The Most Retarded Thing ever put to film

[Executor]

http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/rants/BellyOfTheBeast/

Jesus. Christ. On. A. Bagel.

Seriously, WTF.

Let me break down what you just witnessed:
-Steven Seagal parries a sword blow with his arm.
-Stops his attacker dead in his tracks with a finger thrust to the solar plexus.
-Swats the sword away backhanded.
-backhands him across the face.
-Chops him in the collarbone.
-Double-chops to the top of the head.
-Chop to the back of the neck.
-Double follow-up chops to the back of the neck.
-Asiatic thrust to the Adam's apple.
-Charges up Dragonball Z-style for the deathblow (with bullet-time slow-mo)
-Delivers a backhanded double-thrust to the sternum, sending his opponent completely across the room and into a knick-knack cabinet!

Steven Seagal pimp slaps a dude across the room!! He slaps, pinches, chops, and then backhands him over thirty feet through the air into a cabinet! The poor stuntman sails-- in a STRAIGHT LINE, mind you-- legs splayed up in the air with his ass over his head, for more than ten yards like he was fired out of a cannon. And despite this defiance of all the immutable laws of physics, Stevan Seagal just stands there with this stone-cold calm on his face that says "I am Stevan effin' Seagal, Destroyer of Worlds".

I must resort to a word in another language to describe this movie scene: BAHUL. It has no English translation, the closest equivalent being "Incredibly, unbelievably stupid,"

[Artemician]

Let me break down what you just witnessed:
-Steven Seagal parries a sword blow with his arm.
-Stops his attacker dead in his tracks with a finger thrust to the solar plexus.
-Swats the sword away backhanded.
-backhands him across the face.
-Chops him in the collarbone.
-Double-chops to the top of the head.
-Chop to the back of the neck.
-Double follow-up chops to the back of the neck.
-Asiatic thrust to the Adam's apple.
-Charges up Dragonball Z-style for the deathblow (with bullet-time slow-mo)
-Delivers a backhanded double-thrust to the sternum, sending his opponent completely across the room and into a knick-knack cabinet!

Steven Seagal pimp slaps a dude across the room!! He slaps, pinches, chops, and then backhands him over thirty feet through the air into a cabinet! The poor stuntman sails-- in a STRAIGHT LINE, mind you-- legs splayed up in the air with his ass over his head, for more than ten yards like he was fired out of a cannon. And despite this defiance of all the immutable laws of physics, Stevan Seagal just stands there with this stone-cold calm on his face that says "I am Stevan effin' Seagal, Destroyer of Worlds".

I must resort to a word in another language to describe this movie scene: SUGOI!!. It has no English translation, the closest equivalent being "Incredibly, unbelievably awesome,"

:smallbiggrin: I love ridiculous over-the-top movies. And that practically defined over the top.

Awesome.

[Pocketa]

It isn't really retarded...

Mentally ill folk and all...

It's just...

Ridiculously unlogical?

But technically possible? Via some flukes in...well...everything...

[Powerslave44]

Steven Seagal is clearly too mantastic for you. I'd hate to see what would happen if you encountered Jean Claude Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren, though.

[Pronounceable]

You want retarded? I'll tell you retarded: P ussy Galore.

That's one of the Bond girls, who are traditionally double entendres. Needless to say, entire concept of Bond girl is ridiculous but she takes the cake and the table cloth and the table in retardity.

[Jayngfet]

the first thing I thought when I realised this wasn't comedy was


well somebody needs to watch less shonen

[Dhavaer]

I expected this to be about Atonement. Huh.

[kamikasei]

-Steven Seagal parries a sword blow with his arm.

No he doesn't. He blocks/grabs the grip of the sword, which is an entirely legit way to respond to a sword attack.

[nothingclever]

No he doesn't. He blocks/grabs the grip of the sword, which is an entirely legit way to respond to a sword attack.
As this person said he blocks the sword in a realistic way.

Also just about everything he did was realistic with some suspension of disbelief.
He hit him in what were supposed to be pressure points so he'd be paralyzed.
When hitting someone in vital areas you generally don't need to shove your whole fist into the person's neck or whatever area you're aiming at. That kinda makes pressure point aiming pointless if you just shoving your fist in whichever spot you wanted got the same result. The idea is fine manipulation of joints/nerves/etc.
What is ridiculous is hitting someone in multiple areas after the first few strikes which was redundant.
The whole backhand thing was not garbage because that person doing the review basically lied. He isn't slapping the guy, he is pushing him straight forward with both his hands on his core. That's a move that definitely can work in real life since you are applying all your strength to pushing on one spot of a person's body to make them move and hitting them in the center greatly helps to unbalance them. Whether he did it the "right" way or the most aesthetically pleasing way is up to you.
The "30 feet" statement was an exaggeration too. How does the reviewer know it was 30 feet? He doesn't.
The other two major criticisms are the stone cold stare and unrealistic movement of the guy through the air. Both these problems are common in pratically ever martial arts/action movies. Everyone makes super serious faces while fighting at some point in movies. Physics is often somewhat ignored because wire work just doesn't produce the ideal results and it happens plenty of times when people are blown away by gunfire, not just in martial arts scenes.

