Kendo vs. Fencing

[K. Cantwell]

I'm not really sure what terms to use to describe our hypothetical fight. I think that this is the stereotypical "high noon" gunfight of the Wild West, but with swords. I used duel because it seemed, to me, the best word for the situation. Obviously, it's not realistic, so obviously, it's not going to follow the conventional rules of dueling. It's all speculation. I think it's interesting, and that it could prove to be more interesting if there was more discussion about our imaginary fight. Maybe Swords Arts isn't the proper forum for this kind of speculation.

The problem is that it has been done legion times here and on other fora and always ends like kissing one's sister. No real objective declaration of the "ultimate weapon." Just, "the better or luckier guy will win."

These discussions are very much like those Godzilla vs. King Kong or Iron Man vs. Green Latern things we used to do as kids. Now, we throw in some history and technical terms, but it's the same utterly subjective "Duel of Ages" game with nothing like logic or reason really playing much of a role.

Once you assume that one weapon will not have a clear objective edge over the other (showing up to a knife fight with a gun, for example), it is simply a matter of the skill of the combatants. Even assuming an edge, you never know. Even the jo man has to get lucky against the sword sometimes.

In other words, the speculation doesn’t end.

Kevin Cantwell

[hyaku]

When I lived in Cornwall UK running Cornwall Kendo/Iaido club the county fencing team were using the same facility. Fujii Okimistu Sensei watched for a while then asked if he could "have a go". He picked up "two sabers" and got stuck in scoring a lot a valid points his opponent a county squad member spent most of his time going backwards. A good example of "Its not the weapon but who wields it"

[John Connolly]

The one who shows up early, hides behind something, and then clobbers the other with a wooden oar wins.

[James Parsons]

I must have trouble understanding Enlish, too, then; because I clearly read where you said...

OK, here's what I wrote, in context:

Regarding Kim Taylor's quote above, it depends on how you frame the question. In a duel between two people, the more-skilled person certainly has the advantage. But I think of the fencing vs. kendo debate in these terms: If you were starting out as a young male with no knowledge in either art, and knew that at some point in your life you may have to engage in a duel, which art and weapon would you choose? Kim's way of framing the question is that of an observer. Mine is that of a participant.

Framing the question from the perspective of a participant is important because it is the thought process that has determined the evolution of swords throughout history.

I did not say or imply that I was a participant. I said that THE WAY OF FRAMING THE QUESTION—the way I had JUST PROPOSED in the third sentence of that paragraph—is the way a participant would frame the question. The entire paragraph, plus the paragraph that came after it, was about switching how one approaches the situation from the third person perspective to the first person perspective. It's a way of nullifying the impact of skill and then asking, would you really not care which weapon you would be using?

Let's use the knife in a gun fight as a more extreme example, in order to accentuate my point. You could argue that the guy with the most skill will win. But, if you switch from the third person perspective to the first person perspective and then ask, "Which would you like, the knife or the gun?", even a guy highly skilled in knife combat will likely choose the gun.

Fencing vs. kendo is a question about dueling, but another thought process that has affected the evolution of swords is, "What type of combat will I be participating in?", i.e. duel, melee, organized infantry, cavalry, etc. Also, "What type of armor will my opponent likely be wearing?" influences your choice of weapon, as Ken points out.

Furthermore, since some people seem to think I'm trying to find out what is the absolute best sword, let me point out that that is the OPPOSITE of my argument. My point from my very first post was that different swords evolved for different purposes. Therefore, one would be better for one purpose, while another would be better for another purpose. It's like the choice of an M-16 or a shotgun. Well, are you fighting in Iraq or hunting quail? Most hunters wouldn't want the M-16 for hunting quail because it's not the best choice for the situation.

[cxt]

James

Then would it be fair to say that since one--in other than a highly hypothetical situation for the modern man, and only somewhat less hypothetical for the period man---- would have no idea about what situation might occur that instead of the "best" weapon, simple prudence might dictate the "best" overall weapon?

