Who'd You Rather Fight

Off Topic
481

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

And a rapier against a Spanish gladius? No contest. Two stabbing weapons, one about twice as long as the other. Again, yeah, yeah, it’s the man, not the weapon, but Spartacus would still be at an extreme technical disadvantage.
[/quote]

I agree with your fundamental premise of thrust > slash, but I wonder if a small sword might serve even better. A quicker, lighter, more precise pure thrusting weapon, it would further exploit the basic technical advantage you’re relying on (albeit sacrificing a little reach).

[/quote]

The gladius and the rapier were approximately the same weight. The gladius was shorter and wider, and was not purely for thrust.

The rapier, on the other hand, was the quicker, more precise, pure thrusting weapon you describe. [/quote]

I think there is some confusion as to what I mean by “small sword”.

The French small sword was less than half the weight of the typical rapier and around 33" in length to the rapier’s 39". Although primarily a thrusting weapon, the rapier was often sharpened on one or both edges for at least part of its length while the small sword was very rarely sharpened along the edge and in fact often had a blade cross section that would make it impossible to do so (e.g. triangular). It’s use would have more closely resembled modern fencing with quicker disengages, parry-ripostes etc than rapier play would have (although they had many elements in common). The cut-over, while possible with the heavier rapier, is generally associated with the more nimble small sword.

/sword geek out

482

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

And a rapier against a Spanish gladius? No contest. Two stabbing weapons, one about twice as long as the other. Again, yeah, yeah, it’s the man, not the weapon, but Spartacus would still be at an extreme technical disadvantage.
[/quote]

You are probably right when talking about a skilled warrior with a rapier vs a skilled warrior with a katana. But, I don’t think anyone has ever been good enough to beat Musashi with a non-firearm weapon in a battle. I might be basing this on his legend over science but I am sticking with it. [/quote]

My pal Chushin and our mutual Sensei might have something to say about that. Muso Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi, founder of the Shinto Muso school of jojutsu, defeated Musashi with a four-foot stick.[/quote]

That was after he had been defeated when using a Bo, wasn’t it? As I remember it he developed the Jo after that encounter. So score 1 all?

483

[quote]Renovator wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

And a rapier against a Spanish gladius? No contest. Two stabbing weapons, one about twice as long as the other. Again, yeah, yeah, it’s the man, not the weapon, but Spartacus would still be at an extreme technical disadvantage.
[/quote]

You are probably right when talking about a skilled warrior with a rapier vs a skilled warrior with a katana. But, I don’t think anyone has ever been good enough to beat Musashi with a non-firearm weapon in a battle. I might be basing this on his legend over science but I am sticking with it. [/quote]

My pal Chushin and our mutual Sensei might have something to say about that. Muso Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi, founder of the Shinto Muso school of jojutsu, defeated Musashi with a four-foot stick.[/quote]

That was after he had been defeated when using a Bo, wasn’t it? As I remember it he developed the Jo after that encounter. So score 1 all?
[/quote]

The first duel was with swords, as far as I am aware. Musashi, using his two-sword technique, defeated Gonnosuke, but spared his life.

And yes, as you say, after the duel Gonnosuke went away to a Shinto shrine and developed a martial art for the jo, which is a short stick a little longer than a katana, so that he could strike while being out of range. He also developed techniques that allowed him to get past Musashi’s crossed-sword x-guard. He was successful, and in the rematch he was able to put Musashi at his mercy, which he granted.

484

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

And a rapier against a Spanish gladius? No contest. Two stabbing weapons, one about twice as long as the other. Again, yeah, yeah, it’s the man, not the weapon, but Spartacus would still be at an extreme technical disadvantage.
[/quote]

I agree with your fundamental premise of thrust > slash, but I wonder if a small sword might serve even better. A quicker, lighter, more precise pure thrusting weapon, it would further exploit the basic technical advantage you’re relying on (albeit sacrificing a little reach).

[/quote]

Musashi carried a small sword as well. He is the first to carry two swords. [/quote]

Every samurai carried both a katana and wakizashi. Musashi was just the first to perfect the technique of using both simultaneously.

485

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

[/quote]
But can you block a katana with a rapier? To use your analogy of blocking a jab with a roundhouse kick, you also can’t really block a roundhouse kick with a jab. So it would come down to the speed at which you strike. And although it seems the rapier should be technically faster, Samurai are generally known for the speed at which they strike.

486

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Who’d you rather be tortured by?

A gaggle of Kiowa squaws or Spanish inquisitors?[/quote]

Spanish inquisitors.

I met Kiowa girls at a youth conference for Native Americans when I was a teen.

