They need to bring back Deadliest Warrior

[Traab]

And start making it about fictional characters and stuff. They could make the first 6 seasons just off this message board. Yes I know death battle on screw attack is a thing, I just think they could go further in depth and make a full show out of it. They already got started with their last episode on vampires versus zombies.

[Rater202]

Werewolf vs Dragon.

[Morbis Meh]

Captain Kirk vs Han Solo, the sheer amount of nerd rage created by this would bring about endless entertainment for someone like myself

[Tengu_temp]

A Deadliest Warrior episode about fictional characters would be a good representation of a typical vs thread.

Because both suck.

[Starbuck_II]

A Deadliest Warrior episode about fictional characters would be a good representation of a typical vs thread.

Because both suck.

I liked Zombies vs Vampires.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Google: "Death Battle"

That is all.

[Rater202]

I liked Zombies vs Vampires.
As did I, "twas awesome

Google: "Death Battle"

That is all.

Read OP again, Death Battle is mentioned.

Traab wants an actual deadliest warrior thing. Like, on TV

[Tengu_temp]

Death Battle is bad. It's rife with research fail and obvious biases. You know, like many versus threads.

[BWR]

Faulty premesis, bad logic, questionable conclusions and assumptions with little in the way of hard evidence to support them: sounds like it's just right show for the job of pitting two groups of beings with wildly varying powerlevels no one can agree on against eachother.

[Tyndmyr]

Death Battle is bad. It's rife with research fail and obvious biases. You know, like many versus threads.

So, just like Deadliest Warrior, then.

[Knaight]

A Deadliest Warrior episode about fictional characters would be a good representation of a typical vs thread.

Because both suck.

On the other hand, anything that prevents people trying to cite Deadliest Warrior as regards reality is good by me. Plus, having all the ridiculous macho posturing around ludicrous fantasy weapons that next to nobody considers viable has the potential to be hilarious.

[Traab]

Google: "Death Battle"

That is all.

Read my entire OP.

That is all. :smallbiggrin: Honestly, a longer version of death battle for each fight is basically what I would like to see. They could even do multi stage battles, meaning, just as an example, superman versus batman, one comparing tv show and cartoon versions, another comparing movies, and a couple for various ages of comics. Just to try and cover all those insane variations between Adventures of Superman (http://www.ask.com/wiki/Adventures_of_Superman_%28TV_series%29) And silver age "I punch reality and it breaks" level shenanigans. Same for adam west to whatever bruce waynes most impressive show of power and punching above his weight class capability is.

[ArlEammon]

A Deadliest Warrior MOBA would be awesome.

[Hyena]

While there is no MOBA game, this is pretty close. (http://www.ign.com/games/chivalry-deadliest-warrior/pc-20005904)

[Dienekes]

Oh Deadliest Warrior, you were stupid, inconsistent, ridiculous, and cheesy.

But you showed me a guy who PUNCHED THROUGH A COW! And for that I will forever be grateful.

I would probably watch this, and so long as they do the weapon drills I would watch it and joke about what's wrong with it. Then enjoy the destruction of carcasses.

[Traab]

Heh, my favorite was when the vlad fanboy used that sword on the pig and cut clean through it like a knife through butter. I admit my jaw dropped seeing just how effectively it sliced through. That was right up there with the claymore decapitating three heads with one swing. The other enjoyable thing was watching them try to convince us a weapon was awesome when it had a crappy showing. Like using a gun where the first shot dented a breastplate and bounced off, but the second took him in the throat. He kept trying to ignore how ineffective the gun was against the armor. Or the pirate episode where his gun had like three misfires in a row. It doesnt matter how powerful your gun is if it only fires 25% of the time.

[JBPuffin]

I didn't know it had ended...but agreeing with OP, Death Battle as a full-on TV show would be ridiculously awesome.

Dibs on Darth Vader vs Mewtwo! (lol...okay, i'm at least half-serious here.)

[Zrak]

Death Battle is bad. It's rife with research fail and obvious biases. You know, like many versus threads.

Or like many blogs, magazines, newspapers, documentaries, books, television series, and academic journals.

[Rater202]

I didn't know it had ended...but agreeing with OP, Death Battle as a full-on TV show would be ridiculously awesome.

Dibs on Darth Vader vs Mewtwo! (lol...okay, i'm at least half-serious here.)

1. Anime Mewtwo, or Game Mewtwo?

2. If Anime, the original one, or the female one from the recent movie(This one can Mega Evolve Into Mega Mewtwo Y)

3.If Game, Wild or with a trainer?

4. If Trainer, with or without Mega Evolution

5.If Mega Evolution, which one?

all of that is important information o how this goes down(I'm assuming when you say Darth Vader you mean the Badass Cyborg from the original and not the whiney kid from the prequels)

[TheFallenOne]

The only worthwhile part of Deadliest Warrior was the weapon tests, the rest was fanboying and questionable research. Given most fictional characters don't come with testable weapons the result would be bad.

Although I certainly would watch a Klingon bat'leth go to town on a dummie.

[Traab]

Honestly, you couldnt really test the vast majority of things in the versus battles. Even the batleth example is flawed, since I doubt in star trek that klingons import earth steel to forge them. What you would likely see though are video clips of the shows or movies and scans of comic pages to demonstrate the best case scenarios for the various weapons/powers. So you might see an episode of star trek, whatever series, where worf or random klingon #491 cuts through body armor with a single swipe, then compare it to stated strength of, I dunno, storm trooper armor.

And Rater, see, thats the reason why I suggested multiple battle settings. That way you could do various comparisons between the different versions. (Im not sure if there is a major difference in EU Vader or not)

[Dienekes]

The only worthwhile part of Deadliest Warrior was the weapon tests, the rest was fanboying and questionable research. Given most fictional characters don't come with testable weapons the result would be bad.

Although I certainly would watch a Klingon bat'leth go to town on a dummie.

I don't know man. If the budget was increased I could see something like:

The Star Wars lightsaber is a beam of pure light. Like a laser that has been condensed into a small area. To test how effective this would be we are going to shoot this laser at that pig carcass over there.

[cue everyone awing at it and that science guy explaining exactly how dead you would be if you were murdered by a laser]

And I would watch that. A million times.

[Knaight]

The only worthwhile part of Deadliest Warrior was the weapon tests, the rest was fanboying and questionable research. Given most fictional characters don't come with testable weapons the result would be bad.

Given the questionable authenticity of many of the weapons - before even getting into the ridiculous way they were assigned*, the weapon tests aren't particularly worthwhile.

*See: Giving the gladiator a sling in the gladiator vs. Apache episode. There is an extant slinging style called Apache, because it was used by Apache hunters, warriors, etc. during the period they were first met by European colonists, though it's actual origins aren't known. Gladiators, meanwhile, are not exactly known for their prowess with the sling.

[TheFallenOne]

Yes, their sloppy research extended into the weapons a couple times. So what? I still got to see a horse dummie beheaded, a flail splatting a skull, a couple pig carcasses cut apart with impressive ease or, as Dienekes already mentioned, someone punching through a cow. I was also quite surprised how easily the gladius took off limbs, I always assumed it to be a stabbing weapon not all that useful at slashing.

Where else can I get to see such tests of historical weapons, even if they're sometimes misplaced or not accurate replicas? They could have done better there, but even with the flaws it was the only part of the show worth watching.

[Dienekes]

Given the questionable authenticity of many of the weapons - before even getting into the ridiculous way they were assigned*, the weapon tests aren't particularly worthwhile.

