Which President Would Win in a Hunger Games-Style Brawl?
Which presidents were fighters? In which wars? Which presidents were delicate diplomats? Which presidents were both warriors and diplomats? What were their personalities, their philosophies? Alliances are allowed, so which ones would band together? Which ones would indulge a grudge? Against whom? The entries on Tyler and Polk alone have great research potential:
10) John Tyler – No one liked John Tyler, especially Team Jackson-Van Buren. Not only would he be hunted down, but he would have an unmemorable death unless Van Buren tries to go for style points. Five minutes into the scrap, people would ask each other, “Who was that again? Why is Jackson wearing his scalp as a beret?”
11) James Polk — I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. That man had some grit and gumption and more than his share ofcharacter. He said what he meant, and he did what he said. He will not be one of the early deaths, although I think the Top 10 escapes him for a simple lack of ambition. Promising to serve a single term and then following through on that promise? He doesn’t dream big enough to escape the knives of the Holy Trinity.
With vivid context like this, kids might actually remember Tyler and Polk, who are part of the Jackson to Roosevelt forgotten presidential chain because U.S. federalism had not yet been compromised and the U.S. had yet to be a world power, so the U.S. president was just a chief executive of a successful enterprise, a man of middling import. And that’s just the boring ones.
the one who cheats and brings a gun is the one who wins
Not if he doesn’t know how to use or is unwilling to use it. That doesn’t win, not in this tough crowd. Now, if say, TR disarms Obama and takes the gun–well that’s game over.
Teddy Roosevelt has faced down guns before and won. He was famously shot in the chest, and insisted on giving the campaign speech he was on the way to before he would permit medical treatment. So even with a bullet or two in him, I like his odds.
Polk was, even more than Van Buren, an ally of Andrew Jackson. He was considered Jackson’s political successor (one of his many nicknames: “Young Hickory”). They corresponded for years, long after Jackson’s presidency was over.
Woodrow Wilson was revered for most of the 20th century, and only now are historians starting to realize what a deeply awful president he was. In the same vein, it’s time to re-examine James K. Polk. The man was a machine. But I agree that he was more intimidating politically than physically.
Washington. Big guy, expert swordsman, marksman, woodsman. Enormous psychological advantage. He’s George Washington! He’d scare the others.
I like Ike too. He’d do well.
Washington won his episode of “Deadliest Warriors”, lol. Obama would just tell someone else to fight FOR him. Then play 18.
I LOVE that show! Who did they pitch at him?
Napoleon? Really? They must have been including the armies and strategy because one on one Washington stomps the little frog into the mud with ease!
Well, in the pre-civil war era, the presidents who fought in war have a huge advantage–lawyers like Adams and Madison won’t last long against warriors like Washington, Jackson, and Harrison.
If we’re doing this Hunger Games style, the fight opens with everyone around a cornucopia of goodies and weapons. The combative warriors, including Washington, Harrison, Jackson, TR, and a few others are the “careers” of this scenario, form an alliance, and take out the relative wimps who can’t fight well or run fast (Adams, Madison, Carter, Taft, Obama, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton…)
More likely to pull the Katniss strategy are the presidents with military training but more strategic minds. The Bushes of course head straight for the bushes, team up, and have a huge advantage in survival skills and fitness. Grant and Lincoln also likely head into the woods and team up, but their alliance isn’t as strong. Eisenhower and Truman also may pair off. Reagan will have a tougher time finding an ally, and is more likely to be killed by nature than by other humans.
Lincoln and Grant most likely plot a clever trap to hit the Washington/Jackson/Harrison/TR alliance, which Harrison and Jackson don’t escape but Washington and TR do; in the resulting skirmish, TR kills Grant, Lincoln gets away with a wound. Bush Sr. uses the opportunity and his spy skills to subtly help TR and Washington find Eisenhower and Truman, who have set up extensive and careful defenses. In the resulting fight, Washington is careful enough to get away unscathed, and they eliminate Eisenhower and Truman, but not before TR takes a mortal wound from Truman’s hidden explosives. Left to his own devices, Washington reverts to his spymaster skills, finding and eliminating the straggling loners such as Lincoln and Reagan. He proceeds to snipe Bush Jr. from a hiding spot in the trees, and then wins the drawn out hunt against Bush Sr. since he’s more comfortable in the woods.
