Liver Punch

Also, I was told tonight by an old-timey NCAA wrestling fan that I'm shaped like Dick Hutton. I think it may be factual.

You know - that was pretty much exactly what i thought you were going to say.

If you had to pick a "superstar era" wrestling based entrance theme for a spring wedding, would you pick: Dusty Rhodes, Randy Savage, or Jake Roberts?

I don't think a bunch of bobbing and weaving will help you in most situations. Just like throwing perpetual front kicks won't help you either. I'd recommend one bob or weave used in conjunction with an entering strike or takedown attempt. While you're down there you might latch your hand or teeth around his reproductive organs - it's pretty useful.

I agree with you 110%...from an artistic standpoint. Molesting and molding an art form dilutes it and its history. I think, however, that many of us put (neither rightly nor wrongly) the emphasis on the martial portion of martial arts. From a martial standpoint, if one karate practitioner gets beat by another because he uses outside techniques...well - he won't be around to call "foolsies" on whether or not "karate" was used.

With some luck. I'll have other implements of destruction if not.

A steel ball has been acquired and is en route to my machinist. He'll be able to cut it a week or two after he receives it. The biggest concern he has is the ability of the aluminum shaft to withstand abuse. He figures that attacking people, animals, plants, and fungus won't be a problem. The problem, he hypothesizes, is when we end up abusing it and assault rocks, farm implements, shoot it, etc. The solution to this would be to have a shaft cut out of steel...however, this solution may negate the need for a big ball on the end anyhow. I figure that I'll get this one cut and sent to Tallgeese as some sort of lifetime achievement award due to his old age and what-have-you. Then, I'll have a steel replacement tube cut for a Maglite with the specific intention of it being able to give (and take) abuse.

While he doesn't bend at the waist and move his head around like he's having a seizure, Ernesto Hoost was a pretty high level kickboxer who over bobbed and weaved his way around a punch to gain entry. He seemed to have a fair amount of success.. Bobbing and weaving leave you susceptible to getting hit with knees because of elevation changes. Dropping to, (or nearly to) one knee while moving toward an opponent would also leave you open to such shots. Oddly enough, wrestlers seem to complete far more shots on strikers than strikers land a clean knee shot while being shot on. Further more, pure boxers seem to get picked apart by leg shot due to stance far more than they tend to be knocked out by a knee or kick due to bobbing and weaving.

Not to mention the huge windows at the storefront would be nearly impossible to fortify. I've always recommended drug stores and liquor stores. In the case of a drug store, people will die without medicine - some from medical conditions, some from eventual injury and disease. They also offer pain killers, first aid supplies, eyecare items, sanitation items including soap, shampoo, etc. A liquor store often times has beef jerkey and peanuts. It's also almost always got cigarettes, and of course alcohol. These items would be a perfect short-term currency. When addicts begin their withdraws, they'd trade almost anything for a fix. The longer they go without them, the more they'll become worth. Even regular Joes would trade extra food, water, ammunition, etc. for some Johnny Walker - go after the Blue Label.

That's not a bad idea at all - eventually that's where things went. The end of lots of armor and a heavy weapon ended up being high-quality arrows and gun-powder...but those aren't allowed in this particular "exercise". The question becomes, can someone with north of more than 50 lbs of armor and weapons - and no horse - offer the speed and maneuverability necessary to chase around and eventually land a killing blow on someone with much less weight and more range. The other question is whether or not someone armored lightly and carrying a shield tough enough to withstand a couple of heavy blows can get close enough to the knight to land one or two shots with an armor piercing dagger or war hammer. I tend to lean toward no on the first question and yes on the second. If our lightly armored guy can absorb one shot with his shield in route to planting one shot through the armor...he's going to win. I think if we then compound this with the idea that our lightly armored guy might even have a throwing weapon (such as a javelin), his chances of success go up even more. As to whether or not a small, circular shield can handle that sort of abuse could certainly be a game changer.

OT: Do you think Rick Grimes is related to Frank Grimes?

And don't forget sand in the eye in case things don't go well. The idea behind this is threefold. 1) It's the combative equivalent to "bench racing" in auto sports. It's fun to do, inexpensive, and there usually isn't a right answer (we'll all try to prove we've got the right answer regardless) 2) Gladiatorial style games seem to have - historically anyhow - been a much more popular thing to watch than a full-out war. The most popular type of combat to watch has proven to be a one-on-one altercation if for no other reason because men enjoy a good "urination-contest" (censors). 3) In the worlds of chivalry and honor, there has typically been a tendency for individual and specialized infantrymen to seek each other out on the battlefield for a one-on-one fight. This was the case with Mycenaean Greece, the Samurai, and Medeival Knights - it also holds true in many tribal societies. And, this is a very simple argument - which is always a good place to start. Eventually it will lead to building and testing weapons and armor....which is both fun and dangerous. I, for one, am still not sold on the Halberd.

So it would seem - although, if you cover my rock with your paper, and I hit you with my rock... I think the best way to test all of this out is going to require that we build these weapons to test them. Yes...that'll do just nicely.

No bows! (where's your honor, lol) Anyhow, the shield of the armored guy certainly hurts a bow's abilities. As to MP's point, the pilum would do bad things to someone in armor...that is, assuming that it didn't miss. I do like a spiked war hammer though. Perhaps it could take place of the thrusting shield, as it would have little effect against heavy armor. However, against someone who was lightly armored and quick....it all gets a little complicated. The halbred might also be a good addition, because you retain a thrusting tip. It's only downside is being slower due to additional weight....this is tricky.

