Talk:Deadliest Warrior/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Chill

Alright, we are getting a little to personal about this. This is a frigging discussion section, not a blog. There is no need to be calling each other children or ignorant or anything else. Leave the fighting to the show, not to the Wikipedia page. Anyway, on the controversy section, they now are answering questions on the show's websites. Go and claim your indulgences, and then return and, if the evidence that is obtained is of good quality, quantity, and reference, then I think a controversy section, a well monitored one at least, might be benificial to the article. Soyturpow (talk) 21:20, 28 April (UTC)

Children

Will you children stop changing the names of the competing warriors to childish crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.150.213 (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now more than ever we need a page to take a observation of the many issues of this show. i will be undoing any attempt to get rid of the controversies section get used to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardoggwyllgi (talk • contribs) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you either address specific inaccuracies in the show with academic references for each claim, or you leave the issue alone. "Controversies" section was nothing but opinion and original research. Any issues you have with the show may be valid, but Wikipedia is not the place for such things.Plorry (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The controvery section is clearly opiniated and "self-referenced". Any external sources/references to back those claims? The show's Aftermath responded to many criticisms that currently appear in the highly opiniated controversy section. First off, they stated that the show is about wanting to know who the deadliest warrior was and not who the deadliest assassin. They pit both warriors in a simulated field of battle where no warrior can escape the other, in other words, there's nowhere to run away and fight another day, it's do or die in that moment. Do not take the show's final choreographed battle as what had actually happened in the simulator. The final battle is purely for entertainment and to emphasize the actual winner and NOT to be taken literally as to what had actually happened in the computer simulator. The numbers after the winner is declared is what really happened in the simulator, in other words, the Ninja did kill the Spartan 300+ times out of 1000 but just wasn't able to win. Lolzzzzzzzz (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought - the present formatting of this page could grow quite cumbersome once more episodes air. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to make a separate page for List of Deadliest Warrior Episodes with the episode information in a chart form? 206.191.69.18 (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Controversies" section removed due to lack of sources, because it was all biased opinion. In addition, much of the presented evidence was factually innacurate, and lacked any merit towards any real problems with the television show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.183.163 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And instead of just removing the biased information, you cut out the whole section? How about you find better information instead of just pitching a fit because someone slighted glorious nippon? 209.159.249.72 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the controversy section! I just would like to voice my american opinion also and I agree that I was shocked to sse the Gladiator lose after an easy beat down of the Apache. I would think the Gladiator would make sure he finished the fight and not stand up, taunt, and smile letting the Apache get up. Also, true about the Viking having the same arrows that the samurai had. It was not fair as the Viking seemed to have the samurai running scared just like with the Gladiator and the Apache. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.221.38 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section is useless. It mentions no sources, and has no point, it's just a baseless and frankly asinine critique that belongs on some blog not a wiki. More so I find the idea that anyone who disagrees witht that pointles spiel is only doing so because it "offended glorious nippon" to be quite racist. For the record, I didn't remove it because it "offended glorious nippon", I removed it because it offends the reader's intelligence.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Controversies section is completely justified on the grounds that much of the information in this show is in fact flawed. FACT: The kanabo was not used as a regular weapon by the Samurai. FACT: The Samurai armor was not tested during the show. FACT: The tests do not take into account mobility or protection. FACT: We have no idea of how the computer program works. FACT: Wikipedia articles are neutral, which means taking all sided of an issue into account. For these reasons I disagree with these assertions and have restored the section to its proper place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHanson712 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FACT: it's not taking side issues into discussion, it's some stuff that sounds like a review. FACT: it's not relevent. FACT: they tested both the warriors' armor on the samurai-viking show, showing the axe against a samurai helmet and the katana against chainmail, and so it most likely did factor into the equasion. FACT: the ENTIRE apache-gladiator episode spoke about stealth and speed as a strategy, so they do indeed factor in mobility and armor. FACT: saying "fact" a lot doesn't make your argument sound any less lame, as you clearly missed big parts of each episode to miss this stuff and misunderstand the meaning of "neutral" if you think some spiel that sounds like a guy writing a blog wrote it has a