HOME | DD
Hailtothechimp β Moron Motivational
Published: 2010-06-16 14:00:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 9163; Favourites: 18; Downloads: 498
Redirect to original
Description
You all have to agree with me on this one. They never look at the big picture. "Oh I prefer this weapon over this one because its bigger, it makes a huge mess and makes me feel like I have a really huge penis! DUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHH!"Morons! But back to the rant, they never take tactics into play. If they did the Ninja would have beaten the Spartan and The Viet Cong would have beaten the S.S. At one point dumb ass on the computer stated "Wow, I didn't know Attila the Hun had such great tactics!" But they didn't use tactics! And last night with the Persian Immortal vs The Celt, they decided the sling sucked because it didn't kill, but yet it snapped a femur in two! Doing so would incapacitate an enemy, weakening the opposing force! God these guys are the biggest group of idiots on Earth!
Related content
Comments: 71
The Ninja vs Spartan was a foolish matchup anyway would have rather saw him fight the Apache or somethingΒ
but I agree at points they don`t look at the bigger picture like the Shaka Zulu vs William Wallace episode when the Shaka Zulu used the poison that could you could spit out and blind a opponent it would work excellent with a bladed weapon since you could attack your vulnerable enemy what pissed me off was no one mentioned itΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I have to agree with those points. Especially that last one. It didn't even look like the spit really done anything on Wallace. Same sort of thing happened in the Ninja vs Spartan fight as well. Ninja throws Black Eggs, but then the Spartan can easily see again a few seconds later.
π: 0 β©: 0
You'll be happy to know that Spike no longer has Deadliest Warrior on its cast of shows. Frankly, I'm happy, too. Too much lack of knowledge, too much reliance on blunt damage, and too many failures that make a unique weapon appear as if a failure unto its own design. True, I enjoyed the fight scenes, but those mean little when dealing with actual information and in-depth martial material, especially with past historical fighters.
π: 0 β©: 0
True, they're dumb, but really, who goes into a show like this looking for anyone other than stupid, bloody fun?
π: 0 β©: 0
Dude while I totally agree with you, those guys are idiots. I agree with you on the Celt vs Immortal, though I disagree about the Spartan vs Ninja. I guess that's one thing they got right with the show. It's suppose to be a face to face fight kind of thing. I have no doubt that the Ninja could kill the Spartan, just not in a head to head fight, he has no weapons that can just break through heavy armor like that. You know what I mean? And I really hate how they just 'happen' to use a bronze spear in the Spartan vs Samurai, when it was iron in the ninja fight. But back to the Celt vs Immortal. These idiots didn't give the Celt a shield or chain mail, which I learned that the Celts kind of invented. And not to mention that the Celt just dropped his club and didn't bother trying to pick it back up. But anyway They really should use good historians and experts in this kind of show.
π: 0 β©: 0
About the sling if the rib could be broken in such a way that it goes through the heart (and it can I saw it on fight science) then that is a mortal wound not to mention yes if you break a person's leg they are pretty much done the rest of the fight; Not to mention how many arteries are near bones let alone in the leg. However the much of the sling's power comes from being able to bleed out opponents from long range so it is a bit iffy but rocks are pretty much infinite and if you need specialty ammo you can make it out of mud, lead or a host of other common liquidized/powdered materials Also the arrow in terms of damage may be a bit worse than a sling bullet, if you shoot someone or thing with an arrow the arrow immediately plugs the hole preventing bleed damage which can be a deciding factor in melee combat.
What they have in common well they have nearly the same constructabillity you can make a sling as easily as you can make a bow if you know what you are doing.
The bow's strong points are you can aim it, the flight characteristics have much less of a standard deviation so they fly better from arrow to arrow. So yeah on the points I covered off the top of my head, the sling wins.
π: 0 β©: 0
As for the sling, what they were looking for was a weapon that could kill on its own, rather than just set the victim up for a kill. As for the Viet Cong, a great deal of their tactics in the Vietnam war came from the fact that they already knew the environment much better than the US soldiers. They had the home-field advantage in reality, but the simulated fight was set where both sides would have familiar terrain to battle in. It started out in a jungle like in 'Nam, but ended in a forest more like in Europe.
Also, when you say "but they didn't use tactics!", am I correct that "they" refers to the three hosts of the show & not the Hun army? I just want to clarify that. I'll admit that they do look more at the tactics the combatants used in Season 3, so it's not totally about who has the bigger sword. Anyway, I just thought I'd give my own opinion on some of the points you raised here, & I hope that you don't interpret this as me trying to start an argument with you.
PS: I totally thought the ninja was going to win too.
π: 0 β©: 0
its just there opinion, and also the bigger the mess the greater the stopping power
π: 0 β©: 0
this isn't about tactics, it's about killing your opponet
π: 0 β©: 0
I love the show, but I see your point. They need to take in BOTH weapons AND tactics. I felt that Sun Tzu should have won, instead of Vlad the Impaler.
