Zombie Research Society
The Deadliest Warrior season finale last night pitted zombies against vampires, and ZRS head Matt Mogk was one of the on-screen zombie experts. We caught up with Matt 
today to get his reaction to zombies biting the dust.
“I wasn’t surprised. They didn’t tell us who won ahead of time, but we saw all the tests first-hand, and it was clear the vampires had the upper hand.”
He added that the tests were good for TV, but flawed in that they didn’t account for two major vulnerabilities of vampires: 1) They can only fight half of each day, spending the other half out of the sun and sleeping, and 2) they have to feed on human blood regularly or they grow weak and useless.
While vampires are taking their 12 hour dirt nap, zombies would be eating all of the food supply and gaining new reinforcements at the same time.
Matt confirmed that he and the other experts weren’t consulted on the numerical ability scores entered into the simulation. Zombies were only given a feeding instinct of 88 out of 100, compared to the vampires 82. Because zombies will take any and all risk to pursue their single-minded desire to feed, they should have easily earned 100, and that would have made the difference in the battle.
In the end, given the parameters of the show Mogk said it was a fair fight. And he even hinted that producers may have a rematch already in the works for next season that addresses some of his concerns.
Lastly, Matt said that in an actual battle zombies would win, for one simple reason: “Vampires are fake and zombies are real.”
They didnt took in count the infection factor, the last standing vampire in the show bit a zombie in the head so he was already infected. Granted the vampires have lots of weapons and skills but zombies are tireless killing machines and they also never showed the “draggers” wich would be down to the ground level and very dificult to see in a group attack. To me it was not a fair analisis.
Team Vampire is relying on junk/make-believe “science”.
It’s in the teeth.
Unlike traditional vampires, Team Vampire re-imagined the vampires as super predators w/mouthfuls of razor sharp teeth just like a shark. Problem: predators, like the shark, are meat eaters (carnivores) which use their teeth to rip and rend flesh. Vampires do NOT eat meat. They ONLY drink blood.Indeed, having rows of razor teeth will result in alot of blood spillage.
Team Vampire is trying to play it both ways. It’s simply unrealistic and unfair.
The trickiest thing with this fight was allowing for which version of zombie or vampire was to be used (Stoker’s Dracula was a stong as 20 men, could go intangible, and was only limited in some abilities in sunlight so if that style vamp was used ot could have gone one vamp vs. horde and vamp would still win), so it looks like they went with creature stats that would more or less equal an even match. I do think that giving a vamp the equivalent of a steel talon was a little much but as they didn’t give the vamps acess to firearms or other weaponry I guess it evens out.
The big problem for vamps would be that even if they won every battle they would still lose the war as the zombies would annihilate their only source of food.
lol im just waiting for someone to make a twilight comment XD
Zombies are no match for vampires or werewolves. This is blatantly obvious. One on one, a zombie is not even a match for an armed, knowledgeable human in poor physical condition. What I think would be interesting, and what I wish Deadliest Warrior does, is do a similar simulation but put historical warriors against hordes of zombies. That I think would be significantly more interesting. Who would win, a group of Spartans or a zombie horde?
I agree comepletely. Vampires had no repeat no scienctic data to support that version of a vampire. They used a monster that was popular but was completely made up. For a number of reasons.
One they did no research into a vampire’s defense against the virus. Zombieism is completely different from the plague. It’s kill percentages are completely different, how it works and etc.
Two. The smell of a zombie is powerful! What do you think is going to happen when you put something whose odar is worse than pepper spray against an enemy who can be compared to a pretty boy with thier high sensactivity to smell an advatange that would greatly hinder them.
3. If vampires are so smart they would know that they can not bite the undead for fear of infection. Or if they didn’t know they would have made many nonlethal attacks like any novice zombie killer. Causing a quicker death.
4. Factor in the very thing vampires eat, blood. Blood has little to no nutuence, and excess consumtion leads to minor health problems. The amount needed to function at all is well over 15 to 25. that’s a normal person. Add in the amount needed to fuel those muscles and the amount to function super human like is unreal. They would run out of fuel very early in the battle.
5.simple thing I learned being a football player and writer. If you don’t move for a long period of time like say all day and then after said time get up and move around you will need to seriously streach and even then you body will start to get very soft.
That’s all for now.
I might add more later
As far as I’m concerned, the result end result was a forgone conclusion; Vampires have super-human abilities and standard human intelligence, compared to zombies’ peak human strength and low-to-non-existant intelligence. Strategy, reflexes, and combat tactics coupled with “6-times” human strength are far more likely to result in victory in this type of simulation.
That said, I do have to agree with Hyperion’s comment; the vampire experts were free to make up any numbers they wanted to ensure their victory. I totally agree that a focused group of vampires could fend off a zombie horde, but using a steel claw to replicate their attack was a bit unfair, since they are still made of flesh and bone.
I also noticed a few other minor errors in the testing; 1) When testing the zombie bite they accounted for blood loss, but failed to consider that the rate of loss would be far greater in a combat scenario -i.e.- they vampire would have bled out much faster if it was struggling. 2) When testing the zombie horde attack on the balistic gel torso, they were only focused on how quickly they could remove the heart, and paid no mind to the overall damage done to the torso. With the massive amount of tissue trauma blood loss and muscular damage would have greatly reduced the combat effectiveness of the victim. There was also the possibility (albeit, minor) that the zombies could have removed the vampire’s head, another agreed upon instant kill.
Again, I have absolutely no issue with the verdict; I never believed for a moment that the zombies would win. I am surprised, however, that the magin separating the two groups was less than 1%! I never expected it to be so close!
I’m pretty satisfied with the battle myself. I honestly feel like they made the matching ultimately a draw with how the last scene was rather than an outright vampire win. The only issues I had were how the vampire experts wanted to make the vampires have maximum everything. The compared alligator bite and the strongman for example. It just seemed to me they wanted to ensure their victory rather than fight fair.
Well they had to make the vampires significantly stronger and more powerful than the zombies, they were outnumbered 63-1! They gave the zombies a lesser superhuman strength and sent hordes at the 3 vampires. The zombies individually should not have comparable stats to a vampire.
Next time maybe “modern” zombies that run are stronger than humans more aggressive more agile etc etc and not so dumb would be advisable ya know just like the zombies out od the new dawn of the dead style movies i think the vampire crew being able to choose modern vampires but pitting them against 80s style zombies was unfair modern vampires versus modern zombies and i think a whole new outcome would appear