tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4446682073857250843.post4918715357314956865..comments2024-03-27T23:42:36.619-05:00Comments on Mock Ramblings: Combat Theory 02: He's Dead, JimMichael Mockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06233321050691782148noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4446682073857250843.post-7821219647301490312012-05-01T17:11:23.617-05:002012-05-01T17:11:23.617-05:00From what I recall of anime and martial arts movie...From what I recall of anime and martial arts movies, the Japanese traditional tale is that the man with a sword needed to be 3 times as skilled as the one with the spear to win.<br /><br />For my vote, it would come down to leg speed and reactions. I don't see any way a sword held in one hand could block or intercept a two-handed polearm swing; there would just be too much inertia to overcome. The only chance the swordsman would have is to get inside the reach of the polearm between attacks, at least blocking against the shaft reduces the leverage advantage and gets him in range to strike.<br /><br />And despite movies or barbarian berserkers, I believe polearms traditionally are best used more defensively- making huge wild swings tends to leave you open to counterattack. Short, tight cuts or stabs will keep your target at a distance; once you have a good opening you can try for a finishing blow. Or just jab at your opponent's front leg- once he loses mobility you can back off and wait him down. <br /><br />From what practice I've had with a bokken, a two-handed grip on one longer blade actually gives you much better control and speed- the distance between your hands gives you leverage to move the blade around quickly. It would take longer to move the tip of the sword with a single-handed grip. I never progressed to one-handed techniques.Kellandrosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4446682073857250843.post-71418486967853020062012-04-28T21:23:36.948-05:002012-04-28T21:23:36.948-05:00Oh, it's not completely one-sided... but I'...Oh, it's not completely one-sided... but I'd like to point out that SCA Heavy Fighting forbids a number of things that I'd consider basic polearm moves - or at least they did twenty years ago, back when I was active. And they restrict those movements precisely because they're likely to get someone hurt. (SCA combat also assumes - or assumed - that both fighters wear the equivalent of chain mail armor, which changes what they consider an effective attack.)<br /><br />There are certainly circumstance where the weapons would become more evenly matched, or even give a clear advantage to the swords: trees or other obstructions that limit the longer weapon's movement, for example. But we're talking about a flat, open area with the fight starting from outside of fighting range. Assuming the opponents are roughly equally skilled, I'd bet on the guy with the polearm every time. It's not that the swordsman can't do it, it's just that he's got to cross a fairly significant area where he's close enough to be exposed, but not yet close enough to attack. And if the polearm guy has any sense, he'll keep the swordsman at a distance and kill him there.Michael Mockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233321050691782148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4446682073857250843.post-45050924497433389392012-04-28T12:27:16.151-05:002012-04-28T12:27:16.151-05:00It's not as one-sided as you might think. Whi...It's not as one-sided as you might think. While the polearm has the reach and power, the two swords have speed and dexterity. After watching any number of SCA matches, I'd put them about even, with a slight advantage to the guy with the swords.<br /><br />That said, you're correct that a "real" fight like that would last one, or maybe two, attack- parry- riposte- riposte combinations. And the way you describe it, the loser is definitely dead and waiting for thumbs-up or thumbs-down is a pure formality.<br /><br />Best literary gladiatorial combat I've seen is in the "Rome" section of E. E. "Doc" Smith's "Triplanetary".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com