Ok, now where did Jimmy and John go?

Given the choice of the two I wanna be Jimmy.

His historic run to the semis of the US Open when he was pushing 40 was an inspiration to all of us middle-aged folks.

...oh, and being married to a Penthouse Pet doesn't hurt either!

Wrong again: Patti McGuire was Playboy's Playmate of the Year in 1977.

Hmmmm, Penthouse Pet, or Playmate of he year? This is what I'm talkin' 'bout!!!! Now, here's where I'll really get you going, who was better in your opinions Jimmy Connors or John McEnroe

Are you trying to start a fight?! It may not look that way but I consider Aruba as a friend, a fellow Survivor fan. We simply don't see things the same way because he values more the athletic competition while I see it as a social game. He'd try to win all the challenges while I'd align with him, throw a few challenges and get my other alliances to boot the physical threat that he represents!

Anyway, better in the case of two tennis players from the same era is easy to determine. Jimmy has the better record. I prefer John's style but he won less titles.

Whoa, I thought we were all just joking around here lol.

I was...

Michel's my main dude on these Boards.

Unlike other Reality Shows, I will always view Survivor being more of a competitive game as opposed to some social experiment of tossing a bunch of human laboratory rats in a controlled environment. Although sadly as the years progress we are leaning more toward that concept. In any event Survivor will always be more of a "Robinson Crusoe" analogy to me. Clearly if you are a social moron you don't deserve to advance but I will always favor physicality in any type of competition and look more down upon the weak and inept who need to be carried.

Anyway, with Connors and McEnroe their great careers overlapped rather than coincided, thus the "rivalry" concept did not apply as much as a Navratilova vs. Evert when most of the matches were played in their prime.

I'll agree with Michel and give the nod to Jimmy. With the exception of Sampras, no one got more mileage out of the serve and volley game than Johnny Mac, whereas Jimmy's game was more well-rounded. As Michel mentioned, Jimmy won more titles...I know a little while back he was the all-time leader in career titles. Hard to ignore that stat when deciding between the two.

It isn't "sadly progressing" in that direction at all because that is how it started. In Episode 1 of Borneo Jeff calls it a "social experiment." In the very first page of his book, Burnett wrote about his idea for the show: "It...led me to search for a new and clever "nature based" way of providing men and women with an opportunity to discover who they really were. Survivor was the outcome of that search."

The deserted island and the challenges only serve as catalysts. The experiment is all about the characters and their interactions.

The only sad progression is that viewers demand more shock value. Back in 2000-01, Hatch and Jerri were considered villains but what did they really do that was villainous? They made alliances and Jerri flirted. The new viewers, the ones that started watching during Cook islands or Samoa or even later, look back at Hatch and Jerri and don't really see what the big deal was. Hence, casting has to come up with Shamars, Culpeppers, Coltons and Rockers. When that intended villain proves to be harmless like the ex-pitcher, the season falls flat like San Juan del Sur even if I found it interesting.

Survivor was not the first Reality Show to hit mainstream TV. That distinction belongs to MTV “The Real World.” It was dubbed a social experiment about half a decade before Burnett had his brainchild we all know as “Survivor.” Thus it is not surprising in episode one of its inaugural season or on Burnett’s “first page” they focus on “social experiment” to assess a theme.

But it is the physicality, i.e. starvation, dehydration, challenges, etc. that sets Survivor apart from all the other reality shows. It’s also why I will always regard Survivor as my favorite Reality TV show. These physical factors are FAR more than just mere “catalysts.” Without this physicality Survivor would have fallen by the wayside much like many other reality shows. Anyone who has followed Survivor from its beginnings has to admit castaways do not starve like they used to…do not dehydrate like they used to…and do not wear down like they used. THAT is what I refer to when I note the “sad progression.”

Although I do see your point when you question “villainous” during the early seasons. Personally I will always regard liars as “sorry sacks of sh!t.” But do I necessarily label them “villains?” No; Hatch is more of a “sorry sack of sh!t” than a villain in my book. Do I consider Jerri a villain because she is a self-centered B!tch?” No; she’s just…well…a self-centered B!tch.