I am Mescalero Apache, and apparently they still hold a grudge about the whole 1000 year fight thing, as I got no traction with them.

487

[quote]pushharder wrote:
With handguns: Hickok or W. Earp?

With rifles: W. Cody or Tom Horn?

With knives: Jim Bowie or Jeremiah Johnson?

On horseback with lances: the best Comanche warrior or the best European knight?[/quote]

Wyatt Earp IV is my plumber (seriously – I’ll post his website if you don’t believe me). He’s fantastic in cowboy shooting. So Cody.

Rifles, don’t know.

Jim Bowie, because odds are he’d be drunk.

Horseback, I could take either.

488

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

[/quote]
But can you block a katana with a rapier? To use your analogy of blocking a jab with a roundhouse kick, you also can’t really block a roundhouse kick with a jab. So it would come down to the speed at which you strike. And although it seems the rapier should be technically faster, Samurai are generally known for the speed at which they strike. [/quote]

You could not block it, but you could deflect it. You don’t block with a rapier – just shove to the side. Subtle, but important, difference.

489

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

[/quote]
But can you block a katana with a rapier? To use your analogy of blocking a jab with a roundhouse kick, you also can’t really block a roundhouse kick with a jab. So it would come down to the speed at which you strike. And although it seems the rapier should be technically faster, Samurai are generally known for the speed at which they strike. [/quote]

Just as most actual gunfights in the frontier were settled after only one shot, as opposed to the protracted shoot-em-ups we see on TV, a duel between two expert Japanese swordsmen rarely devolved into a melee of clashing steel. They would inch into position for a decisive strike, read their opponent carefully for any sign of an opening, and in that moment, strike with a full-force blow. There were seldom any feints or flourishes or parries, just wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, STRIKE!!! Dead. The problem was getting within range. Sure, a baseball player could club the shit out of an expert billiard player, but first he has to get within swinging range without getting poked in the eye with the pool cue.

Like I said, if the katana were actually an effective a weapon against a rapier, then the rapier would not have been SPECIFICALLY banned by the government. It’s for the same reason our own government wants to ban fifty-calibre sniper rifles. Because they recognize the extreme vulnerability of their own armed forces to them.

490

Tyler Durden (Fight Club)
OR
Dalton (Roadhouse)

491

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

[/quote]
But can you block a katana with a rapier? To use your analogy of blocking a jab with a roundhouse kick, you also can’t really block a roundhouse kick with a jab. So it would come down to the speed at which you strike. And although it seems the rapier should be technically faster, Samurai are generally known for the speed at which they strike. [/quote]

Just as most actual gunfights in the frontier were settled after only one shot, as opposed to the protracted shoot-em-ups we see on TV, a duel between two expert Japanese swordsmen rarely devolved into a melee of clashing steel. They would inch into position for a decisive strike, read their opponent carefully for any sign of an opening, and in that moment, strike with a full-force blow. There were seldom any feints or flourishes or parries, just wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, STRIKE!!! Dead. The problem was getting within range. Sure, a baseball player could club the shit out of an expert billiard player, but first he has to get within swinging range without getting poked in the eye with the pool cue.

Like I said, if the katana were actually an effective a weapon against a rapier, then the rapier would not have been SPECIFICALLY banned by the government. It’s for the same reason our own government wants to ban fifty-calibre sniper rifles. Because they recognize the extreme vulnerability of their own armed forces to them.
[/quote]
That’s basically my point that a 1v1 swordfight between two experts is basically just who strikes first. I’m not saying that a rapier might not give you an advantage. I’m just saying that a skilled katana user is still going to be a threat. A major design criteria for the rapier is the ability to pierce armor, which I assume also has something to due with its ban in Japan.

492

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

[/quote]
But can you block a katana with a rapier? To use your analogy of blocking a jab with a roundhouse kick, you also can’t really block a roundhouse kick with a jab. So it would come down to the speed at which you strike. And although it seems the rapier should be technically faster, Samurai are generally known for the speed at which they strike. [/quote]

Just as most actual gunfights in the frontier were settled after only one shot, as opposed to the protracted shoot-em-ups we see on TV, a duel between two expert Japanese swordsmen rarely devolved into a melee of clashing steel. They would inch into position for a decisive strike, read their opponent carefully for any sign of an opening, and in that moment, strike with a full-force blow. There were seldom any feints or flourishes or parries, just wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, STRIKE!!! Dead. The problem was getting within range. Sure, a baseball player could club the shit out of an expert billiard player, but first he has to get within swinging range without getting poked in the eye with the pool cue.

