Deadliest Warrior

[Grov]

Not sure if any of you are watching this new series but they compare statistically two historical warriors using modern experts, period weaponry, scientific measurements of impact, and a computer program to run the fight scenario 1000 times to avoid lucky shot kills.  They have compared the Apache Knifefighter to the Roman Gladiator (Apache won), Viking to  Samauri (Sam won), and tonight a Ninja versus a Spartan (not telling).  The biggest reason I am mention any of this is that next week they are matching up a Pirate and a Knight.  For all of us that wear personas of either, it could be quite informative in totally new ways. 

Heres a link to their site, although it's only showing the current episode's info.  http://www.spike.com/show/31082

[Robert eben Hope]

I posted a pole about this in the books/movies/publications forum. I'd like to see who everyone thinks will win next week. Should be a rather interesting battle.

[Sir William Marcus]

I enjoy it and also just reminded me that I recorded tonights show.


A little more info for curious minds...

Each week on Deadliest Warrior, a new episode will pit two of the most feared warriors civilization has ever known against each other. Along with the use of 21st century science and the latest in CGI technology, each episode enlists warrior-specific world-class fighters and experts to provide insight into what makes these combatants tick, analyzing every facet of their unique skills of destruction, culminating in a head-to-head final fight between two legends of the battlefield that will produce the deadliest warrior. Other highly-anticipated showdowns this season include: Pirate vs. Knight, Taliban vs. IRA, Yakuza vs. Mafia, Viking vs. Samurai, Green Beret vs. Spetznaz, Maori vs. Shaolin Monks, William Wallace vs. Shaka Zulu and Ninja vs. Spartan.



New Episodes air on Tuesdays @ 10pm

[Grov]

William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu?  No contest.  Don't they know that William Wallace was 8 ft tall, shot lightning from his eyes and thunder from his arse, or somesuch.  Haha.

[brier patch charlie]

GO SCOTLAND!    FRREEEEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!

[Sir William Marcus]

Well I just finished watching Ninja VS Spartan.  I would of put my money on the Ninja due to the versatility of its weapons & fighting skills.  But, I was wrong, and the Spartan was victorious in many scenarios,  so ....Hail Sparta!



Although, (and they even commented at the end of show) I do believe the Ninja or Ninjas would of just killed them all in their sleep under the cover of darkness 

Another thing that I noticed in this show was some Hollywood influence especially with the Ninjas "shuriken" aka throwing stars   I'm positive that there are some true Shinobi masters getting a laugh out of that one. 

[Luciana]

Thanks Grov. I was wondering who won at Viking vs. Samurai. (I fell asleep during the last 10 minutes of the show .. damn it).
I was hoping that Viking will be the winners but it looks that I was wrong.

So .. next week is Pirate vs. Knight? Awesome. * runs to the calendar to make a note *

[temper]

Sorry folks, this series makes me want to hurl things at the TV

[Sir William Marcus]

It's incredibly out there although somewhat entertaining.

[Alacrity]

I like the series but they could use some of the Mythbusters Methodology. They really don't compare the weapons under the same criteria.

Next on Deadliest Warriors - Marketing vs Human Resources.

[Lady Christina de Pond]

I was pulling for the Apache the whole time  think thats the only time i've seen it

[Elennare]

I like the concept of the show, and I like that it's keeping stunt people in business, but...

Every time I watch that show, I get SO irritated at the guys running the tests.  They're not set up fairly, and sometimes they base their conculsions on erronious data.  For example, the Viking vs Samauri show...the last one I watched, and likely the last one I will watch.

One of the big contributing factors to the Samauri edging out the Viking was the fact that their simulations considered the Viking to be fighting with a broken arm from blocking the Samauri club with his shield.  Why was his arm broken?  Because in their test of the shield stopping power, they mounted the shield on a table and had a guy smash it with the club.  The force transmitted through the shield when it was used that was (stationary) was enough to break an arm, therefore the Viking had a broken arm.

No duh!  Which is why any warrior with 5 minutes training on using a shield knows YOU DON'T USE A SHIELD LIKE A WALL!!!  Because you WILL get a broken arm if you do.  So, you use the shield to deflect, not stop, blows.  Why bother to use a shield if you get a broken arm from the first attack that come at it?  That'd happen w/o the shield too.  Makes no sense.  Use it right, and you don't get a broken arm, and you have a much more effective weapon than the show gave it credit for.

Sorry.  I'm done ranting now.  I like the concept, but until they improve their testing methodology, I'm going to give it a pass.

[Cobaltblu]

They take a lot of creative license.

I watch Mythbusters and many times I can immediately tell whether or not the "myth" is plausible or not and I assume they know the answer themselves however they do it anyway for entertainment value.

[Grov]

I may have a different perspective on the Deadliest Warrior mismatching issue.  I play miniature wargames and many of the rule sets allow for armies from vastly different time and technological levels.  From Native Americans long before white man's influence to the myriad configurations of European Medieval armies and beyond in both directions.  Seeing, albeit fairly non-scientific, comparisons made makes me wonder on a man vs man scale how some of these armies I play actually would have fought if one slipped through a time portal.

[Elennare]

My issue with the show isn't that their taking vastly different weapons/cultures and having them "fight," it's an issue with the testing methodology.

Often they do things like have one weapon attack a dummy, analyze the (horrific) wounds it caused, and declare it incredibly effective.  Then, the weapon they are comparing it to gets to smack a tree stump, or a clay pot.  They look at whatever (less impressive) damage it caused and say that clearly the other one is better.

How can you really tell?  They weren't compared under any sort of fair or equal environment.  The test is so biased it's hard for me to believe anyone can think any sort of meaningful data is produced, and in the above scenario the result is based more on emotion than science.  Sure, a smashed a pot isn't as impressive as a sucking chest wound, but if the blow that smashed the pot knocks your skull in so you are unconscience (and delivered w/a weapon w/longer reach), which one really wins?

I guess my complaint really boils down to the fact that they claim their testing is scientific, but it's really not.  They need to pick one and go with it, rather than this half and half crap they got going on now.

Also, miniature wargames are fun.