I don't think anything tops: Hoplite-style Helmet Chain Mail Aventail Front Covering Steel-Plate Cuirass Steel Plate Spaulder Flexible Riveted Steel Faulds Steel Gauntlets Steel Vambraces Greaves Greek Shield with Cutout Pilum Thrusting Spear Single Handed "Fatherless Child" Sword (censors)

It seems that we've entered the era in which - much like time travel (Time Cop is just plain silly) there's three schools of thought when it comes to zombies. You've got your classic Night of the Living Dead slow moving, pretty dumb, overwhelm you in large numbers, that magically rise from the grave due to some sort of ????. There's the apparently cocaine-abusive 28 Days later type of zombies that move ungodly fast. And then there's the Max Brooks zombies that seem to follow something that some of us view as logic. The bible isn't very specific on the type of undead that we'll be facing, so perhaps we could petition someone at the Vatican for an answer? Also, I've got quite an extensive list of items that are required in any sort of natural disaster. Most of them can be hoarded without drawing a lot of attention to one's self, and if "collected" using the proper methods, can be stored and rotated into normal use to minimize wastefulness and perceived insanity. If anyone wants it, I can message it, but it's way too long to post straight to the board.

Given that scenario, what happens between a chain mailed knight with a decent sized shield and a sword and a greek hoplite or samurai? Heck, let's go a step further. If able to piece together armor and weapons ranging from 1500 BCE to 1500 CE - within the parameters listed in the opening post, what would you put together?

^^It probably means that you're normal^^

i think this is due to fact that an alarming number of the people in our system, including myself are total nerds, closet nerds, dorks, or geeks etc. This leads to a large amount of time discussing things like"who would win in a fight, Mothra or Sho Nuff". Mothra by armbar.

And let's not forget that the similarly named Japanese MMA organization Pancrase started out as basically professional wrestling "rules" but with actual contact and no predetermination. It was one step beyond the "worked shoot". As of 2000 or so, they use a rule set closer to that of modern MMA.

I'd given that some thought MP, however, let's imagine he doesn't have a squire to deliver him new weaponry or tend to horses - he's still left with a shield, a weapon, and a whole lot of metal.

I've had a bit of luck with the machete myself... I'd like to try out the SOG combat tomahawks, they seem to make a fine weapon. Beyond that, the naginata and spear make me a happy panda.

I'm not sure that the Samurai has the weapons or the armor to contend with let's say, a full-plate armored medieval knight. Perhaps a katana could pierce the armor, but it's sharpness and polish would take a huge blow, not to mention that the curve does not lend itself the best to stabbing, but rather slashing. Whether or not the Samurai armor provides adequate protection against a broadsword, or other European bladed weapon is perhaps up in the air. A mace, battle axe, morning star...any heavy weapon that smashes - how that would have an affect is a question that I can't answer. In regards to a Spartan - again, against a full-plate armored Knight, we've got lots of questions. What is the quality of steel or bronze that the spartan weapons provide. This is specifically in regards to their hardness and flexibility, which would be required to penetrate armor. Also, assuming they have equal weapons, the night is more heavily armored. In a face-to-face "shootout", I think this allows him a longer survival rate. I'm not sure that we've even got to (or should) give our combatants one set of arms and armor. Perhaps an odd combination like chain mail shits, greaves, a samurai helmet, javelin, kite shield, and Xiphos provide the best combination? (probably not that combination, but maybe someone's "loadout" could have been improved upon?)

Ok, so, I'll add some parameters. No animals, vehicles, gunpowder, artillery, or bows can be used. Javelins and other hand-thrown weapons are legal, as is any armor made from a pre-industrial metal or natural material. All swords, knives, spears, shields, helmets, and other such things are legal for discussion. For argument sake, this fight takes place on a 2 acre, grass covered, even terrained, field. Each person can be armored as much or as little as possible, and carry any amount of weapons, just as long as it's feasible for them to do it themselves.

I think it's safe to say that this show has jumped the shark with the last season. It ended with zombies vs. vampires I think, but had a lot of other lousy and nonsensical shows along the way. Next season -if there is one, I'd propose : Dwight David Eisenhower vs. Genghis Khan, Stonewall Jackson vs. David Petraeus, Osama Bin Laden vs Hannibal Barca, Erwin Rommel vs. Mecha Ghidorah, and Chester Nimitz vs. Aquaman. Ok, I got a little off-topic. Anyhow...my biggest complaint about the show in the first two seasons (the good ones) was that we saw soldiers who's tactics were based on individual battle like the late Samurai, vs soldiers who used group tactics in battle like the Classic Era Spartans. Beyond that, the huns were allowed to use horses, while nobody else was. Finally, there was a generalization of a specific class of warrior to have existed in only one time-period. Why weren't the Samurai allowed to use guns or horses, why didn't the "Knight" get to use a Harrier jet (both knights and jets still exist in the U.K. Being that I'm a a bit of a nerd about military history, I'd much rather see a comparison of tactics, weapons, and training in group warfare, and a look at individual arms and armor in individual combat. So, let's assume that we've got a group of people all trained equally in every weapon, are identically physically fit, and are otherwise perfectly equal. If we have this group of people and pit them in one on one combat, what weapons and armor would emerge as the best? Examble I think that the Romans are probably among the elite in group warfare, but the tower shield would not necessarily lend itself to one-on once combat.