place here. 18-Till-I-Die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18-Till-I-Die (talk • contribs) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Actually, look, if you really feel it's relevent I could throw up a more detailed 'citique' or whatever myself in a few seconds, and actually adress some issues therein. But as it is, what was there is not accurate, as they clearly tested the armor in the VERY EPISODE that was brought up, and they also clearly bought up the factor of speed and stealth in the pilot episode. There are genuine criticisms, but the ones raised in that section were not those genuine criticisms, and the response by those supporting them was inappropriate and boarderline racist. ("Offend the glorious nippon" indeed) So if it gets everyone's panties in a bunch we could handle it better than starting a lame edit war because one side basically wants a faux-review of the episodes with impossible to quantify comments like "it will be seen if this worsers with future episodes" and the other side is trying to make the article presentible.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, now I personally just threw together a perfectly valid, justified critique of some of the flaws of the show as well as mentioning those that were not really valid criticisms. Lets see how long it lasts before the lame-ity of the edit war continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18-Till-I-Die (talk • contribs) 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "disprovals" did not mention anything but your own opinions and your personal attacks on differing views to yours are against the spirit of Wikipedia. I did NOT say what you accuse me of saying; that was another user. I wrote this section to point out that the show got many things wrong- not to engage in flame wars when the people concerned have better things to do. I must, however, point out that the things that are written are all verifiable facts that point to flaws in the show. You say that the helmet was tested but the test was clearly unrealistic as a vertical cut would not only be difficult but also ineffective. AT NO POINT was the lamellar tested against any of the viking weapons but they clearly said that the Samurai won due in part to the better armor. Maybe he did have better armor but to declare that without testing whatsoever was unacceptable. I watched the entire episode; I would have been a fool to post if I had not. There are inconsistencies clearly witnessed in the show itself and they can't be disproven because it is in the show itself. How are they not genuine criticisms if they are clearly in the show? How do you know that factors besides the weapons were considered in the hard calculations of the program? You don't, and neither do I due to the fact that none of us knows how the program works. We don't know exactly how the winners are even determined and that is the biggest issue of all. All that we see inputted are the dummy weapon tests and these leave many factors out as I have shown. The section is not a faux review since a review would have opinions and an agenda. I am just pointing out what was clearly wrong with the show and what is widely recognized. If you do not believe me you can check out the spike boards for yourself. For example, they are in agreement that there are fundamental flaws in the pairing of weapons, such as the longsword vs. the naginata. They then declared the sword the winner for no other reason than damage, leaving out range and quickness to name a few. So yes, the controversy section has merit since it clearly involves information pertaining to the show, good and bad. Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to explore a topic as completely as possible, not leaving out even the undesirable facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHanson712 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the new "criticisms" section is a good compromise between showing the real flaws of the show and being respectful to all of the opinions of those who watch it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHanson712 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • It's fine with me, personally. I was mainly responding to what people above were saying by the way, and if you look up there you'll see what I was responding to. Though to be perfectly fair, most of these criticisms seem somewhat off anyway. They tested the armor, in BOTH episodes so far, helmet in the first and both samurai and viking armor in the second, so clearly it IS part of the calcs they use in the computer or why else test it. If you'd like to claim the computer doesn't exist or they just arbitrarily chose a winner, fine, but some evidence would be needed. They test the armor, in both episodes so far they have tested the armor. It was tested. Also they tested the spears against the bow, the boy was better--better range, better accuracy. Giving it the edge was perfectly valid. Now the Vikings did have bows obviously as...well pretty much every society did at one point. But since they say the experts choose the weapons, I presume the Viking side simply decided not to do so. The fact is that save for the "battle computer" thing (I agree with you there, they need to specify) most of the criticisms and 'controversies' simply are over reacting to not detailing the armor or tactics as much as soem would like, but the tactics were detailed in both cases, as was the armor, so it's really just not that valid a criticism. It's a minor criticism at best really, and frankly this "battle computer" malarky they have is more of a valid criticism. 18-Till-I-Die (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I still think it needs more mention of the seeming randomness of some of the pairings. Why, for example, would they compare the Apache with a gladiator, instead of say, a Ninja? Why would they compare a knight to a pirate with access to gunpowder weapons? Why would you compare a raider to an elite mounted soldier?

