Medieval knightvs. Samurai-amatter of size

[Nissan Maxima]

I think that it is fruitful in this discussion to understand if samurai would be using those swords much in armor, other than decapitating defeated notables. From what I have seen they were more badges of rank, useful for slicing each other up when dressed in civvies but in a battle where armor was worn they would use pole arms (naginata, magamaki) , mass weapons ( tetsuba) and spears (yari), just like their western counterparts.

[Mike F]

. . . in a battle where armor was worn they would use pole arms (naginata, magamaki) , mass weapons ( tetsuba) and spears (yari), just like their western counterparts.

I agree. This is why I suggested the yari as a better choice.

Otagiri: ãÂ

[SirCathal]

Is this the SCA version of Pirate vs Ninja?

[Edwin]

I don't really know who would be more succusful when comparing a samurai to a knight. Judo was founded in the 19th century, not the 16th. It was based off of jujitsu that had 300 years of evolution from the 16th C, so I don't know how relevant judo or jujitsu is today to analyze 16th century Japanese grappling. But if I were to assume that modern combat judo, (that is not sport judo), is relevant to the 16th century techniques, then I say that any size difference between knight and samurai would not mean anything at all.

Trevor wrote:

And I came across opponents who were trained in both wrestling and Judo. But, when they tried to throw me-they were not able to execute the throw and I think size had everything to do with it. Indeed, by shifting my weight slightly not only did I avoid their throw but I was able to throw them as well-and I know they knew exactly what I was attempting to do as I did it because they strained against me the entire way. Had I weighed less-they probably would have thrown me the first time because they certainly had me in position.

The 2 people I trained judo with most frequently had approximately 150 lbs each on me. One was my height, one was 3 inches taller. Based on that experience, I can say that the folks that attempted to throw Trevor failed because they attempted either the wrong throw at the wrong time, the right throw at the wrong time, or the wrong throw at the right time. Size had nothing to do with it. The school I attended had a 19 year old young woman who was 5'1", and weighed just under 100 lbs. She could succesfully throw the guy that was 6'3", and 330 lbs when she performed the correct throw with the correct timing.

Every movement in grappling brings an advantage and a disadvantage. Each shift of the weight blocks a throw, and makes one vulnerable to another throw. Every time I throw someone in a sparring situation, it was a counter throw. Trevor mentions that his opponents strained against him while he threw them. That his opponents strained against a throw tells me that they did not truly comprehend Judo.

Now when one is attempting to throw a person via force, then size is critical. But that is contrary to the fundamental concept and philosophy of judo: minimum effort, maximum effect.


When comparing people who are unskilled in grappling, or have equal skill, then size and strength are the two factors that make the most difference. But skill will always overcome size or strength.

[paulb]

When comparing people who are unskilled in grappling, or have equal skill, then size and strength are the two factors that make the most difference. But skill will always overcome size or strength.

Based on my personal experience, I will have to disagree. While I was in the Army and stationed in Kansas, I played Judo with the K-State Judo club. At the time, I was a pretty good 1st dan (San Jose State). About every two weeks for two years, I would fight against a Korean grad student who was a 4th dan. I outweighed him by about 70 pounds, and was about 8 inches taller. During that time, neither of us managed to execute a good throw. I came closest, once, but it wouldn't have even gotten a half point in a tournament.

What I learned from this is that skill counteracts strength and size, but the reverse is also true. It becomes a balancing act - is one fighter's skill sufficient to overcome the others advantage in size and strength - and vice-versa.

Maximum result for minimum effort is the goal, and that is what allows skill to compete against size and strength. But skill doesn't always win, if the difference in size and strength is great enough, or if a smaller size and strength advantage is accompanied by some skill. Remember that the better, but smaller, fighter still has some strength and size that they bring to the fight. The combination of factors must be used in comparison.

Paulb

[Edwin]

There are a few more pitfalls when comparing modern experience with grappling to any time period where martial arts truly were "military arts." There are very very few people in the world today that train a martial art as a profession. My class only met for 4 hours a week. The skills of most people in our school would be considered non-existant compared to someone like Toshishiro Obata, a person who has essentially lived his entire life training martial arts. When I say that skill will always overcome size or strength, I am assuming that we are discussing skill in a context where martial arts are a profession, not a hobby.

One convention of the school I attended was that any rank below 1st black was analogous with preschool, and that one's first black belt was like entering kindergarten.

One other pitfall is the sportification of martial arts. Judo is a good example for this. Traditional judo incorporates striking, choking, etc. The rules set forward by the founder forbid the use of striking in sparring. Striking and choking are banned from most judo competition. Due to those 2 things, most modern judo schools don't train them.

Paulb, could you consider the competition between yourself and the 4th dan judoga as an artificial demonstration of judo due to each of you playing for sport rather than for military purpose? Striking vital points is one element of traditional judo. If the 4th dan had not learned them, then were you having a true test of Judo skill? If he knew them and didn't use them, was it a true test of judo skill?

[Magmaforge]

quote George Silver, 1599:
"it most commonly falls out, that he that is the best wrestler, or strongest man (if neither of them can wrestle) overcomes."

I note also that the great Musashi was historically known as a giant among his contemporaries, and that this gave him a tangible edge in personal combat.

That being said, I do wonder how big the difference was between a european knight of the 1400s and a Japanese samurai. Or, for that matter, how used the samurai was to fighting with someone far superior in size and strength. I have a hunch that the average european knight (if we can imagine some average) commonly had more experience in fighting with those of greater girth and might than he.

Spear (in armour) vs. yari (in j-armour)? Sounds like fun.

[paulb]

Edwin,

I would consider that the competitions that I had with the 4th dan to provide a realistic analog of what it would have been like if both of us were fighting seriously, using all of the techniques available in Judo. Both of us had the same restrictions concerning technique, and both of us were reasonably well trained in them. I consider that this provides a reasonable test.

Also, while we did not include striking in our competitions, we were using all of the mat techniques, including chokes and arm bars.

I agree with the position that you really start learning when you get to the dan ranks, but that rank does suggest some competency. Actually, at that time, San Jose State was the top Judo school in the country, and I was participating as a varsity athlete, with training similar to a collegiate wrestler, not as a club member. I wasn't a professional, but I was participating at a much higher level than most club players. Again, I mention this to support my contention that it was a decent analog.

I have played against people as high as 6th dan, but they were much closer to my size, if not my strength. I used the example of the competitions with the 4th dan because of the size difference.

The point I was trying to make is that size, strength, speed, skill, perception, agility, and likely more personal characteristics must be considered when comparing two fighters. All of these characteristics contribute to the overall effectiveness of a fighter. To conduct a meaningful comparison, I think it is necessary to take them all into consideration. Many can be assumed to be equal, if you are comparing just skill versus size and strength, but I don't think it is realistic to weigh skill so heavily in the comparison.

Paulb

[AllenJ]

I wasnt going to jump into this pool again but I'll just mention there are a few articles that deal with this argument in probabaly the clearest and most unbiased view that I have seen:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm