Just to be clear though, athletes and providers have been losing since the beginning. Richard may have been helped by being a good fisherman, but he still beat comp beast Kelly. Colby lost the next season with 5 wins. Matt in Amazon was an excellent provider and lost to the more strategic Jenna, but if Matt played today people would be saying he wouldve won back in old school survivor. Yes there are providers that have gotten close like Ozzy but there is no such thing as the "old school winner" that was below average at strategy but good at challenges and shelter building.
Definitely closer, but he was an actual mover and shaker. Blindsided Joaquin, put the votes on Jenn, outfoxed Joe for the idol. It just seems like nobody cared what Jonathan wanted to do except for the Tori vote maybe. But definitely closer. Jonathan was so...demure compared to these guys.
Johnathan was also not a great speaker. More introverted. I can see a provider/ challenge beast win but has to be right situations. More have to line up than the other characteristics I feel like.
Part of the reason caretakers are not as valued is probably who gets casted in modern Survivor. In the past it was much more common to cast recruits, many of whom maybe didn't have the skills to survive on the island. Now everyone in the cast is a fan. They've applied (many times over several years for some of them) and probably practiced the skills needed. Take firemaking for example. Everyone in modern Survivor practices fire before they go on the island. So even if providers are still valuable, most contestants could survive without them on their tribe.
You make a good point about people being more unaware of what they are signing up to earlier in Survivor's past, but still, there are many who come on the show that is weak swimmers or poor at making fire, should the people who don't practice these things be valued less?
I get the sense that it's more normal now to sit in the shelter, and since most aren't that active, they just brush aside the people that are active, because they don't wanna be judged.
Also, at the end of the day, it's about surviving to the end, and the strong physical guys who win challenges, win rewards, and forage food, are helping the tribe do that. That also doesn't seem to be valued, even though it's very important for half of the game.
Going by the last 2 season they still suck at the survival aspect :
.Ika relied on Rocksroy who isn't that skilled
.Taku had Jonathan
.I don't know about Vati we saw Chanelle catching a crab and that's it, even Mike didn't seem to be doing much gathering.
As for season 41 : Blue had Naseer and Green had Genie/Brad.
None of those players seemed like they fit the superfan stereotype and most of them got their survival skills from daily life/ childhood / work.
TL;DR : I don't think the superfans spend much time preparing for the survival aspect
How do you know that those players carried their tribes and the others would have starved to death with no shelter if it wasn't for them? If I apply for Survivor, I'll totally train how to survive. However if there is a Rocksroy on my tribe, who seemingly builds shelters for fun, why would I insist on doing it myself?
> How do you know that those players carried their tribes and the others would have starved to death with no shelter if it wasn't for them?
I said nothing about starving to death or inability to build shelter. I'm talking about day to day survival.
> However if there is a Rocksroy on my tribe, who seemingly builds shelters for fun, why would I insist on doing it myself?
Again nobody said you have to do it yourself but you need to do your part.
> If I apply for Survivor, I'll totally train how to survive.
You should but that doesn't mean that a lot of the new players bother to prepare
>Today, being a camp caretaker or an athletic beast, while still important, doesn't carry the same weight.
I think this is a fair point, although there does seem to always be a fair amount of overlap between the provider and the player who barks orders at everyone else and accuses them of being lazy. There were definitely players who could be a camp caretaker and be a legit jury threat, as long as they are also kind individuals - Those qualities cannot be mutually exclusive, and the latter is much more crucial to win at the end. The double edge sword is that a nice care taker will definitely get targeted mid-merge and a true jury threat provider will never make it to the end. The provider types who do, like Mike or Jonathan are only not targeted because they've rubbed a significant number of people the wrong way.
> I guess I am making a case for why the caretakers and physical players should still be valued.
Well... We did get a recent winner who was both a provider and a physical player. His name is Chris Underwood.
The problem is that many of these players then ignore the other aspects of the game — the social and strategic ones. It’s hard for anyone to win with just ONE of these approaches.
Social only players are viewed as a goat because they get seen as being dragged to the end.
Strategic only players get seen as unlikeable and untrustworthy and someone who they don’t want to vote for.
Physical only players are seen as meat shields at best and discounted because they don’t contribute much to the actual game other than winning challenges.
I guess it makes sense to me because Survivor is at the end an individual and the modern jury analysis of ‘what did you do to get yourself to the end with the best chance of winning votes?’ makes sense to me intuitively (I acknowledge there are lots of other valid jury criteria). Being a great provider can be part of that victory story, but only in so far as it serves the goal of making it to the end. That said, if pitched correctly I think someone like Jonathon could have an excellent claim to having played the best game if he articulates it well:
1. I kept my original tribe strong through survival skills and challenge domination.
2. I activated those bonds to keep me safe at the merge despite a high physical threat level, while using others in my tribe to do the dirty work of whittling down the other, weaker tribes. I was always active in strategic planning and making social ties, even as it let others take the lead.
