Who would win in a Fight a Chinese Swordsman or a Samuari

[Black Jack]

Hey Neal....you are letting your true colors show again.

That line is from a brutal rape scene.

Douchebag.


If we were talking western vrs eastern, then that is a different story, I would go with the western swordsman.

[Liokault]

Im not trying to turn this into western v eastern but i am saying that the jian is not unlike a rapier in form and function.

[Stacey]

First off, I'm not Neal, secondly, from my understanding, they were having an affair.

[Black Jack]

Stacey,

Whatever........and no it was a rape scene.

Liokault,

In what respect, the Jian is a broader sword than a rapier, the movements with a Jian are much different than a rapier, what kind of rapier are you in reference to, what style, there were many different kinds of rapier or are you talking about a saber?

[greendragon]

Samurai wins. The Japanese sword is exponentially a better constructed weapon than the chinese sword, especially historically. When learning Kung Fu sword fighting, some of our best tricks come from the Japanese. We even trained ShinKendo. Ultimately it is the Individual, of course I agree with that.

[Liokault]

No i am not talking about a sabre.

My point is that the jian is relativly (ofton not always and i have seen them doen to 16 inches) long light and thin in both thickness and width.

Also it is used in a not un rapier like manner i.e. fast thrusting motions and light paries.

It should be pointed out that i am refering to a wide range of western swords that the general populouse would refewr to as rapiers but realy are just generic light straight swords.

I am aware that there are many styles of thease swords and my argument holds up for all of them.


Bottom line is in a head to head duel light straight thrusting sword beats heavy slashing sword.

ok other things come into it the main one being any form of armour but the above has been shown to be true historicaly.

any one really interested in this should head over to sword forum international.

[Xebsball]

greendragon is wrong on the statement about japanese sword being better. That doesnt come from me, i actually have read on the internet, from a sword maker, people specialized in sword, saying that the japanese was not superior to the chinese.
I dont mean to be offensive but i will stick to the experts opinion, its the logical thing to do.

The outcome of a sword fight between a chinese and japanese style is hard to determinate. And of course if you consider the whole posible factors of the battlefield it gets even more complex. Ultimately yes the best swordsman will win.
You have to understand that each swordsmanship style and respective weapon is designed to work for whitin a context.
So in case the chinese actually had problem fighting japanese swords wouldnt they change? Its only obvious that if it was true the chinese would adapt. And the same with the japanese. Or else theyd be crushed. And were they crushed? No. Had they been crushed... back to my previous stament, they create something new, it comes from need of survival.
Im talking about a chinese style designed specificly to fight the japanese and a japanese style designed specificly to fight the chinese.
Is there/was there such thing? There are examples of chinese using the Miao Dao to fight japanese pirates.

What im saying is, back than there was no space for non fuctional techniques/styles, people got killed. Generals are not stupid to let their army keep on training over and over something that wont work when the time comes. And you know when it comes to not having your neck cut everyone is as smart as they can be.

A more direct answer, i LIKE the chinese style better, although i like the european styles as well.

[Xebsball]

another few things to remember:
(not that i dont think you peeps would be not smart to come up with this, im just reminding)

1) stories of "i know a case when a japanese/chinese master defeated a chinese/japanese master blah blah blah" wont add anything to this discussion. Its obvious that there are stories as such documented, oh both sides, driving again to the conclusion that the best man won.

2) when talking, for example, about a regular kendo guy going against a regular kung fu guy, dont forget that the kendo guy is sword specialist while the kung fu guy in this case divides his training time with empty handed and weapons. The sword specialist is always in adavantage when in a pure sword combat.

[Stranger]

"a regular kendo guy going against a regular kung fu guy"- Xebsball

However, the thread is dealing with a samurai fighting a Chinese swordsman. Samurai do not study kendo, they study kenjutsu (HUGE DIFFERENCE). Kendo is to the combative use of the katana what Olympic fencing is to the compative use of European swords (a highly diluted game of tag).

Any samurai would have many weapons, unarmed skills, and other class and military skills that they would have to perfect in addition to studying the sword. To cast the samurai as a "one trick pony" is not fair.

