MUScoop

MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU Chi_IL on April 18, 2007, 02:27:31 PM

Title: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on April 18, 2007, 02:27:31 PM
This post was on another message board I read a long time and has since sparked much debate between friends so I thought I would bring it here to lighten up the mood.

I set my magic number at 40!

The question: How many 5 year-olds could you take on at once?

The specifics:

- You are in an enclosed area, roughly the size of a basketball court. There are no foreign objects.
- You are not allowed to touch a wall.
- When you are knocked unconscious, you lose. When they are all knocked unconscious, they lose. Once a kid is knocked unconscious, that kid is "out."
- I (or someone else intent on seeing to it you fail) get to choose the kids from a pool that is twice the size of your magic number. The pool will be 50/50 in terms of gender and will have no discernable abnormalities in terms of demographics, other than they are all healthy Americans.
- The kids receive one day of training from hand-to-hand combat experts who will train them specifically to team up to take down one adult. You will receive one hour of "counter-tactics" training.
- There is no protective padding for any combatant other than the standard-issue cup.

* The kids are motivated enough to not get scared, regardless of the bloodshed. Even the very last one will give it his/her best to take you down.


Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: rocky_warrior on April 18, 2007, 02:33:26 PM
12.  Why?  Well I was watching the freshwaters part of the Planet Earth series, and 13 "little" otters were enough to discourage a huge crocodile from eating one of them.  Take away one otter, and I'm sure the croc would have dined  :P

So, I think I could take 12, 13 would just be one too many.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: 🏀 on April 18, 2007, 02:37:09 PM
14-15.

Why 14-15? Because I've already done it.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mu03eng on April 18, 2007, 02:43:38 PM
28-30

Why?

Because I use to teach swim lessons at a beach and those kids would get hoped on candy and think it was learning to swim to try and drown the teacher.  Took on at least 15 once.

Bet I could pick one up right away grab him/her by the legs and spin around....should take out at least 5 or 6 right there.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: muarmy81 on April 18, 2007, 02:51:43 PM
Do they all come at you at once or in groups?  If its groups of 4 or 5 or something I think I could be there all day...

But to borrow a line from Dumb and Dumber:  "Who are these sick people?"
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MarquetteDano on April 18, 2007, 02:59:11 PM
LOL... love the question!

Well, if they get training am I certainly worried they will be taught to punch/kick me in the groin.  One lucky punch and things could get ugly (despite the cup).

Assuming no lucky punches, though, I will say I could handle about 15.

Either way, that would be one ugly scene at the end.  Funny, you said the kids could handle it despite the bloodshed... how about me!   :o
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Henry Sugar on April 18, 2007, 03:28:05 PM
#1 - You are in trouble the instant that one of the children is able to latch onto a leg or your back.  A five year old will weigh approximately 40 lbs and will probably bite.  Like a piranha, once one is able to latch on, efforts to remove this child will result in an inability to prevent other children from latching on.  At this point, it is only a matter of time before enough 40 lb children engaged in tactics to bring down an adult will eventually bring you down.

#2 - Once you hit the ground, you are done.  If there are enough children that have been trained to take you out, you won't be able to get back up.  There will be multiple five year olds going for your eyes, groin, throat, as well as biting.  At best, you will be able to fall only once and then recover.

The question is, "what is a reasonable number of children so that you cannot overcome these two issues."?  Staying upright is probably the most important issue.  I believe that there is no way you could handle any more than 16. 

Assuming that the children would be grouped into four teams of four attackers, or three teams of five attackers, I don't see any effective way to disable all four-five children without one latching on and biting.  This opens the door for the second team of children to enter and strike, at which point you are vulnerable to falling to the ground.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MurphysWarrior04 on April 18, 2007, 03:47:45 PM
This question is why I need to stop checking this board during class... almost burst out laughing and would have blown my cover.

I am going to say 40-50.

Why?

If it is an area the size of a basketball court, I think you could run around enough to tire some of them out.  They are 5 year olds, after all.  With the occasional running jump kick to the head (assuming some sort of shoe is being worn) that would most likely take out your average 5 year old, I think you could take out a few at a time, and once you got a few out it would be easy from there.  It is important for this strategy that the amount of room (basketball court) is still big enough to maneuver away from some of the attackers, while still being able to "drive by" kick someone in the head.

I am probably underestimating their "little fists of fury", but I am sticking by this analysis...
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mu_hilltopper on April 18, 2007, 03:51:17 PM
See, but even if they did latch on to your legs .. the goal is to make them unconcious, so we're talking a very physical fight .. one very sharp bonk to the head ought to loosen the 5 year old's grip.    These are normal 5 year olds.  You inflict some serious pain on them, they're *at least* going to be stunned for a few minutes crying. -- Even if they're "trained" for a day to want to kill you.

I'm thinking it's more a matter of yourself tiring out than the kids getting to you.  Sure, you'd need some tactics, you couldn't let them surround you like sardines.  Rush 'em, pick one up by the feet and start windmilling him, then let 'em fly and bowl some over.  Pick another up and repeat.

