What makes BAD WEAPONS objectively bad?

greetings i'm shad and i want to do an in-depth analysis on what makes bad weapons bad and good weapons good separate to memes and jokes and the way that i like to ham it up at times no this is actually going to be a proper analytical breakdown where i'll explain that there is actually an objective standard irrespective of my views on the matter or anyone's else's views on the matter that exists as an irrefutable standard that actually gauges weapons effectiveness the reason for me wanting to make this video is that i feel that people have started to misunderstand the objective standard that should be applying instead what seems to be more common is that if a weapon can merely function as a weapon and has a certain level of effectiveness in only a few categories it is therefore a good weapon merely because it's able to function as one not only do i think this is an incorrect standard to judge weapons but i also feel it's an incorrect standard that we don't apply to many other things when we try and judge their effectiveness for instance when we try and determine if a car is a good car for a weapon or a car to achieve its purpose it must satisfy multiple criteria to at least a moderate or acceptable level and if it disregards certain criteria entirely even if it excels in other areas we would never regard it as a good car and we shouldn't regard it as a good weapon we wouldn't call a car that's perfect in every regard but wasn't made with brakes a good car that fundamental flaw is so detrimental to its function that it can't function effectively in its purpose at all so in looking at weapons this is the standard that i did not come up with that exists irrespective of me and it's the one that of course i use when i analyze any weapons and i put aside my bias it doesn't matter how much i love it if it fails in this objective standard it's a bad weapon regardless of my feelings on the matter i think my adherence to this is proven by the fact that i've actually criticized many beloved weapons some that i've loved myself and even receive mountains of criticism and hate as a result people can like certain weapons quite passionately but in terms of the really aggressive criticism and stuff that's disingenuous i just laugh it off and don't let it bother me in contrast to this i know from praising iconic weapons that are beloved by large communities ghana's tremendous goodwill this has happened to me in real life i've seen it from my videos when i analyzed and end up praising as a result of me using an objective standard not my own bias but i end up praising it because there are actual genuinely good elements to it say when i looked at the crucible sword from doom or the chain sword from warhammer those communities loved those videos they shared them a lot and i became somewhat popular as a result now this reality has tempted me at times to go easier on other weapons from beloved properties to be a bit charitable by focusing on whatever redeeming features i can logically justify we're not drawing attention to the other blatant flaws that this weapon has in its design but even though i've been tempted to do this i never have i believe in objective truth regardless of my or other people's opinions or feelings on the matter and i would encourage all people to do the same thing but the thing is it does legitimately cause backlash when you end up criticizing things that people love it's just the nature and result of reality even though in truth i hold no ill feelings to anyone who loves the things i criticize i can dislike a thing but still feel perfectly fine about appreciating and getting along with people who disagree with me unfortunately there are a lot of people who are still tremendously immature on the matter and they get very offended by it and they can't take any playful teasing or banter on the matter and really they just need to grow up sometimes you just need to laugh at yourself even make fun of yourself because the world is pretty dark and sometimes you need to laugh at the darkness and i make fun of myself ingest as much as i make fun of anything or even any individuals ingest as well you might have noticed this on a certain video that was made by an individual who i am forced to work with professor chad looks sometimes you just need to laugh at stuff and that includes yourself and if people can't handle that because they get offended at the slightest thing well then they deserve to be so upset and offended for being so immature and overly sensitive but that's the path that i choose to walk down regardless of the backlash i receive because once again i believe in objective truth regardless of people's feelings on the matter and that includes the objective truth on if a weapon is good or bad so then what is the standard i use in analyzing the effectiveness of weapons that exists irrespective of my own bias or personal preferences on the matter well it's very easy to explain but i will then go into greater detail to validate it and establish it as it being objective this isn't my own opinion on the matter it is simply this is the weapon in question as effective as other weapons of the same size and weight and when knowing enough about effective weapons would you choose this weapon when you have the option to choose other weapons is there any situation that you would choose this weapon over others when considering its effectiveness in combat if not the weapon in question is probably not that good but at the very least not as good as the weapon you chose if it's literally not good enough for anyone to want to use when other weapons are available it is obviously a crap weapon now don't take