Like I said, if the katana were actually an effective a weapon against a rapier, then the rapier would not have been SPECIFICALLY banned by the government. It’s for the same reason our own government wants to ban fifty-calibre sniper rifles. Because they recognize the extreme vulnerability of their own armed forces to them.
[/quote]
That’s basically my point that a 1v1 swordfight between two experts is basically just who strikes first. I’m not saying that a rapier might not give you an advantage. I’m just saying that a skilled katana user is still going to be a threat. A major design criteria for the rapier is the ability to pierce armor, which I assume also has something to due with its ban in Japan. [/quote]

Actually, the rapier was designed as an urban personal weapon for unarmoured combat/self defence.

493

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

[/quote]
But can you block a katana with a rapier? To use your analogy of blocking a jab with a roundhouse kick, you also can’t really block a roundhouse kick with a jab. So it would come down to the speed at which you strike. And although it seems the rapier should be technically faster, Samurai are generally known for the speed at which they strike. [/quote]

Just as most actual gunfights in the frontier were settled after only one shot, as opposed to the protracted shoot-em-ups we see on TV, a duel between two expert Japanese swordsmen rarely devolved into a melee of clashing steel. They would inch into position for a decisive strike, read their opponent carefully for any sign of an opening, and in that moment, strike with a full-force blow. There were seldom any feints or flourishes or parries, just wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, STRIKE!!! Dead. The problem was getting within range. Sure, a baseball player could club the shit out of an expert billiard player, but first he has to get within swinging range without getting poked in the eye with the pool cue.

Like I said, if the katana were actually an effective a weapon against a rapier, then the rapier would not have been SPECIFICALLY banned by the government. It’s for the same reason our own government wants to ban fifty-calibre sniper rifles. Because they recognize the extreme vulnerability of their own armed forces to them.
[/quote]
That’s basically my point that a 1v1 swordfight between two experts is basically just who strikes first. I’m not saying that a rapier might not give you an advantage. I’m just saying that a skilled katana user is still going to be a threat. A major design criteria for the rapier is the ability to pierce armor, which I assume also has something to due with its ban in Japan. [/quote]

Oh, yeah. absolutely. Especially since the leather and iron-plate samurai armor was designed particularly to protect against slashing attacks.

495

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

[/quote]
But can you block a katana with a rapier? To use your analogy of blocking a jab with a roundhouse kick, you also can’t really block a roundhouse kick with a jab. So it would come down to the speed at which you strike. And although it seems the rapier should be technically faster, Samurai are generally known for the speed at which they strike. [/quote]

Just as most actual gunfights in the frontier were settled after only one shot, as opposed to the protracted shoot-em-ups we see on TV, a duel between two expert Japanese swordsmen rarely devolved into a melee of clashing steel. They would inch into position for a decisive strike, read their opponent carefully for any sign of an opening, and in that moment, strike with a full-force blow. There were seldom any feints or flourishes or parries, just wait for it, wait for it, wait for it, STRIKE!!! Dead. The problem was getting within range. Sure, a baseball player could club the shit out of an expert billiard player, but first he has to get within swinging range without getting poked in the eye with the pool cue.

Like I said, if the katana were actually an effective a weapon against a rapier, then the rapier would not have been SPECIFICALLY banned by the government. It’s for the same reason our own government wants to ban fifty-calibre sniper rifles. Because they recognize the extreme vulnerability of their own armed forces to them.
[/quote]
That’s basically my point that a 1v1 swordfight between two experts is basically just who strikes first. I’m not saying that a rapier might not give you an advantage. I’m just saying that a skilled katana user is still going to be a threat. A major design criteria for the rapier is the ability to pierce armor, which I assume also has something to due with its ban in Japan. [/quote]

Oh, yeah. absolutely. Especially since the leather and iron-plate samurai armor was designed particularly to protect against slashing attacks.[/quote]

Long, long time ago I fenced foil, then switched to sabre which imo is a much, much cooler weapon. At least with the play swords, it is still quite possible to use the tip of the sabre in similar fashion to how the foil is used. Most people that only had experience with the sabre were not very good at using the thrust, or defending against it.

