Troper Fencing Academy

Observation can only take you so far, though. It doesn't really matter if you can see the out-of-line thrust coming if he's so practiced at it that he doesn't even need to think about it any more. Like d Roy said, muscle memory. Why do you think they make you practice the same thing over and over again?

In another note:

Whoever says that "Swords are better than guns because they don't need to be reloaded." clearly never handled a sword.

Blades still need to be replaced.

Got my waster longsword today.

It handles pretty well, except for two things: there's a little too much weight towards the hilt or what would be the foible on a rapier, where I'd be more comfortable having the weight in the handle, and the moulding on the pommel is a little rough and scrapes my off-hand during some strikes.

The latter might be fixable just by grinding down the edges a little. The former might not be fixable unless I can find some way to counterweight the pommel.

That aside, it's a pretty good tool.

So, who or what are you going to kill tonight? Nothing christens a sword better than the blood of your enemy.

Depending on blade quality you don't need to replace it at half the rate as a rifle magazine though.

If you do you need a better sword-smith. I've heard of (blunt) blades lasting for over a decade with weekly bouting. Sharps might be more fragile but shouldn't deviate from that too much.

edited 19th Mar '14 9:46:09 PM by IraTheSquire

Yeah, but it's far easier and faster to reload a magazine, which can take no less than a second for experienced soldiers. Also, extra magazines are easier to carry than extra blades; most soldiers nowadays carry somewhere around 200-400 rounds on their body, IIRC, and that's just the regular soldier that don't use muchineguns.

Also, I'm pretty sure using swords for prolonged time is far more taxing to the body than using guns as such.

Besides, the odds of a swordman still standing after a gunman emptied his magazine onto him is basically nil. Unless you are on drugs.

edited 19th Mar '14 10:13:44 PM by dRoy

Yeah, the point is that is getting a bit hair-splitty, given that guns jam and parts break too. And it's not like a guns man carry around extra part just in case their guns need repair.

Also, you can be still standing after someone shot at you: they can miss.

edited 20th Mar '14 4:42:29 AM by IraTheSquire

This is why you shoot a swordsman from a kilometer away.

Or you hope they have a snub-nosed revolver and just charge.

Remember, all you need is 22 feet to out-draw a gunman, and 17 to out-trigger him (for average trigger weight and human running and reaction speed).

Those who say "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight," have obviously never taken a concealed-carry test.

The true statement is "Never bring a six-shooter to a fight against seven men." Always be prepared.

Yeah, there is no arguing that swords/knives are better in close quarter combat than gun. Even then, not by much: many soldiers nowadays learn how to use bayonets and whip people with their rifles, so they are not helpless even in CQC.

Besides, considering that in modern warfare, average distance between combatants are at least hundreds of meters away (even more extreme in open areas like deserts in Afghanistan)...

Oh, and even in CQC, shotgun > sword.

dRoy, you sound like one of my friends right now. Every so often, me and this one other guy will get into arguments about the relative merits of swords or martial arts around him, saying stuff like, "Oh, well, if you're going to be in an engagement and want to keep some distance, you could just use a longsword." "Yeah, but you can really close the gap with a dao, get up close and personal, use some modified wing chun techniques." "True, but a proper swordsman should be able to keep you at bay anyway for that."

And then invariably our other friend, if he's there, will butt in and say, "Yeah, and that's when I pull out my M1911 and shoot him."

And it takes all of the strength I can muster to go "Yes, but THAT IS NOT THE POINT GODDAMNIT"

No, I don't. I don't mention guns if I'm talking about comparison between martial arts styles or swords and swordsmanship.

I'm just rather really, really sick of Asian media and their constant insistence that swords are better than firearms.

In the similar vein, I hate how in many Japanese media, pure skill and willpower is always described as being superior than physical condition (size, weight, reach, inherent body composition, etc), proper training, and experience. Obviously all of them are equally important.

Maybe it's time that I drop fighting series, especially ones from Japan.

edited 20th Mar '14 12:06:45 PM by dRoy

To be fair to the Japanese, the greatest swordsmaster alive today is approximately 104 pounds and twice that in age. I watched him cut through three rice mats that had been rolled up and soaked in water. He needed but one slash.

To be fair to the Europeans, the greatest user of the Scottish Claymore alive today is approximately 50 years old and can lop off the heads of five training dummies spaced around him with a single swing.

So, there is something to be said for skill; it just takes a lot more skill to compare with superior firepower.

