I’m not a expert but for me the clear difference is, duel fight is soloplay and formation fight is teamplay.
1 Like
ah no i meant the person using the sword against the harness would get messed up pretty badly
i would expect the sword to have a bit of edge damage but apart from that i would be surprised to see any irreparable damage to the sword itself
well actually in a duel the stronger person would be more likely to be nimble (assuming both were in similar types of armor)
for obvious reasons
we ARE talking about 2 people of equal skill but different strength right
youre now assuming that we have an unskilled strong person and a weak skilled person
i assume that the person being same skill AND stronger would have a huge advantage
and remember strong doesent simply mean hits harder, it also means more stamina, probably agility (depending on body type) and the aditional option of brute forcing as well as being able to control the weapon better
this comes into play especially when feinting and simply being able to move and accelerate the weapon in a smaller distance
and all this talk about feeling what the opponent can do can also be done by the stronger person
he can also reduce his strength output if need be or increase it to a far larger range than the weaker person can
to an extent although the smaller the scale the more important soloplay gets
10000 men on each side, obviously teamplay is important but still a degree of skill is needed
stamin (strength) is also needed to persist since combat with the body heat of 20000 bodies it would be very hot and tiring
the skill would be to attack without over exposing, this is another place where strength comes in where a weaker person may not be able to to retreat so easily a person with enough arm strength would be able to move his arm and body back faster
No. With equally skilled fighters, the techniques are selected and work according to the pressure in the bind. If he is stronger in the bind (combination of strength, pressure, bind angles and position) then I will wind, pull, displace by setting off or allow him to drive my cut around to the opposite side. If he is weaker (same four factors) then I can thrust, cut through, displace by pressing down etc.
Both types of technique can work, and there is no automatic benefit from being the stronger fighter. Both of you permanently have two tasks - defending yourself from being struck and attacking your opponent, and being stronger isn’t important if you can’t reliably use it because it makes you open to opposite side attacks. There are specific devices aimed at the buffel - the duplieren (doppler) being one… they work because of the opponent’s strength.
yes thats what YOU would do, how do you know how he will react
you are still assuming he is less skilled than you
the benifit for being stronger is a combination of stamina, control, and being able to move the weapon faster (he would probably be using a weapon just as light and nimble as yours) AS WELL AS being able to overpower you IF NEED BE
i cant figure out how to bold so just think of the capitals as bolded words
The counter to someone being stronger in the bind, is to let him be strong. Not to try to play his game but to strike around.
The stronger he comes in, the easier it is to recognise and to work to the other side.
The counter to someone being weak or absent in the bind is to cover yourself and to attack down the centre…but if you are too strong in the bind his weakness will take you offline, and delay your attack… it may even delay your ability to cover to a fatal extent.
I am coming at this discussion from the perspective of someone training to deal with stronger and heavier opponents, but it isn’t solely used that way… I also have to be careful if bound with my strong against his weak because he can also absent himself to create an opening.
It is far more technical than strength based, and there are many plays that work from the bind as a fulcrum to strike in non-straightforward ways, with both ends of the weapon, or to control/disarm or unbalance the opponent.
He may have 2 or three additional plays in his repertoire that may be workable and a modest advantage in a few others, but there are 19 different basic cuts that each person can use to each of the four openings, plus variations that spring from footwork and windings, so the importance of pure strength without also additional skill is minimal - especially since there are definite disadvantages to applying strength at the wrong moments.
As with Judo, it isn’t always the bigger and stronger fighter who wins…
dude i keep saying im not talking about strength being a dude who comes in strong im talking about a dude who is physically stronger than you
i repeat he is not coming in strong he is simply stronger than you
he will be able to react to you and you will be able to react to him THE ONLY DIFFERENCE HERE IS STRENGTH
there in no guarantee he will come in strong
a good fighter typically sizes up his opponent
taking you as an example, he is AS SKILLED AS YOU
you know how to counter someone bigger than you HE KNOWS HOW TO COUNTER SOMEONE BIGGER THAN HIM AND HE KNOWS HOW HE WOULD COUNTER IT
he might not be bigger than you but he IS stronger
he can do all the same things as you can and HAS MORE CONTROL DUE TO HIS STRENGTH
he also HAS MORE STAMINA
you are thinking of a meathead not a skilled fighter
once again caps can be switched out for bold still cant figure out how to bold
I am still not assuming difference in skill level. However an equal skill doesn’t require or imply the same skills. Two fighters with different characteristics but of equal skill will learn different palettes of skills to use to suit their strengths and to minimise their more obvious weaknesses.
Knowing that I am almost always a smaller fighter, I will have a palette of skills which favour a different style of defence and attack than if I were training against equal sized or smaller opponents for the most part.
In that respect both the largest and smallest fighters may have a slight advantage in more focussed training, at the benefit of simpler tactical decision making and the expense of fewer tactical options that are realistic in some circumstances.
Does it? However, I get your point 
youre still looking at it thinking that you can counter him while he cant counter you
2 arguments to this
a big person will know how to fight against someone (smaller) who knows how to fight against him
if its this option where he is bigger AND stronger than you reach, strength, stamina, control, and acceleration is on his side
and if we go back to the point i tried to suggest then he is of equal size or only slightly larger than you (to the point where it really dosent play any noticeable difference) then he knows all the same things you do (as you said) and is stronger, has more stamina, control and acceleration
The point that we’re trying to make — AS PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY STUDY AND TRAIN — is that it’s irrelevant. Whatever advantage strength conveys is so inconsequential as to be virtually meaningless.
and youre ignoring the fact that i am not only talking about a person who simply hits harder but i am talking about a person who also has the same amount of training as you BUT has better control (point control, more possible actions, and being able to accelerate his weapon with a smaller area than his opponent) as well as having more stamina.
STRENGTH DOES NOT ONLY MEAN HE CAN HIT HARDER
It’s clear you have no intent on actually listening to anything anyone else says — ESPECIALLY those who actually study this stuff and have actual, practical, real-world, hands-on experience — so as far as I’m concerned this debate is over.
3 Likes
There were little to no female warriors throughout history. You can bring up as many names as you want (Joanna of Flanders…I swear to God if I hear this bitch’s name one more time) but the fact still stands that female warriors were irrelevent. Females were trained to take care of the household and the children, while men were trained in some other vocation such as farming or smithing. If you want to see a bunch of strong, independent women kicking mens’ asses then go back to playing Skyrim with all their dragons and magic and whatnot. If you want historical accuracy, however, you must be mature enough to accept the fact that men and women are different both physically and mentally (for the most part) and that there were probably no female warriors around at this time.
If I were the developer, however, I’d add a single female in one of the battles just to make you fuckers happy.
I think you feminists are watching too much Game of Thrones.
7 Likes
jeez thanks i was gonna say the exact same thing
I think you feminists are watching too much Game of Thrones.
I have to agree with that statement.
1 Like
I dont say that I have the knowledge, but is this shildmaiden thing only a myth? It maybe can be when i hear your statement. And once again Im not informed well enough to argue in this topic, just asking…
IIRC there is historical evidence for the existence of shieldmaidens.