Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Deadliest Warrior Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next 
Author Message
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Fri 22 May, 2009 1:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I watched Shaolin Monk vs Maori. Very interesting since I knew nothing of the Maori and their weapons. I got a kick on how the Maori took special joy in eating their enemies just so they could turn them into human feces. I agreed with the outcome. The Shaolin use of steel hook weapons wins over wood and bone.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com


Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Fri 22 May, 2009 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Taylor Ellis




PostPosted: Fri 22 May, 2009 1:57 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote:
I agreed with the outcome. The Shaolin use of steel hook weapons wins over wood and bone.

The warriors who fought the most advanced culture of their time to a standstill vs the warriors whose resistance to that same Empire was a complete farce? WTF?!

Seriously, this show might as well be called "deadliest weapons", because thats all that is getting tested.
View user's profile Send private message
Sam Gordon Campbell




Location: Australia.
Joined: 16 Nov 2008

Posts: 678

PostPosted: Fri 22 May, 2009 6:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Watched the Shalin monk vs. Maori warrior... Can't help feeling oh so slightly offended on the Maori's part. Just saying. Confused
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
View user's profile Send private message
Taylor Ellis




PostPosted: Fri 22 May, 2009 6:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jet Li vs Jake the Muss, I know who I'd bet on to win! Laughing Out Loud
View user's profile Send private message
Darryl Aoki





Joined: 12 Oct 2006

Posts: 93

PostPosted: Fri 22 May, 2009 7:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Oddly, the first adversary I think of when I hear Maoris is the Afrika Korps. That might have been an interesting show...

Maori Tommies versus Afrika Korps Jerries. (It'd be the Tommy and Jerry show!) (Ow.)
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Fri 22 May, 2009 5:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Also, that had to be the smallest Maori I have ever seen. Hell I have had grade 9 students bigger than that.
View user's profile Send private message
J.D. Crawford




Location: Toronto
Joined: 25 Dec 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,903

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jun, 2009 2:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Saw William Wallace vs. Shaka Zulu last night. These matches are getting personal.

It was somewhat surprising to see that a 13th century Scot was equipped with typical Renascence Scottish weapons (Classic two-hand Claymore with quatrefoils, dirk, targe with spike, etc.). He really was ahead of his time. Wink Makes me wonder if Shaka Zulu was correctly equipped with his spears, hide shield, and poison spitting (I have no idea).

Nevertheless, it was cool to watch the claymore lop off 3 'heads' in a single swing.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tony Brass





Joined: 15 Oct 2006

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Wed 03 Jun, 2009 10:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

One problem with the show is that they grade the effectiveness of a weapon based on its ability to cause damage to a non-moving target. They do not give enough importance to a weapons speed. In any real fight, speed is so important.

By that logic, the most effective sword would be Cold Steel's Grosse Messer, and a rapier, or a katana would be no comparison.

Give me a stationary target and a crow bar, a shovel, or a hammer would do very well. I actually reallyy enjoy the show, as I enjoy any show about weapons, and I love to see weapons in use - but it seems simply enough to give more points for a weapon that is easier to weild, and is fast.
View user's profile Send private message
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun, 2009 7:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

J.D. Crawford wrote:
...
It was somewhat surprising to see that a 13th century Scot was equipped with typical Renascence Scottish weapons (Classic two-hand Claymore with quatrefoils, dirk, targe with spike, etc.). He really was ahead of his time. Wink Makes me wonder if Shaka Zulu was correctly equipped with his spears, hide shield, and poison spitting (I have no idea).

Nevertheless, it was cool to watch the claymore lop off 3 'heads' in a single swing.


That being said, he could certanly have used a large XIIIa (don't know if he did, I'm no Wallace scholar, but the timeframe is right, and certanly has the same superdecapatation effect, if not the spiffy quatrafoil)
View user's profile Send private message
Randy Cook




Location: Virginia
Joined: 04 Jun 2009

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun, 2009 11:48 am    Post subject: It's not bad, not great, but good goofy fun         Reply with quote

I've enjoyed it as much as any 2am mostly drunken discussion I've ever been a part of which seems to be how the show was created. Big Grin

I have a feeling they'll run out of historical figures to match up, unless they start a round robin with all the winners of the previous season, but that would get pretty repetitious.

I'm waiting for the Tour Bus Driver vs Supermarket Bagboy fight! Or an Oompah-Loompah vs a Munchkin! Gandolph vs David Blaine!
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
J.D. Crawford




Location: Toronto
Joined: 25 Dec 2006

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,903

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun, 2009 1:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nat Lamb wrote:
That being said, he could certanly have used a large XIIIa (don't know if he did, I'm no Wallace scholar, but the timeframe is right, and certanly has the same superdecapatation effect, if not the spiffy quatrafoil)


Sure, that's plausible. And then there's the 'Wallace Sword', which doesn't look like either a typical 13th century sword or a typical Claymore.