*See: Giving the gladiator a sling in the gladiator vs. Apache episode. There is an extant slinging style called Apache, because it was used by Apache hunters, warriors, etc. during the period they were first met by European colonists, though it's actual origins aren't known. Gladiators, meanwhile, are not exactly known for their prowess with the sling.

Hell man, William Wallace died before the two-handed claymore was even invented. But you know what? I saw someone use one to cut off three heads at the same time. If you can't just sit back and enjoy something like that, then I feel sorry for you.

And honestly, I think I have only twice ever have someone use the show to defend some stupid notion and it took only a 2 minute (and incredibly engaging) conversation to point out the errors. Even though it's wrong it's pretty harmless and fun.

[Rater202]

My biggest issue with the Deadliest warrior was that they sometimes would test the accuracy of armor, but wouldn't test the other guy's weapons against the armor.

Like in Ninja verses Spartan, they tested exactly one pice of Nija weaponry(black egg) agaist exactly one piece of Spartan Armor(Helmet)

As opposed to the solid Iron ball on a chain agaist the Half-inch wood+Quarter-inch bronze shield.

or take into account that the shield don't stop momentum, so a strong enough blow will still break an arm, even if you block it.

[Knaight]

Hell man, William Wallace died before the two-handed claymore was even invented. But you know what? I saw someone use one to cut off three heads at the same time. If you can't just sit back and enjoy something like that, then I feel sorry for you.

That they claimed historicity did ruin it for me to some extent, though outside of that context it was enjoyable. This would be one of the reasons I like Man At Arms - there are no pretensions of historicity, and hacking things up with freshly forged weapons features in every video.

[Traab]

My biggest issue with the Deadliest warrior was that they sometimes would test the accuracy of armor, but wouldn't test the other guy's weapons against the armor.

Like in Ninja verses Spartan, they tested exactly one pice of Nija weaponry(black egg) agaist exactly one piece of Spartan Armor(Helmet)

As opposed to the solid Iron ball on a chain agaist the Half-inch wood+Quarter-inch bronze shield.

or take into account that the shield don't stop momentum, so a strong enough blow will still break an arm, even if you block it.

What I didnt like was when the test result was skewed because of the guy using it, not the weapon quality. Like the ball and chain for william wallace, that guy could barely hit the ground so it made the weapon look even worse than it was. (It was a crappy weapon, but not being able to hit the target because you arent a guy who trains throwing a ball and chain didnt help) Or the guns. Especially the old style guns like the musketeers used. Once again, being loaded aimed and fired by guys who DONT live or die based on how well trained at using them they are.

Speaking of musketeers, man the explosives comparison ticked me off. You had a land mine versus a grenade and the land mine wins? I dont care if it blows up ten times the people per blast, its so much less flexible and spammable as to be near worthless in comparison. "Oh gee, look, some iron age weaponry sticking out of the ground. I say old chaps, lets gather up this inferior weaponry instead of chasing down the guys we are after." Uhhhh.... no.

[Legato Endless]

That they claimed historicity did ruin it for me to some extent, though outside of that context it was enjoyable. This would be one of the reasons I like Man At Arms - there are no pretensions of historicity, and hacking things up with freshly forged weapons features in every video.

Pretty much. Some of the weapons showmanship is entertaining, but their pretension they have reached anything vaguely resembling a conclusion is a buzz kill. The smoke and mirrors of their magic "simulation" computer program was annoying when they could have dispensed with such theatrical lies. Then again, this is a show that posits lethality is a singular rank-able quality. So really, what would one expect?

If we're making idle wishes though, I would like something with a grander scope. Historic armies facing each other would be entertaining. Rife with unmitigated speculative assumption, but entertaining.

[Socratov]

When watching media I always judge it to 2 major criteria (which are judged in part by subcriteria):

-Is it Interesting?
-Is it Entertaining?

If the answer on either of these questions is 'yes', then yeah I watch it. I must say Deadliest Warrior sometimes answered yes on interesting, but frequently answered yes on entertaining (like Dienekes said: Seeing someone punch through a cow is rather entertaining don't you think?). I have frequently done a rather fitting imitation of captain Jean -Luc Picard, often seen on 9gag, but overall the show is decent. Exploding dummies of ballistics gel, explosives, skulls cleaved through with a variety of nasty instruments of separated head disorder. It's just what I love to watch on a friday night. Just the soothing sound of crashing skulls and detonating explosions (which is in hindsight why I love Mythbusters so much). And while interesting bits of science sometimes are great, and I know it's not always up to academic scratch it's something you can learn from if you pay attention for a bit.

[Avilan the Grey]

I always hated that show, just like the one about wild animals.

Because it doesn't make sense. The animals one was even worse, because it completely ignored natural behavior. (Typical example: Jaguar attacking an enormous anaconda. Snaps it's spine, and the snake, instead of trying to get away with a third end of it's body paralyzed, inexplicitly suddenly leaves the water, crawls after the jaguar and manages to subdue and crush it. ...Because that's what animals do... :smallsigh:

But yes, deadliest warrior was semi-historical speculation at best and mindnumblingy corny at worst.

[Socratov]

I always hated that show, just like the one about wild animals.

Because it doesn't make sense. The animals one was even worse, because it completely ignored natural behavior. (Typical example: Jaguar attacking an enormous anaconda. Snaps it's spine, and the snake, instead of trying to get away with a third end of it's body paralyzed, inexplicitly suddenly leaves the water, crawls after the jaguar and manages to subdue and crush it. ...Because that's what animals do... :smallsigh:

But yes, deadliest warrior was semi-historical speculation at best and mindnumblingy corny at worst.

Who cares if it's correct or not! It's about a freaking jaguar, wrestling an equally freaking anaconda! If you are not seeing the awesome in this idea then I think you shoudl visit the neurologist since the part of your brain that handles the Rule of Cool is malfunctioning. Really.

[Avilan the Grey]

Who cares if it's correct or not! It's about a freaking jaguar, wrestling an equally freaking anaconda! If you are not seeing the awesome in this idea then I think you shoudl visit the neurologist since the part of your brain that handles the Rule of Cool is malfunctioning. Really.

Being a natural history buff (a die hard Sir David fan since birth) I can't let it go. But I would love the same concept with supernatural beings... Bigfoot vs Baba Yaga! etc. :smallbiggrin:

[Lost Demiurge]

Eh, I have to admit that Deadliest Warrior was always a guilty pleasure for me. Yeah, it was corny, but the tests were fun, and the re-enactments were usually silly but enjoyable to watch.

And it taught me more about the Rajputs, who really deserve to have more known about them by the world in general.

[Traab]

Some of those weapons were so insanely silly. That gigantic whip sword thing? Holy crap was that pathetic! I mean sure, the fact it was wielded by a three foot tall guy didnt help much, but this guy was some sort of master of the weapon and I could have still done more damage with a rock and a tree limb in the same time frame.

[Socratov]

Being a natural history buff (a die hard Sir David fan since birth) I can't let it go. But I would love the same concept with supernatural beings... Bigfoot vs Baba Yaga! etc. :smallbiggrin:

If you put it like that, I can see how you react. Still though a freaking JAGUAR! wrestling a freaking ANACONDA *HEADSPLOSION*

please stand by while we reassemble this poster's cognitive functions. If this problem persists, please contact this poster's system administrator

sorry, guys, I'm back. A bit too much on the awesome...

[Don Julio Anejo]

I still think the show was the best thing to ever come out of Spike TV.

Why? It's awesome. It may not be perfectly unbiased or anything, or always use correct weapons.. Really guys, no E-Tool for Spetsnaz, which is pretty much their trademark weapon?.... Weird landmine for Vietkong that only makes sense in a strategic/large battlefield scenario where you could just give them a hand grenade?

