This whole thing is getting way too seperated, so I'll group the similar arguments.
You're reaching a tad bit right there.
How would he seem to attack with an "airstrike"? That's not feinting with an air slash. That's feinting an attack then following it up with an air slash.
When the attack you are feinting with is meant to be an airslash, then you are feinting with an airslash attack, regardless if it turns out to be that. Honestly, you're making this more complicated than it actually is. A feint is just making your opponent think that your going to do A, when you're actually going to do B. If you look like your going to do an airslash, it's an airslash feint.
*numerous Incorrect statements on logic and practicality and skills*
I'm just grouping this together because it's the source of our disagreement and we're just generally talking about the same thing with like 10 different examples, so I want to condense it into one thing with several points.
The TLDR version is that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic and practicality are.
First, lets discuss logic. You claim that fiction has it's own rules of logic. No it doesn't. Logic is universal. Logic is
how you determine what is practical, not a set of rules in and of itself. The universal format of it is "Determine goal -> the most efficient way of achieving that goal -> Application of method" This does not waver. The variables of this is the goal and the method, but the process of logic is constant. You do the thing that gets you what you want the best way possible.
Now, fighting: Logically speaking, Arlong's fighting style is highly impractical. It doesn't matter if he has super strength or 'skills'. Because you know what else he has? A humanoid body.
This? This is simply not how the human body moves. For this to hit anyone, not only would Arlong's jaw have to open more than it does in the picture (like, it'd have to be a straight 180 degrees at minimum), but the spinning move does not add more force that simply biting down would. Furthermore, assuming his spinning is pin point accurate and doesn't impede his sense of balance, it'd still be spending more energy than a simple lunge would do for identical results. (I can't believe I actually have to literally explain this...) This move, by our real world rules, would be impractical. By One Pieces rules, given all we know about how fishman are stronger and have sharper teeth and etc....it's
still should be impractical. Because Arlong has a humanoid body, there is no reason this should be anything but a less effective way of trying to hit someone with his teeth. No amount of super strength can explain this away, this is just not how the human body moves.
Well,
can it be logically practical? Yes, or atleast more practical than it currently is, but you'd have to alter things. This is what you think you were referring to when you said fiction 'has it's own rules of logic'. No, it doesn't, but the method to which you get a desired result can be different depending if the
rules of the world are changed. For example, lets say that Arlong CAN widen his jaw to convex angular proportions. And lets suppose that there is some magic force that makes his teeth sharper when spinning and longer, and more painful, and hits for less damage. Then,
and only then, it would be practical, because now we have a definitive functional basis in which we can legitimately argue that this attack is better than another. Another example is his basic bite attack,
like these, is impractical for a humanoid body. he's throwing his entire body foreward (the slowest way of attacking), head first (a very vulnerable point) when the neck is simply not made to be a combat tool. To make that attack practical, Arlong would have to have a much longer and more fluid neck, maybe like a snakes so he doesn't have to move his whole body, along with an unhinged jaw. Then maybe it'd be practical, since then his body is more designed toward that, but not so as it is.
Same with Mihawk's sword. The fact is that it's unbalanced and it's obstructive hilt would get in the way of basic maneuvers. "But training! And skill!" Well, no. See, the fact is that no matter how much training Mihawk has, he's going to have to watch out for that hilt. He might get used to it and learn to work with it, but the thing is ALWAYS going to be in the way. And for what purpose? None that we can tell. In comparison, using his same sword, but with an ordinary hilt, he'd basically be able to do everything he's able to do now, AND also all the manuevers that he wasn't able to do because it was in the way. No matter how you slice it, that hilt is impractical, because logically speaking, from everything we've seen from sword fights, he would gain a lot more ditching it and giving himself a shorter hilt than he would keeping it. The fact that he can supposedly compensate his skills for the impracticality doesn't change the fact that it's impractical because it's an inconvenience he has to work around.
Now, like Arlong, if we were given some kind of reason for the hilt. Lets say it has magical powers that empower the sword further. Okay, well that changes things. Now, the hilt provides greater gains than an ordinary hilt that allowed manueverability does.
Now, it's practical to use the hilt over a sensibly short one. But One Piece doesn't have that, so it's impracticality remains. That, Imperial Bishop, is how logic works. It doesn't change from situation to sitaution, from real life to fantasy. The rules of the world do, which means it applies different rules when it is more efficient to do so, but that is not logic itself changing, just the material it is working with.