Don't know about you--but if there were tigers about I might take 2 guns "quail" hunting.

Your presupposing that in a dangerous world one would ALWAYS know not only what one was going to face but be fairly confident that no suprises might occur.....a supposition that has left more than few men dead BTW.

Instead of the "best" weapon perhaps a compromise weapon that was more well rounded (for a pointy thing" ) might be a better choice.

BTW "knife or gun" arguements are simply not convincing---there is a very difference between a fire and a non-firearm.

And as an example of the relative uselessness of flogging such hypothetical specualtion---the building in which I sometimes work is screened heavily for firearms---even polymer ones can't make it thu...........ceramic and or carbon fiber knives on the other hand.........
So simply by changeing the hypothetcial "what if's" I render your "gun beats knife" posit void.

You can ALWAYS just keep asking "what if?"

Its a never ending tail chase......kinda like the Neverending Story only not quite as much fun....even for kids. ;

[macbaine]

I agree that it isn't a matter of which weapon is superior. And I don't think it's necessarily a matter of 'the better man.' I think that it's a matter of which type of training is more 'realistic.' The competition in kendo and fencing isn't life-or-death, it's based on points. Those points are scored by hits to specific areas, and as I mentioned before, I think the target areas in kendo are extremely vulnerable areas, whereas, some of the target areas in fencing aren't.

Watching the video, it appears to me, that if the kendoka hadn't back-pedaled, and tried to evade the fencer's lunge, he would have scored a hit to the fencers head. As far as I know, there aren't any vital organs on the outside of the thigh. But, your brain is located in your head.

The effects of a stab-wound, from a weapon like the rapier, have been overplayed a lot in Hollywood. There was a very interesting paper published in SPADA 2, (2002-5, Chivalry Bookshelf) that talked about penetrating trauma, and how unlikely it is for someone to die instantly from a stab-wound. The authors of the article, Richard Swinney & Scott Crawford, presented several examples of people who had been stabbed, and all of them were able to live to tell the tale. One of their examples, a drunk, laughed when his friend impaled him, and then continued to rock the party.

While it may seem like I'm arguing that the rapier is an inferior weapon, I'm not. What I am saying is that people who fence with foil and epee can only score points by striking with the tip. In other words, they are conditioned to thrust, and unless they hit exactly the right spot, a stab is not a 'fight-ending' injury.

There are differences in target areas in the three styles of fencing. The target area for foil is the torso. For sabre, it's anything above the waist. For epee, the entire body is the target. So again, I think this is an example of more and less 'realistic' conditions.

Oh, and the Godzilla vs. Iron Man vs. Green Lantern conversations always end with the same person being the victor: Superman.

[Nii]

Isn't stabbing "the right spot" generally be any of the vital organs? Most of which are housed in the torso? Then the chances of a fatal stab wound (or a permanently damaging one) are quite for since there is such a large target.

[James Parsons]

Then would it be fair to say that since one--in other than a highly hypothetical situation for the modern man, and only somewhat less hypothetical for the period man---- would have no idea about what situation might occur that instead of the "best" weapon, simple prudence might dictate the "best" overall weapon?...

...Instead of the "best" weapon perhaps a compromise weapon that was more well rounded (for a pointy thing" ) might be a better choice.

You make a good point. The katana is a great well-rounded sword, able to handle many styles of combat and varying amounts of armor (except metal plate armor, which didn't exist in Japan). The rapier and smallsword, on the other hand are specifically designed for dueling in an age when armor was no longer worn.

BTW "knife or gun" arguements are simply not convincing---there is a very difference between a fire and a non-firearm.

Certainly. It was intended as an extreme example. Often when the differences are relatively small, people argue that there is no difference at all.

[macbaine]

I should probably mention that the drunk guy was impaled through the torso. The diagram showing the path of the blade through his body seems to show that his kidney was impaled. The authors of the article, titled: "Medical Reality of Historical Wounds" really did a great job pointing out that if you stab someone, they probably aren't going to keel over dead at that very instant.

