Slashdot Log In
You, Too, Could Be Batman In 10 To 12 Years
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jul 18, 2008 08:48 AM
from the but-the-pay-is-lousy dept.
from the but-the-pay-is-lousy dept.
jmcbain tips a fascinating interview in Scientific American with a professor of kinesiology and neuroscience (and a 26-year practitioner of Chito-Ryu karate-do). The question was, how much training would it take for a normal person to become Batman? The professor says: "You could train somebody to be a tremendous athlete and to have a significant martial arts background, and also to use some of the gear that he has, which requires a lot of physical prowess... In terms of the physical skills to be able to defend himself against all these opponents all the time, I would benchmark that at 10 to 12 years." The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death — or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Funny)
That would be an insane morale buster for the bad guys. Say you knife the Batman -- actually see your knife tear into his guts -- but he shoots his BatRope and BatDisappears for ten minutes. When he comes back he's replaced and as strong as ever, but you don't know that. All you know is that the Batman can't be killed. Maybe he's an immortal?? Maybe he's a demon?? It would be like one of those bunker busters that just completely deflate the enemy..
Parent
Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Funny)
I am not the real Batman. My name is Ryan; I inherited the Batmobile from the previous Batman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Batman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Batman has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.
Parent
Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Funny)
>I am not the real Batman. My name is Ryan; I inherited the Batmobile from the previous Batman, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Batman either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Batman has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.
Inconceivable!
Parent
Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Funny)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Parent
Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
RAIB?! (Score:5, Funny)
Would that be a RAIB?
Redundant Array of Interchangeable Batmen?
or more like a High Available Batcluster?
Parent
Re:RAIB?! (Score:5, Funny)
Killing Grendel, then taking out the Joker ... I don't think the words exist to convey exactly how badass a Beowulf cluster of Batmans (Batmen?) would be.
Parent
Re:People we can get but the real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Then we'd need to train a bunch of people... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't answer to the rumors, but I think that this may be a nod to Japanese Animation cultural influences in Western cinema and art.
I have seen several examples of characters in Anime where male sexual ambiguity is used explicitly in villains, usually in conjunction with some form of insanity. This is also heightened by cases where even the gender of the character isn't revealed until later in the series/movie, thanks to a highly androgynous character design and careful voice-acting.
Anyway, one could draw a line between homophobia and such a character design; I disagree with that. Personally, I see this as a kind of hint of "hypersexuality" - a complete lack of selectiveness for a mate - that suggests a very reckless personality, even at the most base and carnal level.
Parent
Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is, even after that amount of training, no one could remain on top of their game for more than a few years. And "Batman can't really afford to lose. Losing means death â" or at least not being able to be Batman anymore."
So, after all that, we should all stick to our day-jobs? Thanks Slashdot, you saved us again!
Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
its pop science (Score:5, Insightful)
pop science is important. it is a gateway to serious science for many youngsters and average joes
you are dismayed it does not feature serious science
ok, so go read something else
why the hate for a magazine of pop science?
it serves a valuable function. are you angry that some obscure technical journal is not popular? so why are you angry that a piece of pop science is doing what a piece of pop science must do?
if it is serious science, it is relegated to obscurity, as a rule. because it needs to be digested for the masses, where anything popular takes place
why don't you understand this?
Parent
Re:its pop science (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Glad I don't subscribe to Scientific American (Score:5, Interesting)
I like Scientific American - I don't think you're being fair. The "fun" articles are obvious and they are careful to make no claims of certainty. Actually, I really have to put my thinking cap on when they get into Astrophysics these days.
Just as a for-instance, their medical articles are top-notch... my wife is a physician and will often read them. Their environmental articles are also often very interesting. It's not like the whole issue is full of Batman trivia!
Of course, I also like Popular Science and Popular Mechanics - but those I approach more from a comic book angle. At least Popular Mechanics has practical car and home project advice.
Parent
Glad I don't read slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at Scientific American articles from even fifty years ago, let alone a century, shows how sadly dumbed down the magazine has become. It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments. Now it all flash and no substance, little different from Popular Science. The lesson American media teaches us: nothing good is every ultimately profitable as is.
Looking at /. from even 5 years ago, let alone 10, shows you how lame it has become. It used to be about news for nerds and stuff that matters, now it is just about wannabe nerds whining about Popular Science. The lesson: making useful comments ultimately ever informative as if.
Parent
There's no more good writers (Score:5, Interesting)
It used to target a readership of average citizens who were keen on the nitty-gritty of scientific developments
It's bad writing.
SciAM got political and that turned a lot of people off, the same way NYT or WashPost did. They tried to dumb things down while still pretending to be smart and all it did it was anger their core readership and they bailed.
Science has exploded beyond the ability of writers to manage... It used to be that 50 years ago, you could probably have a smattering of what's new in physics and a few other fields, but right now, what's new in physics is a highly specialized thing and it takes way too much to understand what's even old versus what's new. The baseline education of some high school teaches a mathematics based on a level of calculus that's 100 years old at best, physics that's basically newtonian mechanics and chemistry is just doing the old "let's make break up water trick" when right now scientists are looking at individual atoms.
All of this points to a colossal failure in writing. We have a body of technical knowledge that is so disorganized that it takes way too long for humans to really communicate it to each other in order to share the knowledge. Roger Penrose made a heck of a go at it in his book about how everything works, but even he falls into the horrible trap of using bad names for different mathematical constructs. At least biologists got it right when put a taxonomy on species ... but in math we have Fourier Transforms, Newton's Method, and it's just a disorganized mess, and on top of that horrible language, we stack everything we know about the basic laws of the universe.
What the world needs is a bank of good writers that also know math and physics to go in there and get rid of biographically named crap, and organize things in a more direct and intuitive fashion. For the love of god, you can't let a scientist in the field do it, because they are just terrible at naming and organizing.
Writers, step up, and take command!
Parent
I'd go with the Charles Atlas method instead (Score:4, Funny)
Bonk (Score:5, Funny)
Why spend all that time training (Score:5, Funny)
when you can just get hit in the head [youtube.com].
How many years for the morals? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many years for the morals? (Score:5, Interesting)
A large portion of the Batman storyline revolves around the question of whether or not that's really true.
One of the more poignant observations made in the comics was by Commissioner Gordon when he pointed out that there were always regular criminals in Gotham before Batman arrived, but there weren't any supervillians until after Batman made room for them.
Parent
Re:How many years for the morals? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if you're going to remove yourself from the context of the storytelling, obviously there aren't going to be any supervillians like the Joker...
But within the context of the story, the point was this: Batman attempted to impose order by brutalizing the criminal element until it was too beaten and scared to stand against him. When that happened, only a few well-financed, high-powered, or outright-insane villians could continue to fight him, and with organized crime no longer in control of the underworld in Gotham, they had an arena in which to do it.
By taking street crime and organized crime out of the picture, Batman removed a barrier that prevented the supervillians from moving in to take Gotham, because the "common" criminals had just as much a reason to oppose the supervillians, in most case, as Batman does. No matter how deadly Joker is, he can't exist in a world where both the corrupt police AND organized crime have a reason to oppose him because they'll hunt him down and destroy him, but if he's only opposed by Batman, he's a one-man army facing a one-man army.
A common theme in Batman his how Wayne is tortured by the fact that he may have caused a lot more suffering in Gotham by donning his mantle than if he had simply internalized his own suffering and let it him alive.
The question becomes: Did Batman help Gotham by taking up his crusade, or did he just unleash the pain he was suffering on the entire population?
Parent
Re:How many years for the morals? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that because they keep all the super-villians locked up, and then release one at a time randomly for Batman to fight? That's how it seems to work. The real trouble in Gotham is that doctor at the psych ward who keeps saying things like, "Yeah, I think the Joker is rehabilitated now." Batman should just fight that guy.
Parent
Re:How many years for the morals? (Score:5, Interesting)
Haven't you heard. Might makes right. So training for the skills is the same as training for the morals.
Parent
If I only had a brain... (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the mental component? While the movie Batman Begins didn't do too much with it, Batman's greatest asset is his mind.
He's a genius and one of the greatest minds in the DC universe. He uses it be one of the greatest detectives and occasional research, and use strategies/tactics to take down even the greatest forces (even Superman).
It isn't his physic and toys that let him stand with the greatest heroes and face the most dangerous villains, but his greatest asset: his mind.
Without his mind he's just some generic tough guy.
Parent
Obligatory Neal Stephenson: (Score:5, Interesting)
Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. If my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, and devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.
Finishing the quote (Score:5, Informative)
Hiro used to feel this way, too, but then he ran into Raven. In a way, this was liberating. He no longer has to worry about being the baddest motherfucker in the world. The position is taken.
Parent
10,000 hours (Score:5, Interesting)
But I doubt that many people have the finances or drive to keep up such a regime until you achieve your goal. And thats what separates the world class people from the rest of us.
Of course some people do have a natural ability that also gives them a benefit. So I doubt a really short person could ever be competitive in a world class basketball - unless there was a league for really short people.
