Today i (unsuccessfully) tried to reel in statistics on John Hatten\'s Blockbusters run, similar to the running stats one person kept during Ken Jennings\' run on Jeopardy. Although I knew he was a 20 match winner who won all of his Gold Runs, I didn\'t realize how dominant he was. During his first 10 match tenure, he went 20-2 in the 22 games played, and captured spaces on the board on a roughly 2-1 ratio to the family pair.
Knowing all that, I pose this to you all- who are your top 3 most dominant contestants of all time? It can either be based on a total reign or one episode. Mine in no particular order:
Ken Jennings (Jeopardy!)
John Hatten (Blockbusters)
Neil Bines (Caesar\'s Challenge)
In no order:
Michael Larson (Press Your Luck)
Neil Bines (Caesar\'s Challenge)
Tom O\'Brien ($ale of the Century)
-Ken Jennings
-Thom McKee
-John Hatten
On one hand, you could make the case that using winning streaks is too easy of a crutch. On the other hand, to win so many games consecutively and make it look easy is no small feat.
Honorable mention: Michael Larsen.
To that end, two-thirds of Jeopardy contestantry played under a different paradigm where you were excused after five wins. There\'s a few players in that top quintile that could stake a claim for \"most dominant,\" but are ill-remembered because they played in the 1980s or 1990s, and were gone after a week.On one hand, you could make the case that using winning streaks is too easy of a crutch.
I think Jon Hatten was such a phenom based on the fact that his house burned to the ground DURING his run, and he still kept his cool when a lesser man would have folded like a cheap suit.
I think, with any reasonable argument, you could poke holes into anybody\'s dominance over a particular game.
Sure McKee got a lot of softball questions and cupcake opponents, but he still had to get them right. I think he\'s up there just for the longevity.
My list would be: Ken Jennings, Thom McKee and Michael Larson (The mental focus needed to concentrate on the board patterns for that long with the serious $ at stake is my reasoning)
I would think McKee being over $100,000 ahead of his closest competitor reinforces his spot in the top 2. Easy questions or not, you still had to do a fair amount of work to get to six figures. Never mind doing it three times.
Let\'s focus on the wins, not the dollar amount here. The average take for winning a game on TTD is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000. Take out a few tie games here and there that really add to the pot (I think Tom had a $30K+ one), and at the end of the day, only a third of that money at best came from actual knowledge based gameplay. The other $200K or so was made up of cruises, cookware, and disco jukeboxes earned by avoiding dragons.
I would think McKee being over $100,000 ahead of his closest competitor reinforces his spot in the top 2. Easy questions or not, you still had to do a fair amount of work to get to six figures. Never mind doing it three times.
Let\'s focus on the wins, not the dollar amount here. The average take for winning a game on TTD is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000. Take out a few tie games here and there that really add to the pot (I think Tom had a $30K+ one), and at the end of the day, only a third of that money at best came from actual knowledge based gameplay. The other $200K or so was made up of cruises, cookware, and disco jukeboxes earned by avoiding dragons.
Here\'s my Top 3:
Ken Jennings(for obvious reasons)
Thom McKee(for his endurance & the courage to stay on as long as he did)
Michael Larsen*
Before I explain the * on Larsen, Thom\'s run was partly knowledge & partly strategic. Not only was he smart, he was also courageous to make smart, strategic decisions based on what was happening. He didn\'t win 40 some games & win $300K+ just for nothing.
My honorable mention goes to Roger Craig\'s $77K single-day record on J! Someday, someone will be daring enough to end a J! match with $100K.
*The reason for this is because some claimed his game was rigged. He simply exploited the system to his advantage. Still, CBS decided to change the patterns after his dominant performance. His game wasn\'t rigged in my eyes. He just found a fundamental flaw in the system that allowed him to beat it & win $110K+.
I think John Hatten was one of the first contestants they brought back once they expanded the maximum number of wins on Blockbusters. They went to where his house was still being built, and someone asked him if he\'d be willing to come back to play, and he quipped something like \"Well, I won\'t burn my house down again, but yes, I would!\"
No \'50s era champs in this thread.
The first three I immediately thought of when I read the question were:
1. Ken Jennings
2. Thom McKee
3. Alice Conkwright
I think everyone\'s covered the reasons for picking Ken and Thom earlier in the thread, but I went with Alice Conkwright because she did two things no other contestant did on $ale: She won the lot in only six shows, and she consistently obliterated opponents with scores well over $100. You could see the dejected looks on their faces as, once it got to the speed round, they knew they were just playing for the \"cash in front of you.\"
Anthony
I don\'t know if it fits the list seeing as it\'s an Australian contestant on an Australian show, but...
