Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
[B]how about the kool-aid man vs. bazooka joe?
Its probably about as realistic of a situation as this shite thread. [/B]
bazooka joe would woop him
How about Kojack vs. Barretta…
hmmm tough.. Kojack.
ok he’s going against Jim Rockford in the quarter finals.
If he wins it’s either Magnum PI or Marlow McMillen & wife, Hardcastle & McCormick or Remmington Steel
I’d want to see the kool-aid man standing over bazooka joe’s mangled body going, “OOO Yeah!”
but we all know bazooka joe would win…He’s a MMAist:p
Originally posted by CaptinPickAxe
[B]I’d want to see the kool-aid man standing over bazooka joe’s mangled body going, “OOO Yeah!”
but we all know bazooka joe would win…He’s a MMAist:p [/B]
BUT, you haven’t taken into account account Kool-Aid Man’s newest flavor; Mad Scientwists! [tm] .
Kool-Aid Man would own all over Bazooka Joe’s chewed up @$$.
hmm
Ive been learning Kumdo for 3 months now and let me say that these high level teachers are **** good and usually get the target when they move.
I think the jap or korean sword is very good and is just as equal as chinese swords but i would have loved to see a challenge all the same.
Basic moves but they are very effective cuts, just like kendo!
FT
Well maybe I should not have used such strong words as “clumsy and unsophisticated”. Quite honestly, I cannot speak too knowledgeably about the subject since I myself am not a serious practitioner of any sword arts. But just being a martial artist I have been interested enough to observe and analyze different forms of weapon fighting. Although I definitely respect the skills of some kendo people I have known, I still stand by my opinion that fencing is a more developed weapon vs weapon fighting system. You definitely made a good point by drawing the distinction between a strictly “battlefield” art and a “dueling” art. Certainly many tactics related to dueling do not apply in full fledged warfare, just as many principles of individual h2h combat do not necessarily apply to a street brawl involving a large number of people. But that doesn’t change the fact that the development of individual martial skills revolves around the practice and perfection of dueling skills. So I’m comparing the two styles from a dueling perspective. This way it is easier to isolate skills/techniques themselves and eliminate all other outside variables.
I think that Japanese swordsmanship reflects the Japanese warrior mentality. It is a very hard, fearless, and ballz out style that requires total commitment to an attack. The strong, wide slashes each seem to be intended as a killing blow. This approach obviously would make an experienced samurai swordsman a deadly opponent to have to face, but it also means that he can be somewhat rigid and reckless with his tactics. This is where I feel the kendo style of fighting plays into the hands of a good fencer.
Since each blow in kendo (as far as I can tell) is a powerful kill shot, and since the typical Japanese sword is predominantly a heavy slashing weapon, that inevitably makes the samurai’s attacks slower and less manueverable than the skilled fencer’s. The samurai way of swordfighting was designed for battlefield warriors hell bent on charging in and taking their enemies heads off as quickly as possible. Fencing is inherently more cautious and strategic. Fencers are better at “setting up” their opponents by feinting, quickly engaging and disengaging, and taking advantage of their speed and long reach by using quick pinpoint thrusts. Each attack does not necessarily have to be a wild killing shot. The fencer can wear his opponent down by flying in and out and stinging him repeatedly, if need be. Now I know that the Japanese style is also capable of quick stabs and straight thrusts, but for the Japanese stylist to try to match a fencer using that strategy would be suicide. It’d be like a karateka trying to out-throw a wrestler. The best thing a kendo guy could probably do to beat the fencer would be to set up a good defensive counter-slash as the fencer goes in for a straight thrust. But the fencer’s footwork and movement skills are much more developed and efficient. I see the skilled fencer outmaneuvering his Japanese opponent and wearing him down with repeated stinging thrusts until he either lands a killing thrust, or simply does so much combined damage on his opponent that the Japanese swordsman simply cannot continue. Of course the fencer would have to stay on the outside where his agility and superior reach and speed would make the difference. If he let himself get caught in close, the samurai would be able to overpower him and effectively use those killing slashes.
Magnum would beat them all hands down.
He’s got the mustash and the ferrari. Just ignore that spec of mens washroom lint in his chivo.
And Higgins as back up.
DragonzRage,
I’m fencing now. I’m not very experienced mind you. But I am learning the strategies and tactics you’re describing.
And I still think that this is an unanswerable question. Take what we were learning the other night. Drawing. Giving the opponent an opening and then capitalizing on his commitment when he takes it. It’s easy to imagine that a fencer’s speed and trickery would beat a more committed kendoka. But for me, it’s just as easy to believe the kendoka not going for the draws or the feints.
As far as I can tell, it’s going to work one of two ways from the fencer’s perspective. The fencer attacks. If the opponent defends, the fencer changes the line of attack and goes around it. If the opponent doesn’t defend, the fencer goes straight in and scores his hit.
