Actually binding vs. not-binding arguments can also be seen in european fencing. An example in the later period can be found in the manuals of Fabris and Thibault. Fabris explicitely recommends not to bind, to avoid the adversary's blade, because it restricts your freedom and gives information to the opponent. Thibault on the contrary, says that binding the sword and working from there is the basic technique that must be mastered absolutely, because the eye is more easily deceived than the hand. Yet the basics of distance and timing are equally present in both methods...
To provide another data point, in Katori Shinto Ryu the more you advance in the kata and skill, the more you bind and work from the bind.
I think there is some issue of personal preference here; some will be more visual and do not need to rely on the feel, some will like the feel better. Also, training for the bind is difficult to do alone or with an inexperienced partner. It's less immediately applicable in free-play as well, but maybe with greater benefits as the level improves.
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
), I contend that it is not applicable to the argument at hand. The rapier is used in a completely different fashion than that of the medieval longsword, (and roughly comparable Asaian sword forms). In short, rapier has no place in this argument.
I just acknowledge that there were other schools that sought to avoid blade contact as much as possible. I think you're making too big a difference between rapier and the rest of European swordsmanship but I'm obviously not going to convince you, and that's off-topic.
