Sara isn't that cool

Why do people think she was able to basically destroy Mugen because she was just amazing and that's the only reason. Her weapon was far superior to his in every way possible. Polearms/spears >>> swords

There's a reason why swords are classified as second hand weapons.

>Polearms/spears >>> swords
That is, unless the swordsman manages to close the distance.
Also, and unrelated to the anime, armor makes the reach advantage largely pointless.

No even if they close the distance you can hold a spear closer to your body and it's still even and that's much easier said than done. A spear is always better unless you're trapped in a fucking box. The only reason to carry a sword is because it's convenient to travel with but if you ever were to run into somebody who was willing to haul a spear around you're pretty much fucked.

>No even if they close the distance you can hold a spear closer to your body and it's still even
Not quite. The spear is much heavier than a sword and less capable of delivering harm after being deflected.
Yes, the spear is still useful at a sword's range, but the sword's got the edge.

You're not going to be able to deflect a spear with a sword because you have a tiny space to grab the sword while a spear user has almost max control of his weapon and has a huge area to grip and his weapon is heavier and way more balanced and nimble so he's almost always going to deflect you. The only way you're going to win is if you actively dodge him like a ninja all the way up until you're on him and manage to cut or stab him which is much easier said than done.

>You're not going to be able to deflect a spear
Don't make up nonsense. Just look at a few sword vs spear duels on youtube. Those end up with higher scores for the spearmen, but the fact that the sword fighters are getting points should prove to you that there is no surefire way for the spearmen to win.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
A deflection does not require super-strength. It just means you bring the point off-line. At distance that's rather difficult for a swordsman to do because the length of the spear means that the spear can attack high and low very quickly while the sword has to move the entire distance to protect against that. But that's a timing problem, not a strength issue.
>you have a tiny space to grab the sword
Look up halfswording you dumbass. Not that there would be any point for it in an unarmored spear vs sword fight.

>Look up halfswording
I'm talking about a katana in particular.

Why are you getting mad?

Also the swordsman are only getting points here and there because they're doing things that would get them killed in real life just to touch the other guy with the sword which in real life wouldn't amount to much because something that crazy would be suicide. 99% of the time they'd get stabbed in the face as soon as they made it in range especially with no shield.

>A deflection does not require super-strength

When did I say that? I said a spear is heavier and on top of that more balanced compared to a sword which in comparison is a clunky weapon so you're going to deflect the sword user almost always. You're making things up to defend swords.

>I'm talking about a katana in particular.
You could still hold it with a hand on the blade if you wanted.
>Why are you getting mad?
Because you are so ignorant and yet so self-certain.
>I said a spear is heavier
True. But again, all you need to do is get the point some 5 to 10 cm off-line, while possibly moving your own body in the opposite direction. That's completely doable.
>more balanced
Bollocks.
>You're making things up to defend swords.
No, I am not. You just really have no idea what you are talking about.
>you're going to deflect the sword
Yes, and the thing about that is that when you've deflected a sword thrust, the sword is still in an excellent position to hurt you. Because swords (and especially katana) primarily cut.

Well obviously I have no clue because I guess spear users just get luck 98% of the time when they fight sword users. None of what I said is true.

>None of what I said is true.
Finally you're making sense.

Yea the entire Japanese government was stupid for not using swords as their primary weapon. It's too bad you weren't alive back then to tell them that swords were just as good at half the weight.

Why are there almost no manga with tonfas?

If you weren't so stupid you'd notice that what you think is an argument is actually a strawman. I don't know where you got that, because I never claimed the sword is a better weapon than the spear in general. Maybe you should take a break and calm down.

I literally said in the op that a spear is a better weapon and it's far superior. I never said it controlled fate and would win 100% of the time. That was just you defending your waifu aka swords.

>I literally said in the op that a spear is a better weapon
And I only limited that statement by pointing out that it's not true under all circumstances.
The spear usually beats the sword, but if the swordsman manages to close in, he's at an advantage.

All I remember is a couple of secondary characters that use them from Reborn, Black Cat and Kenshin. It really is an underrated weapon.

No he's not. That just makes it even at best because the spear guy still has way more control of his weapon which happens to weigh more than the sword which is a huge advantage and saying you can just close in is like saying you could fight like Tyson is you just dodge his punches. Yea you're technically right but good luck.

Yeah. Its basically arm armor you can use to punch people with. Only downside is no grabbing unlike when uaing gauntlets.

>that one spear vs. katana fight in one of Baccano's light novels
The way that samurai chick won that one was high-grade bullshit. It was still sick as fuck.

if*

>more control of his weapon
That doesn't help you much when the weapon is too long and too heavy to keep up.
>which is a huge advantage
Not really.
>saying you can just close in
Did I ever say that. When I say the spear has an advantage, where do you think that advantage comes to play? It's at range!

Again, you are attacking arguments that nobody made in order to defend a really uninformed and stupid opinion.

