Questions & Mysteries Why was King not considered a swordsman?
- Thread starter Fisher Tiger
- Start date
I did. One is a combination of sword attack + DF, the other uses a sword without the properties and effect of a sword to activate the DF, two different things.
BM fire + sword attack, Law DF attack channelled through sword, Fuji the same.
You did, once again quote:
"They all do the same shit i.e., they channel their powers through their swords—It could be Haki, df ability, physical strength, or some kind of trick like firefox style. Swords are never the source of someone's power; they're just a medium by which you channel your powers. Law's not some kind of special exception here."
It´s not all the same shit.
Channeling through a sword is different than adding to your attack potency through your sword, it´s a pretty easy concept.
Yes you are, since you are claiming the sword is relevant to the attack.
Explain to me what a sword and its capabilities add to a gravity attack, add to pulling down a meteor and so forth, same for Law.
I can easily do that for BM.
Claiming "it has to be that way" but not knowing how it works is not acceptable as an argument.
And the claim never was "Law can do the exact same thing without the sword", the argument is, the sword as a weapon as it was intended, is not relevant, neither are Law´s capabilities as a swordsman. It serves as a channelling device (scalpel) to activate his DF capabilities. Would Law´s attack be less potent if he was a worse swordsman? Is the potency of the attack he cut Vergo with reliant on his swordsmanship or his capabilities of his DF (range of his room)?
The latter was always mentioned and shown in said context, the former, no, at least not offensively.
That´s besides the point. For the sword used in swordsmanship, the relevant factors are force, technique and quality of the sword.
None of these things are relevant for Law and Fuji in context of their DF usage, they only become relevant outside of it.
BM fire + sword attack, Law DF attack channelled through sword, Fuji the same.
You did, once again quote:
"They all do the same shit i.e., they channel their powers through their swords—It could be Haki, df ability, physical strength, or some kind of trick like firefox style. Swords are never the source of someone's power; they're just a medium by which you channel your powers. Law's not some kind of special exception here."
It´s not all the same shit.
Channeling through a sword is different than adding to your attack potency through your sword, it´s a pretty easy concept.
Yes you are, since you are claiming the sword is relevant to the attack.
Explain to me what a sword and its capabilities add to a gravity attack, add to pulling down a meteor and so forth, same for Law.
I can easily do that for BM.
Claiming "it has to be that way" but not knowing how it works is not acceptable as an argument.
And the claim never was "Law can do the exact same thing without the sword", the argument is, the sword as a weapon as it was intended, is not relevant, neither are Law´s capabilities as a swordsman. It serves as a channelling device (scalpel) to activate his DF capabilities. Would Law´s attack be less potent if he was a worse swordsman? Is the potency of the attack he cut Vergo with reliant on his swordsmanship or his capabilities of his DF (range of his room)?
The latter was always mentioned and shown in said context, the former, no, at least not offensively.
That´s besides the point. For the sword used in swordsmanship, the relevant factors are force, technique and quality of the sword.
None of these things are relevant for Law and Fuji in context of their DF usage, they only become relevant outside of it.
Because a Sword to King is no different than the bisento to Whitebeard, or Vergo's pipe, or the multitude of other characters who use weapons. Is it useful to them in a fight? Absolutely. Do they need to rely on it to win? Not at all.
A Swordsman is someone where if you take away their Sword, you effectively take away their chance of winning, because that's where their main prowess lies. Imagine if Zoro, tried to fight King, without his Swords. He'd stand no chance. But King without his Sword against Zoro, doesn't diminish his chances all that much. King was just fine whether he was using his Sword or not.
A Swordsman is someone where if you take away their Sword, you effectively take away their chance of winning, because that's where their main prowess lies. Imagine if Zoro, tried to fight King, without his Swords. He'd stand no chance. But King without his Sword against Zoro, doesn't diminish his chances all that much. King was just fine whether he was using his Sword or not.
Counter Shock and Ganma Knife
are techniques that don't need a sword to use and are among Law's strongest techniques.
If Law, he can easily use his techniques through it a stick, or just use it himself.
Wb can use Gura through his Bisento, but he can use it through punches... if it was a classic sword, would he be a considerable a swordman for using Gura through it? not.
are techniques that don't need a sword to use and are among Law's strongest techniques.
If Law, he can easily use his techniques through it a stick, or just use it himself.
Wb can use Gura through his Bisento, but he can use it through punches... if it was a classic sword, would he be a considerable a swordman for using Gura through it? not.
I honestly can't comprehend what you're trying to say here. Big Mom doesn't need her sword to use her DF powers just as much as Law. You're just using the fact that Law relies more on his DF than Big Mom to justify the argument that Law isn't a swordsman if I am reading this correctly. And I am not seeing how that prevents Law from being a swordsman when it's ultimately his swordsmanship that he uses to fight people. Your fighting style is determined by the way you use your abilities, not by what abilities you have.
