activate it - the strenght necessary to trespass one's skin.
Sorry, I just love fencing
There are three swords (and styles) in fencing...
Foil: thin weapon, points only when you touch your adversary's torso with the tip of your sword). It was a dueling weapon. It's the one I'm wielding at the picture. THAT is the 'gay' weapon the lords used to duel. I fight with it, but it's not my chosen weapon.
Epee: The same, but the points are valid in the whole adversary's body. It's more 'real', but still ... only points with the tip.
Sabre: now THAT's what I'm talking about. The sword of cavalry, thew sword of the pirates. The points only count from the waist and above, since it's a cavalry weapon (you wouldn't hit the enemy in the legs). You can't cross your legs when you fight (like when you're on a horse back), and you can thrust and slash. All moves are valid. And that's the weapon that appear in the movie...
What do I mean is that, if in real life a fight would happen, the only fencing weapon that stood a chance would be a sabre. A foil or an epee would broke in the first parry
And yes, they're too different to compare. Kendo is ... 'stronger', you have more powerfull attacks, yet fast. Fencing (as a sport) relies only in speed, since there is an eletric aparatus to say if you touched the enemy - thought there is an necessary pression to activate it - the strenght necessary to trespass one's skin.
Sorry, I just love fencing
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:41 pm
Pirates use gunblades! http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/pr ... 0116_L.jpg
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:24 pm
Sabers are definitely cool, but I still think katana are better. It really depends on the level of skill of the person wielding the sword, but if you take a master samurai and a master fencer, my money is on the samurai. Screw kendo, I’m talking about real kenjutsu. Then again, I think that nowadays fencing is more of a sport (like Kendo), whereas Kenjutsu is a method of killing, so it may not be fair to compare them. *shrugs*
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:54 pm
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:04 am
If you take mostly unarmored fighters of similar skill, then the person with the faster blade wins, it's really as simple as that. There is a reason why people (everyone bug the Scots, duh) turned away from broadswords, etc. upon the advent of firearms. And a stabbing rapier is usually faster than a swung katana. However, the katana is still the master of cutting.
In a medieval context, a one-and-a-half-handed sword like the katana will not win against someone with a fast shortsword, better still two short blades, or short blade and shield, at least not with conventional means. However, in the middle ages, this wisdom didn't reach alto many people.
And finally, the only country to retain anything in the form of sword-fighting tradition is Japan. (Well, there are blade techniques in some non-japanese martial arts.) And Japanese kenjutsu now was watered down by the Meiji restoration, since from that point onward kenjutsu became a sport. European sword techniques were probably far more advanced than most movies about the period will allow us to believe, but noone can really reproduce them, now. Noone knows how the old Europeans really fought. We can at least guestimate how the old Japanese fought. That is the reason why people think Japanese kenjutsu was superiour.
However, Europe had its sword masters. There was a guy named Talhofer in the 15th century who fought duels to the death for basically all his life, and wrote, or rather drew, a book about his techniques. Now those techniques are really hard to reproduce from single frames, but they had to have been damned good, because you don't survive 30-40 years of sword-fighting on nothing.
And just to put sword ideology into perspective: Unlike what a certain novel author, and subsequently another Mangaka will have us believe, Miyamoto Musashi defeated and probably killed the number one Samurai of the time, Sasaki Kojiro, with a wooden abomination of a weapon made from an oar.
In a medieval context, a one-and-a-half-handed sword like the katana will not win against someone with a fast shortsword, better still two short blades, or short blade and shield, at least not with conventional means. However, in the middle ages, this wisdom didn't reach alto many people.
And finally, the only country to retain anything in the form of sword-fighting tradition is Japan. (Well, there are blade techniques in some non-japanese martial arts.) And Japanese kenjutsu now was watered down by the Meiji restoration, since from that point onward kenjutsu became a sport. European sword techniques were probably far more advanced than most movies about the period will allow us to believe, but noone can really reproduce them, now. Noone knows how the old Europeans really fought. We can at least guestimate how the old Japanese fought. That is the reason why people think Japanese kenjutsu was superiour.
