1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll:Best Big Brother or Survivor (or other Reality Show) player ever!

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Steveknj, Aug 26, 2013.

Best BB or Survivor (or other) reality player ever

  1. Boston Rob (Survivor)

    40 vote(s)
    46.0%
  2. Dan (BB)

    16 vote(s)
    18.4%
  3. Dr. Will (BB)

    11 vote(s)
    12.6%
  4. Russell (Survivor)

    3 vote(s)
    3.4%
  5. Mike Boogie (BB)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Richard Hatch (Survivor)

    6 vote(s)
    6.9%
  7. Parvati (Survivor)

    6 vote(s)
    6.9%
  8. Evil Dick (BB)

    1 vote(s)
    1.1%
  9. Other

    4 vote(s)
    4.6%
  1. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    40,084
    43
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    No, you're not quite getting what I was saying. There are mediocre Super Bowl winning teams and great ones. But I would never say for instance that the Tampa Bay team that won the SB is the greatest ever, but I also wouldn't say that Denver Broncos team that lost 4 straight Super Bowls was the greatest team ever either. The greatest players in Survivor or BB combine winning everything WITH great game play. I can't justify Russell for example as a GREAT player when one aspect of his game was SO flawed he could never win the game. Conversely, Sandra, even though she won two times never really did anything that mind blowing either time to say she was a great player. The best of the players know how to WIN and how to play. Dan on BB, his first time around not only was sneaky and made great moves, but his social game was good enough to get the jury votes. Same with someone like Boston Rob, who put all the aspects together to win his 4th go around.
     
  2. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    40,084
    43
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I think they should make this a three part competition for $2.5 million. You take the best players of both games and have them play BOTH games. Then you take the winner of both and send them off on The Amazing Race together. If they make it to the end, they get all the money :)
     
  3. sburnside1

    sburnside1 New Member

    1,099
    0
    Jan 28, 2009
    I seriously think people are underestimating Sandra.

    Yes, she was boring to watch on TV, because her game was all social and not really aired. How do we know she was so successful? Well on her first win, she never had anyone vote for her at all until she was voted the winner. On her Heroes vs. Villains win, she didn't receive a vote until the 13th week. 2 tribals before the final.

    So basically, she is discounted because she has a boring persona on TV. I am sure she is ok with that though. She has recieved 2 Million dollars for being overlooked on TV, and will be overlooked again if she is invited back.
     
  4. gweempose

    gweempose Active Member

    2,440
    4
    Mar 23, 2003
    Northbrook, IL
    I agree. Sandra is one of the all-time Survivor greats. She may not be a strong physical player, but her mental game is way beyond most other players. She has this way of stirring the pot and getting other players to turn against each other. She's always listening, and always thinking about ways to use whatever knowledge she has to her advantage. It's undeniably an effective strategy, as the proof is in the pudding.
     
  5. gweempose

    gweempose Active Member

    2,440
    4
    Mar 23, 2003
    Northbrook, IL
    I was thinking the exact same thing. It would even be cool if they mixed it up half and half. To my knowledge, this coming season of Survivor marks the first time that a player from one show is competing on the other show. Considering how long both shows have been running, it's kind of shocking that CBS hasn't done more of this.
     
  6. TampaThunder

    TampaThunder Active Member

    1,179
    0
    Apr 8, 2003
    Tampa, FL
    Boston Rob was great but Dr. Will was absolutely brilliant the season he won BB. He played a perfect game with nary a misstep.
     
  7. gweempose

    gweempose Active Member

    2,440
    4
    Mar 23, 2003
    Northbrook, IL
    And I'd argue that Boston Rob played a perfect game as well on Redemption Island. Dr. Will, Dan and BR are all amazing players. I'd rate BR at the top, simply because I think Survivor is a harder game to win. That being said, it's very difficult to compare players from different games, as they require slightly different skill sets.
     
  8. Snappa77

    Snappa77 RUDEBWOY

    1,108
    0
    Feb 14, 2004
    BOSTON
    Boston Rob also kicked butt on Amazing Race.
     
  9. sburnside1

    sburnside1 New Member

    1,099
    0
    Jan 28, 2009
    I get that Robs a likable persona and fun to watch, that why Russell also gets mentioned by some fans even though he could/would never win.

    He is a good player, but hes only good when he can spend so much time with the tribemates that they cannot get alone time with others.

    Hes been voted out:
    7th week
    final tribal
    8th week
    and won.

    Both his 7th and 8th week vote outs, were after a tribal shift. And arguably his win was with the most dopey group of "followers" that the game has ever seen. I don't think they went anywhere without Rob telling them it was okay.

    Rob being fun tv does not make him the best survivor.
     
