survivor ...
Posted by
Beryllium (aka grayman)
May 17 '11, 11:13
|
Yes, you could argue that he's only batting 0.250 ... that's not the point. You can't measure overall greatness with a single stat - you can only measure a single kind of greatness.
He's an entertaining smartass with a mastery of the game, and that is plainly evident from watching this season. I think very few other Survivor players could have learned the lessons he learned in his 119 days, let alone regular people. The comment on B2 about "we could do it too if we had multiple chances" is just bollocks. Wishful thinking.
Regardless of winning, the thing that cements him as the greatest Survivor player ever? Throwing the clue in the volcano.
Just my two cents.
|
Responses:
-
Here's the thing... (spoilers?)
-
Mop (208 lbs)
May 17, 11:40
1
-
That was my position before this Survivor (spoils)
-
Stephen
May 17, 11:31
-
FWIW, I didn't say he was the best ever. I said he was the most talented.
-
David
May 17, 11:29
-
You play, to win, the game. It is one thing if you are great player on a not-so-great team. He is not. -- nm
-
Spawn
May 17, 11:18
15
-
The more apt comparison would be to look at it like the pga tour. There's only one winner of each tournament, but the rankings are based on combined
-
pmb
May 17, 11:34
12
-
Last time he was a great player on a really good team, with one really bad player.
-
the wrong element, bad guy
May 17, 11:29
-
but the problem is, there are four teams in this game - "you", the other people at Final, the jury, and the ratings.
-
Beryllium
May 17, 11:27
-
It's a little like judging a QB or pitcher on their Win Loss record.
-
Jim
May 17, 11:15
12
|
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
|
|