But it's still a fun "what if" show that is nonetheless still more scientific than anything else like it. Just the fact that they do ballistic tests using fairly accurate weapon replicas, often against the other guy's armor, is already impressive.

Also, I'm fairly sure they don't show absolutely everything (that would just make it into a boring discovery show). Instead, they only show the juicier parts of testing.

[Avilan the Grey]

If you put it like that, I can see how you react. Still though a freaking JAGUAR! wrestling a freaking ANACONDA *HEADSPLOSION*

please stand by while we reassemble this poster's cognitive functions. If this problem persists, please contact this poster's system administrator

sorry, guys, I'm back. A bit too much on the awesome...

The one that was even worse that I saw was the Saltwater Chrocodile vs Great White, where the crocodile managed to tear one pectoral fin clean off and the shark could still swim the same, and with no physical reaction to bleeding like hell and only having one "wing"...

The only one I liked was the one with a siberian tiger attacking a russian brown bear and getting owned within seconds. (Not that a siberian tiger would attack the bear to begin with :smallsigh:)

[Socratov]

The one that was even worse that I saw was the Saltwater Chrocodile vs Great White, where the crocodile managed to tear one pectoral fin clean off and the shark could still swim the same, and with no physical reaction to bleeding like hell and only having one "wing"...

The only one I liked was the one with a siberian tiger attacking a russian brown bear and getting owned within seconds. (Not that a siberian tiger would attack the bear to begin with :smallsigh:)

Well, yeah, the first does seem stupid, the second is even awesomer then the jaguar vs. the anaconda

[Avilan the Grey]

Well, yeah, the first does seem stupid, the second is even awesomer then the jaguar vs. the anaconda

Part of it was that they just didn't care (they kept harping that both species go to "sleep" if you turn them upside down though, because that was "cool" info), part that the CGI they used probably couldn't account for complicated things like well injured behavior. Which begs the question "why use it in a show about animals injuring eachother".

Yes it was cool, mostly because it was fairly realistic. A full size Bigger-Than-Grizzly vs the biggest natural occuring cat in the world. Tiger (which would never happen IRL) attacks a rearing threatening bear (defending a killed moose). The bear weights too much to be toppled over, and breaks the back of the tiger with one swing of the front paws.
IRL the whole point with animal theatening eachother is that they are very bad at actually sizing up an enemy correctly, and instead goes by first impressions in the initial decision to attack. A tiger, no matter how big, would theoretically attack an animal the size of a russian bear. But not one that makes itself big, roars and threatens. You don't even have to always be actively threatening, compare a cat that runs from a barking dog (prey / toy / defeated enemy depending on the dog's mindset) to one that in the face of the barking dog just sit down and stare it in the eyes (usually the dog either just stands there and bark for a while before slinking off, or slinks off immediately).

[ArlEammon]

I'm not surprised that Vlad Tepes defeated Sun Tzu but based on the weapon's test, I had no idea what would happen. His crossbow couldn't pierce that guy's armor, but Sun Tzu's weapon did pretty well. (The Automatic Crossbow).

[Tectonic Robot]

I've not watched a lot of Death Battle, but which episodes were poorly researched and checked?

Deadliest Warrior's macho posturing always bothered me a lot, too. Couldn't get much enjoyment out of it.

[Legato Endless]

I've not watched a lot of Death Battle, but which episodes were poorly researched and checked?

Deadliest Warrior's macho posturing always bothered me a lot, too. Couldn't get much enjoyment out of it.

I agreed with most of the win results, so I would be curious too. Granted, death battle seems to go more for themed fights than fairly weighted combatants frequently. The very first battle for instance, Jango vs. Samus, is an obvious mismatch.

[Traab]

I'm not surprised that Vlad Tepes defeated Sun Tzu but based on the weapon's test, I had no idea what would happen. His crossbow couldn't pierce that guy's armor, but Sun Tzu's weapon did pretty well. (The Automatic Crossbow).

The thing is, the crossbow had fairly crappy penetrative power overall iirc, and tended to give flesh wound level damage when the arrows didnt just bounce off the plates. Also, while only a single shot weapon, that cannon on a stick, (as I call it) was freaking ACCURATE. I couldnt believe he did that well with it on the targets. They also had a really really good point. The sun tzu guys would just not stop harping on the art of war this and the art of war that, until one of the vlad guys said, "And he read that book. He says thank you." Yeah, dude was this awesome military master strategist in his day. He was the stephen hawking of strategy. But that was then, this is now, and now everyone has read his strategies, and made their own variants over the centuries.


I agreed with most of the win results, so I would be curious too. Granted, death battle seems to go more for themed fights than fairly weighted combatants frequently. The very first battle for instance, Jango vs. Samus, is an obvious mismatch.

The only one I disagree with off the top of my head is the Blanka/Pikachu fight. They basically totally ignored the fact that pikachu is well known for obliterating opponents that are immune or highly resistant to electric attacks WITH electric attacks, and handwaved blanka as immune "because he ate electric eels growing up" The reality is, blanka should have been fried in short order.

[ArlEammon]

The thing is, the crossbow had fairly crappy penetrative power overall iirc, and tended to give flesh wound level damage when the arrows didnt just bounce off the plates. Also, while only a single shot weapon, that cannon on a stick, (as I call it) was freaking ACCURATE. I couldnt believe he did that well with it on the targets. They also had a really really good point. The sun tzu guys would just not stop harping on the art of war this and the art of war that, until one of the vlad guys said, "And he read that book. He says thank you." Yeah, dude was this awesome military master strategist in his day. He was the stephen hawking of strategy. But that was then, this is now, and now everyone has read his strategies, and made their own variants over the centuries.



The only one I disagree with off the top of my head is the Blanka/Pikachu fight. They basically totally ignored the fact that pikachu is well known for obliterating opponents that are immune or highly resistant to electric attacks WITH electric attacks, and handwaved blanka as immune "because he ate electric eels growing up" The reality is, blanka should have been fried in short order.

While I agree with you on the Vlad Tepes thing, I don't reemmber the tests ever saying anything about flesh ound damage or the other stuff

[Traab]

While I agree with you on the Vlad Tepes thing, I don't reemmber the tests ever saying anything about flesh ound damage or the other stuff

My bad, I was thinking of the fire arrows. They put vlads armor on a pig and shot several fire arrows at it. A couple bounced off, one stuck, and it did a small puncture wound and a fairly minor burn. I think the fire arrow was kind of crappy overall, its only real value being if you could basically ignite an entire football field because it took so long to do any damage to the targets, it is handy for scaring enemy troops, and maybe if you can get a big enough mess in the middle of them so they panic and knock each other over. But one on one it was kinda dumb.

[dehro]

Zombies vs weeping angels.
Make it so!

[Magatsu Izanagi]

I still think the show was the best thing to ever come out of Spike TV.

Why? It's awesome. It may not be perfectly unbiased or anything, or always use correct weapons.. Really guys, no E-Tool for Spetsnaz, which is pretty much their trademark weapon?.... Weird landmine for Vietkong that only makes sense in a strategic/large battlefield scenario where you could just give them a hand grenade?
My personal favorite from Spike is actually 1000 Ways to Die (with Bar Rescue in a very close second), but that's neither here nor there.