This whole villain shock value came to the forefront with Hantz. Was he the first scoundrel to be casted? Far from it. But he was a castaway wearing the largest black hat in Samoa who owned the game by searching harder and playing harder than anyone else that season. From that point on Production decided they would ride that shock wave and part of its casting would be devoted to selecting worthless pieces of trash or pathetically inept losers with a mean or bad streak. But when they are unable to own the game the way Hantz did, I agree with your assessment that those “intended villains” prove harmless and the season runs the risk of falling flat.

LAST EDITED ON 02-08-15 AT 02:54 PM (EST)

>Survivor was not the first Reality
>Show to hit mainstream TV.
>That distinction belongs to MTV
>“The Real World.” It was
>dubbed a social experiment about
>half a decade before Burnett
>had his brainchild we all
>know as “Survivor.” Thus
>it is not surprising in
>episode one of its inaugural
>season or on Burnett’s “first
>page” they focus on “social
>experiment” to assess a theme.

It was more than just a sales pitch. Often in his book Burnett comes back to state that the winner will not be the one that wins more challenges or provides more for his tribe but the one that handles the social aspect best.
One of his first quotes about the show was: "Survivor is 2 parts adventure contest and 8 parts surviving the peer group." Or, again, later: "Survivor is...about Machiavellian politics at their most primal. Human dynamics mean everything."

>But it is the physicality, i.e.
>starvation, dehydration, challenges, etc. that
>sets Survivor apart from all
>the other reality shows.
>It’s also why I will
>always regard Survivor as my
>favorite Reality TV show.
>These physical factors are FAR
>more than just mere “catalysts.”
>Without this physicality Survivor would
>have fallen by the wayside
>much like many other reality
>shows.

I know you watch Big Brother, a show whose very existence contradicts this statement. Like you, I appreciate Survivor a hell of a lot more than Big Brother in part because of its deserted island aspect but BB hasn't fallen by the wayside. For me, Survivor is simply a better game because it depends less on challenges than Big Brother.

>Anyone who has followed
>Survivor from its beginnings has
>to admit castaways do not
>starve like they used to…do
>not dehydrate like they used
>to…and do not wear down
>like they used. THAT is
>what I refer to when
>I note the “sad progression.”

Really? Then explain this:

Do you think as many people would have quit in later seasons if they had been given parkas? Bikinis are simply better for ratings than parkas. And what about Swan who nearly died out there in Samoa? Starvation and dehydration are still big problems. What's funniest is that the water from the wells never needed to be boiled but no one ever tells the players!

>Although I do see your point
>when you question “villainous” during
>the early seasons. Personally I
>will always regard liars as
>“sorry sacks of sh!t.” But
>do I necessarily label them
>“villains?” No; Hatch is more
>of a “sorry sack of
>sh!t” than a villain in
>my book. Do I consider
>Jerri a villain because she
>is a self-centered B!tch?” No;
>she’s just…well…a self-centered B!tch.

Besides telling Jeff Probe that there wasn't a Tagi 4 alliance, what lie did Hatch tell? I'll admit that Jerri was self centered but what bitchy thing did she do? Kel's beef jerky? Everyone was in on that, not just Jerri and they had all decided during the trek that Kel, the lone wolf, would be first to go.

>This whole villain shock value came
>to the forefront with Hantz.

I'd give the credit to Fairplay myself. That was the biggest shock in unscripted Drama TV. I still have a hard time understanding why you give so much credit to that @sshole Hantz. Leave that to the newbies who discovered the show during his season.

>From that point on Production decided
>they would ride that shock
>wave and part of its
>casting would be devoted to
>selecting worthless pieces of trash
>or pathetically inept losers with
>a mean or bad streak.
>But when they are unable
>to own the game the
>way Hantz did, I agree
>with your assessment that those
>“intended villains” prove harmless and
>the season runs the risk
>of falling flat.

I agree but it started much earlier and it wasn't only because of what happened on Survivor. Society in general is much darker than it was 15 years ago. What shocked in 2000 is harmless today thus the ante has to be raised. Watch All-Stars again and look how they villainized Lex. Then look at the next seasons where the editors turned Ami into a villain, Probe harped on Twila's swearing on her children during the Vanuatu reunion, the casting of Shane in full nicotine withdrawal and Judd in full sportsmanship withdrawal, etc...
It's been a continuous curve. Phillip is merely Rory with more Reality TV experience. His acting got him a reinvitation and an opportunity to sell his book while who remembers Rory today besides us nuts?

