Ah, this article again. Yeah, may as well compare a HAR-15A2 Omega Match Rifle to a standard M-16 Service Rifle. Sure, the Omega is going to win a target shoot, but the M-16 is going to win battles.
This is the exact reason I avoid comparing martial arts. All too often I see people comparing, for example, karate and taekwondo, arguing for one side over the other while disregarding differences in the objectives of the two martial arts.
Just to play devil's advocate for a bit here, I don't really see the inconclusive conclusion to be a weakness in itself, but rather the result of a thorough analysis from an experienced martial artist. There are advantages to both weapons in a duel, even though the rapier was specifically designed for 1 on 1 and the katana for battle (which also saw many 1 on 1 battles...). The rapier, with its longer reach and greater speed, would want to keep longer distance and probe with surface cuts and thrusts until a lethal thrust could be applied. The katana, with its greater power and devastating cuts, would want to get past the rapier's point. As soon as this happens, advantage katana.
Second, can there ever really be "all things equal?" Variances in skill, eccentricities in technique, attitude, situation, location, and circumstances make each duel and each exchange unique. For example, were a katana vs. rapier fight happen in an enclosed room, I think this would tip the scale in the katana's favor due to the rapier not having room to maneuver. But it's up to the katana wielder to utilize this advantage to tip the scales.
In the end, even though it's a bit of a silly comparison, it's fun to think about and a good read. But I enjoy a good Pirate vs. Ninja discussion as much as the next guy
.