I see this show on Spike TV, where they compare 2 different warriors from different time eras, in the attempts to find out who is the baddest man in the land. Everything from short, medium, and long range distances including different weapons are compared. Here are some examples of the matchups…
its a pretty cool show, the trash talk between the opposing people is kinda gay though ahah i tihnk they should have a real life fight in the end not some fake simulation
I am watching the Green Beret vs Spetnaz matchup, and its kinda funny. The Russians are doing somersaults and body rolls while shooting LOL. I was happy to see the Mafia beating the Yakuza 58% of the time.
I hate the show. I enjoy seeing the damage done to the dummies and the weapon demos, but the rest of the show is just awful.
The “experts” are absolutely painful to listen to. They’re so fucking jazzed up about it and take everything personally…they remind me of the animal “experts” that were on a similar show about pitting different animals against each other.
The idea that they have “data” and run a thousand “simulations” is just fucking laughable as well, and don’t get me started on the battle they play out at the end.
Also, how did the Spartan just shrug off the crushed glass in his eyes? The hell?
Entertaining show, but I think it could be improved upon:
1.) Stop allowing one weapon to win the battle: This happened last week. The Maori won most of the weapon comparisons, but the Shaolin destroyed them overall 700-300 solely because of those bladed hooks. Basically, one ass-kicker of a weapon will render the remainder of the show pointless.
2.) Account for body size and strength: A 200lb Viking hitting something with a hatchet is going to generate more damage than a 140lb Apache using a similar weapon. Nothing mystical here, its just physics.
3.) Fewer douchebags: Some of the guys are funny as hell, the Maoris last week in particular, but some of them take it WAY too seriously. The younger yakuza advocate and the apaches were the worst.
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
Entertaining show, but I think it could be improved upon:
1.) Stop allowing one weapon to win the battle: This happened last week. The Maori won most of the weapon comparisons, but the Shaolin destroyed them overall 700-300 solely because of those bladed hooks. Basically, one ass-kicker of a weapon will render the remainder of the show pointless.
2.) Account for body size and strength: A 200lb Viking hitting something with a hatchet is going to generate more damage than a 140lb Apache using a similar weapon. Nothing mystical here, its just physics.
3.) Fewer douchebags: Some of the guys are funny as hell, the Maoris last week in particular, but some of them take it WAY too seriously. The younger yakuza advocate and the apaches were the worst. [/quote]
Good post,
I do think it’s funny that some of these younger people take it so seriously. The Apaches were the worst. I also think it’s funny that many of the weapons are not judges correctly. The moment you bring metal into the equation the balance of power shifts. Also explosive and shooting weapons are king. If you can kill someone from 50 feet with a grenade, then you are the ultimate warrior, you don’t have to get close to kill your opponent.
I also think those tests are only as good as the subjects who perform them. When the Green Beret swung his shovel/axe weapon only 9 mph, I instantly thought he was a pussy while he blamed it on flawed aerodynamics. Please.
On a side note, I saw a show called Sports Science, where things like Stephon Marbury’s crossover generated enough ankle trauma to break his opponent’s ankles. Pretty crazy.