this analogy out of context this does not mean everyone would only choose say the spear whenever you're thinking of what weapons you should choose there are many situations which encourage different weapons and as i asked is there any situation that you would choose this weapon over other weapons when considering its effectiveness in combat there are many situations that would encourage picking a vast array of weapons but if the specific weapon in question is rarely ever picked or just never picked at all it's clearly a bad weapon i understand that this simple analogy isn't perfect because there are a lot of bad weapons that could still be picked if the person simply doesn't know enough about what makes a weapon good or not they can simply be misinformed it's for this reason that i need to go into greater detail i have criticized a lot of bad weapons throughout the history of my youtube channel but two weapons in particular have received more kind of backlash or disagreement mostly from people loving the weapon and not for actual objective reasons that they propose and if they do propose reasons for why these weapons are actually good they disregard so many of its flaws more focusing on whatever redeeming features they can find and by disregarding the flaws they then say see this is actually a good weapon but when taken into proper context analyzing all the aspects of what a weapon should be doing to make it a good weapon no these weapons aren't good i received emails there are forum threads reply videos are made the two in particular i'm talking about are of course the nunchucks and the klingon batlift and i'm serious about that i've actually received email equivalent discourses on why the batlift is actually a good weapon from people fans that watched my video so many years ago and those are the ones that i'm more replying to when i'm making this video that i feel we need to understand the proper context of why bad weapons are bad and good weapons are good and that there is an objective standard that exists irrespective of our own biases or ways that we might try and be more charitable when in reality we really shouldn't so when going into more detail about this objective standard i will be referring to nunchucks and the klingon battleth as the primary points of references even though i could pick any weapon and we probably will be picking some actual properly effective weapons framing it completely in this standard so to begin what is a weapons purpose it is actually quite clear you can't really argue this point it is to increase the damage potential or lethality of whoever is using it if a weapon does not do this it is not a weapon and an extension to this objective reality if a weapon fulfills this purpose well and even better if it fulfills it exceptionally well it is therefore a good weapon so just because an object can function as a weapon does not make it an effective efficient or simply just a good weapon anyone is free to think it is cool but stating that it is good is an objective statement and therefore must be qualified and i will challenge anyone who tries to say a bad weapon is good by simply referring to this objective standard a weapon is not good if it can just be qualified as a weapon well it can do a lot of damage no that's not good enough for it to be classed as good for instance a rock can function as a weapon but does that make it a good weapon this is largely determined by context for instance how do we determine what is good the very concept of quality at first is arbitrary because it fundamentally needs a point of reference to compare it against but once that point of reference exists it is no longer arbitrary but it is objective it's fixed for instance what is big mount everest might be considered big in comparison to a person but it is minuscule when compared to the size of a planet if we look back at the rock analogy the first point of reference is the damage a person can produce by themselves a rock can greatly increase this so in comparison to nothing or bare hands well a rock is a great weapon and this seems to be what people try and do when they establish poorer weapons as good by trying to shift the point of reference that they're comparing it against to more charitable and honestly more unfair comparisons many bad weapons can be considered objectively great if you're comparing them against bare hands or things as poor as rocks for instance even a rock is great when compared to nothing but the fact is the point of reference that should be used when trying to determine if anything is good is objectively anything else that is meant to fulfill the same purpose for instance if you're trying to determine what is the fastest car in the world you could never objectively find that out or say this car is the fastest car in the world if you are obviously disregarding a car that's faster than it but many people try and say that certain weapons are good when there are hundreds of weapons that are vastly superior to it but they say no no don't consider those weapons this weapon is good when they're literally not considering all the other weapons that are better than it because as soon as you bring in all the other weapons to have the point of reference to compare them against it's actually a very bad weapon in comparison to the other weapons i understand that there are contexts which could logically disclude certain weapons for instance are you looking at battlefield weapons are you looking at weapons that excel for self-defense what about non-lethal weapons these are all obvious sub-categories but even in the sub-categories people often disregard vastly superior weapons within these sub-categories when they're