>- I wonder if they
>asked him to say something
>and he spouted some garbage!
>

Undoubtedly he said this proves he should have won.

This HOF loses all credibility with this induction, Coach Ben may as well be the next one, then Rupert, then Chet. Then Heidi and her awesome IQ.

LAST EDITED ON 12-16-10 AT 05:20 PM (EST)

Boston Rob should be #1 in the Hall of Fame if you ask me. Put any group of All Stars together and there is one person they would all go "Woah" for- Boston Rob.

Plus, he's still the most entertaining Survivor ever. That should count for a lot.

The Hall of Fame charter members should be-

1. Boston Rob
2. Parvati
3. Sandra
4. Amanda
5. Russell

Boston Rob- enuf said
Parvati- 1 win, 2 finals, 3 juries
Sandra - 2 wins, 2 finals, 2 juries
Amanda- 2 finals, 3 juries
Russell - 2 finals, 2 juries

Parvati, Sandra, Amanda, and Russell are the only players in Survivor history to go to more than 1 final.

Parvati, Amanda and Rupert are the only players in Survivor history to be on 3 juries (or making it to the jury stage since technically Parvati and Amanda were only on 1 jury each).

So, only 5 different players have accomplished either of these feats.

After this season there will be 20 different winners of Survivor. Therefore, statistically speaking, accomplishing either feat is 4 times more unlikely than winning the show.

>

Personally, I would have to put Cirie above Amanda and Russell combined; even though she's never won it is because everyone is genuinely afraid to let her get to final, she's just that good. Maybe the only player that could defeat Sandra in an F2.

I agree with Dabo, one of the main reasons Russell has two finals is that he is the ideal goat.

LAST EDITED ON 12-16-10 AT 08:08 PM (EST)

>Parvati, Sandra, Amanda,
>and Russell are the only
>players in Survivor history
>to go to more than 1 final.

This would be valid ONLY if everyone played more than one time!

Amanda!!!!!!!!! No way, not before at least 30 other players had been elected. Sandra, along with Fairplay, Rupert, Kathy and Boston Rob, would be good for the second ballot after the first five I mentioned above.

LAST EDITED ON 12-17-10 AT 09:40 PM (EST)

I hear all of you. I do. The fact of the matter is a million subjective arguments can be made. The arguments I list are objective. I hate to put Russell into the top 5, believe me, but results are results. I have also never been a fan of Sandra's, but there you go. You can talk until you are blue in the face and go no where, or you can just look at the results and objectively see who has done the best.

I can see making an argument that the goal is to win the game and since Russell never was close to winning, then his Finals run should be discounted.

There is some logic to that, but I won't make it. Better players go farther in the game. Always? No, certainly not, but I believe it is still enough of a truism to be considered a objective measure.

If selecting players to return to the game were random, then I would agree that it would be unfair to compare players who have played 3 times to those who played only once, but that isn't the case. There are reasons why certain players were asked to return and others weren't, and that should be considered.

This is a Hall of Fame, after all. I don't equate that with history. I also don't equate it necessarily with the 5 best game players to ever play. I instead equate it to the 5 players who accomplished the most and played the biggest role. Those who appeared in the most shows certainly played bigger roles than those who appeared in fewer shows.

Cirie had 3 chances to play Survivor. In all 3 attempts, she did not make it as far as Amanda made it in her 3 seasons. There are many factors to this, but the reality is she failed to overcome those obstacles. Remember in Fans vs. Faves none of the (byotches) women wanted Amanda to make the Finals because she was too likable. She went on an IC run to make the Finals anyway. That is called overcoming an obstacle.

By michel's standard, simply being in the first two seasons seems to entitle you to the Hall of Fame. I guess that is one way of looking at it. I don't, and as we are seeing, neither do the voters.

I would lastly point out that Fairplay quit Fans vs. Faves. That disqualifies him from the Hall of Fame. It is like betting on baseball.

>

LAST EDITED ON 12-18-10 AT 04:48 AM (EST)

Nice points you have made, Iltarion. Now, let me tear them apart!

>The arguments I list are objective.
>I hate to put Russell
>into the top 5, believe
>me, but results are results.
>I have also never been
>a fan of Sandra's, but
>there you go...You can
>just look at the results
>and objectively see who has
>done the best...
>If selecting players to return to
>the game were random, then
>I would agree that it
>would be unfair to compare
>players who have played 3
>times to those who played
>only once, but that isn't
>the case. There are reasons
>why certain players were asked
>to return and others weren't,
>and that should be considered.