[Spiryt]

No he doesn't. He blocks/grabs the grip of the sword, which is an entirely legit way to respond to a sword attack.

Entirely legit way to respond to a sword attack without weapon or armor is to bleed.

[kamikasei]

Entirely legit way to respond to a sword attack without weapon or armor is to bleed.

There are any number of martial arts which teach how to disarm sword- or knife-wielding opponents when you are unarmed. Segal practices one. That particular move looked unrealistic to me only in that I would have expected him to step towards the assailant, putting himself closer in than the weapon's most effective range.

[Spiryt]

There are any number of martial arts which teach how to disarm sword- or knife-wielding opponents when you are unarmed. Segal practices one. That particular move looked unrealistic to me only in that I would have expected him to step towards the assailant, putting himself closer in than the weapon's most effective range.

I've read at least 3 articles written by guys who train brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and fight in local MMA competition, (not to mention forums) and all generally shared opinion about "anti knife/sword/axe disarming techniques" that's bull****. That's what logic tells you anyway. Most of opinions were that Seagal is anyway poser , or just an actor (although I never have seen him playing) who trains aikido, speaking in less pejorative way. Here's (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/knifelies.html) interesting article by the way.

Of course some strong, quick and very experienced guy probably could disarm weapon wielding amator, but that's all. Guy with weapon is more dangerous than guy without it, that's rather obvious.

And back on topic - generally all movies with Seagal, Van Damme e.c. are equaly ridiculous - I especially liked Universal Soldier: The Return. It was funny.

[kamikasei]

I don't know how likely it is that anyone could pull off a disarming technique like that shown in a real fight. The thing is that action movie fights are almost never realistic, not in laws-of-physics terms but in how the participants move. Given the wide swing the attacker makes Segal's response barely pings on the implausiometer. And given that the OP's description was that he "parries a sword blow with his arm" as if he meets and stops the blade with his iron-muscled forearms I think it's fair to point out that the scene is in fact several orders of magnitude less ridiculous than it's being made out to be.

I should also point out that the article you linked appears to be entirely about knife fighting. The word "sword" is used once on the entire page. Knives are clearly going to be harder than swords to disarm/counter as they're lighter, faster and used closer in. Furthermore, to quote:


The main reason it is a lie is that you cannot "fight" an armed opponent. You can survive against one and you might even be able to successfully put him down before he causes you any major damage...but, whatever you do, it must be fast, effective and brutal. If it isn't, then you will not stop him before he causes you major damage.

You cannot stand there and engage in a long, drawn out contest with an armed opponent. If you try to do so, you will lose. It is not a matter of if, but of when.

That's pretty much what the video shows, just with ridiculously bad choreography, stiff movement, and absurd "dozen pressure point strikes in an instant" martial-arts woo - oh, and what looks like a clear implication that Segal is Mr. Master Guy and his opponent is some punk who doesn't know what he's doing.

[Spiryt]

That's pretty much what the video shows, just with ridiculously bad choreography, stiff movement, and absurd "dozen pressure point strikes in an instant" martial-arts woo - oh, and what looks like a clear implication that Segal is Mr. Master Guy and his opponent is some punk who doesn't know what he's doing.

I didn't say that's imposible - but like everyone is pointing - you must be faster, better et cetera than your opponent, and be lucky to survive. In movies guys keep defeating armed enemies beacuse they're so kung fu old senseied. Dunno about belly of..., I either haven't seen it, or I don't remember anymore - so I can't tell how ridiculous this scene is.



Knives are clearly going to be harder than swords to disarm/counter as they're lighter, faster and used closer in. Furthermore, to quote:

I won't argue if knives are really faster (whatever that means - sure you can wave them around with insane speed, but nothing will come out of this), but sword is certainly much deadlier weapon, with range that won't leave a chance to unarmed guy. If lighter = better, then best idea would be to fight with fork.
The only problem I can see is some very sparse room, with no place to cut - but still the simpliest tactic is to impale enemy when he tries those grabs or whatever.