However, Europe had its sword masters. There was a guy named Talhofer in the 15th century who fought duels to the death for basically all his life, and wrote, or rather drew, a book about his techniques. Now those techniques are really hard to reproduce from single frames, but they had to have been damned good, because you don't survive 30-40 years of sword-fighting on nothing.
And just to put sword ideology into perspective: Unlike what a certain novel author, and subsequently another Mangaka will have us believe, Miyamoto Musashi defeated and probably killed the number one Samurai of the time, Sasaki Kojiro, with a wooden abomination of a weapon made from an oar.
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:10 am
Whoa Brainpiercing, that was a great read, you sure know your shit.
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:31 am
I concur, excellent post!! 
*Casts her vote for Brainpiercing*
*Casts her vote for Brainpiercing*
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:47 am
*Shakes his head* You act like katana can’t be used with extreme speed. Besides, it totally depends on the skill of the person using the sword. If you’re good enough you can kill a man with a stick, even when he’s using a real sword. I knew that bit about Musashi, he’s someone I admire. I haven’t read the novel about his life, but in the manga, Vagabond, he hasn’t even met Kojiro yet, so who’s to say that when the time comes he won’t be shown using a carved oar. I have read a lot about him though, pretty interesting stuff. From what I know the manga isn’t very historically accurate though, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the mangaka decides not to show the fight between Musashi and Kojiro as it actually happened, lol. Most of his fights were over fairly quickly after all, as he simply split their head open with a forward chop.
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:00 am
Real pirates hit you three times! http://replicagunsswords.com/weapons_ga ... 430_05.jpg
Yeah i like Brainpiercing's post too, i remember learning some of that stuff in school while taking Military History. It was only a high school class though so I might have to retake it in college since it didn't fufill me as much as I wanted.
Yeah i like Brainpiercing's post too, i remember learning some of that stuff in school while taking Military History. It was only a high school class though so I might have to retake it in college since it didn't fufill me as much as I wanted.
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:10 am
we're not comparing the skill of the weapon wielders but rather the mechanics of the weapon weilding itself... otherwise i'd say fuck sabers and katanas and just give me a sword 2'x7'x5" and i'll cut through rocks and horses and shit
but in an armorless scenario... the fastest technique will be the bringer of death.. the basic core us using a saber is built on speed and fitness with a great emphasis placed on feinting tactics... whereas katana is based on kill right now types of zen philosophies... the point is to kill your opponent in your first attack (if at all possible)... thus the percieved notion the katana is the best sword to use
in actuality the best tool to use depends on the scenario calling for it... in simple clothing, between 2 swordsmen of equal skill... i would bet in favor of the man holding the rapier as opposed to the one holding the katana... just as i would reverse my bet if it was in light armor
but in an armorless scenario... the fastest technique will be the bringer of death.. the basic core us using a saber is built on speed and fitness with a great emphasis placed on feinting tactics... whereas katana is based on kill right now types of zen philosophies... the point is to kill your opponent in your first attack (if at all possible)... thus the percieved notion the katana is the best sword to use
in actuality the best tool to use depends on the scenario calling for it... in simple clothing, between 2 swordsmen of equal skill... i would bet in favor of the man holding the rapier as opposed to the one holding the katana... just as i would reverse my bet if it was in light armor
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:16 pm
A saber can cut through armour. A rapier can't, but the rapier-wielding swordsmen learned how to explore the armor joints. There was a training where the fencer would use the main-gauche to 'hold' the enemy sword, while using the tip of the sword in the join of the neck and helm (the gorget wasn't much used, it was too restrictive).
Dammit, that discussion is awesome. Oh, and as a side note - I love kendo, it's an awesome sport (or whatever). I've watched a demonstration once, and man...the control they have with the sword is great.
