[Etienne Hamel]

i saw something that i was very impressed of (the strengh of the body is completely awesome +the weapon comparison). i dont know if anyone on this site saw it but check it out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_fW_gwAI9k

[Douglas S]

I think that this was on originally as "Fight Science" - at least in the States.

[Bill Tsafa]

Thanks for posting this. I just watched the whole series.

-I was impressed with the power of the boxers punch at 1,000 lbs. More then any other style.
-I was impressed with Mui Tai knee to the chest power. More then any other leg strike.
-I was impressed with the ninja death hammer. I would have though that total B.S.
-I liked how they tested and stressed the importance of reaction time.
-I expected what I saw from the Grappling.
-I expected what I saw from the staff weapons.
-I expected what I saw from the whip weapons. I have fought against flails and find them to be a one shot weapon.
-I was a little annoyed at the over-glorification of the katana. I suppose its fair because they focused mostly on Asian arts.


Very much worth watching.

[Gabriele A. Pini]

I'm the only one that found natgeo always a little not historically correct? Like they focus a bit too much in what the people expect to see, not what really is...

I prefer much more The History Channel...

[Bill Tsafa]

[Max Chouinard]

I cannot say it was objective. The tests were highly biaised, as the calculations didn't took account of the mass of the contenders, their experience and equipment. Two people are not going to hit with the same power, it's a fact. The taekwondo guy nearly had the same result has the boxer... even if one trains more the feet and the other more the fists... No wonder the kung fu practitionner had lesser results, I mean look at his size. As for the katana, except for Obata sensei (who righfully refused to cut the gel) it was nonsense. The whole show would have been interesting in it's own right if they didn't thought necessary to declare a "winner" each time.

[Etienne Hamel]

The thing is that its impressive to see the body's limits when it is trained hard its not really a comparison of the different martial art because all of the matial art have its strong points and weak points there is no thing such the perfect martial art.

As for the katana i think of why they classed it as the perfect weapon, hard to break, light weight and easy to control...

For the rest its urs to think

[A.A. Boskaljon]

I stopped watching when they said "martial arts were born in eastern tempels"

[Douglas S]

They have to fit into a 1/2 hour or one-hour show, results have to appear to be conclusive and visually appealing.
The old cliche with documentaries was the final phrase was always: "One thing's for certain..."
In other words, it has to be more watchable than a history lecture.

I see it as entertainment.

[Gary Teuscher]