Originally posted by Visage Is this LARPing shit? 😆From the very same website:
The term 'boffer' refers to a contact weapon (swords, spears, clubs, arrows, hammers, etc.) that is made from light weight materials and padded with foam to prevent injury. Here is a picture of some boffer weapons.
Back in the day, the most popular form of using two swords, was still using a rapier and a shorter sword (which would go in line with the Japanese technical understanding of using the Katana and Wakizashi).So, long sword, and short sword.
Using two rapiers that were the same length were rarely ever utilized in serious combat; never found their way onto any battlefields and were generally considered to be nothing more than a curiosity by most swordsmen.
Which means that unlike the sword/shortsword combo, the case of two long blades was nothing more than a curiosity.
And understandably so.
Also, Japanese Katana and Wakizashi you refer to. Was it utilized in real battle field or was it just a guy who invented style and opened a training school?
You have to understand just why dueling with a rapier and a side-sword or a dagger was so popular; because it was effective and practical.Dueling with two long blades leaves gaps in the all-important central-line exposed - and when you use a Wakizashi, or a parrying-dagger, or a shortsword - that gap can be covered and protected.
Not to mention it gives that great edge in interceptive-defense.
So using two 3-foot long blades at the same time, would get you killed against an experienced swordsman.
Using a lightsaber and Shoto however, could give you an edge.
I watched videos with this long+short style.
First, Katana/Shinai unlike rapier or rubber stick as I said is not sufficient for one-handed style, it's too heavy and that's why it requires second short weapon in order to be effective.
Second, practitioners hold both weapons at front of them. So yes, you are right, two long weapons, when using such posture, would create problem in central defense. But more suitable postures and tactics can be used.
I can hold one sword at the front, while another drawn behind ready to swing. The first sword would be used for both blocking and attacking, second - for attacking only, when opportunity arises. This way swords will not interfere. And no, it will not make my defense weak, one handed style with apropriate weapon such as rapier or rubber stick can be as effective as two-handed style. And lack of strength is compensated by much better maneuverability that comes from wrist manipulation and better movement freedom in general.
Although, one-handed defence can still be overpowered by strength in some cases, it is well compensated by extra offensive power of second weapon.
Moreover, why would I allow opponent to overwhelm my defence? I can choose to keep distance and suddenly attack (ala Kendo suicide attack) with both weapons simultaniously.
Or I can choose to strike at opponent's weapon to batt it away or simply keep busy, while simultaniously attack with second weapon.
These are only some of the possible tactics that take advantage of double attack.
Finally, as my second weapon is generally held behind me, I can use it to block attacks of second opponent from opposite side. While it would be nearly impossible to split concentration in such way, for Force user such feat is nothing extraordinary.
It looks neat, but would get you killed against someone who knows what he's doing. 😛
Originally posted by Arhael
Being made from light material makes it much more similar to lightsaber.
No, it doesn't. Being made from foam does not give it the characteristic of being "sharp all over". 😛
Originally posted by Arhael
Shinai or Katana are heavy, which reduces speed by a lot making it unsuitable for one handed grip in general.
Shinai are light.
The Bokken would be heavy.
And the majority of opening stances are practiced with one-handed cuts and swings.
The Katana is very suitable for a one-handed grip and is by no means a slow weapon to wield. 😛
Originally posted by Arhael
We are not discussing populariry here. More popular does not equate to more effective. Using one sword or sword + shield or many other weapons was far more popular than two swords. Doesn't mean it is more effective.
It's "popularity" and yes, being more popular at the time, does make it more effective.
On the battlefield, where your life was on the line, the sword and shield or sword and dagger combination was more popular than wielding two long blades - because the former combination would ensure your survival, whereas the latter would you get you killed.
They understood the dangers inherent in a system that was not practical and would lead to your death, hence they never used it on the battlefield.
It wasn't popular, because you would die from trying to use it. So in this case, yes, popular does equal more effective.
Originally posted by Arhael
Also, Japanese Katana and Wakizashi you refer to. Was it utilized in real battle field or was it just a guy who invented style and opened a training school?
It was a system that was always utilized in real battle. Feudal Japan was full of small skirmishes where a swordsman could be set upon almost any day by bandits, depending on where he was traveling.