Dammit, that discussion is awesome. Oh, and as a side note - I love kendo, it's an awesome sport (or whatever). I've watched a demonstration once, and man...the control they have with the sword is great.
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:23 am
light sabers> everything else
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:25 am
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:38 am
Oh no, fencing is elegant and sexy. Not gay at all!Fuji Nagase wrote:style wise, yeah i think kendo looks much better and much less gay. but fencing has a certain elegance...maybe...
...
im going with the gun thing.
Unless it's that other kind of "sword play"
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:22 am
depends on who's behind the sword, right?
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:43 am
Ugh.... "Hey there, won't you come to the back with me and I'll show you my OTHER big sword...." *wink wink, nudge nudge*
Starnum: Mind I said equal skill. Of course a katana can be used very fast, as it's a light one and a half-handed sword. But once you arrive at the physical limit, the lighter sword (i.e. the rapier or shortblade) is still faster. These are borderline cases. In real life, there are so many different factors involved, movement, stance, tactics, foot-work, it's impossible to say that one weapon is clearly better than another. It's all in the skill of the fighter, in the end. If the fighter can accomodate for a physically slower weapon (but with larger reach, usually), then he can still win.
One of the remaining semi-practical applications of japanese sword fighting is bokken aiki-do. If you watch a master or at least a skilled practitioner of this you will find how subtle the techniques are, how much depends on even a tiny step in attack and defence. Missing this step can mean the difference between victory and defeat in a real fight.
You also have to look at the context of when longer blades were used. Take the "medieval" two-hander, for instance. (Medievel is actually quite incorrect, two-handers like the Flamberge were used even in the seventeeth century, for select purposes.) Usually, the longer blade was used against an even longer weapon, like pikes and spears. There you definitely have the advantage, because the blade is much more versatile, but still long enough to effectively fight a pike-wall. In a duel, you would totally lose with a two-hander, because you need obscene strength to move it even nearly as fast as a lighter blade, and it can even slow down your body movement.
About Musashi it is said that he advocated a style of fighting where he used the motion energy of his weapon to his advantage, and let it swing fully instead of trying to stop it abruptly. Now, for an unskilled user this just means that the weapon is controlling the fighter, but for a master, this could be a means of using a slower, longer weapon to maximum effect.
Starnum: Mind I said equal skill. Of course a katana can be used very fast, as it's a light one and a half-handed sword. But once you arrive at the physical limit, the lighter sword (i.e. the rapier or shortblade) is still faster. These are borderline cases. In real life, there are so many different factors involved, movement, stance, tactics, foot-work, it's impossible to say that one weapon is clearly better than another. It's all in the skill of the fighter, in the end. If the fighter can accomodate for a physically slower weapon (but with larger reach, usually), then he can still win.
One of the remaining semi-practical applications of japanese sword fighting is bokken aiki-do. If you watch a master or at least a skilled practitioner of this you will find how subtle the techniques are, how much depends on even a tiny step in attack and defence. Missing this step can mean the difference between victory and defeat in a real fight.
You also have to look at the context of when longer blades were used. Take the "medieval" two-hander, for instance. (Medievel is actually quite incorrect, two-handers like the Flamberge were used even in the seventeeth century, for select purposes.) Usually, the longer blade was used against an even longer weapon, like pikes and spears. There you definitely have the advantage, because the blade is much more versatile, but still long enough to effectively fight a pike-wall. In a duel, you would totally lose with a two-hander, because you need obscene strength to move it even nearly as fast as a lighter blade, and it can even slow down your body movement.
About Musashi it is said that he advocated a style of fighting where he used the motion energy of his weapon to his advantage, and let it swing fully instead of trying to stop it abruptly. Now, for an unskilled user this just means that the weapon is controlling the fighter, but for a master, this could be a means of using a slower, longer weapon to maximum effect.