The new trend is all about "Big Moves" and listen to the castaways introduction videos to know that they have learned the lesson. Probst has dwelled on it so much that people will do big moves at the expense of their own game like Ciera and the tie vote or Natalie and her needless risks.

I said MANY reality shows have fallen by the wayside; not ALL of them. And anyone who has watched Big Brother over the years cannot deny the fact it has lost a fair amount of steam in recent seasons.

Here's another example of you not reading every word in my post...when I talk about physicality I am referencing starvation and performing in challenges. Other than providing us a visual as you stroll down memory lane, wearing a parka does not address the starvation issue and does not help one in challenges. In any event season two parkas have given way to hoodies, sweaters, leg warmers and other articles of clothing they are now allowed to enter the game with to help brave the elements.

Quitters can be blamed SQUARELY on Production and the inadequate job they do casting for the show. In the beginning everyone had to apply and an involved screening process was conducted which could have been used to weed out those with quitting tendencies. Now with many players "recruited" for the show, they bypass much of that process and we have witnessed the negative effects throughout the recent years.

So denying the Tagi alliance was Hatch's ONLY lie? HMMMM, funny how Sue Hawk referred to Richard as a "snake" in her infamous speech. Unless you can convince me a snake is a symbol of honesty and integrity you'll have a hard time selling me on that.

After Season 4 the E! Network had a special series on Survivor where several castaways from the first four seasons were interviewed. Richard said HIMSELF, forget honesty...lie to everyone...this is for a million bucks!

Jerri's b!tchy attitude went far beyond the beef jerky incident. Most everyone had it with her abrasive b!tchy way. For a RC during the middle of that season the castaways had to draw names to partner up for the challenge. Jerri's b!tchy self-centered attitude came to the forefront when she started b!tching about wanting to PICK her partner...and naturally she wanted Colby. Even Colby (the object of her affection) wanted no part of her b!tchiness.

On that same E! Network special they interviewed Maralyn who said something to the effect if they didn't have the rule disallowing the striking of another player she would have wiped up the Outback with that *bleep*

Once again if you REALLY read my post, you'd see where I SPECIALLY stated Hantz was not the first player ever casted to wear the black hat. Sure Fairplay fit the bill, but Johnny was a one-trick pony. His villainous attitude was ALL he had going for him. He flat out sucked in challenges and even if they had HIIs in his season it would have hardy meant a difference for his individual game.

Hantz is an @sshole...no two ways about it. But I will not let my personal dislike for the man deny the fact he owned that season. It's not a case of me giving him so much credit as much as me telling it like it was. Unlike Fairplay he searched and played harder than anyone. Even beyond the idols he found, let's not forget he pulls out the final IC which allowed him and those riding his coattails to advance to the Finals and be given a chance to win.

Once again, I suppose everyone will have a different definition for villain. In the season they had the audacity to call "All-Stars," Lex proved to be a hypocritical sore-loser. But did that make him a "villain?" IMHO, No. And Ami having an issue with men does not necessarily make her a villain in my book; just a femi-nazi.

Finally I would not classify "Big Moves" as a NEW trend. It has been used by anyone with the primary objective to WIN even from the beginning. But unfortunately what has been more prevalent is players just being satisfied to advance in the game. If one's primary/sole objective is to be the Sole Survivor they will be more inclined to make the Big Moves as opposed to an UTR or coattail rider happy to be carried deeper into the game.

Big Brother has certainly lost steam over the years but so has Survivor! As far as I'm concerned, it jumped the shark way back in season 13. But, for the purpose of this discussion, I did read every word of your post but did you read all of mine? Besides starvation and performing in challenges, you also mentioned wearing down. Being cold and damp has been the main factor for people quitting therefore the parka image was totally appropriate. As for starvation and dehydration, I mentioned Swan which you ignored.

