sansoouser Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 ok then warp you have no authority anymore, since you said you don't care what the US says so why would we even waste our time telling you the TRUTH because some people are still in a box, with no air holes... The amateur shoots his hands out ferociously, but lacks any true power. A master is not so flamboyant, but his touch is as heavy as a mountain.
Treebranch Posted August 4, 2003 Author Posted August 4, 2003 If you had a Samurai fight a Kali Warrior the samurai would chop him in half. Using the stick to block a knife or a small sword might work with the kind of swords they used but a Katana would cut right through that stick and keep going. From my understanding the Kali Warriors small sword was made for slicing and the idea was to widdle away at the opponent until the distance could be closed for the kill. The samurai would wait for the distance to be right and would strike, one strike one kill. The samurai also fought in close and were expert grapplers with or without their weapons. When I said Samurai I didn't mean the one in the movies walking around town with their Hakama on. I meant a fully battlefield ready Samurai, the kind that fought in battles, not one that bought his status. Samurai carried a Yari and a katana and a small sword with them in battle. They could use any weapon they could find. The Samurai were not taken over by some outside force, it was their own people. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
sansoouser Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 yes, the samurai swords can basically cut anything with ease. My sensei bought one and he is also trained in samurai sword arts and showed us how easily he cut through a big stack of wood. They wore armor to, and carried a bow. So he could get a few arrows in the kali warrior before chopping off his head. The amateur shoots his hands out ferociously, but lacks any true power. A master is not so flamboyant, but his touch is as heavy as a mountain.
Warp Spider Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 ok then warp you have no authority anymore, since you said you don't care what the US says so why would we even waste our time telling you the TRUTH because some people are still in a box, with no air holes... I hope you realize the irony of that. Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!
sansoouser Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 i'll drill a few air holes for you, pal. Don't worry. The amateur shoots his hands out ferociously, but lacks any true power. A master is not so flamboyant, but his touch is as heavy as a mountain.
JerryLove Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 Which era? Feudal japan? The post-feudal Imperial era? Under the Shogunate when Zen started creeping in? Japanese or Okinawan? Which Ryu? Same question to the Phillipino warrior. Which tribe? Which style? Pre or post colinization? What weapons? Under what field conditions? Starting at what range? Are they tring to live or just kill their opponent? Who'se bigger? Who'se trained for longer? Who'se faster? Anyone in an odd state (the Kali guy currently Amok?) Anyone in armor? Anyone tied off for the fight? Does anyone else ralize this is a stupid question as phrased? https://www.clearsilat.com
aznkarateboi Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 At any range, the samurai would win. Long range, the Kali warrior would be dead before they knew what hit them. Katana have longer range than sticks and are bladed weapons, therefore superior. The samurai would also win in medium range. Being expert grapplers with weapons, they would win in close range.
JerryLove Posted August 4, 2003 Posted August 4, 2003 And my handgun has a better range than your Katana... I don't know what modern samurai carry, but modern Phillipino warriors generally have assault rifles. Again, the fallacy of the basic question is eqposed; "samurai are supermen" lunacy not-withstanding. Here's one for you. A few score boatloads of 1850s Portuguese against a nation full of Samuari of the same period. Or some boatloads of Spanish soldiers and an arcipeligo of Kali warriors? Here's a hint; both Asian countries lost. https://www.clearsilat.com
Treebranch Posted August 4, 2003 Author Posted August 4, 2003 JerryLove a Warring States Period Samurai Pre-1800's. O.K. Now that we have that settled the Kali Warrior can be from the same era. Also no guns in this one. You can give a gun to anyone warrior or not and they can kill effectively, so lets exclude guns from this equation. They traded stuff with them they never fought in a battle to my knowledge. Spain had entertained the idea of invading and were advise not to, so they scrapped that idea. In WWII the Japanese completely conquered the Phillipines and only because of US forces fought were the Japanese pushed back. The Samurai weren't invincible, but they were fierce and skilled warriors. "It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience.""Lock em out or Knock em out"
JerryLove Posted August 5, 2003 Posted August 5, 2003 OK, Samurai focuses too much on pre-combat protocol and is killed from the trees by a ranged weapon. Spain owned the Phillipines as a colony, just as the Dutch owned Indonesia, and the French IndoChina, and the British parts of China and India. The Japanese in WWII used firearms. And to say that "any warrior can kill effectively with a gun" is about as useful as "any warrior can kill effectively with a sword". If you had said "1940", my money would have been on the Samurai who would have shot the Kali warrior with a superior ranges weapon (the rifle). https://www.clearsilat.com
Recommended Posts