One quote: "Even now, with the benefit of modern medical knowledge and training, the initial clinical assessment of stab wounds is imprecise. In several studies of patients with abdominal stab wounds, it was noted that more than a third of patients who appeared medically stable actually had surgically significant injuries." (that's on page 9 of SPADA 2 for those interested) Another quote: "Deep sword thrusts (6 inches or more) to the head, neck, and chest are likely to stop an opponent, but even then it may be a matter of seconds to minutes before the full effect of such injuries are seen. Unless large blood vessels, nerves or tendons are severed, even deep sword thrusts to the abdomen and extremities may have little immediately visible effect." (page 16)

There is a lot of good information about penetrating trauma in that article. All of the modern examples in the article come from the files of one of the co-authors, Dr. Richard Swinney, who is a board certified Emergency Medical Physician.

[James Parsons]

Instead of the "best" weapon perhaps a compromise weapon that was more well rounded (for a pointy thing" ) might be a better choice.

Again, I've been avoiding the whole "best sword" debate. I'm simply saying that the best sword for a given situation is the sword which is designed for that situation. "Situation" could refer to a specific type of combat or a specific time and place in history. The best sword for Europe in the middle ages was different than the best sword for Europe during the Renaissance.

[macbaine]

On the knife versus gun scenario, Maine State Troopers are taught to draw their firearms while falling/rolling onto their backs if they're confronted by an assailant wielding a knife at close range. And if I'm not mistaken, the FBI has said that within 21 feet, the knife "wins."

[Brian Owens]

Isn't stabbing "the right spot" generally be any of the vital organs? Most of which are housed in the torso? Then the chances of a fatal stab wound (or a permanently damaging one) are quite for since there is such a large target.

Not really.

Although the torso is large, there is a lot more space in there than most people realize. Hitting a vital spot in such a way as to cause sudden death is pretty difficult. The heart, the pulmonary artery, and the aorta are about it. The kidneys, liver, stomach, etc. might cause death by bleeding or infection if stabbed, but that's not exactly a quick kill; not always even immediately disabling.

By way of example, back in my paramedic days I responded to a call of a man who had crashed his car into the rear of a truck carrying rebar (iron reinforcing rods). One of the bars had gone through the car's windshield, through the man's chest, and through the car's seatback. When we got there he was conscious, alert, and able to talk with us.

We cut the bar on both sides of the victim, took him to the trauma unit, and there they removed it after x-rays, etc.

The bar had gone through his torso about three inches below his heart, penetrated his left lung, and missed his pancrease by only a few inches.

He was out of the hospital in just a few days, and with antibiotics to prevent infection had only a few scars to show for the ordeal.

As other examples, look at the number of people who survive shootings and stabbings to the chest.

Nope; hitting a true "vital spot" takes either skill or luck most of the time.

[Nii]

Thanks for the information. I posted what I did above because I think I read it in an ARMA article some months ago concerning rapiers and katana...

[cxt]

James

Then in order to have the "best" sword for a given situation you kinda have to KNOW exactly what situation your going to be in......an "iffy" propostion--which has gotten men killed in the past.

Again a tail chase of posit.

Besides--and I fully and freely offer you an "I'm sorry" for how this is going to sound--but if your now saying that all you meant was that the "best" sword is one that is specifically designed for a specific situation-----then all I can is "No, really!!!!!!! "

Kind of an obvious point don't you think.

In any case AGAIN, it becomes a question of if having the "better" weapon is going to be enough to overcome someone elses advantages of skill, speed, aggrssiveness...or just plain dumb luck........which becomes another tail chase in terms of whom really has the "advantage" and whom might "win."

Like I said, the very first exchange on the video looks to me like it could have been serious injury to BOTH people----not exactly what I'd call a "win."

[macbaine]

Again, I don't think this is a question of which weapon is "best." Both are designed to kill people. I think training is the key issue in this hypothetical battle. It would be interesting to discuss that, instead of continuing to go over a point that everyone seems to agree on.