But what if the kendoka doesn’t defend himself in the way the fencer expects? With small parries that you can then circumvent and score on the other side. What if instead the kendoka remains still until the real attack and then, stepping back, hack’s at the fencer’s arm?
I’m not saying that would happen every time. I’m saying that you can’t make a reliable prediction. Particularly not without some experience in the methods involved. Kendoka beat other kendoka. Fencers beat other fencers. But we don’t have much, if any, data on what happens when the two meet. Just supposition.
Of course, that doesn’t prevent enterprising individuals from gearing up and giving it a try.
Stuart B.
Judging from hollywood (Kill Bill, Last Samurai) Japanese people seem to be more skilled with swords where as chinese people (Jet Li, Jacky Chan) are more skilled with h2h combat. It must be true because Hollywood said so.
…
Hi…this is my first post so please give me some slack.
In the case of Chinese swordsman vs. Samurai, I believe the samurai would win.
However, there was a saying I heard a few months back, but I forgot where or who I heard it from. It went something like…“In China the spear, in Korea the bow, and Japan the sword.”
I think that Chinese spearman vs. Samurai would be more appropriate as warrior vs warrior topic.
Japanese swordsmanship is just a lot more refined and realistic. I could be wrong though, since all I’ve seen of Chinese swordsmanship is from movies or from wushu forms.
Hi…this is my first post so please give me some slack.
smArtest first-post-lead-in ever. period. he must have read up on us.
dodger 87 – but note that jet li, according to the once upon in china series, will kick anyone’s ass with a long, wet sheet before they can get into sword range.
Or he’d use his belt…
or a fire hose…
or a long, stringy booger…
or a section of his lower intestine…
or a small child with long hair…
I think that Chinese spearman vs. Samurai would be more appropriate as warrior vs warrior topic.
I believe a Samurai with a Yari spear of even a naganata would ruin a Chinese spearman’s day. (just my opinion. certainly not fact.)
The samurai were certainly not invincible (only defeated the Mongols by the grace of weather), but I believe as individual warriors they were some of the most skilled combat practicioners of all times.
Note: this also reflects how they fought battles. where as the Chinese had much larger enemies and wars to fight and needed the use of formations ranks and the war machine in battle as opposed to the individual soldier.
Chinese gunpowder? chinese crossbows? now you’re talking..
Go to the mantis forum and ask the same question, one of their exponents a Chinese swordsman was challenged by a Samurai wondering the same thing while in china. He challenged the mantis player, the Samurai was split up the middle by the mantis player useing a dan do (broadsword) his name, Fan Xu Dong.
The true answer is:
The outcome would vary, seeing how it is the practioner not the art.
it is the practioner not the art
where’d you get that crazy idea?
it is the practioner not the art.
everytime I hear this I think about the John Danaher article. and I think that althought his topic was on unarmed combat, his words certainly can be seen more universally towards combatives in general.
As it’s more commonly phrased: Which is more important, the style or the individual? Furnishing an answer to this question that favors style over individual inevitably offends somebody. If we claim that style is more important, the obvious implication is that some styles of fighting are more effective than others. Such a statement will obviously not sit well with those whose fighting style is counted among the less effective - nobody enjoys being told that their preferred style, in which they have invested so much time and effort, is less effective than the competition.
The more diplomatic answer appears to be the claim that combat effectiveness is entirely up to the individual. The obvious implication of this statement is that fighting style does not count. If the individual simply trains hard in whatever style they happen to practice, then they shall prevail. This makes it appear that all fighting styles are equally good - a stance that will not offend anybody.
There is something very comforting about this claim. It allows all the martial arts to get along with each other (at least in public) in harmony, since each is supposed to be equally effective. It also allows the failures of a given fighting style to be dismissed as a reflection of the individual rather than the style that he or she employs. It is no secret that the martial arts world has always been torn between these two responses to the question over style versus individual.
On the one hand, everybody wants to think of their style as the best. On the other hand, few people are prepared to risk their reputation by actually fighting other styles to determine their relative combat effectiveness. These two conflicting drives have created a double standard where most stylists privately talk about the superiority of their own style and the folly of their rivals, while publicly professing the primacy of the individual over the style.
Okay I’ll play. Um, how about “whoever was more skilled?”
Kenso. that would probably be undisputed. My claim was that as individuals, the samurai were better trained and skilled warriors.
ex. - you have 2 armies. 1000 Chinese warriors and 1000 samurai.
let them fight in an open field. I’d put money on the Chinese. Because they fought in formations, they would be more prepared to deal with this situation. they would hold ranks, and use tactics to divide and conquer.
now have the same 2000 man pair up vs a single opponent and fight as individuals. I’d make the same wager that the samurai would win easily.