trying to justify the effectiveness of a clearly inferior weapon that they just have a personal bias or appreciation for therefore the discussion whether a weapon is good cannot be limited to simply if a person is more lethal than if they had nothing because weapons have a purpose and any weapon that achieves that purpose in a more efficient way is objectively a better weapon than the other the weapons that achieve their purpose in the most efficient way are the best weapons and the weapons that achieve their purpose in the least effective way are the worst weapons you cannot escape this fact it is a truth of reality regardless of anyone's subjective interpretations or feelings on the matter when more than one weapon exists their effectiveness stand in contrast to one another and in this you then have a hierarchy of effectiveness of utility of the good and the bad and the reality is there are vastly more weapons that are made and designed to be weapons than just two there are hundreds if not thousands of them there are several objective metrics that must be considered when trying to determine what makes a weapon better in achieving its purpose disregarding or ignoring any one of these objective and essential metrics is not only short-sighted but ultimately invalidates anyone's analysis on the matter because each one of these points are an essential component of how a weapon operates they are ease of use how much training do you need to use it to increase your damage potential a weapon that is more easily used when picking it up simply functions as a more effective weapon than one that takes vastly more training more people will get use and utility out of the weapon as a result and if a weapon simply can't be used except with years upon years of training unless with those years upon years of training it blows all the weapons out of the water in all the other categories its effectiveness is brought down vastly as a result any weapon that you can pick up and used effectively with very little training and it performs very well in the other categories that i'll mention is already a superior weapon than one that takes more training the next point energy input to damage output weapons are supposed to be force multipliers and so if it can produce high levels of damage with very little effort it is then a very good weapon in this regard but you can't disregard the other aspects all these objective metrics must be considered together and just saying that this weapon can do this one thing really really well doesn't validate it if it performs very poorly in the other metrics but of course any weapon that can produce high damage for very little effort is already going to be put higher on the scale the best example of this would be a gun you pull you know a finger okay the finger is what causes the gun to operate an action that requires so little effort yet the damage level as a result is incredible the next is the actual damage and the energy transferring into the target for instance you could have a pole arm and thanks to leverage and momentum it should be able to produce a lot of force even for a little amount of effort or energy that you put into it but if the actual striking end is say a sponge which just nullifies and disperses the force that no true damage is transferred into the target well then it's obviously not an effective weapon now of course you rarely ever put a sponge on the end of a weapon but still damage can be done by things that have padding just look at injuries that can result out of larp weapons but those aren't made to be damage dealing weapons when we look at damage dealing weapons there are different configurations that optimize the transferal of energy or damage and this is usually related to surface area context also plays a role in this spreading out damage over a larger surface area can make a weapon more effective against say armor but less lethal against someone who is unarmored if you compare say a warhammer to a sword the warhammer is actually lower on the second metric that i explained energy input to damage output you need to actually inject a higher amount of energy to achieve lethal damage with a warhammer than you do with a sword if you can place the blade along someone's neck you do not need a lot of force to do lethal damage to cut someone's artery open and so a sword is also effective in the third metric in its ability to transfer the damage into the target but a sword is more ineffective in this third metric if you're looking at someone who's wearing armor a sword is actually very inefficient in transferring damage into the target thanks to armor and that's where the way that the damage is transferred is very important and a warhammer is more effective so that is the third metric the fourth metric and i've kind of combined some similar and related aspects into this is its ability to strike the target at a distance strike a target with speed and strike a target from multiple angles so this is all related in its ability to make contact with the target but there are different ways in which that is achieved three specifically as i mentioned which are basically reach speed and versatility each one is an important aspect of a weapons function and any weapon that achieves high effectiveness in this fourth metric will be higher on the quality or comparison on effective weapons safety to the user and its defense capacity this is safety in use but also its ability to defend the user from other attacks coming in targeting the person using it they're kind of two separate functions but they are also inherently related to basically the safety of the user or the ability the user has to keep themselves safe when