clearly a one-sided argument.there were vagrant knights too, who pillaged villages and raped young women. and there were samurais who lived by a code of honour, far from the weaklings you depicted above.
for discussion’s sake lets just take healthy specimens at the pinnacle of their training from both sides, shall we?
go read teh comic, dude. his reverse-edged sword fared better than a sharp one aginst some guy’s Ming armor (whatever that is) - rumoured to be the best in the country. but let’s get back on topic, shall we?
smaller, quicker, lightly armored and more stupid opponents, don’t forget.
then not so clearly the samurai. without armor the bastard sword won’t do more damage than a well-swung katana would. and without armor the samurai would still be faster than the knight, IMO.
This assumes the samurai outwits his opponent. Imagine you are the samurai and you try this. Yep, your strategy of dancing around the knight is working flawlessly. The knight appears to be tired. He is breathing heavily, and his sword has dropped to his side. You decide this is the moment to move in. Suddenly, the knight springs to life and your fool head is soon separated from your body.
Well dude, it sounds like you’re comparing a modern-day competition boxer to a weekend warrior that takes karate 3 times a week. Most “martial artists” nowadays take it casually, something to do for fun and exercise. Someone taking boxing for the same reason wouldn’t be able to take a hit any better. They probably would spar more, but with those ridiculously large gloves and headgear that alot of gyms use it’s not like they can now shrug off a punch on the street.
If you want to compare 2 professional fighters, say professional boxer against a no-holds barred fighter like Pat Miletich, my money’s on Pat every time.
I mean, obviously a pro boxer will take punishment better than me, but i don’t see how limiting yourself to punches above the belt makes a great fighting style, and boxing dosen’t have a monopoly on getting hit regularly. If you SERIOUS about a martial art you could take just as much punishment in traing as a boxer could. It’s not the style of fighting, it’s the style of training that determines ability to take pain.
Besides, if we’re comparing 2 guys from the 16th century (or whatever), what makes you think a martial artist couldn’t take punishment? Way back when, martial arts weren’t something you did 3 evenings a week for an hour to have fun and stay in shape.
Personally, I think I could take a boxer with similar training as me. I studied thai kickboxing , kali, and grappling arts on and off for the last 7 years. I lke to think I have quick hands, but if the boxer had better handspeed than me, i could kick to keep him out of range. And like a previous poster mentioned, that guy is NOT used to getting kicked in the leg. (When I first started I would leave with huge bruises on my thighs and walking the next day was a pain, and that was when we used focus mitts for some protection.) I could move in close and use elbows, knees and headbutts. I could trap his arm and wail away on his head for awhile, or just take him to the ground and tap him out. A boxer would have no idea what to do in any of those situations.
And I don’t think that a boxer will necessarily be able to take a punch better than me if they truly had the same training level. A typical “boxer” probably didn’t spar all that much more than i did. He doesn’t want to show up the next day at work with a black eye anymore than i do.
My opinion stated above, and it is simply that, an opinion, is based on what I have read and also from the responses of the 5 or 6 Asian marshal arts instructors to whom I have posed the question over the years. YMMV.
Tell me, do you often engage in bouts lasting an hour or so where your opponent is whaling on you the whole time with only a minute or two break every 5 minutes or so?
But again you’re comparing apples to oranges. Unless the places those instructors taught at had teams that would compete in competitions, it’s not a valid comparison. And when i say competitions, I don’t mean competitions with Kata or forms, I mean fighting (not sparring) competitions. The most famous are Pride fighting and UFC. Again, if you asked Pat Militech (http://www.teammfs.com/miletich.htm]who has a stable of fighters) how his fighters would do against boxers, I’m sure that he would have no problem putting one of them against a boxer.
No, I have never done that, but there are some people at my gym that DO. I have had grappling sessions that went an hour with no breaks though. I’ve cracked a rib training and popped my shoulder out once. Frankly, the reason I quit every once in awhile is that the training is too hard. The guys that do the actual full contact sparring are serious, and want to fight for a living. I’m a banker, not a fighter. 
I said “a boxer with similar training as me.” The sitution as you describe it doesn’t happen unless the boxer is at some competitive level, which I am not, or aspires to be competitive, which I don’t. Unless you’re saying that everybody that takes boxing subjects themselves to that, which i know is false. I’m a semi-serious guy, I could fight competitively if I really really wanted to, but I have no desire to. (My brains are too valuable :o ) A semi-serious boxer that never intends to fight competitively would never take one hour beatings for the heck of it. He’s drop out once every couple of years like I do :o
To be clear, I’m not talking about a strip-mall dojo. I’m talking about a serious, competitive mixed martial artist against a serious, competitive boxer. Competitive fighter against competitive fighter.
I’m not saying that the instructors you’ve talked to are running McDojo’s, but I doubt that they’re fielding a team of fighters dreaming about the UFC or Pride fighting.
Gee, you’re a smart guy, Bosda.