You wanna know something about SS vs. Viet Cong? A lot of former Waffen-SS men joined the French Foreign Legion after World War II. Guess where they got deployed afterwards, and guess how they met their ends. (Technically, they actually met their ends at the hands of the Viet Minh, but I'm not one to split hairs that much, especially considering that this IS Deadliest Warrior we're talking about.) Hell, there were quite a few battles in the First Indochina War where entire units of the French Foreign Legion effectively ceased to exist. In a sense, the VC wiped the floor with the SS in real life, and they should have done the same in the simulation.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The thing I like about Death Battle is that it's entertaining. I don't care if the outcome is accurate; I just like that they showcase each characters' traits and movesets, and wind it together into a battle royale that plays out onscreen.

[Legato Endless]

@Traab

Yeah I can see that. There's also a large difference in magnitude between the electrical discharge of a bunch of eels and Pikachu's summoning and spamming lightning from the heavens. The physical difference is a bit odd too. Blanka fights alligators, Pikachu is a glass cannon, but one whose tail can smash through solid rock.

The recent three starters face off was odd too. While the the conclusion makes perfect sense, to simplify the variables they use entirely wild pokemon. Because wild pokemon fights make up, what? One millionth of one percent of fights in the franchise? Also an interesting example where the winner is an objectively inferior fighter to one of the opponents he squarely beat.

[t209]

My personal favorite from Spike is actually 1000 Ways to Die (with Bar Rescue in a very close second), but that's neither here nor there.

You wanna know something about SS vs. Viet Cong? A lot of former Waffen-SS men joined the French Foreign Legion after World War II. Guess where they got deployed afterwards, and guess how they met their ends. (Technically, they actually met their ends at the hands of the Viet Minh, but I'm not one to split hairs that much, especially considering that this IS Deadliest Warrior we're talking about.) Hell, there were quite a few battles in the First Indochina War where entire units of the French Foreign Legion effectively ceased to exist. In a sense, the VC wiped the floor with the SS in real life, and they should have done the same in the simulation.
Well, they did nerfed some weapons, like switching AK47 and SKS to French Submachine Guns. But they should have use Indochina War era.

[Avilan the Grey]

Personally I just want back to the days of actual documentaries.
You know, like it seems only the BBC still does.

I remember when Animal Planet had hour long documentaries without pretending that Bigfoot or Megalodon was real (a poll after last year's shark week showed that because AP showed that "documentary" 60% of their viewers thought Megalodon still existed. Good Job Breaking It Hero).

I remember when Discovery Channel wasn't filled with Reality Soaps, "Reality" Soaps and "Reality Soaps", and wasn't pandering to a certain crowd with their supernatural stuff (I fear discussing this in detail will violate this forum's rules, so I am leaving it at that) but instead had documentaries. Honestly, in that crowd "Deadliest Warrior" is amazingly accurate on all levels.

[Devonix]

@Traab

Yeah I can see that. There's also a large difference in magnitude between the electrical discharge of a bunch of eels and Pikachu's summoning and spamming lightning from the heavens. The physical difference is a bit odd too. Blanka fights alligators, Pikachu is a glass cannon, but one whose tail can smash through solid rock.

The recent three starters face off was odd too. While the the conclusion makes perfect sense, to simplify the variables they use entirely wild pokemon. Because wild pokemon fights make up, what? One millionth of one percent of fights in the franchise? Also an interesting example where the winner is an objectively inferior fighter to one of the opponents he squarely beat.

The thing is that using wild pokemon was the only way a battle could make any kind of sense. Any pokemon can be the best and strongest if you are a good trainer. That just says that the trainer was superior not the pokemon.

[Traab]

The thing is that using wild pokemon was the only way a battle could make any kind of sense. Any pokemon can be the best and strongest if you are a good trainer. That just says that the trainer was superior not the pokemon.

Exactly, plus if you bring in all the trainer variables, you bring in all sorts of theory crafting, "Well, bulbasaur would have been able to do this and that and win if he had been given this instead of that." By leaving it at base stats and standard move lists it removed hundreds of variables that would have made it a totally unsettled fight.

[Zrak]

The only one I disagree with off the top of my head is the Blanka/Pikachu fight. They basically totally ignored the fact that pikachu is well known for obliterating opponents that are immune or highly resistant to electric attacks WITH electric attacks, and handwaved blanka as immune "because he ate electric eels growing up" The reality is, blanka should have been fried in short order.

It depends on if we're talking about Blanka versus video game Pikachu assuming the rules of Blanka's franchise generally hold, Blanka versus video game Pikachu assuming the rules of Pikachu's franchise generally hold, Blanka versus video game Pikachu assuming as much as possible the rules of "real life" are in place, Blanka versus cartoon plot power Pikachu assuming the rules of Pikachu's cartoon generally hold, Blanka versus cartoon Pikachu assuming the rules of Street Fighter generally hold, or Blanka versus cartoon Pikachu assuming as much as possible the rules of "real life" are in place? Also, if it's video game Pikachu, which video game? There is a Pikachu in Smash, too, after all.

[Remmirath]

I liked the weapons tests, and the rest was amusing if often clearly inaccurate and/or biased. If they spent a lot more time on the weapons tests, and a lot less time on everything else, that'd be great. If they paid more attention to historical accuracy and very thorough testing, I could see that the rest could also be more worthwhile, but as is I consider the tests to be the point of the show and the rest to just be frills.

Not even taking into account the skill level of the people using the weapons was a large problem as well. They should either openly admit that they're then assuming that the person in the simulation has that same skill level, or try to apply it more evenly -- although that would, admittedly, be hard to do.

Still, there are only so many places you can watch people test live historical weapons on targets of that nature, so that's enough for me. I view it more as light-hearted fun than as any serious comparison. I'd like it a lot better if it had actual historical and scientific merit, but as entertainment, it was enjoyable.


Personally I just want back to the days of actual documentaries.
You know, like it seems only the BBC still does.

Yes. That would be great.

[Avilan the Grey]

Not even taking into account the skill level of the people using the weapons was a large problem as well.

Like the Hun / Apache (I think it was) where the Apache warrior won because the guy playing him could fire his short bow sliiightly faster. It would have been a "draw" otherwise.

[Traab]

It depends on if we're talking about Blanka versus video game Pikachu assuming the rules of Blanka's franchise generally hold, Blanka versus video game Pikachu assuming the rules of Pikachu's franchise generally hold, Blanka versus video game Pikachu assuming as much as possible the rules of "real life" are in place, Blanka versus cartoon plot power Pikachu assuming the rules of Pikachu's cartoon generally hold, Blanka versus cartoon Pikachu assuming the rules of Street Fighter generally hold, or Blanka versus cartoon Pikachu assuming as much as possible the rules of "real life" are in place? Also, if it's video game Pikachu, which video game? There is a Pikachu in Smash, too, after all.

They took ash's pikachu specifically, making sure to note that he is way more badass than a normal one, used a combination of moves from the cartoon and the games, and then slapped on his estimated ev training based on the fights he got into in all the tv shows. They just chose to ignore his ability to electrocute things that shouldnt be hurt by electricity. I mean, I could understand it if they ignored the brock gym battle, as that required him to get overcharged and blah blah blah, but then the next series he shows up against some other rock type gym leader and proceeds to drop lightning bolts on HER rock pokemon and blow them away. So its a repeatable thing, not a one off event. Also, they describe blanka as resistant, not immune, to electricity, while ignoring the difference in scale. You can lick a 9 volt battery and be fine, but pee on high voltage wires and you will regret it.

[Zrak]

Okay, but does Street Fighter-style blocking work? How about focus attacks? How do combos interact with a turn-based system? By what metric are we to determine the harm attacks cause?

I just think the whole fight sounds like it doesn't make any sense.

[Traab]

Okay, but does Street Fighter-style blocking work? How about focus attacks? How do combos interact with a turn-based system? By what metric are we to determine the harm attacks cause?

I just think the whole fight sounds like it doesn't make any sense.

