In a Mass Knife Fight to the Death Between Every American President, Who Would Win and Why?

I saw this on reddit a while ago, and it seems like a perfect conversation piece for this site. So, gentlemen, which president is your money riding on?

The rules:

- Every president is in the best physical and mental condition they were ever in throughout the course of their presidency. Fatal maladies have been cured, but any lifelong conditions or chronic illnesses (e.g. FDR’s polio) remain.


- The presidents are fighting in an ovular arena 287 feet long and 180 feet wide (the dimensions of the [1] Roman Colosseum). The floor is concrete. Assume that weather is not a factor.

-Each president has been given one standard-issue [2] Gerber LHR Combat Knife , the knife [3] presented to each graduate of the United States Army Special Forces Qualification Course. Assume the presidents have no training outside any combat experiences they may have had in their own lives.

- There is no penalty for avoiding combat for an extended period of time. Hiding and/or playing dead could be valid strategies, but there can be only one winner. The melee will go on as long as it needs to.

- FDR has been outfitted with a [4] Bound Plus H-Frame Power Wheelchair, and can travel at a maximum speed of around 11.5 MPH. The wheelchair has been customized so that he is holding his knife with his dominant hand. This is to compensate for his almost certain and immediate defeat in the face of an overwhelming disadvantage.

- Each president will be deposited in the arena regardless of their own will to fight, however, personal ethics, leadership ability, tactical expertise etc., should all be taken into account.

- Alliances are allowed.

Views: 555

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Andrew Jackson.

For me, it's a tossup between him and Teddy Roosevelt. Lincoln might have a shot, too. He's got a definite reach advantage.

Skinny guys fight 'til they're burger.

 

JB

My money's on the terrifying William Henry Harrison.

Oddly interesting question.  I'd give odds to Jackson, T.R., Grant, Ike, or Kennedy.  Slightly worse odds on G.H.W. Bush, Hayes, Harrison, McKinley, Arthur, Washington, and Garfield.  Outside chance on LBJ, Lincoln, or GW Bush.  Those three don't have a lot of combat experience, but they seemed like tough SOBs.

 

I have a feeling Clinton, J.Adams, Carter, FDR, Obama, Harding, Nixon and Ford would be the early casualties.  Kinda picturing that scene from The Hunger Games movie, where a bunch of little kids are massacred right at the beginning of the fight.

JB

I hear Lincoln was actually quite a brawler during his heyday, so he has some combat experience (even if it's just fist fighting, which is still pretty applicable here). Let's also not forget that book (and it's horrible film adaptation) in which he hunts vampires. Based on a true story, so I hear.

Honestly, my odds are on Teddy Roosevelt. The guy got shot in an assassination attempt during a speech once and still continued speaking for about 90 minutes or so before seeking any medical attention. Definitely manly.

I have an image in my head of Clinton using his fisted thumb combo to unsuccessfully fend off a knife coming at him. Meanwhile O can't even finishing stuttering out a single word before he goes down. In all fairness I think Al-Gore-bot 2000 should be able to participate in this brawl.

I would move Ford up with LBJ and Lincoln, then maybe drop Kennedy down a rung

My money's on Teddy Roosevelt or Jackson too, because they had actual combat experience.

Eisenhauer, despite being nominally a military man, did not have credible combat experience as far as I am aware; he had "connections" and a taste for fine living.

Grover Cleveland was a sheriff. Not sure how much fighting that entails; probably not all that much. But he was one of the few presidents to ever personally dispatch another man. Hanged two men. Jackson killed a man in a duel. Most presidents seem to have little qualms over killing, but most did not do the dirty work themselves. Kennedy personally ordered the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem but was quite the little mafia princeling himself.

Lincoln not a credible contender despite being one of the most ruthless. I suspect stories of his fighting prowess are in fact legendary. He was very tall and very skinny; many doctors suspect Marfan syndrome which would have left him with detached retinas and a bad ticker. One of the first casualties I think, along with some of the pampered princelings mentioned.

There was a story in Teddy's biography about him leaping off a horse and knifing a mountain lion. My money would be on him or maybe Andrew Jackson. I'm guessing once the rules were explained they'd be the first to accept it and start killing.

Teddy, by far. biggest badass commander in cheif.

 

Lincoln. Didn't ya'll see the way he went through those vampires? 

RSS

Latest Activity

Rick Shelton replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"Special case of sex crime.  See my response concerning sex crimes.  This isn't something un-thought of and is covered by many bills that have tried to limit abortions.  Most of the bills I've seen, actually all, have had…"
4 minutes ago
John A. replied to certified male's discussion Public speaking
"Same here with the Navy.  After giving navigation briefs, weather briefs, training seminars, nav classes etc., I don't have a problem with it at all.  unfortunately, it tends to make you the defacto go to guy for any speaches,…"
28 minutes ago
Liam Strain replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
" Many do so, myself included. What I'm arguing is to have the choice, not have it made for her."
36 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"No pro-choice proponent in this discussion is saying that there shouldn't be regulations so your statement is a moot point."
44 minutes ago
Todd Serveto replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"You shouldn't take every study out there as gospel, David--read the details, and consider who is putting this out there---some "reproductive health" outfit is, naturally, going to be touting the "studies show" line to prove…"
49 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"Unless you care to share an experience you were forced to endure, that is akin to a woman being raped against her will.  You really can not relate to the situation. Now if you can relate to the situation because of something you've…"
51 minutes ago
Todd Serveto replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"The whole "Rape, Incest, and the Life of the Mother" argument is just a rouse.  It is nothing more than presenting worst-case scenarios just try to justify killing in-utero babies.  In the first place, there have ALWAYS been…"
1 hour ago
David F. replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"Nope, most don't regret having an abortion.  And by most I mean over 95%.  "Fighting back against long-held stereotypes about the inherent shame and grief that supposedly comes with obtaining an abortion,…"
1 hour ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service