using it and the last metric is durability if the weapon breaks after a few uses it is obviously a less effective weapon than a weapon that is vastly more durable and if a weapon has a fatal weak point again that makes it a more ineffective weapon if you consider all the other metrics as well but those are the primary objective metrics that determine a weapon's effectiveness i will quickly summarize them ease of use energy input to damage output damage and energy transferring into the target its ability to strike the target at distance with speed and at multiple different angles safety to the user and its defense capacity and lastly durability other metrics can be argued such as concealability ease of carry and so on and even those these are important to be considered in other contexts they stand outside of the weapons proper utility in combat also some might think that there are important metrics overlooked but before you suggest one i encourage you to look at these metrics as i've explained them for instance if you think reach has not been considered well that's obviously under the metric of the weapons ability to strike the target but it encompasses broader standards that we should be considering more than just reach all these factors are extremely important metrics to gauge a weapon's effectiveness a good weapon needs at least a small function in each of these categories and if any weapon has no function in any one of these categories but even if it's effectiveness in other categories it will not be able to function as a weapon seriously take away any one of these even if the weapon can still function in the other metrics if you take away one completely it simply won't be out of function as a weapon this is why these are the objective metrics that exist when comparing on analyzing the effectiveness of weapon as i've explained because if you take away one of them the weapon is useless take away ease of use completely well if you can't even use the weapon it doesn't matter how much damage it can be done it's a useless weapon take away energy input to damage output if it takes so much energy to achieve any level of damage that you barely can even lift the thing it is mostly a useless weapon damage and energy transferring in the target if you can't transfer the damage effectively or properly into the target to the point that it does no damage it's a useless weapon its ability to strike the target at distance or strike it with speed or strike it from multiple angles if you can't even strike effectively with it make contact with the target doesn't matter how much damage it does doesn't matter how easy it is to use doesn't matter how effectively it would be in transferring it if you can't simply make contact useless weapon safety to the user and its ability to defend yourself this is why these ones are related because you need to take both away for the weapon to be useless you can have weapons that are incapable of defending the user properly like a gun a gun can very rarely be used to defend against say another gun or effectively against many other weapons mildly effectively but not greatly effectively but it's also safety to the user if it is inherently dangerous to the user and it has no defense capacity doesn't matter how much damage it can do there's a high chance of it killing you at the same time it's a useless weapon you would never use it and lastly durability if it's gonna break after a few hits or even the first hit well it might be useful for only that one hit but then as a useless weapon after that completely as well these are the objective metrics they exist irrespective of your opinion you can argue until the cows come home if you ignore any one of these metrics especially if it's an aspect of the weapon in question fails at in a large measure doesn't need to fail completely but if it fails even mostly that's going to affect the weapons overall effectiveness and quality in a large measure even if you try and ignore it it still objectively exists and we can look at this now to justify this standard by comparing it against nunchucks and the klingon batlift nunchucks are not easy to use they take a lot of practice the energy input to damage output is debatable you can actually produce high force with little effort with nun chunks but when you compare it to say other weapons we're of the same size and for the same purpose nunchucks are actually on the lower end of the scale because there are so many weapons that require very little effort that can produce insane levels of lethality nunchucks are not effective lethal weapons they are lethal weapons i'll never say they can't produce lethal force but the amount of energy you need to put into them to achieve lethal force is actually quite high compare this to a dagger or many other weapons that require very little energy to achieve lethal force nunchucks actually quite low on the metric damage and energy transferring into the target if you have any measure of padding at all nunchucks effectiveness gets reduced drastically this is the problem with them being blunted weapons and they don't have huge amounts of impact follow-up force to really drive concussive damage through anything like armor the ability to strike a target at distance strike with speed they are pretty fast strike from multiple angles the nunchucks directions or angles of attack are hampered drastically by the way that they are meant to be used and to try and reduce damage to the user to enable follow-up through on the strikes they are nowhere near as versatile as many other weapons people might say they're very versatile when compared by themselves but they are not as versatile in comparison to many other weapons