A lot of the pairings just don't seem to make much sense.209.159.249.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

For the record, the specific name of the software (aka "battle computer") and the company that created the software were clearly stated in one, if not both of the first two episodes. Do your research, find out the details of the software, then you can say it's questionable. Also, a "controversies" section only has validity if you have linked and cited sources to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.214.181 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Only the creator of the software was named, which is Slytherine Studios, a maker of military simulation video games. Not only do we not know exactly how this software works, but there is the big issue of possible bias in data entry.209.159.249.72 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To be suspicious of the guy entering the data makes sense. I heard he put 100 grand on the samurai to win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamcaligne (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• If this simulation works like others, the values for various weapons are entered as a single number, 1-10. It would be very difficult to interpret raw data into that form. Even if the bias wasn't a conscious decision, just by the very nature of such things it would be very easy for it to sneak in.209.159.249.72 (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• • So, you're saying he unconsiously made that $100,000 bet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamcaligne (talk • contribs) 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it back to JHanson712's version, as it is a perfectly valid compromise. There is no reason to add biased nonsense about what the producers may or may not have thought behind the scenes, something you can't possibly know.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

All this edit war lameness is getting...lame. Lamer anyway. I'd like one person to explain to me exactly why half a paragraph about who existed when, and another half a paragraph about weather the armor was weighed properly, is at all relevent? They obviously don't factor into the simulation since it's about some kind of 'point system', so the show itself implies they don't care. Thier characterization of the people is a non sequitor, we all know Apache Indians didn't live with Gladiators...at least I hope most people know that. I'm tired of hearing about "OMG the armor!" they tested the armor, in all of both episodes. The fact they only used one TYPE of gladiator armor is irrelevent, since they clearly were going for a specific type. I can't spell the name but I've seen that armor before, big guys with huge retarded looking helmets, some certain type of gladiator. And the guys apparently choose the weapons they go into the duels with, cause it's actually outright states they have chosen said weapons. These things are adressed, on the show, it just doesn't go into anal retentive detail about every centimeter of some dead soldier's armor from 2000 years ago, ok? Now what is there, is perfectly valid. It's much more relevent to the actual series, and more importantly half of it isn't pointless jibbering about who existed when or what guy was who or whatever. Can the "guys without names" (whoever they are supposed to be) stop throwing a tantrum because the article isn't 90% critique or whatever? Or is this going to be an ongoing thing. Cause frankly I don't care, I have the time. 18-Till-I-Die (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• First off, the timeframe and randomness of matchups is a perfectly valid criticism. Look at the Pirate/Knight matchup. Don't you think it a wee bit odd that a sea raider with gunpowder weapons would be compared to a cavalryman from 800 years earlier? How are the two even comparable in any way? There are lots of valid comparisons which could be made here (Samurai/Knight, being one that springs to mind) but it seems the show is just drawing names out of a hat. It's also a perfectly valid complaint that the show perpetuates stereotypes, or do you actually believe that every Samurai was spiderman with a sword and all vikings were dull witted, lumbering brutes? I'm sorry it upsets you when other people try to add to your edits, which you apparently view as the absolute truth and epoch of all things encyclopedic, but these are perfectly valid complaints. 209.159.249.72 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly the larger issue than the program itself is the lack of explanation of the program on the show. In shows such as "Animal Face Off" this was not an issue since each match had agility and power as criteria and little else. In Deadliest Warrior it is not so cut and dried and an explanation or criteria for choosing a victor is sorely needed. I do not agree, though, with speculating on whether or not the show is fixed. That is libel and is totally innapropriate for a public resource. While I disagree on their methods and winners it is their opinion. Everyone is free to have his own opinion. Likewise while I disagree with 18tillidie about things such as the armor he and I were able to reach a compromise that is acceptable to both sides in this article. Stick to things that can be substantiated and give both sides representation. Finally, register as actual users if you are going to edit the articles! I am suprised that Wikipedia even allows anonymous users to edit in the first place. One more thing- criticisms to individual episodes should be explained under the articles of individual episodes to clear up space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHanson712 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this segment should be deleted from the criticisms: "the Samurai was given full use of the bow while the Viking was given a throwing spear even though Vikings had access to and use of bows." Samurai utilized cannon and muskets quite frequently, while the vikings were not even around at the emergence of sophisticated firearms. I also believe that the shows is basing it's combatant's weaponry on signature weapons. This is why the spear and bow were pitted against each other. Either way the Vikings would likely lose in a long range battle, so what difference would it make? Also, the reason that they probably didn't test the samurai armor, is because most samurai armor are antiques and very expensive. Granted the production of chain-mail is also time consuming and expensive, it is much easier to come by & less meaningful to destroy than classic samurai armor. There are probably not many people or museums that would just offer up samurai armor to be destroyed.- Joe

