Well Kizaru and Luffy are very different for example. Kizaru is a versatile fighter true, but he relies on his light sword everytime a swordsman fights him as he proved.
Luffy on the other hand is a clear occasional who has barely ever used a sword in his life.
Occasional sword users can't really be defined as swordsmen. It's just ridiculous.
Luffy simply isn't one. Big Mom and Kizaru are instead, because swords are their main weapons and they rely on it with frequency.
The title refers to all swordsmen and other characters are exempt.
However it's about the individuals' overall strenght and not just their swordsmanship skill.
So either Shanks improves his skill with the sword or not it does not matter. What counts is that he beats Mihawk with a DF becoming WSS.
Fujitora proved us how DFs are not a factor to determine swordsmanship, in fact he is a confirmed-by-Oda swordsman despite relying mostly on his insane DF power.
Thing is everyone should understand using prominently a sword as a weapon is enough per se to be a swordsman. xd nothing else has...
I feel the same. The distinction between swordsman and sword user makes perfectly sense. This doesn't mean that Big Mom is not a swordswoman, since her case is different from Luffy's.
Well it's pretty common and most importantly legit to make a distinction between swordsman and sword user.
Some characters could use a sword once in their life but that's hard to believe that they are swordsmen.
Swordsman = character prominently using a sword, independently from DFs, haki or...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.