Jump to content

Who's harder to beat?


JetsMania

Recommended Posts

What about the easiest one? Which one do you think you could actually beat? I have fought before on the amateur level and would absolutely love to see if I could match up a couple rounds with someone like Klitschko. Doubtful, but could I at least minimize the amount of punches he throws and not get hurt? That would be so much fun to try.

 

I would have to say the easiest one to beat though would probably be the accuracy one. Not to say I would win, but the lack of elements and simply trying to throw through a hole...I might be able to get lucky and win that. All the other ones I'd put my chances at less than 5%, but with the throw...about 15% chance I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the easiest would be the boxing, there is a chance (less than .1%) I could land a very lucky punch and knock him out.

Beating Gordon at daytona would be possible if I crashed into him.

No, their's no such thing as a lucky punch really especcially against 250lbs of pure muscle.

 

Klitschko would destroy me but I do amateur boxing so it wouldn't be the hardest, nor would the cycling really just because I bike a good 15 miles a day two times a day in summer. It's probably the Chess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the easiest would be the boxing, there is a chance (less than .1%) I could land a very lucky punch and knock him out.

Beating Gordon at daytona would be possible if I crashed into him.

 

 

No way in hell you could land a lucky punch on a heavyweight. The only way the best amateur boxer would have a chance at Klitschko would be to grab and hold and just stay as close to him as possible the whole time.

 

Minimize his blows and hope to get a few in, but basically you would have to play defense the whole time to try to last a few rounds. So pretty much the only chance you would have is to go the distance and pay off some shady judges to score the fight in your favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the easiest would be the boxing, there is a chance (less than .1%) I could land a very lucky punch and knock him out.

Beating Gordon at daytona would be possible if I crashed into him.

No, their's no such thing as a lucky punch really especcially against 250lbs of pure muscle.

 

Klitschko would destroy me but I do amateur boxing so it wouldn't be the hardest, nor would the cycling really just because I bike a good 15 miles a day two times a day in summer. It's probably the Chess

 

I am not a boxer, so I doubt I could do it, but it is possible to swing as hard as you can and catch his chin. It would only take me getting lucky once to maybe win. In some of the other ones, you need to get lucky multipe times to win. With that said, Boxing is the one you would lose the fastest.

 

I think the chess one is one of the tougher ones. Kasparov is not likely to make a mistake, especially against marginal players like us. If the guy beat a computer that had all the moves programmed into it, I doubt there would be any chance you could beat him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the easiest would be the boxing, there is a chance (less than .1%) I could land a very lucky punch and knock him out.

Beating Gordon at daytona would be possible if I crashed into him.

No, their's no such thing as a lucky punch really especcially against 250lbs of pure muscle.

 

Klitschko would destroy me but I do amateur boxing so it wouldn't be the hardest, nor would the cycling really just because I bike a good 15 miles a day two times a day in summer. It's probably the Chess

 

I am not a boxer, so I doubt I could do it, but it is possible to swing as hard as you can and catch his chin. It would only take me getting lucky once to maybe win. In some of the other ones, you need to get lucky multipe times to win. With that said, Boxing is the one you would lose the fastest.

 

I think the chess one is one of the tougher ones. Kasparov is not likely to make a mistake, especially against marginal players like us. If the guy beat a computer that had all the moves programmed into it, I doubt there would be any chance you could beat him.

 

 

The problem with the lucky punch thing is that it would mean you would have to be open the whole time. In order to generate a punch that hard to knock Klitschko out(it would be hard to do even if he simply gave you a free punch) you would have to be on the offense, which would mean he would easily get in some hard punches to hurt you.

 

The chess thing...it would be hard but maybe it would throw someone like Kasparov off to play against such an amateur. An amateur has no strategy, and he would have no clue what you were doing? I would think it would be easier to get lucky against someone like Kasparov, but probably not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the easiest would be the boxing, there is a chance (less than .1%) I could land a very lucky punch and knock him out.

Beating Gordon at daytona would be possible if I crashed into him.

No, their's no such thing as a lucky punch really especcially against 250lbs of pure muscle.

 

Klitschko would destroy me but I do amateur boxing so it wouldn't be the hardest, nor would the cycling really just because I bike a good 15 miles a day two times a day in summer. It's probably the Chess

 

I am not a boxer, so I doubt I could do it, but it is possible to swing as hard as you can and catch his chin. It would only take me getting lucky once to maybe win. In some of the other ones, you need to get lucky multipe times to win. With that said, Boxing is the one you would lose the fastest.

 

I think the chess one is one of the tougher ones. Kasparov is not likely to make a mistake, especially against marginal players like us. If the guy beat a computer that had all the moves programmed into it, I doubt there would be any chance you could beat him.

 

 

The problem with the lucky punch thing is that it would mean you would have to be open the whole time. In order to generate a punch that hard to knock Klitschko out(it would be hard to do even if he simply gave you a free punch) you would have to be on the offense, which would mean he would easily get in some hard punches to hurt you.

 

The chess thing...it would be hard but maybe it would throw someone like Kasparov off to play against such an amateur. An amateur has no strategy, and he would have no clue what you were doing? I would think it would be easier to get lucky against someone like Kasparov, but probably not...

no. if you sit down against a grandmaster, you will probably get checkmated five ways without even noticing lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, the only ones I know that would be feasible wins could be the Accuracy contest, because I don't think I've seen Peyton win that recently, and I know I'm fairly accurate, and my friend is a great bowler, so I think he may have a slight chance at winning that... as for anything else, I wouldn't stand a chance in the least... it's really sobering to realize how good pros are when compared to the average guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the easiest would be the boxing, there is a chance (less than .1%) I could land a very lucky punch and knock him out.

Beating Gordon at daytona would be possible if I crashed into him.

No, their's no such thing as a lucky punch really especcially against 250lbs of pure muscle.

 

Klitschko would destroy me but I do amateur boxing so it wouldn't be the hardest, nor would the cycling really just because I bike a good 15 miles a day two times a day in summer. It's probably the Chess

 

I am not a boxer, so I doubt I could do it, but it is possible to swing as hard as you can and catch his chin. It would only take me getting lucky once to maybe win. In some of the other ones, you need to get lucky multipe times to win. With that said, Boxing is the one you would lose the fastest.

 

I think the chess one is one of the tougher ones. Kasparov is not likely to make a mistake, especially against marginal players like us. If the guy beat a computer that had all the moves programmed into it, I doubt there would be any chance you could beat him.

 

 

The problem with the lucky punch thing is that it would mean you would have to be open the whole time. In order to generate a punch that hard to knock Klitschko out(it would be hard to do even if he simply gave you a free punch) you would have to be on the offense, which would mean he would easily get in some hard punches to hurt you.

 

The chess thing...it would be hard but maybe it would throw someone like Kasparov off to play against such an amateur. An amateur has no strategy, and he would have no clue what you were doing? I would think it would be easier to get lucky against someone like Kasparov, but probably not...

no. if you sit down against a grandmaster, you will probably get checkmated five ways without even noticing lol

 

 

lol you're probably right. For some reason I was thinking it terms of poker..when you play against someone who doesn't know how to play poker, it can be hard. But Poker is 70% luck, 20% knowing how to play and 10% skill.

 

Chess is all skill. Bad analogy on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the easiest would be the boxing, there is a chance (less than .1%) I could land a very lucky punch and knock him out.

Beating Gordon at daytona would be possible if I crashed into him.

No, their's no such thing as a lucky punch really especcially against 250lbs of pure muscle.

 

Klitschko would destroy me but I do amateur boxing so it wouldn't be the hardest, nor would the cycling really just because I bike a good 15 miles a day two times a day in summer. It's probably the Chess

 

I am not a boxer, so I doubt I could do it, but it is possible to swing as hard as you can and catch his chin. It would only take me getting lucky once to maybe win. In some of the other ones, you need to get lucky multipe times to win. With that said, Boxing is the one you would lose the fastest.

 

I think the chess one is one of the tougher ones. Kasparov is not likely to make a mistake, especially against marginal players like us. If the guy beat a computer that had all the moves programmed into it, I doubt there would be any chance you could beat him.

 

 

 

The problem with the lucky punch thing is that it would mean you would have to be open the whole time. In order to generate a punch that hard to knock Klitschko out(it would be hard to do even if he simply gave you a free punch) you would have to be on the offense, which would mean he would easily get in some hard punches to hurt you.

 

The chess thing...it would be hard but maybe it would throw someone like Kasparov off to play against such an amateur. An amateur has no strategy, and he would have no clue what you were doing? I would think it would be easier to get lucky against someone like Kasparov, but probably not...

no. if you sit down against a grandmaster, you will probably get checkmated five ways without even noticing lol

 

 

lol you're probably right. For some reason I was thinking it terms of poker..when you play against someone who doesn't know how to play poker, it can be hard. But Poker is 70% luck, 20% knowing how to play and 10% skill.

 

Chess is all skill. Bad analogy on my part.

ya lol, i know about poker because im one of those begginers who barely knows what a straight is and end up with 4 of a kind at least once a game...ask timewrecker haha...but chess i have played a little bit and i get owned by people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...