Knowing that you could stun one for minutes with one solid punch  .. I'm thinking you could last for quite some time .. 40-50.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: dwaderoy2004 on April 18, 2007, 03:53:58 PM
we had a similar question going on between my friends in college, but was basically alon gthe lines of who would win in a fight, mike tyson in his proime, or 50 midgets?  I always bet on the midgets.  

anyway, regarding this question, I'd say one is only limited to how tired they get.  only 8 or so of these ankle biters will have access to you at any point in time, therefore, your ability to win depends on your ability to be able to take on 8 kids.  since your taller, you will be able to go three stooges on them and clunk their heads together.  remember, you only need to knock them out.  then, the kids will have to remove those bodies before more kids would have access to you.  if you just stood still and continuously knocked heads together, i maintain you could go on for as long as you had the energy.  I would set my limit at about 50.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Discombobulated on April 18, 2007, 03:56:26 PM
I think I could take out 50. I would use my tactical training courtesy of 30 years of Dungeons and Dragons to find a either a corner or a doorway that would only allow a few of them to get to me at a time. I figure I could always handle 4 or 5 at once. After about 50, though, I'd be so tired that any more would be able to take me. It's all in the strategy folks.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: IAmMarquette on April 18, 2007, 03:57:28 PM
Assume your average 5 year old stands roughly at knee-level. Coincidence?

I also like the idea of 5 year olds as projectiles used against other 5 year olds.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mu_hilltopper on April 18, 2007, 04:03:57 PM
Best. Thread. Ever.

Clearly, this should be a new contest on the Fox network, right after "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" .. interviews with the kids, how they trained .. slo-mo replays. 

Now that's entertainment.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on April 18, 2007, 04:16:58 PM
Here is why I think 40 is a realistic number:

-   5 year olds don’t have the strength to knock you out unless you fall and crack you head
-   One day of hand to hand training is one thing for an adult, to a 5 year old it is nothing more then a day of play time, and the chance they could remember and execute on anything they learned is far fetched.  I think you are looking at a free for all at the beginning.  If you can dodge and weave for about 10 mins, picking a few off here and there, they would tire out.
-   I don’t think 5 years old would be able to attack with any kind of organization.  They may have a plan that was given to them at the beginning, but they are like goldfish after that and would just be running after you like a swarm.
-   If you got swarmed, all you would need is to get about two steps of momentum to break free from the pack; they could not stop an adult’s mass.
-   Even if you cannot get a great shot on a five year old, almost any blow is going to stun a kid. 
-   A basketball court is a very large place.
-   Even if you hit the ground, the best they could do is jump on you (maybe a few kicks and punches).  If you cover up, I think you can get back on your feet with some wild kicking to clear some space.
-   The Mike/Tyson and 50 little people is whole different story since I assume you are talking about adults on crazy adult.
-   Everything I have said above can be thrown out if they decide to use the wide post on you!

Anyone that says 15 or less is either under estimating yourself or played soccer in high school (I kid)!!!!
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Henry Sugar on April 18, 2007, 04:46:22 PM
Let's consider some facts:

Average child's height and weight at 5 years old (43 inches ; 42 lbs).  This is the average, but children can range even higher or lower.  What does this mean?  It's a 3 foot, six inch person that weighs as much as the heaviest weight plate at a gym.  A five year old will come up to over waist high, not knee high.  In addition, five year olds have physical coordination as well as basic comprehension.  Plus, five year olds have a higher proportional energy level than most people.  We are not talking about toddlers here.  I think that people are underestimating the capabilities of a five year old.

In addition, I think that people are underestimating the impact of biting and grabbing.  This is how a five year old gets you... it's not by punching.  All that really needs to happen is for one five year old to grab a leg and start chewing.  If there is time for a second five year old to attack during that time, you are toast.

I think with 15-16 five year olds, you could probably run away for about 10 min, but eventually you go down.  All the strategies of going beyond this number count on not making any mistakes... not letting a five year old grab you and not falling. 

Swarms are proven as effective in nature time and time again.  Think bees, piranhas, and wolves attacking the moose.  The pack wins, and it's only a matter of time.  More five year olds just means that you go down quicker.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: rocky_warrior on April 18, 2007, 05:25:27 PM
Swarms are proven as effective in nature time and time again.  Think bees, piranhas, and wolves attacking the moose.  The pack wins, and it's only a matter of time.  More five year olds just means that you go down quicker.

I'm with you Henry (ala the otters).
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: muwarrior87 on April 19, 2007, 09:14:56 AM
some of you guys are underestimating the tenacity of kids this age. Having been a playground leader and tennis instructor for the Park and Rec Dept. back home, I've dealt with mobs of up to 25 at a time and this does include them jumping on me and me getting mauled by them just fooling around. But I would say that I would be able to tak out somewhere around 35 of these kids. You'd be surprised how orginized they get in their attacking and how hard it is to knock them out...not that I have...

So 35 for me.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mu_hilltopper on April 19, 2007, 10:23:51 AM
But, see, that's the thing.  These aren't superkids.  Knocking them out, while the "end goal" isn't the tactic.  You land a decent blow on their ear (think what an ice ball does!) and they're going to stop and cry for at least a minute or two.

.. I'm still thinking of a Fox network show.  But it'd be hard getting American parents to let their 5 year olds in this. 
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on April 19, 2007, 11:03:39 AM
People are giving a lot of credit to 5 years, does the breakdown below scare you?

