https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkDDBL7jNew
Here we see a couple of full contact fights with medieval gear and blunt weapons. I wonder how accurate this is? Like did fighting really look like this back then with hitting the opponent several times until one would fall over or was one strike enough to penetrate the armour/injure the knight? In movies they parry a lot and try not to get hit at all because this could mean death but here it seems a lot more offensive and getting hit doesn't do much damage. I wonder what difference the blunt weapons make in the fighting compared to sharpened "real" ones.
Disclaimer: I am not an educated historian, I am a HMB fighter. I do this as a sport. I fight in this sport at the world championships level, so I'm a bit biased.
The armour we wear is the same, or damn near close to (with the exception of titanium) what would be fielded in medieval times. Hardened and tempered spring steel. Armour was excellent back then, and is now.
It's not about how sharp a weapon is, it's about pressure. Sharpness is merely the ability to put more pressure over a smaller area. Hardened steel armour is incredibly strong, and takes a LOT of pressure to pierce it. That's where you get horseman's picks, warhammers, polearms etc with the very sharp spear-like profile. A good swing with one of them, and a square hit has a chance at piercing armour, not that it will do much to the combatant as he's wearing further protection under his plate.
This fighting is a close to a medieval battle/fighting you'll ever see, especially the 21v21 in Battle of the Nations. Our armour works as it did back then, if you're on your feet and haven't copped a blade in somewhere unarmoured, you're in the fight - very similar to HMB.