The ability of each combatant to read or size up their opponent and the threat they posed would be an important consideration.
Are both to be briefed on the nature of their opponent and his armaments?
In 1881, she became the first woman on Japanese currency.
While she was leading a charge against Imperial Japanese Army troops she was shot in the chest.
In the case of comparing a knight to a samurai, each warrior used armor, weapons, and methods oriented towards the particular opponents of their day and age.
Therefore, neither can be looked upon as being universally more effective under all conditions against all manner of opponents. Having some small experience in the methods and weaponry of each, as well as a few cross-training opportunities, I offer my humble thoughts on the matter.
Of course, if we are supposing a clash between two "typical warriors", we must also ask exactly what will be considered typical?
The knights of circa 1100 and the samurai of circa 1200 were roughly evenly matched in equipment.
In one sense, it is like asking who are better soldiers, jungle fighters or ski troops? First of all, we must ask where is it these two lone warriors would meet? Since the conditions of this imaginary fight could play a major factor, it can be proposed that such an encounter would best take place on a flat, firm, open field with no cover and plenty of room to maneuver.
Though each is an accomplished horseman, it would also be conducive to have the single-combat duel occur dismounted, alone, on foot and without use of missile weapons.