The Deadliest Warrior

This is Steven Petrick Posting.

After hearing discussions of it, I finally recorded and watched the series "Deadliest Warrior".

I will comment that mostly I was unimpressed with the methodology. When testing firearms they often went with a single run, so the Spetznaz did better than the U.S. Special Forces in part due to the night pistol course. A single run through, by a single man from each team. That was inappropriate because it was not an average. The other Spetznaz team member might have done worse, the other American team member might have done better. Instead, everything hung on one guy on one run.

I was also unsure on their study of history, as the Knight was certainly described more as the modern ideal of what the average person thinks Knights were, rather than the blood reality of what they were.

For the most part, their methodology seemed to give the edge more in terms of who had the most advanced technology than to the fighters themselves. (Steel swords defeat shark tooth axe, gunpowder defeats sword, Bronze sword and shield defeats . . .). The major exception was the Apache versus the Gladiator, and that was a matchup that never made any sense. By definition the Gladiator was at a disadvantage because (however much they tried to build him up) the reality is that he is armed and equipped for "spectacle" in a closed environment, and essentially not equipped to (say) Kill the Emperor as he is watching the action, much less other spectators. That shifted a major edge to the Apache, in part because the battle was on the Apache's turf (open ground so that the Gladiator could not back the Apache into a corner but the Apache could run and maneuver as much as he needed to win). It was literally the biggest mismatch they did.

Still, I have to say the fight between the IRA and the Taliban was amusing, in that they depicted one of the Taliban fighters going down to "friendly fire".