  10. bryhamm

    bryhamm randomize

    3,592
    6
    Jun 30, 2004
    St Louis area
    The thing with survivor is that you are not in 100% control of everything like BB (more on this later though). Meaning, the tribes are divided however they are divided at the beginning. Plus you have the tribal shuffle, which is random. You can be the absolute best strategist, but get completely screwed by being on a weak tribe that cannot win any challenges and you go into the merge down in number and you lose. This adds to my thought before that in survivor you don't have to win to be the best. Too much luck can play into this.


    Now, with BB there is nothing like the tribes. You go in D1 and you can decide to try an align with everyone or no one. You are in complete control of what you want to do. However, with BB there is the manipulation that goes on behind the scenes by the producers that taints this that survivor does not have. But, for BB I would say that you need to have won BB or gotten to at LEAST the end to be considered the best.
     
  11. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    40,084
    43
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I don't think you could be considered THE BEST without winning either game. That would be like calling the 16-0 Patriots the best team ever, even though they did not win the championship. Or saying that McCain was the best political campaigner ever even though he lost the election. I'm not saying players like Russell or Ozzie weren't great players, just not THE BEST. There's luck in everything, but sometimes luck is a residue of hard work, as the cliche goes. The tribes are shuffled, well deal with it. A great player should be able to change their game based on what he or she has been dealt. That's where Dan shines in my opinion. With every turn of the game he came up with something new. And it all worked, especially in his first go around. Game 2 he worked SO hard at it that in the end, he just played it TOO hard.

    As for manipulation by the producers. If you believe that happens in BB, it can (and may) happen in Survivor as well. The aforementioned shuffles could be done to benefit certain players. We've all accused Survivor producers of bringing out certain competitions that seem to favor certain players at certain times. And here's a difference, as well, in BB, there's a 24/7 feed, so we can see a LOT of what goes on behind the scenes, in Survivor, we only get that one hour highlights show every week (and it's of course VERY edited, so we only know about what the producers WANT us to know about). How do we know how much influence the producers have off camera?

    In BB I agree, you COULD be in more control of your game. But, the game is much longer secret strategies are usually much more easily fleshed out because of the close proximity of all the house guests. I've always felt that Survivor is a more physically demanding game, while BB is a more mentally challenging game.
     
  12. danielhart

    danielhart Nerp Nerp

    1,705
    0
    Apr 27, 2004
    lol he gets my vote. getting all those fools to trust him - even after telling them what he did for a living from the start.

    i also give props to the guy who won when the season was down to just him and the 5-girl alliance and he played them all against each other
     
  13. Fool Me Twice

    Fool Me Twice >>>>>>

    3,478
    0
    Jul 6, 2004
    After his season it was discovered that he had hidden his pornography past. Later, he shot a stray dog with a bow and arrow. That might be part of it. I'm not sure.

    The little gay kid that won Survivor China is one I know they've tried to bring back, but haven't been able to make it work. So, schedule conflicts play a part in who comes back.
     
  14. Fool Me Twice

    Fool Me Twice >>>>>>

    3,478
    0
    Jul 6, 2004
    Correct.

    Also, correct. But, it's not an obvious concept.

    Also correct.
     
  15. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    40,084
    43
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I do think you have to have won to be THE GREATEST. That doesn't mean a non-winner can't be a great players.

    For example, in baseball the 2001 Seattle Mariners won an AL record 116 regular season games. But were ousted in the playoffs. Were they a great team? Of course. Were they the GREATEST team? No. Same with the 16-1 NE Patriots. They can never be considered with the 85 Bears or the great 49er teams of the 80s or Steeler teams of the 70s or Packer teams of the 60s. All won championships. NE didn't.
     
  16. MonsterJoe

    MonsterJoe ♪♫♪♪♫♪♫♫♪

    16,834
    0
    Feb 19, 2003
    Central MA
    Ok, you need to stop bringing that season up.

    Please.
     
  17. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    40,084
    43
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Sorry Giants fan here :)

    I just think the parallel fights great here. They were compared all season with the best of the best, and when they lost in the Super Bowl, the comparisons stopped. That's kind of how I feel about great players who never win in BB or Survivor. Russell's moves were so great, yet it never got him a win in the end.
     
  18. heySkippy

    heySkippy oldweakandpathetic

    19,967
    38
    Jul 2, 2001
    Sarasota, FL
    You're right. The Pats lost, they weren't the best that year. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that they are the best team of the 21st Century owing to the 3 SBs they didn't lose. :)
     
  19. Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey

    40,084
    43
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    But are they the greatest ever? And if they hadn't won those 3 SBs would they even be in the discussion. Buffalo made 4 straight SBs in the 1990s, yet won zero. I don't hear anyone saying they are the greatest ever. And we rarely hear the teams that BEAT them in that discussion either.

    So we go back to what I was saying, to be the greatest EVER, you have to have won.
     

Share This Page