They didnt use anything but the move list and what his bio says for blanka really. They basically said, "Since neither can shock the other, blanka having a raw physical power and defense higher means he wins super fast and easy." Which is garbage.

[Zrak]

Especially seeing as electrical attacks from other characters in Street Fighter damage Blanka normally. Still, the basic result seems fair enough. Pikachu is a mouse with superpowers, Blanka is a hulking, world-class martial artist with super powers.

[Traab]

Especially seeing as electrical attacks from other characters in Street Fighter damage Blanka normally. Still, the basic result seems fair enough. Pikachu is a mouse with superpowers, Blanka is a hulking, world-class martial artist with super powers.

And pikachu has dropped gigantic animated snakes of solid stone 28 feet tall with raw force. He has blown DRAGONS out of the sky. He isnt meant to punch you in the head like mike tyson, though with his iron tail he can do that, he is meant to smash you into a crater with a bolt of actual lightning while dodging all his opponents attacks like speedy gonzalez on crack. At the very least the fight should have been closer than it was.

[McBish]

The one thing that still pops into my head about Deadliest Warrior was from Viking vs Samurai. They rated the viking's shield against a club of the samurai. Surprisingly the club turned out to be a better club. They never once talked about the defensive abilities of the shield. I am pretty sure the hard wood reinforced with metal bands would have proved troublesome for the samurai's katana. If I remember correctly that weapon pairing gave the win to Samurai.

[Zrak]

And pikachu has dropped gigantic animated snakes of solid stone 28 feet tall with raw force. He has blown DRAGONS out of the sky. He isnt meant to punch you in the head like mike tyson, though with his iron tail he can do that, he is meant to smash you into a crater with a bolt of actual lightning while dodging all his opponents attacks like speedy gonzalez on crack. At the very least the fight should have been closer than it was.

I just mean it would require giving pretty much every assumption/arbitrary decision to Pikachu for it to even be a fight. If Street Fighter mechanics work, Pikachu can do whatever he wants and Blanka can reduce it to chip damage by leaning back or negate it entirely by using a focus attack. If we assume "real life" rules, Blanka can kill Pikachu easily while Pikachu charges standing still. Unless Blanka gets none of the powers assumed by Street Fighter and Ash's Pikachu gets the best of the cartoon and game worlds, he's getting crushed by a hulking martial arts master because he is a mouse, y'know.

[Xondoure]

I just mean it would require giving pretty much every assumption/arbitrary decision to Pikachu for it to even be a fight. If Street Fighter mechanics work, Pikachu can do whatever he wants and Blanka can reduce it to chip damage by leaning back or negate it entirely by using a focus attack. If we assume "real life" rules, Blanka can kill Pikachu easily while Pikachu charges standing still. Unless Blanka gets none of the powers assumed by Street Fighter and Ash's Pikachu gets the best of the cartoon and game worlds, he's getting crushed by a hulking martial arts master because he is a mouse, y'know.

Pikachu can move so fast you can't even see him. Assuming real life rules Blanka wouldn't get close.

[JustSomeGuy]

The one thing that still pops into my head about Deadliest Warrior was from Viking vs Samurai. They rated the viking's shield against a club of the samurai. Surprisingly the club turned out to be a better club. They never once talked about the defensive abilities of the shield. I am pretty sure the hard wood reinforced with metal bands would have proved troublesome for the samurai's katana. If I remember correctly that weapon pairing gave the win to Samurai.

If I recall correctly, they decided that because the samurai could slice through three jelly heads lined up, it meant he could kill three vikings per hit while unsheathing his sword, before the vikings drew theirs. Because i'm sure in conflicts people line up and stand about 3 feet away waiting for you to ready yourself.

[Zrak]

Pikachu can move so fast you can't even see him. Assuming real life rules Blanka wouldn't get close.

If you don't take frame traps at face value, I guess; the only limit to Blanka's reactions is the animation speed. He can cancel into a counter within a single frame.

[dehro]

If I recall correctly, they decided that because the samurai could slice through three jelly heads lined up, it meant he could kill three vikings per hit while unsheathing his sword, before the vikings drew theirs. Because i'm sure in conflicts people line up and stand about 3 feet away waiting for you to ready yourself.

Let's not get into a technical debate on why pretty much every test they made was irrelevant towards any possible final result, or we'll be here all day... It's not like anything they showed us had any practical significance or scientific value beyond the cool factor and a simple study on how much destructive power single blows from those particular athletes could develop in ideal circumstances.

[Legato Endless]

Okay, but does Street Fighter-style blocking work? How about focus attacks? How do combos interact with a turn-based system? By what metric are we to determine the harm attacks cause?

I just think the whole fight sounds like it doesn't make any sense.

Of course not. But we might as well have our fun anyway; logic, interface and medium be damned.


If you don't take frame traps at face value, I guess; the only limit to Blanka's reactions is the animation speed. He can cancel into a counter within a single frame.

True, but he can't move across the scene anywhere near that quickly.


I just mean it would require giving pretty much every assumption/arbitrary decision to Pikachu for it to even be a fight. If Street Fighter mechanics work, Pikachu can do whatever he wants and Blanka can reduce it to chip damage by leaning back or negate it entirely by using a focus attack. If we assume "real life" rules, Blanka can kill Pikachu easily while Pikachu charges standing still. Unless Blanka gets none of the powers assumed by Street Fighter and Ash's Pikachu gets the best of the cartoon and game worlds, he's getting crushed by a hulking martial arts master because he is a mouse, y'know.

Actually, even if we assume a fighting game interface and give all the arbitrary ideas to Blanka, so as long as they're fighting in an actual open stage without walls, I don't see any reason Pikachu can't kite him. Blanka isn't all that clever, and doesn't move nearly as fast. Stand back and shoot, even if he blocks every thundershock to chip damage should still bring him down in a minute or two.


The thing is that using wild pokemon was the only way a battle could make any kind of sense. Any pokemon can be the best and strongest if you are a good trainer. That just says that the trainer was superior not the pokemon.

Not really. Pokemon has a dedicated evolving tier list based upon player usage. Some pokemon are simply superior to others in certain roles and overall. Not to mention, certain pokemon are borderline unplayable because they are rely upon a single gimmick. Unown is not going to do anything particularly spectacular regardless of trainer skill. That said, you can certainly use any pokemon you want, but some are going to give you a harder time. That's one of the reasons Nuzlock runs are considered a challenge, because you're forced to utilize some subpar choices.

[Zrak]

I feel like assuming Pikachu kites while Blanka just blocks the whole fight rather than even attempting to counter kind of counts as making a lot of assumptions in Pikachu's favor; it seems strange to assume that Blanka can't deal with projectiles or fast opponents when he can presumably hold his own in tournaments against teleporters and projectile users.

[Traab]

I dont think pikachu even needs to kite. He has shown repeatedly that he can and will get up close and personal with physical attacks. And while yeah, he only weighs a few pounds, try to remember how much less a bullet weighs and the damage it can do. Pikachu on quick attack is more like a cannonball than a fur ball. And thats just assuming he doesnt flat out turn blanka into a crisp with a bolt of actual lightning. Electric eels do not even approach the raw electric power of an actual bolt of lightning. I dont see electric eels tearing up the ground with their shocks.

[Rater202]

I dont think pikachu even needs to kite. He has shown repeatedly that he can and will get up close and personal with physical attacks. And while yeah, he only weighs a few pounds, try to remember how much less a bullet weighs and the damage it can do. Pikachu on quick attack is more like a cannonball than a fur ball. And thats just assuming he doesnt flat out turn blanka into a crisp with a bolt of actual lightning. Electric eels do not even approach the raw electric power of an actual bolt of lightning. I dont see electric eels tearing up the ground with their shocks.