The case of the Katana and Wakizashi is tried and true, as practitioners of Kenjustsu understood it could provide a heightened defense of the central line.
Originally posted by Arhael
Don't agree. You apply logic of specific style and assume that it would be the case for every style.
I watched videos with this long+short style.
First, Katana/Shinai unlike rapier or rubber stick as I said is not sufficient for one-handed style, it's too heavy and that's why it requires second short weapon in order to be effective.
Your writing is humorously contradictory. You're saying that the Katana is too heavy for one hand, and that's why you have to carry a second weapon in the off-hand? 😆
Oh, Arhael. 😛
You make it impossible for anyone to dislike you.
A Shinai is very easy to hold in one hand, in terms of it's weight.
A Katana is utilized and practiced with a multitude of one-handed cuts and maneuvers and isn't too heavy for that, either.
You should look into studying the style more, before giving erroneous opinions.
Originally posted by Arhael
Second, practitioners hold both weapons at front of them. So yes, you are right, two long weapons, when using such posture, would create problem in central defense. But more suitable postures and tactics can be used.
Yeah, like not using the second blade. 😛
Originally posted by Arhael
I can hold one sword at the front, while another drawn behind ready to swing. The first sword would be used for both blocking and attacking, second - for attacking only, when opportunity arises. This way swords will not interfere. And no, it will not make my defense weak, one handed style with apropriate weapon such as rapier or rubber stick can be as effective as two-handed style. And lack of strength is compensated by much better maneuverability that comes from wrist manipulation and better movement freedom in general.
Although, one-handed defence can still be overpowered by strength in some cases, it is well compensated by extra offensive power of second weapon.
Moreover, why would I allow opponent to overwhelm my defence? with both weapons simultaniously.
Or I can choose to strike at opponent's weapon to batt it away or simply keep busy, while simultaniously attack with second weapon.
These are only some of the possible tactics that take advantage of double attack.
Finally, as my second weapon is generally held behind me, I can use it to block attacks of second opponent from opposite side. While it would be nearly impossible to split concentration in such way, for Force user such feat is nothing extraordinary.
Ahrael, you don't know anything about Swordsmanship. 😆
Just go back to your school, or find one, and keep studying. 😆
Originally posted by Arhael
I can choose to keep distance and suddenly attack (ala Kendo suicide attack)
I think you actually might have raw talent at being a comedian, though. 😆
The Russian version of Robin Williams.
Originally posted by Arhael
Don't be so sure. That "someone" would be trained to defend against single weapon attacks, thus attaking him with both weapons at the same time would give me significant advantage.
Only if he doesn't cross one of your attacking-extended weapons into your next blade and deliver a cut to one or both of your hands/wrists, flaying them open. 😛
It doesn't matter if you know how to fight a single-blade opponent - if you wield two long blades against him - you're the one with the disadvantage. 😮💨
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
No not in my words. I was just pointing out that there is a link there. But in this case I'm happy to make an exception just to watch how you desperately try and crawl your way out of this massive hole you've dug for yourself.
Oh, the hole is dug for you, 😮💨
And you've tripped right into it.
In an ironic twist, you've made my "official" website irrelevant here.
Since we're going by your standards of Highest Canon this effectively makes the EU material on my official website non-involved in our debate.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Nope. Your official source was talking specifically about Dual Lightsabers. Full-Length ones
That EU material doesn't exist in the Highest Canon. 😮💨
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
So in my words: I concede.
Concession accepted. 😎
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Oh that's simple. It was only used 1 time by AOTC Anakin.
And the novel makes it clear
Novel? 😆
We're using Highest Canon here, 'Tard. That means the Movie. 😛
Now let's see how our prodigy swordsman did, with the added advantage of another saber - let's see how much of an advantage it gave him:
YouTube video
1:35-1:43
Two Lightsabers
Length Only 9 seconds.
Added Advantage None - Prodigy can only strike one at a time; never together and is driven back.
1:44-2:15
One Lightsaber
Length 32 Seconds
Added Advantage Greater offensive and defensive capability; length to smirmish; not driven back through fight.
