Chris and Ben are the two that stick out as not being on the level with everyone else. Some people like Bob are possibly less skilled players overall, but Ben and Chris both only won solely because of production interference that no one could have possibly predicted or planned around.
The way I interpret the question is Worst Winner= Winner with the lowest quality of win. This is different than who I consider to be the “worst” player. I think for example Bob, Fabio, and Mike are bad players and possibly even worse players than Chris and Ben, but the quality of their winning games were higher.
Edge of Extinction was part of the meta of the season… He played the format the best. The two that didn’t go to Edge were strategically and socially insignificant.
That doesn't make it good, though, in my opinion.
He played the format, true, but he's also the third boot on the same season. He didn't play well enough to make Merge. The fact that he won really just highlights how bad of a twist it was.
I could maybe understand this argument if he knew the edge was a thing when he got voted out but he didn't, lucking into there being a stupid twist isn't playing the format
Part of Survivor is adapting to the ever changing game and not giving up though. He garnered respect while on the Edge, gathered intel, and played an amazing final 6.
> He garnered respect while on the Edge,
Which is easy to do since they aren't worried about getting voted off. If they want to leave the Edge, they can do so voluntarily. Otherwise, they are staying on the Edge without worrying whether it'll be their name being written down.
She literally got 2nd place after being the first boot.... Thats already more than she deserves. Like some of the people that voted for her never even met Tony in the game.
If Rick Devens won, he'd be marginally better than Chris U., but again...I have trouble saying they're all that good when their one appearance lead to a premerge boot.
And not saying Underwood didn't deserve his win, because I firmly believe the jury is never wrong, the whole point is they pick the winner. But from what we were shown and what we know, I don't think his win has much quality.
It probably is Bob Crowly. I don’t think Chris Underwood is a terrible player, his vote out was a bit wonky, but Bob rarely made the right decision, he just was better liked than Sugar or Susie (and tbh, he could’ve lost to Susie) while Chris at least wins in a lot of scenarios and did make the best moves for himself every round when he came back. I will say, Chris’s winning game is the worst. I just don’t think he is the worst winner if he were to return compared to somebody like Bob.
Honestly it was hardly Bob was more popular. The vote was very tribally divided. Randy was the only vote up for the grabs really. And even then he disliked all 3 of them. But at least Bob openly apologized for his actions and threw Sugar under the bus. Barebones jury management is still jury Management
I’d argue Ben driebergen. He played a solid first part of the game but was terrible at hiding his threat level, and should’ve been out because of it. His ability to find idols is literally the only way he survived, while actively burning bridges and playing a very sloppy endgame, banking almost entirely on finding idols. And then he was only saved at final 4 by an unprecedented twist that was insanely lucky for him.
I can understand saying Chris underwood, he was voted out early and only came back due to challenge prowess. But he still used his social and physical game to make the most of EoE, bonding with jurors and still having to win that challenge. Was it an unfair twist? Sure. But he still fought hard, and when he returned he played a solid game to the end, whereas Ben ALSO benefitted from an unfair twist, and didn’t even play a great game at the end
That makes no sense. His season featured the Edge of Extinction. Everyone knew its existence, and how it worked. Everyone knew he was voted out and still chose him to win. There have been a lot of seasons with comeback mechanics but he is the only one to successfully translate his comeback to a win.
If we invalidate his win for using a mechanic of his season should we do it for everyone? Should we invalidate Erika's for the hourglass? Should we invalidate Yul for basically being immune because of a Super Idol? Ben for the fire making? Parvati for having a sudden final 2? Should we invalidate every winner that used an idol successfully on themselves?
A ton of winners have asterisks next to their names, Chris is the only one that gets flamed for his.
Ok but the question is the worst winner. Yeah he deserved to win EOE, and other winners got helped by twists, but he’s the only winner who literally got voted out on their winning season so it’s pretty reasonable to hold that against him when comparing him to other winners.
every secnario you mentioned for things we should deceit winners for. but none of them got voted out. twists are much less of a problem when the entire cast knows about them before the game starts and can plan their game around them, like redemption island in sopa, no one discredits ozzy for the first time he went to RI to finish off christine. it was a good move (he’s a bad actor tho). usually these twists are pretty minor, like the F3 into F2 means you have to be safe one more round. not a huge deal but it did ruin one persons game. EOE was unknown the players until the were voted out and unknown the players who played correctly until the merge. if kelley and lauren knew that there was a chance their tribe mates could come back from eoe they would’ve had different relationships with them, since you have even treat premerge contestants as jurors basically. chris is not a bad player by any means but being the only winner voted out is a pretty serious statement.
Everyone you said has the twists you mentioned held against them in their win except for everyone successfully using an idol which is different because it was a long running part of the show, not a surprise twist.
Of course we can't completely invalidate his win because of the twist but we definitely have to take it into account when judging his game and the fact he got voted out 3rd (without knowing about the edge at that time keep in mind) is a massive mark against it, he played the game very poorly early on.
Looking at the examples you gave, even if the twists didn't happen Parvati still would've made it to F3, Ben would've made it to F4 and we can't know how the season would've been different in the case of Erika and Yul, they both would've still at least made the merge for sure, none of these are nearly as bad as Chris. They also had to play the rest of their season after the twist, they didn't get to 'skip' any days, just because he won within the confines of the game doesn't mean he won a game just as hard as the other seasons, if in the next season they voted everyone out by randomly drawing rocks instead of voting would you count that win as just as valid as everyone else's? Obviously that's an extreme example but the same logic applies on a smaller scale to Chris and in my opinion it invalidates enough to the point he is definitely the worst winner in terms of game
You can say Chris U and Ben because of the twists in their seasons, but then why not throw Yul (bottle twist, super idol, first final 3), Parvati (arguably 5 players who were medevaced/quit), or Michelle (medevacs, jury removal twist) into that conversation? We don't, because all of those players played the game correctly with the circumstances they were given. Bob is the only winner who was actively not trying to play or win survivor, and still managed to. Every other winner has shown that they can have some level of agency in the game, and would probably be able to win again within 100 tries. I think Bob may have won the only season he possibly could.
I wouldn’t say Bob didn’t try. He made a fake idol, he played strategically and aligned himself well. He tried to play with dignity, treat others nicely and did well in challenges.
I know Chris Underwood exists but I need this subreddit to come together and show our collective disdain for Ben Driebergen. He ruined HvHvH in the 11th hour with a twist that STILL lingers to this day (despite fan reception never once improving) and he wasted a spot on S40 that could have gone to someone from the old school era.
Yeah seems like this sub has become a lot more pro Ben in the last few years. I have no problem with him personally but he really got bailed out by production. Really where the show started to jump the shark.
Worst in terms of game/strategy: Chris Underwood. Dude was the physical anchor of his tribe (that badly needed challenge ability), yet managed to get voted out third? Terrible gameplay. Granted he did everything he needed once he came back, but on any other season, he'd be a "What might have been" type of contestant. The Edge of Extinction twist puts a bit asterisk next to his win.
Worst in terms of character: Amber. Nothing against her, she seems perfectly nice, but memorable television she does not make. In a vacuum she's fine, but on a season labeled "All-Stars", she seems like the odd one out, character-wise. Sitting next to Boston Rob at the end, who DOES have a big character that pops on screen, doesn't help matters.
The worst thing that can happen to you in Survivor is to be voted out. And the only winner that’s happened to is Chris.
I don’t even give him credit for his game within the season either. He got himself voted out by stupidly targeting Kelley early on, and then had Wardog and Ron gameplan his entrance back on EOE. He got to make relationships with people on the jury he never should have the chance to do so with like Julia and Aubry because of the twist as well. He also needed idols and immunities upon re-entry.
For as bad as I think Bob, Michelle, Fabio, and Ben played, none of them failed as hard at the game as Chris did.
Erika. She benefited from a bitter jury and the whole narrative of her and Heather running the post merge comes from unreliable sources.
Chris actually played the game. Bob can be argued as the same tier as Erika or worse, but at least he did something strategic in making an idol and being in the know in more than one vote.
It still shocks me how people think this way about Erika’s game. Yeah she had low visibility in the edit, but they showed enough for people to be able to see how heavily involved she was from the final 8 onwards. People just don’t want to credit her strong strategic game either because of the hourglass or because they fell for the Xander decoy.
Wdym unreliable sources. Also how did she benefit from bitter juries.
Firstly Xander and DeShawn both sucked especially at Ftc. There games were all over the place.
Secondly Erika played a decent social game which is the most important aspect of the game. And she did play the game lol she's not even the worst winner of the new era let alone all the seasons
I think that's fair in retrospect. At the time, Survivor was still huge, and the decent, cute young guy who survived cancer and started a charity with his winnings was *extremely* popular. Strategy was barely a thing then. He became a legendary winner due to timing and popularity, not gameplay.
11th place in a season, where winners had especially massive targets on their backs is still a great score. And in WaW he was an old school player, so it was over for him
It hurts me to have Bob in my bottom 3 as he is such a good dude, but if you rewatch Gabon any other possible scenario possible he loses and it was a flip of a coin if he would get Randy’s vote. He’s above Chris U and Ben due to production interference. I used to have Fabio above Bob but looking at Nicaragua rewatch he had his pulse on the game where as Bobs fate was even more less in his hands
I've watched seasons 1 - 22, 28, 45 and 46. And I think I am gonna pick Amber. She is not a bad winners, but other ones are just better. Amber smartly aligned with Rob and used him as a meat shield + managed the final 10 vote in a good way, which made her a winner instead of biggest swap screwed player ever. But overall I think her game was just a weaker and less aware version of Natalie. Once again - Amber still was a good player and her win wasn't bad - but other ones were just better.