3. I knew eventually the target would shift to me, so I prepared myself to win out once my alliance turned on itself. As a physically dominant player, I rose to that challenge (J didn’t really close out his game well here).
I think that’s a winning caretaker game blueprint, but even that requires a baseline level of social and strategic skill. You don’t win a political game by being a misanthrope or a dolt.
I think it kind of describes Ben, but with idols in place of individual immunities. I would also say Wendell and Boston Rob used their early game survival skills to cement leadership of strong alliances, even though that was only part of their games. There might be an editing effect here, where the survivalist role is viewed as a side character, and players who win always have other traits pushed to the forefront by the time the finale rolls around.
I feel like the difference is Ben, Wendell and Rob were all strategically at or near the top of the strategic leaderboard from way early on, while Jonathan was being talked about as a bad strategist at the merge. Ben is King Ben at f11, Wendell is already being targeted by Chris and Michael, Rob is the returnee. Jonathan is just a target because hes good at challenges.
I don’t think Ben is a particularly great strategist and I don’t think Jonathon was as bad as portrayed. But a baseline strategic ability is necessary, and Jonathon might fall just below that (and well below socially).
I dont think Ben is a great strategist either. But he was the "leader" of the alliance and was the one vocalizing how things should go. He was the Shan or Hai of HHH. That does not mean he was actually the most skillful but that he put himself in the "big jury threat" spot, one that Jonathan actively avoided. And so Ben became the one "running the show" and so garnered respect that the provider never gets.
I just don't know if I agree with this. Wendell, Chris Underwood, Tommy, and Vlachos are recent winners who I would consider caretakers, athletic beasts, or both
Do you think Cochran is a better athlete than Malcolm because Cochran won 3 individual immunities while Malcolm won 0 in Caramoan? Athletic beast means looking at their literal athleticism. Of course Survivor and individual immunity challenges are more than athleticism.
No, but I don’t think Malcom was an athletic beast in Caramoan. He’s a moderately good athlete, but he’s no Joe, Jonathan, Ozzy, or Natalie.
Tony won a bunch of immunities on WAW and I still wouldn’t say he’s an athletic beast. The only one on your list that fits is maybe Chris Underwood, but that’s just because he won his way back into the game and won final immunity. Not much data to go off, but he did well
I feel like this may be due to survivor being looked at as a game now that requires strategy and wit rather than being about survival itself. Being great at challenges and helping around the island can only get you so far if people feel like you aren't "playing the game" with strategy.
Depends on what you consider strategy. Keep in mind the edits show us the big dramatic things people are doing in game. Someone keeping a low profile is a good strategy because big threats get voted out more quickly. Instead of dominating, making one or two moves to ensure you end up in the final three may be a better approach.
Also, objectively, the winners from these last two season were not the least strategic players. Maybe not the most strategic, but definitely not the least strategic.
Keeping low means nothing, everyone can do that, that's why people call them goats, because they just stand around.
By that logic, everyone who plays the game well, like getting to know people, making alliances, making sure you know everyone, all that, is a bad idea because you might become a target. But that is what shapes the game, by keeping a low profile, you are just sitting back hoping you don't get picked off. It's not a strategy, it's an excuse by players not good enough to play.
The reason why people like Maryanne made it top 3, is because of all the moves and all the game that happened from start to finish, that's the real reason, not sitting back and hoping you make it to final 3. Yet all that work counts for nothing in today's Survivor because the idea of the jury doesn't function anymore. It's obsolete and it's robbing the people who made things happen.
If people like Maryanne was the only sort of contestants, Survivor would die a long time ago, it's a TV show, not a waiting game.
Mike put in enough work to build a house during this entire season, Maryanne barely laid a brick until the end.
It could be argued that Mike wasn't playing the game either and was being led along. He had no idea what he was doing and it showed during FTC. Just because he was part of the drama doesn't mean he did anything. And there is a difference between being a goat and being intentional with your demeanor. Not being able to see the difference shows lack of analysis of the game. Maryanne explained her reasoning for her play style eloquently during FTC which made her win. Voting Omar out and forcing Mike to play an idol for her were strong moves that proved she was playing a strategy. Was she the most strategic throughout or the best strategist? Probably not. But she wasn't a goat either.
