Deadliest Warrior

I just watched Pirate vs. Knight. I wont say who won until I verify nobody will be pissed. I dont want to ruin it if you havent seen it. The next one will be Yakuza vs. Italian Mafia. Im gonna go with a tie. Their both brutal and tough as hell.

Wait, wait, like- pirate with a gun?

Yes.

The first episode I saw was Spartan Vs. Ninja. And yes this show kinda sucks. My reason for not digging it was the fake-looking "hatred" shown by the experts toward one another. The Martial arts expert and the Latino looking Ninja Master saying "Yea man, there's no way spartan is gonna beat us. We got killer weapons and black eggs and crushed glass in yo face" And then the Spartan expert saying " Yea man, you ninja dudes have no chance against my Spartan Shield. It makes me a Tank man. Look how your crappy stars bounce off, I'm sooo cool I have greaves!" I know I'm exagerating but their fake or even if it's real "anger" and "competitive nature" seemed forced and cheesey.
I do like the show on the History Channel called "Warriors" hosted by Terry Schapert, the green beret special forces dude. It's 1 hour focused on 1 warrior culture throughout history. They have done shows on the Myans, Samurai, Spartans, Vikings, English Knights (during King Richards reign) They did one on Knights of Balta (those dudes had gunpowder weapons). I like that show way more cause they just present the facts and cool stories.

Mafia? lol

Can we start doing super powered humans too? Spiderman Vs. Cop

Kyle wrote:Mafia? lol

Can we start doing super powered humans too? Spiderman Vs. Cop

Doctor Doom versus Burger King Drive-Thru Operator.

Baby versus Navy Seal....

Wait wasn't that a Vin Diesel movie?

The Pirate won. Because of the Grenado(grenade) and the Blunderbus.

WTF is wrong with you bill ?

The stupid last scene where you finally get to see who wins is the only halfway gratifying part of the show and now that's 2x you ruined it.

That's it.... I'm calling Chuck Norris to deal with you.

BTW the NO HOLES BARRED... that was was funny.. gross, but funny.


How about....

Modern Day Cosmo with a Machette vs. 16th Century Landsneckt with a cod piece

Big Cesar vs. Little Cesar in a jello wrestling ring.

Joel vs. Debbie ala Kirk vs Spock with those big Vulcan dueling weapons...ahahahhahahahha

Well I figure you criticize the show and think its stupid so Ill save you the pain of watching it.

there was this video game a long time ago where 2 warrors from different ages fought.

You could pick a viking, a caveman, a futuristic dude with like a light saber, a post apocalyptic dude with a chainsword..

anyone remember that?

Time Killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Killers

Man, i used to love that game, the dude with the chainsaw was a beast

Only fighting game that you could lose in a single move if they hit the neck area.

That game rocked !!!

Why would anyone want to see me in a Jello filled tub fighting to the death? Thats just Silly...and gross.

Because, there's definitely comedic value in that.

Did this get mentioned....this show is now officially silly and irrelevant. The next program will showcase....(drumroll)............Mafia Vs. Yakuza.....I guess we'll get to see how tony shoots a .45 as opposed to how Hideki Fires an AK 47....It's hit a new plateau of gayness. Maybe we can learn a little about the martial prowess of these two deadly warriors in close combat.

I went to the website for the show and found some useful information. Apparently we're not the only ones who have some serious questions about what goes into the " science" of how this show works. If you click on individual episodes and scroll down, you'll see a whole section on comments by viewers, and many people are asking legitimate questions.

There is also a video for each episode called "the after math" where 2 of the shows hosts answer emails questions from the viewers. Alot of the answers, as far as I have seen are very unsatisfying.

For instance when ask " why haven't you faced off stealth fighters vs stealth fighters and armoured vs armoured " , the answer was.." we've picked from a list of virtually over a hundred different types of warriors and we wanted to stay away from the rock vs rock , paper vs paper matchups and thought the rock vs scissors vs paper matchups would be more interesting. " What they forgot to mention was WHY they though this way. ..

Anyway... have a look for yourself

http://www.spike.com/video/deadliest-warrior/3158069

I just like to see them test the weapons.

yeah.. the gel filled torsos getting mutilated is actually the only reason why I watch the show.

Seriously though, one needs to question the validity of this computer program that they're using to simulate the 1000 fights used to predict the outcome. I don't understand for instance how the Pirate won this match with the Knight

In the show they demonstrated that the flintlock pistol could not pierce the knights armour. They then showed that while the Grenado could produce enough concussive force if aimed and time correctly to knock the Knight down, the shrapnel could not pierce the knights armour and could certainly not produce a killing blow.
The blunderbuss had 1 piece of shot that actually pierced the armour. However, it was shown that even in labratory conditions the blunderbuss could misfire and was not a very reliable weapon. Also, the knights armour was only tested with plate, and not with any other layers underneath, which could have very well been chain mail and cloth padding. Couldn't that have stopped the BB?

Lastly, they compared the broad sword to the cutlass and somehow deemed them to be evenly matched, even though in the test they show the broadsword cut the pig cleanly in half, while the cutlass did not. Not to mention that once again, a cutlass would do very little to a fully armoured knigth, as they demonstrate with even the boarding axe not being able to penetrate the weaker part of the knights helmet.

So I don't know how the pirate could have possibly won in the computer simulations. The flintlock doesn't work, the grenado doesn't work, the blunderbuss could possibly work if the knight is wearing chainmail or platemail by itself, and the cutlass and boarding axe don't work. Meanwhile every weapon of the knights arsenal was shown in the show to be capable of inflicting a killing blow on the unarmoured pirate.

What gives.?

Clearly they just like pirates better.

The show has some serious flaws, but some aspects of it are kinda kool.

Well the pirate for one has a huge advantage in that it simply can stay out of range of the knight almost infinitely as it's very difficult to move in heavy armor, your slowed down greatly and one can simply move quickly and stay out of reach of an armored knight fairly easy. The armor also slows down ones attacks and dexterity and tires out the wearer of said armor, especially if it's plate and if their is any underlying protection.

How exactly the pirate would penetrate the armor to actually defeat the knight is hard to say, but from the "simulations" we see them running, it's nothing but large amounts of numbers. The on screen reenactment has nothing to do with the results, they are just making the results look dramatic if anything as the numbers they are looking at don't somehow translate into how a fight actually plays out.

The computer programmer on the show has what exact reasoning or logic in his program that figures all this nonsense out? It's like some random ai programmer from a video game creating some algorithms to take "data" and come out with random outcomes... doesn't make it right.

Is the pirate gonna stay out of range of a crossbow ? well, that's my point... I'm not saying that the algorithms are set up incorrectly, but perhaps any non-numerical data that they input is biased.

I understand that the reenactment is for dramatic effect. (which explains why the pirate took a shot to the head with the morning star twice and still got up. ) But the information that they present to the viewers just doesn't seem to justify the outcome.

It's like they're saying... " well nothing the pirate has can possibly pierce the knights armour except for the blunderbuss with which is unreliable and a one shot weapon. But everything the knight has, including the CROSSBOW, is lethal" " But we're just gonna say that the pirate wins anyway" ??? Where did the computer simulation fuck that up?

The Knight is slow and cumbersome, has a very limited arc of vision, the pirate doesnt have to penetrate the armor, just come in close and fast and stick the cutlass or a pistol down the Knights' vunerable parts, armpit, behind the knee, and kill him that way. Much like what the british arches did to the French knights when they got close, knock them to the ground and stick a dagger through the groin area or the armpit, there is next to no armor there.

Still, the show is full of crap, cause they are not taking that into their calculations, the only data they use is the effectivenes of the weapons they are using.