Deadliest Warrior

I've been really enjoying this show thus far. Reminds me a lot of Fight Science. What more, I mostly agree with their decisions. I do think the Apache take the Gladiators on almost arrows alone. Apache are like the ninja of the west.

For Samurai and Vikings, I disagree on the long axe taking the katana (even if it was "close") if not purely on the fact the sword would undoubtedly deflect 90+% of the axe swipes. I think they went axe simply because they wanted an even split of the weapons to build tension.

Also, I'm really surprised the Kanabo was included as AFAIK it was rarely wielded by the vast majority of samurai. I would think they'd use the Tetsubo even though also not common, more believable in my knowledge. Then again, yari or sleeve catchers make more sense.

I agree with the samurai winning, though. They made a life on maneuvering around armor while the Viking would smash their way to victory, thus giving the samurai the advantage.

As for next week, I think the ninja are going to take the Spartans. The Spartan worked as a phalanx, alone they fall to the ninja's trickery. For the Spartan, I imagine they'll measure the sword, spear, and shield. Maybe the bow? For the ninja, at least ninjato and shuriken, likely torinoko (eggshell bombs), fukidake (blowgun), metsubishi (blinding powder), and tetsubishi (caltrops), maybe the shogi, chijiriki, kusarifundo, or kusarigama.

BTW, LOVE the fact they got the narrator from 300 to do this show. I still find it funny he was the monk from Van Helsing when you see him all beefy in 300.

I, too, enjoyed David Wenham's narration, though I found the show to be simplistic and pedestrian. If you thought the contrast between his roles in Van Helsing and 300 was a shock, check out his small, but hilarious performance in Moulin Rouge.

Joshua wrote:I, too, enjoyed David Wenham's narration, though I found the show to be simplistic and pedestrian.

Why's that? I actually found it to be quite informative as it gave me some respect for Gladiators and Vikings. Though, I was surprised they neglected to mention gladiators often had varying degrees of obesity as a sort of body armor which helps explain their scant few slices of actual armor.

I thought some of the information presented on the weapons was interesting, as was the demonstrations, but the actual systematic way they stacked specific weapons against one another was far too simplistic a method to determine a winner. I just don't feel they took in near enough information to determine an outcome.

I think this show rules. I am loving it.

A little bummed the ninja lost, but the Spartan was certainly a worthy opponent. I called the ninjato, shuriken, torinoko (eggshell bombs), fukidake (blowgun), metsubishi (blinding powder), and chain weapon (kusarigama).

I was surprised tetsubishi (caltrops) didn't make it on, then again it already seemed ridiculous they got three long range weapons to the obvious gimme of the Spartan javelin (to even get close to a damaging shot, the dude was a good six feet away). I was also surprised they combined torinoko and metsubishi; often, blinding powder was thrown by hand from a pouch, blown from a tube, or filling the spare room in the scabbard of the ninjato though surely it was put into eggs or other apparatus for distance (which made it strange for all instances it was used close range). Often, torinoko were smoke bombs, thrown at the feet to create a burning cloud that ninja used to position armored opponents.

Further, shuriken were generally used for means of escape which made it strange in the scenario the ninja stood still and tossed them instead of not running to force the Spartan to keep his shield up blocking his view and vanish (and/or tossing down caltrops, considering the Spartan wore sandals would've impeded movement and targeted a weak spot).

Though I took issue with the scene where the combatants played tug-of-war (the Spartan was completely open, I can't wrap my hand around him not getting a face full of glass and a rain of stars), the biggest shock was a seemingly unaffected Spartan when he did receive a face full of glass. I mean, the ninja would've appeared a blur and I think it unlikely he would've detected the shuriken or able to dodge the blowdarts.

Test wise, I was quite shocked they never tested the ninjato tip against the armor. Reportedly, the tanto tip could penetrate steel plate. If true, it should've eaten through the bronze armor. I mean, the ninjato was designed as a straight blade with tanto tip for the expres purpose of armor piercing, something that went untested.

I have to question if the right men were chosen to represent ninja. The one guy seemed rather out of shape to me even though he appeared to be proficient with the sword. The other guy was like a kung fu fighter whom didn't strike me as being very bright. Both of the Spartans were lean, strong, seasoned fighters.

All that said, that shield really made the Spartans' case. The spear could be rather easily avoided by ninja. The javelin was a joke to give the Spartan another weapon. The sword was a glorified knife. That shield was a freight train from Hell. I can only wonder how it would've went if the ninja could've taken out the shield. I mean, torinoko into a distraction, weighted chain around the shield arm or shield, and a game of chess between the two specialty weapons. I think the ninjato could've penetrated the armor, I doubt the shield if not for its curved surface alone to restrict it getting a good bite.

Diappointed, but this was really a close one imho. Which brings me to what Joshua said: I don't think, at least in this instance, the program could really account for all of the ninja's tools. It was made for weapon vs weapon, it maybe incapable of calculating the ninja's craftiness into its estimation. I think army vs army, it's 65 to 35%. One on one, I'd say more 55 to 45%.