"But those techniques in OP ARE technically sound! Within the world of One Piece, they DO do damage and are effective in fights! " Well, yes, actually, and that's what I think is tripping you up. Yes, it might be that Arlong's teeth techniques do hit harder and Mihawks stupid hilt legitimately doesn't hinder him. Okay, assuming that's true, then yes, that makes them practical. Because practicality is about whether something works, not how it works. How it works, that's logic's territory, and if these techniques are practical, then that still means they are illogical, because that's simply now how they are supposed to work given the rules of the world we were informed of. If things are still tangible, then it doesn't matter how skilled Mihawk gets at his style, that hilt
ought to be a nuisance vs the same sword with a smaller hilt. If it isn't, then that's not OP 'operating by it's own logic', it's simply ignoring logic, deliberately breaking away from it, with no replacement component of what makes that obstructive hilt somehow unobstructive. Same with Arlong's techniques. If they are somehow tactically sound techniques, there is
still a significant contradiction of how the human body is supposed to work and how it's depicted as working
So, as I said before, in OP, fighting works in one of two ways: Either we acknowledge that much of OP is impractical and characters simply choose to do them because Oda decided it's more aesthetically pleasing that what practical fight choreography would be... or the rules of the OP world dictate that the techniques they use
are practical, and we are left with a lot of missing gaps of logic explaining how it is so (this I feel is the more reasonable option). Either way, means that the argument that this sprung from....
*arguments about air slashes*
is asinine. For the record, I'm condensing my argument of Haki sword, air slashes, and the stuff CP9 uses into one thing because they amount to the same thing to me: Basically using sword techniques without actual swords. The source of the power, be it CP9's shtick, Haki, or just the 'normal' air slashes that Zoro used before the time skip, is seem all like the same thing: The force of a blade strike without the sword to carry it.
Now, there has been a lot of back and forth of why you believe this fighting style would be impractical. I disagree with this in so far that we have already been shown dozens of impractical fighting styles that still some how are effective. I've tried to justify why it would logically work and we can continue to bicker back and forth on minutae details of how close distance might or might not work with a pure air slash fighting style...but honestly? Lets say your completely right about those impracticalities. Even if I were to concede that point...so what? Again,
OP does the fuck it wants. Writing out that logic and practicality don't really meet in OP made me realize that there are PLENTY of fighting styles that had no logical practicality have lived and thrived. It makes no sense to be against this one. Even Luffy's fighting style makes no sense when you think about it. I don't think it makes anywhere close as little sense as you make it out to be, but if you're right and it's illogical for it to be practical....that doesn't mean it can't be practical. It just means there is no reason it should work, but it still can, which would make it basically like any other fighting style in OP.
So, this is a fundamentally pointless debate, because you could be completely logically correct for why it shouldn't be practical in OP.....it still would be practical in OP. Just cuz. Like almost every single other fighting style. Because OP does the fuck it wants.
Now, as far as the plausibility of Haki weapons go...
Haki can be imbued in projectile weapons like arrows or bullets. It can't just be imbued onto nothing, based on what we know.
Oh you mother...you know what, I give up. I'm not wrong here, but I'm giving up. I've given a link to the wiki that LITERALLY SAYS that that simply isn't true, that you CAN project Haki outside your body, with the link above. If you think the Wiki is wrong, then say that, but I'm fairly sure I remember an example of a brute force projected Haki attack somewhere. But at this point, I could probably find that exact page, and you wouldn't take it as evidence.
So I'm done with this part of the conversation. Haki weapons CAN be a thing based on the evidence we have, which might be refuted if you were to get off your ass to do it. However, there is no convincing you if you literally won't even
acknowledge the fact that I am providing some measure of proof for my assertions and simply dismissing them off hand without explaining why the proof doesn't apply.
And who exactly was making that argument?
No one. Hence the "It's like saying" beginning part of it. It was making an analogous argument to demonstrate the absurdity of the claim you were making on practicality. No one was making it, but you were making an argument like it.
2) Swordless style, like brawlers and martial artists? I thought we were talking about the mighty "air slash". :>
No, it's just what I named what the theoretical fighting style would be called. We have Santoryu to designate 3 sword fighting style, and we also have the japanese names for 1 sword fighting style, 2 sword, 4 sword, 6 sword and 8 sword. This would be a 0 sword fighting style, using all sword techniques, but without actual blades, making air slashes. Because you don't need swords to do sword play in OP.
But it's not a tactic that is utilized almost all the time in any battle, am I right?
Better question is why that question has relevance. It's pretty clear how grenades ARE effective at killing, and it's pretty clear that air slashes do not have the same consequence as grenades do. You're losing the forest through the trees here.
Less common usage of Rankakyu outside of CP9 has no way in part to do with difficulty of learning.
That's because it doesn't seem to lack common usage period. From what the wiki says, all it is is swinging something fast enough to fire a shot of compressed air. Zoro and countless swordsmen already do that. The only distinction seems to be that Kaku used his limbs to do it rather than a blade, but, functionally speaking, it seems everyone and their grandma is already doing it, just with swords. All anyone has to do is use limbs instead, and he can throw his swords away, not needing them anymore.