>Sword gets blocked
>slide sword and slice off spearfags fingers
Check

>That doesn't help you much when the weapon is too long and too heavy to keep up.
I didn't want to go here because I know you're a sword fanboy but a sword is a clunky piece of shit compared to a spear. Yea the spear is a little bit heavier but it's also way easier to control and faster and would not only keep up in close quarters but outspeed the sword if the spear user wasn't a complete idiot and holding it like you were six feet away.

>which is a huge advantage
Yes

>uninformed and stupid opinion.
I share that opinion with almost every nation that's ever been to war in the past before firearms because almost all of them used spears as a primary but let me guess. You're just smarter than everybody right?

>step in range of spear
>instantly get stabbed at 2/3 times in completely different locations before you can even take another step
>not be able to dodge like an anime ninja
>die

>Sword gets blocked
>implying you're ever going to be on the offensive in a sword vs spear fight as the sword user

More like
>swing sword because idiot
>get stabbed in face

>try and stab
>get outraged

>faster
At range, yes. Because minor changes in how you hold the spear have a big effect on the point.
At close range, that's not possible and the deciding factor in terms of speed is its weight.
>>which is a huge advantage
>Yes
At what?
It's difficult to keep up with the faster sword, deflecting it doesn't protect you fully and your point is way out there where it's no good.
>I share that opinion with almost every nation that's ever been to war
No, you don't. Spears are advantageous, but when the enemy closes in shorter range weapons are better. That's why most people carried swords with them. It wasn't just in case their spears broke. It was actually because swords have an edge at close range.

>that's not possible
Obviously you don't understand the advantages of holding a spear widespread compared to two handing a sword at a single point.
>inb4 you can just grab the blade
I know this works out perfectly in your little head but not only are you decreasing your range even more but it's a sharp sword and not practical like with other swords and a spear won't sacrifice anything by holding it like that and that's if you manage to close in which 98% of the time isn't going to happen.

>implying most normal people didn't carry swords because they were convenient and nothing else
Really?

>holding a spear widespread
Sure, that's basically the only thing you can do. It offers some protection against the sword. Unfortunately it means you are fucking slow with the point, which is way out and useless.
>>implying
>>inb4 you can just grab the blade
Do you even read my posts? I already talked about that.
No, I made an explicit statement, not an implication. Carrying a sword around is not more convenient than carrying no weapon at your belt at all. You don't choose to carry it unless you have some expectation that it might come in handy.

Messed up my lines a bit there. Oh well.

>Sure, that's basically the only thing you can do. It offers some protection against the sword. Unfortunately it means you are fucking slow with the point, which is way out and useless.
No because the spear user is going to push our sword any way he wants because he's got a far better grip on it and it's not clumsy.

>Carrying a sword around is not more convenient than carrying no weapon at your belt at all
Exactly, people carried it because it was better than nothing and the expectation as a normal person would be that if somebody attacked you it would be with an axe, sword or dagger. Nobody would expect to ever have to fight somebody wih a fucking spear.

>Exactly, people carried it because it was better than nothing
We were discussing armies. Soldiers carried swords around, besides their spears.
>No because the spear user is going to push our sword any way he wants
While losing his fingers and dodging the point of the sword that is dangerously close to his face. Remember, we're discussing close range here. Not long range.

I wouldn't fight a fourteen year old with a spear with average skill if I was given a sword even if the prize was millions of dollars and most people who know what they're talking about wouldn't either. That's how much of disadvantage you are. Even just sparing a sword user will probably win 1/36 fights and that's the reason people post that shit online. Not because it happens all the time by because or how rare it is for the sword guy to actually win.

>Even just sparing a sword user will probably win 1/36 fights
No, the odds are more 2:8, from the matches I've seen.

Okay so let's say this scenario happens where somehow magically you get into a situation where you've closed in and are somehow locked weapon to weapon with the spear guy. Yea you can just cut down and maybe get a finger but he's just going to stab you in the face and you can try to prevent it with your sword which is what you'd likely be doing instead of focusing on cutting fingers but you're holding it at one point so it's going to feel like a feather to the spear guy as he stabs a hole in you.

Also god forbid the spear guy is wearing any armor because at that point you can't even cut anymore. You literally have to try and win by stabbing at him.

>somehow magically you get into a situation where you've closed in
It happens regularly. Seriously, watch a few matches.
>he's just going to stab you
That would be highly unlikely because your weapon is faster. Much faster at this range, and if your weapons are locked, with him having both hands on the spear, your point is also much closer to his face than the spear point is to yours.
> but you're holding it at one point so it's going to feel like a feather to the spear guy as he stabs a hole in you.
You should also study up on physics and leverage. The forte of the sword is what you defend with, and when the weapons are already in a bind, it's trivial to exert enough strength to keep the spear-point from coming on-line.
Seriously, you have no fucking clue about anything. It's almost funny.

That's because just touching somebody counts as a point. In real life those odds aren't happening.

Sure, make up more excuses.