PS - Can't wait for Season 3! (Hope they add the Assyrians)
π: 0 β©: 1
Eh, I really doubt that. Besides the obvious gap between these two, Sun Tzu seems more like a scholar than a soldier/warrior. I might be wrong on that, but that's how I see him. To me, they really should have portray Sun Tzu's weapons a bit better, especially with the Flaming Arrows.
π: 0 β©: 0
These guys say that primitive weakling Persians could slaughter a mighty Celtic warrior horde.
pfft.
π: 0 β©: 1
The only reason the Persian won was because they let the persians use a cross bow andonly gave the Celtic warrior a sling. Seriously? A sling? That's not fair at all!
π: 0 β©: 2
You would'nt believe it but the sling is actually very effective.
And super accurate.
I know, I've used one.
π: 0 β©: 0
I mean, Persia spent most of their history getting their ass kicked by everyone else. My mighty Celtic people showed no mercy.
π: 0 β©: 1
What the hell do you mean persia spent most of the time getting their asses kicked? The Greeks conquered them once due to poor leadership and a collapsing empire, long after a golden age, but that's about it. The Romans couldn't conquer them, but did so with the greeks and celts, at Carrhae a roman force much larger than a persian got their asses handed to them. Persia formed the largest empire the world had ever seen at that time, and the only reason they couldn't conquer the greeks was because Xerxes and then later Darius III dissbanded most of the persian army in favour of poorly trained mercinaries.
Who cares what the show says, but you can't make up facts based on your own opinion, persian empire was very powerful at it's hight under Cyrus II and Darius I
Stop watching hollywood movies and pick up a history book or something...
π: 0 β©: 1
They were a bunch of spear chuckers. The facts this show made were "omg bigger wepinZ". I know my facts plenty.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yet again, I do not care about what the show says, I care what history says, Persia formed the largest empire ever (at that time), they conquerd all other civilizations, and it wasn't until the empire was severly weakend that the greeks could in turn conquer them, even though the persians rebelled soon after and took power again.
They managed to hold of the romans, who conquerd every other piece of land they could, that says something about them.
Celts were fantastic warriors as well, but they were not a proffesional army, nor were they as advanced as the persian at that time. Still you can always take comfort in the fact that modern day british islands are a great place to live while Iran is a piece of shit muslim country...
π: 0 β©: 1
Piece of shit MUSLIM country?
What do you have against muslims?
π: 0 β©: 1
Nothing, as long as they keep religion and the government two separate things, which in Iran, they don't, and that is why it's a piece of shit Muslim country, because they don't want to evolve like the rest of the countries in the world, but still live like people did 600 years ago...
Religion should be keept for yourself
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the United States is the same thing with Christianity as long as Republicans are in charge. Living in a piece of shit christian nation is basically the same, the only difference was that our founding fathers were smart enough to limit those in power.
π: 0 β©: 0
This isn't always the case! Look at the Rajput vs Centurion, that Scorpion was 400 times bigger than a chakram, and the chakram kicked it's ass. I think you shouldn't judge too harshly, especially since the weapons that these guys choose are based on how the wielder of the weapons uses them, not the weapons themselves. Besides, if you were in place of this group, how do you think the show would fare? I can tell you, it might not be as good as it is now, no offense. Yes, I've had my share of disappointments, but look on the bright side; between two warriors, the one you choose might win.
π: 0 β©: 0
Don't you just hate those shows that are so awful, and yet so compelling at the same time?
The science is awful... I've yet to see them use the same test when doing a comparison between two different weapons, thus completely invalidating the data obtained.
They have NO IDEA about how chainmail works... every time they 'test' chainmail they use the cheap, butted links of the kind bought by historical re-enactors, collectors and LARPers, rather than the riveted links that were used historically (no criticism of the above groups intended there, BTW... if a hauberk doesn't need to stand up to much abuse, then cheap is a good option). In any case, since chain was used as a defence for over a thousand years of recorded history, I somewhat doubt the show's conclusion that chainmail 'just isn't armour'.
Argh! I think I should stop now, before my blood starts to boil...
π: 0 β©: 1
The first thing you said is completely true. I also really hate it when they compare weapons that shouldn't be compared. Like a bow and arrow against a sling (enough with the slings!) Or my favorite when they give one side a hug, immovable catapult.
π: 0 β©: 0
God I hate that show. Especially the episode with VC v.s. SS. It's like comparing apples to fucking oranges.
π: 0 β©: 0
Don't worry, Mack will fix everything in season 3.
π: 0 β©: 0
they also dont match weapons appropriatly and dont give the weapons the same tests
π: 0 β©: 0
i still dont think jesse could kill capone its illogical to me and yes i know where your coming from with this those guys dont get it at all btw do girls watch this show because i feel like im the only one that does also vlad totally pwns sutzu but the musketeers vs the ming was just dissapointing
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, especially since they had 3 Asian Warriors get their ass kicked in 3 episodes in a row.
