So, the demographics of them are pretty mixed, but would the Mexicans be in the first wave? Maybe the black ones would be squirmy.

This thread is ******ed simply because everyone is throwing out incredible exaggerations.

If 30 5 year olds charged at you at once, you'd lose. Its pretty simple.

So, "vulturesrow", eh. What a great choice. I see FOD in your future.


[censored]

stfu you worthless n00b go sign up somewhere else and then go [censored] yourself.

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

So what exactly was the point of that post?

I'll break it down into internet vernacular for you:

UR GAY, LOL

No, seriously, I thought it was witty and a little brilliant to incorperate work terms so seamlessly. Hazzah to you

The answer is 42.

I'm old and fat. I'm going to hurt myself before too long--twist an ankle or bust my hand. Even if I don't, I'm going to be gasping for air and eventually the little bastards are going to get a shot at my face.

The answer goes down to 12 if I'm barefoot and don't get a cup.

can we have this thread locked so that it doesn't get ruined by idiot n00bs?

When my nephew was 5 years old he already enjoyed punching me in the balls. It wouldn't take much training.

I think most of the posters are highly overestimating the #. Kramer only had about 10 to 15 kids attack him and he went down fast. He even was taking karate classes at the time.

If I could select the 4 strongest/smartest 5 year olds and train them for 11 months so that they are 5 years 11 months I would wager the 4 5 year olds could defeat any of you. 6 would be bad overkill.
5 year olds are amazingly durable. i.e. they dont go out as easy as you might think. With training, numbers are hard to overcome.

Having taken on 5,6 and 7 year olds at parties (bouncey castles are ace cos you can fling them about and they don't get hurt) I think they would quickly learn to hang onto your legs. Once they do that it's surprising how few it takes before you can't move them. Once they do that they'd have your arms and before long it'd be lights out.
If you could keep moving and take them one at a time then I'd say 50 odd. But as they will all swarm at you in the first few seconds I reckon 20 could take a decent sized bloke down.

A poker playing friend, just emailed this to me.

well, i'd say best "poker" discussion ever, but only best discussion on a poker web forum, ever.

enjoy:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1556673&page=0&am p;view=collapsed&sb=9&o=14&vc=1



Mike whats your username?!?!?

What the hell?

Dear god, are you some zit freaked teenager?!? What twisted logic comes up with such an absurd situation? I have a 5 year old boy, and no parent, or adult over 23 would ever think of something so absurd.

5 yo's weigh around 40 pounds... They have poor coordination, virtually no ability to hurt an adult, couldn't possibly work together to pose a serious threat to an adult. Did you actually talk about 'training' a 5yo in hand to hand combat??? They aren't little ninja turtles...

A more socially acceptable fantasy would be to debate who would win a fight; batman or hulk hogan...

jeez,

I knew OOT was strange, but I had no idea how strange

Some people just don't get it.

It's a theoretical exercise, much like your batman vs whoever.

And, if you have any sort of a sense of humor, it's damned funny too.

Of course, this thread died like 2 months ago.

Ahh, the days when I was "zit-freaked".

-dB

You people need to vote on this outcome - Its the only civilized way!

this is endless just like this thread.

I am surprised no-one has nominated the lawnmower as weapon of choice:

Another copy, but this one has added some stuff

CollegeHumor linked to this yesterday.

Well, I am a small guy 170lb 5'9" but I do have a 2nd degree blackbelt in karate. I think that it all depends on how spaced out the kids are. If they start off 1 or 2 feet from you in a circle they might have a chance. I don't think that they could take me if they were spaced out 10 feet apart or something like that. They would probably not be able to knock me out...however, if they were motivated by the myterious force that made them fearless, and if they used their mouths as weapons AKA biting...then I would think that 30 kids would cause some serious damage. You would eventually pass out from blood loss from bites. They wouldn't have the strength to actually knock you out. If they were trying to HIT you..well you could probably take out a whole gym full. However if they were just grabbing onto you and biting then you would be screwed. I would say I could comfortably take out 20 fearless biting grappling children that all started no more than 5 feet away from me...probably more, but you always run into those kids that are a suprise...tougher..faster..stronger. Just my 2 cents worth.

In a pool I took on 15 11-13 year olds, and they couldn't dunk me under water. I know this is a different situation, but I think the number for your given situation could be fairly high. I'm pretty sure I could take on 2 classrooms of Kindergartners ~50 probably more. The sooner you go on the attack and start dropping them the less chance they have. I think you would have to be the aggressor for sure. On a NBA sized court you should be able to use speed to maneuver around 70 kids? Balance and speed would be critical. They are perfect heighth for knees to the grill. Interesting question. Sorry I missed it the first time.

Joe

There is a point where more kids will just have more adverse affect on the other kids than you. If they all tried to get you at once they would start trampling themselves and be doing your work for you. They would have a VERY difficult time of getting me off my feet.

Joe