Know you enemy

PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT

* weight: 31-57 pounds
* height: 39-48 inches
* requires approximately 1,700 calories daily
* sleeps 10-11 hours at night
* may begin to loose baby teeth
* able to dress self with little assistance
* learns to skip
* throws ball overhead
* catches bounced balls
* rides a tricycle skillfully; may show interest in riding a bicycle with training wheels
* balances on either foot for 5-10 seconds
* uses a fork and knife well
* cuts on a line with scissors
* left or right hand dominance is established
* walks down stairs, alternating feet without using a handrail
* jumps over low objects
* can run, gallop, and tumble
* can skip and run on tiptoe
* can jump rope
* interested in performing tricks like standing on head, performing dance steps
* capable of learning complex body coordination skills like swimming, ice or roller skating, and riding bicycles
* may be able to tie shoelaces
* may be able to copy simple designs and shapes

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

* invents games with simple rules
* organizes other children and toys for pretend play
* still confuses fantasy with reality sometimes
* often fears loud noises, the dark, animals, and some people
* can take turns and share, but doesn't always want to
* expresses anger and jealousy physically
* likes to test muscular strength and motor skills, but is not emotionally ready for competition
* carries on conversations with other children and adults
* often excludes other children in play - best friends only
* uses swear words or "bathroom words" to get attention
* sometimes can be very bossy
* likes to try new things and take risks
* likes to make own decisions
* notices when another child is angry or sad - more sensitive to feelings of others
* prefers company of 1 or 2 children at a time; may become bossy or sulky when others join in
* likes to feel grown up; boasts about self to younger, less capable children
* begins to have a very basic understanding of right and wrong
* plays contentedly and independently without constant supervision
* takes turns and shares (sometimes)
* understands and respects rules - often asks permission
* understands and enjoys both giving and receiving
* enjoys collecting things
* sometimes needs to get away and be alone
* can understand relationships among people and similarities and differences in other families
* seeks adult approval
* sometimes critical of other children and embarrassed by own mistakes
* less fearful of the world than toddlers because understands the world better
* has a good sense of humor, and enjoys sharing jokes and laughter with adults

INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT

* understands about 13,000 words
* uses 5-8 words in a sentence
* likes to argue and reason; use words like "because"
* knows basic colors like red, yellow, blue, green, orange
* able to memorize address and phone number
* understands that stories have a beginning, middle, and end
* able to remember stories and repeat them
* enjoys creating and telling stories
* understands that books are read from left to right, top to bottom
* enjoys riddles and jokes
* draws pictures that represent animals, people, and objects
* enjoys tracing or copying letters
* can place objects in order from shortest to tallest
* can understand and use comparative terms like big, bigger, or biggest
* sorts objects by size
* identifies some letters of the alphabet and a few numbers (if taught)
* understands "more," "less," and "same"
* counts up to 10 objects
* recognizes categories ("These are all animals; these are all toys.")
* understands before and after, above, and below
* block and dramatic play is much more elaborate and complex
* has good attention span and can concentrate well
* is project minded - plans buildings, play scenarios, and drawings
* interested in cause and effect
* can understand time concepts like yesterday, today, and tomorrow

Copyright/Access Information
Lesia Oesterreich, M.S.
Family Life Extension Specialist
Human Development and Family Studies
Iowa State University

Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: RawdogDX on April 19, 2007, 02:06:38 PM
DO any of you who are saying 40 work out?  Go to a gym find a punching bag and hit it for 2 minutes streight.  Unless you are use to it you probably will be firing weak punches after 60 seconds.  If there are 40 of them and you try to run around you would become tired and make a mistake.  Unless you are in peak condition you don't stand a chance against that many. 
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on April 19, 2007, 02:41:34 PM
I think RawDog could take on at least 75.  I heard he's ripped.  And dreamy.   :-*
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: drewm88 on April 19, 2007, 04:55:54 PM
There seems to be two groups here: the 15ish group and the 40ish group.

I'm going to go in between and say 30.

I would be using a lot of the windmill technique, kicking, and cheap shots.
Title: LMAO
Post by: MarquetteDano on April 19, 2007, 06:56:09 PM
There seems to be two groups here: the 15ish group and the 40ish group.

I'm going to go in between and say 30.

I would be using a lot of the windmill technique, kicking, and cheap shots.

I love Drew's cheap shots!!! LOL.  I just love the idea of giving total cheap shots to various 5 year olds whilst they are trying to attack.  Really... needs to be a staged movie scene.   :D
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: RawdogDX on April 20, 2007, 09:18:26 AM
I think RawDog could take on at least 75.  I heard he's ripped.  And dreamy.   :-*

some might agree, and i think my flying knee kicks would be extremely productive.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: muwarrior87 on April 20, 2007, 10:34:48 AM
kicking works better than punching, they aren't that tall so it's easy to blow a decent kick to the head moreso than a punch and it will cause more damage.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mu_hilltopper on April 20, 2007, 10:51:19 AM
I disagree on kicking.   The best way these rugrats can win is by getting you on the floor.  If you kick, especially at their head (about as high as your waist), there's a chance you lose your balance, or while your leg is in the air, a kid pushes you, makes you lose your balance .. or you just don't get that foot back down and stable.

You could kick, you'd just need to make sure no kid was ready to push you from behind or something.  That's probably their tactic anyhow.  Surround you, get a kid or two down low behind you, then have 8 kids rush you so you step back and trip over the kid behind you.  You've gotta get near a wall or corner quickly.

I think I'm sticking to open or closed fist whacks on their tiny ears to stun them.  Occasionally grabbing two heads and knocking them together.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on April 20, 2007, 10:52:33 AM
If they bunch up on you, take two of their heads and give them a good head bonk.  Toss in the high knees and kicks, and you could get out of the crowd quickly if they bunched up on you.  They will be packed together so it would not take much and most likely drop two at a time.

For everyone who has said "I worked at XXX and let me tell you, 5 year old are tough."  Imagine all the times they ganged up on you, except remove your morals and the fear of lawsuits and tell me you could not take more then 15 on?
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: drewm88 on April 20, 2007, 11:13:03 AM
When I said I would kick a lot, I was thinking more of kicking them in the legs and gut than in the head. If I'm swinging my arms around, they can come at me under them. If it's my legs that are flying around, they're going to be more hesitant in their approach.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: RawdogDX on April 20, 2007, 12:48:14 PM
yeah i'm talking low kicks to the leg, crotch and chest.  if i'm going after the face it will be with my knee.  Although I don't see why picking one of the smaller ones up by the ankles and using them as a mace wouldn't work.  Once again i think i would get tired before I got taken down.  Endurance is the biggest factor.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on April 20, 2007, 01:03:40 PM
does kicking a 5 year old in the junk have the same effect that kicking a 25 year old in the junk does?
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: 🏀 on April 20, 2007, 01:14:02 PM
does kicking a 5 year old in the junk have the same effect that kicking a 25 year old in the junk does?

This may be the key factor. Also, does a girl that gets hit in the boob at age 25 hurt the same before they get boobs?
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: drewm88 on April 20, 2007, 01:18:17 PM
Trying to think back to my childhood, I think crotch shots always hurt extra, but at age 5 it does not come close to the pain later in life.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mutpm on April 20, 2007, 01:41:31 PM
If they come at you 1 at a time, it's not a problem.  You can get them early and get a lot, but if 20 bumrush you at once, you're in trouble.  I have a below averaged sized 6 year old at home and there is no way I would take on 40 like him.  They are surprisingly strong for their size.  If 4 or 5 latch onto your legs at the same time, you've lost half your arsenal.  You are now limited to your upper body.  It's only a matter of time before they take you down. 

My guess is the people who say <20 have kids and those that are saying 30+ don't have kids or don't spend a lot of time around kids. 
Title: This might be suprising (because i am short and fat)
Post by: NateDoggMarq on April 20, 2007, 01:47:21 PM
But I have participated in 5 combat sports over the years

Freestyle Wrestling, Greco-Roman Wrestling, Folkstyle Wrestling, Sambo, and Judo  and if you think you could take on 40 5 year olds you are insane.

For one if trained all the 5 year olds at one time how to attack an opponent they will get it done.  The way I would train a five year old is to attack small extremeties such as fingers, toes, ears and nose.  
Essentiall what would happen is that about 5 five year olds would go directly for your toes which will create discomfort.  A second set of 5 year olds will attempt to knock you down by some swift kicks to the shins.  Once you are down all of them will attack and their is no way you are getting up.

Once you have more than one person on you, a person can not perform
1.Arm Bars
2. Chokes
3. Strangles
4. Heel Hooks
5. Knee Bars
6. Any types of sweeps

so what you are left with on the ground is strickly your fist, and after unleashing a 1 minute fury of fist you end up out of breath and light headed, when that happens even the lightest shirt covering your mouth will put you out.

I guess to answer the question I probably could take 10 5 year olds.  
I probably would attempt to use some foot sweeps and leg kicks which are instantly disabling.  This would only last for a few minutes so I am thinking I could get about 7 down that way.  Than the little bastards would start gaining up on me and biting and kicking.  Once it got to the grown I could probably isolate a few and get some quick chokes.  After that I would be so tired that I would be down for the count.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mu_hilltopper on April 20, 2007, 02:14:34 PM
I think the one thing you are missing is the difference between defeating and disabling.

A 25 year old, you need to defeat.  He's going to come at you again and again until he's disabled.

A 5 year old, one decent crack on the head is going to send them crying and stunned.  After 1 day of training, they're still 5 year olds probably in their first violent fight.  Sure, some will be Rambo children, but 90%, and a crack to the skull will stop his attack for at least a minute if not forever. -- (Think ice ball to the ear.  Face turns red, hands go up to ear as they burst into tears.  No 1-day training course is going to stop that for most kids.)

And this isn't wrestling, where you have time.  You have under a couple seconds per kid to land a blow.  No strangleholds or chokes.  Once you start thinking that way, sure, you wouldn't be able to handle many.

You'd need to limit their access to your backside, get to a wall or corner .. and start landing blows quickly.  Just getting the front 3-4 kids to cry would create traffic that the others would need to get through to get to you.

And any kid that gets a grab on your leg?  Tear his earlobe off.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on April 20, 2007, 02:26:39 PM
Since it is Friday, sunny and I feel like finally answering this question.  Let's look at a few different scenarios:

15 5-year olds

- This seems to be a common number almost everyone agrees that they could take on.  Take a look at the illustration below.  Even if you were cornered, Only five or six could surround you at once, assuming you did nothing to get away.  If you knock down two - three of these kids the ones behind cannot reach you as the other kids most likely are a) knocked out in front of them b) sitting on the ground crying. 

- Most likely you could break through this line and regroup, I think the key is movement.  Once the original plan breaks down, they don't have the problem solving to adjust and come up with something new.
(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p190/Jones897/15.jpg)

30 5-year olds

This seems to be the number were people start to think this is impossible.  Again, only a few can get at you at a time if you were ever cornered, although it would be much harder to break through the line if cornered (that would present a problem).  Looking at this, I am lowering my number from 40 to 30.  I think I could knock out thirty and make it to the bar in time for happy hour (for the record I am 6'1" 195#)
(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p190/Jones897/30.jpg)

On the move

This would be my plan...keep on the move and pick my spots.  I am not talking about sprinting around, more like a boxer shuffling.  Keep circling and thinning them out, pick off ones that get distracted, or left along.  My primary moves would be knees under the chin and to the face, smacking heads together, hammer fist, ear claps and pull them to the ground if they get in close. 
(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p190/Jones897/onthemove.jpg)

Also, everyone notice that even crazy 5 years are smart enough to wear Gold to this game, so you have no excuse!
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on April 20, 2007, 02:44:53 PM
the other thing that you would have going for you, is, if you hit the little craps hard enough to knock them out, sooner or later, you're gonna have a pile of kids around you.  Makes it much harder for the remaining kids to scramble over a pile of their comrades down for the count.  And if they do make it to the top of the pile, well then you can hit them square in the face instead of at a downward angle.  Of course, this would require a full knockout, vs a "stun shot."  Call it the Braveheart vs. the English cavalry strategm.

I hope everyone does realize that we are all going to jail, and then to hell.   :o
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on April 20, 2007, 02:45:24 PM
BTW, nice graphics Chi_IL!
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: rocky_warrior on April 20, 2007, 02:50:58 PM
You'd need to limit their access to your backside, get to a wall or corner .. and start landing blows quickly.

Well, if you get close to a wall or corner, then you're likely to touch it at some point.  Touching is against the rules (See the first post), so I assume if you "touch" you lose.

Take a look at the illustration below.  Even if you were cornered, Only five or six could surround you at once, assuming you did nothing to get away. 

I'm not sure about the 5 year old you hang around, but the ones I know look nothing like your illustrations.  I think there's a good possibility that you'd have 3 latched onto each leg (6 total).  And latched on TIGHT.  Add an extra 120 lbs to each leg and you're not kicking ANYTHING. 

A 5 year old, one decent crack on the head is going to send them crying and stunned.

I guess I'm assuming these are all "rabid" 5-year olds.  The kind that are throwing temper tantrums where they won't stop pounding on you until they wear out.  Also in the first post of the rules, it's stated:
Quote
The kids are motivated enough to not get scared, regardless of the bloodshed. Even the very last one will give it his/her best to take you down.

So, an ear slap is NOT going to send them running.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on April 20, 2007, 03:04:01 PM
This is what you are scared off?
(http://blogs.families.com/media/tantrum.jpg)

Quote
I'm not sure about the 5 year old you hang around, but the ones I know look nothing like your illustrations.  I think there's a good possibility that you'd have 3 latched onto each leg (6 total).  And latched on TIGHT.  Add an extra 120 lbs to each leg and you're not kicking ANYTHING.

Why would you ever let them get on your leg?  I am sure in every run in with a child you have ever had you were guided by the simple rule - MAKE SURE THE KID DOESN'T GET HURT, well toss that out the window and it is a whole new ballgame.

And who ever said we are all going hell, I think we will have an extra special place in hell for this conversation!!!!
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mu_hilltopper on April 20, 2007, 03:29:55 PM
I did see the "The kids are motivated enough to not get scared, regardless of the bloodshed. Even the very last one will give it his/her best to take you down."

.. I don't believe 1 day of training would get them to ignore their normal "5 year oldness". 

Being 5 means they not only have physical limitations, but mental and emotional ones too.   I can't imagine that aspect being "trained out" in 1 day.  When it says they will "give it their best to take you down" .. well, that "best" is a 5 year old "best", not Rambo Best.

Now, change the rules, and take these 100 kids and train them for a year like wild dogs, have daily violent fights, let them watch Itchy & Scratchy cartoons 24/7, well then, the equation changes!
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: 🏀 on April 21, 2007, 01:23:52 PM
I enjoyed the analysis MU_Chi, very excellent. I'd up my number to 25-30.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on January 30, 2008, 03:04:35 PM
I know this thread is about 3 months old, but someone sent me a website that can answer the question of how many 5 years you can fight, http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakI have a toothachefight.com/ (http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakI have a toothachefight.com/)

When I posted this thread orginally, I was firm on the number 40, but after breaking it down with the board I decided that 30 was realistic, turns out the website thinks I am good for about 33 5 year olds!
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MUSF on January 30, 2008, 03:59:32 PM
I have a hard time believing that any number of 5 year olds could render me unconscious.

How would they achieve this?