And they tested the viking weapons on fake flesh stuff. So if it was used on samurai armor. It would've done less damage.- Bive2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bive2 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seriously who keeps putting that "They came from different time periods!" crap in the article? No really, the Apache didn't exist along side Gladiators, really? Wow so that means...that the show is based on hypothetical situations and this 'criticism' is completely worthless, thanks for playing. No duh they existed in different times that's basically the whole idea of the show, plus yeah the Samurai were fast and precise compared to the Vikings, who actually were lumbering and largely unskilled...know why? Cause Samurai were an elite class of "knights" basically who were trained from childhood in specific forms of combat, while the Vikings were basically the ancient equivalent of mercenaries who lived on a plunder economy and only fought so hard because they had to. Compared to a Samurai (a trained, professional, lifelong soldier) the Viking (basically a thug with armor) would be lumbering and unskilled. That's not a stereotype that's reality. Or would you suggest that a trained, professional soldier who trained basically his entire life to fight and die is somehow going to be LESS skilled and disciplined than a guy who basically kills for food and survival? That's like saying that a Lamborgini being faster than a minivan is a stereotype.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see that it's being discussed but there is a serious problem with the criticism section. Unless these points have been made by reliable sources they're going to have to go. It's a clear case of original research. Personally at least some of the points seem well thought out. If we were discussing the show over a beer I'd probably agree with some of them. But that's not the standard for inclusion in the article.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Cube Lurker is right. This section is almost more trouble than it is worth since there is so much arguing and "controversy". People like 18-till-i-die and others keep using broad generalizations and stereotypes about so and so warrior. I tried my best to present a fair portrayal of the inconsistencies of the show but if it is going to be a pissing match over who was better than it just is not worth it. 18tillidie obviously has little knowledge of viking society based on his comments about them being lumbering mercaneries. Vikings were trained, lifelong warriors (at least the ones worth comparison) and I will give examples-the anglo-saxon housecarls, the jomsburg vikings and the Varangian Guard were "trained professional soldiers" who "trained basically their entire lives to fight". They fought to support themselves but that can be said of any warrior- Case in point- the Samurai lived off of rice given to them by their daimyo. Being a mercenary does not mean that one is less skilled- in fact there were samurai called ronin who served the highest bidder. All warriors fought hard because they had to an while I agree with the time period part of what 18 said I must say that the rest was pure opinion. Honestly, let the section be neutral or else it should be deleted for the good of everyone concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHanson712 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's obvious when they said "Viking", they didn't mean the Housecarls, who I do know about thank you very much, they were implying the mercenary raiders that the Viking culture is famous for. Indeed, they directly SAID this in the episode, they were talking about the raider vikings, who were basically thugs in armor. Though to be fair, a more accurate match up probably would be something like Viking vs Apache Brave, or European Knight vs Samurai, or European Crusader vs Spartan...if your only goal is to have strictly even match ups, that is. I did think that, while fun to watch, pitting a ninja against a heavily armored, heavily trained infantryman was kind of unfair. A knight would have been a more even match, as both had full body armor (chain mail versus bronze plate). But then again, a near-completely even match like that would be boring since neither side would have any real disadvantage.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• • You're digging yourself into a hole, here. Samurai could also be classified as "thugs with armor", working for whatever lord would give him the most land and money. Despite all the romanticism, Samurai were even known for betraying their lords when offered a better deal from another. Their "superior training", also, would have varied wildly, depending on the time frame and the individual. Furthermore, the viking the show depicted would have been a well trained and wealthy professional, otherwise, such things as swords and chain mail armor (Which were incredibly expensive) would have been far beyond his means. Also, the physical characteristics of a man vary wildly from individual to individual. There were, no doubt, fast Vikings and slow Samurai, just as there are fast and slow people in every culture. It's not a matter of east vs west, but one of genetics. Arguing that simply because someone was a Samurai (A title he was, by the way, born into) he would posses some sort of superhuman powers is not only inarguably wrong, it is bordering on racist. The Samurai's armor and equipment would have also been very heavy and limited his mobility, both of which would have put a damper on any speed he posessed. It's clear you have little understanding of real history beyond what you've learned from watching anime about it. Perhaps you should educate yourself before you come spouting off meaningless stereotypes? Next you'll be saying all black people are champion marathoners 209.159.249.72 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the criticism section should be removed, because although anonymous viewers are complaining about certain points of the show, they're forging one thing - they don't count as a valid source. So, until a historian calls the show stupid or something, keep your own opinions out of the criticism section.

