"Chad,
One of the greatest differences between boys and men is the ability to analyze the situation and do what we MUST do, and not what we WANT to do. Sometimes, what we want IS what we must do, but unfortunately, not always.
You've done what…"
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Perspective on -
For me, it's a tossup between him and Teddy Roosevelt. Lincoln might have a shot, too. He's got a definite reach advantage.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on -
Skinny guys fight 'til they're burger.
JB
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on
-
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
-
Permalink Reply by Perspective on
-
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul_of_TX on -
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.
-
Permalink Reply by LShieldes on
-
I would move Ford up with LBJ and Lincoln, then maybe drop Kennedy down a rung
-
Permalink Reply by Rob on -
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick H on -
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Brown on -
Teddy, by far. biggest badass commander in cheif.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael D. Denny on -
Lincoln. Didn't ya'll see the way he went through those vampires?
Latest Activity
Jack Bauer replied to chad's discussion Need girl advice"That doesn't make sense. If you think she should do whatever she wants in the 'pursuit of happiness', and nobody has the right to say otherwise ... how can her doing whatever she wants be disrespectful to the guy that has no…"
Native Son replied to Daniel's discussion Casual Belts for Jeans?"OK, OK. Texans excepted. And the picture one isn't what I had in mind. I was visualizing the BIG belt plates my brother routinely wins at the Turkey Shoots. by direct observation, most guys just can't quite pull off one…"
Settecase posted a status"I wrote a new article: Discipleship requires integrity.
http://ning.it/12vAqlG"
Alexandre Wiechers Vaz replied to chad's discussion Need girl advice"In part, i disagree.
No human being have right to tell other one with who we may or may not have a relationship. And in this scenario you can include, boy/girlfriends forbidding the partner to hang out with someone of the opposite sex,…"
Carl Monster replied to Nathan DeParis's discussion Women: The Infallible Baromoter"I'm proud to be in a country that advanced women's rights, where my daughters can be full, participating citizens and not the personal property of their father or husband.
The second shot is obviously taken at some party; so women…"
Herb Munson replied to Herb Munson's discussion The Primacy and Existence of God in the group The Great Debate"She definitely should suffer the consequences of her rash act.
"
Jack Bauer replied to LShieldes's discussion Scandal run down in the group The Great Debate"I don't think she's "playing the game" well at all. There's no benefit to improperly pleading the 5th. She loses all the legal protections associated if she waives ... which it looks like she did. Then,…"
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