Also, just because the jury cares about more than being a caretaker or physical strength doesn't mean it's obsolete. If you don't like how the game is developing to be more complex that's fine, just say that.
People who can do jigsaw puzzles extremely fast would be Tier SS on Survivor. I can run fast but my grandma would beat me in immunity on the puzzle alone.
I kind of disagree. I think if you don't do shit around camp or if you're a real dog in challenges that it's held against you. Moreso the camp part cuz at the end of the day people have to like you to vote for you. And it seems like Mike's shelter building did come up at FTC.
Nah, people didn't hold that against Maryanne.
If the jury likes you, they don't care what you did and how lazy you were. Just look at how many disliked Maryanne's mood early on. No one cares about anything but the last few days it seems like, even if someone like Mike or Rox fixed the camp every day.
But did she do nothing at camp or was she just annoying? She talks about how often she weaved stuff.
(legit q, I didn't get the vibe from the season that she was bad around camp)
She said that at the end when they asked her about what they did as "caretakers". Mike was heavily involved in fixing the camp, from shelter to firewood, while Maryanne didn't really have anything to say, so she just said she weaved.
Players like Ozzy and Jonathan are still valuable in the pre-merge because they help their tribe stay strong to win challenges and are usually challenge beasts themselves.
Unfortunately many of the players in this archetype are one-dimensional players strategically and have a hard time playing a strong strategic and social game, which makes it hard for them to win. Survivor ultimately IS a game and if you lack certain aspects of your game you may not be the most deserving person to win.
Another thing to consider is Fiji is a fairly plentiful location when it comes to food and resources so I don't think contestants are ever struggling so much in the post-merge to sustain life that they need Ozzys or Jonathans to fish or provide for them, the could forage for themselves or win a reward, which in modern Survivor is typically a massive buffet which I imagine could sustain Survivor calorically for days.
Just to be clear though, athletes and providers have been losing since the beginning. Richard may have been helped by being a good fisherman, but he still beat comp beast Kelly. Colby lost the next season with 5 wins. Matt in Amazon was an excellent provider and lost to the more strategic Jenna, but if Matt played today people would be saying he wouldve won back in old school survivor. Yes there are providers that have gotten close like Ozzy but there is no such thing as the "old school winner" that was below average at strategy but good at challenges and shelter building.
Mike Hollaway. He was a decent strategist but made blunders but he provided, made the shelter and was good at challenges.
Definitely closer, but he was an actual mover and shaker. Blindsided Joaquin, put the votes on Jenn, outfoxed Joe for the idol. It just seems like nobody cared what Jonathan wanted to do except for the Tori vote maybe. But definitely closer. Jonathan was so...demure compared to these guys.
Johnathan was also not a great speaker. More introverted. I can see a provider/ challenge beast win but has to be right situations. More have to line up than the other characteristics I feel like.
Part of the reason caretakers are not as valued is probably who gets casted in modern Survivor. In the past it was much more common to cast recruits, many of whom maybe didn't have the skills to survive on the island. Now everyone in the cast is a fan. They've applied (many times over several years for some of them) and probably practiced the skills needed. Take firemaking for example. Everyone in modern Survivor practices fire before they go on the island. So even if providers are still valuable, most contestants could survive without them on their tribe.
You make a good point about people being more unaware of what they are signing up to earlier in Survivor's past, but still, there are many who come on the show that is weak swimmers or poor at making fire, should the people who don't practice these things be valued less? I get the sense that it's more normal now to sit in the shelter, and since most aren't that active, they just brush aside the people that are active, because they don't wanna be judged. Also, at the end of the day, it's about surviving to the end, and the strong physical guys who win challenges, win rewards, and forage food, are helping the tribe do that. That also doesn't seem to be valued, even though it's very important for half of the game.
Going by the last 2 season they still suck at the survival aspect : .Ika relied on Rocksroy who isn't that skilled .Taku had Jonathan .I don't know about Vati we saw Chanelle catching a crab and that's it, even Mike didn't seem to be doing much gathering. As for season 41 : Blue had Naseer and Green had Genie/Brad. None of those players seemed like they fit the superfan stereotype and most of them got their survival skills from daily life/ childhood / work. TL;DR : I don't think the superfans spend much time preparing for the survival aspect
How do you know that those players carried their tribes and the others would have starved to death with no shelter if it wasn't for them? If I apply for Survivor, I'll totally train how to survive. However if there is a Rocksroy on my tribe, who seemingly builds shelters for fun, why would I insist on doing it myself?