Yes, Sue called Hatch a snake BECAUSE his plan got everyone eliminated. That's the game. Tell me what lie did YOU hear from him? Give me ONE example besides his lie about the alliance. See, back in 2000 all you needed to do to be a villain was form an alliance. That doesn't even get you airtime today.

You see Jerri picking Colby as an example of b*tchiness? It doesn't take much to offend you. I thought you'd see that as an example of someone actively optimizing her chances of winning a challenge!!! Like you, Maralyn fell for the editing of Jerri as the villain when, in actuality, she was simply trying to win the game. It's also amusing that you use the term of "nazi" to define Ami yet deny her the role of villain.

I am aware that you wrote Hantz wasn't the first player cast to be the villain but I contested the notion that he somehow changed the way the casting process is done. Casting for villains goes all the way back to the early seasons. Fairplay was the first true villain. He did more than just have a villainous attitude. He played a big part in turning the table on Burton and getting him voted out pre-merge, then he quickly realized that the Outcasts were his ticket to the end so he got Burton and Lill on his side and booted Rupert and Christa after finishing off most of Drake. Not bad for a "one-trick poney".

Finally, listen to the introduction videos to see that Jeff has gotten the players to say exactly what he wants. You don't have to make big moves to win this game, you have to make the right moves. They may be big, they may be subtle but they have to be effective. Riding coat tails can be effective. Big moves are mostly for ratings.

Ciera is now remembered as a player who made big moves but did she win? Tying the vote was a STUPID move for her. Watch that TC again and maybe you will realize, like I did back then, that Ciera made the decision to force a tie ONLY because Jeff wanted her to do it.

Wearing down in my mind does not mean being a pansy when the temperature drops. I was still referring to the starvation factor. Simply put, Swan was an idiot. His leadership role went to head to the point where he felt the need to put out the effort of four or five men. If you're going to do that you better have the hydration of four or five men. He did not; so he sealed his fate.

Listen, I don't have all these seasons on DVD and I am not going back to watch episodes. Everything I post on these Boards are from memory, so OBVIOUSLY I can't remember EVERY bloody detail. But I do recall when Hatch's tribe lost the first IC because Sonya performed horribly she was justifiably concerned. I do remember Hatch assuring her everything would be OK. Sure...everything was OK...that's why she became the first castaway voted off in the history of Survivor. LOL
Bottom line mostly everyone who ever played with Hatch referred to him as a lying snake. For crying out loud he even openly admitted it HIMSELF. The other thing he ever openly admitted to more is being gay.

Jerri wanting to partner with Colby is not what reinforced her as a b!tch. Not wanting the follow the rules of randomly drawing to select your partner and wanting to pick her partner so she could have HER way was an example of her being a self-centered b!tch.

Pearl Islands was a case of the Anti-Darwin Syndrome running rampant. In the second half of the season the pathetically weak had the numbers and picked off the stronger players one-by-one. Fairplay was just one of the pathetically inept in the majority. He didn't have to do a cotton-picking thing other than let the ADS take its course.

Ciera forced the tie because it was either that or have to control her own fate and win challenges. She was too pathetically inept for the latter so she took a chance on the tie and hoped the purple rock would Anti-Darwin one of the stronger players out. The only criticism I have is because of the Redemption Island twist even if Tyson drew the purple rock he still would have had a chance to win his way back into the game, but I would hardly call the best shot she had to advance "stupid."

Going by memory can be tricky. It seems obvious that you forgot that Hatch didn't vote for Sonja at that first TC. He voted for Stacy. Also, we never saw Hatch talking to Sonja after the loss so no, he didn't lie to her. You also seem to forget that Hatch's best friend out there was Rudy, a no-nonsense straightshooter who would not have been friends with a liar. Hatch was very honest with his allies. The audience saw him as a villain because he got rid of all their favorites. Hatch went along afterwards and adopted that now legendary persona. That's why he admitted it himself.

As for Jerri it doesn't take you much to call someone a b*tch.

Fairplay's main ally in the 2nd half was Burton and he wanted to go to the end with the strongest guy out there so how exactly did he "let the ADS take its course"?

