It dates back to Season 1 when unlikable Richard Hatch beat fan favorites Rudy Boesch and Kelly Wiglesworth at the end of Survivor: Borneo. Yes, I am talking about the debate of who is the best Survivor player. It's something a lot of Survivor Super-Fans love to debate, and often disagree about.
There is a list of 5 or 6 names that are often tossed around as the best players but more times than not one particular player lands at the very top. That player is Sandra Diaz-Twine, the only two-time winner in Survivor history. In fact, Sandra is "2 for 2" having played twice and won twice. That is a legitimate case for a Sandra advocate to argue as to why she HAS to be considered the best. Here is my counteracting viewpoint:
#1 A "1 for 1" player has the same 100% record
I have heard Sandra advocates say "she's the only player with an 100% record". Well I'm sorry but that's not true. Many Survivor winners are one time players and they also have an 100% record. YES, "2 for 2" is more impressive than "1 for 1" but a very good one-time player, one-time winner like Kim Spradlin could come back and do it again. Also, neither of Sandra's wins are as impressive single-games as several one-time players, one-time winners including people like Tony Vlachos.
#2 A lot of luck went into Sandra's wins
Sandra is a weak physical competitor and has never won an individual immunity challenge. She uses that stat to her advantage saying in the Heroes vs Villains FTC that she "never hid behind the shield of the necklace". However I say that physical weakness is a game liability and physically weak competitors are often voted out early. Sandra got very LUCKY to start both times on dominating tribes that won the first several immunity challenges, had she been on the other tribes, she could have been ousted early both times. Also, she got lucky with a bitter jury in HvV:
#3 The jury made the wrong decision in Heroes vs Villains
As I stated this spring in an article defending Michele Fitzgerald's Survivor: Kaoh Rong victory I stated that I very rarely think the jury makes the "wrong" decision. The entire objective of the game of Survivor is to get to Day 39 and get enough votes from the jury. If you succeed, almost always, you are the best player that season. When discussing controversial jury decisions like the one in Kaoh Rong I am almost always on the side of the winner because the winner succeeded, the runner-up did not. It's as simple as that. However, in a very unusual set of circumstances, I believe that the HvV jury made the flat out wrong decision. Russell was never going to win and shouldn't have won that season. However, between Parvati and Sandra you had a stark contrast of player and follower. Of challenge beast and challenge dud. Of double-idol player and idol mis-user. Of leader and goat. And you had an all-returnee jury that SHOULD have respected big moves. Yet the follower, challenge dud, idol mis-user goat won. Okay, okay, maybe I'm being a bit hard on Sandra here. Maybe her game wasn't that bad. But it was bad enough and coupled with the fact that she was against the person that had just played the single best game in Survivor history, it was a wrong decision. Even more than half the jury admitted to it later.
#4 Parvati Shallow
As I laid out in reason #3, Parvati should have won Heroes vs Villains. If so, coming off a win in Micronesia, SHE would be the only two-time winner. Therefore, in my unofficial mind, she IS the two-time winner. And she is the single best player in Survivor history, hands down, far and away. The End.
No comments:
Post a Comment