that can strike at a target from any angle and any direction there is objectively certain angles directions of attack stances and positions in which you cannot strike effectively with nunchucks safety to the user and its defense capacity this is a big failing in the nunchucks no matter how well trained you are there is always a possibility of them striking the user you can try and be trained to lessen the likelihood of that happening but the very fact that the possibility still exists with them and exists vastly more than other weapons makes nunchucks inherently dangerous weapons to the user and their defense capacity is very poor and also their durability is also lessened that's why they try and make metal chains but they are made out of more components and when you have any object this is just an engineering reality more components means more points of possible failure especially if the nunchucks are made out of less durable materials like rope but because nunchucks can function as a weapon and perform adequately in some of these metrics many people try and ignore excuse or gloss over its tremendous failings and weaknesses trying to then say just because it can do some of these things it's a great weapon no no it is not a good weapon remember we're talking about a good weapon not just a barely tolerable or even adequate weapon we're looking for what makes them good and what makes them bad and a good weapon is one that at least performs adequately in each one of these metrics can you honestly say the nunchucks performs adequately in each one of these metrics and that there are not other weapons meant to achieve the same purpose in the same general size and weight that does not perform better this is why the nunchuck is objectively a bad weapon if we were to compare this analysis to many other weapons and the big point of comparison that i've always using as the nunchucks is the humble stick and here's the reality people separate two memes and everything the stick is actually on the lower end of the hierarchy of weapons in effectiveness durability damage potential everything like that the stick is actually not a good weapon and i'm yes putting the memes aside and being honest and truthful no the stick is not a great weapon it's actually a very poor weapon because when you had the option to pick any other weapon remember the more simplified version of this objective standard is the weapon as effective as other weapons of the same size and weight when knowing enough about effective weapons would you choose this weapon when you have other options to choose from is there any situation that you would choose this weapon over other weapons when considering its effectiveness in combat the thing is the humble stick in certain context has in rare instances been picked over other weapons in actual combat there are unique adventures that make the stick not nearly as inefficient as other weapons but still on the broader metric as a whole the stick is definitely on the lower end of the scale when you compare all weapons against one another when you look at these objective metrics compare a stick to a sword in ease of use energy input to damage output damage energy transferring into the target its ability to strike at the target at distance striking the target with speed and from multiple angles safely to the user and defense capacity and durability a sword comes out on top in nearly every single category it is a vastly superior weapon it's just interesting that the stick isn't horrible in one or two of these metrics whereas the nunchucks most definitely are horrible in multiple metrics the stick is a vastly superior weapon to nunchucks and i use that because the stick is actually a poor weapon and if the nunchucks are so bad that they can't even compare against the stick that makes them rubbish and then for comedic over emphasis i've memed the effectiveness of a stick just to drive that painful reality home to people who unreasonably think the nunchucks are great oh yeah compare it to a stick just for your own reference what is that unique kind of situational context in which the stick isn't a wholly ineffective weapon that someone might actually choose to use well it's in warfare against armoured opponents the stick club has been used by people historically even over choosing a sword because remember these other contexts that can also affect a weapon's effectiveness like a sword against armor a sword is an especially ineffective weapon against plated armor and the stick because of its ability to transfer energy damage into the target being more effective in that important metric against armor a club stick is actually a more effective weapon in that instance than even a sword so it's not a holy ineffective weapon depending on the type of stick because there are lots of different types of sticks obviously so when i call the stick a bad weapon it is not a wholly bad way but it's not as bad as many other weapons and there are certain unique contexts in which it can perform better than other certain weapons but on the overall scale on balance the stick is most definitely on the poorer end of the spectrum which is why they're not universally picked as the ultimate weapon because if a person really did have a choice and they needed a fight against armor they wouldn't pick a stick that pick a mace or a warhammer if they had the option the stick has a very special and interesting advantage in a metric that aren't considered in the primary matrix of a weapons effectiveness and function in combat this is a metric outside of its effectiveness in combat but can be considered in certain instances which might give it preference and that's how easy they are