Why choose? Ash's Pikachu knows Volt Tackle.

[Traab]

Why choose? Ash's Pikachu knows Volt Tackle.

I honestly dont know where that rates on the electric eel---bolt of actual lightning summoned from storm clouds scale of power. Isnt that the one that also hurts him to use? Safer to quick attack him into a wall, then light him up like uncle fester.

[Legato Endless]

I feel like assuming Pikachu kites while Blanka just blocks the whole fight rather than even attempting to counter kind of counts as making a lot of assumptions in Pikachu's favor; it seems strange to assume that Blanka can't deal with projectiles or fast opponents when he can presumably hold his own in tournaments against teleporters and projectile users.

Good point. I'm a bit hazy on Street Fighter Canon. Where does Blanka sit in the tiers story wise? Could he deal with Dhalism in a fight? Also, teleportation is somewhat flawed in most fighters. You can usually only move a small distance, and you're vulnerable right after coming out of it. That said, I'm not saying Blanka blocks the whole fight, I was more assuming Pikachu could play keep away. I guess my point was that since Blanka doesn't have a great range game, with the haphazard notion Pikachu is faster.


I dont think pikachu even needs to kite.

That was just a suggested tactic.

[Zrak]

Blanka's not really on the "electric eel" scale, either, judging by moves like "Shout of Earth." Blanka can pretty easily deal with projectiles and outright teleportation, so I don't think lightning bolts and moving fast are going to give him too much trouble.


Good point. I'm a bit hazy on Street Fighter Canon. Where does Blanka sit in the tiers story wise? Could he deal with Dhalism in a fight? Also, teleportation is somewhat flawed in most fighters. You can usually only move a small distance, and you're vulnerable right after coming out of it. That said, I'm not saying Blanka blocks the whole fight, I was more assuming Pikachu could play keep away. I guess my point was that since Blanka doesn't have a great range game, with the haphazard notion Pikachu is faster.

Basically, the tiers are the unstoppable death machines like Oro and Akuma, followed by Ryu/Ken/Sagat, then the rest of the cast are basically even except Dan and Sean who are pretty much defined by their blustering incompetence. The canon is pretty vague, but you're supposed to get the sense that the characters are all about evenly matched, with the "main" characters and their rivals a cut above the rest and Akuma way above them.

Blanka's range game is pretty decent in a lot of his appearances, actually, despite his lack of a projectile. Beast Roll travels pretty far and his various hop moves usually let him cover short distances extremely quickly. Playing keep away is going to be hard given that Pikachu usually stands still to attack and Blanka can evade while advancing.

I mostly brought up teleportation even though it only closes a short distance because it closes that distance faster and somewhat less predictably than quick attack would, I'd think, so it should be pretty easy to block.

[Benthesquid]

"As you can see, this ray gun has completely disintegrated this pig carcass. From my experience as an LA trauma doc, I can tell you that when we saw this sort of injury, it usually proved fatal."

[Knaight]

If I recall correctly, they decided that because the samurai could slice through three jelly heads lined up, it meant he could kill three vikings per hit while unsheathing his sword, before the vikings drew theirs. Because i'm sure in conflicts people line up and stand about 3 feet away waiting for you to ready yourself.

Followed by not bothering to block, dodge, or do anything else that would obstruct things. Even by Deadliest Warrior standards, this is ridiculous.

[Avilan the Grey]

Followed by not bothering to block, dodge, or do anything else that would obstruct things. Even by Deadliest Warrior standards, this is ridiculous.

Not to mention that small problem of high-quality chain mail. Or huge-ass shields.
A katana cannot cut through mail. And it sure can't cut through a big round wooden shield any more than it can cut through the wall of a house.

As a side note:
There are reports of what happened in the Dutch "colonial areas" in Japan when a Samurai and a Dutch noble would get their feathers ruffled... It usually ended with two people dead, one dutch noble dying immediately, cut open, and one samurai dying within a week, run through with a pointy weapon... Of course neither party usually wore armor.

[Knaight]

Not to mention that small problem of high-quality chain mail. Or huge-ass shields.
A katana cannot cut through mail. And it sure can't cut through a big round wooden shield any more than it can cut through the wall of a house.

Viking shields were often pretty light and fragile, actually. Which isn't to say cleaving through them in one blow with enough force to seriously harm the person behind it is happening (particularly when there's a helmet in the way), but beating the shield up is doable. Of course, one of the upsides of the lighter shields that can get cut into more easily is that weapons hitting the edge have a tendency to get stuck, which leaves their wielder in the unenviable position of trying to fight with a weapon stuck in their opponents shield.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Uh, hello? A katana can cut through a mountain in a single blow. Let's get real here.

:smalltongue:

[Legato Endless]

In fairness, their testing here seemed perfectly reasonable compared to the fan boyish history channel short that tested the Long Sword against the Katana and found the Long Sword objectively inferior. Never mind the interactions between the Dutch and the Japananse, or the Chinese soldiers who acquitted themselves perfectly well against the katana with the dao in World War 2.

[Avilan the Grey]

Viking shields were often pretty light and fragile, actually. Which isn't to say cleaving through them in one blow with enough force to seriously harm the person behind it is happening (particularly when there's a helmet in the way), but beating the shield up is doable. Of course, one of the upsides of the lighter shields that can get cut into more easily is that weapons hitting the edge have a tendency to get stuck, which leaves their wielder in the unenviable position of trying to fight with a weapon stuck in their opponents shield.

The Katana is a cutting weapon. Not an axe.

[Knaight]

The Katana is a cutting weapon. Not an axe.

Sure, and tests involving cutting swords that are comparable (Oakshott X) showed that they inflicted significant damage on shield as well. Look at some of the stuff Hurstwic did a few years ago. Look at viking dueling, where multiple shields were routine. That's not to say that an axe wouldn't do the same thing better - for one thing, the design makes them significantly less likely to get stuck in the edge of the shield, for another they've got a much better shot at just punching right through and having a long enough head to do some damage, provided that the shield is in the right place for it.

Basically, I'm not saying that the katana has any particular shield hewing ability. It doesn't. What I'm saying is that Vikings (prior to the 12th century) usually used fairly lightweight comparatively flimsy shields that didn't last particularly long. Essentially, they had disposable shields - which, in the context of most combat being raiding rather than protracted campaigns, makes total sense. It's also worth noting that they got thicker when protracted campaigns became more common.

[Avilan the Grey]

I agree with you except that Oakshott X is almost the same thing. A Katana is lighter, slightly curved and a true cutting weapon. It is (and I don't mean to belittle it) basically a filet knife. A badass one, but nevertheless. A standard broadsword, like Oakshott X is heavier (having at least twice as much mass as a Katana), built to stab as well as go in edge first.

[Knaight]

I agree with you except that Oakshott X is almost the same thing. A Katana is lighter, slightly curved and a true cutting weapon. It is (and I don't mean to belittle it) basically a filet knife. A badass one, but nevertheless. A standard broadsword, like Oakshott X is heavier (having at least twice as much mass as a Katana), built to stab as well as go in edge first.
I said comparable, not identical. As for the mass, I don't know where you're getting the double figure from, and both of them can stab, and under similar circumstances - stabbing through mail is ridiculously unreliable, stabbing through solid plate(s) is(are) not happening, and stabbing through some cloth isn't all that hard with a good sword. It's a hard metal regardless, and it's not like the material is that resilient, a sharpened bit of rebar could manage.