In the Trilogies, the Jar'Kai user has no added advantage at all with two lightsabers.
With the long blades being too obstructive, the Prodigy cannot make the simple physical action of striking with both blades multiple times together.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Anakin gave Dooku the most trouble with his Dual Sabers.
That wasn't what I challenged you. 😛
I challenged you to show me what the Highest Canon says about the effectiveness and physical characteristics of Jar'Kai by a skilled swordsman and to prove one instance of such a swordsman using Jar'Kai to deliver strikes - multiple times together - and not one at a time.
And you failed miserably. 😆
General Grievous cannot display the standard physical characteristics of Jar'Kai - because he has a Cybernetic frame that has joints that bend allowing him to move and strike from angles not found naturally within the art of Jar'Kai.
Anakin is Non-cybernetic and furthermore has a body with equipped Jedi conditioning, and while being a Prodigy swordsman, cannot initiate the simple physical action of striking with both long blades multiple times together - and can only strike with the long obstructive blades one at a time.
Such a showing further demonstrates a non-existent advantage given by the two lightsabers.
😎
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
In fact Yoda is described as being even better than the Dual Blade Anakin.
Of course he would be, Moron. 😆
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Oh you've so been owned here.
No, Young Lady. It is you who have been owned. 😛
A hole was dug. And I simply waited for you to bring up your crowning importance within Star Wars; that being the Highest Canon, which in your vernacular symbolizes the epitome of Canon itself.
And within that Canon, two lightsabers being utilized give no advantage whatsoever, and in fact apparently give a disadvantage.
Hmm, two long obstructive blades, that can only be used to strike only one at a time by a Prodigy swordsman; wonder why? 😛
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
By your own official sources, and from the sources you requested.
And by your own standards, I have defeated you.
You created the bonds that would slip around you and tighten, sealing you to your fate.
The Highest Canon was the hole I was digging from the very beginning.
And all I had to do, was wait for you to blindly trip into it.
And now I have buried you. 😮💨
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
always remember DP ass.
But then again, that's what you are. 😛
I had my hand up your ass, from the very beginning - controlling you like a puppet. 😮💨
Now it's time for you to place your head on the floor, and your ass up in the air, so I can claim what's mine. 😎
I am your Daddy, and you have been defeated; your virginity belongs to me.
😆
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Oh and duh.. General Grievous. How could I forget him!
The question is, how could you forget that he has cybernetic joints that allow him to bend and strike from angles, impossible for standard Jar'Kai users.
And that I challenged you to show me what the Highest Canon says about the effectiveness and physical characteristics of Jar'Kai by a skilled swordsman, of which Grievous' own physicality is uniquely different from.
Which leaves only Anakin. 😉
And how could you forget this? Why, because you're a Retard of course. 😆
A spitting, stumbling, water-headed Retard. 😛
But at least you can be Mommy's baby forever because of that. 😛
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Whose only noted to produce an offence of a lethal 20 strikes per second with the use of 4 Sabers.
(He actually rarely ever uses less than 2, because he realizes not being a force user he better be attacking Jedi with as many Full Length Sabers as he can. I don't remember him using a Shoto 😮💨 ).And the ROTS Novel and Script both claim that even Kenobi- The Master of the most Defensive form, had a difficult time defending against all 4 of his Sabers.
So yeah:
Exceptional deduction! 😛
And his cybernetic joints that allow him to bend and strike from angles not found naturally within the art of Jar'Kai, meaning he is non-applicable.
Good job, Moron. 😆
My, your mother must love the fact that you never progressed beyond the cognitive strength of a 6-year old child.
It's like she has you as a little kid, forever. 😄
Originally posted by Visage
No, it doesn't. Being made from foam does not give it the characteristic of being "sharp all over".
Shinai are light.The Bokken would be heavy.
And the majority of opening stances are practiced with one-handed cuts and swings.
The Katana is very suitable for a one-handed grip and is by no means a slow weapon to wield.
It's "popularity" and yes, being more popular at the time, does make it more effective.On the battlefield, where your life was on the line, the sword and shield or sword and dagger combination was more popular than wielding two long blades - because the former combination would ensure your survival, whereas the latter would you get you killed.
