We obviously disagree on this point. Let me try to explain my opinion.
Originally posted by the possum
Knights of old knew this too, so they developed ways to use long swords effectively even while grappling. I take it you've never heard of "half-swording"?
Actually, I have studied medieval-style sword fighting, done quite a lot of sparring in that style, and read some of the European fighting manuals from that period. I am familiar with the techniques you mention, but unless I was wearing serious body armor I would much rather have a large bowie for close- to middle-range combat.
At close range a sword can still be a force multiplier, but it is much less of one than usual. Shorter, faster, and more maneuverable weapons are generally more effective in close. That's one reason why most knights and other long-blade fighters traditionally carried daggers or other close-combat weapons as a backup.
Swords require you to control the range of the encounter to be fully effective. Once an opponent with a smaller weapon gets "inside" they have the advantage until you can force them back again. I am not trying to say that a sword is a bad choice, just that it has limitations like any other option. Weak infighting capability is one of them.
It's also worth noting that medieval European swords were primarily designed to penetrate an opponent's armor. In a modern situation, where armor is unlikely to be worn, I would prefer one of the lighter Renaissance-era swords. Besides, rapiers are fun too.
And just to clarify... I was talking about the conventional large bowie and not the Szabowie. I suspect it is also quite effective, but I think it falls into a different category of weapons.
--Bob Q