Rank the Winners

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
solesurvivor123		#1381	[-]
Posts: 162 (11/08/09 12:39 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	1. Earl 2. Parvati 3. JT 4. Todd 5. Yul 6. Sandra 7. Chris 8. Amber 9. Richard 10. Jenna 11. Tom 12. Brian 13. Vecepia 14. Ethan 15. Danni 16. Aras 17. Bob 18. Tina
PrettyGoodYear1988		#1382	[-]
Posts: 2909 (11/08/09 12:47 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Look, Sandra's awesome, but Pearl Islands' cast was basically full of gigantic characters and hardcore players (which is also why no season since then has yet to approach its level of popularity). Everyone had multiple strategies and bigger fish to fry, and Sandra simply lucked out by being weak in challenges and not on anyone's radar. People like Johnny put off voting for her because they simply saw her as no threat to win. Sandra's win was the Survivor equivalent of a cockroach surviving a nuclear bomb, and yes, Lillian was the perfect F2 goat simply because she was an Outcast. Put Sandra on another season, and she is probably a very entertaining early boot. Her fun personality and great confessionals don't make her an awesome player, just a very likable character who happened to win. Winners like Vecepia, Brian, Tom, Danni, Aras, Yul, Earl, and J.T. are much more likely to consistently go far and make F4. They get ranked higher than Sandra simply because of that.
panurge46		#1383	[-]
Posts: 1519 (11/08/09 1:47 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	OutwitOutplay wrote: To be honest, lately I've really started to re-think what I think about both Sandra, as well as many of the other winners. The bottom line with Survivor is that you simply need to OUTLAST every other player. You don't need to outwit everyone else (by controlling all the votes). You don't need to even outplay them (in challenges). All you need to do is be the last man or woman standing. And with that criteria it's hard not to see Sandra as a very strong player. Or Tina. Or others who seem to often be chosen as the bottom of the barrel winners. If no one votes for you, except when it matters, YOU WIN the game. Period. And Sandra, more than any other player, seems to have the qualities of always making the vote for someone else. It doesn't matter if she picked the player who goes. It doesn't matter if she had an immunity necklace around her neck. If, every single time there was a tribal council, she simply made sure the vote was for someone other than herself, then I think major kudos. All other strategies seem only semi-reliable. Winning all the challenges is never guaranteed. Trying to control all the votes frequently backfires. And making all sorts of alliances will get you booted if anyone gains wind of what you're doing. . . And, sure, players have all won with those strategies, but I'm staring to think that the strategy that would most often secure a victory would be a Sandra type strategy. Which, in my opinion, also includes people like Tina and Ethan. I just think maybe Sandra is better at that strategy simply 'cause she could talk herself out of anything. I dunno. I'm really starting to change my opinion of who the best players are. The best manipulators are the ones who can manipulate and never let you realize they're doing it. And don't have to flaunt to the cameras that they're doing it. I think that's a reality that has, for too long, been ignored by people who rate the winners. If you watch Survivor: Australia, for example, you can subtly see Tina manipulate everyone, but she'd never admit it to a camera. . . If you think Sandra even comes close to Tina, you need to rethink your rankings of winners or rewatch every episode. Tina is near the top of my list because she was everyone's friend but still manipulated every vote. Sandra is close to the bottom of my list because she was a b*itch to almost everyone out there including the one she turned out needing the most, Lill, and she was either wrong or out of the loop in most votes. About all your on-line-game based analysis (which is what I call any analysis based only on strategy), Survivor isn't Big Brother without couches. There is still the notion of Survival in the title of the show. In most seasons, the best way to OUTLAST (see I can be loud too!) the first phase of the game is to contribute to your tribe. If you'd ask me which winner is the most worthless at the surviving aspect, I'd have to go with Sandra. That absolutely has to count for something or else stop talking about Survivor. Last Edited By: panurge46 11/08/09 1:49 PM. Edited 1 times.
Ahora		#1384	[-]
Posts: 631 (11/08/09 2:06 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: OutwitOutplay wrote: To be honest, lately I've really started to re-think what I think about both Sandra, as well as many of the other winners. The bottom line with Survivor is that you simply need to OUTLAST every other player. You don't need to outwit everyone else (by controlling all the votes). You don't need to even outplay them (in challenges). All you need to do is be the last man or woman standing. And with that criteria it's hard not to see Sandra as a very strong player. Or Tina. Or others who seem to often be chosen as the bottom of the barrel winners. If no one votes for you, except when it matters, YOU WIN the game. Period. And Sandra, more than any other player, seems to have the qualities of always making the vote for someone else. It doesn't matter if she picked the player who goes. It doesn't matter if she had an immunity necklace around her neck. If, every single time there was a tribal council, she simply made sure the vote was for someone other than herself, then I think major kudos. All other strategies seem only semi-reliable. Winning all the challenges is never guaranteed. Trying to control all the votes frequently backfires. And making all sorts of alliances will get you booted if anyone gains wind of what you're doing. . . And, sure, players have all won with those strategies, but I'm staring to think that the strategy that would most often secure a victory would be a Sandra type strategy. Which, in my opinion, also includes people like Tina and Ethan. I just think maybe Sandra is better at that strategy simply 'cause she could talk herself out of anything. I dunno. I'm really starting to change my opinion of who the best players are. The best manipulators are the ones who can manipulate and never let you realize they're doing it. And don't have to flaunt to the cameras that they're doing it. I think that's a reality that has, for too long, been ignored by people who rate the winners. If you watch Survivor: Australia, for example, you can subtly see Tina manipulate everyone, but she'd never admit it to a camera. . . Sandra is close to the bottom of my list because she was a b*itch to almost everyone out there including the one she turned out needing the most, Lill, and she was either wrong or out of the loop in most votes. She may have been a bitch to people, but people still voted for her to win. And how was she out of the loop in most of the votes? The only times she was out of the loop was Christa & Rupert's boot. 9/11 times that she voted, she voted for the person that left.
panurge46		#1385	[-]
Posts: 1520 (11/08/09 7:00 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Ahora wrote: She may have been a bitch to people, but people still voted for her to win. And how was she out of the loop in most of the votes? The only times she was out of the loop was Christa & Rupert's boot. 9/11 times that she voted, she voted for the person that left. Arguing with fans is getting tiresome. Don't you realize that the other option was the biggest goat in Survivor history? And, get your facts straight. I said "either wrong or out of the loop" in most votes and she voted 10 times, not 11. She was wrong to keep Fairplay over Trish, Michelle and Shawn. She was wrong to vote out Tijuana when she had Burton in her grasp and she was out of the loop during the Rupert and Christa boots. I'd add that they were stupid to let Burton have his way by throwing that challenge.
OutwitOutplay		#1386	[-]
Posts: 47 (11/08/09 7:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: OutwitOutplay wrote: To be honest, lately I've really started to re-think what I think about both Sandra, as well as many of the other winners. The bottom line with Survivor is that you simply need to OUTLAST every other player. You don't need to outwit everyone else (by controlling all the votes). You don't need to even outplay them (in challenges). All you need to do is be the last man or woman standing. And with that criteria it's hard not to see Sandra as a very strong player. Or Tina. Or others who seem to often be chosen as the bottom of the barrel winners. If no one votes for you, except when it matters, YOU WIN the game. Period. And Sandra, more than any other player, seems to have the qualities of always making the vote for someone else. It doesn't matter if she picked the player who goes. It doesn't matter if she had an immunity necklace around her neck. If, every single time there was a tribal council, she simply made sure the vote was for someone other than herself, then I think major kudos. All other strategies seem only semi-reliable. Winning all the challenges is never guaranteed. Trying to control all the votes frequently backfires. And making all sorts of alliances will get you booted if anyone gains wind of what you're doing. . . And, sure, players have all won with those strategies, but I'm staring to think that the strategy that would most often secure a victory would be a Sandra type strategy. Which, in my opinion, also includes people like Tina and Ethan. I just think maybe Sandra is better at that strategy simply 'cause she could talk herself out of anything. I dunno. I'm really starting to change my opinion of who the best players are. The best manipulators are the ones who can manipulate and never let you realize they're doing it. And don't have to flaunt to the cameras that they're doing it. I think that's a reality that has, for too long, been ignored by people who rate the winners. If you watch Survivor: Australia, for example, you can subtly see Tina manipulate everyone, but she'd never admit it to a camera. . . If you think Sandra even comes close to Tina, you need to rethink your rankings of winners or rewatch every episode. Tina is near the top of my list because she was everyone's friend but still manipulated every vote. Sandra is close to the bottom of my list because she was a b*itch to almost everyone out there including the one she turned out needing the most, Lill, and she was either wrong or out of the loop in most votes. About all your on-line-game based analysis (which is what I call any analysis based only on strategy), Survivor isn't Big Brother without couches. There is still the notion of Survival in the title of the show. In most seasons, the best way to OUTLAST (see I can be loud too!) the first phase of the game is to contribute to your tribe. If you'd ask me which winner is the most worthless at the surviving aspect, I'd have to go with Sandra. That absolutely has to count for something or else stop talking about Survivor. When has Survivor ever been about surviving? Come on now. After season one, it became a game that just happens to be played outdoors. Yeah, the contestants go through hell with the weather and with food, but aside from the Ostens that quit it doesn't affect the game any other way. And you don't really have to contribute to your tribe. Just like in life, if you know the right people, you can be utterly worthless. It helps to contribute, obviously, but hardly is it the sole factor in getting to the merge.
Ahora		#1387	[-]
Posts: 634 (11/08/09 7:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: Ahora wrote: She may have been a bitch to people, but people still voted for her to win. And how was she out of the loop in most of the votes? The only times she was out of the loop was Christa & Rupert's boot. 9/11 times that she voted, she voted for the person that left. Arguing with fans is getting tiresome. Don't you realize that the other option was the biggest goat in Survivor history? And, get your facts straight. I said "either wrong or out of the loop" in most votes and she voted 10 times, not 11. She was wrong to keep Fairplay over Trish, Michelle and Shawn. She was wrong to vote out Tijuana when she had Burton in her grasp and she was out of the loop during the Rupert and Christa boots. I'd add that they were stupid to let Burton have his way by throwing that challenge. Episode 4 - Sandra votes Burton Epiosde 5 - Sandra votes Michelle Episode 6 - Sandra votes Trish Episode 7 - Sandra votes Shawn Episode 8 - Sandra votes Andrew Episode 9 - Sandra votes Ryno Episode 10 - Sandra votes Darrah Episode 11 - Sandra votes Tijuana Episode 12 - Sandra votes Lill? Episode 13 - Sandra votes Burton Finale - Sandra votes Darrah 11 times. And maybe letting Fairplay last as long as he did was a mistake, but its not like Trish and Shawn were any better for the tribe, they would have been liabilities too at the merge. Tijuana was a wild card, and with her fighting with Christa, Tijuana probably would have backstabbed the girls anyway and alligned with Jon if Burton was booted at 7. She may have been out of the loop of those two boots, but its not like she was the only one out of the loop in that season.. Fairplay was out of the loop twice too, during Trish's boot and Burton's second boot. Everyone that season was out of the loop at some point. I mean I'm not saying Sandra is the best winner ever, I mean she wasn't the most strategical winner, but she still played a damn good game for herself.