They understood the dangers inherent in a system that was not practical and would lead to your death, hence they never used it on the battlefield.
It wasn't popular, because you would die from trying to use it. So in this case, yes, popular does equal more effective.
It was a system that was always utilized in real battle. Feudal Japan was full of small skirmishes where a swordsman could be set upon almost any day by bandits, depending on where he was traveling.The case of the Katana and Wakizashi is tried and true, as practitioners of Kenjustsu understood it could provide a heightened defense of the central line.
According to most traditional kenjutsu schools, only one sword of the daisho would have been used in combat. However, in the first half of the 17th century, the famous swordsman Musashi Miyamoto promoted the use of a one-handed grip, which allowed both swords to be used simultaneously. This technique, called nitōken, is a main element of the Niten Ichi-ryū style of swordsmanship that Musashi founded.[9]
A single guy founded and promoted style. That's hardly sounds like "popular" style.
Your writing is humorously contradictory. You're saying that the Katana is too heavy for one hand, and that's why you have to carry a second weapon in the off-hand? 😆Oh, Arhael. 😛
You make it impossible for anyone to dislike you.
A Shinai is very easy to hold in one hand, in terms of it's weight.
A Katana is utilized and practiced with a multitude of one-handed cuts and maneuvers and isn't too heavy for that, either.
You should look into studying the style more, before giving erroneous opinions.
Irrelevant that it is easy to hold Shinai in one hand. Control and speed it offers is nowhere as good as rapier's.
Indeed, Katana includes a few one handed strikes. But you still lack control, if you don't use second hand.
You should train at least in one style to have at least some idea of what you are talking about. Two-sword style is effective and popular, although, weapons in most cases are shorter than usual.
Ahrael, you don't know anything about Swordsmanship. 😆Just go back to your school, or find one, and keep studying. 😆
I think you actually might have raw talent at being a comedian, though. 😆
The Russian version of Robin Williams.
Only if he doesn't cross one of your attacking-extended weapons into your next blade and deliver a cut to one or both of your hands/wrists, flaying them open. 😛It doesn't matter if you know how to fight a single-blade opponent - if you wield two long blades against him - you're the one with the disadvantage. 😮💨
It doesn't matter, if he knows how to fight against opponent with two weapons. I can win him with one weapon in one hand, second weapon is just a bonus. 💃
Originally posted by Vensai
Yeah, so if this is sabers only, the brothers barely win. Sidious is powerful but I am not sure he can separate them long enough without the force. Maul himself was briefly pushing back Sidious at the end. Sidious with force rapes.
Agree, what you described is common sense. But few people would appropriate it here.
Originally posted by VensaiCan't agree.
Yeah, so if this is sabers only, the brothers barely win. Sidious is powerful but I am not sure he can separate them long enough without the force. Maul himself was briefly pushing back Sidious at the end.
Maul was able to *marginally* push back Palpatine after he unlocked 'super rage mode' in the wake of his brother's death, and Palpatine's taunting(similar to the rage-boost Obi-Wan momentarily gained when he saw Maul kill Qui-Gon.) However, even with the added rage Maul never once gained any sort of clear advantage in their one-on-one saber fight, imo--- as once Palps gathered himself he easily pushed Maul back and down to his knees, before proceeding to tool him for a final time with the force... And before that the Brothers looked even worse still-- there was not a single instance in which their saber skills appeared to remotely rival those of Palps. Hell, Savage was so inept that at one point Palps was effortlessly side-stepping some of his strikes without even activating his saber. Lulz.
At any rate, lets not act as though Palpatine needed to use the force to win. No happenings in that battle were indicative of such. Imo utilization of the force was simply a faster/simpler means to the same end. Nothing more.
Originally posted by Galan007
Can't agree.Maul was able to *marginally* push back Palpatine after he unlocked 'super rage mode' in the wake of his brother's death, and Palpatine's taunting(similar to the rage-boost Obi-Wan momentarily gained when he saw Maul kill Qui-Gon.) However, even with the added rage Maul never once gained any sort of clear advantage in their one-on-one saber fight, imo--- as once Palps gathered himself he easily pushed Maul back and down to his knees, before proceeding to tool him for a final time with the force... And before that the Brothers looked even worse still-- there was not a single instance in which their saber skills appeared to remotely rival those of Palps. Hell, Savage was so inept that at one point Palps was effortlessly side-stepping some of his strikes without even activating his saber. Lulz.
