Self Defense/Mastery of Weapons VS No Skill or Basic Training using far superior weapon
First I'd like to point out I'd NEVER Posted on AllExpert before.
So even though you responded you can only answer one or two questions per asker, this is the first time I ever sent a question to you through the AllExpert site. In fact it wasn't even a followup (if reading other questions answered gives me the impression) but a completley original quesiton.
Because I'm going to ask a few people in some HEMA and martial arts sites about this, I made a post on Tumblr. Feel free to read the link if you already forgot the details.
As I mentioned its a common trend to teach the usage of weapons in a computer role playing game system. As in people literally believe that if they are equal to 100 Points in a Nunchaku (Master level), they'll easily wipe out someone trained with a katana whose only level 20 (beginner).
In fact it does help the TV news is helping impose that D and D style impression when i comes to weapons.
However you mentiont he reality is the opposite (I already wrote it in the link).
So I am really confused about the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" elements of weaponry.
As I mentioned I am not another poster asking more questions related to previous ones you answered. This is the first time I ever sent an email. Just clarifying because you mistaken me for one in your response.
Here's a problem, I get a whole bunch of really similar, complex questions from Virgina. Same tone, same complex questions, same movie/game references, same 'go here and watch'. In other words the writing style and the questions bear an uncanny resemblance.
Nick Drossos comment about people's favorite technique is accurate enough with qualifiers. It's called 'trying to force a technique' and it's a well known term. Some of the qualifiers are the person only knows how to do one technique one way and he tries to make it a one-size-fits-all move. This is often a screwed up result from someone learning from someone who insists that there is only ONE way to do a move -- and that all variations are 'wrong.'
No, variations are common because of different body types and different tweaks allow for the same move to work in a wider variety of conditions. Like you have to adjust what you're doing if the guy's blow is coming in six inches lower or higher. "Art purists" reject this idea and squabble that there is only one way to do that is right. These people don't actually physically fight much, but they waste a lot of time and internet bandwidth squabbling over why they're right.
It's easy to be convinced you're right if you never have to bleed over being wrong. If however, you will bleed you tend to be more focused on finding out how to be effective.
See a perfectly executed 'wrong move for the circumstances' will still get you killed. Just as will the right technique for the circumstances if it's executed poorly or was taught with 'parts missing.' While we're at it, it's not about who has the better weapon. It's who is better with his weapon -- and knows when/how/ways to work around strengths of the other person's weapon and the limits of his weapon.
So nose to nose, master to master, yeah sword vs. chucks, bet on the swordsman.
Incompetent swordsman facing a chucks master, you can bet on the chucks guy safely.
Not so hot swordsman facing an equally metza-metza chucks guy, odds are with the swordsman because of the longer reach and cutting aspect of the sword
Good chuck guy sneaking up behind and bushwhacking a swordmaster? Yeah, it's the blindside that works.
Good chuck guy sneaking up on a swordmaster and the master seeing the swing? Anybody's guess.
So the weapon is a factor (impact/short range/chucks vs. cutting/longer reach/sword).
Skill level is a factor.
Circumstances are a factor (face to face or an ambush)
There's no simple answer. There is only 'doing the math.'