And obviously, those are incredibly simplistic scenarios; most enemies aren't nice enough to stand still.

edited 20th Mar '14 1:07:06 PM by Frishman

If only it stayed Asian. If only it was media, for that matter. I'll just say, I've seen morons who claimed the same shit about European stuff. At least Asia has a reputation of majikal swordz n' shit to maintain. It was sad, really, after all the work that had to be done to fend off the weaboos, to discover they've just moved to the HEMA camp.

Maybe it's time you drop the shonen series that only focus on Japanese Spirit.

edited 20th Mar '14 3:36:17 PM by Blackmoon

@Blackmoon - There is only one anime/manga that I'm keeping up with and it really got nothing to do with Japanese Spirit.

@Gasek - Pity, indeed. Well, I never involved myself with HEMA, so I'm just going to take your word for it.

So it turns out that all my complaints boil down to this:

Fuck Japanese Spirit.

When considering gun fighting you also have to remember that like sword fighting fire arms and their technique have long since moved beyond the bare bone basics. The days of stand in a line, point, and shoot are quite very long gone. While this is a movie scene from the film Collateral Tom Cruise practiced two different gun fighting techniques to be that quick with a pistol We have point shooting often referred to as reflexive or reactionary shooting. Your reflexes allow you to draw and fire without aiming relying on trained muscle memory. The second part is the Mozambique drill which is two quick aimed shots center mass followed by a roughly center of the head shot single shot. The idea being to drill in it so you are so quick and familiar you don't really need aim down the sights. That is just a small sample of the various gun fighting techniques.

The 20 foot rule does not take into account reflexive shooting techniques or other similar skills. There is also a drill that is used to deal with melee threats at that range even at a dead run.

The biggest difference between swords and guns is their respective reach. Both are undoubtedly lethal and training makes the user more adept in its use but things like reach take on a different dimension with the two weapons. A sword is lethal for only as far as you can make it reach so even with a fairly long blade you might reach somewhere between 7-9 feet tops. A gun is lethal from the muzzle out to its max effective range. Even a common handgun for fighting, defense, and LEO use is effective out to about 75 feet.

Most importantly though is historical context. Swords and melee weapons in general as the primary tool of war is from a different period in history before changes moved everything in a new direction.

Someday something may very well replace guns and put them into a similar context as swords and melee weapons are held now.

That something might be transhumanist superpowers?

While I'd say that the media exaggerates it (like it exaggerates everything) skill vs attributes is always the question. People often say "imagine you fighting yourself with everything that same except the other you is twice as strong/heavy/etc. Now do you think strength/weight does not matter?" but I personally think that's a terrible comparion: if one fighter has just one advantage over the other than obviously that fighter has an advantage. It's a tautology. My response to that is "imagine you fighting yourself, everything's the same except you are better in skill than the other you and the other you is stronger/heavier/etc".

Question is that how much more skill do you need over your opponent in order to compensate for another disadvantage (being weaker, lighter, etc) in a fight. Also, note that skill and with a more obvious limit fitness are the only things that you can do something about and improve (unless you start breaking bones to make them longer to get more reach/ we have the technology to modify other bits etc).

There's a fair amount that skill can do from a tactical standpoint. For instance, I realize that the best thing to do is completely give 0 fucks when it comes to things like fighting dirty and the element of surprise. Experience also tells me that with someone close to my size or smaller, a close in and grapple is my best bet at survival, simply because I'm better at it than most people but I'm not fast enough to reliably run away, while if they're larger than myself I should go for a disabling shot and run or keep the fight at a distance. No matter how skilled I am, it's not going to help me beat someone twice my size in a grapple match.

With weapons, skill and experience become an even greater asset, requiring a lot more of the physical attributes to beat it... But you're still not going to see a decrepit old man beating up a weight lifter.

I guess what I really mean is, "It's not the AMOUNT of skill that you have that will let you beat them in spite of a weakness... It's how well your skill lets you compensate for that"

edited 20th Mar '14 5:36:39 PM by Poisonarrow

I wish Madass Alex was still here. I wonder what he would have said.

I actually classify knowing what your strengths are and how to exploit them, and knowing what your weaknesses are and how to avoid them, to fall under the umbrella of "skill".

So swords don't actually 'speak' but the wielders do and the term itself metaphor for someone's one's footwork, intent, etc. Metaphors are useful for understanding concepts although it can also confuse if you don't understand what it means. In regards to the 'Wax On, Wax Off' trope, what if you ask the instructor what the tasks and you get no answer. Should you keep doing it despite being bored, anxious, etc.?

If your sword actually starts speaking to you get medical help.

If your sword speaks to you AND others its either mass histeria or an actual magical sword.

Would actual swords be present in a post-apocalyptic setting?

Well, with all bullet factories gone...