[nothingclever]

Well these actions are common place in movies so they might as well be considered acceptable because that's what you'll see in action movies whether you like it or not one way or another.

Anyways I don't really a sword as being that much better than a knife because it depends on what type of sword you use and if the other person has anything to fight back with. Like in a fight between a sword and a knife a knife could win simply because a sword does not always have a good level of cutting/thrusting power while a knife applies much more isolated pressure and only becomes better the closer in a person moves rather than worse.

I could see a sword chopping a big gash in someone's side while the person with a knife can just stab the other guy right in the face/neck/whatever and kill pretty instantly. Even without a knife if the other person cannot generate enough force to make a slash fatal he could be taken out by anything as he is forced to pull his sword back. Also a knife can't really be blocked like a sword can. I can see a person using a durable jacket to entangle a sword while a person with a knife can just move past it and stab a lot easier because a knife is much smaller.

[Spiryt]

Well these actions are common place in movies so they might as well be considered acceptable because that's what you'll see in action movies whether you like it or not one way or another.

Anyways I don't really a sword as being that much better than a knife because it depends on what type of sword you use and if the other person has anything to fight back with. Like in a fight between a sword and a knife a knife could win simply because a sword does not always have a good level of cutting/thrusting power while a knife applies much more isolated pressure and only becomes better the closer in a person moves rather than worse.

I could see a sword chopping a big gash in someone's side while the person with a knife can just stab the other guy right in the face/neck/whatever and kill pretty instantly.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about?

If something that you just said were true, people would fight with knives in battles, not with sword.

Sword have better range, cutting/trusting ability (depend of the type of sword, usually both are better), you can hit with pommel, disarm your opponent. I don't know what to say more - swords were a tool of war, also good in duel.

What do you mean by issolated pressure :smalleek:
I don't get it at all.

Also I have no idea why sword can't hit in face/whatever if knife can. I don't know how the hell knife can just stab in the face. Guy with sword will stay and whistle, or what?

With all due respect, you wrote some terrible nonsenses here.




I could see a sword chopping a big gash in someone's side while the person with a knife can just stab the other guy right in the face/neck/whatever and kill pretty instantly. Even without a knife if the other person cannot generate enough force to make a slash fatal he could be taken out by anything as he is forced to pull his sword back. Also a knife can't really be blocked like a sword can. I can see a person using a durable jacket to entangle a sword while a person with a knife can just move past it and stab a lot easier because a knife is much smaller.

Can't be really blocked?
- Can be blocked by swordman choping down arm of the knife fighter, when he expands his arm to get him, for example
- Tell me how knife can block sword now, that's much more interesting.

If knive fighter have some sword durable jacket (what's that BTW - gambeson, or something?), why sword fighter can't have something like that too?

Considering that fighters have some good jack's like this (http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/100704.jpg) (you have that in your mind?), which were generaly cut durable, knife guy is completely screwed, as he must aim for some legs, arms, face, whatever, which is very hard to do when your opponent is moving with sword.

And sword against jack:
- either sword is cutting sword like katana - can cut trough with good strike
- is more thrusting oriented type of sword - can thrust trough so easily that it's not even funy.

[konfeta]

There are any number of martial arts which teach how to disarm sword- or knife-wielding opponents when you are unarmed.

And all of them rely on your opponent being brain dead, all limbs amputated, and suffering an epileptic seizure in the time of the fight. Ok, exaggerated, but you would have to be tremendously lucky (or be incredibly better at fighting) to disarm someone with a weapon when you don't have a weapon yourself.

There is a REASON weapons are used. It has something to do with weapons being better at inflicting damage than body parts. Added bonus when you see someone trying to disarm a weapon barehanded and end up with inability to use their limbs after their first, almost guaranteed to fail, attempt.

[kamikasei]

Look. This -


-Steven Seagal parries a sword blow with his arm.

- is a false/misleading statement.

This -


Entirely legit way to respond to a sword attack without weapon or armor is to bleed.

- is also false/misleading.

I don't suggest that fighting an opponent armed with a sword when you are empty-handed is anything other than a terrible idea. I do suggest that there exist techniques for doing so, however unlikely they are to work, and that seeing it happen in an action movie falls under "that wouldn't happen in a real fight" and not "you can't physically do that".

[SurlySeraph]

That's not stupid at all. You want stupid? Watch Turkish Star Wars (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7069307816427160377).