Do you realize that you are basing your objective measure on THE most subjective of all variables concerning Survivor? Casting decisions! Casting decides who goes on the show and especially who returns. For instance, did you know that Amanda only went to Micronesia because Courtney turned down the invitation? Or that Parvati would have watched Fans vs Favorites from home if Candice hadn't gone back to medical school? That Jeff was upset by many selections but Lynn wanted HER recruits to return?

BTW, @ss #1 wasn't different: Amber and Jenna, two of the final three no less, only returned because Lis and Colleen refused to go. Even Boston Rob wasn't a sure thing back in S8. Sean was deemed more deserving by many people as were Skupin and Brian. Sometimes the reason is simply who looks best in a bathing suit or who is funniest. Hardly reasons to elect someone to a Survivor Hall of Fame.

>This is a Hall of Fame,
>after all. I don't equate
>that with history. I also
>don't equate it necessarily with
>the 5 best game players
>to ever play. I instead
>equate it to the 5
>players who accomplished the most
>and played the biggest role.
>Those who appeared in the
>most shows certainly played bigger
>roles than those who appeared
>in fewer shows.

I'm glad you brought up baseball in your post because it gives me a great comparison: If Cooperstown's HOF didn't exist and MLB just decided this year to name some players to a new hall, who would be the first elected? I'd bet my last dollar that we'd see the 5 from this group: Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, Lou Gehrig, Walter Johnson and maybe some "modern" players like Stan Musial, Ted Willians, Joe Dimaggio or Jackie Robinson. Gregg Maddux? No way, not before quite a few others would be elected. Hall of Fame is all about history.

>Cirie had 3 chances to play
>Survivor. In all 3 attempts,
>she did not make it
>as far as Amanda made
>it in her 3 seasons.

I wouldn't elect Cirie immediately but I would place her before Amanda for the simple reason that players feared Cirie's abilities. Amanda was a joke when she was seen rounding the corner in Fans vs Favorites.

>
>By michel's standard, simply being in
>the first two seasons seems
>to entitle you to the
>Hall of Fame. I guess
>that is one way of
>looking at it. I don't,
>and as we are seeing,
>neither do the voters.

Have you ever been to CBS' web site? Do you know the twits that post there? Most shouldn't be allowed to vote for anything. But that isn't the main objection I have to the fan vote: We know that those who posted last week have seen the latest seasons but did they see the pre-@ss seasons? Certainly not all of them. Now, about Jeff and other production people voting, I will defer my answer until Monday. Stay tuned.

Why do I put 5 players from seasons 1 and 2 as the first five inductees? Simple: Over 40 Million viewers. They were famous, being interviewed by most newspapers. Only 10 or 12M saw RussHell's dirty underwear.

>I would lastly point out that
>Fairplay quit Fans vs. Faves.
>That disqualifies him from the
>Hall of Fame. It is
>like betting on baseball.

I think that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. Fairplay would be a controversial choice and I wouldn't tear my shirt off to get him in but I think he is a big part of Survivor history, the creator of the funniest moment ever.

Going old school, finally!

Here's the link:
http://www.fancast.com/blogs/2010/tv-news/survivor-hall-of-fame-inductee-richard-hatch/
No comments from him either. Is in still in jail?!

I have to give a plug for Rob Cesternino's podcasts for any of you Survivor fans who haven't listened to them. I download them from itunes; you can also find them on Robhasawebsite.com. This season he has been interviewing the booted candidate and then also interviewing a Survivor from the past that might have an insight into a particular aspect of the game this season i.e. he interviewed Deena at merge and Butch after the fire. I listened to his interview with Tina today. She gently ranked on CBS for casting "characters" like Russell instead of players like the early days. She also said her chance of being picked for the Hall of Fame are slim, "I'm not interesting and I was on too long ago." (She did this interview a week or so ago.) Check it out.

Actually, he is back in trouble again.

http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/survivor-richard-hatch-allegedly-violates-probation-by-not-refiling-11813.php

Sandra Diaz-Twine

So, everyone on my list except Amanda. I am pretty good at this. Hahaha....

>

It is realy good for me!

__________

nice cheap DVDs available at http://www.dvdbestonline.com

Once, Thomas Walk the famous reality show analist wrote about this topic. I really liked it.
Did you already use the Needleman-scale for this reality show?

famous reality show analist

*walks away whistling*