panurge46		#1388	[-]
Posts: 1521 (11/08/09 8:52 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	OutwitOutplay wrote: When has Survivor ever been about surviving? That is such a stupid comment, the best thing to do is ignore your opinion on anything Survivor related. Maybe you play Survivor in your parents' basement and figure it's the same thing!!!! Ahora, I apologize for the numbers of votes, I thought you were counting Jon's F3 elimination and I counted Burton only once. My bad. But to the point of mistakes, I stand by my assesment: It was easy to see that Fairplay had absolutely no loyalty to the tribe, he had to go. And for keeping Burton over Tijuana: Leaving that strong guy in to compete against 5 women was extremely dumb. He could have easily won every challenge and Sandra could certainly not count on Darrah winning those challenges.
OutwitOutplay		#1389	[-]
Posts: 48 (11/08/09 10:09 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	^ Wow. That's really mature. If you disagree with someone's opinions, that's not exactly the way to go about it. I'm all for thoughtful discussion. If you think I'm wrong, say why. I don't go on here looking to prove my point. I go on here to have genuine conversation with other fans, and I am always open to other ideas. Survivor has never been about surviving. It's a game show with the clever premise of survival tied into it, but never has anyone's ability to survive in the outdoors played any huge part in whether he or she won. His/her physical prowess has contributed to challenges. His/her ability to fish has kept him/her around longer in the early game. But that's about where it ends.
Olmec Donald		#1390	[-]
Posts: 1018 (11/08/09 10:31 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	OutwitOutplay wrote: Survivor has never been about surviving. It's a game show with the clever premise of survival tied into it, but never has anyone's ability to survive in the outdoors played any huge part in whether he or she won. Not if someone quits due to the elements or is medivacced out. People have been booted for being lazy or getting ill and things like that, too.
panurge46		#1391	[-]
Posts: 1522 (11/09/09 7:04 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	OutwitOutplay wrote: ^ Wow. That's really mature. If you disagree with someone's opinions, that's not exactly the way to go about it. I'm all for thoughtful discussion. If you think I'm wrong, say why. I don't go on here looking to prove my point. I go on here to have genuine conversation with other fans, and I am always open to other ideas. Survivor has never been about surviving. It's a game show with the clever premise of survival tied into it, but never has anyone's ability to survive in the outdoors played any huge part in whether he or she won. His/her physical prowess has contributed to challenges. His/her ability to fish has kept him/her around longer in the early game. But that's about where it ends. For what this is worth, I should have pressed the little [-] but I'll go one more round. In fact I don't need to look further than this season for examples: 1) Yasmin: Sandra was even worse than her in challenges, had as loud a mouth and was just as useless in camp. 2) Why was Russell able to get the votes to get rid of Ashley and Betsy? Too weak to help the tribe. 3) How many people ever got medevaced from Big Brother? Surviving, THANKFULLY, still plays a big role in this show. Ask Kathleen, if she still posts here, the difference between your couch and the real thing. You don't win simply by being good at survival but it helps you outlast the first phase of the game. Can't win if you don't make the merge. Oh! Wait... Except in Pearl Islands where making the merge meant nothing. Is it a coincidence that it gave us the weakest F3 ever? I think not. Last Edited By: panurge46 11/09/09 7:07 AM. Edited 1 times.