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

So far as I know the ball and chain and blue face paint came from the movie (someone correct me if I'm wrong). In fact I'm almost surprised they didn't use the Del Tin Wallace claymore from the movie.

It's also a bit odd that the long range weapons were a club and a ball&chain. Scots had arrows and I assume Zulus did too. But maybe those had been done before and did not seem entertaining enough for the show.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ryan J. Kadwell




Location: Queensland, Australia
Joined: 12 Mar 2009

Posts: 25

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun, 2009 11:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

If, hypothetically, I saw this at a DVD store, would it be worth my hard earned cash purchasing it?

From following this thread and the views shared on it, it seems like this series seems little more than McHistorian fanboy geekgasm-fest, akin to much vaunted "Han Solo vs. Captain Kirk" debates.

If that much is true, are there any series that actually does take the topic of various WMA, and the weapon systems used, and actually take great pains to be correct (or at least, be responsible) about it?

(For the record, Kirk would win. And then steal Princess Leia. And not call her the next day. He's a jerk like that.)

Geoffrey: You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down!

Richard: When the fall’s all that’s left, it matters a great deal.
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Thu 04 Jun, 2009 11:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ryan J. Kadwell wrote:
If, hypothetically, I saw this at a DVD store, would it be worth my hard earned cash purchasing it


No. And I say that from multiple perspectives. It's not even entertaining. It's stupid. If you're going to buy DVDs, buy something else. Spike TV even has better offerings than this program. This program is very bad.

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nat Lamb




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 385

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun, 2009 12:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

socconded. At least Kirk vs Solo wont increase some random Joe's level of missinformation about something like history/weapons.
And anyway, the battle would depend on if Solo shoots first.
View user's profile Send private message
Sam Blanchard




Location: Columbia, MO
Joined: 09 Jan 2006

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun, 2009 12:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nat Lamb wrote:
socconded. At least Kirk vs Solo wont increase some random Joe's level of missinformation about something like history/weapons.
And anyway, the battle would depend on if Solo shoots first.

If Kirk got his shirt off before Solo could shoot, Trek would definitely beat Wars.
View user's profile Send private message
Taylor Ellis




PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun, 2009 3:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan Robinson wrote:

No. And I say that from multiple perspectives. It's not even entertaining. It's stupid. If you're going to buy DVDs, buy something else. Spike TV even has better offerings than this program. This program is very bad.

Nathan, you're not being clear. Do you like the show or not?

Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud Laughing Out Loud
View user's profile Send private message
Gavin Kisebach




Location: Lacey, Wa US
Joined: 01 Aug 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 650

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun, 2009 3:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's almost cathartic to hear Nathan being so unequivocally negative about something. You're normally so diplomatic....
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun, 2009 9:53 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gavin Kisebach wrote:
It's almost cathartic to hear Nathan being so unequivocally negative about something. You're normally so diplomatic....


I read it now and I think, "I wrote that?" It's so matter-of-fact. Oh well. I was busy dealing with a hacker at the time. (not myArmoury.com, but my client's server...) I guess I forgot my filter. Happy

.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Tony Brass





Joined: 15 Oct 2006

Posts: 115

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun, 2009 10:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The show is stupid, but it is also fun to watch. Just because any time someone picks up a cool replica and actually gets to hit something, that is entertaining. The pain of it, is that it is a waste. They have all those cameras, dummies, facilities, lights, and of course weapons. Get Nathan, Patrick, Bill, etc... in there and it could be a real show - where we all really learn somthing.

The show is a tremendous waste of resources.
View user's profile Send private message
Nicholas Rettig




Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Joined: 12 Jul 2006

Posts: 26

PostPosted: Fri 05 Jun, 2009 5:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have to defend the show, for a few reasons. One, its entertaining to watch dummies get torn apart, it gives a visceral feel to the weapons that reading about them doesn't. Though dummies they use don't move so they can't really imitate a human opponent seeing a worst case scenario is interesting. I think with selective viewing and a good base of knowledge it could be informational. Two, it can only do good. It will, no doubt, inspire some people to start really learning about historical arms. And for the misinformed, well other than the possibility that they can annoy those who know what their talking about, I see no way that inaccurate knowledge of thirteenth century fighting techniques could harm anybody. And finally, (sorry if this part comes off as offensive to anyone) you are an over specialized crowd, a show concerning the minutiae of detail that would interest an expert would only alienate the neophytes. Again back to the second point, I'm going to guess that for at least ninety percent of the people on here what got you interested in historical arms in no way involved anything historically correct or detail oriented. It's a harmless show, and anybody who expects good info from a network called "spike" is of questionable merit anyway.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Deadliest Warrior
Page 9 of 11 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum