Have you seen the "Deadliest Warrior"? Would do you think of their analysis?

I tend to agree most of the time..... except for the pirate beating a knight or an apache beating a gladiatorHave you seen the "Deadliest Warrior"? Would do you think of their analysis?
I think, for the most part, they get it right. Your contentions with the Knight vs. Pirate, are kind of pointless since the pirate has guns that can penetrate the Knight's armor, giving the pirate a great initial advantage.



Same for the Apache and the Gladiator: If the Apache hits the Gladiator with an arrow before the fight gets hand to hand, the Apache has the distinct advantage.



I like the medical analysis of the damage that the weapons do on the dummies. I think that's the most interesting part of the show.
It's just entertainment. Take it for what it is.Have you seen the "Deadliest Warrior"? Would do you think of their analysis?
they do some testing sure but they are by no means accurate to the material and the tests are less than scientific there is also evidence saying they ignore the advise of their actual experts in order to show a cool looking but pointless exercise. as a history person I watch for entertainment and for the comedy EDIT and they tend to start more who would beat who discussions than they endHave you seen the "Deadliest Warrior"? Would do you think of their analysis?
I dont find it to be accureit ether I mean were are you going to find ninja's going against something like the roman army. I kind of find it quit humorous and entertaining. I mean the one with the shalion monks the only thing it provided was the bo staff is fast an flex able rather it more of a child basic test weaponry.
Its taken the psuedo science we see in mythbusters and the short lived smash labs, to whole new level of weak. After watching the alledged doctor and weapon expert so little thought goes into their analysis that it is truly sad, let alone the people brought to demonstrate the techniques of the long dead and defunct fighting techniques are pretty bad, although you can tell they were told to do the lame crap they are doing. The funniest was the yakuza mobster one, where they basically said, these two groups prefered these readily available weapons that both had access to, heres what would happen. You also have to appreciate the lameness of the "computer simulation" where the numbers magically become simple ratios, I guess the entertainment value in the show is about how bad it is, it'd be a good show if you were an eight year-old using english as a second language.
never saw it and would not agree with them even if i did.



the show is not based on reality it is based on entertainment. if it didnt make them money then it would not be on the air, they could careless on how accurate there information is.

or how accurate there history is.
It's as true to real life as the CSI series is to real forensic scientists.



I knew it was crap when I saw the gladiator episode. Simple logic- an Apache warrior is a highly skilled fighter/killer. A gladiator at best is a highly skilled fighter.... at worst, a lazy b@stard who is trying to get his debts paid off.



Yeah, some of the weapons look bad-a$$ against a rack of ribs, but against a real-life, moving, more than likely armored individual?



They just don't do any of the fighter types justice, in my eyes.
it's HORRIBLE analysis. they had Chuck Liddell punching with the gladiator's scissor and they had some schmuck stabbing with the Apache's knife. gee... wonder who's is gonna have more impact...?
Horrible analysis. Shoddy research. Half-hearted simulation.



The teams ignore huge variables in an attempt to feed numbers into a computer that then spits out a result. There's a saying for that: garbage in, garbage out.
i like the show very entertaining i thing that the analysis are about as accurate as they can be and each individual person is different you cant analyze the heart of a fighter and that's one of the most important aspects of any combat. i would like to see them do something like muay thai vs savate or kung fu monk vs ancient roman pancration fighter there is not much accuracy to the analysis but hey great show and i agree with you a gladiator shoulda kicked a apache's a$$
Geez people it's a TV show, we could critique any show to death, It's an interesting point of view more intended to get people interested in historical warriors, Don't tell me you think the show is lame or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The people they call "experts" are not true experts.



The comparisons are not fair or even accurate.



Yes - it's only a TV show but if you notice on this forum, their are kids who believe that BS.



Who knows how many others are also?



Considerable testing? NOT!



It is a BS show by BS people with BS results.
that show i admit is entertaining but the stuff they do to "test" the weapons usually has nothing to do with anything. ok green beret v spetsnaz every american watching saw the russians dude cocky attitude and immediatly hated him and when they won everyone either turned off the t.v or changed the channel. also those little loopty roles they did were stupid when in a fire fight is a summer-salt into a knealing sideways shot going to help you. in a video game maybe. in a war simply dead. entertaining but DEFINETLY not accurate.
Their "scientific simulator" is actually a video game. What more do you need to know?