[Spiryt]

I don't suggest that fighting an opponent armed with a sword when you are empty-handed is anything other than a terrible idea. I do suggest that there exist techniques for doing so, however unlikely they are to work, and that seeing it happen in an action movie falls under "that wouldn't happen in a real fight" and not "you can't physically do that".

Agreed. Indeed more correct statement is that bleeding would be most probable result of such feat.

That's the pretty little offtopic here, by the way :smallbiggrin:


That's not stupid at all. You want stupid? Watch Turkish Star Wars (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7069307816427160377).

:smalleek: :smalleek:

That's serious stuff?

"the enemies of earth in galaxy did not have brains"

[Mr. Scaly]

Hey, the video didn't load!:smallannoyed: I wanted to see the over the top martial arts...

[Pronounceable]

That's not stupid at all. You want stupid? Watch Turkish Star Wars (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7069307816427160377).

It's "The Man Who Saves The Earth" actually. And it's probably worse if you're Turkish.

Unfortunately they were totally serious during filming. It was "inspired" by SW, although perhaps it would've been better if it didn't. There are some other horrible "inspirations" however, most notorious two being Exorcist and ET.

It's considered comedy nowadays.

[LBO]

"Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RefugeInAudacity)."

I reckon that applies to crimes against martial arts as well.:smallbiggrin:

[nothingclever]

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about?

If something that you just said were true, people would fight with knives in battles, not with sword.

Sword have better range, cutting/trusting ability (depend of the type of sword, usually both are better), you can hit with pommel, disarm your opponent. I don't know what to say more - swords were a tool of war, also good in duel.

What do you mean by issolated pressure :smalleek:
I don't get it at all.

Also I have no idea why sword can't hit in face/whatever if knife can. I don't know how the hell knife can just stab in the face. Guy with sword will stay and whistle, or what?

With all due respect, you wrote some terrible nonsenses here.



Can't be really blocked?
- Can be blocked by swordman choping down arm of the knife fighter, when he expands his arm to get him, for example
- Tell me how knife can block sword now, that's much more interesting.

If knive fighter have some sword durable jacket (what's that BTW - gambeson, or something?), why sword fighter can't have something like that too?

Considering that fighters have some good jack's like this (http://www.by-the-sword.com/acatalog/images/100704.jpg) (you have that in your mind?), which were generaly cut durable, knife guy is completely screwed, as he must aim for some legs, arms, face, whatever, which is very hard to do when your opponent is moving with sword.

And sword against jack:
- either sword is cutting sword like katana - can cut trough with good strike
- is more thrusting oriented type of sword - can thrust trough so easily that it's not even funy.

You are saying I said that a knife is better than a sword when one guy has a sword and another guy has a knife fighting each other. What I meant was that I don't think a sword in general is much better than a knife.

You are also imagining a guy who is either very strong, has a very sharp sword meant for cutting, an expert or all of the above. Those things aren't always the case.

What I said really should not be hard to understand.
A sword does not work well when two people are practically nose to nose.
A knife works even better.
Why?
Since a knife is so short you could stab right into the guy's side by curling your arm or pulling it back a little.
With a sword you'd need to pull back much more or have really long arms or a short sword which a katana is not.

Pressure is a simple thing to understand as well. If you put all your force into a thrust and you have a tiny tip of the blade delivering all the force obviously it will do more damage.

You can't always thrust with a sword and a sword can be grabbed much easier because it is longer and is only good at a distance while a knife is good no matter how close you get.

Slashes aren't likely to do as much definite damage.
Anyways I said a sword isn't so much better not that it isn't better.

Plus knife thrusts are not screwed by a jacket because you are able to thrust almost all the time. You are showing a stupid example of a jacket as if I'm talking about medieval fighting. Even that jacket would be easily pierced by a long enough knife. And no, that knife wouldn't have to be so long that it'd be a sword.

Really your response is so annoying I shouldn't bother and just feign ignorance like you.
:smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: "What, I can only see advantages, absolutely no disadvantages and have no idea what you are talking about. All I know is what some ex bodyguard guy wrote about how you'll never ever win a fight and everyone lies about everything worth lying about. I think your post is dumb and horrible because I create a silly setting in my favor.":smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:

I'd draw you mspaint diagrams for fun but it takes too much effort and I suck at creating depth or 3d objects.

The sword is weak in the same way a guy with long arms in a fight is weak. When he keeps enough distance no one can hit him but when he gets close he has to take longer to pull his arms back to himself to swing properly/defend himself and the length of his arms is no longer an advantage.

[Nevrmore]

I expected this to be about Atonement. Huh.
Really? I was expecting Teeth, myself.

I mean, I honestly never thought I'd have to say, "Wow, I stopped respecting the Sundance Film Festival when it voted a movie about a woman with teeth in her vadge the best film of the year."

[Spiryt]

You are saying I said that a knife is better than a sword when one guy has a sword and another guy has a knife fighting each other. What I meant was that I don't think a sword in general is much better than a knife.

You are also imagining a guy who is either very strong, has a very sharp sword meant for cutting, an expert or all of the above. Those things aren't always the case.

Pressure is a simple thing to understand as well. If you put all your force into a thrust and you have a tiny tip of the blade delivering all the force obviously it will do more damage.

What I said really should not be hard to understand.
A sword does not work well when two people are practically nose to nose.
A knife works even better.
Why?
Since a knife is so short you could stab right into the guy's side by curling your arm or pulling it back a little.
With a sword you'd need to pull back much more or have really long arms or a short sword which a katana is not.



You can't always thrust with a sword and a sword can be grabbed much easier because it is longer and is only good at a distance while a knife is good no matter how close you get.

Slashes aren't likely to do as much definite damage.
Anyways I said a sword isn't so much better not that it isn't better.

Plus knife thrusts are not screwed by a jacket because you are able to thrust almost all the time. You are showing a stupid example of a jacket as if I'm talking about medieval fighting. Even that jacket would be easily pierced by a long enough knife. And no, that knife wouldn't have to be so long that it'd be a sword.

Really your response is so annoying I shouldn't bother and just feign ignorance like you.
:smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: "What, I can only see advantages, absolutely no disadvantages and have no idea what you are talking about. All I know is what some ex bodyguard guy wrote about how you'll never ever win a fight and everyone lies about everything worth lying about. I think your post is dumb and horrible because I create a silly setting in my favor.":smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:

I'd draw you mspaint diagrams for fun but it takes too much effort and I suck at creating depth or 3d objects.

The sword is weak in the same way a guy with long arms in a fight is weak. When he keeps enough distance no one can hit him but when he gets close he has to take longer to pull his arms back to himself to swing properly/defend himself and the length of his arms is no longer an advantage.

Well, you have good points, which I understood first time. Still, before guy with knife gets close - he's dead. And (at least medieval longsword) allows many nasty things to do.

And your argument about "slashes don't do so definite damage" :smalleek:
Check first video (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm), other videos too, if you want.


Pressure is a simple thing to understand as well. If you put all your force into a thrust and you have a tiny tip of the blade delivering all the force obviously it will do more damage.

And sword have a tiny tip (if it's not dedicated cutter), it have longer, hevier blade, usually wider blade which can make even more "damage", so I can't see the point.


Anyways I said a sword isn't so much better not that it isn't better.

Of course, I really don't think that sword would be very good thing for street self defence for example. It's not heavy but too cumbersome to hang around with it all day. It's would not be very good to defend tight crowd or something, and also it's value as a utility/survival tool is rather low (and even lower compared to knife).


You are also imagining a guy who is either very strong, has a very sharp sword meant for cutting, an expert or all of the above. Those things aren't always the case.

Ok, sword is poor, guy is weak and he can't fight. Those can apply to the knife/knife wielder as well, so it's not an argument.
But it's way better weapon to 1v1 fight, 1vfew fight. And I though that was we were talking about.


I could see a sword chopping a big gash in someone's side while the person with a knife can just stab the other guy right in the face/neck/whatever and kill pretty instantly.
as I really don't think how stab in the head or neck can kill quicker than sword cut/thrust in mentioned area. Or even in the side - it will open the side wide.

Or if you are implying that sword from some reason can't hit accuratelly in head/neck - it can, they were esigned just for that.

If my comment about nonsenses offended you I appologise.

But I really don't like your post. I haven't write anything personal about you - I only wrote that some of your thesis were nonsense, and even if I overreacted, it was comment about what you wrote.

You called me ignorant, and implied that my knowledge comes from some rumors and tales.

I assume that your comes from actual sword vs knife to death duels :smalltongue: ?

[EvilElitest]

Ok nothing clever

1) If the Knife's biggest advantage is in close quarters, then the user has to get into close quarters. I mean you could make the claim that a knife is better than a machine gun in close quarters, that doesn't change the fact that it is damn hard to get into such a situation when the gun man is ready for you
2) WFT are you talking about when you say that slashing isn't effective?That is kinda what swords do, and they have done it very well for ages
3) Even when a knife gets up to you, if i get slashed across the arm with a knife, i might be able to keep going (not likely, but the would might be smaller). With a sword, i'm most likely with a useless arm
from
EE