First off let me say that I watch the show religiously, or at least as religiously as I watch anything on TV; I just can't get into most of the crap that passes for TV in this day and age, and don't even get me started on "Reality Television". I actually watch TV more for the commercials than anything else, I've always appreciated a well written commercial, but I digress.
Deadliest Warrior tries very hard to give itself legitimacy and, to be fair, to the untrained eye they succeed. For those people who are used to accepting whatever TV spoon feeds you and accept it as fact, then this show is a freakin' forensics textbook. If, on the other hand, you are used to drawing your own conclusions based on fact and knowledge, they tend to fall short. You need examples you say? OK, lets start with this:
Problem #1: Scientific Method is completely ignored. This is by far my biggest beef with the show, they have no procedures for their testing. If you want to test item X and compare its results to item Y you need to maintain procedures. For instance, with the Green Berets vs the Spetznaz, they had the Spetznaz drop a grenade into a Washing machine with a closed lid; they then had the Green Berets throw their grenade into a Plexiglases box the size of a closet, complete with dummies and furniture. Based on this they decided the American grenade was more powerful. It doesn't work like that, you need to keep the test conditions static to compare results. Whats happening here is they are running these tests and not liking the results so they run different tests and publish the ones they like. I don't think so Tim. You need to either put both grenades in a washing machine or a plexiglass box, preferabbly both!
Problem #2: Reality is ignored. In the episode the the Shao-lin monk and the Maori Warrior they had the Maori test his club/spear on the spine of a cow, not the carcass, the spine from a de-boned carcass. They even went so far as to say that by removing the muscle and tissue around the spine you are getting a true test. Bullshit! The muscle and tissue are what holds the body together, without it I have no doubt the Shao-lin monk could have broken that spine with his own staff. If they had hung a full side of beef, muscle intact, and let the Maori break its spine I would have been impressed.
Problem #3: The infighting. OK, this isn't a problem with scientific method or facts, but it really bugs me. Most of the episodes have the opposing experts fighting and bickering like children about who is better; is a little professionalism too much to ask for? Obviously they encourage this and I wish they would stop, I almost stopped watching the show a couple of times because of it. In the Pirate vs the Knight episode it got downright sickening, but I have to say the Green Beret vs the Spetznaz impressed me. These guys were professionals who each thought they were better but they also had respect for the other guys, I admire that. There's nothing wrong with thinking your good, but your only as good as the last guy you've beaten, and these dudes knew that.
Problem #4: The warrior: Again, not a problem with scientific method, but still a big problem, they ignore the man using the weapons too often. They test these weapons and decide which is stronger and better using their bullshit methods, but they often ignore the person holding it, how strong were they? What kind of discipline did they have? How intelligent were they? These are things that can be very hard to measure, thus they largely ignore them. I think the Yakuza would have beaten the mafia, not because of their weapons, but because of their discipline.
Let me also just say that it is possible to put a successful show on TV that actually pays attention to the facts. I'm not saying that Mythbusters does everything perfectly, but they take a lot time and pay attention to a lot of detials when they conduct experiments and, as a result, it's hard to argue with the fatcs they come up. Not impossible, but hard.
So, after reading that mini-rant, you wonder why do I keep watching the show. Well, just like I said last time, the final fight is worth the price of admission. I sit on the edge of my seat, enthralled by the drama of mortal combat that they actually do a really good job at. I always have me decision made on who'll win before the show even starts, but bloodlust is bloodlust, and those fights deliver the blood.
I love the show, too, but you can't take the results too seriously because I'm sure there are a lot of other variables that they don't take into account, like setting. I think Gladiator vs. Apache might have a different outcome depending on whether the fight took place in an arena or in an area that had fields and trees.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is that it is very weapons-focused. Whoever has the best weapons wins? Sure, that's a big part of it, but what about fighting tactics, and adaptability?
Maybe the computer simulation program they use takes that stuff into account, but they've never really explained it. I would suspect that's not the case, however. How do you measure all that stuff?
You make a good point on the weapons they are comparing head-to-head, assuming we see all the tests they do. I wonder if they do standardized tests that test the effectiveness, but only show us the ones that make for good TV?
It's possible the show does have flawless scientific method, but I'm guessing it doesn't.
I do enjoy it as a way to learn a bit more about the various warrior cultures profiled. Plus, the fight scenes are usually well done, and the production values on the show are quite good.
I've had the same thoughts about the software they use, but obviously it's fairly proprietary and sensitive since they never talk about it.
ReplyDeleteStill, I never miss it, I love the fights. So, for better or worse, I'm a dedicated fan.