From: josephk@ocf.berkeley.edu (Joseph Kuo)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Armor vs. Martial artists (was Re: GURPS: Armor / Martial-Arts / Guts / Glory)
Date: 15 Nov 1992 21:13:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <davis.721688483@cwis> davis@cwis.unomaha.edu (James J Davis) writes:
>tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:
>
>About the martial artist vs the armored knight:
>
>First, it's not as if the scenario had not ever been played out.  The
>Okinawans studied martial arts due to the presence of aggressive Samurai,
>who would wield nasty weapons, wear armor and (sometimes) ride horses.

The okinawans studied martial arts because knives were banned.  Unarmed
combat is pretty much without question the least effective of all known
weapons.
>And, they found that knowing martial arts help immensly if you *had* to
>fight an angered samurai (and it didn't take much to anger them).  No,

Knowing how to fight _always_ helps in a fight.  Against someone who is less
skilled than you, it sometimes even lets you win against a disadvantage :)

If you really had to take on someone with a sword, and you weren't fighting
in a closet, weapons are strongly advised; most martial arts teach the
staff (Note: GURPS gives staff parry at 2/3, which is about right; staff is
one of the bestdefensive weapons there is).

>>Hmm, I disagree on the offensive capabilities bit.  If the armor is
>>flexible, then joint locks and other dislocating/tearing attacks would
>>work.  I'd imagine that most games allow armor to affect vs. falling
>>damage, but a trip would still be a trip, and a throw would still be
>>a throw.  Lastly, armor is not perfect (we're assuming medieval armor
>>here, right?  Not Stormtrooper armor) so there are still gussetts and
>>joints to hit.
>
>I agree here.  The armor, while stopping striking, is ineffective vs
>many other martial arts manuevers.  Why?  These manuevers were made to
>fight those in armor.  I'd like to remind the 'pro-knight' contenders
>that it's not like this hypothetical fight never happened. 

Remember a general rule: medieval warriors were not uniformly stupid.
If they continued to use swords after martial arts were invented (which
they did) and they continued to wear armor, etc, its because it _worked_.

If I was
>confronted with an armored, sword swinging wierdo, I'd be looking to
>my Judo: throws, locks and hold downs.  A throw is pretty nice against
>an armored opponent, becuase his armor doesn't help him at all, in 
>fact it slows him to the point as to make him less effective close in.

This is actually false, plausible as it sounds....have you ever, say, slammed
someone wearing body armor?  It feels like hitting a wall.  This may seem odd
but armor _does_ protect from most judo-style manuevers, for a simple reason.
A 'throw' isn't a throw---people aren't that strong.  A throw relies
heavily on the reflexes of the victim, which react in fairly predictable
manners to impact.  And armor, by negating the impact, makes many trips
and throws virtually useless.  Likewise, joint locks rely on fairly
specific ways of grabbing the target, and those grips are rather hard
to achieve.  Lastly, medieval armorers were perfectly aware that joints
were a weak spot...in many cases, the armor was designed so it would
disallow more than a certain range of motion, and given that armor is
generally far stronger than muscle, that pretty much negates joint
locks.

Also, wrestling was hardly an unknown skill in the west :).  If we're
talking about people of moderately comparable skill, the knight probably
knows a significant amount about infighting, and probably knows quite
a bit more about infighting where armor is involved.

All of this ignores the real problem with martial arts vs a sword, tho:
that problem is the martial parry.  In the real world, for practical 
purposes the only way to block a sword in unarmed combat is by going inside
and blocking the hand, and if you're close enough to do that your problem
is solved anyway.  The hard part is getting from six feet (reach of a 
broadsword is slightly over 5 feet) to about three and a half feet (about
how far you would need to be to attempt a block) without taking a hit.
If your opponent has a reasonably quick weapon its _easy_ to hit you in
the time it takes to move that far.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc