Gapers Block has ceased publication.

Gapers Block published from April 22, 2003 to Jan. 1, 2016. The site will remain up in archive form. Please visit Third Coast Review, a new site by several GB alumni.
 Thank you for your readership and contributions. 


Saturday, March 2

Gapers Block

Gapers Block on Facebook Gapers Block on Flickr Gapers Block on Twitter The Gapers Block Tumblr


Andrew / June 22, 2006 11:38 PM

Courtesy of Pete in the Ice-breaker questions thread. (What, you thought we weren't going to use any of those?)

I figure I could take about 20.

sarah / June 23, 2006 12:37 AM

nowhere near 20. andrew must be extremely buff. i think maybe six. it would depend on how pissed off the five year olds were. if a five year old collides with you at high velocity, it can cause more damage than you'd think.

mike-ts / June 23, 2006 6:26 AM

Andrew has obviously never tried to referree, by himself, an Easter Egg hunt attended by 20 five year olds all spread out, all ducking under the starting rope before the start whistle. Give 20 five year olds a chance to find two prize-marked plastic eggs, and you have called out the Dogs of War.

You know in the movie Jurassic Park II where the cute little dinosaurs eventually swarm a poor fool to death due to sheer numbers? Yeah.

printdude / June 23, 2006 7:44 AM


Christopher / June 23, 2006 7:56 AM

Do they have all their teeth?

bam / June 23, 2006 8:12 AM

Can't we all just get along?

jojo / June 23, 2006 8:19 AM

This question is in poor taste. It is all all about overpowering a weaker class.

Of course child abuse is common, not often a question of public conversation - but apparently even funny to some people. Change the referent in the above scenario to "women" and then maybe even the overwpowering to "rape":

How many women can you take (rape) in a fight?

It seems to me this better illustrates what is underlying the question.

TJ / June 23, 2006 8:20 AM

All of them.

Mikey / June 23, 2006 8:46 AM

jojo needs to lighten up a bit; everything doesn't always have to carry underlying social or politically correct ramifications. Besides, have you never seen Children of the Corn or Village of the Damned?

That being said, I stand firm with my 20-25 number. Yes, one must beware the swarming factor, and yes, five-year olds tend to be right around crotch level making them especially dangerous to males such as myself...

The key is to use one five-year old as a weapon against the rest. Swing one like a club or a mace, and you could cut a swath through the horde, taking out 3 or 4 at a time. Try to engage any one of them one-on-one though, and the rest will Night of the Living Dead your ass quick...

Rob / June 23, 2006 8:51 AM

jojo: it seems to me what this illustrates is your utter and complete lack of a sense of humor.

I could probably take 5 or 6, depending on how angry they are and whether or not they have weapons.

Dollar Bill / June 23, 2006 9:03 AM

Perhaps jojo should look at from the five year old's perspective before giving an answer.

"How many five year olds will it take to topple me?"
Then subtract one and you will have your answer.

How Many villagers will it take to topple the king?

Blagg the Axman / June 23, 2006 9:06 AM

Though indeed I understand this question to be of a facetious nature, it brings to mind a much more serious instance in which, while exploring the depths of the Cave of Pyrr in hopes of plumbing the whereabouts of the Dark Lord Kayne’s hidden lair, I was fallen upon by a band of goblins—who, as you may know, somewhat resemble five-year-olds in size and stature. I had little time for headcounts as I cut through rank after rank of the wretched, bloodthirsty creatures, but after the battle was won and the few survivors had taken flight, there were at least 40 carcasses strewn about the cavern. Unfortunately my traveling companion, the young huntsman Tim, was mortally wounded and also found his grave that day. I buried him at dawn, washed the blood from my armor in a nearby river, and moved on.

s / June 23, 2006 9:13 AM

Moreover, how many babies could one stack one on top the other before the whole pile would topple over?

clodius / June 23, 2006 9:15 AM

I have seven nieces ranging from 2 to 12 in age. When I see them on holidays, there's always a point where niece-swarm occurs and they all tackle me. I can handle three for a couple of minutes before they overpower me. So adjusting for age and the esclation of just horsing around to outright battle...three for two solid minutes.

printdude / June 23, 2006 9:19 AM

I meant Two Hundred.


I forgot to calculate in my knife-wielding skills.

Bill V / June 23, 2006 9:27 AM

I'm gonna go with two. I know it sounds low but that's a lot of bending down for me to hit the little buggers, and based on my own kids they never stop comin' back at ya.

leah / June 23, 2006 9:42 AM

Basically I'd say I could take about 3 of the little shin-kickers.

d / June 23, 2006 9:51 AM

If it were a fight of words, I could take a million of them on with my acerbic tongue.

Jason / June 23, 2006 10:02 AM

I imagine that it depends if they worked well together and came at me with a plan or just sent two at a time. If two at a time, I imagine I could defeat hundreds. If they had a plan, I could vanquish no more than 5.

paul / June 23, 2006 10:21 AM

I'm fairly certain that it would be exhaustiion, not physical damage that would do me in. (assuming hand to hand fighting).

I'd last maybe ten minutes, standing on the growing pile of bodies for an extra height advantage. Eventually there would be enough of them hanging on me that they'd pull me down and I'd die a hideous, smothered death.

This is one of those questions the court appointed psychiatrist is always asking me.

Antony / June 23, 2006 10:30 AM

at least 10.

VinceJose / June 23, 2006 10:33 AM

5 year olds are weak.

I could take as many as you can throw at me. Unless they're "Lord of the Flies" 5 year olds. Those little bastards are tough.

Harry Hood / June 23, 2006 10:43 AM

vit / June 23, 2006 10:55 AM

Probably about 3 or 4, but if they start biting it is all over. I've been tackled before by a 5 year old and an 8 year old and managed to hold my ground, but if a 3rd one was added to the mix, it might have been a bit of a fight.

I was once given a bloody lip by an infant who head-butted me right in the kisser.

Kristin / June 23, 2006 10:59 AM

i would take five bullies. full nelson, baby.

p / June 23, 2006 11:23 AM

I hear once you get on that playground it's best to identify who the head 5-year-old is, then nod to him. Then you pick out the weakest little 5 year-old out there and pummel the shit out of him. Really paint the ground red with the little guy. This shows them that you might be a little nuts and shouldn't be messed with, but also that you have respect. Respect for the right 5 year-olds. And those are the ones with the newports.

mark p. / June 23, 2006 11:54 AM

6 if i have had my nap
and have a cup on

Carrie / June 23, 2006 12:01 PM

I'm going to go with 8, maybe more. If you think about it, all you have to do is take one down and then the rest will be so scared of you that they'll just stand there and be super easy to take on. If they start to get out of control while you're taking one down, just bust out with some Incredible Hulk kind of moves and make scary voices. That'll put 'em back in their place. Then you are free to continue and only need to stop once you get tired.

lara / June 23, 2006 12:01 PM

look, if you can't make peace with five-year-olds, you need more help than the fuel community can provide...

incidentally, they can be sooooooo easily won over with cheap ice cream. suckers.

Daniel / June 23, 2006 12:10 PM

I think I need a definition of terms to accurately answer this question. am I allowed to use weapons of mass discipline, bug spray, classical music... ?

loadzone / June 23, 2006 12:13 PM

Is this an open arena or are we on the playground?

What if after pummeling a minimum of five I later learn that one of the kids was actually four and a half?

Boy, would my face be red.

eep / June 23, 2006 12:13 PM

Having had zero experience in my lifetime with five-year-olds, I have absolutely no idea. I'm going to go with three, but four might overpower me. I don't know. Little kids unnerve me out as it is; I don't want to be swarmed by them. In all honestly, I'd probably run if they charged me.

Also, Blagg the Axman is my hero. I just wanted to let him know.

Mikey / June 23, 2006 12:33 PM

I think too many of you are overestimating the power of five-year olds here. Now if we're just talking about "play" fighting and the intent is not to hurt any of them, then maybe a number of 3 to 5 is reasonable...

If we're really going to run with this question though (kill or be killed), then you have to raise that number significantly. Think about it: if you punch a five-year old square in the nose, sending blood gushing everywhere, I seriously doubt that little tyke will be getting up to retaliate anytime soon. And just like that, you've already taken care of one of the little buggers in a matter of seconds...

kt / June 23, 2006 12:49 PM

all at once or one at a time? because even with tar-coated lungs if it's one at a time i'm sure i could go through a couple dozen before my lungs/knuckles/boots give out. if it's all at once, assuming they have some sort of basic strategy 20 of them could probably fell me.

Dunl / June 23, 2006 1:02 PM

five-year old whats?

Yo / June 23, 2006 1:59 PM

I could one punch about 50 of them until my shoulder would get sore.

Bill / June 23, 2006 2:06 PM

based on past experiences: 13

Luke / June 23, 2006 2:11 PM

I could do about 50 an hour but I'd need a 5-10 mind break every hour. I would power punch a bunch of them just like I do in an elevator filled with chics. You ever look around in an elevator and just think "I could start punching on this side and finish on that"? Just saw each one of them off at the teeth with your fist then when the door opens causly walk off like nothing has happened.

michele / June 23, 2006 2:12 PM

I have three nieces and can say from experience no more than two. Seriously. You be surprised how quickly they can take you down. Especially if they are laughing, it somehow increases their superpower five-year-old strength.

Stephen / June 23, 2006 2:57 PM

Haven't any of you seen America's Funniest Home Videos? All it takes is one five-year-old and a well-placed whiffle ball (or tee ball) to a man's groin, and it's all over.

So I'm gonna say zero. But I'm a wimp.

Shep / June 23, 2006 3:00 PM

I can't get enough of Blagg the Axman. I anticipate his arrival with every new Fuel question.

Blagg the Axman rules.

As far as fighting five-year olds...I would like to quote Clubber Lang from "Rocky III".

Interviewer: What's your prediction for the fight?

Clubber Lang: My prediction?

Interviewer: Yes, your prediction.

[Clubber looks into camera]

Clubber Lang: Pain!

Brandy / June 23, 2006 4:43 PM

Zero. I would flee before I'd let a five year old touch me.

christian / June 23, 2006 8:38 PM

I would say 15 or so. I subscribe to the "pick one up and use as club" theory and the "hit in nose" strategy. Any bit of real pain and they go down for the count.

Of course if you pick one up and toss him over the rest, say about ten feet, the others just might be too frightened to advance on you and give up. Scare the crap out of them first, literally.

Arch / June 23, 2006 9:24 PM

I agree that it depends on the level of violence that I'd be inclined to inflict. In general I'd say I could take 8, but if I had license to really fuck up the first few that came near me, and if the five year olds weren't crazed on PCP or anything, I'd probably be able to take quite a few more.

joel / June 24, 2006 2:28 AM

One to hold my beer. One to fetch me a sandwich. And three for me to beat the piss out of with a rusty shoe horn.

Spook / June 24, 2006 3:01 AM

I just took down ten, but I came strapped with a economy size can of Raid multipurpose wasp, ant, chiger, and roach spray.
Ha ha maybe next time
Lara's kinfolk( including the five year olds) want fall for the old "look what yer uncle spooky’s got fer yer" Word!

p.s Blagg the Axman for Mayor under the blood and Guts ticket

rm / June 24, 2006 8:49 PM

20 or more. I'm with those who think the power of fivers is being grossly overestimated.

Oh, and to deal with the bloody/sore hands issue, I think one could alternate between fists and feet to clean their grubby little clocks.

april / June 24, 2006 9:12 PM

Kids suck.

stackedbrass / June 25, 2006 7:58 PM

Do I get a tetanus booster before the main event?

Spook / June 25, 2006 8:25 PM

Come on april the world needs more kids! more more more!
and no tetanus booster, wimp

seb / July 27, 2006 11:41 PM

sorry i missed that, most of you here mistake the point.
if you answer the question as "How many five-year olds do you think you can take in a fight?" as fighting your nephews and grandsons, whith whom you should play later in the afternoon in a family reunion then indeed, i agree 3 or 4 for 2 minutes is hard otherwise you risk hurting them.
But I don't understand the question that way, if you're allowed to kill, then you can take more than 20, you snap them up as they come.

stefania / March 3, 2007 5:40 AM

that is the dumbest and irresiponsible question i ever herd why would u ever ask how many kids could u hurt u must be sum idiot

stefania / March 3, 2007 5:43 AM

maybe u should wonder bout how we are gonna be living in a world where parents hurt their children and why they are brought into a such bad world like ours ,where nobody gives a shit cuz their so selfish and ignorant

GB store

Recently on Fuel

Urban Ethos [26]
What is Chicago's "urban ethos"?

Cool Glass of... [16]
What're you drinking?

Supreme Decision [22]
What's your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act?

Taking it to the Streets [20]
Chicago Street Fairs: Revolting or Awesome?

I Can Be Cruel [9]
Be real: what is the meanest thing you've ever done?

View the complete archive

GB Store

GB Buttons $1.50

GB T-Shirt $12

I ✶ Chi T-Shirts $15