to make or find you can find a stick anywhere or it can be a lot harder to find a mace or hammer or sword but disregarding that fact no one would ever pick a stick if they had the option of a warhammer or mace because they're specifically designed to do what the stick is mostly meant to do but designed to do it better and that's the point and even i will obviously acknowledge this with all the memes and the inflating i've done with the sticks for comedic person everything like that no who in their right mind would ever pick a stick when they had the option to pick other sticks and the materials the ability to get access to any other weapon of the same size and meant to achieve the same purpose i don't think anyone would logically do that when you take away bias and all that stuff and you just put it against the obvious objective metric that exists irrespective of my opinion and other people's opinions when more than one thing exists that are meant to achieve the same purpose the effectiveness in which they achieve that purpose objectively creates a hierarchy of effectiveness of quality that you cannot argue against there are better weapons than other weapons and anyone who is even mildly aware of this objective metric and most people are aware of it subconsciously because we use the metric in analyzing and comparing things in life all the time your favorite foods are the foods that satisfy slate your hunger but also you enjoy more than others so you have a hierarchy of food preference based on achieving the purpose of giving you nourishment health taste we compare things against other things everywhere in reality and life we use the same standard everywhere and so disregarding this standard or just pretending that we don't have to consider all aspects of the standard when trying to determine if a weapon is good or not is a false standard it is incorrect you are then creating a subjective opinion that can be objectively false and proven as false when you appeal to the objective standard that exists it cannot be logically or fairly objectively denied you can deny it subjectively but it just means you're wrong this standard can and will be validated once more when we look at the other weapon that has been of more contention than many weapons i've analyzed and criticized the klingon batlift is it easy to use not more so than many other weapons in actual fact it is a vastly more awkward weapon in design than many other weapons as weight distribution is awful even when you try and use it in the easiest way like an axe or a sword which kind of already implies which weapons are better an axle sword than a battle if just the easiest way to use a battle is like other weapons that are better designed and their weight distribution is specifically designed to enhance its function in this handhold kind of tells you which one is better already but even the easiest ways to use a battle like a sword or axe is still vastly more awkward you can pick it up anyone can pick it up and do it so it's not necessarily that you need training to be able to do it but more training will help you mitigate the poor balance it's awkwardness of use and stuff like that but in any comparison to many other weapons of the same size and meant for the same function and purpose it is very poor in its ease of use it is a particularly awkward and cumbersome weapon and i'm referencing tests that people have done and used and even just looking at the thing i can tell energy input to damage output is an interesting one it can achieve a certain amount of damage it clearly has decent leverage when used like a sword or axe which already shows how superior sort of axe is once again but even with the possible power of this strike it has so much forward unsymmetrical weight that the edge alignment is vastly more difficult to maintain than other weapons and its difficulty in edge alignment is still much much more than say an axe which also has a point of balance in front of the handhold the battleth is vastly more unbalanced in weight which pushes itself out of alignment more than an effective axe would ever do it can generate very lethal force but the energy required to do so is so much higher than other weapons especially due to all the needless weight it is shorter and the hand holds are not optimized for versatility to reach one of the hand holds you have to release your grip and then re-grip it you just can't slide it up a shaft it is less versatile in reach meaning its ability to generate force due to leverage and rotation is greatly hindered by its unoptimized design its forward spike gets in the way of its larger one making it more likely that the forward spike will hit first which is closer to their hands and will have less rotational inertia as a result and hit with less force if you put the weight of the first spike inside the second spike by removing the forward spike completely you would maintain the momentum but improve the balance and effectiveness in striking and optimize the rotational inertia that forward spike on each end is pointless and useless just makes it a worse weapon overall pointless unnecessary weight as pointless as the many useless spikes that we see often in many fantasy designs that myself and many others have criticized all the time and so i'm baffled why people will then disregard the same objective criticism that we've applied to many other weapons when we're criticizing the battle it has pointless needless spikes as well which just increase the weight the awkwardness reduces the effectiveness of the damage transferring into the target because the forward spike hits before the second spy or it's just pointless it's bad it is a bad design element