I hope russell loses again on survivior
5/16/2010 9:53 PM
best player ever, period. The fact that he got 0 votes is an abomination on the game and its players. If anyone was going to respect Russell's gamesmanship, it was going to be those that played Survivor before, and low and behold, they didn't and goose-egged him...unreal. Russell Hantz will NEVER win Survivor because people can't respect how well he plays the game, regardless of if he's a good guy or not.
5/17/2010 9:22 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 5/17/2010best player ever, period. The fact that he got 0 votes is an abomination on the game and its players. If anyone was going to respect Russell's gamesmanship, it was going to be those that played Survivor before, and low and behold, they didn't and goose-egged him...unreal. Russell Hantz will NEVER win Survivor because people can't respect how well he plays the game, regardless of if he's a good guy or not


So since it's the strategy game, he has a terrible strategy if he got 0 votes.



5/17/2010 10:15 AM
How is his strategy terrible when it got him to the final 3 again, and he was basically the guy pulling all the strings, again? Sandra coattail rode Russell all the way to the million dollars...Parvati did somewhat, but she was MUCH MORE strategic than Sandra, who basically did nothing.
5/17/2010 10:18 AM
So once again, a terrible strategy to win the money if he got 0 votes.



Great to get to the final 3. Terrible to win money.
5/17/2010 10:23 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By bscoresby on 5/17/2010
So once again, a terrible strategy to win the money if he got 0 votes.



Great to get to the final 3. Terrible to win money.

If you're not voting for Russell just because your feelings are hurt, you're jealous, you don't like him personally, then you're voting for all the wrong reasons. You should vote based upon what happened throughout the game and who outwitted, outlasted, and outplayed the best...Russell has won the fan vote the last 2 times...he's easily the best player in Survivor HISTORY and he proved it again this season. If Russell schemed to vote my *** out, he's getting my vote all day.
5/17/2010 10:26 AM
So, we agree that he is probably the best player but has a poor strategy to win money because people do vote based on jealousy, personal dislikes and hurt feelings.
5/17/2010 10:30 AM
Survivor is still on?
5/17/2010 10:34 AM
You seem to be missing the point.

If Russell gets your vote by lying to you to your face and scheming behind your back to get you kicked off, then he's adopted a good strategy in your case.

If, on the other hand, lying to Rupert's face and then scheming behind his back to get Rupert kicked off does not earn Russell Rupert's vote, then he's adopted a poor strategy in that case.

Going all the way back to Richard and the very first season, "villains" have walked away as winners. But they did their villainy with a hell of a lot more subtlety than Russell did, and they actually bothered to consider who might react badly to being stabbed in the back, and whether they'd stand a chance with a particular jury mix or not.

Best player ever? Not by a long shot.
5/17/2010 10:42 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By bscoresby on 5/17/2010
So, we agree that he is probably the best player but has a poor strategy to win money because people do vote based on jealousy, personal dislikes and hurt feelings.

I don't think his strategy to win money was poor...there's only so much you can do to control the jury, and he's not going to kiss *** and lie to them and tell them how much they meant to him, that in itself is respectable. I really thought that Jerri, Rupert, and J.T., and maybe Colby would have voted for him, and none of them did...I thought this group of "all-stars" would have had the sense of mind to reward gameplay like the newbs of last season didn't, Russell pegged it the same and it didn't happen because everyone wants to play nicey nicey at the end...thus its not how well you play the game, its how much you didn't hurt other peoples' feelings, which I think is wrong. Dare I say I think the jury colluded to squelch Russell from the million, and I think that's crap. At the very least, Parvati should have won...Sandra and Natalie are easily the 2 most undeserving Survivor champions ever and I love how both got all high and mighty and acted like they were worthy, after winning the million bucks...its like, you both should let Russell tap that *** for a night (well Natalie, not Sandra probably lol) because he won it for them.
5/17/2010 10:43 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 5/17/2010
You seem to be missing the point.

If Russell gets your vote by lying to you to your face and scheming behind your back to get you kicked off, then he's adopted a good strategy in your case.

If, on the other hand, lying to Rupert's face and then scheming behind his back to get Rupert kicked off does not earn Russell Rupert's vote, then he's adopted a poor strategy in that case. If Russell lied, cheated, and stole to get me out of the game, I would congratulate him for doing so and I would vote for him. He was the one pulling the strings for the entire game, again...he ran the show...Parvati and Sandra were there because of Russell. He's a snake, but you know he's a snake, he tells you what he's going to do and he goes out and does it, period.

Going all the way back to Richard and the very first season, "villains" have walked away as winners. But they did their villainy with a hell of a lot more subtlety than Russell did, and they actually bothered to consider who might react badly to being stabbed in the back, and whether they'd stand a chance with a particular jury mix or not.