Again, viking shields are pretty flimsy. They aren't made to get hit repeatedly, they are made mostly for quick skirmishes seen in raiding where they won't be seeing use against all that much, and even then they're there to prevent getting shot with arrows as much as anything else.

The katana was a battlefield weapon that also saw heavy use in dueling. They were routinely made to stand up to battlefield conditions, which included things like armor, they weren't delicate elongated knives with an incredibly thin profile. That perceptions is inaccurate. It's less inaccurate than the "katanas are borderline lightsabers" nonsense that gets bandied about, but it's still off.

Though, coming back to the Deadliest Warrior example - what, exactly, is the hypothetical samurai even doing on foot right next to a bunch of vikings in the first place? Somehow a typically mounted spearman facing up against a culture that used spears all the time* is within sword reach of a bunch of enemies, apparently getting there without using a shield. Sure, it could happen, but this sort of thing is all sorts of non-representative.

*Which is, admittedly, pretty common.

[Avilan the Grey]

Never said that the Katana was flimsy, I meant that it can cut and only cut. And that the cutting motion, due to it's slight curve and sharp single edge makes akin to a filet knife. (Which isn't 100% true, I admit, but the attack is far more of a sliding / slicing and far less chopping, like a broadsword would do. Especially against heavier, wider targets than say bamboo sticks).

The broadsword was also used for dueling. Just as much, I'm sure (well as much as dueling was a part of the cultures that used it at the time, from Goths to Celts via Franks, Saxons and Norse).

The katana was used on the battlefield. Against japanese armor. That does not make it possible for a katana to cut through high quality chainmail. Or a shield. Again, it doesn't matter if the shield gets damaged after a number of hard bashings, it is a different physical impact than a slicing cutting motion.

As for mass: The broadsword is roughly the same length, and has twice the width and at least the same thickness. Hence double mass. Simple math.

[Dienekes]

Actually the weight of broadswords to katanas generally are shown to be within a lb of each other. It has to do with the way the sword is forged.

On the other side, I remember seeing a test on viking shields where they were curious as to how they were made. Someone had the belief that there was actually a leather covering over the shields to help them stay together, using some remains of shields with leather scraps over them found at burial sites as evidence. These shields were tested and the difference it made was remarkable. I'm not saying that viking shields suddenly became impregnable, but the damage they took compared to what was previously believed to be the result of an uncovered shield was a world of difference.

[Knaight]

On the other side, I remember seeing a test on viking shields where they were curious as to how they were made. Someone had the belief that there was actually a leather covering over the shields to help them stay together, using some remains of shields with leather scraps over them found at burial sites as evidence. These shields were tested and the difference it made was remarkable. I'm not saying that viking shields suddenly became impregnable, but the damage they took compared to what was previously believed to be the result of an uncovered shield was a world of difference.

Hurstwic did this as well - rawhide turned out to be the ideal material. Even with it, they were on the flimsy side.

[Fragenstein]

"As you can see, this ray gun has completely disintegrated this pig carcass. From my experience as an LA trauma doc, I can tell you that when we saw this sort of injury, it usually proved fatal."

I liked it when he got into an argument with a seasoned, special forces operative about whether or not a certain shoulder wound was survivable. I'd go with the opinion of someone who's actually shot people in that location.

On the plus side, if any of LATD's opinions can be taken seriously, that really makes the "Shoot the hostage" solution in "Speed" even more insane. There's just not a single safe place on the human body to shoot anyone.

[Traab]

I liked it when he got into an argument with a seasoned, special forces operative about whether or not a certain shoulder wound was survivable. I'd go with the opinion of someone who's actually shot people in that location.

On the plus side, if any of LATD's opinions can be taken seriously, that really makes the "Shoot the hostage" solution in "Speed" even more insane. There's just not a single safe place on the human body to shoot anyone.

I would rather trust the trauma surgeon who knows what is and is not fatal through his years of work treating cases like that. Now, if the argument was over tactics, sure, arguing with the special ops guy is stupid. Though it could be an interesting argument.

"Do you have any idea how many bullet wounds I have inflicted? I know when I just killed a guy! I watched three people die to wounds just like that!"

"Do you know how many bullet wounds I have TREATED? I know the difference between a wound that is point blank fatal, cant do squat about it, fatal without rapid treatment, fatal if ignored, and nonfatal. I know where every nerve, blood vessel, muscle or organ is located in your body, and how quickly having a bullet hole appear in it will kill you. And I have seen people live and die with wounds just like this depending on speed of treatment and an inch or two of variance either way. This wound is bad but survivable."

[Fragenstein]

I would rather trust the trauma surgeon who knows what is and is not fatal through his years of work treating cases like that. Now, if the argument was over tactics, sure, arguing with the special ops guy is stupid. Though it could be an interesting argument.

"Do you have any idea how many bullet wounds I have inflicted? I know when I just killed a guy! I watched three people die to wounds just like that!"

"Do you know how many bullet wounds I have TREATED? I know the difference between a wound that is point blank fatal, cant do squat about it, fatal without rapid treatment, fatal if ignored, and nonfatal. I know where every nerve, blood vessel, muscle or organ is located in your body, and how quickly having a bullet hole appear in it will kill you. And I have seen people live and die with wounds just like this depending on speed of treatment and an inch or two of variance either way. This wound is bad but survivable."

True, but this is a trauma surgeon who apparently has enough free time to appear on a pseudo-reality TV show and tends to go along with their weighted, predetermined conclusions. Of course the wound is automatically fatal if delivered by the people they have set up for victory.

I'd still rather trust the guy who's inflicted those wounds, who's seen those wounds inflicted on his team, and who's likely suffered from those wounds himself. He knows how quickly treatment can be applied in combat situations and what a guy can live through who doesn't have to be carted through L.A. traffic first.

But I won't take it any further than that. If I knew for certain that the trauma doc performed more than one shift a month and wasn't just quoting most of his material from a script or medical dictionary, then I'd go with his opinion.

And I'll give you that we do not know for certain that the special ops guy wasn't an actor. If he was, he seemed to be a darn good one, but that would completely invalidate any of his medical opinions.

[huttj509]

On the plus side, if any of LATD's opinions can be taken seriously, that really makes the "Shoot the hostage" solution in "Speed" even more insane. There's just not a single safe place on the human body to shoot anyone.

Humans are an interesting congruence of incredibly fragile, and incredibly durable. The number of places that aren't necessarily fatal, but only an inch away from somewhere where it would be (at least without immediate medical expertise) are surprising.

Special Forces, presumably out in the field, and a trauma doctor, presumably in a hospital, or at least an ambulance, are VERY different situations when it comes to what's survivable.

[Traab]

True, but this is a trauma surgeon who apparently has enough free time to appear on a pseudo-reality TV show and tends to go along with their weighted, predetermined conclusions. Of course the wound is automatically fatal if delivered by the people they have set up for victory.

I'd still rather trust the guy who's inflicted those wounds, who's seen those wounds inflicted on his team, and who's likely suffered from those wounds himself. He knows how quickly treatment can be applied in combat situations and what a guy can live through who doesn't have to be carted through L.A. traffic first.

But I won't take it any further than that. If I knew for certain that the trauma doc performed more than one shift a month and wasn't just quoting most of his material from a script or medical dictionary, then I'd go with his opinion.

And I'll give you that we do not know for certain that the special ops guy wasn't an actor. If he was, he seemed to be a darn good one, but that would completely invalidate any of his medical opinions.

Didnt it say he was a former er doctor or something? But honestly, I agree, the entire doctor thing is pretty silly. I mean, there are maybe two or three spots the doc has pointed out would be fatal I didnt know about already at best. "Oh, this chopped through his shoulder, his spine, ribs, and entire chest cavity. With all my years of experience, I think this might have killed him." "Gee thanks doc! Couldnt have possibly figured that out for sure!"