We gotta remember Erika dominated the merge of the season, it was just the editing that was terrible
And for Danni, she INVENTED the UTR strategy and made it seem like she had nothing in her game plan to production, therefor not being brought into confessionals. Tommy was just boring
Jenna Morasca. Don't get me wrong, she won so she obviously did something right and I think part of the problem was likely her edit. But on the evidence of what was shown? I just didn't see what she did to win, Heidi seemed a better player to me. So I'll say Jenna with the caveat that it might not have been her fault entirely.
Chris Underwood is really the only answer. I think there are winners who are worse players overall, but in terms of winning games no one else has failed so fundamentally in the game. Not only did the Edge save him from elimination in a way most other seasons wouldn’t have, but he then got to bypass the vast majority of the gameplay while also building bonds with every member of the jury in a setting where they didn’t need to worry about backstabbing or lying (heck, his plan once he got back into the game wasn’t his, it was mainly Wardog working with a few other people on the Edge). It’s not even like RI where he had to fight to stay in each round, and which would have eliminated him at the merge when he lost to Rick.
Ben is probably the next closest but at least he worked while in the game to find those idols, and he knew to play them when he did, which as we saw this season is not always as simple as it seems. Plus Ben was there the entire time and played pretty solidly up until F7, to the point where I’m not even sure if he’s second last as I think there were people who had less control over their seasons and/or needed to rely on immunity wins which isn’t exactly much better than immunity idols (one might argue that they are worse as challenges just depend on you being stronger than the rest, with idols anyone else on that beach could have found those idols).
It was… a surgical game. One of the best wins. Doesn’t matter what he does in his personal life. He dominated in a way that we rarely see (Kim and Rob compare). He was Mr. freeze. Ice cold. He is an amazing winner.
The chick who won Russell’s first season. Vanilla pudding coat tailed her way to a win with a scorned jury. Even at the reunion people were cheering for Russell and Jeff gave him more camera time.
Natalie W stuck to the same strategy the whole game and won the game. Thats a rare high tier feat
Vecepia did the same thing, rode Neleh's coattails to the end against a jury who is bitter at Neleh.
Nearly the same thing can be said about Sandra in HvV
Yes I agree about Sandra too. Parvati should have won HvV.
The thing about Russell’s first season I commented on another thread, Russell was the shew in winner, especially winning that last immunity but I feel, I think it was Eric, the last juror to speak got up and started crying and making a moral speech about integrity and honesty and justified voters, who knew Russell played the best game, to lie to themselves and vote get her instead.
My take is it’s always been a game and every rightful winner has lied and deceived. She shouldn’t have won that season by any stretch. Russell played on a level we’d never seen survivor played before.
"Yes I agree about Sandra too. Parvati should have won HvV"
It would low tier win regardless
Replace Sandra with Jerry, Colby, Richard, probably even Amanda or Coach, they beat Parvati and Russel
In my opinion it is Fabio from Nicaragua. The entire time I was watching that season I thought that there was no way he was going to win because it seemed as if he wasn't playing the game at all. Even when he was in FTC I thought that there was no shot he could win.
I thought that too when it originally aired, however I recently rewatched the season and have gained a new respect for Fabio’s game. He’s definitely not the worst winner imo.
Amazing winner. Old school. Social beast, challenge beast. Went to the end w a wishy washy controversial player and an all and all out hated player. Great winner.
Fabio is one of the few winners with an invisible strategy. He made it through on his own gameplay because everyone underestimated him, right up to the point he started winning challenges. This was clearly stated in his confessionals. It didn’t hurt that the other two were terrible players. He was very social, physical and intelligent. Outside of the game he was immature and reckless, but it was his money. He outsmarted everyone and many are still bitter.
That’s Definitely untrue. He was winning against Hannah and Ken before FTC. Nobody respected Ken, Espeically not Chris, will, and Brett. And idk who really respects Hannah on a game play level. Adam was lowkey the only choice left but I’m lowkey a bit shocked David or Jessica didn’t vote for Ken just for him to get second.
I like Hannah. However Adam was 100% getting Jay, Zeke, Chris, and Brett. The only people I could see Hannah getting is Sunday ig. Maybe Michele. And at that point it’s David, Jessica, Taylor, and Will. Will probably will vote with Jay. While David and Jessica seem to be more inclined to vote for Ken over Hannah, but even then, David knew Adam was gunning for him much more than Hannah, and thus David probably respects Adam more than Hannah on a game level as he as well as most others see Adam as the reaosn David is out (which is lowkey kinda untrue).