And I am still saying it's the same shit. The type of abilities does not change the fundamental functionality of a sword. A sword is a weapon through which you channel your powers regardless of the nature of your powers.
Every swordsman makes their abilities pass through their swords to attack. That's the most basic shit any swordsman would do. A sword adding potency to your attack does not change that in any sense. You have to channel your power(s) through your sword for it to work on your ability and make it stronger in the first place.
If you trying to sell us the idea that a sword's quality adding potency to your attacks make you more of a swordsman than those who don't get boosts, then you're gonna explain to us how a person who fights with 3rd rated sword isn't as much a swordsman as the guy wielding Yoru. Also, please tell us how you figured out that Law's and Fujitora's swords don't add anything to their attacks.
I don't know what they add and I couldn't careless about it if they don't add anything at all because that doesn't make a difference as far as it goes whether or not Law's a swordsman. You don't become a swordsman based on how much your sword increases your AP without your powers. Also, I am not the one making any claims here. I am questioning your claims, so it's not me who should answer questions. So tell us, how do you know Law's sword doesn't add anything to his AP? How do we know Fujitora's gravity waves aren't being boosted by his sword the same way Zoro's Haki channeled through his swords gets boosted? We know for a fact that swords boost the things that you channel through them while we have 0 arguments suggesting it isn't happening to Law and Fujitora.
If the sword and swordsmanship are irrelevant then he might as well do it without them—That's what being irrelevant translates to. And I am asking you to prove he could pull off similar stuff without the swords and swordsmanship because that's how you're supposed to prove Law's swordsmanship and sword are irrelevant. Just saying they're irrelevant without proving or explaining why they're irrelevant isn't gonna cut it.
You can't make a claim that has no basis to it, and then turn back to us and ask us to prove you wrong. That's not how logic works. We know swords boost powers and we were never told they don't affect DF powers. So your only option is to prove to us Law can replicate his feat against Vergo with a scalpel or whatever weapon you think Law can do it with.
That's kinda how it works for every person. Zoro can use his abilities without his swords too. That doesn't mean he could do it just as well with swords.
And I am still saying it's the same shit. The type of abilities does not change the fundamental functionality of a sword. A sword is a weapon through which you channel your powers regardless of the nature of your powers.
Every swordsman makes their abilities pass through their swords to attack. That's the most basic shit any swordsman would do. A sword adding potency to your attack does not change that in any sense. You have to channel your power(s) through your sword for it to work on your ability and make it stronger in the first place.
If you trying to sell us the idea that a sword's quality adding potency to your attacks make you more of a swordsman than those who don't get boosts, then you're gonna explain to us how a person who fights with 3rd rated sword isn't as much a swordsman as the guy wielding Yoru. Also, please tell us how you figured out that Law's and Fujitora's swords don't add anything to their attacks.
I don't know what they add and I couldn't careless about it if they don't add anything at all because that doesn't make a difference as far as it goes whether or not Law's a swordsman. You don't become a swordsman based on how much your sword increases your AP without your powers. Also, I am not the one making any claims here. I am questioning your claims, so it's not me who should answer questions. So tell us, how do you know Law's sword doesn't add anything to his AP? How do we know Fujitora's gravity waves aren't being boosted by his sword the same way Zoro's Haki channeled through his swords gets boosted? We know for a fact that swords boost the things that you channel through them while we have 0 arguments suggesting it isn't happening to Law and Fujitora.
If the sword and swordsmanship are irrelevant then he might as well do it without them—That's what being irrelevant translates to. And I am asking you to prove he could pull off similar stuff without the swords and swordsmanship because that's how you're supposed to prove Law's swordsmanship and sword are irrelevant. Just saying they're irrelevant without proving or explaining why they're irrelevant isn't gonna cut it.
You can't make a claim that has no basis to it, and then turn back to us and ask us to prove you wrong. That's not how logic works. We know swords boost powers and we were never told they don't affect DF powers. So your only option is to prove to us Law can replicate his feat against Vergo with a scalpel or whatever weapon you think Law can do it with.
That's kinda how it works for every person. Zoro can use his abilities without his swords too. That doesn't mean he could do it just as well with swords.
I brought it here my opinions and views of swordsmans.
Pure Swrodsman= guys who only has his swords to fight,guys like Mihawk,Zoro,Oden and Vista.
Complement Swordsmans= theses guys are classify as Swordsmans, but have other things to complement his Swordsmanship like DFs, so on, guys like Fuji and Law.
Non Swordsman, has Swords= Right here are guys who have a Sword, but doesn't uses as Main weapons, but are complement of something, guys like, King,WB and BM.