π: 0 β©: 0
Spartans vs Ninja was awesome. NO ONE would ever beat the Spartans; PERIOD. But yeah, they DID fuck up pretty bad on the Celt and Attila episodes. I STILL can't believe Alexander lost!!!
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, to be fair, Alexander would probably fair better if the battle was Army vs Army. In squad vs squad, Attila wins that.
π: 0 β©: 0
i feel like im not going to get any support but i think te spartan won fair and square that shield is a monster but yeah knight should have beat pirate. and besides its ashow comparing the trauma a weapon causes not really a test of the warrior or tactics
π: 0 β©: 0
Apparently it's for Entertainment purposes. So I don't propose you can't take it seriously. I still thought that Sun Tzu should've beaten Vlad (Sun Tzu INVENTED War)
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey, if you don't like it then don't watch it.
π: 0 β©: 1
I can't stop watching it, its a great show! Again I made this out of anger after the Persian Immortal vs. Celt. I mean come on, they had to have gotten under your skin one at least one occasion. By the by, those words of yours are good words to live by.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually yeah, I got kinda upset when the Aztec lost to the Azande, but I didn't go on a critic's rampage. Well, thanks! I hope you still watch it anyway!
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with you a 100% here for these guys don't know what they are doing. For the Muskeeter vs. Ming warrior was fixed for they made out that they made the fight unfair using stuff the muskeeter didn't actually use like armor for it would slow them down.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah plus the Ming also had muskets along with that pole cannon they had in the show too, so why didn't they just use that? I mean, it's a matchlock musket, which is inferior to the flintlock musket the Musketeers have, but it would be so much more even. Also, why didn't they use the Steel Lamellar they first showcase in the opening for the Ming? Did no one ever noticed that?
π: 0 β©: 0
tactics... tactics......
That would have served well for the viet cong, but probably not with the Spartan.
Viet Cong left booby traps instead of taking headfirst their enemies, the Nazis would be into a lot of trouble if they where to go and... well, go Nazi on them. I still think the Nazis would win, they are more evil than the US army at the time, i think the US was all "Oh Faq... my comrades are dying", but the Nazi would be thinking "We are superior... We are going to get them".
If you wanna take on a Spartan, the Ninja is the man.... as long as he DOES NOT fights the spartan.
the Spartan took on Samurai speed.... Ninjas took on Samurai speed too, but the Spartan Fights with a shield, while the Ninja shoots a dart that poisons and kills from the shadows.
Who is deadliest of the two? I say the Ninja.... but Deadliest Warrior? Spartan.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. That's my belief, I could argue to the ends of the earth, but I just want you to know that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey its alright, everyone's comments are welcomed in my gallery. Besides I only made this out of anger when the Persian Immortal defeated the Celt. I only seem to hate them when the guy I'm rooting for loses.
π: 0 β©: 1
Aw, man! I wanted to see that fight! Oh, well, it must have been fun.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, come on! It's called "opinion". And they did use tactics. But since when do tactics work when you are actually fighting?
And how can you call an athlete who studied Forensics, an emergency physician who went to four colleges of medical emergency, and a production intern/video game designer idiots?
π: 0 β©: 1
Because I feel they make a lot of bone headed decisions. As I said they never bring in tacticts (get used to that word I use it a lot) into play which could tip the favors more fairly into one opponents corner. They never look at the big picture and in many cases when it should have gone to one guy or a draw they choose the other since his weapon made more of a mess. For instance, in the Drug Cartell vs Somali Pirates they chose the car bomb over the RPG since it made a bigger boom. Unless the pirates are driving a car, its useless and the RPG can reload so whats up with that. I'm sorry, but many of the things they do just piss me off.
π: 0 β©: 1
There's no need to be sorry. But I can't agree with you.
They do use tactics in the fights. When the ninja was alone with the Spartan, he shouted in hope of alarming the Spartan so that he could sink his blade into the bronze tank's back. When that didn't work, he fought from a distance. Plus, that whack to the head with the bronze shield doesn't exactly leave room for clear thinking.
The gladiator vs. apache fight was, I think, silly and probably boneheaded. But the rest of the fights were probably ingenious. Who would have thought of Mafia vs. Yakuza, or Green Beret vs. Spetznas, or even William Wallace vs. Shaka Zulu? It's a what-if world, and there are no stupid questions.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree to a point. They don't do it ALL the time, but they TOTALLY go back on what they say A LOT. Like Jesse James Gang versus the Capone Gang. It's ALWAYS what's more damage to them, but they give the edge to the stiletto over the Bowie Knife? WTF???
They're horrible, but I like most of the matchups, I like watching the fights and the tests, and it's cool to see the different weapons actually used. (Katar for example, or the morning star). Also, watch "The Aftermath". They adress of lot of the issues people like us have, and it helps clear things up... though they don't always get it right in the Aftermath, there is a lot that is made clear.
Though, as my name here should suggest, I'm a Vlad the Impaler researcher, and love the history about him... so next week's fight terrifies me. I believe he should win, but knowing them, I doubt he will.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>