Kendo vs Fencing (with a video)

[Andrew Green]

Came across this:

[yt]_ST1wRzfgmI[/yt]

Any thoughts on this match, or even how the styles match up in general?

 

[Makalakumu]

I would definitely like to see more contests like that...testing the various weapon arts against each other. That was fun to watch.

In this video, the fencer definitely drew first blood and may have infact inflicted what could be a fatal strike to his opponent (if the femoral artery was struck), but he clearly would have been killed by the kendoists counter attack. The "best" outcome for the fencer would have been a mutual slaying from this duel. However, there is a good chance that the kendoist would have survived the encounter.

Style vs style? I'm not sure I could comment yet without seeing more. In this video, I would say that the kendoist looked like he would have come out on top.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think that is one of the flaws in the current fencing rules if it where to be taken live, in epee first to hit regardless of what happens scores, in foil there are rules governing who's "turn" it is. Both sets of rules allow for overcommited attacks that ignore counterattacks.

But Kendo is not much different in that regard either

 

[Bigshadow]

The timing of this thread is rather odd... Just recently we have had a new student come in who was a championship fencer in France. He was drawn to training with us mainly because of his interest in sword work. However, at the end of class we were discussing the Rapier vs the Katana.

The Rapier is a piercing weapon. It is used in a fashion that allows quick adjustments of the point. The point is never really moved very off center because it will open the fencer up to attack. The fencer cannot commit to an attack, because it is like firing a cap and ball pistol, once he has committed and stabbed, he is done. If the fencer commits to an attack he better make it lethal or he will die by a slice of the katana.

The rapier can be very lethal if it gets the neck, eyes, or one of the arteries, but it is primarily designed to poke the attacker and damage the muscles in the forearm, bicep, thighs, calves, etc. Basically, doing damage enough that the opponent cannot continue fighting, then a lethal strike can be made.

There are ways in dealing with a rapier. First of all, of one allows the fencer to draw his rapier and get it betwixt them, it is quite a formidable weapon, but the katana can be drawn and also cut in one motion, which the rapier cannot. So putting them together as such in the video is very misleading. The video is analogous to starting off a fight with a knife already buried in your chest.

 

[Swordlady]

Kendo vs. fencing is an old debate, but it's interesting to see it in action. I just wish the video showed the entire match, not just the first point.

 

[Bigshadow]

Kendo vs. fencing is an old debate, but it's interesting to see it in action. I just wish the video showed the entire match, not just the first point.

I didn't realize how old that debate was until last week (following our after class discussion). I was looking into the rapier vs katana and found more than enough here on MT to answer my questions.

It is definitely a very interesting, but pointless debate. It is all about the tactics, not the weapon itself.

 

[Makalakumu]

It is all about the tactics, not the weapon itself.

Tactics certainly matter, but so does the weapon. This is why weaponry has evolved over time...some weapons are clearly better then others.

 

[Bigshadow]

Tactics certainly matter, but so does the weapon. This is why weaponry has evolved over time...some weapons are clearly better then others.

Again it depends on the tactics. There is no one universal weapon. You wouldn't use katana tactics with a rapier and vice versa. They are designed for different purposes.

 

[Swordlady]

Tactics certainly matter, but so does the weapon. This is why weaponry has evolved over time...some weapons are clearly better then others.

It doesn't necessarily mean that one weapon is "better" than another. The katana is primarily made for slicing (though you can certainly thrust with it), and the rapier for thrusting and stabbing. As for pitting practioners of either weapon against each other? I'd say the winner would be the lucky swordsman who connects first. Most all duels between rival samurai or rapier duelists ended with one blow - with many mutual kills.

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Historically speaking, rapiers never fared well against other types of swords (of course a few did). There were at least of couple of the Italian masters, who after immigrating to England to set up shop, were killed in duels with short sword wielders. Remember also, at the beginning of the English Civil War, many of the cavaliers were armed with rapiers, but quickly discarded them in favor of the backsword.

 

[Grenadier]

Many good points raised. In the end, it's the skill of the fighter that will be the more important factor, than the style / system used.

There's no doubt that the fencer got the first strike in. However, such a strike would not have quickly killed his opponent. The kendo-ka would have landed a shot to the fencer's head / neck area, and that would most likely have been very quick-acting.

Of course, we're also looking at things from a different perspective, where one is holding a bamboo shinai and the other is holding a lighter foil. Had this been a katana vs rapier duel, the weights of the weapons would have also played a significant role.

Often times, some will ignore what would happen when the other fellow gets in a superior counterattack. This is why I will not award points to someone who just lightly taps his opponent in a kumite match.