Alright. I just got to this disscussion section and I'm already confused at how people are saying "Remove this", "Don't Remove this", "I don't like how this ended", and so on. I'm brand new to wikipedia, and even I know that this won't go well for either sides. I have a few solutions that, hopefully, everyone will at least be able to live over. From what I've read, many people here are concerned about the controversy section. I have heard some valid arguments on both sides, and so my proposal is that the controversy section be kept, but it must be monitored. As for the fact that there must be some citation to the controversy section, I can't argue with the fact that Wikipedia does require citations for such a section. I doubt they'll be hard to find, considering how many arguments there are in just this single Wikipedia disscusion section. My second solution is that you bring in people who have not watched the show and therefore have no bias against either side and determine whether they think the format the controversy section currently is acceptable under Wikipedia regulations. Thats all I have to say about the controversy section, and its all (hopefully), you'll here from me on the subject. Criticise my ideas if you must, after all that IS what the disscussion section is for. On the subject that people think that the way the shows computer program runs in inefficient, all I can say is that this is a TV show that condenses the investigations of three days worth of investigation over HISTORICAL ACOUNTS (not concrete evidence) of the depiction of some of the most terrifying warriors in history. Unless you actually work on the show, no one knows everything they consider on the program. The things we see may only be shown because the producers think that showing the many angles of stealth, strength, and fighting style would bore most audience viewers. It is therefore difficult to say whether the things they do is accurate or not, because the fact is that we have no idea what they are actually doing. Now, again, thats just my opinion in the matter, open to what ever criticism you wish to throw. The last thing I want to say is that most of the critisisms here are not based on the show but on what the show is about. This Wikipedia article is about a show on SPIKETV called Deadliest Warriors, not about who would win and who would lose, because the show itself already does that. Alright, thats my say. Criticise or sympathize to your hearts content. Soyturpow (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.104.195 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 

Sorry, dudes. Criticism section is quite clearly in violation of the "no original research" rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. "Some viewers have pointed out..." is a weasel phrase. Who pointed this out? When? Where? How can I verify this? Sounds like the author is writing about their own opinion. The Variety article is a valid reference, but even still, the section must be not extend beyond the opinions expressed within the article, otherwise it's original research. My argument is not about relevance, it's about clear violation of Wikipedia policy.206.191.69.18 (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add a constructive note to my above remarks: What you could do, and I think it would be perfectly valid if done right, is create an "Inaccuracies" section, citing specific claims made on the show (such as claims about how a weapon was used, or about the lifestyle of the warrior), and comparing them to actual historical facts, which must be properly cited. But lest it turn into the above flame war about certain warriors being better than others, I emphasize: Specific claims made in the show vs. well-documented and properly referenced historical facts.Plorry (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Klein was still alive and appearing on TV shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.205.22 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Viking vs Samurai Issues

I've been in contact with J.K. Siddorn (author of Viking Weapons and Warfare) in regards to some personal projects of my own. He's a reenactor running a Viking Age Anglo-Saxon fyrd and has done a great deal of research into equipment and combat of this period, and there's a number of problems based on those conversations I had with the representation of the Viking on the show:

• That was NOT a longsword, and proper terminology for the axe is the long-axe (or Danish Axe). Terminology is a minor quibble, sure, but I'm immediately suspicious when they don't even get THAT right.