Bravo!
I am no fan of his politics or foolish handling of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but JFK was one tough cookie in WWII.
And yet his small, maneuverable, fast PT boat was run over by a slower, less maneuverable enemy ship.
His boat was idling on one engine at 02:00 am on a moonless night when it was run over by the Japanese Destroyer Amagiri travelling at between 23 and 38 knots. PT109 had a maximum speed on all three engines in perfect conditions of 41 knots.
Amagiri was running at a high rate of speed to reach port before daylight when American bombers patrolled for Japanese ships. It has still not been determined whether Amagiri ever saw PT109 before the collision.
My vote is for Washington or Jackson, who had experience with small-unit, deep-woods warfare. But don’t dismiss Monroe (Major, Revolutionary War), Zachary Taylor (1812, Black Hawk War, Seminole Wars, Mexico), Or Ulysses Grant (Mexico, Civil War).
If I recall correctly, the only reason JFK wasn’t court martialed was due to his family connections. He was commanding a US warship in hostile waters, and had no watch in effect at the time and they were all asleep. Contrast this with Navy commanders who are disciplined even if they are asleep in their bunk and their second in command runs the ship aground. Huge difference in how each were treated.
I am a lifelong TR fan, but I think that even he, the Manliest Man of the 20th Century, loses to Jackson, who was not even human. Jackson would kill everyone except Taft, whom he would keep as a food source. He would eat the tenderest cuts, then use the rest as a canoe and paddle back to the White House to ravish his wife.
It would depend on rules and weapons. I would hesitate to bet against TR. he was on the boxing team at Harvard and was proficient with a wide array of weapons.
The stories of the attempted assassinations of TR and Jackson are two of my favorite. After being shot in the chest, Roosevelt proceeded to give a two-hour speech before seeing a doctor about having the bullet removed.
Jackson had an assailant try to shoot him with 2 different pistols which both misfired. Jackson then proceeded to beat the man with a cane until Davy Crockett and other Congressmen restrained him.
That is the funniest thing I’ve read in about a month. Thanks!
I watched “Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies” on Netflix a few weeks ago, and Abe was pretty badass with that scythe.
‘Twas an axe my friend, ’twas an axe…
Just for fun, I queried a British blogger about a PM scenario.
@awindram tweeted:
@AHLondon_Tex knife fight btwn Gladstone & Disraeli would be fascinating, Walpole to win overall
Barack Obama would begin to speak, and the immediate snoozing of the competition would enable him to take all of their money. He’d let Rahm Emanuel do the actual murders.
I know one thing, while they were fighting, Bill Clinton would be banging their teenage daughters.
Asuming they’re in the prime of their lives and no alliances allowed, I’d have the first five out (in no particular order): F. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Carter, Obama
Last five in (no particular order): Washington, Jackson, T. Roosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower
Possible surprises: Taylor, Bush, Sr.
I’d be willing to bet on Jackson. He was one nasty, brutal man.
No debate, Jackson wins:
“Andrew Jackson was the first president on whom an assassination attempt was made. A man named Richard Lawrence approached Jackson with two pistols both of which, for some reason, misfired. With the possibility of an assassination taken off the table, Jackson proceeded to beat Lawrence near death with his cane until Jackson’s aides pulled him off the assassin.”
http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_the-5-most-badass-presidents-all-time.html
Geeze guys, of course Obama would win – he killed Osama bin Laden with his bare hands!
Of the first six, Washington would clearly prevail over Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams. Of the next nine, Jackson would clearly prevail over Van Buren, W. H. Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, and Pierce. For the next nine, Grant would probably prevail over Lincoln, A. Johnson, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, B. Harrison, and McKinley.
Getting into the 20th century, TR would clearly beat Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and FDR (how he would have done without his polio is an interesting question). Truman was tough and determined, Ike was the greatest American military leader since Washington, JFK was a good sailor, LBJ was devious enough to find a way, same with Nixon, Ford, though portrayed as clumsy, was a great athlete, and Carter was also a great sailor. Hard to guess who would prevail, but I would go with LBJ and Nixon fighting it out and severely wounding each other, with Nixon surviving.
Reagan was tough and survived being shot, GHW Bush was CIA chief and is in outstanding fitness for a man his age, Clinton is too soft, GW Bush not aggressive enough, and Obama more of a talker who would get others to do his dirty work for him. I don’t think any of them would make the semi-finals.
That leaves Washington, Jackson, TR, and Nixon in the semifinals. In a free for all I think Washington and Jackson would prevail. It would all depend on the seedings. But for the final match between Washington and Jackson, I would have to say that Jackson’s advantage is that he was wounded many times and endured and became tougher. On the other hand, Washington seemed to have angels defending him, as he never was wounded. So, thanks to divine intervention, the winner is Washington.
Thanks for the great thought problem.
You would have to sober Grant up first to get him to fight effectively.
Abe might specify ‘sledge hammers in the swamp’ again as he did when Douglas challenged him to a duel with his choice of weapon. Tough to beat.
This was intended more as a joke than anything else. Lincoln was more than a foot taller than Douglas (“the Little Giant”) who barely reached 5′ in height. The idea was that he’d drown in the swamp, while Lincoln would still he head and shoulders above the water and mud.
{shakes head sadly} My, oh my. That hoary old nugget about Grant being a drunk just won’t die, will it?
News flash, holmes: drunks don’t fight (and win) the campaigns Grant did. That garbage was started by jealous rivals of Grant.
Bush Sr. was a WWII fighter pilot in the Pacific Theatre. I recall reading a book on a flight once – stories of WWII vets. One guy sailed a “ferry” in the pacific – had some REAL interesting stories. As a side note – and boring compared to the rest of his experiences (this guy was great) was his little claim to fame. He mentions during the course of his meandering that he happens to fish out the same guy twice out of the drink. A pilot shot down twice over the pacific – a guy both times floating on the jepsome of his downed plane. That guy was George HW Bush.
I know Paul Ryan would do well. Have you seen what he can do with a bow?
If you allowed Congressmen, I’d bet on Davy.
Not a bad group, but not mine.
In this exercise, experience with personal combat is the chief skill necessary, and a mean streak coupled with a willingness to deal death is vital as well. Sounds like we’ve written a job description for Andrew Jackson. He was not only very experienced in warfare and personal combat, having personally engaged in face-to-face combat with God knows how many men, starting with the British officer who sabered his arm to the bone for the little patriot’s stout refusal to polish to arrogant redcoat’s boots; but he also had incredible physical, mental and emotional toughness and stamina, and was inured to pain. More than anything else, he had a warrior’s ethos, and he loved the sting of battle. It was nothing for Old Hickory to kill in order to survive. He understood the calculus of combat, and would have happily waded in close and taken non-lethal wounds, so that he could unerringly deliver the killing thrust in return.
Teddy Roosevelt, of course. Perhaps better on defense. He would definitely be the man to hold the bridge against the Balrog. Also a warrior, inured to pain and death, he believed in and lived for the glory of war; and he was transported by the ecstasy of battle, which he described as feeling “the wolf rise in the heart”.
George Washington, definitely. Physically and mentally tough and a warrior as a young man, junior officer, militia leader and General of all the American forces in the north. He had a rough and tumble youth, surveying the frontier, and he had doubtless fist-fought other frontiersmen. He’d been to face-to-face war, and loved it being shot at. A big, strong, physically imposing man used to using his body.