Their limbs are too small to perform blood chokes aka sleeper holds and their bones are too weak for blunt trauma.

There are only two feasible options in my mind.
One - taking me to the ground and bashing my head against a hard surface
Two - taking me to the ground and somehow smothering me at the bottom of a five year old dog pile

Either way I've got to believe the number is over 50
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on January 30, 2008, 08:59:49 PM
ZiggysFryBaby kicked ZiggysFryBoy's ass earlier tonight.  Scratching, clawing and hairpulling.  Yes, my boy fights like a girl.  We're working on it.  But he did still kick my ass.  Specially when he kicked me in the nutsack.   :o
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mosarsour on January 31, 2008, 10:31:05 AM
I know this thread is about 3 months old, but someone sent me a website that can answer the question of how many 5 years you can fight, http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakI have a toothachefight.com/ (http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakI have a toothachefight.com/)

When I posted this thread orginally, I was firm on the number 40, but after breaking it down with the board I decided that 30 was realistic, turns out the website thinks I am good for about 33 5 year olds!

Apparantly I'm good for 22 5 year olds. I guess being 5'6 and overweight isn't helping my cause any. I figure I'd just start kicking and clotheslining anything in my way...I'd even resort to kicking 5 year olds in the nuts if I have to (hey, if they can do it...). Maybe that would bump me up to somewhere in the 30s.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Mayor McCheese on January 31, 2008, 02:25:58 PM
During Rugby Season: 25-30
Out of Rugby Season: 10-15

it does make that difference, let me wear my Rugby Boots, 50... those things could kill instantly

can we add a wrinkle into this.. can we use a weapon (like a bat?)... could get interesting.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: tower912 on January 31, 2008, 02:34:24 PM
ziggyfrybaby beat up daddy by kicking him in the nutsack.   tower456 (1/2 of 912) dropped daddy like a stone today in the store when he was swinging his 13 month old feet in the cart and daddy wasn't paying attention and baby tower connected square with the creators of baby tower.   Kind of embarrassing to drop to a knee for a few seconds in the middle of Costco.  And then requiring every bit of focus to stand up straight and breathe.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: spiral97 on January 31, 2008, 02:39:14 PM
ziggyfrybaby beat up daddy by kicking him in the nutsack.   tower456 (1/2 of 912) dropped daddy like a stone today in the store when he was swinging his 13 month old feet in the cart and daddy wasn't paying attention and baby tower connected square with the creators of baby tower.   Kind of embarrassing to drop to a knee for a few seconds in the middle of Costco.  And then requiring every bit of focus to stand up straight and breathe.

alright ziggy.. that previous deal I offered for the wade jersey? retracted.  he no longer qualifies.  thanks for auditioning.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Henry Sugar on April 23, 2014, 11:14:36 AM
was searching old threads for another reason and re-found this one.

Bump, because it's awesome.

I still maintain my answer of ~15.

Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ATVSandKARATE on April 23, 2014, 11:32:16 AM
Since i would need to be knocked out to win, I would say 50+. I'm a pretty large fellow and could throw killer knees to the dome of the wee ones. not to mention, grabbing a kid by the ankles and swinging him around in a circle, using the centripetal force to lay waste to all of those in a close circumference.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on April 23, 2014, 11:33:22 AM
Hahaha, this is fantastic. Depends on the season for me, after winter like right now when I am out of shape I would say no more then 20-25 but at the end of the summer I would up that number to 35. I think at that point I would just become physically exhausted and couldnt keep on my feet. Also, if I get a hold of one of their arms you better believe I am gonna be using them as a weapon.

Used to be a camp counselor, never had to deal with 5 year olds but those 7 year olds were a pain in the ass when you had all 10 jumping on you at once.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on April 23, 2014, 11:41:55 AM
This is great!

I still think 30 is doable.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on April 23, 2014, 11:43:17 AM
I know this thread is about 3 months old, but someone sent me a website that can answer the question of how many 5 years you can fight, http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakI have a toothachefight.com/ (http://www.howmanyfiveyearoldscouldyoutakI have a toothachefight.com/)

When I posted this thread orginally, I was firm on the number 40, but after breaking it down with the board I decided that 30 was realistic, turns out the website thinks I am good for about 33 5 year olds!

well that link sure has changed

I think the number is unlimited especially from the fear factor the 5 year olds will get after seeing the first ones swung by the feet and released at another group of them and whatever other carnage they witness
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: swoopem on April 23, 2014, 11:47:43 AM
This tread is AMAZING. To answer the question I think I could take 40 and I'm pretty confident about that. My plan would be to start of with some Kevin Nash big boots right to the face of any little rascal that charged at me. No question they'd be on the ground unconscious. Next I'd start thowing some haymakers around to knock some of these kids out. By then a good amount of them would be eliminated and I'd start rocking some choke-slams. I'm 6'3 185 so if I grab a 5 year old and choke slam him he might end up dieing rather than being knocked out. If anymore remained they wouldn't stand a chance.