• A shield of proper construction would have consisted of 3-5 layers of planks, with each layer laid out in cross-wise fashion to each other (IE up/down, then left/right, then up/down again). The shield would have then been both backed and faced with linen glued to the surface. Some shields would also be faced with leather for further reinforcement. Iron straps would have secured the whole thing together, with an iron boss at the center, especially in earlier shields which used a center grip (wealthier men may have used bronze there, rather than iron). The rim of the shield would most often be leather that was soaked in water, then allowed to shrink around the edge of the shield. This was often then secured with iron clamps and nails. The result is INCREDIBLY durable. Tests Siddorn ran showed that a shield constructed in this manner would have held together and remained usable even if the planks had been shattered!

• About the kanabo: The use of this was a bit unfair and unbalancing considering that this was mainly a MYTHOLOGICAL WEAPON, rather than a practical one (check out the Wikipedia entry here). They may as well have given the Viking access to Mjolnir.

• Where did they come up with the Viking throwing two spears at once? Incidentally, where was the Viking's bow? Combat archery was a HIGHLY prized and celebrated skill among the Norse.

• The episode didn't bother to disguise the continued prejudice against Western Martial Arts and that Eastern Martial Arts are wholly superior (per the show: the Viking is big strong and dumb, the Samurai is quick, skilled and intelligent). We have limited understanding on how a Viking would have actually fought with sword and shield not because the art didn't exist, but because the West allowed those arts fade into obscurity in favor of the latest technology rather than preserve them. The I.33 manuscript is a good place to start, however, as the sword and buckler would have evolved from the sword and shield techniques of the Viking age and earlier (particularly relevant is the geographic connection, as I.33 originated from Germanic traditions which would have included the Vikings of Scandinavia as well as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc. Anglo-Saxon England would have shared the same tradition). Some of I.33 can also be easily applied to a full-sized shield indicating an ancestral connection. Martial arts EVOLVE, they don't just spring into being, and the notion that Western European warriors were running around hacking away with no skill is an antiquated and derogatory notion.

• The primary weapon of the Germanic shield wall was the SPEAR, but NOT as a thrown weapon which was an advantage the program didn't even consider. Spear and shield can be a very effective combination even one-on-one. In addition to its greater reach, the spear remains lightweight and maneuverable and at extremely close-quarters its thrusting ability provides speed and mobility as a spear thrust is less likely to be interfered with by one's own shield or the lack of room to maneuver, with the added advantage of being able to pierce the joints of the opponent's armor. Ambaryer (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The kanabo, despite its use in mythology, is still a real weapon accessible to the samurai, and as such, is still viable for their tests. If you bothered to actually read the Wikipedia entry instead of merely link to it, you'd see that the kanabo started as a real weapon, and then became attached to the mythological oni when it was downsized into a one-handed weapon. 68.58.148.71 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you bothered to actually read the rest of my post you'd see that there's more and BIGGER issues than just that weapon. And I did read the article. It makes a very clear mention of this being a particularly uncommon weapon due to its size and weight, suggesting it is NOT at all representative of what the average Samurai would carry into battle, which IMO should have invalidated it and led to it being replaced with something more typical. Ambaryer (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, they have SOME creative liscence. This isn't a straight-up documentary, you know. I might add the same thing about the Mafia-Yakuza episode. What kind of organized crime syndicate gives out "standard-issue" weapons? I mean, they used every gun they had, not just a Walther P-38 and a Sten. Also, they clearly ignored the fact the "ceramic grenade" had a fuse, and therefore they just ruled out the Molotov Cocktail because it gave "time to escape". —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlashHawk4 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• None of which matters at all without some actual cited reliable sources. No matter how valid the above criticisms are, they are clearly original research. Get a source, or leave it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did you see me attempting to post this in the article? This was introduced STRICTLY to see if anyone HAD a valid source to add, so chill the frell out, your comment wasn't necessary at all. Ambaryer (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize if my remark seemed overly harsh, but this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. Posting your observations about the show is not what this page or the article are for. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone can provide third party references to these observations it DOES mark the beginning of a legit criticism section, however. I need to review the references requirements to see if I can use a non-web source such as a book, because the information on the shield construction and durability, and use of the spear as primary weapon is all found in Siddorn's book (Viking Weapons and Warfare). Been a while since I've really looked at his website (regia.org, GREAT source on Anglo-Saxon/Viking martial culture) but some of the information in his book is there, as well. Ambaryer (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK, you are not getting it. You can't come up with your own criticisms and then try to find a source to back them up. Let me be clear, I think you are probably right on all the points you made above, the problem is that they are your criticisms of the show. I'm sure you could probably also find sources to support much of it. It still doesn't matter. You need to find sources wherein someone else has made those criticisms, and they were directed at this show. Otherwise, it is original research. That is how Wikipedia works, our own observations count for nothing, articles must be based on published sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