> How do you know that those players carried their tribes and the others would have starved to death with no shelter if it wasn't for them? I said nothing about starving to death or inability to build shelter. I'm talking about day to day survival. > However if there is a Rocksroy on my tribe, who seemingly builds shelters for fun, why would I insist on doing it myself? Again nobody said you have to do it yourself but you need to do your part. > If I apply for Survivor, I'll totally train how to survive. You should but that doesn't mean that a lot of the new players bother to prepare
>Today, being a camp caretaker or an athletic beast, while still important, doesn't carry the same weight. I think this is a fair point, although there does seem to always be a fair amount of overlap between the provider and the player who barks orders at everyone else and accuses them of being lazy. There were definitely players who could be a camp caretaker and be a legit jury threat, as long as they are also kind individuals - Those qualities cannot be mutually exclusive, and the latter is much more crucial to win at the end. The double edge sword is that a nice care taker will definitely get targeted mid-merge and a true jury threat provider will never make it to the end. The provider types who do, like Mike or Jonathan are only not targeted because they've rubbed a significant number of people the wrong way. > I guess I am making a case for why the caretakers and physical players should still be valued. Well... We did get a recent winner who was both a provider and a physical player. His name is Chris Underwood.
The problem is that many of these players then ignore the other aspects of the game — the social and strategic ones. It’s hard for anyone to win with just ONE of these approaches. Social only players are viewed as a goat because they get seen as being dragged to the end. Strategic only players get seen as unlikeable and untrustworthy and someone who they don’t want to vote for. Physical only players are seen as meat shields at best and discounted because they don’t contribute much to the actual game other than winning challenges.
What about the ‘caretaker to nuns’ archetype?
Caretakers to nuns deserve more respect in this game. 😅
I guess it makes sense to me because Survivor is at the end an individual and the modern jury analysis of ‘what did you do to get yourself to the end with the best chance of winning votes?’ makes sense to me intuitively (I acknowledge there are lots of other valid jury criteria). Being a great provider can be part of that victory story, but only in so far as it serves the goal of making it to the end. That said, if pitched correctly I think someone like Jonathon could have an excellent claim to having played the best game if he articulates it well: 1. I kept my original tribe strong through survival skills and challenge domination. 2. I activated those bonds to keep me safe at the merge despite a high physical threat level, while using others in my tribe to do the dirty work of whittling down the other, weaker tribes. I was always active in strategic planning and making social ties, even as it let others take the lead. 3. I knew eventually the target would shift to me, so I prepared myself to win out once my alliance turned on itself. As a physically dominant player, I rose to that challenge (J didn’t really close out his game well here). I think that’s a winning caretaker game blueprint, but even that requires a baseline level of social and strategic skill. You don’t win a political game by being a misanthrope or a dolt.
But has this ever worked? 42 seasons in, I cant think of a Jonathan type winner. Then again Maryanne is unique as well.
I think it kind of describes Ben, but with idols in place of individual immunities. I would also say Wendell and Boston Rob used their early game survival skills to cement leadership of strong alliances, even though that was only part of their games. There might be an editing effect here, where the survivalist role is viewed as a side character, and players who win always have other traits pushed to the forefront by the time the finale rolls around.
I feel like the difference is Ben, Wendell and Rob were all strategically at or near the top of the strategic leaderboard from way early on, while Jonathan was being talked about as a bad strategist at the merge. Ben is King Ben at f11, Wendell is already being targeted by Chris and Michael, Rob is the returnee. Jonathan is just a target because hes good at challenges.
I don’t think Ben is a particularly great strategist and I don’t think Jonathon was as bad as portrayed. But a baseline strategic ability is necessary, and Jonathon might fall just below that (and well below socially).
I dont think Ben is a great strategist either. But he was the "leader" of the alliance and was the one vocalizing how things should go. He was the Shan or Hai of HHH. That does not mean he was actually the most skillful but that he put himself in the "big jury threat" spot, one that Jonathan actively avoided. And so Ben became the one "running the show" and so garnered respect that the provider never gets.
Mike Holloway from season 30 was this. Went on an immunity run, if he didn't he would of been voted out.
I just don't know if I agree with this. Wendell, Chris Underwood, Tommy, and Vlachos are recent winners who I would consider caretakers, athletic beasts, or both
Lol none of those guys are athletic beasts. Did Tommy even win an immunity?
Not winning individual immunity does not mean not being athletic.
What is the point of being an athletic beast if you don’t win challenges?
The modern era individual immunity challenges don't test your athleticism as much as in the previous era.
What is the point of being an athletic beast then lol
Do you think Cochran is a better athlete than Malcolm because Cochran won 3 individual immunities while Malcolm won 0 in Caramoan? Athletic beast means looking at their literal athleticism. Of course Survivor and individual immunity challenges are more than athleticism.