It's also why I'll hesitate a wee bit before signaling a point with the flags side judge), or calling for an all-stop in the ring (referee), since the opponent could very well have delivered a much superior counterattack. In my mind, someone who delivers a much superior blow, even if it's a wee bit later than his opponent's initial landed shot, deserves the point.

 

[Andrew Green]

It's also why I'll hesitate a wee bit before signaling a point with the flags side judge), or calling for an all-stop in the ring (referee), since the opponent could very well have delivered a much superior counterattack. In my mind, someone who delivers a much superior blow, even if it's a wee bit later than his opponent's initial landed shot, deserves the point.

Well there is a different subject... sort of.

I'd disagree with your refereeing strongly. While I agree to the concept, the stronger attack should win, that is not the rules by which the fighters are competing. When the rules say first hit wins, then the first hit wins regardless of what "would" have happened, under the rules that is irrelevant. I don't like those rules in the least, especially when it comes to empty hand work, but if those are the rules of the match, those are the rules the judge should use to score the match. Otherwise just drop the stop and go sparring all together and go continuous.

 

[Bigshadow]

Had this been a katana vs rapier duel, the weights of the weapons would have also played a significant role.

Don't forget that a true rapier is not necessarily a light weapon. It is quite heavy (relatively), but it's balance is what makes it quick on the point. (as I understand it).

BTW, I am not for either over the other. Just making points as I see them.

 

[Grenadier]

Well there is a different subject... sort of.

I'd disagree with your refereeing strongly. While I agree to the concept, the stronger attack should win, that is not the rules by which the fighters are competing. When the rules say first hit wins, then the first hit wins regardless of what "would" have happened

I don't necessarily disagree here, as long as the first hit was a quality hit. If someone does land a quality hit, then it's going to be awfully difficult to top that, even with the best of counterattacks. However, if an initial hit isn't particularly good, I'll wait.

Anyways, it's good to see different viewpoints on this matter, and as always, your honesty is appreciated.

 

[Grenadier]

Don't forget that a true rapier is not necessarily a light weapon. It is quite heavy (relatively), but it's balance is what makes it quick on the point. (as I understand it).

You're certainly correct.

This article by Chris Evans :

http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php

is a good read.

 

[pstarr]

I recall reading about a letter being sent (sometime in the 14th or 15th century) to the Japanese "governor" of a coastal town by the captain of a Dutch ship. The captain complained about the way the Japanese swordsmen fought - it wasn't "gentlemanly." It seems that when a Dutch swordsman would challenge a samurai to a duel and adopt the classical European fighting position with the sword-arm extended, the Japanese fighter would simply cut it off.

This was against the proper rules of European dueling at the time. Oops. When in Rome...

:samurai:

 

[MA-Caver]

As I understand swordsmanship and their respective weaponry... if say suppose back in the early 1600's that a French master of the foil/rapier were to travel to Japan, tick off a Samurai over a breech of etiquette or honor impunged and they got into it by drawing their own swords... it would all boil down to the superiority of the one weilding the sword, i.e. Camillo Agrippa vs Miyamoto Musashi ... who'd win?

Like Swordlady I'd like to see the rest of the match on account that the fencer probably rechanged his tactics after being tagged on the neck.

But consider that the Katana is a heavier/broader blade weapon and could very well break a rapier/foil in two after repeated strikes to the thin steel, though that particular weapon received equal punishment from like weapon.

Very interesting debate here.

Heh... scrolled down the list of videos attached to that one ... check this particular vid out... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaYZI3oCfuA&mode=related&search=

 

[Bigshadow]

It seems that when a Dutch swordsman would challenge a samurai to a duel and adopt the classical European fighting position with the sword-arm extended, the Japanese fighter would simply cut it off.

I am sure the draw and cut in one motion was a bit of a surpise to the now one armed 'gentleman'.

Threatening one's life is a serious offense, in my book and warrants no quarter. irate:

 

[pstarr]

I recall that the Dutch couldn't figure out why the Japanese swordsmen would sometimes stand poised with the sword raised above the head - exposing their entire bodies to attack. The Europeans thought this was a frighteningly stupid posture to adopt and sought to take advantage of their opponent's obvious lack of sword-fighting skills.

Oops.....:whip:

 

[arnisador]

I recall reading about a letter being sent (sometime in the 14th or 15th century) to the Japanese "governor" of a coastal town by the captain of a Dutch ship. The captain complained about the way the Japanese swordsmen fought - it wasn't "gentlemanly." It seems that when a Dutch swordsman would challenge a samurai to a duel and adopt the classical European fighting position with the sword-arm extended, the Japanese fighter would simply cut it off.

I'd love to read more of this, including the other side of the events--what a great story!