And you say you work for the government, do you?
In a blue collar position, with no authority to make decisions, yes.
I can’t even wade through most of the misinformation in this thread.
First of all, don’t even bother reading the ARMA sites. Never did such a fount of misinformation about western martial arts exist before. The same is usually true for the SwordForum, though there are a handful of exceptions.
Second, the idea that western martial arts declined is historically inaccurate. It is still alive and well. Furthermore, it experienced perhaps its greatest renascence at the end of the 19th century, when tremendous advancements were made in both theory, practice, and pedagogy. There is even a spectacular dueling tradition in America that has endured into the twentieth century. The “decline” does not, as Bosda might have you believe, coincide with the rise of flintlock pistols. That’s bollocks.
In fact, we are in a midst of a serious renascence of western martial arts.
Japan certainly didn’t give up karate and kenjitsu. The development of aikido postdates the rise of firearms in Japan. Why should pistols have squelched martial arts development in the western world if not the east?
If you are interested in reliable information on the western martial arts, have a look at AEMMA, the AHF, IMAF, and finally, my own school, The Martinez Academy of Arms.
Let me see if I can clear up a couple of things.
Warriors in 15th century full battle harness were extremely fast. Anyone who does not believe this is welcome to watch trained armor fighting using traditional gear. Proper use of a two handed sword or even a jeu de la hache poleaxe is extremely swift. Mobility is also surprisingly easy in armor if it is made correctly, even for a little guy like myself, whose build is more useful for rapier and smallsword.
As for my opinion, as in all things fencing-related, it depends on the practicioner. The point of the katana, as I understand it, was sharp. A draw cut would not be effective, but a successful thrust to a joint very well might be. A correct thrust by a skilled samurai is hardly beyond the realm of possibility.
Finally, there was a famous duel between Maestro Julio Castello and a kenjitsu master in Havana in 1911. Maestro Castello roundly defeated one of Japan’s best katana swordsmen with a classical Italian dueling sabre in a public contest.
There is no superior style, as any serious student of martial arts should agree.
That’s an interesting take on military “history” you have. What actual evidence have you that knights did not face off against other knights in battle? I put forth the following evidence:
Talhoffer, Ringeck, Maier, and others, actually taught two different sets of techniques to use. One set was against the lightly-armored opponents you cite. The other was against heavily-armored opponents. It would not be the peasants who had the armor but professional combatants.
Really, what has the OP studied other than comic books on this subject?
The gentleman’s art also included using the walking stick in defense, the use of the croock-handle walking stick (which was distinct from the heavy-ball-handle stick), the use of kicks (low except for the French) and grappling, and a lot of other “ungentlemanly” things. They understood the difference between a rule-bound duel and a fight. Even the “boxing” of the 18th-and 19th centuries included grappling, although it had fallen out of favor in the ring. Late 19th-century gentlemen like M. Vigny realized the weakness of this and re-introduced the techniques. If anything killed off gentlemanly self-defense in Europe, it was the First World War.
Pre-Christian? According to research done by Ken Pfrenger, this survived in Ireland among the rough-and-ready lower classes up to the 1800s. The term “donnybrook” to mean a fight or riot actually refers to the fair at Donnybrook, which was infamous for the extent and violence of its stickfighting.
The Canary islanders have preserved a version of their stickfighting (Pau de Juego–which was outlawed by the Spaniards) to the present day, although some techniques are now taught “not to be used”.
M. Martinez is top-notch. I only met him once, but I was quite impressed. My own Maitre, Adam Crown, is a colleague of his. Unfortunately, I now live in Indiana, without a car…
Yikes, that’s a long way from Ithaca. Too bad you’re so far away: we hare having a four weapon tournament this weekend, and have been trying to get M. Crown and some of his people down to play with us.
To bring folklore into play…
Remember all the tales of how, during world war 2, japanese swords were of such astounding quality that they were able to cut american rifle barrels in two? Well, they would be even more effective against a knight’s armor, slicing up the poor european like the “invincible” Monty Python black knight.
I vote for the legendary japanese metallurgy winning the day 
I have noticed one thing on this thread:
Only those who deny that the Samurai is all-powerful are willing to back up their claims with real citations. The samurai groupies prefer to merely diddle with folklore and ignorant speculation. I think that this settles the matter nicely.
I look at it this way. Forget the training.
If you asked ME to fight a mortal combat, and I had the choice of being the guy with the heavier, stronger armor and sword or the guy with the lighter stuff, I’d have to choose the heavier.
I understand that I run the real risk of falling and not being able to get up again, but if I took the lighter stuff, I risk not surviving the first fifteen seconds.
If you consider trained warriors, I think the same reasoning applies. Even if the Samurai is more agile, he’s at a disadvantage. An imperfect blow would hurt him much more than his imperfect blow would hurt the knight.
If you can’t get up wearing medieval combat armor, you really need to work out more. It’s only 50-60 pounds, evenly distributed.