Pure Swrodsman= guys who only has his swords to fight,guys like Mihawk,Zoro,Oden and Vista.
Complement Swordsmans= theses guys are classify as Swordsmans, but have other things to complement his Swordsmanship like DFs, so on, guys like Fuji and Law.
Non Swordsman, has Swords= Right here are guys who have a Sword, but doesn't uses as Main weapons, but are complement of something, guys like, King,WB and BM.
bigmo is not aswordswoman
this is something I hate about one piece, oda never made zoros dream important because the amount of competent swordsmen in the series can be counted with 2 hands
law should be able to fight without his sword but would be severely weakened so he should be classified as a swords man
Post automatically merged:
this is something I hate about one piece, oda never made zoros dream important because the amount of competent swordsmen in the series can be counted with 2 hands
Post automatically merged:
law should be able to fight without his sword but would be severely weakened so he should be classified as a swords man
Last edited:
Law is a swordsman because he can use swordsmanship, which is style/technique to use a sword.
His swordsmanship is not relevant for his DF usage.
BM´s swordsmanship is.
All pretty straightforward my dude.
Which i already have disproven. It´s not only a channeling device, it has both a function of its own and a relevant mastery of it, which is called swordsmanship. Your attack potency with a sword is reliant on your physical properties (the force you can generate), the properties of the sword, and your mastery/technique.
And i am arguing that none of these three are relevant for the kind of DF attack Law and Fuji are using.
Addressed above.
Why Law and Fuji don´t benefit from the sword? Because their attacks are completely different than the purpose of the sword.
Once again, how is sword mastery, sword strength or whatever you want to call it relevant for Fuji to use his DF? Same for Law?
Straightforward questions.
I don´t see them as relevant.
You are making claims. You are claiming the DF usage of Law and Fuji fall under swordsmanship, by claiming everything is the same, there is no difference and so on, don´t try to escape here.
The relevant points for sword usage as a sword (with swordsmanship) and how Fuji and Law are using it are fundamentally different and are structured around different aspects.
The potency of a sword attack is usually reliant on the three aspects above, the potency of Law´s and Fuji´s attacks are not, because they are reliant on their DF mastery, if you think they are, explain to me how because for Law: 1) His force is irrelevant, the size of his room is 2) the sword properties are irrelevant, because he is not reliant on the sword properties since he does not cut 3) his technique is irrelevant since his attack is based on the effects of the room. And Fuji is the same in this context.
I am using simple logic, if you want to claim i am factually wrong, dispute the logic and once again, explain to me how their DF usage is reliant on their swordsmanship.
I am not someone who is stubbornly pounding on my viewpoint, if you can explain it sufficiently, i will change my mind.
Right now it´s very illogical to me though.
No it does not. Zoro can´t replicate the purpose of a sword without a sword. He can use the force he would usually use with a sword to emulate his usual attacks (while losing a lot of potency), but it´s not even remotely the same.
His swordsmanship is not relevant for his DF usage.
BM´s swordsmanship is.
All pretty straightforward my dude.
Which i already have disproven. It´s not only a channeling device, it has both a function of its own and a relevant mastery of it, which is called swordsmanship. Your attack potency with a sword is reliant on your physical properties (the force you can generate), the properties of the sword, and your mastery/technique.
And i am arguing that none of these three are relevant for the kind of DF attack Law and Fuji are using.
Addressed above.
Why Law and Fuji don´t benefit from the sword? Because their attacks are completely different than the purpose of the sword.
Once again, how is sword mastery, sword strength or whatever you want to call it relevant for Fuji to use his DF? Same for Law?
Straightforward questions.
I don´t see them as relevant.
You are making claims. You are claiming the DF usage of Law and Fuji fall under swordsmanship, by claiming everything is the same, there is no difference and so on, don´t try to escape here.
The relevant points for sword usage as a sword (with swordsmanship) and how Fuji and Law are using it are fundamentally different and are structured around different aspects.
The potency of a sword attack is usually reliant on the three aspects above, the potency of Law´s and Fuji´s attacks are not, because they are reliant on their DF mastery, if you think they are, explain to me how because for Law: 1) His force is irrelevant, the size of his room is 2) the sword properties are irrelevant, because he is not reliant on the sword properties since he does not cut 3) his technique is irrelevant since his attack is based on the effects of the room. And Fuji is the same in this context.
I am using simple logic, if you want to claim i am factually wrong, dispute the logic and once again, explain to me how their DF usage is reliant on their swordsmanship.
I am not someone who is stubbornly pounding on my viewpoint, if you can explain it sufficiently, i will change my mind.
Right now it´s very illogical to me though.
No it does not. Zoro can´t replicate the purpose of a sword without a sword. He can use the force he would usually use with a sword to emulate his usual attacks (while losing a lot of potency), but it´s not even remotely the same.
