Deadliest Warrior

[IssunBoshi]

I'm not too concerned about the outcomes of the matches that much. At the end of the day, I've come to realize that what is decided on Deadliest Warrior isn't the end-all be all on who would beat whom, especially considering what happened during the French Foreign Legion/Gurkha match (I'll talk about that later.)

Still, there are certain things that I wish were further elaborated. For instance, during the Comanche vs. Mongol fight, there wasn't much of an emphasis on the importance of horsemanship and archery in Mongol culture. Indeed, in Mongolia, aside from wrestling, these two skills are considered to be the quintissential qualities that all boys should possess, and even until today, these skills are crucial for the survival of the Mongol herders. Those little details would have really shown that both Comanches and Mongols are worthy of fighting one another.

As for season 3, well, looking back on it now, there were some issues I have. The top being is that there wasn't that much of a focus on what the experts had to say. For most of the time, Geoff, Mac, and Doc were the ones pointing out the facts and stating how test results would "factor in the sim" leaving many of the experts just idily standing around. Also, it seems that the show was favoring at least one of the warriors during the 3rd season. Nick Hughes, the FFL expert from the Gurkha vs. FFL episode said in the most recent Deadliest Podcast that the rifle and knife tests were not exactly fair for him. For instance, during the knife test, he was only given a blunted kabar knife on the spot just minutes before filming. Though he systematically, methodically, and brutally killed those dummies (he intentionally stabed all of the vital points which Doc in the unedited footage pointed out), he was told the day after that the knife test was given to the kuhri because the fans would give the show hell if the result was otherwise.

Still, though the show is gone, I still watch it from time to time. Though not as passionate as before, I'm still excited when I watch Snake Blocker's knife demo, a Zulu Iklwa piercing chain mail, the Kpinga spinning through the air, or Washington's sword fight with Napolean. Though I haven't been able to watch all of season 3, what was produced is still satisfying.

Another thing I don't get is why in Season 3, you don't have the experts in the end stating why they agreed or disagreed with the outcome like they did for season 1 and 2. I personally would have loved to see the reactions of Khosbayar (genghis expert) and Rasta Rai (gurkha expert) on their respective asians winning, but too bad for the latter, they never did an aftermath for nick hughes + rasta rai. >:( Though i must say after watching the episode, i did become interested in watching a documentary of the french foreign legion on youtube, narrated by Will Lyman.

I wonder what was Nick Hugh's reaction for the FFL losing. And I think the Kukri logically deserved its edge for being the superior knife, fair and square. I mean the range of a few slashes is enough to win as opposed to having to get closer to stab much much much more times. How was the rifle test not fair?

And how come in Season 3, despite all episodes being squad-on-squad, how come they don't have the "beeping" sound anymore everytime each warrior in both counter dies until one is left?

And after watching ivan the terrible vs. hernan cortes, i was rather disappointed that despite trying to write to deadliest warrior on facebook so many times about "alternate endings", they never answered it in the aftermath. Why don't they have alternate endings? IT would do A LOT to lessen complaints.

Lastly, I still wish to know what the Deadliest WArrior movie would have been like.

With Deadliest Warrior cancelled for now, I'm hardpressed to think up of any new show on spike or anywhere currently or even in the future that would deliver the same amount of awesome epicness of it, though the confident and hopeful in me says "just wait and see...".

[Tien Long]

I wonder what was Nick Hugh's reaction for the FFL losing. And I think the Kukri logically deserved its edge for being the superior knife, fair and square. I mean the range of a few slashes is enough to win as opposed to having to get closer to stab much much much more times. How was the rifle test not fair?

In the podcast, Nick wasn't totally fuming that the FFL lost, but I got the sense that he was frustrated that the tests weren't totally fair. In the case of the rifle test, both rifles have speed clips. Unfortunately, the gun collector who gave the show Nick's rifle said that he didn't have a speed clip. Rather than take away the speed clip from Rasta, the producers decided to let Rasta keep it in order to give a fuller picture of gun speed clips or somesuch.

The same could be said with the knife test. The khuri that was given to Rai was just made by Dave Baker and exceedingly sharp. The Ka-bar given to Nick was found at a moment's notice and very dull. According to Nick, if the knife were sharp, he could have easily cut that dummy in two. Moreover, Nick says that basically all you could do with that khuri was hack and slash. He, on the other hand, could do (and did do) much more with his Ka-bar.

And how come in Season 3, despite all episodes being squad-on-squad, how come they don't have the "beeping" sound anymore everytime each warrior in both counter dies until one is left?

And after watching ivan the terrible vs. hernan cortes, i was rather disappointed that despite trying to write to deadliest warrior on facebook so many times about "alternate endings", they never answered it in the aftermath. Why don't they have alternate endings? IT would do A LOT to lessen complaints.

Lastly, I still wish to know what the Deadliest WArrior movie would have been like.

With Deadliest Warrior cancelled for now, I'm hardpressed to think up of any new show on spike or anywhere currently or even in the future that would deliver the same amount of awesome epicness of it, though the confident and hopeful in me says "just wait and see...".[/QUOTE]

[IssunBoshi]

In the podcast, Nick wasn't totally fuming that the FFL lost, but I got the sense that he was frustrated that the tests weren't totally fair. In the case of the rifle test, both rifles have speed clips. Unfortunately, the gun collector who gave the show Nick's rifle said that he didn't have a speed clip. Rather than take away the speed clip from Rasta, the producers decided to let Rasta keep it in order to give a fuller picture of gun speed clips or somesuch.

The same could be said with the knife test. The khuri that was given to Rai was just made by Dave Baker and exceedingly sharp. The Ka-bar given to Nick was found at a moment's notice and very dull. According to Nick, if the knife were sharp, he could have easily cut that dummy in two. Moreover, Nick says that basically all you could do with that khuri was hack and slash. He, on the other hand, could do (and did do) much more with his Ka-bar.

And how come in Season 3, despite all episodes being squad-on-squad, how come they don't have the "beeping" sound anymore everytime each warrior in both counter dies until one is left?

And after watching ivan the terrible vs. hernan cortes, i was rather disappointed that despite trying to write to deadliest warrior on facebook so many times about "alternate endings", they never answered it in the aftermath. Why don't they have alternate endings? IT would do A LOT to lessen complaints.

Lastly, I still wish to know what the Deadliest WArrior movie would have been like.

With Deadliest Warrior cancelled for now, I'm hardpressed to think up of any new show on spike or anywhere currently or even in the future that would deliver the same amount of awesome epicness of it, though the confident and hopeful in me says "just wait and see...".

[/QUOTE]

I still think the Gurkhas beat the FFL fair and square, especially in the rifle and the kukri category. And besides think about it, it's the first time we get to see the first time modern asians beat modern europeans in a deadliest warrior episode. ;)

It'd be a sin to waste such glorious opportunity, you know.

and the rest of my quotes seemed to have screwed up in your last post. and you didn't answer the rest of my questions/comments.

[Tien Long]

I still think the Gurkhas beat the FFL fair and square, especially in the rifle and the kukri category. And besides think about it, it's the first time we get to see the first time modern asians beat modern europeans in a deadliest warrior episode. ;)

It'd be a sin to waste such glorious opportunity, you know. [/quote]

Knowing what Nick said, that taints the victory. That's cheating, and as an Asian, I feel that isn't something for Asians to be proud of.

[quotes]and the rest of my quotes seemed to have screwed up in your last post. and you didn't answer the rest of my questions/comments.[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the messed up response. As for the other comments, well, I don't have an opinion on them. That's why I didn't respond to them.

[IssunBoshi]

Knowing what Nick said, that taints the victory. That's cheating, and as an Asian, I feel that isn't something for Asians to be proud of.

Maybe. But if the Gurkhas lost. Just think how depressed other Asians will be. How badly their pride hurt. Come on, would you want to waste the only victory modern-day asians ever had and just suffer the ones that already outnumber it like musketeer vs. ming, waffen-ss vs. viet cong, and mafia vs. yakuza (even though aside from the ming and yakuza, those were all the bad asians that lost)?

And also think about it, the Ming were also cheated by not being given their own musket and the Mongol was not properly armed and you're telling me those aren't cheating? Even though for the ming vs musketeer, mostly everything else was on spot.

(but then again, I don't think the people who don't watch the show would probably care who wins, regardless of ethnicity.)

Sorry for the messed up response. As for the other comments, well, I don't have an opinion on them. That's why I didn't respond to them.

Yeah, but what about the "beeping" sounds in the simulation?

And would Alexander have beaten Attila if they had actually tested Alex's bronze plate armor?

[leothelion]

It may be done... but anybody have any match ups that they would want to debate and discuss? Any warriors to go back and review or argue why a certain warrior should not have lost?

[1505627]

It may be done... but anybody have any match ups that they would want to debate and discuss? Any warriors to go back and review or argue why a certain warrior should not have lost?

Rajput vs. spartan

[Tien Long]

Maybe. But if the Gurkhas lost. Just think how depressed other Asians will be. How badly their pride hurt. Come on, would you want to waste the only victory modern-day asians ever had and just suffer the ones that already outnumber it like musketeer vs. ming, waffen-ss vs. viet cong, and mafia vs. yakuza (even though aside from the ming and yakuza, those were all the bad asians that lost)?

And also think about it, the Ming were also cheated by not being given their own musket and the Mongol was not properly armed and you're telling me those aren't cheating? Even though for the ming vs musketeer, mostly everything else was on spot.

(but then again, I don't think the people who don't watch the show would probably care who wins, regardless of ethnicity.)

I've come to realize that the results on Deadliest Warrior shouldn't be taken as the "be-all-end-all" final answer to a debate, mainly because the tests aren't as transparent as they could be. Though I think the show went into the right direction when it considered the intangible factors of these warriors since it seemed to make the outcomes much more even, I still take the results with a grain of salt. The weapons testing, experts' skill, critical intangibles, (and of course Hollywood sway), all of those are specific to what the show did at that time. If another group of individuals carried out different experiments with different weapons with experts who were more or less skilled than those used the day Deadliest Warrior did the test, than I think we would have gotten different results. Thus, I don't get angry (or at least don't get as frustrated as I used to be) over the outcome of the matches anymore.

What I appreciate about the show (and what makes me watch endless reruns) is how the show gave insight to these particular warriors and their weapons and strategies. I like the fact that it highlights historical figures both known and unknown, famous and infamous. I like that it serves as a gateway drug for people to learn about a new history or culture. And I certainly like how it shows $&^* getting cut/chopped/shot/blown/demolished/smashed/torn/exploded up.

Yeah, but what about the "beeping" sounds in the simulation?

And would Alexander have beaten Attila if they had actually tested Alex's bronze plate armor?

Hmmm, sorry, I haven't seen the episodes of the 3rd Season as often as I'd like. I can't comment on that.

As for the Alexander the Great vs. Attila the Hun match, I think Attila still would have won his match, mainly because of the skill of the archer. There were a couple of quick, "blink and you'll miss it" scenes in that particular episdoe which showed Robert Borsos, the Hun archer, shooting arrows at a gel figure with Alexander's armor. He was hitting dead center into the gel figure's face. So yeah, I still think Attila would have won.

[IssunBoshi]

I've come to realize that the results on Deadliest Warrior shouldn't be taken as the "be-all-end-all" final answer to a debate, mainly because the tests aren't as transparent as they could be. Though I think the show went into the right direction when it considered the intangible factors of these warriors since it seemed to make the outcomes much more even, I still take the results with a grain of salt. The weapons testing, experts' skill, critical intangibles, (and of course Hollywood sway), all of those are specific to what the show did at that time. If another group of individuals carried out different experiments with different weapons with experts who were more or less skilled than those used the day Deadliest Warrior did the test, than I think we would have gotten different results. Thus, I don't get angry (or at least don't get as frustrated as I used to be) over the outcome of the matches anymore.

What I appreciate about the show (and what makes me watch endless reruns) is how the show gave insight to these particular warriors and their weapons and strategies. I like the fact that it highlights historical figures both known and unknown, famous and infamous. I like that it serves as a gateway drug for people to learn about a new history or culture. And I certainly like how it shows $&^* getting cut/chopped/shot/blown/demolished/smashed/torn/exploded up.

That's a very good point.

But if you watched CascadeSoldier's vids on youtube, he never seems to call bullshit on any episode since season 2 or 3. He just agrees with almost everything in the show and treats it like it's the be-all end-all. And i don't get why despite the fact that Deadliest Warrior is not accurate, everyone keeps saying that the show has come to a fair conclusion.

So at this point, my beef is not so much with the warriors losing anymore, but why people just agree to one side after they see the results of the show and then hardly anyone argues against it (go to any youtube vids on those episodes and you'll see what I mean). It just takes the fun and excitement of debating the Deadliest Warrior show and historical debates.

for instance, what were losing warriors you think should have won their match-ups and why? (this question is for Tien Long)

Hmmm, sorry, I haven't seen the episodes of the 3rd Season as often as I'd like. I can't comment on that.

As for the Alexander the Great vs. Attila the Hun match, I think Attila still would have won his match, mainly because of the skill of the archer. There were a couple of quick, "blink and you'll miss it" scenes in that particular episdoe which showed Robert Borsos, the Hun archer, shooting arrows at a gel figure with Alexander's armor. He was hitting dead center into the gel figure's face. So yeah, I still think Attila would have won.

Season 3 was a vast improvement over Season 2 for many reasons. Though the lack of beeping sounds in Season 3 simulations kinda feels well... lacking.

Skill of the archer? Really i'm curious... when people say that the warriors on deadliest warrior deserved to lose their match-ups... are they saying that based on the show's tests that have run? or are they referring to normal battle scenarios with everything else outside the show in real-life considered?

they should have tested alex's armor against attila's non-bow weapons. i mean they tested attila's leather lamellar against alex's spear.

[Tien Long]

That's a very good point.

But if you watched CascadeSoldier's vids on youtube, he never seems to call bullshit on any episode since season 2 or 3. He just agrees with almost everything in the show and treats it like it's the be-all end-all. And i don't get why despite the fact that Deadliest Warrior is not accurate, everyone keeps saying that the show has come to a fair conclusion.

So at this point, my beef is not so much with the warriors losing anymore, but why people just agree to one side after they see the results of the show and then hardly anyone argues against it (go to any youtube vids on those episodes and you'll see what I mean). It just takes the fun and excitement of debating the Deadliest Warrior show and historical debates.

for instance, what were losing warriors you think should have won their match-ups and why? (this question is for Tien Long)

I can't comment on the trend of people no longer contesting the results of the show. To me, it seemed as though the results still elicited a ton of controversy amongst the fans.

As for who I think should have won, I feel that the Roman Centurion and Mongols should have won their matches. I don't think that the Rajput warrior would have been able to counter the huge scutum of the Centurion. As for the Mongol, I feel as though the mace and ijld were great weapons that definitely would have turned the tide of the fight. Also, though I respect what Jason Nyguen did during the bow and arrow test, especially considering how close he came to Jay Redhawk's performance, I think if the producers got someone who was more skilled as an archer (like one of the top archers in Mongolia), then the bow and arrow test would have gone differently.

Skill of the archer? Really i'm curious... when people say that the warriors on deadliest warrior deserved to lose their match-ups... are they saying that based on the show's tests that have run? or are they referring to normal battle scenarios with everything else outside the show in real-life considered?

I think that when people say a warrior should have lost (or should have won for that matter), they are considering a little bit of both of what you mention. The tests were flawed, or the battle scenarios didn't include enough real-life x-factors. Again, that's why I liked the third season since it tried to consider those x-factors more closely. If those X-factors were considered in the 2nd season, I definitely think Sun Tzu would have beat Vlad the Impaler.

[leothelion]

The match ups in season 3 sucked! They were just boring and what made Season 1 the best of them all were the weapons expert who actually talked. They stripped it all away for stupid boring segments with Mack repeating himself over and over and over. Honestly I could not stand Mack. If they would had kept it exactly like Season 1 and just tell us that they have a new better simulation then this show would of lasted forever. Then if people still cried and complained about strategies then they could put up clips of it on their website. It would be interesting to see what warrior match up from past seasons would have been on season 3. I believe Sun Tzu would of slaughtered Vlad while William the Conqueror would have crushed Joan on any of the previous season.

[leothelion]

Spartan vs Rajput.

Short sword
Spear
Javelin
Shield

vs

Khanda
Aara
Chakram
Katar

Short sword vs Khanda. This obviously goes to the Khanda for being much longer and is really self explanatory. The short sword stands no chance what so ever.

Spear vs Aara. Even though we saw that Aara actually slice the face of one of the dummies off they still gave it zero kills which would be the same result here even though the Aara would trip the Spartan just like he did to the Roman. The spear wins it hands down though for the Spartan.

Chakram vs Javelin. Even. The Javelin will just be blocked by the Rajput shield and the Chakram will out score it.

Shield vs Katar. Even. Of course they will be quick to tel us that the shield could be used as an offensive weapon bu the Katar would go straight through the Spartan chest plate which would be impressive enough to call it even.

Just like the Roman vs Rajput, the Rajput would win this just the same way. Its basically the same exact match. Just Spartans are older than the Romans.

[IssunBoshi]

I can't comment on the trend of people no longer contesting the results of the show. To me, it seemed as though the results still elicited a ton of controversy amongst the fans.

As for who I think should have won, I feel that the Roman Centurion and Mongols should have won their matches. I don't think that the Rajput warrior would have been able to counter the huge scutum of the Centurion. As for the Mongol, I feel as though the mace and ijld were great weapons that definitely would have turned the tide of the fight. Also, though I respect what Jason Nyguen did during the bow and arrow test, especially considering how close he came to Jay Redhawk's performance, I think if the producers got someone who was more skilled as an archer (like one of the top archers in Mongolia), then the bow and arrow test would have gone differently.

Yeah right now, it would have been nice to see a Roman victory on Deadliest Warrior. Though I talked with Matt Lasky himself on facebook and he told me that Rome has already won many times history and told me who cares what a spike-produced tv shows says.

I think that when people say a warrior should have lost (or should have won for that matter), they are considering a little bit of both of what you mention. The tests were flawed, or the battle scenarios didn't include enough real-life x-factors. Again, that's why I liked the third season since it tried to consider those x-factors more closely. If those X-factors were considered in the 2nd season, I definitely think Sun Tzu would have beat Vlad the Impaler.

If they seriously always considered the latter, then this is where my respect for the entire human species drops. Though granted CascadeSoldier said that the mongol should have lost, cause it was one-on-one. I bet if the mongol and alexander won, he would have said that the comanche and attila stands absolutely no chance.

And if Vlad lost, he wouldn't have been voted the most popular warrior of Season 2.

But at this point, I don't care too much about DW's results anymore, since i'm more interested in reveling in the awesome and infinite scope/power of the religion/mythical gods of any culture (or at least the biggest and most favorite ones, including ancient China) or at least should (cause of the whole "omniversal/multiversal" thing, yeah...). Even though it's much easier for me to instantly revel in the greatness of real-life warriors and stuff. Okay don't mind my jibber jabbering.

[The Zapper]

the Katar would go straight through the Spartan chest plate which would be impressive enough to call it even.

I'm not so sure about that.

[1505627]

Spartan vs Rajput.

Short sword
Spear
Javelin
Shield

vs

Khanda
Aara
Chakram
Katar

Short sword vs Khanda. This obviously goes to the Khanda for being much longer and is really self explanatory. The short sword stands no chance what so ever.

Spear vs Aara. Even though we saw that Aara actually slice the face of one of the dummies off they still gave it zero kills which would be the same result here even though the Aara would trip the Spartan just like he did to the Roman. The spear wins it hands down though for the Spartan.

Chakram vs Javelin. Even. The Javelin will just be blocked by the Rajput shield and the Chakram will out score it.

Shield vs Katar. Even. Of course they will be quick to tel us that the shield could be used as an offensive weapon bu the Katar would go straight through the Spartan chest plate which would be impressive enough to call it even.

Just like the Roman vs Rajput, the Rajput would win this just the same way. Its basically the same exact match. Just Spartans are older than the Romans.

okay, Pirate vs. ming warrior