Are you arguing that modern alloys and methods can do a better job at that than Damascus or other classical methods involving layering and folding?
You're thinking of theatrical fencing. All that cling-clang-cling makes for great visuals and sound but is undesirable in real combat.
Unless you have two knights in full armor clobbering each other over the head (at which point a mace is probably more efficient than a delicate sword) sword-on-sword contact is a means of last resort when you can't move out of the way.
Although D&D may have taught you differently, a "sword block" is a wasted counter-attack. Why bother binding your sword if you could have used the opportunity to slip out of the way and catch the opponent off balance and end him?
In fact, blocking is what sidearms are for. Grab a dagger or a buckler and take down the opponent's sword without binding yours. If swords do touch in combat it's usually at an angle and just enough to deflect the blow without overcommitting too much to risk wasting a the chance to get in a counter.
(full disclosure: I'm talking about European medieval swords and from having watched experienced HEMA fighters)
I dunno, I did a bit of fencing and I know there are all sorts of ways to bind the blade and counterattack simultaneously.
In fact, the a HUGE portion of the Die Blume des Kampfes (historical weapons manual) clearly includes a variety of sword-binding techniques. See the pictures yourself if you don't believe me:
http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Die_Blume_des_Kampfes#Sword
It would seem that binding, blocking, and counter-attacking is a fundamental skill of historical sword fighters.
In my experience, it is virtually impossible to avoid the opponent's blade like a Hollywood sword master. Swords are surprisingly light when held with two hands (even a 5lb Claymore moves very quickly, even in the hands of a weakling!!), far faster than you can move your torso or even legs.
EDIT: Lots of other stuff here, but I was ranting. So I deleted it.
The reason the 5lb sword still moves swiftly is that it's not used for a Hollywood cleave.
But about those Claymores. You're right that they'd be slow for cleaves, with the huge rotational inertia. But in melee, it's my impression (perhaps colored by too much fiction) that one can make that an advantage. Basically, by never reversing direction, but rather by following 3D Lissajous curves. Which isn't really that different from Aikido.
The only problem with that is that it creates predictability, which is what you want to avoid.
That said, my entire argument was that it's not helpful to imagine swords as having been specifically designed for causing damage to other swords or even withstanding repeat blade-on-blade strikes for extended period of times. And we seem to agree on that.
But still, stuff happens.
Someone could certainly do some studies comparing methods and results, but anything of that matter would be very easy to bias.
What is clear is that classical methods are being employed by artists and not scientists. Mythology and visual appeal are being used to sell things, not quantifiable facts.
What matters now is mostly appearance. And maybe vague stuff about ability to keep an edge. But back in the day, you were in deep shit if your sword shattered. Or even got notched, if that put you off the flow.
In war, people mostly use polearms. In a sword fight, as has been shown in many HEMA videos i have seen, it's over in a single exchange. At that point it doesn't matter if your sword is shattered or not. And the idea that your sword being notched will 'put you off the flow' just doesn't buy it for me.
If you are using it in a battle and your sword breaks after the first exchange, what then?
Here is an hour long documentary answering your question: https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-secrets-viking-sword/
But still, the patterns can be beautiful. I've seen blades with patterns that resemble engravings. Maybe the approaches could be merged, to yield modern performance with classic beauty.