I think I’d add Ulysses Grant. A junior officer and warrior as a young man, he understood that war was a meatgrinder. He was mentally and emotionally tough enough, although the drinking might be a problem.
Finally, I think it comes down to three mean. First, between Lyndon Johnson and perhaps the greatest athlete to occupy the Oval Office, Gerald Ford. Johnson was big and strong and grew up in hardscrabble West Texas, where even though he was a school teacher, his youth was violent enough. Gerald Ford’s physicality and physical size and strength. Finally, George W. Bush for his extreme fitness and mental toughness and discipline, and ability to steel himself to hard and unpleasant tasks that had to be done. His famous “softness” toward his enemies could hurt his chances of survival, though. I wish I could take his Mom: that old battleaxe is mean and tough enough to carve the guts out of any President except Old Hickory and Teddy. Maybe.
I’m wavering on Abraham Lincoln. A good leader, strategerist and team man, but doesn’t seem like a personal killer. He was physically imposing form his physically demanding youth as a railsplitter. His war experience was de minimis, as he served in militia in the Black Hawk war, but saw no fighting. William Henry Harrison I can see because of the Battle of Tippecanoe but no other reason. No to JFK also, because, while mentally tough and tenacious, he was not physically imposing and physically strong.
Finally, I have to say Obama and Clinton would be great for alliances, team building and getting other people to fight their fights. But ultimately they’d have to pick up a blade, after which they’d survive about five seconds. Sorry, but their skills are for a “Survivor” game of pussyfied negotiation and bloodless alliances only. Their capacity for and skill at negotiation, persuasion, delusion, prevarication and betrayal would make them champions at a Game-of-Thrones kind of slipperiness. But unfortunately for them it’s a knife melee where ultimately words are meaningless and physical action is all: they’d be watering the dust with their life’s blood within seconds of putting knife in hand.
So, my team:
Jackson
T. Roosevelt
Washington
Grant
Ford
And Jackson walks out, having cut Teddy’s throat to win. He’d be bleeding from 47 knife wounds and need 29 units of blood, stat. First to die was Wilson, of course. Surprisingly, the second to die was not Monroe but Carter, whose last words were a bitter wail that the game had been unfair to him because the sun had been in his eyes and his knife wasn’t as sharp as everyone else’s. Also, at the last minute Carter had tried to make the game organizers accept a UN resolution which authorized Carter, and only Carter, to have a Russian Spetsnaz fight in his place. When he was denied this unique advantage, Carter cursed the game’s organizers as racists and fascists.
It would depend on whether you took each man in his prime, or how old he was, and what physical condition he was in, when he became President. With TR it would be pretty much the same, as he was the youngest President at 42; Reagan would be at a disadvantage if it were age at taking office, as he was just shy of 70. JFK had been hot stuff in his prime, but by the time he became President his health was broken, for all that he was only 43. I think the pre-Great War Presidents would have an additional advantage in that the world was less mechanized then and closer to what might be experienced in a survival situation. If you go by age at election, my money would be on TR. If you go by physical prime, I would side with Jackson.
Absent tyree’s pertinent objection, you raise the most important point; at what age do these men join the games? Also, what weapons & tactics are allowed? Is this to the death?
Lincoln was insanely strong — in a land of people who did manual labor, he shocked people with his strength, and he was a highly-skilled catch-wrestler (aka, wrestling with all the dirty tricks guaranteed to be used) who could wield an axe longer than most people can simply walk, and practically lived in the woods for several years.
Washington in his prime is on par, Washington as president is getting health issues and will be in trouble.
Jackson’s tough as all hell.
William Henry Harrison will kill a bunch, too.
Grant’s out early — without his booze, he doesn’t have the stomach to engage in that much murder. He was good at what he did, but hated what he did.
Bush Jr. can run most of them into the ground, and is used to high heat.