Barry Jones. The winner of 208 episodes of Pick-A-Box spanning a period of eight years.
Mr. Beverly yelled out \"Ruth Horowitz\" from the attic.
and he quipped something like \"Well, I won\'t burn my house down again, but yes, I would!\"
I would really like to know a source for this, especially with the \"something like\" in there.
Mr. Beverly yelled out \"Ruth Horowitz\" from the attic.
Actually, that was me. The names you guys have mentioned are all just fine. It\'s basically Ken Jennings, Thom McKee and whatever personal third you want to mention. And I pick her. Concentration has so much more luck associated with it than any of the Q&A games that a string of wins on a show like that ought to count for a little extra.
And sure, the one thing we\'ll never know is what kind of longevity streak Brad Rutter, Jerome Vered or any number of others could have rung up given the opportunity.
No \'50s era champs in this thread.
For one, the secret category was replaced by the $1,000 question, so it was much harder for the pot to grow to the stratospheric levels that it did in 1980. For two, lots of the red categories allowed both players to contend for the box, and thus it opened up the game considerably.If it was so easy to do it, why did nobody come close to his streak afterwards? I mean, takes endurance to keep going as long as he did. Not everybody has that.
I would think McKee being over $100,000 ahead of his closest competitor reinforces his spot in the top 2.
Easy questions or not, you still had to do a fair amount of work to get to six figures. Never mind doing it three times.
Just like when you carried on about Jeopardy doubling the money and how it shouldn\'t affect the all-time statistics, the same is true for Tic Tac Dough: the game changed, and that meant that those long winning streaks were much harder to run together.
No \'50s era champs in this thread.
Because most of their reigns weren\'t legit.
One person that could possibly qualify was Dr. Joyce Brothers, who legitimately answered boxing questions on the $64,000 Question.
One person that could possibly qualify was Dr. Joyce Brothers, who legitimately answered boxing questions on the $64,000 Question.
One person that could possibly qualify was Dr. Joyce Brothers, who legitimately answered boxing questions on the $64,000 Question.
I don\'t have a source, and I could be talking ex-rectum here, but I think I heard the producers threw her hardball questions to make her lose, only for her to thwart them by answering correctly. If that\'s true, she absolutely gets the nod for dominant 50s player.
We\'ve talked about this several times before. The Brothers story is mired in contradiction and confusion, but there is certainly circumstantial evidence that her run wasn\'t as clean as once believed. In Joseph Stone\'s Prime Time and Misdemeanors, the author points out that the producers used boxing expert Nat Fleischer to help develop the questions, unaware that Fleischer was a close friend of Joyce\'s father, and that Fleischer had at the very least helped prepare Joyce initially on how to become a boxing expert.
Stone wonders (with some validity) how somebody who wasn\'t a true expert but instead simply memorized data could possibly continue to answer questions that were specifically designed to trip her up, unless she was tipped off in advance. For his part, Fleischer always managed to be unavailable for questioning.
Cary Young
I\'ll add to this list \"Password Plus\" winner Karol Hicks. She was the only 7-time champ to win all of her games $400-$0, never letting any of her opponents win even one puzzle.
I\'ll add to this list \"Password Plus\" winner Karol Hicks. She was the only 7-time champ to win all of her games $400-$0, never letting any of her opponents win even one puzzle.
I won\'t necessarily say she\'s my #3, but whoever wants to say it\'s someone else has to show why that person ranks ahead of her. That\'s 21 solves in a row. I would say anyone from Blockbusters would have to win 20 games and lose none in order to place ahead of her.
As much as I\'d love the recognition for a Pyramid contestant, I can\'t give it to Kief Ferrendini. If she were truly dominant, she would have lasted longer in the main game. I\'d say she\'s the equivalent of the greatest left-handed pitcher or the greatest switch-hitter.
I would vote for Jennings, McKee and Frank Dillon, who won over $100,000 on The Jokers Wild. I remember Jack Barry offering him a job with the B-E company after his Tournament of Champions win. Dillon was also on Jeopardy but lost his game.
Dillon was also on Jeopardy but lost his game.
But in a dominant fashion, I\'m sure.
I\'ll add to this list \"Password Plus\" winner Karol Hicks. She was the only 7-time champ to win all of her games $400-$0, never letting any of her opponents win even one puzzle.
I won\'t necessarily say she\'s my #3, but whoever wants to say it\'s someone else has to show why that person ranks ahead of her. That\'s 21 solves in a row.
To be fair to the others in the contestant pool, it wasn\'t exactly 21 solves in a row for her, it was her and the celebrity partners solving the puzzles. While this doesn\'t necessarily make her an awful contestant, it means she had very good celebs too and the honor should be shared jointly.