What I disliked most was constantly doing things like saying, "Ok, this flintlock bullet struck here, which isnt fatal, therefore this gun sucks and that other one pwns because it hit the throat." Really guy? You are going off the marksmanship of a replica shooting historical "expert" to determine how deadly this gun is, not by the size of the bullet hole, or the force impacting the target, but by where this one shot landed? There are so many better ways to try to calculate relative deadliness. The first two aside, there is time to take another shot, ease of use, meaning, how badly is the terrain or weather going to screw this weapon up, overall accuracy, meaning yeah these 10 shots werent all lethal, but they all impacted a 3 inch circle, which is damn reliable accuracy an actual expert would be able to adjust for. But no, "Ok, we gave each guy a bullet, but only one guy killed his target, clearly this weapon is better."

One other thing was acting like overkill matters much in a fight. If I hit 100 skulls and shove the top of your head into your brain 99 times, and you make 99 skulls explode with your hit, neither target is continuing to fight 99 times out of 100. Both are perfectly lethal. You dont have to be able to cut an unarmored man in half with a sword to kill him. Most of the vital stuff is only a few inches in. Yes its awesome to watch, and I would never want them to stop doing it. Im just saying that in a one on one fight, it really doesnt matter that your sword can cut through three people at a time while mine can only cut 3/4 of the way through one. Both are going to be fast death blows.

[dehro]

And I'll give you that we do not know for certain that the special ops guy wasn't an actor. If he was, he seemed to be a darn good one, but that would completely invalidate any of his medical opinions.

There's also the possibility that not every special ops guy, by virtue of being "special ops" (which can mean a whole lot of things) automatically has seen hunderds of battlefields and was trained by John Rambo, dropped somewhere in Satan's backyard and had to fight his way out of hell armed only with dental floss and a toothpick.

Not every special ops soldier is a hardened battle worn veteran. Sometimes special ops soldiers travel around in tanks, in formations of several dozen men, or get shot in the arse on their first mission and don't see much further action, spending the rest of their carreer training local police forces around the world and sleeping in a warm bed.

that said, I've said this before... these shows are entirely scripted and I wouldn't trust not only the science but also the credentials of any of the "experts" appearing in it for a second.

[TheFallenOne]

I'd still rather trust the guy who's inflicted those wounds, who's seen those wounds inflicted on his team, and who's likely suffered from those wounds himself.

Um, no. If he suffered from those wounds himself he loses the argument on whether or nor they are survivable by default :smalltongue:

But really, we don't have enough to judge who's a higher authority. We know one is supposed to be an ER doctor, we know the other is supposed to be Special Forces. That alone doesn't say enough for how often each of them witnessed this specific kind of wound. But when push comes to shove I would put my trust in the doctor first on what is survivable. I might side with the Special Forces guy on what is enough to take someone out of action.

[Zrak]

Humans are an interesting congruence of incredibly fragile, and incredibly durable. The number of places that aren't necessarily fatal, but only an inch away from somewhere where it would be (at least without immediate medical expertise) are surprising.

Special Forces, presumably out in the field, and a trauma doctor, presumably in a hospital, or at least an ambulance, are VERY different situations when it comes to what's survivable.

Or, at times, even a coin toss between incredibly fragile and incredibly durable; straight-up getting stabbed right in the heart has a staggering rate of not killing you. On the other hand, it's not like getting stabbed directly in the heart is unlikely to be fatal. Accordingly, you could have one expert asserting that being stabbed in the heart is "extremely fatal" and the other that it is "entirely survivable" without either really being incorrect.

[turkishproverb]

Google: "Death Battle"

That is all.

It's just like Deadliest Warrior, right down to the results and conclusions they come to being horribly inaccurate.

[dehro]

I see your Death Battle and I rise you a Warrior Showdown (https://www.youtube.com/user/WarriorShowdown)

[turkishproverb]

Where is that link to Deadliest Character...

[Legato Endless]

It's just like Deadliest Warrior, right down to the results and conclusions they come to being horribly inaccurate.

Anything in particular inspiring that annoyance?

[turkishproverb]

Anything in particular inspiring that annoyance?

...I can't think of an episode I've been forced to sit and watch where the conclusion they come to didn't strike me as not only stupid, but built upon both inaccurate and badly conceived foundations, which are then demonstrated in a way that makes little to no sense in the context of the promised fights. At least Deadliest Character was intended as parody. If I just disagreed with them, it would be one thing, but the way the arguments are constructed horrible. Offhand, the TMNT, Goku Vs. Superman, Wily vs. Robotnic/Eggman, Starscream vs. Rainbow Dash, Chun-Li vs. Mai Shiranui, Princess Zelda vs. Princess Peach, Link vs. Cloud Strife, and Terminator vs. RoboCop are ones i've seen i spent more time calculating everything wrong with than anything else.

And I'm not even saying I disagree with them on who would win. Actually, agreeing with the winner tends to be worse since it's the basically being "proven" right but a guy who regularly falsifies his research. It makes your opinion look bad in the process of claiming to "agree" with it.

Honestly, their best was probably Wily vs. Robotnic/Eggman, simply because, like Deadliest Character, it's result was so insane and out of left field according to the premise that it worked as parody of Deadliest Warrior, and that in turn made all it's flaws, including that one, seem more deliberate. Problem is, most other episodes aren't that over-the top in their ending's outside-the-premise nature, so it's fairly clear that's not what they were going for. Meaning that that particular episode has a bit of a plan-9 quality in it's wrongness.

[Traab]

...I can't think of an episode I've been forced to sit and watch where the conclusion they come to didn't strike me as not only stupid, but built upon both inaccurate and badly conceived foundations, which are then demonstrated in a way that makes little to no sense in the context of the promised fights. At least Deadliest Character was intended as parody. If I just disagreed with them, it would be one thing, but the way the arguments are constructed horrible. Offhand, the TMNT, Goku Vs. Superman, Wily vs. Robotnic/Eggman, Starscream vs. Rainbow Dash, Chun-Li vs. Mai Shiranui, Princess Zelda vs. Princess Peach, Link vs. Cloud Strife, and Terminator vs. RoboCop are ones i've seen i spent more time calculating everything wrong with than anything else.

And I'm not even saying I disagree with them on who would win. Actually, agreeing with the winner tends to be worse since it's the basically being "proven" right but a guy who regularly falsifies his research. It makes your opinion look bad in the process of claiming to "agree" with it.

Honestly, their best was probably Wily vs. Robotnic/Eggman, simply because, like Deadliest Character, it's result was so insane and out of left field according to the premise that it worked as parody of Deadliest Warrior, and that in turn made all it's flaws, including that one, seem more deliberate. Problem is, most other episodes aren't that over-the top in their ending's outside-the-premise nature, so it's fairly clear that's not what they were going for. Meaning that that particular episode has a bit of a plan-9 quality in it's wrongness.


Could you spell out the goku/superman errors for me? I admit im only a passing fan, so on the surface the numbers seemed to add up.

[turkishproverb]

Could you spell out the goku/superman errors for me? I admit im only a passing fan, so on the surface the numbers seemed to add up.

Off the top of my head?

I'll just give you one, and it only in brief because there are so many things wrong with it, because I am not re-watching that thing.

1. Using multiple continuity superman's to make him uber-powerful, such as "merged with the sun" version, oddly ignoring continuities where his powers can "overload" and kill him, but skipping the whole "Goku merges with the Eternal Dragon" thing.