ilovekelly752		#1392	[-]
Posts: 294 (11/09/09 5:12 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: OutwitOutplay wrote: ^ Wow. That's really mature. If you disagree with someone's opinions, that's not exactly the way to go about it. I'm all for thoughtful discussion. If you think I'm wrong, say why. I don't go on here looking to prove my point. I go on here to have genuine conversation with other fans, and I am always open to other ideas. Survivor has never been about surviving. It's a game show with the clever premise of survival tied into it, but never has anyone's ability to survive in the outdoors played any huge part in whether he or she won. His/her physical prowess has contributed to challenges. His/her ability to fish has kept him/her around longer in the early game. But that's about where it ends. For what this is worth, I should have pressed the little [-] but I'll go one more round. In fact I don't need to look further than this season for examples: 1) Yasmin: Sandra was even worse than her in challenges, had as loud a mouth and was just as useless in camp. 2) Why was Russell able to get the votes to get rid of Ashley and Betsy? Too weak to help the tribe. 3) How many people ever got medevaced from Big Brother? Surviving, THANKFULLY, still plays a big role in this show. Ask Kathleen, if she still posts here, the difference between your couch and the real thing. You don't win simply by being good at survival but it helps you outlast the first phase of the game. Can't win if you don't make the merge. Oh! Wait... Except in Pearl Islands where making the merge meant nothing. Is it a coincidence that it gave us the weakest F3 ever? I think not. Russell didn't get the votes for Ashley and Betsy. They already had enough people voting for them for being weak. Anyway, Sandra is a good enough strategist that she can get out of those situations. And no, it's not a coincidence that season 7 was a weak final three. It was because two of those three were great strategists who took out all of the strong players, and the other one helped them.
panurge46		#1393	[-]
Posts: 1523 (11/09/09 9:52 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Sandra was such a great strategist that she would have been voted out first if Drake had lost early. Incredibly worthless. Sandra was such a great strategist that she couldn't decide which one of Shawn or Fairplay should stay and asked them to plead for their life. Incredibly stupid move. Sandra was such a great strategist that she never saw the Rupert vote coming. Incredibly blind. Sandra was such a great strategist that her stupid tantrum cost Christa the game. Throwing the fish could have easily cost Sandra her own survivor life. Another incredibly stupid move. Sandra was such a great strategist that she kept Burton in the game instead of T when he really had no physical competition left and could have easily run the tables. Incredibly lucky move. Sandra was such a great strategist that, in frutration, she kicked sand in Lill's face. Incredibly childish move. Like I said, I see more similarities between Sandra and Yasmin than between Sandra and Cirie or Tina, two real strategists. Like Yasmin, her only two real allies were a hard working, clueless chump (Russell/Rupert) and a weird, awkward woman with a funny nickname (Shambo/Big Bird). Like loud-mouth Yasmin, loud-mouth Sandra could have been voted out early. Saying Sandra was a great winner is like saying the Earth is flat: You may believe it but it won't make it so. PS: Fairplay was a provocateur and an attention seeker, not a strategist. His crazy antics in real life and Micronesia proved that. BTW: I don't remember; was Sandra in on Rupert's offer to Savage? If she was, that is another example of her incredible stupidity. Last Edited By: panurge46 11/09/09 9:56 PM. Edited 2 times.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#1394	[-]
Posts: 9495 (11/09/09 10:00 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	The Fairplay comment is false. He is both a professional jerk and a good strategist. Really, he's one of the best non winning players ever imo.
toomanynachos16		#1395	[-]
Posts: 505 (11/09/09 10:06 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: Sandra was such a great strategist that she would have been voted out first if Drake had lost early. Incredibly worthless. Sandra was such a great strategist that she couldn't decide which one of Shawn or Fairplay should stay and asked them to plead for their life. Incredibly stupid move. Sandra was such a great strategist that she never saw the Rupert vote coming. Incredibly blind. Sandra was such a great strategist that her stupid tantrum cost Christa the game. Throwing the fish could have easily cost Sandra her own survivor life. Another incredibly stupid move. Sandra was such a great strategist that she kept Burton in the game instead of T when he really had no physical competition left and could have easily run the tables. Incredibly lucky move. Sandra was such a great strategist that, in frutration, she kicked sand in Lill's face. Incredibly childish move. Like I said, I see more similarities between Sandra and Yasmin than between Sandra and Cirie or Tina, two real strategists. Like Yasmin, her only two real allies were a hard working, clueless chump (Russell/Rupert) and a weird, awkward woman with a funny nickname (Shambo/Big Bird). Like loud-mouth Yasmin, loud-mouth Sandra could have been voted out early. Saying Sandra was a great winner is like saying the Earth is flat: You may believe it but it won't make it so. PS: Fairplay was a provocateur and an attention seeker, not a strategist. His crazy antics in real life and Micronesia proved that. BTW: I don't remember; was Sandra in on Rupert's offer to Savage? If she was, that is another example of her incredible stupidity. Sandra did not, in any way, cost Christa the game....Christa was the least liked person in the entire game, and there was absolutely no way that the group would vote out Sandra before Christa. The fish was not the reason Christa was booted. Sorry try again.