controversies

This section isn't biased or at least not as much as the person who keeps deleting it what's the point it's all true you'd know that if you ever saw a episode but you didn't cause you're biased. if people reading this article don't know that hey this show isn't really by the numbers it's mostly the judges' personal opinion then they'll write stuff on this article that will actually be biased. Wardoggwyllgi (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dogg, the problem is that no one is providing references in suppoort. I'm sure everyone agrees there's issues, it just becomes a matter of original research without support. I'm working on a few things for the Viking episode (see my comments regarding shield construction and misuse of the spears at the end of the page). I don't have access to my copy of Siddorn's book right now to pull the page numbers, I'll have to review that information when I get home. Ambaryer (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I've figured out the core problem here

Looking at the edit history of this page, there are a remarkable number of brand new users commenting here. That is great, we can always use more editors at Wikipedia. However, all of you need to understand the basic principles that Wikipedia operates under, which are defined at the five pillars of Wikipedia. The first paragraph on that page states:

All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate.

This means that criticisms of the show, no matter how valid they are, cannot come from any of us. They must be based on those criticisims having already been made by somebody else in a reliable source. I'm afraid there is no way around this, we need to either find sources that are critical of this show, or leave out any mention of it's many inaccuracies. To be perfectly frank, Spike TV is not The History Channel, I don't think they are really expected to be very "scientific". Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the show does address problems on Spike.com on the web show: Deadliest Warrior: Aftermath - Adilrye 1467 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilrye 1467 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Episode 9 has been posted on the Deadliest Warrior section of the Spike site. It's IRA vs. Taliban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.171.126 (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed IRA vs. Taliban. It's official on the site - I added it back in. I mean, gods, it's scheduled for June 2nd, so it's undeniable. Mahare (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

IRA vs. Taliban

I'm the one who deleted IRA vs. Taliban, and I'm sorry, I checked Spike and yes, apparently, it's true. To me, it's just so unbelievable...at the same time, I honestly CANNOT WAIT for that one.

- Adilrye 1467 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilrye 1467 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, someone keeps changing the IRA vs Taliban to some matchup that's not even scheduled... it's on the official website folks, it's IRA vs Taliban. Lolzzzzzzzz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Interview with Geoff Desmoulin

He talks a lot about behind-the-scenes at the show:

Interview

Mafia Yakuza Mistake

The handgun used by the Yakuza was a Walther P38 not a Walther PPK as is currently listed, someone should probably fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.143.161 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC) By the way, if anyone cares, the gun they showed on the list of Yakuza weapons was a Luger P08, and not a Walther P38. I should know. I have both. And a Walther PP. I instantly recognized the gun as a Luger, and to prove it to myself, I paused it (I had taped it) and compared the image on screen with my Luger P08, and it is a perfect match. Try it yourselves. Yes, the gun the expert used on the range WAS a P38, but I thought I should let y'all know so you don't erase it. I FlashHawk4 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

???

• These are supposed to be contests between warrior classes which are centuries apart-yet episode 5; 6; and 9 are contemporaneous; {likewise episode 5 are gangsters-not warriors!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.205 (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be centuries apart and I don't remember them saying it had to be centuries apart. Bozo33 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Bozo33

Archive 1

Archive 2