TR is a good boxer — but a VERY unremarkable wrestler. He’s okay if he can keep his distance and has a good pair of boots like the ones he kicked a cougar to death with. Washington, Jackson, or Lincoln treat him like a pretzel up-close.
Herbert Hoover kills them all by subtly engineering a combination of forest-fire plus flood while their backs are turned. NEVER turn your back on an engineer.
Seriously? The Presidents look around at each other and say, “Who in Gods Green Earth decided we should fight to the death? We are free men and the Commander in Chiefs of the most power armies the world has even known! The enemy game masters Execute Washington to gain some obedience, and a very short bloody war later most of the remaining Presidents walk away victorious.
The few surviving game masters look up from their prison holes and General Lee looks down on them said, “Neither North or South fought a battle anywhere near Mount Vernon, by mutual agreement. You picked on the wrong country, the wrong people and you combined our strength by 13 generations. You are irredeemably stupid and like so many of our enemies, your stupidity has been your downfall.”
Well, I think we know who really wins. Mr./Ms. tyree, you have captured it well. The only thing I would add would be the back and forth fire-setting and urinating contest that TR and US Grant would have, as they both drank, set fire to, and tried to put out the flaming game masters.
I think this response captures the end result pretty well. After all, the Hunger Games scenario is all about one triumphant society maintaining supremacy over all of the others through fear and intimidation – something MOST of the men who have been president would take one look at and instinctively charge against.
In trying to force a submissive posture onto men who had stood up to the most oppressive empires in history and came out the victors, they would get the absolute opposite reaction of what they had been shooting for.
I would love to see this scenario in a movie except for the Washington execution part. That’s just too awful.
I can see one of the more modern times Presidents catching the older time presidents up. The more modern ones would have a definite knowledge advantage and would be quick to pick up on and deal with the scenario. I love the idea of Ike in trenches with Washington as his staunch understudy
Because of course, none of our Presidents would allow his execution to go down. I see a mass rush forward which rescues Washington in the nick of time.
It wouldn’t be necessary to kill him to rile up the whole group. Just the idea of killing him would be a big enough mistake for the game masters.
If they executed Obama, Wilson and Carter in hopes of quelling dissent from fighting, I’m guessing the other Presidents would just look at the game masters and shrug.
Actually, their morale might improve as they saw dead weight being lifted from them.
I don’t know who would win, but both TR and Jackson would agree to play.
LIKE Tyree’s response best!
Long and short of it is I’d put my money on Washington. You get guys who are badasses who have a lot of bravado. In my estimation, that’s your Teddy Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson. And don’t get me wrong. They ARE badasses. But, then, every now and then, you run into the type that doesn’t need to carry around the bravado. They come across as decent, well-mannered, and disciplined. You might not even think them badasses at first glance. Then, maybe, you find some sort of event that poses a physical threat and you see them revert to their trained instincts. And you realize, if they had to, they could kill you and have your carcass disposed of in five minutes and you wouldn’t have the opportunity to fight them. Washington always struck me as one of these types.
I think you all are forgetting that CHUCK NORRIS would break into the Hunger Games and paralyze them all with fear.
After that, he would put them all in separate cages and keep them for his private zoo, then, with all the provisions, he could spread it around a little, as BHO told Joe the Plumber, distribution frequency being determined by which captured C-in-C whines the least…. BHO gets zip!
Just a theory!
I vote for Washington:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7iVsdRbhnc
Well said, Tyree. I’ll clam point made, though. Based on very informative and entertaining comments here and on the original post, this would make a great lesson plan. I found my 8th grade history teacher on FB and he certainly would have done this lesson. He was kicking himself for not having thought of it previously. And Culturally Discombobulated might do a British PM version.
I’ll have to tell my son about the G. Washington Ultimate Warrior episode. He just found the show and loves it. He and my husband road tripped to Austin for the UT opener and wore my husband out with a discussion on Apaches vs. Roman Legion.
