Bond. James Bond.

With the brand new James Bond movie in theaters now featuring the sexy and wonderful Daniel Craig, it begs the question: Which actor has been the best James Bond of all time?

This topic has been thought through and argued over for decades, with most people settling on the ever popular Sean Connery as their choice. However, I worry that most people haven't taken the time to consider the varrying aspects of Jimmy's personality, or worse yet are unfamiliar with all of the men who have played Bond over the years. To that end, I have done much scientific research, and now have hard data to present on the matter.

Now, we would be amiss if we didn't first take a tour of Bonds through the ages. The first bond (on the movie screen) was Sean Connery.


Next, for one brief instance, we have George Lazenby.


Then came Roger Moore,


followed by Timothy Dalton,


Pierce Brosnan,


and finally Daniel Craig.



Now, James Bond is typically defined by two very distinct traits: his "stud" factor and his weakness for women. First, James Bond is the ultimate stud. He's a sexy spy who always saves the day. He's a hero who's got the looks, the attitude, and even the cool toys working for him. He can ski any mountian, surf any wave, and win both any poker hand or any hand fight. He can disarm a bomb while dressed in a tuxedo, kiss a woman while dispatching a vilian, or scale a building while drinking a martini. If anyone could ever be defined this way, he is definetly "the man".

Bond's only weakness is women. Ideally, the actor who plays bond should portray him as actually caring about the women he interacts with, if even to his own detriment. Bond feels like a protecter; responsible for their well-being. Even when faced with the choice to kill an evil one or risk being killed, Bond hesitates. women are his one downfall.

So, how do our Bonds rank when considering these two criteria? Let's take a look:

...........................Stud.......Weakness..........Average
Sean Connery...........99.............40..................69.5
George Lazenby..........2..............2...................2
Roger Moore.............75.............70..................72.5
Timothy Dalton..........50.............35..................42.5
Pierce Brosnan.........67............100..................83.5
Daniel Craig.............99.............65...................82

This chart shows how each Bond ranks in both catagories of "stud" and "girl weakness" on a scale of 1 (being lowest) to 100. Then, an average was taken to give an overall score. Here's a graph of both catagories for each man,


As well as a graph of their averages.



As you can see, Connery scores very high on the stud factor, but rather low on the weakness side. I don't think anyone would argue that he's a stud - being one of the best looking bonds is what makes him the best bond in most people's eyes. He's also very cool in his demeanor. However, he tends to think of the women he's with as "in the way" instead of having a deep-seeded need to shelter/protect them. He doesn't seem to be too beaten up if any of them die while in his company.

George Lazenby scores equally low in both catagories, and rightly so. Though having potential to push the "weakness" catagory up due to getting married at the beginning of the only movie he was in (On Her Majesty's Secret Service), that very fact pushes his "stud" factor way down. Alas, both catagories are shot to hell when he pretends to be gay throughout the entire film. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Roger Moore is a very good and balanced bond. He scores above average in both catagories. Basically, the only reason why he isn't a perfect bond is that there were other men who played one of the two traits better than he did. For example, Connery was studlier, but got no where close to having the weakness side right. As far as bonds go, Rog is probably the most consistant in both catagories.

Timothy Dalton is a strange case. Though I thought he was a handsome bond, he just didn't have the studly "X" factor down. And though he did play up the girl weakness, it took more of a "haunted" turn than ever seen before. I guess you could say that he sort of defied the catagories and went his own way. It wasn't horrible, but it just wasn't bond.

For the last several years, the face of bond has been Pierce Brosnan. He wasn't the most studliest bond ever, mostely because he was smallish and skinny. It seemed more like he was relying on his gadgets to get him out of trouble rather than possesing any internal studliness. But, Brosnan was probably the absolute best at getting bond's relationships with women down. He's fun with them, but was also a good protector. He'll shoot a bad one, but then brush her hair out of her face with a pained look on his face. He's definitly the benchmark when it comes to that catagory.

Finally, we come to Daniel Craig. He is also an interesting case because he plays a bond who is just coming into all of the "bond traits". Possesing the best body of any bond through the ages, he positivly reeks of studliness. He's got the cool attitude, the long stare, the guts and the looks. He's almost too cool to need any of the bond gadets. As far as the weakness factor goes, it's really up to the next movie. In "Casino Royale", bond starts out only taking what he can get, using women as pawns in his game, and pretty much being a jerk to them. But he takes a turn during the movie and we see glimpses of the bond he could turn out to be in the future. We see him possibly evolving into a perfect bond - but only time will tell.

So there you go - hard hitting journalism mixed with irrefutable scientific evidence. Have a happy 2007!