>That would be highly unlikely because your weapon is faster.
Please get this ridiculous idea out of your head. If he holds the spear closer to the tip he's still faster than you because you're holding at one point. I don't know why you can't comprehend this.

>You should also study up on physics and leverage.
Me! You're the only claiming a sword user will in any way have more leverage. That's not happening no matter what distance just because of the way you hold a spear. You're just not thinking properly because you like swords.

>If he holds the spear closer to the tip
Then he needs to move both arms a long way to move that tip, while the swordsman just needs to flick his wrist. A katana is a comparatively heavy sword and its point of balance is at (let's say) 7 inches not the closest to the handle you'll find, but it's still a hell of a lot faster to move than an entire fucking spear at close range.
>I don't know
No, you don't know shit.
>You're the only claiming a sword user will in any way have more leverage.
Yes, because you are close the point of contact and the spear-man is not. You can of course hold the spear as one long leaver with one hand at the back end and one at the front end. But that'll just make you so slow that there will never be any weapon contact at all.

If you went out on the street and asked girls to have sex with you as the first thing you said the number of girls that say yes right away would probably be your odds of winning against a spear user with a sword. So if I had a sword for self defense and seen a guy with a spear threatening me those odds of winning are probably a good thing to keep in mind and you could be extremely good looking or skilled in either one of those scenarios but in the end you're still not coming out on top most of the time.

>That's not happening no matter what distance just because of the way you hold a spear. You're just not thinking properly because you like swords.
Allow me to let you in on a secret. People use daggers to defend against rapier attacks. Rapiers are very heavy weapons.

>If he holds the spear closer to the tip
Then he needs to move both arms a long way to move that tip, while the swordsman just needs to flick his wrist. A katana is a comparatively heavy sword and its point of balance is at (let's say) 7 inches not the closest to the handle you'll find, but it's still a hell of a lot faster to move than an entire fucking spear at close range.
If anything if they're magically in that situation where they're locked on the spear user is at an advantage because he's faster with a heavier weapon because his grip is better. At that range a cut isn't instantly fatal unless you get lucky and hit their neck so it's a race to get the point at each other and the spear user is obviously going to do that faster because of his grip alone not to mentions the spear user could just be backing up instead of entering this weird scenario in the first place if he didn't just easily stab the sword guy in the first place which he most likely would.

>You can of course hold the spear as one long leaver with one hand at the back end and one at the front end. But that'll just make you so slow that there will never be any weapon contact at all.
The fact that you're holding the sword like how people hold swords still gives favor to the spear and the spear even though it's a little longer in the back now is still way faster.

That's because daggers in close quarters are better than swords. A sword is a clunky piece of shit and the only reason you have an advantage against somebody with a dagger while carrying a sword is because of your range. Swords are clunky!

>inb4 so that means the same thing with a sword and a spear

No it's way different. A spear is preferable in almost all situations against a sword unless you're trapped in a tiny space. If I somehow ever did manage to close in on somebody with a spear I'd much rather have a dagger.

>if they're magically in that situation
Which happens on a regular basis.
>the spear user is obviously going to do that [slower]
Fixed that for you. Again, the weapon is heavier, and you need to move your arms more.
>the spear user could just be backing up
Which is what usually happens because spear fighters do not want to be too close to sword fighters.
>still gives favor to the spear
No.
Seriously, physics and experience both say no. You are completely wrong.
>That's because daggers in close quarters are better than swords.
Did you just claim daggers are better than rapiers at rapier distance?
That's it, I'm done. You are getting more stupid with every post.

The closest thing I'd ever want to a sword against a spear and that's if I was desperate and only had a secondary weapon it would be a short sword like the Gladius and even at that point I know I'd be fucked unless I had a huge shield. And the spear guy only had the spear and wasn't wearing any armor. I sure as shit wouldn't want a Katana.

>Which happens on a regular basis.
No what usually happens is the sword guy gets stabbed before he even gets close

>Fixed that for you. Again, the weapon is heavier, and you need to move your arms more.
It's faster user. A sword is technically lighter and we both know that but the spear is far better balanced and the real killer here is that you can grab is with both hands in a spread position which makes it not only a little faster but a ton faster

>Which is what usually happens because spear fighters do not want to be too close to sword fighters.
No it's in case they throw their spears in which case they'd likely have a second or drop it. At no point would a soldier ever say fuck this spear and pull out his sword like in the movies unless he's just surrounded by a shit ton of people and has no room any more but that's the only time.

>That's because daggers in close quarters are better than swords.
Against spears they are.

Against a spear if you manage to pull off some ninja dodge and get in close you're going to want a free hand to grab the spear and be able to attack as fast as possible with the other hand with a weapon that isn't clunky. I wonder what does a lot of damage that you can hold in one hand that wouldn't be clunky and isn't that long so you wouldn't have to pull your arm back like gumby every time you stab? Ohh yea, a dagger.

During the bridge scene, why didn't she kill Jin when the latter had his back turned?

She didn't want to do it. The only reason he even won in the end is because she let herself die.