Bourne vs Wick vs Hunt vs Bond- Who Would Win?

Hello everyone. Welcome back to another post. This time around, I want to do a post on who I think would win in a 4-man melee between these 4 iconic action heroes- James Bond, Jason Bourne, John Wick, and Ethan Hunt. To make things simpler I’m going to put the two assassins against one another and the two spies against each other meaning Wick vs Bourne and Hunt vs Bond. To be clear, weapons are not allowed in this scenario, just hand-to-hand combat so I will start with Hunt and Bond since I have just recently watched the Bourne trilogy and am most familiar with the John Wick movies. Let us begin.

So Bond (Daniel Craig) has 5 movies, and Hunt has 8. One thing I can say subjectively for certain about Mission Impossible films is that they’re all the same. Entertaining sure, but in the end, all very formulaic. If you think the MCU is formulaic, then you haven’t watched the MI films. Some rogue agent always takes data he’s not supposed to and wants to sell to the highest bidder or expose classified information or plans to detonate a bomb for a ransom or some biological weapon etc. The plots are very intricate and if you’re one that can’t follow the very fast dialogue of what’s going on where, subtitles are a must. It was the right move to end with the 8th film because I personally felt they were starting to get stale. MI 3 was the first film that gave the franchise its modern feel so more films after that were warranted and like I said, it found the right time to end. As you can tell, I love to digress, because Fast and Furious has just as many films plus one and one spin-off and that was getting stale right around between 7 and 8. ANYWAAAAYS……back to it. Bond has 5 films and the key differences between him and Hunt are that he operates alone, he’s British, and Bond has more class- fancy suits, nice cars, always sleeping with the women, you get the picture. To me, I feel that Bond’s villains are more personal and he seems to carry himself gracefully even when fighting but that may be because he’s always wearing nice clothes. He still comes off as more refined, like he fights with sophistication whereas Hunt is also a very capable fighter but maybe it’s Hunt’s demeanor which makes him come off more scrappy. It could also just be the English vs American way of presenting one-self. Bond is a gentleman dammit. He’s gotta fight like it. Hunt doesn’t worry about appearances. Now, I have seen all the Bond films and all the MI films but not recently. I never claimed to be an expert but judging from clips I’ve watched from Youtube here is my consensus. Bond seems more heavyset, he’s taller than Hunt for sure at 5’10 where Hunt is 5’8. Weight wise Hunt is 160-170lbs where Bond is 180-190lbs. That’s a quite a difference. Not that bigger is always better. Hunt possesses great agility and possesses very quick reflexes and acrobatic moves and high endurance but Bond has strength, stamina, and durability. My spider-sense is telling me that if it were an in-your-face fight, Bond would take it but now I think again, Hunt may be too fast for Bond, and with those acrobatics, Hunt may be able to take Bond down faster than Bond can him. Hunt wouldn’t let Bond get close but remember that Bond is also a capable fighter and we’ve seen Hunt get beat up by stronger men. Bond could find a way to counter then lay a good beat down on Hunt. While it may be close, I think Bond takes the W.

Next up we have Mr. Wick and Mr.Bourne. Off the bat I will announce that I am more of a John Wick fan than a Bourne fan but don’t let that dissuade you. No bias allowed here. There are 4 main films to each respective franchise with a spin-off each. While I think that Matt Damon is the better actor, Keanu Reeves has more style and the cool factor going way more for him. It’s also the narrative structure of John Wick which has so much more appeal than the Bourne films. While both stories involve assassins, the Bourne trilogy is about Bourne trying to piece together who he is after losing his memory while evading and eventually confronting the CIA who want him dead to tie up loose ends that he was involved in their illegal and unsanctioned black ops programs . It’s basically man vs agency, the trilogy is on a more personal level: Bourne wants to expose the agency and the agency wants to silence a rogue agent. These are the entities clashing in Bourne. The trilogy is essentially a manhunt, and now that I think of it, after watching the quadrilogy and re-reading the plots on Wikipedia to find information, I think I’ve gained a somewhat better appreciation for the franchise and story of Bourne but……an equal appreciation to the John Wick films it does not make. We now move on to JOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNN WICK! Somebody PLEASE, get this man….a gun. These movies just have so much more going for them. More style, gun-fu, more versatility and variety, and faster-paced. The stakes are higher and there’s actual world-building. There’s more lore and mythos. The characters in John Wick have much more substance to them and the number of great supporting characters vastly outnumber the amount of interesting supporting characters in Bourne. In Bourne, it’s basically just Nicky Parsons and that ain’t really saying much. The Bourne films are basically the Bourne show, and all the secondary characters take a pretty big back seat to him. In Wick we have The Bowery King, Viggo Tarasov, Winston, Charon, Santino D’antonio, Caine, and The Marquis all played by great actors like Laurence Fishburne, Ian McShane. Lance Reddick, Donnie Yen, and Bill Skaarsgard. While you can say that the trilogy of Bourne arguably escalates, John Wick REALLY escalates. He starts as a retired assassin, privately mourning the loss of his wife who posthumously gifted him a dog as a companion until said dog is unjustly and cruelly murdered by Russian gangsters. This begins a chain of events in which John reenters the assassin world and all hell breaks loose- bounties, blood oaths owed, violating assassin rules, inciting the wrath of the High Table (the highest authority of the assassin world), etc. You know I used to think that John Wick had the edge but after careful watching, I think I may have to change my mind. John is great at utilizing a number of weapons including guns, swords, whips, and even a fucking pencil. He’s more of a long-range guy. Bourne is definitely close range. While they both are good fighters, Bourne’s reflexes seem much faster and he moves like a younger man. They both can take a lot of damage and both have great stamina but from observation Bourne seems to have better endurance whereas Wick seems to tire out more easily. Bourne is supposed to be a fighting machine. Wick likes to use takedowns but I’m sure Bourne can recover from that. Eventually I think Bourne would outpace Wick, and then probably use some combo to take him down. Bourne for the win and so that leaves us with Bourne vs Bond.

Again, Bourne has the edge in speed, endurance, and stamina. Bond is probably stronger but strength alone is not enough. Bond would last a good while but Bourne’s ability to outlast would most likely overcome Bond. Wick’s reflexes, stamina, and versatility of martial arts trumps Bond’s as well. So, I am reiterating that I am not an expert, this is what I think it is and so here are the results: Bourne<Wick<Bond<Hunt. If you disagree you can always comment. Peace out friends.