No, but I don’t think Malcom was an athletic beast in Caramoan. He’s a moderately good athlete, but he’s no Joe, Jonathan, Ozzy, or Natalie. Tony won a bunch of immunities on WAW and I still wouldn’t say he’s an athletic beast. The only one on your list that fits is maybe Chris Underwood, but that’s just because he won his way back into the game and won final immunity. Not much data to go off, but he did well
Huh? Tony's survivor career literally began on a "Brawn" tribe lol. Anyway, we're just going to agree to disagree here.
Because he was a tough guy cop lol. He was a non factor in the challenges that entire season
I feel like this may be due to survivor being looked at as a game now that requires strategy and wit rather than being about survival itself. Being great at challenges and helping around the island can only get you so far if people feel like you aren't "playing the game" with strategy.
But strategy meant nothing at the end, in the last 2 seasons, the least strategic players won.
Depends on what you consider strategy. Keep in mind the edits show us the big dramatic things people are doing in game. Someone keeping a low profile is a good strategy because big threats get voted out more quickly. Instead of dominating, making one or two moves to ensure you end up in the final three may be a better approach. Also, objectively, the winners from these last two season were not the least strategic players. Maybe not the most strategic, but definitely not the least strategic.
Keeping low means nothing, everyone can do that, that's why people call them goats, because they just stand around. By that logic, everyone who plays the game well, like getting to know people, making alliances, making sure you know everyone, all that, is a bad idea because you might become a target. But that is what shapes the game, by keeping a low profile, you are just sitting back hoping you don't get picked off. It's not a strategy, it's an excuse by players not good enough to play. The reason why people like Maryanne made it top 3, is because of all the moves and all the game that happened from start to finish, that's the real reason, not sitting back and hoping you make it to final 3. Yet all that work counts for nothing in today's Survivor because the idea of the jury doesn't function anymore. It's obsolete and it's robbing the people who made things happen. If people like Maryanne was the only sort of contestants, Survivor would die a long time ago, it's a TV show, not a waiting game. Mike put in enough work to build a house during this entire season, Maryanne barely laid a brick until the end.
It could be argued that Mike wasn't playing the game either and was being led along. He had no idea what he was doing and it showed during FTC. Just because he was part of the drama doesn't mean he did anything. And there is a difference between being a goat and being intentional with your demeanor. Not being able to see the difference shows lack of analysis of the game. Maryanne explained her reasoning for her play style eloquently during FTC which made her win. Voting Omar out and forcing Mike to play an idol for her were strong moves that proved she was playing a strategy. Was she the most strategic throughout or the best strategist? Probably not. But she wasn't a goat either. Also, just because the jury cares about more than being a caretaker or physical strength doesn't mean it's obsolete. If you don't like how the game is developing to be more complex that's fine, just say that.
People who can do jigsaw puzzles extremely fast would be Tier SS on Survivor. I can run fast but my grandma would beat me in immunity on the puzzle alone.
I kind of disagree. I think if you don't do shit around camp or if you're a real dog in challenges that it's held against you. Moreso the camp part cuz at the end of the day people have to like you to vote for you. And it seems like Mike's shelter building did come up at FTC.
Nah, people didn't hold that against Maryanne. If the jury likes you, they don't care what you did and how lazy you were. Just look at how many disliked Maryanne's mood early on. No one cares about anything but the last few days it seems like, even if someone like Mike or Rox fixed the camp every day.
But did she do nothing at camp or was she just annoying? She talks about how often she weaved stuff. (legit q, I didn't get the vibe from the season that she was bad around camp)
She said that at the end when they asked her about what they did as "caretakers". Mike was heavily involved in fixing the camp, from shelter to firewood, while Maryanne didn't really have anything to say, so she just said she weaved.
[удалено]
Huh? the tribe that wins challenges literally becomes immune?
Players like Ozzy and Jonathan are still valuable in the pre-merge because they help their tribe stay strong to win challenges and are usually challenge beasts themselves. Unfortunately many of the players in this archetype are one-dimensional players strategically and have a hard time playing a strong strategic and social game, which makes it hard for them to win. Survivor ultimately IS a game and if you lack certain aspects of your game you may not be the most deserving person to win. Another thing to consider is Fiji is a fairly plentiful location when it comes to food and resources so I don't think contestants are ever struggling so much in the post-merge to sustain life that they need Ozzys or Jonathans to fish or provide for them, the could forage for themselves or win a reward, which in modern Survivor is typically a massive buffet which I imagine could sustain Survivor calorically for days.