OutwitOutplay		#1396	[-]
Posts: 49 (11/09/09 10:36 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	panurge46 wrote: Sandra was such a great strategist that she would have been voted out first if Drake had lost early. Incredibly worthless. Sandra was such a great strategist that she couldn't decide which one of Shawn or Fairplay should stay and asked them to plead for their life. Incredibly stupid move. Sandra was such a great strategist that she never saw the Rupert vote coming. Incredibly blind. Sandra was such a great strategist that her stupid tantrum cost Christa the game. Throwing the fish could have easily cost Sandra her own survivor life. Another incredibly stupid move. Sandra was such a great strategist that she kept Burton in the game instead of T when he really had no physical competition left and could have easily run the tables. Incredibly lucky move. Sandra was such a great strategist that, in frutration, she kicked sand in Lill's face. Incredibly childish move. Like I said, I see more similarities between Sandra and Yasmin than between Sandra and Cirie or Tina, two real strategists. Like Yasmin, her only two real allies were a hard working, clueless chump (Russell/Rupert) and a weird, awkward woman with a funny nickname (Shambo/Big Bird). Like loud-mouth Yasmin, loud-mouth Sandra could have been voted out early. Saying Sandra was a great winner is like saying the Earth is flat: You may believe it but it won't make it so. PS: Fairplay was a provocateur and an attention seeker, not a strategist. His crazy antics in real life and Micronesia proved that. BTW: I don't remember; was Sandra in on Rupert's offer to Savage? If she was, that is another example of her incredible stupidity. Sandra's strategy should not focus on whether she controlled the game. The fact is she was the last one standing for no other reason than the vote never focused on her. That in itself is a great strategy. That's the whole point. Last Edited By: OutwitOutplay 11/09/09 11:30 PM. Edited 1 times.
panurge46		#1397	[-]
Posts: 1524 (11/10/09 6:51 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Toomanynachos, instead of asking me to try again, you should try to make sense. The point was that the fish incident could have cost Sandra herself the game if she'd been caught. And you didn't address all the other points. Get off the nachos! Dr Will; Fairplay was playing for second place at best. Really, I think all he wanted was to use Survivor to be remembered. His little trip to steal from Morgan proved he had no jury votes there and none within Drake itself. Only having Outcasts gave Fairplay a shot.
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#1398	[-]
Posts: 9496 (11/10/09 11:00 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Not according to jury testimonials. If it was a Lill/Fairplay final 2: Ryan O-JFP Rupert-Not sure Tijuana-JFP(She said so herself) Christa-Not sure Burton-JFP Darrah-JFP Sandra-Lill
sddorme.idolnoise		#1399	[-]
Posts: 375 (11/10/09 11:09 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Dr Will Hatch two point oh wrote: Not according to jury testimonials. If it was a Lill/Fairplay final 2: Ryan O-JFP Rupert-Not sure Tijuana-JFP(She said so herself) Christa-Not sure Burton-JFP Darrah-JFP Sandra-Lill Why wouldn't Tij vote for Lil? She voted for Lil over Sandra
Dr Will Hatch two point oh		#1400	[-]
Posts: 9497 (11/10/09 11:18 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I'm sure that the interview is archived somewhere(probably RNO), but I distinctly remember Tijuana saying that she would only vote for the best player, who she considered to be Jonny.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Rank the Winners

Quick Reply