[Leimeng]

From my limited experiance of studying both IAI and Kendjutsu for three years and several more years of Chinese Arts: The Filipino and Ghurkas win nine times out of ten! (Assuming all else is equal....)
But, since the discussion is JMA and CMA I think we need to look at few other issues.
~The Chinese historically made some d@mn good swords. However, each time a dynasty succeed a previous one, they killed the solders that opposed them in the struggle, then they destroyed their weapons, families and the people who made the weapons. There are a few very very rare examples of high Chinese sword craft. There are a lot of examples of show swords or other cheap weapons available.
~Japanese Swordsmanship was very much simplified. I think in the IAI that I studied (several years ago), there were perhaps 15 techniques a person learned for a 1rst Dan ranking (black belt, but still pretty much a begginer in the traditional sense). When the only thing you practice for hours on end for several years is those 15 techniques arranged in 12 forms, you get pretty efficiant in that which you are practicing. Add some of the hitting and stricking exercises on bamboo and straw mats and a hard working individual will have some skill.
~Conversely, a Chinese swordsman will perhaps have 20-120 techniques in a sword form. There is less practice (now adays at least) of each movement drilled in repetition. Very few people now adays will practice hitting with there (very cheap, fake) swords anyway.
If a Chinese Swordsman practised the same way the Japanese Swordsman practiced, I would put my money on the Chinese Swordsman.
I would still reccomend that a person studying either of these arts also learn some filipino stuff to supplement their training. The progress will be geometric in both understanding and applications.



Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

---------------------------------------
If you pit one Chinese martial artist against one Japanese martial artist, the Chinese martial artist will win because he has superior technique.
If you pit three Chinese martial artist' against three Japanese martial artist', the three Japanese martial artist' because the three Chinese martial artist' will be fighting amonst themselves over lineage, and proper placement of the little toe in alignment with the palm and stars......

[Xebsball]

"Samurai do not study kendo, they study kenjutsu"

I know thats why i wrote "for example"

"However, the thread is dealing with a samurai fighting a Chinese swordsman"

Expert vs expert being diferent than expert vs generical is exactly my point. My post was intended to remind people of that before they bring up experiences of sparring, since that most people here from chinese systems are not sword experts, while the praticioners of japanese sword systems are indeed obviously sword experts.

In no time i said todays sparring matches represent or have the same meaning than a duel between two specialists.

[Braden]

greendragon

Historical evidence has destroyed the claim that japanese swordsmanship was superior. At the top of their game, everyone from the chinese to the vikings has blades which equalled or rivaled those of japan. Go to www.swordforum.com and talk to the scholars there if you disagree.

everyone...

It's important to keep in mind that there are varieties of chinese swords, just as there are varieties of japanese swords; and just as there are varieties of using both.

I do not think most dao and katana training methods evolved for the duel, so much as for a war. This isn't true of the jian.

In a duel, I would pick a duelist over a soldier every time.

In terms of my own experience, I prefer the bagua dao work over both the japanese swordwork and modern western swordwork I've done (for dueling). But this is a matter of technical preference, and I'd consider skilled practitioners of all to be dangerous swordsmen. As far as the preference goes, I find modern western swordwork to be too linear and extended; and the japanese swordwork I have seen to be too open in their postures. Both of these approaches have their benefits, mind you.

[Mannek]

What part of swordsman don't you understand genius?

Probably the sense of humor.

[Mister Hansome]

Maybe someone should factor in years of experience, fighting background (experience), environment to be fought in, spirit, and possibly health... Oh and don't forget about purpose...

For example, the vietnamese army has been known to have beaten three advanced mongolian army, each of which consisted of half a million men, while the vietnamese only had an army numbering 2 hundred thousand, obviously being outnumbered. The mongols were fierce, destroying the chinese army with their might a few years back. First encounter the environmental factor was at the advantage of the vietnamese due to the lack of experience of the mongols of the climate. The second and last encounters by then that advantage was gone. The mongols had experience and a blood thirsty background. The vietnamese were farmers who had weapons handed to them by the monarch. Health was on both sides at both the last and middle encounter. Both sides having a notable leader, on the mongolian side Kublai Khan's own son lead the army, on the vietnamese side a charismatic general.

From history, the vietnamese won three times while being outnumbered. How? Many factors jumped in. Like the situation with JMA and CMA, it's a hard conclusion to draw but to some it seems obvious. Like who would have said the vietnamese would have won against the mongolians three times? Little factors like spirit can be the determining factor, the vietnamese had to win to protect their family as they heard of the mongols pillaging ways (which usually leaves everyone raped, dead, and basically chaos would ensue). Someone forgot to put up the situation, for things to happen...

Answering this question is so hard, because there are MANY styles of both sides. One might be more motivated, one might be more experienced with the others style while one has absolutely none. One might be more healthy...

BUT providing that no one has a field advantage, i would still have no idea....

[Mister Hansome]

And that rapier thing. It really depends on the persons mentality. Like a rapier guy after puncturing the samurais lungs might think he won, but what if the samurai steps one step in and takes a wack at the rapiers head? The rapier dies right away, while the samurai dies a slow death... No win...

Hmmm, i am bored aren't i?