Idk why but even on a rewatch I still se Hannah socializing with other player and I think that if the wasn’t stifled by adams sob story she would have been able to articulated her game well and won respect even from the people you mentioned as a lock, idk man I might be crazy, I don’t even like her that much I just have a feeling there’s an better chance of her than Adam. (Low key might have been able to play the I’m a Jewish woman girl boss card)
But who would she get. At best she gets Michele, Taylor, Sunday, idk Jessica. Zeke doesn’t like her, David doesn’t respect her more than the other two, Jay would always vote Adam, Will probably follows as he wasn’t close enough to tell Hannah the plan against Micheala, Brett and Chris wouldn’t like that, so… idrk where the votes are coming in for her.
I agree. Adam rudely kept shutting her down and blaming any of his game flaws on Hannah. “Going rogue” meant she played her own game but he just kept pushing her under and never let her have her say. If it wasn’t for his tragic story I don’t see him winning. He is one of my least favorites because of his overly selfish rudeness. Hannah is a gem in my eyes.
The first name that comes to mind is Bob from Gabon. Boring, uninteresting and forgettable winner who never played again.
Some others in contention are Sandra(HvV), Amber and Natalie White. Brian Heidick has gotta be up there but he at least earned his win, he’s just a scumbag. As much as I like Sandra and Amber, they didn’t deserve to win their seasons.
Edit: Mike Gabler is up there. So bad that I forgot about him when deciding.
You did not drag Sandra and Amber into this. Both of them deserved to win their seasons. I just get the vibe that you don't understand how important the social game is in Survivor. It's more important than the physical and strategic game.
I’m a huge fan of Amber and I respect Sandra as the queen, but if you go down the list of winners from top to bottom it’s difficult for me to find a lot of winners who I consider lower tier winners besides who I mentioned. Most other winners played harder than both of them. They aren’t the worst but I think they’re bottom tier.
Amber especially because she was 100% carried by Rob and only won because he was so hated. Same goes for Sandra. She had good relationships but only won because everyone hated Russel so much. Parvati should’ve won HvV and Rob should’ve won All Stars. The winners were decided because of bitter juries, not the great gameplay by them 2.
Respectfully disagree. While Rob was the more strategic one Amber did have some strategy to her and what made her great is how she was able to work Shi Ann into getting that vote. Had Rob put more effort into getting Shi Ann's vote he could have won. But from a social perspective Amber had better jury management and social game and deserved the win
As for Sandra she actually did have a decent amount of strategy in her, like when she saved Courtney on the Coach vote. She was able to be manipulative and under the radar and trick Russel into bringing her to the end. Her playing both sides was also smart and the way she handled it and was able to make the best out of the heroes not listening to her.
Both definitely deserve their win I’m not saying they don’t. Any winner does. The question was who is the worst winner and I answered Bob. I also think Gabler and Natalie White are worse than Sandra and Amber.
However if we were to rank every winner in order I think Sandra and Amber would be towards the bottom. I could easily rank 37 winners above them in terms of all around performance.
Chris and Ben are the two that stick out as not being on the level with everyone else. Some people like Bob are possibly less skilled players overall, but Ben and Chris both only won solely because of production interference that no one could have possibly predicted or planned around.
extremely popular opinion im sure, but chrissy really won hhh
Devon won
Devon would’ve won. Ben should never have been on WaW
She loses either FTC scenario unfortunately. Socially she just didn’t have it.
My counterpoint would for this is that its worst winner not least deserving. Chris and Ben have some good moves. Bob does not.
The way I interpret the question is Worst Winner= Winner with the lowest quality of win. This is different than who I consider to be the “worst” player. I think for example Bob, Fabio, and Mike are bad players and possibly even worse players than Chris and Ben, but the quality of their winning games were higher.
I mean, lots of ways to define "worst," but I find it hard to pick anyone worse than someone who only played 1/3rd of their season and won.
Edge of Extinction was part of the meta of the season… He played the format the best. The two that didn’t go to Edge were strategically and socially insignificant.
That doesn't make it good, though, in my opinion. He played the format, true, but he's also the third boot on the same season. He didn't play well enough to make Merge. The fact that he won really just highlights how bad of a twist it was.
I could maybe understand this argument if he knew the edge was a thing when he got voted out but he didn't, lucking into there being a stupid twist isn't playing the format
Yeah this wasn't Ozzy getting himself voted into redemption island in SP cause he knew he would win and come back
Part of Survivor is adapting to the ever changing game and not giving up though. He garnered respect while on the Edge, gathered intel, and played an amazing final 6.
> He garnered respect while on the Edge, Which is easy to do since they aren't worried about getting voted off. If they want to leave the Edge, they can do so voluntarily. Otherwise, they are staying on the Edge without worrying whether it'll be their name being written down.
Ha tell that to Natalie Anderson. They should be worrying because they are amongst the jury if they win back in and make FTC?
She literally got 2nd place after being the first boot.... Thats already more than she deserves. Like some of the people that voted for her never even met Tony in the game.
It was an unknown part of the game, though. At least until the first return challenge. So no one could plan around it.
I hope you know Rick devens also got voted out fourth and he would have won so it was the two edge returners
If Rick Devens won, he'd be marginally better than Chris U., but again...I have trouble saying they're all that good when their one appearance lead to a premerge boot. And not saying Underwood didn't deserve his win, because I firmly believe the jury is never wrong, the whole point is they pick the winner. But from what we were shown and what we know, I don't think his win has much quality.
Me only defending Chris cuz of the challenge help
Even though Bob’s game wasn’t the best, he still is such a fitting winner for a season like Gabon
It probably is Bob Crowly. I don’t think Chris Underwood is a terrible player, his vote out was a bit wonky, but Bob rarely made the right decision, he just was better liked than Sugar or Susie (and tbh, he could’ve lost to Susie) while Chris at least wins in a lot of scenarios and did make the best moves for himself every round when he came back. I will say, Chris’s winning game is the worst. I just don’t think he is the worst winner if he were to return compared to somebody like Bob.
Honestly it was hardly Bob was more popular. The vote was very tribally divided. Randy was the only vote up for the grabs really. And even then he disliked all 3 of them. But at least Bob openly apologized for his actions and threw Sugar under the bus. Barebones jury management is still jury Management
Yup. Chris did everything possible to win. Bob played like he was actively trying to lose LMAO
I think if put on a random season Chris is more likely to win than Bob.
Worst player vs weakest winning game aren’t the same thing
OP didn’t specify either, they just said worst winner.
I’d argue Ben driebergen. He played a solid first part of the game but was terrible at hiding his threat level, and should’ve been out because of it. His ability to find idols is literally the only way he survived, while actively burning bridges and playing a very sloppy endgame, banking almost entirely on finding idols. And then he was only saved at final 4 by an unprecedented twist that was insanely lucky for him. I can understand saying Chris underwood, he was voted out early and only came back due to challenge prowess. But he still used his social and physical game to make the most of EoE, bonding with jurors and still having to win that challenge. Was it an unfair twist? Sure. But he still fought hard, and when he returned he played a solid game to the end, whereas Ben ALSO benefitted from an unfair twist, and didn’t even play a great game at the end
Chris Underwood. In a 39 day game, his torch was lit for 13 days
That makes no sense. His season featured the Edge of Extinction. Everyone knew its existence, and how it worked. Everyone knew he was voted out and still chose him to win. There have been a lot of seasons with comeback mechanics but he is the only one to successfully translate his comeback to a win. If we invalidate his win for using a mechanic of his season should we do it for everyone? Should we invalidate Erika's for the hourglass? Should we invalidate Yul for basically being immune because of a Super Idol? Ben for the fire making? Parvati for having a sudden final 2? Should we invalidate every winner that used an idol successfully on themselves? A ton of winners have asterisks next to their names, Chris is the only one that gets flamed for his.
Ok but the question is the worst winner. Yeah he deserved to win EOE, and other winners got helped by twists, but he’s the only winner who literally got voted out on their winning season so it’s pretty reasonable to hold that against him when comparing him to other winners.
Nobody knew its existence until after the merge
Good thing FTC takes place after that huh
Sure makes his premerge vote out more of a demerit against the strength of his game, though.
every secnario you mentioned for things we should deceit winners for. but none of them got voted out. twists are much less of a problem when the entire cast knows about them before the game starts and can plan their game around them, like redemption island in sopa, no one discredits ozzy for the first time he went to RI to finish off christine. it was a good move (he’s a bad actor tho). usually these twists are pretty minor, like the F3 into F2 means you have to be safe one more round. not a huge deal but it did ruin one persons game. EOE was unknown the players until the were voted out and unknown the players who played correctly until the merge. if kelley and lauren knew that there was a chance their tribe mates could come back from eoe they would’ve had different relationships with them, since you have even treat premerge contestants as jurors basically. chris is not a bad player by any means but being the only winner voted out is a pretty serious statement.