Finally, I see that you missed the big picture regarding Ciera. Even if Tyson had picked the white rock Ciera wouldn't have won the game: Hayden would have won.
After Katie got eliminated, Ciera tried hard to get Monica to flip on Gervase and Tyson but Monica knew that move would also be giving the game to Hayden.
Ciera had ONE chance of winning that game: Going along with booting Hayden at 6 THEN convincing Monica to join her and KATIE to the end. Katie was certainly not the jury threat that Hayden was so Monica may have taken the chance to flip. But Probst wanted ratings and big moves so he coerced Ciera into tying the vote.

Going from memory is not only tricky, it's down right stupid when you need to recollect from a decade and a half ago in order to confirm the obvious.

I know Hatch gave Sonja assurance when he knew she would be voted off, but I not going to waste anymore time testing each other's long-term memory squabbling about the obvious.

YOU ARE...WHO YOU ARE...WHO YOU ARE.

With Hatch and Jerri those who lived with them 24/7 labeled them as a dishonest snake and self-centered b!tch respectively. Now just because others gave them those labels should we etch it in stone? No, but for me I'll reflect on events that transpired after this decade and a half point in time to determine if they got it right or got it wrong.

BOTTOMLINE...our Judicial System wouldn't have thrown Hatch in the slammer if he wasn't a dishonest snake. And why did he spend time in the Big House?...because...

YOU ARE...WHO YOU ARE...WHO YOU ARE.

BOTTOMLINE...only a self-centered b!tch would storm off the set during the Reunion Show. And why was Jerri the ONLY player in the ENTIRE history of Survivor to walk off like she did?...because...

YOU ARE...WHO YOU ARE...WHO YOU ARE.

Anyone who still wants to be delusional and contend Hatch is not a lying snake and Jerri is not a self-centered b!tch can go home, feed their pet unicorns, and kick back with an ice cold beer that flows freely from their kitchen faucets. LOL

In Pearl Islands the ADS played out because in the endgame most of those remaining were the pathetically inept, so the solid competitors were doomed unless they ran the table. Fairplay stayed close to Burton to get his vote on the Jury, and he would have if pathetic Lil had not made the bonehead decision and given the win to Sandra out of default.

Yes, in hindsight pathetically inept Ciera had no chance to win because there were still a few solid competitors in the mix, i.e., Tyson, Monica, Hayden. Ciera represented one of the many in the game of Survivor who sadly advances to the endgame mainly because they pose no threat to win crucial challenges down the stretch.

Now it can work out if the ADS allows such a castaway to advance with other pathetically inepts, i.e. Pearl Island. Or they sit before a cry-baby sore-losing jury who casts disgruntled votes allowing a winner by default.

Yes, Ciera was desperate...and desperate times called for desperate measures which is why she took a chance with the rocks.

So, you just choose to ignore that Hatch didn't vote for Souna or that Rudy trusted and liked him. I still maintain that Hatch did nothing in Borneo to be called a villain.

Yes, I know you believe that you are who you are. Myself, I say: You are who you are...unless the editors have others ideas for you. We all saw Hatch and Jerri return to the game and they simply weren't who they were in their first seasons. Neither was Stephenie, Ami and many others. When the editors don't need to make something out of a particular character then we see who they really are. Steph wasn't the superwoman sweetheart in Guatemala while Ami was quite ordinary in Micronesia.

Ciera took a chance on the rock because she wanted to please Jiffy.

Yes, Hatch was only called a villain because most of the cast behaved the way America thought they should (when nobody had any clue what an 'alliance' was) and how dare this guy come in and band a few people together to vote as one?!? How dare this guy sit in a tree and do nothing to help the tribe out during the first night or two?!?

It was a naïve America back then in the year 2000, one that had yet to be exposed to the real snakes and rats to come in future seasons and on many, many other reality shows.

Today? Most Survivor contestants today would sneer at what Hatch did back in Borneo and call him an amateur. That's how times have changed.

Thank you Pepe!

Yeah, remember the uproar in the newspapers after the very first episode? The headlines screamed, "They voted out the nicest person in America!"

I couldn't remember her name...never mind what skin mag she posed in. LOL

Any red-blooded guy who was fortunate to spend any "quality time" with her would care less if she was Playmate of the Year, Penthouse Pet, Hustler Honey, etc. etc...