I don't want to hijack this thread because I love it, but a question my roommates and I always discussed at MU was: If there was a World War 3, but only fist fighting who would win? I say American because yes Russia is crazy and the Chinese outnumber us but we can send our Military, the NFL, NBA, NCAA athletes, Boxers, UFC guys, prison inmates, etc at them and then leave the rest of their malnourished citizens to average Joe's like you and I.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ATWizJr on April 23, 2014, 11:51:48 AM
Depends.  Are these five year olds just newly turned five or 20% older just about to turn six? Big diff in my opinion.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Benny B on April 23, 2014, 12:00:06 PM
I've been contemplating this for years.  What I've concluded is as follows:

It doesn't matter if you're surrounded by 20 five-year-olds or 200 five-year-olds, only 10-15 are going to be within "arms-length" to hit, grab, etc. and only 6-8 are going to be within bitable distance.  And unless you're wearing clothes made of cargo netting, your arms are a perfect defense to prevent any climbing.  So the question isn't so much "how many five-year-olds," as it is "how long can you sustain a 15-strong five-year-olds attack."
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: reinko on April 23, 2014, 01:02:39 PM
This tread is AMAZING. To answer the question I think I could take 40 and I'm pretty confident about that. My plan would be to start of with some Kevin Nash big boots right to the face of any little rascal that charged at me. No question they'd be on the ground unconscious. Next I'd start thowing some haymakers around to knock some of these kids out. By then a good amount of them would be eliminated and I'd start rocking some choke-slams. I'm 6'3 185 so if I grab a 5 year old and choke slam him he might end up dieing rather than being knocked out. If anymore remained they wouldn't stand a chance.

I don't want to hijack this thread because I love it, but a question my roommates and I always discussed at MU was: If there was a World War 3, but only fist fighting who would win? I say American because yes Russia is crazy and the Chinese outnumber us but we can send our Military, the NFL, NBA, NCAA athletes, Boxers, UFC guys, prison inmates, etc at them and then leave the rest of their malnourished citizens to average Joe's like you and I.

Good question, might also depend on who get's home field advantage.  If that were the case, Brazil could be a dark horse, forcing folks to come fight in the Amazon.  Indonesia, could spread out the world warriors over thousands of islands.  And who knew, Indonesia was the 4th most populous country in the world!

So yeah, I am gonna think through for a long time.

Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on April 23, 2014, 01:11:14 PM
Good question, might also depend on who get's home field advantage.  If that were the case, Brazil could be a dark horse, forcing folks to come fight in the Amazon.  Indonesia, could spread out the world warriors over thousands of islands.  And who knew, Indonesia was the 4th most populous country in the world!

So yeah, I am gonna think through for a long time.



I think China could win out of sheer numbers.  Though Russian women would probably fight along side the men, which gives them a huge fist army too.  Indonesia, interesting.  Islands plus old, old world techniques.  Americans are too lazy to unite into a cohesive fighting force, plus the bleeding hearts would be moaning and wringing their hands. 

The French have already surrendered.

But at the end of the day, the Irish will still be standing strong, drinking whiskey and fighting with each other.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ATVSandKARATE on April 23, 2014, 01:45:50 PM
the Irish will still be standing strong, drinking whiskey and fighting with each other.
*The reason the Irish fight among themselves is the lack of a worthy opponent.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mr.MUskie on April 23, 2014, 07:01:56 PM
I'm thinking 20-30, so I'll say 25.
You could probably smack the first wave that comes at you, but having a swarm of munchkins grabbing, kicking, biting, etc is gonna wear you out pretty quick. They, on the other hand, have almost unlimited energy. Give them all a bunch of sugar treats before we start and no way an adult could overcome their sugar rush.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: deep vacuum on April 23, 2014, 07:46:03 PM
The question is not really how many 5 year-olds could you take on at once.  The real question is how many 5 year-olds would be needed to take out a poorly conditioned old fat guy.  I say 40-50 kids in about 20 minutes.  15-20 kids if the kids are ADHD.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: CTWarrior on April 25, 2014, 11:42:54 AM
This is hilarious!  Anyway, I really liked that Henry used his usual detailed statistical analysis!

I have an important question.  What's my motivation?  Am I just trying to win a bet for bragging rights or is there a prize involved?  If its the former I couldn't bring myself to hurt any of them.  If the prize is a night with an amorous centerfold 25-30.  If the prize was avoiding a night with an amorous Mike Tyson 200.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU B2002 on April 25, 2014, 11:49:17 AM
Which would you rather fight: a horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses?
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: g0lden3agle on April 25, 2014, 11:51:53 AM
Is this thread in the meme competition?
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MikeDeanesDarkGlasses on April 25, 2014, 11:52:40 AM
Which would you rather fight: a horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses?

It really depends if the duck size horses have razor sharp, piranha like, teeth.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Hards Alumni on April 25, 2014, 11:59:55 AM
Which would you rather fight: a horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses?

I, too, know of this thing called Reddit.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: 77ncaachamps on April 25, 2014, 09:09:15 PM
I work with 25 Kinders every Friday.

Dudes, 15-25 (max) is a doable number. Any more than that will tire and overcrowd you.
Once one latches on and slow you down, the rest will soon follow.

The energy level in a Kinder is amazing. The motors are on a constant hum. No slow or fast speeds. Bad news #1: If you're a guy in his 50s, you're gonna eventually tire out. Bad news #2: they won't.