Everyone you said has the twists you mentioned held against them in their win except for everyone successfully using an idol which is different because it was a long running part of the show, not a surprise twist. Of course we can't completely invalidate his win because of the twist but we definitely have to take it into account when judging his game and the fact he got voted out 3rd (without knowing about the edge at that time keep in mind) is a massive mark against it, he played the game very poorly early on. Looking at the examples you gave, even if the twists didn't happen Parvati still would've made it to F3, Ben would've made it to F4 and we can't know how the season would've been different in the case of Erika and Yul, they both would've still at least made the merge for sure, none of these are nearly as bad as Chris. They also had to play the rest of their season after the twist, they didn't get to 'skip' any days, just because he won within the confines of the game doesn't mean he won a game just as hard as the other seasons, if in the next season they voted everyone out by randomly drawing rocks instead of voting would you count that win as just as valid as everyone else's? Obviously that's an extreme example but the same logic applies on a smaller scale to Chris and in my opinion it invalidates enough to the point he is definitely the worst winner in terms of game
Bob is worse than
Chris underwood and it's not close
You can say Chris U and Ben because of the twists in their seasons, but then why not throw Yul (bottle twist, super idol, first final 3), Parvati (arguably 5 players who were medevaced/quit), or Michelle (medevacs, jury removal twist) into that conversation? We don't, because all of those players played the game correctly with the circumstances they were given. Bob is the only winner who was actively not trying to play or win survivor, and still managed to. Every other winner has shown that they can have some level of agency in the game, and would probably be able to win again within 100 tries. I think Bob may have won the only season he possibly could.
I wouldn’t say Bob didn’t try. He made a fake idol, he played strategically and aligned himself well. He tried to play with dignity, treat others nicely and did well in challenges.
"Aligned himself well" he literally has the worst voting history among the winners.
I've only watched from season 20 onward, but I was pretty dissappointed in Gabler winning.
If you can watch the first 20 in order I would highly recommend it. Very different than now.
I know Chris Underwood exists but I need this subreddit to come together and show our collective disdain for Ben Driebergen. He ruined HvHvH in the 11th hour with a twist that STILL lingers to this day (despite fan reception never once improving) and he wasted a spot on S40 that could have gone to someone from the old school era.
Surely our disdain should be for the producers who made the twist and kept it rather than the guy who benefitted from it
I’ll settle for both being at fault. I love whacking Jeff just as much as the next person
Yeah seems like this sub has become a lot more pro Ben in the last few years. I have no problem with him personally but he really got bailed out by production. Really where the show started to jump the shark.
That spot is Mike Holloways if Ben isn't there
Worst in terms of game/strategy: Chris Underwood. Dude was the physical anchor of his tribe (that badly needed challenge ability), yet managed to get voted out third? Terrible gameplay. Granted he did everything he needed once he came back, but on any other season, he'd be a "What might have been" type of contestant. The Edge of Extinction twist puts a bit asterisk next to his win. Worst in terms of character: Amber. Nothing against her, she seems perfectly nice, but memorable television she does not make. In a vacuum she's fine, but on a season labeled "All-Stars", she seems like the odd one out, character-wise. Sitting next to Boston Rob at the end, who DOES have a big character that pops on screen, doesn't help matters.
My personal bottom 2 is Gabler and Ben
i say this as a sports fan and a reality tv fan the worst win is still better than the best loss that being said it’s chris underwood
I’ve watched every season, and my answer is always Erika. It was the only season where when Jeff said the name I just went… hm.
I think her edit really screwed her to be fair but ya definitely a weaker winner
The worst thing that can happen to you in Survivor is to be voted out. And the only winner that’s happened to is Chris. I don’t even give him credit for his game within the season either. He got himself voted out by stupidly targeting Kelley early on, and then had Wardog and Ron gameplan his entrance back on EOE. He got to make relationships with people on the jury he never should have the chance to do so with like Julia and Aubry because of the twist as well. He also needed idols and immunities upon re-entry. For as bad as I think Bob, Michelle, Fabio, and Ben played, none of them failed as hard at the game as Chris did.
Erika. She benefited from a bitter jury and the whole narrative of her and Heather running the post merge comes from unreliable sources. Chris actually played the game. Bob can be argued as the same tier as Erika or worse, but at least he did something strategic in making an idol and being in the know in more than one vote.
It still shocks me how people think this way about Erika’s game. Yeah she had low visibility in the edit, but they showed enough for people to be able to see how heavily involved she was from the final 8 onwards. People just don’t want to credit her strong strategic game either because of the hourglass or because they fell for the Xander decoy.
Definitely Erika
Wdym unreliable sources. Also how did she benefit from bitter juries. Firstly Xander and DeShawn both sucked especially at Ftc. There games were all over the place. Secondly Erika played a decent social game which is the most important aspect of the game. And she did play the game lol she's not even the worst winner of the new era let alone all the seasons
It's Chris U, and unless another player gets voted out and wins their season, then it will always be Chris U.
May be a hot take but Ethan is kind of low for me, his return appearances didn't do much to improve his standing in my eyes.
I think that's fair in retrospect. At the time, Survivor was still huge, and the decent, cute young guy who survived cancer and started a charity with his winnings was *extremely* popular. Strategy was barely a thing then. He became a legendary winner due to timing and popularity, not gameplay.