496

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Renovator wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

And a rapier against a Spanish gladius? No contest. Two stabbing weapons, one about twice as long as the other. Again, yeah, yeah, it’s the man, not the weapon, but Spartacus would still be at an extreme technical disadvantage.
[/quote]

You are probably right when talking about a skilled warrior with a rapier vs a skilled warrior with a katana. But, I don’t think anyone has ever been good enough to beat Musashi with a non-firearm weapon in a battle. I might be basing this on his legend over science but I am sticking with it. [/quote]

My pal Chushin and our mutual Sensei might have something to say about that. Muso Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi, founder of the Shinto Muso school of jojutsu, defeated Musashi with a four-foot stick.[/quote]

That was after he had been defeated when using a Bo, wasn’t it? As I remember it he developed the Jo after that encounter. So score 1 all?
[/quote]

The first duel was with swords, as far as I am aware. Musashi, using his two-sword technique, defeated Gonnosuke, but spared his life.

And yes, as you say, after the duel Gonnosuke went away to a Shinto shrine and developed a martial art for the jo, which is a short stick a little longer than a katana, so that he could strike while being out of range. He also developed techniques that allowed him to get past Musashi’s crossed-sword x-guard. He was successful, and in the rematch he was able to put Musashi at his mercy, which he granted.[/quote]

Do you mind sharing where you have received this information? I am not saying you are wrong. I admit that most of my knowledge about Musashi comes a translation of “The Book of Five Rings” and the book “Samurai Strategies” But, a lot of what I read in here contradicts everything I have read published.

497

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

And a rapier against a Spanish gladius? No contest. Two stabbing weapons, one about twice as long as the other. Again, yeah, yeah, it’s the man, not the weapon, but Spartacus would still be at an extreme technical disadvantage.
[/quote]

I agree with your fundamental premise of thrust > slash, but I wonder if a small sword might serve even better. A quicker, lighter, more precise pure thrusting weapon, it would further exploit the basic technical advantage you’re relying on (albeit sacrificing a little reach).

[/quote]

Musashi carried a small sword as well. He is the first to carry two swords. [/quote]

Every samurai carried both a katana and wakizashi. Musashi was just the first to perfect the technique of using both simultaneously. [/quote]

That is correct.

498

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Renovator wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]mbdix wrote:
With a sword: Miyamoto Musashi or Spartacus[/quote]

Either one, with a rapier.

There is a reason the rapier was banned in Japan. the samurai just could not win against it. The katana is conceptually a slashing weapon, wielded with both hands, and as such was too slow to parry a thrust with the lighter rapier. It’s like trying to block a jab with a round kick. Maybe if you’re Chuck Norris, but if not, you’re gonna get hit. One thrust to the throat and it’s all over. Musashi was admittedly the Chuck Norris of kenjutsu, but he’d be pretty hard pressed against an expert fencer with a light rapier. Remember, even Chuck Norris got his ass kicked by Bruce Lee.

And a rapier against a Spanish gladius? No contest. Two stabbing weapons, one about twice as long as the other. Again, yeah, yeah, it’s the man, not the weapon, but Spartacus would still be at an extreme technical disadvantage.
[/quote]

You are probably right when talking about a skilled warrior with a rapier vs a skilled warrior with a katana. But, I don’t think anyone has ever been good enough to beat Musashi with a non-firearm weapon in a battle. I might be basing this on his legend over science but I am sticking with it. [/quote]

My pal Chushin and our mutual Sensei might have something to say about that. Muso Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi, founder of the Shinto Muso school of jojutsu, defeated Musashi with a four-foot stick.[/quote]

That was after he had been defeated when using a Bo, wasn’t it? As I remember it he developed the Jo after that encounter. So score 1 all?
[/quote]

The first duel was with swords, as far as I am aware. Musashi, using his two-sword technique, defeated Gonnosuke, but spared his life.

And yes, as you say, after the duel Gonnosuke went away to a Shinto shrine and developed a martial art for the jo, which is a short stick a little longer than a katana, so that he could strike while being out of range. He also developed techniques that allowed him to get past Musashi’s crossed-sword x-guard. He was successful, and in the rematch he was able to put Musashi at his mercy, which he granted.[/quote]

Do you mind sharing where you have received this information? I am not saying you are wrong. I admit that most of my knowledge about Musashi comes a translation of “The Book of Five Rings” and the book “Samurai Strategies” But, a lot of what I read in here contradicts everything I have read published.[/quote]

My memory is from what I read (about 35 yrs back) In that book it was a Bo. I was pretty impressed at what he did with the Jo, and would have liked to have been able to find a place to learn. (not much chance out here, back then)

Quick Google on Muso Gonnosuke Katsuyoshi shows there is a lot of contention over what might actually happened, regarding both encounters and how they happened, or even if they did occur. To be expected I guess as there is always a lot at stake with reputation and legends get distorted over time.

Still, way cool.

499

I’ve watched enough of Steve Irwin & Crocodile Dundee therefore I can easily outmaneuver a croc.

So I guess i’ll pick the crock :wink: