Tai Chi swordmaster vs Kenjutsu swordmaster? Why?
Who would win?
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
I'm going to fall back on the old refrain:
"There are no superior styles, only superior individuals."
Lamont
"There are no superior styles, only superior individuals."
Lamont
OP
- Thread Starter
- #3
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
Upnorthkyosa
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.
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
Master Black Belt
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
OP
- Thread Starter
- #6
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
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
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.
Please cite some examples, let us critique what actually happened.
Lamont
PS Rob Roy doesn't count.
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.
Please cite some examples, let us critique what actually happened.
Lamont
PS Rob Roy doesn't count.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #8
What's wrong with Rob Roy? I thought the whole grab the sword bit was excellent!
upnorthkyosa
upnorthkyosa
Saitama Steve
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2003
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 5
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #10
No nationalism? No bias? You are all great guys. Yet, the hottest places in hell are reserved for the nuetral. Take a side.
upnorthkyosa
upnorthkyosa
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:
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
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2003
- Messages
- 212
- Reaction score
- 5
Nah you take a side and we'll just laugh at you for being foolish
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
Master Black Belt
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.
Man, now THAT'S a tough one- they both have appeal.
Man, now THAT'S a tough one- they both have appeal.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #15
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
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
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.
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.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #17
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
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
I think people who've been on these forums don't want flames, so we try to diffuse situations as soon as possible.
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.
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.
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?
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
.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #19
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
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
