Tuesday, February 26, 2008

For some reason, I think LJT's gonna win this one

"Nice tits."

As all my co-writers will attest, in my youth I was occasionally prevented from participating in certain activities due to punishment. I'm speaking, of course, about LJT's annual Fourth of July pool parties. There everyone would be, playing pool-basketball and diving to the bottom in search of a rock or whatever; and there I would be -- sitting on some chair, trying my hardest to act casual as I (pitifully) tried to explain:
SIDE BAR: Open Bar, what're you doing? Get in the pool.

OPEN BAR: Nah, don't feel like swimming.

LJT: You don't feel like swimming? It's like 104 degrees.

OPEN BAR: Really? 'Cause, like, it doesn't feel that hot--

SIDE BAR: Did you beat up your brother again?

OPEN BAR: No. It's nothing. I just--

LJT: Okay, so you're grounded. Again. Don't steal anything from my house.

OPEN BAR: What?! I -- I'm just gonna go play some Nintendo.
And I would leave all the fun, go inside, head to the basement, and drown my sorrows in Pepsi, Super Mario Bros., and cookies (that I stole).

Anyway, the point is that I would sometimes get into some trouble for beating up my little brother. Most of this happened when I was between the ages of 9-12 or so, meaning my bro was about 5-8 years old. It was a dick thing to do, and I look back upon it with shame.

I don't know why I had that violent streak. When I stopped, I stopped cold turkey. No more attacking toddlers. (My parents couldn't have been prouder!)

But there's something I've wondered for quite some time now. I've posed this question numerous times to friends, usually in group-drinking environments, and I've heard so many different responses that I feel somewhat justified in having wondered about it so long. It's not something I've ever considered in a realistic way, more of a fun "What if..." vibe. And it's funny -- some people get it right away (that I'm not posing a serious question, and therefore I won't take your answer literally), while some people are so morally offended at the mere premise that they either refuse to answer or, worse, get all huffy-puffy and hate me.

Apparently, though, I'm not the only one who's thought about this (as I will demonstrate in just a moment). Without further adieu, the question is:
How many 5-year-olds do you think you could take in a fight?
Seriously. Think about it: There is a massive swarm of toddlers coming at you, attacking fearlessly. To give you a few parameters that I've usually included when I ask it:
  1. No weapons. (For you or them.)
  2. You're in an enclosed area, so running away when you get tired isn't an option.
  3. You don't need to kill them; knocking them out is fine.
Again, this is merely an exercise. No one is judging your morals. We're not talking about trying to set up an event next weekend and trying to see if you'd be "cool" with it. Just use your imagination. You know, like you did when you were 5.

(Incidentally, another variation I've used is, rather than 5-year-olds, substitute octogenarians. Is your answer higher or lower?)

Okay, now that you have your guess, I present the actual test. Click on the link below (it's safe for work), and please, allow me to quote Count Rugen: "This is for posterity, so, be honest." (It really is no fun if you cheat.)

How many 5-year-olds could you take in a fight?

And when you finish, please post your scores in the poll!

12 comments:

The Notorious LJT said...

Well, if you were going to be ruthless - and I suppose if you accept the question it's ruthless - you'd have to think they'd be pretty scared, which would give you the 'batman advantage', meaning you'd get a few seconds of the rest of the scared kids watching in fear as you round-house kicked some motherfucker in their five year old head. Factoring this in, plus the fact that they are five and you could probably knock 'em out in somewhere between 1 and 3 blows.......I'm going to say 15-20. Maybe 25.

This is my first recorded thought as a 30 year old, incidentally.

The Notorious LJT said...

I took the test: 20.

Open Bar said...

I think it's important to keep in mind that this is clearly an unrealistic scenario. I would definitely agree that if a 5-year-old kid just saw you massacre his sandbox pal, he probably wouldn't try to avenge him. He'd run like hell.

It's a hypothetical situation where you're in a room with a shitload of toddlers trying to kill you, how many of them could you take?

And I got 25. Bitch.

ChuckJerry said...

I got 20.

I think after you knock out the first 2 or so, it would be much easier just to keep going. Kindof like cocaine.

Also you'd get to feel like Braveheart or Bruce Lee or somebody just kicking the shit out of a whole group of people.

And then later on you could be like, "yeah, I once kicked the shit out of like 25 people at once, so don't fuck with me." And then you wouldn't tell them it was 5 year olds.

Faith said...

18 for me. I'm babysitting tonight but I think I'll resist the urge to test this theory (unless the kids get really rowdy - well, and there's only 2 of them).

ChuckJerry said...

As for the ocogenarians, I think I could take more of them. Those little kids are resilient and they have tons of energy.

Also those old folks are much slower and way more feeble.

Open Bar said...

Yeah, I've always thought I could handle more octogenarians. But then again, these days you hear all these stories about 80-year-old men lifting weights and 80-year-old women running marathons and shit. But then again, you do have the potential benefit of one of them falling on their own and, of course, being unable to get up.

Open Bar said...

I just used "But then again" two begin consecutive sentences. Grammar!

Walt Clyde Frazier said...

I think you all are off. I've asked and pondered this question before numerous times in the past.

I think the answer, for any of us, is at least a hundred. Literally until you were exhausted from the act of punching and kicking, which might take several minutes. I don't think they could really hurt you, except if one of them hitting you in the gonads.

I think less octogenarians though than five-year-olds, if for no other reason than than they're smarter and would actually aim for your nuts or bite you on the leg or something. Five year olds would attack with reckless abandon but little intelligence. Think of the old Nintendo game "Kung Fu", where the guys just keep running at you. As long as you don't mistime your pressing of the "A" button or your thumb doesn't get tired, you can keep knocking them off.

My test said 23, but I'm going to "guesstimate" 123.

Matt Dabney said...

I agree with Clyde. It's got to be dozens and dozens that you could take out. My first action would be to pick out one or two of the smaller ones and start swinging them around using them as clubs. Think about it...... twirling around like a top, knocking out 3 to 5 kids per second. You'd probably be able to spin around for a good minute or two before getting tired.

Anyway, I got 26 on the test.

Walt Clyde Frazier said...

Dabney has experience with wrestling with 5-year-olds. I think he's the expert on the subject.

Glad you agree, Dabney. I feel vindicated.

Open Bar said...

I really don't think you could pick up a 5-year-old and spin for two minutes, unless you were in tremendous shape and knew that trick that figure skaters do to avoid dizziness.

Also, with all the punching, you'd end up with a broken hand somewhere around cracked child skull #30 or so.

Best to rely on your kicks.