The dirty little secret of Washington was that he was not just good at fighting, but he was great with the less glamourous passive strategies that kept the revolution viable (i.e. keeping smallpox from killing his troops: If all the generals had done that Canada would be part of the US).
And he was good at keeping the army viable during retreat (a very difficult thing).
So in a fight, chose Jackson. If you want to stay alive, especially in a group, chose Washington.
Teddy Roosevelt? A sham…he “led” troops by starting at the top…and sorry, killing game is a sham, even back then. I mean, he didn’t track them like Jim Corbett tracked mankillers.
Thanks everyone. You would hope that the Presidents would be smart enough to say, “Stupid Game. The only way to win is not to play”
HA! I watched that movie today! Didn’t know there was a Wargames II. Joshua vs Ripley! Good movie!
Is anyone else annoyed that although the entire focus of this blog is someone else’s blog, the author’s name, Geoff Micks, or his blog, “Face in the Blue” are never mentioned?
And yes, I know they are linked, but that’s not enough in my opinion.
How much time does Team BO get to set up the teleprompter? Are fundraisers one of the events? Apologizing? Bowing?
In the competition, Obama would keep giving away his location by talking too much. Clinton would last longer because some women would be shielding him. The Bushes would combine forces, as someone said above they have Barbara. JFK would be taken out by his own team (again) and Johnson would combine forces with another president and be formidable. In terms of mano a mano competitions, I agree with other comments above, Jackson. Washington. T Roosevelt. Lincoln.
The competition I’d like to see is the debate we are having now, about the role of government. As much as I dislike the man, I have to admit that Obama teaming up with FDR and LBJ would be formidable. If they get to draft their spouses then their team is even stronger.
All I know is that I wouldn’t want to be on Teddy Roosevelt’s bad side. He was as tough as they came and was one of the few presidents who really knew how to use both a gun and a rifle. Teddy was NOT a man to be trifled with. Having said that, Andrew Jackson probably killed his share of Indians in his day and he seemed like a very nasty guy to have to get along with, so I would probably have to give him the prize for being the best person to have along in a serious fight. Pity our current president doesn’t even come close to having any of these qualities. The recent events in Libya and Cairo, and our lack of response to them, really proves that.
Is it possible that Obama, using the overwhelming force of his personality, would persuade all the others to lay down their arms at which point he would stab them all in the back?
Nah! The 18th,19thand early 20th Century boys would slap the little sissy around til he expired.
So, are you trying to tell me that a man who can slow the rise of the sea levels can’t fool those 18th, 19th and 20th hill billies; that those rubes might have more guts and sense than a community organizer. Yeah. I think you’re right
obama would win easily.
Provided nobody was allowed to attack him, and provided he was allowed to have other people do the dirty deeds for him, and provided he was allowed to set the rules and change them whenever it suited him and without retribution.
Kind of like his entire life has been conducted.
I pick Polk as a dark horse candidate to win.
I miss “Celebrity Death Match” and think it would make perfect TV with Presidents.
BTW, Obama would run away in tears when the others started making fun of him as a punkass quota hire. (And also derisively mention his wife’s big ass)
I’d bet on a Washington-Grant final. As for Grant’s boozing, the jealous east coast political generals were complaining to Lincoln about him to dissuade him from appointing Grant as head general. Lincoln asked, “What does he drink?” The generals looked at each other, befuddled. “I don’t know. Whiskey I think. Why?” one ventured. “Well, if I get a case for each of you, maybe you’d all fight like he does.” he made him top general, the rest is history.
I think the two Father-son teams of Adams and Bushes would win.
What about Alexander Hamilton? He fought the Hessians. Sure, he wasn’t good in a duel, but he wasn’t trying to kill Burr.
LBJ was a physical coward, according to Caro, but I still think he had a secret weapon in the way he hugged people until they agreed to whatever.
This speculation makes me miss Rick Perry…