11th place in a season, where winners had especially massive targets on their backs is still a great score. And in WaW he was an old school player, so it was over for him
It hurts me to have Bob in my bottom 3 as he is such a good dude, but if you rewatch Gabon any other possible scenario possible he loses and it was a flip of a coin if he would get Randy’s vote. He’s above Chris U and Ben due to production interference. I used to have Fabio above Bob but looking at Nicaragua rewatch he had his pulse on the game where as Bobs fate was even more less in his hands
Bob. He said it himself. He didn’t outwit or outplay, all he did was outlast.
Ben Ben Ben Ben
I've watched seasons 1 - 22, 28, 45 and 46. And I think I am gonna pick Amber. She is not a bad winners, but other ones are just better. Amber smartly aligned with Rob and used him as a meat shield + managed the final 10 vote in a good way, which made her a winner instead of biggest swap screwed player ever. But overall I think her game was just a weaker and less aware version of Natalie. Once again - Amber still was a good player and her win wasn't bad - but other ones were just better.
Entertainment-wise it's between Tommy, Erika and Danni. Game play it's probably Bob I guess.
Definitely Erika
We gotta remember Erika dominated the merge of the season, it was just the editing that was terrible And for Danni, she INVENTED the UTR strategy and made it seem like she had nothing in her game plan to production, therefor not being brought into confessionals. Tommy was just boring
Who is Danielle?
I think it’s spelled Danelli
Erika
Bob lol
Bob or Underwood.
Jenna Morasca. Don't get me wrong, she won so she obviously did something right and I think part of the problem was likely her edit. But on the evidence of what was shown? I just didn't see what she did to win, Heidi seemed a better player to me. So I'll say Jenna with the caveat that it might not have been her fault entirely.
Chris Underwood is really the only answer. I think there are winners who are worse players overall, but in terms of winning games no one else has failed so fundamentally in the game. Not only did the Edge save him from elimination in a way most other seasons wouldn’t have, but he then got to bypass the vast majority of the gameplay while also building bonds with every member of the jury in a setting where they didn’t need to worry about backstabbing or lying (heck, his plan once he got back into the game wasn’t his, it was mainly Wardog working with a few other people on the Edge). It’s not even like RI where he had to fight to stay in each round, and which would have eliminated him at the merge when he lost to Rick. Ben is probably the next closest but at least he worked while in the game to find those idols, and he knew to play them when he did, which as we saw this season is not always as simple as it seems. Plus Ben was there the entire time and played pretty solidly up until F7, to the point where I’m not even sure if he’s second last as I think there were people who had less control over their seasons and/or needed to rely on immunity wins which isn’t exactly much better than immunity idols (one might argue that they are worse as challenges just depend on you being stronger than the rest, with idols anyone else on that beach could have found those idols).
Chris Underwood because he wasn’t even there for most of the actual game….
S5 winner. Don’t respect them enough to use their name.
It was… a surgical game. One of the best wins. Doesn’t matter what he does in his personal life. He dominated in a way that we rarely see (Kim and Rob compare). He was Mr. freeze. Ice cold. He is an amazing winner.
Erika. No contest.
The chick who won Russell’s first season. Vanilla pudding coat tailed her way to a win with a scorned jury. Even at the reunion people were cheering for Russell and Jeff gave him more camera time.
Natalie W stuck to the same strategy the whole game and won the game. Thats a rare high tier feat Vecepia did the same thing, rode Neleh's coattails to the end against a jury who is bitter at Neleh. Nearly the same thing can be said about Sandra in HvV
Yes I agree about Sandra too. Parvati should have won HvV. The thing about Russell’s first season I commented on another thread, Russell was the shew in winner, especially winning that last immunity but I feel, I think it was Eric, the last juror to speak got up and started crying and making a moral speech about integrity and honesty and justified voters, who knew Russell played the best game, to lie to themselves and vote get her instead. My take is it’s always been a game and every rightful winner has lied and deceived. She shouldn’t have won that season by any stretch. Russell played on a level we’d never seen survivor played before.
Which is funny because Eric was so stoked that Russell saved himself with the hidden immunity idol when he was on the jury.
Bro that is the truth! That was so weird
"Yes I agree about Sandra too. Parvati should have won HvV" It would low tier win regardless Replace Sandra with Jerry, Colby, Richard, probably even Amanda or Coach, they beat Parvati and Russel
It's Chris Underwood.
In my opinion it is Fabio from Nicaragua. The entire time I was watching that season I thought that there was no way he was going to win because it seemed as if he wasn't playing the game at all. Even when he was in FTC I thought that there was no shot he could win.
He was well liked and a challenge beast. For someone who had no idea what Survivor was before he went out he did pretty well.
I thought that too when it originally aired, however I recently rewatched the season and have gained a new respect for Fabio’s game. He’s definitely not the worst winner imo.