A Marathon of this show was on this weekend. Watched a few of them. Next up: Pirates vs. Knights. I like the show alot. I plan on watching it Tuesday (if the wife'd not hogging the t.v. for Biggest Loser that is.)

Althose fake japanese words Jerry throws around and no one tries to quote him and edit it with japanese dirty stuff? ya'll suck!

Paizuri and Bukkake deserve their due.

I dig the show, I just wish it was on History and not Spike. The narrator is a little much, and I could really, really do without the trash talking from the two teams. Just do the demo and give me the stats and facts.

Esbat wrote:Paizuri and Bukkake deserve their due.

I had to look up what those meant.. dirty!

[quote="Foxy"]I dig the show, I just wish it was on History and not Spike. The narrator is a little much, and I could really, really do without the trash talking from the two teams. Just do the demo and give me the stats and facts.
quote]

Yeah, the trash talk got old in no time flat. I really like the use of weapons against the gel dummies though. Seeing the actual damage they can inflict made me go make black eggs. At some point...prolly gonna go to jail for these klittle flying shells of terror.

FroZen wrote:A Marathon of this show was on this weekend. Watched a few of them. Next up: Pirates vs. Knights.

How is that a fight? Pirates had guns.

Joshua wrote:

FroZen wrote:A Marathon of this show was on this weekend. Watched a few of them. Next up: Pirates vs. Knights.

How is that a fight? Pirates had guns.

I said the same damn thing when I saw what was coming up this week. It'll be interesting to see how these two line up.

I have a hard time believing that medieval armor could withstand a bullet. Now if the gun is taken out of the equation, I'd give it to the knight, assuming it's just a run-of-the-mill pirate, but a gun has both superior power and range.

Another question to take into consideration is what century is the pirate from? Obviously it won't be the twentieth century, but I think it's fair to assume it could be anywhere between the 18th and 19th centuries, which has got a solid 1000 years of technology over the knight (again, I'm assuming medieval knight).

Pirates actually came about in the early 1700's. So 18th Century if I'm figurin' that right. Here's the biggie....Cannons. Pirates in a Man-o-war with about 32 guns could kill the hell outta some knights as long as they were close enough to shore.(Pirates didn't have ships that big though (Robert "Blackbeard" Teach had one that was close, the "Queen Ann's Revenge" but that's beside the point) Doubt if they figure Ships into the fight though. Cannons and pistols vs. Swords and shields. The knights are doomed.

FroZen wrote:Pirates actually came about in the early 1700's. So 18th Century if I'm figurin' that right. Here's the biggie....Cannons. Pirates in a Man-o-war with about 32 guns could kill the hell outta some knights as long as they were close enough to shore.(Pirates didn't have ships that big though (Robert "Blackbeard" Teach had one that was close, the "Queen Ann's Revenge" but that's beside the point) Doubt if they figure Ships into the fight though. Cannons and pistols vs. Swords and shields. The knights are doomed.

Cannons were only used on ships though, so I can't imagine that will factor into the equation at all, though it was the first thing I considered.

Also, pirates were around long before the 18th century, the modern-day view of pirates is just generally taken from the 18th and 19th century's model of piracy, which begs another question: what kind of pirates will they be gauging? There are so many different types of pirates to consider, all of which will have different strengths.

Joshua wrote:

FroZen wrote:Pirates actually came about in the early 1700's. So 18th Century if I'm figurin' that right. Here's the biggie....Cannons. Pirates in a Man-o-war with about 32 guns could kill the hell outta some knights as long as they were close enough to shore.(Pirates didn't have ships that big though (Robert "Blackbeard" Teach had one that was close, the "Queen Ann's Revenge" but that's beside the point) Doubt if they figure Ships into the fight though. Cannons and pistols vs. Swords and shields. The knights are doomed.

Cannons were only used on ships though, so I can't imagine that will factor into the equation at all, though it was the first thing I considered.

Also, pirates were around long before the 18th century, the modern-day view of pirates is just generally taken from the 18th and 19th century's model of piracy, which begs another question: what kind of pirates will they be gauging? There are so many different types of pirates to consider, all of which will have different strengths.

Pirates weren't really pirates before the 1700's they were privateers. There's a difference. Men who were hired by the British to plunder Spanish trading vessels and ports. Once the trade war ended the privateers were left to their own devices and started pirating. Once they started...everyone was fair game. I'm sure there was some "pirating" going on before the 1700's but not sure how much historical documentation there actually is on the subject. I'm sure they'll use the 18th century model for a pirate since those are the first to be historically documented by name and deeds.

Piracy has existed as long as the seas have been used for trade routes, which goes back all the way to before Christ. Privateers really didn't exist before the 17th century and they were generally no different from other pirates, aside from being legally authorized by a country's government (though they often didn't sink ships as much as capture them). Privateers are just one type of pirate; they are neither the origin or the model on which pirates are based.

Esbat wrote:Althose fake japanese words Jerry throws around and no one tries to quote him and edit it with japanese dirty stuff? ya'll suck!

Paizuri and Bukkake deserve their due.

Waki no Shita Fetchi?