Blade length and shape differences are of interest to me in that comparison.
Some may say they are trivial, but something drove ESEE to design a shorter blade with a much steeper angle to the tip. I'm sure that wasn't by accident. I understand obvious points like a blade that is 1/2" shorter will conceal more easily, and be lighter, etc.
I'm curious here to learn from knife 'experts' (said with respect; I'm sincerely just seeking to learn here) their opinions about the pros and cons of the Izula blade v the EsKabar. Why - other than what I mentioned above - would one want that shorter, differently-shaped blade? If for no other reasons, then so be it.
Remember, Hso, I'm an evolutionary biologist (in part), and we tend to ask questions about form and function, and how minor - sometimes tiny - changes in form can have huge consequences for function.
_________
Added by edit: after writing this, I checked our thread on "short sticks", and found
this (interesting and relevant) analysis by you of why just a "bit longer" stick can add benefits over the shorter, more classic stick of a particular fighting style. That's what I'm looking for here: what effects result from small changes in blade shape and length?