Its stupid to look at warfare in the context of a 1v1, as that is not how battlefield dynamics would work in the first place.
A heavy armor knight is essentially a tank, but he lacks mobility, visibility, and requires quite a bit of support to be effective.
Due to the costs associated a knight would likely be a noble and more likely be put in a command situation, with limited practical battle exposure. This would be left to foot soldiers. The knight is effectively a lord.

By contrast a samurai, while of the warrior caste is still bound to a lord or noble who is the overall commander.
The practical battle experience of a samurai is far more extensive then would be a knight simply because of his role.
The Japanese feudal system also was a mess and required a lot more confrontational small scale battle as opposed to
the larger conflicts within the euro setting. The necessity for mobility was far greater than the necessity for tankdom
hence the tactical perogative was more individual in nature.

Should the idiotic scenario of a 1v1 occur, my opinion is that a samurai would have a higher likely-hood of winning as:

1. Kendo places quite a bit more emphasis on individual skill than traditional knight training
2. Practical battle experience between a knight and a samurai favors the samurai immensely in a 1v1
3. While the sword has become a primary focus due to books etc. Bushido places a more primary focus is on skill with the horse/bow/spear
4. While the samurai would have an issue dealing with a swordnboard combo i think overall the battle expirience, overemphesis on individual skill and better mobility would end up overcomming the technical advantage in armor the knight had.

I doubt that they'd ever meet in the field of battle though, both would stick to doing what theyre good at...
Killing peasent conscripts forced to be footsoldiers.

While the samurai would have an issue dealing with a swordnboard combo
i think overall the battle expirience, overemphesis on individual skill
and better mobility would end up overcomming the technical advantage in
armor the knight had.

with the samurais amazing flexible cheetah like manoeuvres he would dodge all the attacks incoming from the knight, make a 2m height jump over him and strike him from behind. Just before the strike the samurai summons lightning from the sky burning away the knights armor so his attack cuts clean through the flesh like in naruto episode 1201. right ?

please take your ******ry somewhere else, delusional weaboo

well the soviet man can do some of that
obv he is talking soviet samurais

Soviet bear samurais with naginatas and cherry blossom.

Japanese bows with an average length of 221cm are the largest in the world and rather similar to the longbows used by the British.
Short, powerful crossbows which could be fired from horseback were used on the continent (China, Mongolia) due to the prevalence of horses and mounted combat. As an island country, Japanese warfare did not rely on horses as much and thus power and durability were favored.

Also, Samurai did not originate from cavalry-archers but from Bushi, warrior castes from the Heian-era　（１0th Century).

As for who would win, probably a Western knight. Samurai are overrated in the West for some reason idk why (I'm Jap). If you were to take an unarmored matchup, Samurai would win everytime though.

Anyway, if someone wants to test it out come duel me irl. I did Kendo so if anyone can wield a longsword that would be great.