Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I've met rugby players who broke other peoples' knees like dry firewood. But the heavily built armed and armoured man takes it off the heavily built unarmed and unarmoured man every time.

Historically a heavily armored guy is... actually kind of in danger.

It wasn't unusual for knights to just be tackled to the ground.

In that case, heavily built man with years of combat training takes it off the heavily built man with years of rugby training nearly every time.

Never underestimate just a berserk charge. Also Samurai weren't always that proficient

But this was "CAN" as in possible (Ignoring situations where it is possible but highly unlikely).

[Arx]

I've met rugby players who broke other peoples' knees like dry firewood. But the heavily built armed and armoured man takes it off the heavily built unarmed and unarmoured man every time.

Historically a heavily armored guy is... actually kind of in danger.

It wasn't unusual for knights to just be tackled to the ground.

Well, sure, that's actually the win condition in the ACL, but it's still a wrestling match in this case. And one of the men is a lot better equipped than the other to put on the hurt.

In that case, heavily built man with years of combat training takes it off the heavily built man with years of rugby training nearly every time.

Never underestimate just a berserk charge. Also Samurai weren't always that proficient

But this was "CAN" as in possible (Ignoring situations where it is possible but highly unlikely).

That's why I downgraded it to nearly every time, in that case. There's always scope for something weird to happen.

And I mean, if we're considering samurai that weren't particularly skilled can we consider rugby players that aren't particularly skilled? It gets super fuzzy super fast.

[Felissan]

I'm pretty sure a random rugbyman isn't that proficient at actually killing anyone with their bare hands. The physical build and ability to tackle are nice, but, you know... weapons.

[Neonivek]

Rugby player takes out a gun and kills the Samurai.

You are right... the weapons are one sided in the Rugby player's favor

[Wolfhunter107]

Rugby players don't typically carry guns.

[GiglameshDespair]

Rugby player takes out a gun and kills the Samurai.

You are right... the weapons are one sided in the Rugby player's favor

What kind of rubgy are you watching...?

[Neonivek]

Rugby players don't typically carry guns.

http://www.espn.com/espn/columns/story?id=2691043

No... they apparently do.

Rugby player takes out a gun and kills the Samurai.

You are right... the weapons are one sided in the Rugby player's favor

What kind of rubgy are you watching...?

North Irish.

[redwallzyl]

if its a later period samurai their armor could actually probably stop a normal pistol shot as it was made to stop arquebus shots.

[Rolan7]

I did some cursory refreshing and, of course, it's complicated.  For periods of time 10% of Japanese were apparently samurai.  It was a pretty broad caste.

To go full armchair, anyway...
Samurai are actually rather optimized towards putting down unarmored foes.  Except they're supposed to have their traditional armaments - and they were *VERY* traditional.  Taking down a peasant brawler is one thing with a katana or naginata, it's very different unarmed.
But then, they were relatively well-learned and devoted their lives to, literally, martial arts.
Judo apparently wasn't properly introduced until 1882, but the idea of defeating a more powerful fighter with unarmed guile is obviously much older.

But a rugby player would be *much* more powerful.  That martial 10% didn't live nearly as well as our 10%, much less our athletic tenth of a percent.  People who specialize in tackling people who specialize in not being tackled.  Even the average person today is larger and healthier, but then we concentrate so much science and resources into such a tiny group.

Seems all or almost all of the samurai were literate.  So are our rugby players, and so much more.  They might even have a "futuristic" mastery of martial arts, to go with their enhanced physical state.

I don't think it's a certain thing, but I'd bet on the rugby player.  I'd expect the samurai to be capable of beautiful focusing exercises (like tai chi), but reliant on their arms and armor in actual combat.

Except for one, chilling thing...
The samurai would not hesitate to kill, and the rugby player would probably find it abhorrent.

[Neonivek]

The samurai would not hesitate to kill

Given the sheer number of systems put in place to force samurai to kill others... I dunno.

Though... who said to the death?

I think a Rugby player tackling a samurai and breaking both his legs counts as a victory.

Though this whole conversation is weird given that there are soo many teachings about not underestimating your opponent...

And this isn't even "Would a Rugby player win in a fight with a Samurai" it was specifically "Can a Rugby player win a fight against a Samurai"

and devoted their lives to, literally, martial arts

Now that is an interesting subject! For both in the ways it is true and isn't true.

Though I guess that is a subject for another time.

[Criptfeind]

To give my random thoughts on this topic because... Idk, I wanted to.

Can do? Yes, many things are possible.

Would likely do with their stereotypical equipment and training? No, tackling someone as they kill you with a sword isn't a good strategy.

Both naked and only with access to stereotypical knowledge? I'd have to give it to the Samurai. The idea that a martial elite doesn't have at least some skill in unarmed combat is obviously not likely to be that true. And although it's true that humanity as a whole might be healthier/bigger/stronger then we were back then, the martial elite were still in good enough shape that his skill in combat would be the deciding bit. He's not going to be some frail unhealthy thing, even if the Rugby player is in better shape then him it's not going to be by "that much". Especially when optimizing for combat instead of Rugby.

I think in order to finagle a likely win for the Rugby player, you have to change the contest to the point where the operative descriptions of 'Rugby player' and 'Samurai' are no longer the most important ones. If you just say that the Rugby player has a gun, like someone has, well, sure, then he probably wins, but at that point Rugby player isn't the important part of the description, then it's "Dude with gun vs Samurai".

Edit: Of course, one could even go as so far to say that when one says "Samurai" one doesn't necessarily mean the martial elite, maybe what's being described is some sorta bureaucrat or something. But, once again, at least, from my perspective, that seems like it's changing the question. Since. At least to me, if someone says "Samurai" I know they are talking about the elite warrior class from Japan, even if that's not technically the only thing I could get from that question. Subjective, but personally I think most would agree with me.

[Neonivek]

So I have a question...

So I've noticed after analysis that MOST double standards... "Technically" apply both ways. In that what isn't acceptable for one group typically isn't acceptable for another and vise versa.

Yet what makes it a double standard is how often (or even at all) they are enforced.

For example Ambition is good for anyone! But only women typically are given a negative connotation for having it.

Is there a term for this? or is this actually what Double Standards just boil down into?

---

And I HATE to make this comparison...

But it is a lot like Jim Crowe laws. The letter of the law was separate but equal.

Yet we all know how "equal" it ended up being. In fact it was this inequality that was used to overturn it in court (IIRC)

[itisnotlogical]

What's the name of/where can I get access to that really natural-sounding posh British computer voice? Here's an example, sorry for the dank meme but I couldn't think of any other examples at the moment.

[Sheb]

When discussing sexual crimes in general one often hears the caveat that many are not reported so statistics are skewed, and lot of arguments about how best to correct for that skew. I wonder, is there any stats about the percentage of others categories of crimes that are reported/investigated/solved/results in a conviction?

[Frumple]

Yes? For most of them, really. There's chunks of most(/all) crime categories that go unreported/etc. Usually not hard to find, either. Most reports et al on the state of (a particular) criminal activity includes mention of the issue and how that particular whatever addresses it.

E: It's one of the major reasons most countries have those crime survey things on top of official statistics and whatnot. Good chunk of why those are done is in efforts to identify (the extent of) discrepancy between what's being reported et al and what the population is actually encountering. Not sufficient on their own so far as data gathering goes, but they definitely help.