At any rate, lets not act as though Palpatine needed to use the force to win. No happenings in that battle were indicative of such. Imo utilization of the force was simply a faster/simpler means to the same end. Nothing more.
Well, I don't want to get into the whole "Sidious wasn't actually trying" argument but was Sidious actually stomping the brothers together in sabers? Enraged Maul did manage to kick Sidious back, which is a temporary advantage. I agree though that Sidious was messing around with Opress by himself. Without Maul's assistance he got owned.
Originally posted by Galan007Maul was able to *marginally* push back Palpatine after he unlocked 'super rage mode' in the wake of his brother's death, and Palpatine's taunting(similar to the rage-boost Obi-Wan momentarily gained when he saw Maul kill Qui-Gon.)
Although I mostly agree I'm inclined to point out a couple of differences in the 2 examples. Obi-Wan's a lightsider. For him to embrace his rage is a one-off. Maul has spent his life embracing his rage and not letting things go.
The whole reason TCW Maul is more powerful than TPM Maul is the build up of his rage over the years at the events of TPM. Whose to say the anger at seeing Opress slain won't also stay with him?
The other difference is that Maul actually did hold his own the against Sidious the whole Saber fight. He wasn't easily floored the way Opress was or the way TPM Kenobi was against Maul (before the rage boost).
Originally posted by Galan007
However, even with the added rage Maul never once gained any sort of clear advantage in their one-on-one saber fight, imo--- as once Palps gathered himself he easily pushed Maul back and down to his knees, before proceeding to tool him for a final time with the force...
He was still stronger which is why he overpowered him in the Saber lock (which actually began with Sidious on his knees btw). But they were even in skill and speed. And the fact that Sidious wasted no time to force stomp him as soon as he was disarmed shows Sidious didn't want to chance him getting up and grabbing a lightsaber again Imo.
Originally posted by Galan007
Hell, Savage was so inept that at one point Palps was effortlessly side-stepping some of his strikes without even activating his saber. Lulz.
I mean Dooku's treated Savage in the same way. But clearly Savage was some kind of threat to him (with the aid of Ventress).
Kenobi has given Ventress the same treatment in TCW movie. Does that mean she's a joke to him. Ventress eveaded Opress blows after being disarmed by him. But she was actually losing the fight.
And most recently an unarmed Ventress evaded Skywalker.
Originally posted by Galan007
At any rate, lets not act as though Palpatine needed to use the force to win. No happenings in that battle were indicative of such. Imo utilization of the force was simply a faster/simpler means to the same end. Nothing more.
It's speculation tbh. The Lightsaber battle was a good one. I'm not saying Palpatine couldn't have won it. He obviously could of. But I'd say the Brothers also would have had a chance in a pure Saber duel. And their chances would likely increase if you limit Sidious to 1 Saber only.
But the fact is Palpatine did resort to using the Force to seperate them so it's all speculative.
Originally posted by VensaiIf Palpatine went into this battle not messing around initially, he is obviously capable of slaying Savage within the first few seconds of the battle-- leaving only Palpatine and Maul to battle individually... And in their one-on-one skirmish, Maul showed absolutely nothing indicative of being able to beat Palpatine in sabers, imo.
Well, I don't want to get into the whole "Sidious wasn't actually trying" argument but was Sidious actually stomping the brothers together in sabers? Enraged Maul did manage to kick Sidious back, which is a temporary advantage. I agree though that Sidious was messing around with Opress by himself. Without Maul's assistance he got owned.
This 'saber lock' people continuously reference as though it put Maul on par with Palps, should really be reevaluated by those same people. Palpatine starts out on his knees with Maul standing above him. Palps proceeds to stand back up to his feet(despite having a leverage DISadvantage), and easily pushes Maul a few feet backward and and down to his knees with a single back-hand-slash from his sabers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jt-V_WQW3w
(starts at 4:20.)
Clearly Palps was the stronger duelist. Even if you want to argue that their skill-level was the same(which is a drastic overestimation, imo) Palps was still the stronger duelist. If two combatants are utilizing the same form of combat, and their skill-level with that form is equal, then the stronger of the two duelists is going to win every time. Only a berserker fanboy would argue otherwise.
Originally posted by Galan007👆
Can't agree.Maul was able to *marginally* push back Palpatine after he unlocked 'super rage mode' in the wake of his brother's death, and Palpatine's taunting(similar to the rage-boost Obi-Wan momentarily gained when he saw Maul kill Qui-Gon.) However, even with the added rage Maul never once gained any sort of clear advantage in their one-on-one saber fight, imo--- as once Palps gathered himself he easily pushed Maul back and down to his knees, before proceeding to tool him for a final time with the force... And before that the Brothers looked even worse still-- there was not a single instance in which their saber skills appeared to remotely rival those of Palps. Hell, Savage was so inept that at one point Palps was effortlessly side-stepping some of his strikes without even activating his saber. Lulz.
At any rate, lets not act as though Palpatine needed to use the force to win. No happenings in that battle were indicative of such. Imo utilization of the force was simply a faster/simpler means to the same end. Nothing more.
I don't know why more is made out of this fight than need be... Sids didn't even need ONE saber to beat these two. It was a non fight. Doesn't mean maul or opress aren't powerful or a force together or alone.. it's just that Sids is THAT good and one of the best ever in the mythos. Nor harm there, but let's stop making this out to be more than it is.
Originally posted by Galan007
If Palpatine went into this battle not messing around initially, he is obviously capable of slaying Savage within the first few seconds of the battle-- leaving only Palpatine and Maul to battle individually... And in their one-on-one skirmish, Maul showed absolutely nothing indicative of being able to beat Palpatine in sabers, imo.This 'saber lock' people continuously reference as though it put Maul on par with Palps, should really be reevaluated by those same people. Palpatine starts out on his knees with Maul standing above him. Palps proceeds to stand back up to his feet(despite having a leverage DISadvantage), and easily pushes Maul a few feet backward and and down to his knees with a single back-hand-slash from his sabers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jt-V_WQW3w
(starts at 4:20.)Clearly Palps was the stronger duelist. Even if you want to argue that their skill-level was the same(which is a drastic overestimation, imo) Palps was still the stronger duelist. If two combatants are utilizing the same form of combat, and their skill-level with that form is equal, then the stronger of the two duelists is going to win every time. Only a berserker fanboy would argue otherwise.
Not to mention Palpatine wasn't trying to kill Maul. And when only aiming to disarm, one tends limit himself greatly.
Originally posted by Galan007
If Palpatine went into this battle not messing around initially, he is obviously capable of slaying Savage within the first few seconds of the battle-- leaving only Palpatine and Maul to battle individually... And in their one-on-one skirmish, Maul showed absolutely nothing indicative of being able to beat Palpatine in sabers, imo.This 'saber lock' people continuously reference as though it put Maul on par with Palps, should really be reevaluated by those same people. Palpatine starts out on his knees with Maul standing above him. Palps proceeds to stand back up to his feet(despite having a leverage DISadvantage), and easily pushes Maul a few feet backward and and down to his knees with a single back-hand-slash from his sabers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jt-V_WQW3w
(starts at 4:20.)Clearly Palps was the stronger duelist. Even if you want to argue that their skill-level was the same(which is a drastic overestimation, imo) Palps was still the stronger duelist. If two combatants are utilizing the same form of combat, and their skill-level with that form is equal, then the stronger of the two duelists is going to win every time. Only a berserker fanboy would argue otherwise.
No one's argued Sidious wasn't stronger or that Maul could have won.
And you don't think they showed equal skill in that last fight?
Originally posted by Galan007
That is true. Palpatine outright stated that he didn't want to kill Maul. 👆
He never said he simply didn't "want" to. Or that "he never planned" on killing him. Maul was never a part of his plans, and if he's going to make use of a defeated Maul then it's just a situation he's taking advantage of.
That was Maul who said that to Kenobi. Not that it matters. Arhael's made a thourough and convincing argument that as long as your willing to take out limbs your performance will not be effected too much in a sword fight.