Dillon was also on Jeopardy but lost his game.
But in a dominant fashion, I\'m sure.
Oh yeah. After Alex asked Dillon to verify his answer, he declared Dillon as being wrong. Damned if I can remember the FJ question. Wish I could.
From reading the description the show reads a whole lot like Treasure Hunt. Whoever answers more out of five questions correctly chooses a box and can either keep the contents therein or a cash substitute.I don\'t know if it fits the list seeing as it\'s an Australian contestant on an Australian show, but...
Barry Jones. The winner of 208 episodes of Pick-A-Box spanning a period of eight years.
From reading the description the show reads a whole lot like Treasure Hunt. Whoever answers more out of five questions correctly chooses a box and can either keep the contents therein or a cash substitute.
I don\'t know if it fits the list seeing as it\'s an Australian contestant on an Australian show, but...
Barry Jones. The winner of 208 episodes of Pick-A-Box spanning a period of eight years.
What I find interesting about this endeavor is that some people say \"the correct answer\" or \"If person X isn\'t included the list has no cred\" when there are many contestants who can put their stick in the ground for it, and I find it high-falutin\' and haughty in the highest order to claim that one is more correct than another on a matter of opinion.
Third would be John Carpenter. He beat all the fastest finger opponents and answered all the questions to win the million. A household name.
Third would be John Carpenter. He beat all the fastest finger opponents and answered all the questions to win the million. A household name.
If you are just going to leave it at that, there are eight other players who could make that same claim
Third would be John Carpenter. He beat all the fastest finger opponents and answered all the questions to win the million. A household name.
If you are just going to leave it at that, there are eight other players who could make that same claim
Third would be John Carpenter. He beat all the fastest finger opponents and answered all the questions to win the million. A household name.
Not at my house.
My three: Teddy Nadler (1950s superchampion who I believe did win honestly), John Hatten and Ken Jennings.
I\'ll add to this list \"Password Plus\" winner Karol Hicks. She was the only 7-time champ to win all of her games $400-$0, never letting any of her opponents win even one puzzle.
I won\'t necessarily say she\'s my #3, but whoever wants to say it\'s someone else has to show why that person ranks ahead of her. That\'s 21 solves in a row.
To be fair to the others in the contestant pool, it wasn\'t exactly 21 solves in a row for her, it was her and the celebrity partners solving the puzzles. While this doesn\'t necessarily make her an awful contestant, it means she had very good celebs too and the honor should be shared jointly.
Excellent point. To that, though, I would say that it was Karol giving good clues to her celebrity partners that allowed her team to keep the ball long enough for the celebrity to correctly solve the puzzle. I\'d also add that each of Karol\'s opponents had the same excellent celebrities that she did -- Susan Richardson, Peter Marshall, Joanna Gleason, and Jon Bauman -- and never had his/her team solve one puzzle while playing against Karol\'s team. So while Karol certainly had good help during her run, so did all of her opponents.
Of those nine, how many blew through a stack and three quarters of questions without using lifelines, calling Dad not withstanding?
A thing to note; on the $500,000 question in his second game, John mentions that since he\'s playing half for charity he was less inclined to have a go. Could he have beaten the game twice? We\'ll never know. What we know is that he was jointly the top money winner for the champions episodes, solidly beating the other millionaires. We also know that only those early winners got the same opportunity.I\'d say the only thing that gives Carpenter the possible nod is him doing well on his second stack.
A thing to note; on the $500,000 question in his second game, John mentions that since he\'s playing half for charity he was less inclined to have a go. Could he have beaten the game twice? We\'ll never know.
Depends on if he would have gone with his brother or his own gut on that question. Remember his gut was wrong.
In You Can Be a Contestant and Win! by Susan Sackett and Cheryl Blythe the authors broke down Thom\'s winnings as $199,500(ish) in cash and the rest prizes. If we assume that $48,000 of that is eight cars, he has about $65,000 in prizes remaining. Depending on how big the prize packages were ($2,500 or so? $1,000 of each prize package was the money goal) then that means he won twenty-ish times, about half-and-half.Let\'s focus on the wins, not the dollar amount here. The average take for winning a game on TTD is somewhere between $1,000 and $2,000. Take out a few tie games here and there that really add to the pot (I think Tom had a $30K+ one), and at the end of the day, only a third of that money at best came from actual knowledge based gameplay. The other $200K or so was made up of cruises, cookware, and disco jukeboxes earned by avoiding dragons.
I beg your pardon. Why does it need to be said \"in other words\" at all? I used the words I said.
Ian Lygo says \"Hi\"
http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/100%25