I suddenly remembered that take, and in my own thoughts, I ended up agreeing with it too.
But here's another crazy idea:
Two guys who are roughly equal in skill—not super experts, but people who know how to handle blades and understand how to strike properly.
Any duel scenario only works as long as we assume it's going to be fair and that both sides are genuinely fighting to the death.
But remembering Miyamoto Musashi's duels—you know how he won most of them, right? He just practiced throwing his sword into trees in the forest.
And he won by simply throwing the blade and killing opponents who never expected that at all.
So imagine: one guy has a rapier, the other has a K18, and he throws it like in that video you mentioned, where the huge guy who literally looks like a Viking hurls that blade.
And I'm thinking—even the best fencer against a guy who has enough strength and guts to risk throwing a K18 at him
The blade is sharpened on both sides, so basically, even if you throw it poorly, there's a huge chance you'll still inflict a very serious wound on the opponent.
I'm absolutely convinced that in real life—not in sport fencing—a fight would almost never go the way we imagine it, because with 100% certainty it would be completely unfair/dishonest.
Vikings mostly just threw axes or something heavy.
I'm totally sure that in the Middle Ages, a real sword duel with proper fencing was extremely rare; it would mostly turn into grappling, and then just trying to strip the armor off the opponent.
And if it's a duel without armor, I'd pick the K18 and throw it at a highly experienced fencer with a rapier.
Yeah, it's reckless, but basically, I have no chance anyway.
Essentially, the K18 that I throw at an experienced fencer is like a Glock, only way bigger, and it complies with the "cold weapon only" rules in a duel
