There's that saying in sports, "May the best man/woman/team win". I don't know if anyone really means it, it's just what we say. But I've long argued that the thing that really makes sports great is that the best man/woman/team doesn't always win. It'd be boring if they did. Most of the time, the best team wins. If they didn't, it'd ruin the integrity of the sport. But without upsets, why would we even watch?
I bring this up because Chuck Klosterman recently interviewed Jeff Probst in a must-hear podcast. One of his most interesting questions was whether Survivor promotes mediocrity. That instead of the best player winning, the most average player wins. At the start of the competition, the old and weak are voted off first; in the spirit of keeping the tribe strong and winning immunity challenges, the athletes usually team up to get rid of everyone who's a liability. Later, the game evolves into voting off the biggest threats. Inevitably, the guy who had won five immunity challenges in a row gets snuffed as soon as he fails to throw a bean bag into a bucket before someone else does. This leaves us with the "middle class" winning in the end. Whoever didn't suck enough to get voted off early, but didn't dominate enough to get targeted late ends up winning.
The question blew my mind. I'd never thought about it before, but was Survivor just a competition to see who was the most average? Devastated that my third favorite sport could be a fraud, I did some serious soul-searching. After praying meditating thinking about it for about seventeen minutes on the bus ride home, I've decided that no, Survivor doesn't promote mediocrity.
Like any sport, there are upsets. We all remember when Sandra beat Parvati six votes to three in season 20 -- it was one of the biggest upsets in sports/reality show history. The better woman lost but it was an upset, not a celebration of mediocrity. Most of the time that doesn't happen. Usually, the best player wins. Or at least one of the best players wins. It often comes down to which of the few true contenders makes the decisive move at the right time. Who wins a crucial immunity challenge, who reads the other poker hands correctly, or who can sway the couple undecided votes in the jury when it comes down to it. These qualities are not a lack of physical prowess or simply being unthreatening. They're a combination of decision making ability, charisma, leadership, and intuition.
For the sake of way over-thinking a reality television show (and to convince myself that my last decade of Survivor watching hasn't been a waste of time), let's break down a few of the most iconic Survivor contestants of all time.
Russel Hantz
Russel's probably the most famous "villain" in Survivor history. He impressively made it to the finals in two consecutive seasons, a feat that had never been done before and will probably never be done again. When he lost in the finals two seasons in a row, he argued that it was because the game was flawed. That he deserved to win, in a way asking the same question as Klosterman. However, he was wrong. He was spectacular at getting second place, but could not finish. Not because he was "too good". But because he lacked the most important skill of any Survivor winner: finding a way to get the people who you vote off, to vote for you to win a million dollars. It takes subtlety and finesse. You have to be able to beat people and have them respect you for it, not resent you.
Boston Rob
Rob has the advantage of having been on the show four times. But you could see how the experience paid off. In his final season, he was unquestionably the best player and rightfully won the million bucks. It was the single greatest season anyone has ever played. The best move he made was keeping his original tribe loyal post-merge. Often times, we see the tribe with bigger numbers turn on each other, thinking they have to be the one backstabbing lest they get backstabbed themselves. Rob remedied this with one of the most brilliant strategies in the history of Survivor. Brilliant but simple. The "buddy system". No one from his original tribe was ever allowed to be alone. They all partnered up and refused to even pretend to talk strategy with the opposing tribe. It was an impenetrable defense. Rob also had both short-term and long-term strategies planned out. He knew who he wanted on the jury and who he wanted to sit next to at the end. There's no guaranteed blueprint on how to win Survivor, you have to adapt to every situation and Rob did that beautifully.
Parvati
Until Rob's unparalleled season, Parvati was my pick for greatest to ever play the game. And you could argue her overall record is just as good impressive, with 1st, 2nd, and 6th place finishes compared to Rob's 1st, 2nd, 10th, and 13th. Especially because she was always flagged as a threat early on and still managed to make it to make it deep into the "playoffs" every season. Being able to stick around after you get a target on your back is one of those skills that you can't teach. You either have it or you don't. One of Parvati's greatest accomplishments was defeating Ozzy in season 16. The move that is forever etched in the record books occurred at the always crucial crossroads with nine players left, when a 5-4 blindside is possible, but risky. The episode was a clinic on how to win Survivor. It started with winning immunity in an endurance challenge (stand on a log and hold your arm above your head for as long as you can). Then setting up the blindside (let's vote of Jason like we always planned to do, but really we'll take this opportunity to vote off the amazing, but a little too trusting, Ozzy). What often gets overlooked here is that this single move probably won her the entire game. By keeping her side-promise to Jason and not voting him off, she won his jury vote, which ended up being the decisive vote for her to win 5-3. It didn't matter if she took the heat for backstabbing Ozzy, he was going to vote for Amanda to win no matter what. The move netted her one jury vote, got rid of of biggest competitor and gave her the most persuasive argument for why she deserved to win -- "I decided to pull the trigger and axe the front-runner, I did so by winning and leading, not by following and riding someone else's coattails." It was possibly the only scenario that would have lead to her eventual victory and it was executed perfectly. I'm actually starting to talk myself back into ranking Parvati as number one all time.
JT
In an easily overlooked performance because it was so boring, JT's win in season 18 deserves some credit. His brilliance was in voting people off and being almost apologetic about it. "Sorry Coach, I don't want you to go, but that's just the way the numbers are going to fall." His decisive move came immediately after the merge, using his charisma to win over enough opposing tribe members to keep his outnumbered original tribe not only alive, but somehow in control. He left himself a little vulnerable to a blindside, but one could argue that he knew his alliances were tight enough that he had nothing to worry about. What firmly established himself as the best player of his season was his performance in the final tribal council. He acted genuinely hurt when Stephen admitted that he might not have taken JT to the end with him if he'd won the final immunity challenge. It was only after the votes were counted and JT had won 7-0 that he admitted there was no way he would have kept himself around if he'd been in Stephen's shoes. When faced with stiffer competition in season 20, JT showed why he's not among Survivor's all-time elites, but in a bit of a down season, he put in a dominating performance.
Sandra
On the other side of the coin, Sandra's the poster-child for Survivor promoting mediocrity. She's the only player to win twice and put in wildly forgettable performances both times. The lesson here is that flying under the radar can be effective. Simply making it to the end without pissing anyone off can sometimes be enough. But not usually. Sandra beat Parvati because Parvati underestimated the blowback her alliance with Russel would have. This was one of the few times that having the jury hang out with each other leading up to the final tribal council changed the outcome. There was so much anti-Russel range on that jury that even being associated with him was enough to cost Parvati the game. Sandra's first win wasn't quite as egregious but I think she benefited from a bit of a down season. It was more a circumstances of being on the dominant tribe at the merge and again, not pissing anyone off.
I guess the argument would be that Survivor does not simply reward mediocrity. It's true that flying under the radar and not sticking your neck out is a great way to make it pretty far in the game. But it won't usually win. To win, you have to stick your neck out at the right time. You have to know when's the time to reveal your hand and when to check/fold. And that's how it should be. There shouldn't be guaranteed formula for how to win. The winner should be whoever can take advantage of the unique circumstances of every season the best. Usually, that's what happens. But still, Parvati got robbed.
No comments:
Post a Comment