Character Discussion POLL: Is King a True Swordsman
- Thread starter bennbeckman
- Start date
Yea he is all king said is he doesn't understand why people stick to traditional forms and techniques in a real fight. Meaning he'd do anything to win a fight not that he doesn't think he's a swordsman. To king if his sword skills wasn't enough but his fire was then he'd use his fire way above his sword. Not everyone has bushido style where they live and die by the sword. That's not the standard for swordsmen and idk why op fans act like it is when for as long as I can remember people count characters like trunks as swordsmen but now a character like king isn't?
So Zoro defines King as simply a brute, King states he won't stick to any traditional style, then Zoro notices he never claimed to be a swordsman. And some of you guys believe this isn't an obvious hint at the debate of "pure swordsman" being something valid?
That short dialogue actually touches almost every point one could made to distinguish pure/true/whatever swordsmen from those who simply use a sword to fight but don't base their fighting style on it. The distinction between King having a versatile style that doesn't focus on swordsmanship and a swordsman in Zoro's perspective, the idea of characters defining themselves as swordsmen, how swordsmanship isn't about being a brute but perfecting a skill (which was actually referred back in Arabasta)...
We need to wait for better translations, but the fact for now is that King is "just a blood-thirsty brute" who "never claimed to be a swordsman" even though he uses a sword in battle. And that's enough for any honest person to reconsider that swordsmanship may not be as easy as accepting anybody as swordsman only because they use a sword for battle.
That short dialogue actually touches almost every point one could made to distinguish pure/true/whatever swordsmen from those who simply use a sword to fight but don't base their fighting style on it. The distinction between King having a versatile style that doesn't focus on swordsmanship and a swordsman in Zoro's perspective, the idea of characters defining themselves as swordsmen, how swordsmanship isn't about being a brute but perfecting a skill (which was actually referred back in Arabasta)...
We need to wait for better translations, but the fact for now is that King is "just a blood-thirsty brute" who "never claimed to be a swordsman" even though he uses a sword in battle. And that's enough for any honest person to reconsider that swordsmanship may not be as easy as accepting anybody as swordsman only because they use a sword for battle.
Last edited:
He is more than just a swodsman.
It's fine as long as his swordsmanship is inferior to zoro's.
If it came to king using anything other than swordsmanship, zoro isn't obligated to limit himself to swordsmanship too.
Being the strongest swordsman, means to be better than enyone in a sword fight.
As long as it is not a competition like luffy vs zoro, where they compete over the strongest fighting style, zoro is allowed use any other means to fight.
Zoro vs king is not a competition, it's a war, the only goal is to win.
It's fine as long as his swordsmanship is inferior to zoro's.
If it came to king using anything other than swordsmanship, zoro isn't obligated to limit himself to swordsmanship too.
Being the strongest swordsman, means to be better than enyone in a sword fight.
As long as it is not a competition like luffy vs zoro, where they compete over the strongest fighting style, zoro is allowed use any other means to fight.
Zoro vs king is not a competition, it's a war, the only goal is to win.