in a big way now additional weight in either end of a weapon in most cases does not increase the striking power of the other meaning when striking with a battle like a sort of axe all the unnecessary weight near your hands is doing nothing barely increasing the power of the strike in comparison to if that weight was actually placed on the striking end or if it was placed in some measure of effective counterbalance instead this additional weight makes the weapon needlessly more cumbersome while providing barely any additional striking power throws off the balance of the weapon and makes it heavier and harder to generate speed now in the metrics that i've already mentioned this is just two so many other weapons excel beyond the battleth in huge ways so already the battleth is a pathetically ineffective weapon in comparison to many other weapons the same size that are meant to do the same thing and we're just on two metrics but already i've explained if a weapon fails drastically in even one of these metrics it is a vastly ineffective and inefficient weapon for a weapon to overall be considered at least decent in its purpose achieving its purpose effectively it needs to have each one of these objective metrics achieved at least moderately well okay if it is actually considered bad in any one of these metrics overall the weapon is going to be pretty bad but there are unique situations which i've already explained which might mitigate this but it's not happening with the battle if is it i've really kind of considered three metrics on the battle already because i've already kind of talked about the fact that the smaller spike hits first and that will reduce the overall power and leverage of the primary longer spike which should have high rotational inertia and that makes its damage and energy transferal into the target very poor seriously already if you were to look at the battleth and give it one clean consistent blade and curve and none of these additional secondary spikes would already make it a more effective weapon than its previous design i wouldn't consider it good but it would be better vastly more so in a big way than its current designers current design is absolute crap yes it can hit with a lot of damage but a weapon should be able to do more than just do a lot of damage otherwise everyone will be using rocks and yes some people use rocks when they don't have access to other weapons but that's the point when you have access to other better weapons who in their right mind would ever honestly pick the battleth as their primary first pick when you had other superior weapons to choose from if the battle would never be picked in this context how could you honestly say it's a good weapon in terms of transferal of damage into the target its curve design also limits its thrusting capacity to a large degree especially since the spikes are placed so far off from the point of thrust which is trying to transfer the energy into the thrust and it gets wasted in the curve and you're fighting against the weapon wanting to be pushed off at an angle than just pushing it cleanly forward in the thrust the next metric its ability to strike at the target at distance strike a toggle of speed and strike a target from multiple angles all the handholds are placed in the middle of the weapon not at one end limiting the overall weapon reach for its size and weight the unnecessary weight will make it much slower heavier weapons are easier to predict because they take longer to accelerate and therefore the beginning of the strike is easier to notice and then block or avoid it can strike at different angles easier granted due to being double ended but this is countered by the excessive weight used and its awkward design for instance when holding the backlit like a sword it is more cumbersome to strike with the other end due to so much weight being situated above the hand holds and on holding the bat lift by either end like a staff striking with either end will be easier due to holding it at the center of balance but then you have severely limited your reach because the blades extend very little past each hand hold also even when you use it like a sword or axe there is a spike protruding quite far but not far enough to be properly effective from the handhold pointing downwards and this limits your range of motion in terms of crossing the blade across your body getting to different angles and positions and you always have to be mindful of that black spike potentially hitting you this also makes it more dangerous to the user which is the next metric but also use and defense i think the batlift could be somewhat effective used in defense because it does protect the handhold you could use it somewhat like a blocking type of shield but it's overall safety to the user especially when you need to use it in more optimal ways like a sorter acts to optimize the damage it is vastly more dangerous to the user also because there are blades directly above the hand holds there are strikes that puts one's hands directly into the cutting line the battleth design by the placement of the hand positions and blades literally encourages the user to place their hands near the striking end and unlike daggers where there is something near the hand or striking end that prevents the hand from hitting the target and potentially being damaged we're talking about hilton cross guards to stop the weapon the battleth has nothing like that the blade can continue to travel into the target at a point where your hand actually hits the target potentially damaging it but the battleth would be durable it's a metal weapon it's a sci-fi weapon and there is interesting context that you can try and