Oh he'd stay on top of his game (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer some 'Real' expert opinions (Score:5, Funny)
Batman? Phooey (Score:4, Informative)
It's more than physical ability and big money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the character has an almost super-human physique. And yes, he's got a big pile 'o cash that helps him afford the toys and tools he uses during his "night job". But there's more to it.
Wayne can out-think any of his opponents. His schtick is that he's 5-10 steps ahead of anyone. If he gets into a fight, he's already out-thought the opponent and knows exactly how the fight's going to end.
That's harder to teach. You could work someone for years so that they're at the peak of physical ability, and then dump a cubic f'load of cash on top of them. But they'd still be missing that keen tactical mind that Wayne has.
I don't care how good you are... (Score:5, Informative)
...more than a couple of attackers, and you're in trouble. Facing ten bad guys, short of some super-exo-skeleton that boosts your strength and armours your body against instantaneous impact and sustained pressure and torsion, you're going down hard, quickly. And no, they don't always helpfully attack one or two at a time: watch half a dozen cops taking down a violent drunk some time.
And if you're facing multiple bad guys with no possibility of escape, the only credible strategy is to try to put at least all-but-one of them down so hard they no longer present a threat. That means at least knocked out or injured seriously enough that they can't fight, not the cutesy pain compliance stuff. If they are weak and clueless when it comes to fight, you are fit and highly skilled when it comes to fighting, you can find some sort of weapon, you are lucky with the environment, and there aren't too many of them, you might just do this for long enough to create an opportunity to escape. Maybe, if you're really lucky.
But it's a fun read, I'll give it that. :-)
Multiple opponents (Score:5, Insightful)
The trick behind multiple attackers is moving around enough so that they eventually line up and come at you one or two at a time.
Yeah I had my martial arts instructors tell me that too. Problem is that realistically you'll never be on favorable terrain and you aren't good enough to put your opponents down quickly or avoid entanglement. The human body can take a lot of abuse and odd are you'll get tied up with one opponent long enough for the others to get to you.
You *might* escape but that's the best you can hope for. Pretty much you have to hope the exit is close and you can get somewhere safe quickly. I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself but recognize that the odds are heavily against you.
Disclosure: I've been a martial arts student for about 20 years. I'm not any sort of exceptional talent but I do have enough experience (including real world) to understand what is possible. Multiple opponent situations are VERY difficult even if you are better armed and much better trained than those you are facing.
Parent
I can see it now..... (Score:5, Funny)
How much will you pay for this?
900$?
NO!
500$?
NO!
For a limited time, just two easy payments of one parent!
Fuck that. (Score:5, Funny)
Hang out in the YMCA locker room and you can be Robin in under 5 minutes.
Become a super villain instead! (Score:5, Insightful)
That just takes a spray of acid to the face or a dunk in a chemical vat. No training time whatsoever.
On another note, I get peeved by everyone ignoring Batman's "World's Greatest Detective" moniker and generally accepted reputation as one of DC Universe's smartest humans. Everyone focuses on Batman's physical skills where, in "reality", having keen observational skills and an intellect allowing superior strategems probably alleviates a lot of the need for ultimate physical skills.
Brains as well as physical training (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the expert skills in chemistry? Forensics? Psychology? Research? His business skills? Batman is also a consumate detective, so given his expert skill in these areas how long would it take to get those levels of ability?
You would think a Scientific magazine might also be interested in the mental aspect?
I'm already a superhero! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where do we sign up? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, given the size and scope of Bruce Wayne's awesome shit, I'd say quite well.
That, or its being a self-loathing billionaire industrialist that pays out.
Frankly, its probably not even in the scope of most slashdotters to end up being ATHF's Meatwad... after all, Meatwad makes the money, see; Meatwad gets the honeys, G...
and we don't :(
Parent
Re:Where do we sign up? (Score:5, Funny)
Alright, that does not add to the conversation. You're just using this opportunity to gloat.
Parent
Re:Where do we sign up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I trained in Kung Fu for 6 years (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the best lessons I learned in martial arts is there are two kinds of fights, those you fight dirty and those you lose.
Parent
Re:Street fighting (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because you can't beat multiple opponents doesn't mean others can't.
My grandfather was a golden gloves boxer turned weight lifter. 5'10" 225-240 lbs when he competed. Could dead lift 500 lbs with one hand. Actually came from the same area as you. :) He was a natural athlete all his life and a veteran of many street fights. He could take on 5 guys, and did on more than one occasion. Would confront gangs of punks well into his 60s.
Took 7 strong men to drag him to the old folks home. Alzheimer's + elite athletes are a dangerous combination.
Parent