Also, they're human Timex watches: take a licking and keep on ticking. I've seen many get knocked down by bigger kids (4th graders) and some just get up and shrug it off. Crazy.

So my number considering my current fitness level? 18.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Benny B on April 26, 2014, 12:23:58 PM
Pick one up and heave him/her across the room, or better yet into a nearby body of water, then backhandedly swipe one or two out of your way while giving out a loud growl, and methinks the remainder will retreat no matter what the number.

And here people thought X-Men was a simple comic book with no real life lessons to be had.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: reinko on April 26, 2014, 04:26:02 PM
I would just stand on a table until they fall asleep. 
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on April 26, 2014, 08:35:00 PM
I would just stand on a table until they fall asleep. 

You've never put 5 year olds down for a nap, eh?

A better strategy for you might be to just offer them healthy food.  Once they start crying, it's on.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: MU Chi_IL on May 02, 2014, 02:40:48 PM
The video below answers nothing in regards to this discussion, but it does show the power of numbers and getting tired, thanks Japan for being just odd enough to put this together:

3 Olympian fencing masters VS 50 opponents!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgKg0Hc7YIA
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Benny B on May 02, 2014, 02:48:38 PM
The video below answers nothing in regards to this discussion, but it does show the power of numbers and getting tired, thanks Japan for being just odd enough to put this together:

3 Olympian fencing masters VS 50 opponents!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgKg0Hc7YIA

Awesome.  Things like this make me so thankful that Japan decided to leave the whole imperialism thing behind.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on May 02, 2014, 02:51:56 PM
The video below answers nothing in regards to this discussion, but it does show the power of numbers and getting tired, thanks Japan for being just odd enough to put this together:

3 Olympian fencing masters VS 50 opponents!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgKg0Hc7YIA

You literally just beat me to it.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Benny B on May 19, 2014, 02:18:01 PM
Here's a new one from the team that brought you "how many 5 year olds" (presumably)...

Consider a 40 y/o couple that has been married for 15 years.  Which do you find more disturbing:

1) The man going back in time 25 years specifically to sleep with his 15 y/o wife,
2) The wife going back 25 years specifically to sleep with 15 y/o him, or
3) Neither
Caveat: Finding '1' and '2' equally disturbing is not an option.


Hint: The answer isn't as obvious as it seems on the surface.... this one requires some thought.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: BrewCity83 on May 19, 2014, 02:30:15 PM
Here's a new one from the team that brought you "how many 5 year olds" (presumably)...

Consider a 40 y/o couple that has been married for 15 years.  Which do you find more disturbing:

1) The man going back in time 25 years specifically to sleep with his 15 y/o wife,
2) The wife going back 25 years specifically to sleep with 15 y/o him, or
3) Neither
Caveat: Finding '1' and '2' equally disturbing is not an option.


Hint: The answer isn't as obvious as it seems on the surface.... this one requires some thought.



I think the better question is:  How many 15 y/o girls could a 40 y/o me sleep with? 
Caveat: Anyone doesn't find this disturbing?
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: ZiggysFryBoy on May 19, 2014, 09:44:09 PM
Here's a new one from the team that brought you "how many 5 year olds" (presumably)...

Consider a 40 y/o couple that has been married for 15 years.  Which do you find more disturbing:

1) The man going back in time 25 years specifically to sleep with his 15 y/o wife,
2) The wife going back 25 years specifically to sleep with 15 y/o him, or
3) Neither
Caveat: Finding '1' and '2' equally disturbing is not an option.


Hint: The answer isn't as obvious as it seems on the surface.... this one requires some thought.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H5zIlSZKeuQ/TV-MjFgfsQI/AAAAAAAAA1w/wuXvcxucDFE/s1600/cougar.jpg)

(http://www.ejphoto.com/images_CA/CA_Cougar07.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/5th_Mercury_Cougar.jpg)

(http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/30/622/full/5834.gif)
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on March 07, 2022, 02:49:02 PM
It didn't go well at all for this teacher:https://news.yahoo.com/florida-teacher-beaten-hospitalized-attack-162747938.html
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on March 07, 2022, 03:08:18 PM
It didn't go well at all for this teacher:https://news.yahoo.com/florida-teacher-beaten-hospitalized-attack-162747938.html

I'm impressed that you remembered an 8 year old thread
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on March 07, 2022, 04:27:54 PM
I'm impressed that you remembered an 8 year old thread

The hard part was finding it!

The great SEARCH function on this site won't even allow a search for "5 year old".
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: rocky_warrior on March 07, 2022, 04:46:11 PM
The hard part was finding it!

The great SEARCH function on this site won't even allow a search for "5 year old".

Actually, you're 99% of the way there.  Put "5 year olds" in quotes in the search.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: mu_hilltopper on March 07, 2022, 10:19:38 PM
Do yourself a favor and re-read this thread from post 1. 

One of Scoop's finest threads.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: 🏀 on March 07, 2022, 10:55:44 PM
Do yourself a favor and re-read this thread from post 1. 

One of Scoop's finest threads.

MayorMcCheese, sky point.
Title: Re: WAY, way OT
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on March 08, 2022, 12:31:45 AM
Do yourself a favor and re-read this thread from post 1. 

One of Scoop's finest threads.

These five year olds are now juniors in college. The correct answer is, as it was then, Arby’s.