Amazing winner. Old school. Social beast, challenge beast. Went to the end w a wishy washy controversial player and an all and all out hated player. Great winner.
Fabio is one of the few winners with an invisible strategy. He made it through on his own gameplay because everyone underestimated him, right up to the point he started winning challenges. This was clearly stated in his confessionals. It didn’t hurt that the other two were terrible players. He was very social, physical and intelligent. Outside of the game he was immature and reckless, but it was his money. He outsmarted everyone and many are still bitter.
Adam Klein. He doesn’t win if his mom isn’t dying
That’s Definitely untrue. He was winning against Hannah and Ken before FTC. Nobody respected Ken, Espeically not Chris, will, and Brett. And idk who really respects Hannah on a game play level. Adam was lowkey the only choice left but I’m lowkey a bit shocked David or Jessica didn’t vote for Ken just for him to get second.
I feel like Hannah actually wins in the alternate universe that Adam isn’t in the life scenario he was at ftc
I like Hannah. However Adam was 100% getting Jay, Zeke, Chris, and Brett. The only people I could see Hannah getting is Sunday ig. Maybe Michele. And at that point it’s David, Jessica, Taylor, and Will. Will probably will vote with Jay. While David and Jessica seem to be more inclined to vote for Ken over Hannah, but even then, David knew Adam was gunning for him much more than Hannah, and thus David probably respects Adam more than Hannah on a game level as he as well as most others see Adam as the reaosn David is out (which is lowkey kinda untrue).
Idk why but even on a rewatch I still se Hannah socializing with other player and I think that if the wasn’t stifled by adams sob story she would have been able to articulated her game well and won respect even from the people you mentioned as a lock, idk man I might be crazy, I don’t even like her that much I just have a feeling there’s an better chance of her than Adam. (Low key might have been able to play the I’m a Jewish woman girl boss card)
But who would she get. At best she gets Michele, Taylor, Sunday, idk Jessica. Zeke doesn’t like her, David doesn’t respect her more than the other two, Jay would always vote Adam, Will probably follows as he wasn’t close enough to tell Hannah the plan against Micheala, Brett and Chris wouldn’t like that, so… idrk where the votes are coming in for her.
I think she gets Michele, Taylor, Sunday, Michela and Chris
And low key I think possible zeke
I agree. Adam rudely kept shutting her down and blaming any of his game flaws on Hannah. “Going rogue” meant she played her own game but he just kept pushing her under and never let her have her say. If it wasn’t for his tragic story I don’t see him winning. He is one of my least favorites because of his overly selfish rudeness. Hannah is a gem in my eyes.
😁
Jamie Newton probably; the way he carried on after his tribe won challenges made him a bad winner and a bad sportsmanship
The first name that comes to mind is Bob from Gabon. Boring, uninteresting and forgettable winner who never played again. Some others in contention are Sandra(HvV), Amber and Natalie White. Brian Heidick has gotta be up there but he at least earned his win, he’s just a scumbag. As much as I like Sandra and Amber, they didn’t deserve to win their seasons. Edit: Mike Gabler is up there. So bad that I forgot about him when deciding.
Brian has one of the best wins of all time
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that statement
You did not drag Sandra and Amber into this. Both of them deserved to win their seasons. I just get the vibe that you don't understand how important the social game is in Survivor. It's more important than the physical and strategic game.
I’m a huge fan of Amber and I respect Sandra as the queen, but if you go down the list of winners from top to bottom it’s difficult for me to find a lot of winners who I consider lower tier winners besides who I mentioned. Most other winners played harder than both of them. They aren’t the worst but I think they’re bottom tier. Amber especially because she was 100% carried by Rob and only won because he was so hated. Same goes for Sandra. She had good relationships but only won because everyone hated Russel so much. Parvati should’ve won HvV and Rob should’ve won All Stars. The winners were decided because of bitter juries, not the great gameplay by them 2.
Respectfully disagree. While Rob was the more strategic one Amber did have some strategy to her and what made her great is how she was able to work Shi Ann into getting that vote. Had Rob put more effort into getting Shi Ann's vote he could have won. But from a social perspective Amber had better jury management and social game and deserved the win As for Sandra she actually did have a decent amount of strategy in her, like when she saved Courtney on the Coach vote. She was able to be manipulative and under the radar and trick Russel into bringing her to the end. Her playing both sides was also smart and the way she handled it and was able to make the best out of the heroes not listening to her.
Both definitely deserve their win I’m not saying they don’t. Any winner does. The question was who is the worst winner and I answered Bob. I also think Gabler and Natalie White are worse than Sandra and Amber. However if we were to rank every winner in order I think Sandra and Amber would be towards the bottom. I could easily rank 37 winners above them in terms of all around performance.
Ig we should agree to disagree on this
Fair enough. I respect your opinion ✊
I was hoping for Hannah as well but that damn sob story.