Best player ever? Not by a long shot. Are you insane? Who is then?
5/17/2010 10:43 AM
Survivor has changed over the seasons. If Russell had played in the very first season he would have won because his game play was unique. In fact, the Russell of that time, Richard Hatch, did win. But the game has changed.

The game of Survivor is now based on four very different yet cohesive strategies:

1. The Physical Game - How does one fare in the challenges? How does one's body handle the lack of food, water, sleep, etc.?
Russell is very good at this part of the game. He is able to compete in each and every challenge. He is a force to be reckoned with because he can win any challenge at any time.
Sandra, in my honest opinion, is very good in this part of the game as well because she knows challenges that she may be able to compete in and possibly win (although she has never won a single individual challenge). She knows when a good effort is needed and she knows when bailing on a competition will assist strategy wise later in the game.

2. The Mental Game - How to you "play" your opponents? How do you handle the elements out of your control i.e. Mother Nature, other players? How many steps ahead in the game are you?
This is where Russell shines. It is this part of his game that others can take a chapter from and work to their advantage in later seasons. Russell's game play will change future Survivors. He was able to easily manipulate everyone in the game. He lied, cheated, stole, and burned his way through his opponents. He made deals with everyone at some point or another and knew (usually) when to get rid of his "alliances." His mistake this season was believing his own hype and not playing the third part of the strategy correctly.
This is also the area where I believed Sandra also played well, for the second time. Sandra is the perfect villain. She is the Survivor that teeters on the line between angelic and devilish. She is ruthless. She had a simple strategy this season. Get rid of Russell. Ultimately, she did this by beating him at his own game. She mentally wore him down. So much to the point that she was NEVER in jeopardy of being voted off.

3. The Social Game - Survivor is a social experiment. Put 16-20 individuals together on a deserted island. Restrict food, water, shelter. Make them compete and challenges. Oh, throw in a million dollars to the last person standing. The only social question ever in Survivor history has been, Who can stab people in the back and at the end of the day still be called a friend?
Russell has never played this game to be anyone's friend. And therein lies the sole reason he will never win this game. You have to have some semblance of a heart in this game. It is the nature of human beings, especially when you have to reward someone at the end. Russell is not a likable human being when playing Survivor. He makes it known straight away if you cross him, you are gone. This is ultimately the stupidest thing you can do when it is jury time. You have to befriend the members of the jury or you do not stand a chance.
Sandra and Pavrati had friends on the jury. They had jurors who, at the end of the day, could look them in the eye and say good game. You got me. Now let's go have a beer. Much to America's dislike, Survivor has become more social.

4. The Luck Game - Do you catch any breaks in the game? Does a challenge go your way due to divine intervention? Do you choose the right alliance? Do you start out on the right team?
Luck plays a part in every reality series. You have to have some to last long in the game.

Russell played three parts of this to a tee. He had some luck throughout, he was a mental player and physically imposing at times. However, he couldn't make a friend on this show if they made it Russell and 19 of his closest real life friends. Even in that game he would turn so much his real life friends would disown him. In the end, Russell might always make the final three, but a jury of his fallen comrades will always net him 0 votes.

For my money, and I said it to family and friends when she first won, Sandra is the greatest player in Survivor history. You look up after 39 days and say to yourself, "How the Hell did she make it this far?" Then you look back at what she has done. Never under the radar. Never coat tailing in. She manipulates silently. She is the Ultimate Survivor.
5/17/2010 10:51 AM
Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 5/17/2010Russell pegged it the same and it didn't happen

Translation: I identify with Russell because, like me, he refuses to change his strategy even after it doesn't work.
5/17/2010 11:16 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By antonsirius on 5/17/2010

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 5/17/2010
Russell pegged it the same and it didn't happen

Translation: I identify with Russell because, like me, he refuses to change his strategy even after it doesn't work.
But suppose he's going to be a nice guy, and he doesn't make it to the end because of it? Then what? He could have gotten all the jury votes in the world that he wanted, but the end result would be that he, Russell Hantz, was/is on the jury. Russell lost BOTH TIMES for the wrong reasons...he didn't lose because he was outwitted, outplayed, and outlasted, he lost because nobody liked him for a variety of reasons. J.T.'s ****** at Russell for voting him out with his idol? Tough ****, you should vote for him for scheming and getting you out of the game when it was you, J.T., who thought you had control of the game.

I guess you're right...in a sense I am a microcosm of Russell Hantz because I go by the same mantra basically....whether you like me or not, judge me on what I've done/what I do...in my opinion, you should never just like/dislike something just because you like/dislike the person that created it...judge the creation on its own merits. "I hate Russell" shouldn't be the lasting mantra of those that played with him. Yes he could have been a little more gracious, yes he could have shown a little regret, but in the end, I don't think that should have caused him to get blanked at the final tribal...that's just insane.
5/17/2010 11:22 AM
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/17/2010 11:49 AM
1234 Next ▸

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.