bring in regards to the battleless proper analysis but not as much as you might think like saying the klingons are aliens does not work at all because they're humanoid creatures the same range of motions as regular humans are klingons stronger than humans actually whenever we see humans fighting klingons in star trek they're usually depicted just as strong as humans because they're often humans overpowering klingons in melee combat and so if the klingons are stronger than humans it's not so much so to give them an unbeatable advantage and look honestly i actually decided to check this out online because people have emailed me trying to say this point and no there is no official canon thing saying klingons are always stronger than humans you might have a unique tough klingon that might be stronger than most humans but you can get a unique tough human that can be as strong as that to cling on and stronger than most other klingons and so that point is actually not true the klingons are as diverse as people as any some of them are strong and some of them are weak and the alien point no because they're bipedal humanoid creatures of the same range of motion therefore we can consider in the exact same context if a human is using it and criticizes it in the same way for how ineffectively designed and awkward it is for its range of motion and utility with its hand holds and so on the klingon battleth is a crap weapon it is objectively terrible just because it can do one or two things moderately okay you know it could do a lot of damage it can't transfer that damage effectively consistently with ease of use and so me it falls short in so many other aspects that no it is a horrible weapon in trying to fix the batlist design problems its flaws this is the design that i've concluded no unnecessary weight in the pointless additional spike the ability to slide your hand up and down to the different handhold positions moving the primary handle position closer to one end which optimizes your reach and leverage which will increase your damage capacity with it i've made the larger primary spike even bigger than the original design which actually increased power instead of separating it into two spikes where the first spike just takes away the main bite of the second spike still keeping the bottom spike on the other end which will allow you to strike from either end of the weapon but with the spike on the bottom end being smaller it is less dangerous to the user because i've removed those two small additional spikes that were situated further forward from the handhold positions i've been able to place the main blade more in line with the actual hand holds which will give you more control over edge alignment and leverage by removing the smaller secondary spikes and making the blade that covers the knuckles much thinner the new design would also be much lighter overall but because the main striking end actually has just as much mass but all focused into one primary cutting spike it would actually hit with more power it's a lighter weapon that is more powerful therefore more optimized and if i was making this i'd even go further and have the handholds made out of wood a lighter but sturdy material which would make it even more easy to use but not take away the power of the primary striking ends that also means you need to exert less energy to achieve lethal results it is a simplified but vastly superior design to the original one and as i really look at it there are some unique benefits that you'll get out of this type of weapon does combine certain advantages of an axe and sword the ability to move your hand up and down the hand hold positions will give you a lot more leverage in recovering from strikes it gives you more protective options than a sword because there is that blade that protects the hands and now you can move the hand away from any strike that might have put the hand in the same position where the blade would strike the target which then allows you to protect the hand vastly more this one is actually a good effective weapon whereas the original one is not it is objectively garbage and trying to justify both the klingon battleth and the nunchucks and just looking for whatever small thing it might be out to do moderately adequate not truly well but we could give it this you know consideration and charity that it could at least do that doesn't redeem all the other horrible failings in it regardless of the people that we might be pleasing by trying to give a more charitable interpretation and incorrectly disregarding many other objective flaws these weapons have and it is those very flaws that cannot be ignored because disregarding them doesn't mean those flaws don't exist they do and it's those very flaws that make bad weapons bad so please do remember that this is not my opinion this is the standard that i am forced to conform to because it is the objective stand that exists irrespective of my feelings or how much i like the weapon because i think it looks cool or i love the property it comes from or any number of reasons okay remember i've always said i think the nunchucks are actually fun and cool i said in the very first video these are fun cool flashy weapons but just because i have liked them and trained in them and used them for a long time in the past doesn't mean i will disregard the objective truth and that is the reality of the matter thank you very much for watching i hope you have enjoyed and of course i hope to see you on the next video here on shadowversity so until that time farewell [Music] you

Channel: Shadiversity

Views: 232,958

Keywords:

Id: a1nGROegnh8

Length: 44min 54sec (2694 seconds)

Published: Sat Jan 15 2022