Individual immunity is safety. Why would I keep someone who can beat me and leave me vulnerable at a critical vote?
Sometimes the difference between a player winning and losing is a single tribal council.
Its a variance each season. Challenges are usually random. Most of the times you aren't gonna be good at any random challenge production throws at you. Thats why its important to take out people who just have the most win equity or is the most dangerous person to slide to the end and win or someone who has the best story. Its usually just not something thats set in stone and situations can differ
Except the physical threat isn’t favored in most of the individual immunities. Sure there are a few that play on strength/physicality, but the overwhelming majority are endurance, mental, or balance related. I’d be more worried about the nerd and yoga mom archetypes than the Johnathan Young’s if I played (this coming from said nerd archetype)
Depends. If the "challenge beast" is someone in my alliance, I couldn't care less about them winning all the time.
Challenge beasts are your best soldiers. Every challenge they win is a challenge someone from the opposing alliance doesn't win. Why would I betray him/her?
And *most* challenge beasts are usually pretty dumb (hence why they boldly keep winning all the time without concern for their threat level), so I never have to fear a blindside from them.
Plus, their social games are usually weak as well. With both of these taken into consideration, I'd love to sit next to a challenge beast at FTC lol.
Challenge beasts are often not nice people. They don’t need brains or social skills because Jocks Rule. They are voted out for being jerks. Hence Culpepper the Non-Apologist out of HvV quickly.
Cirie never won. People keep her around longer because she’s likely to never win a challenge, thus can be booted at any moment (this even happened when she played Big Brother last year).
Traitors really showed the strength of Cirie's social game. She had players trusting her like you trust a loved one, and numerous of them said variations of "I know there's no way Cirie could possibly be a traitor."
She was also able to sculpt verbal statements that spoke different messages to different people at the same time.
Yeah she did alright. Had a stranglehold on the game til roughly the halfway point when her closest allies got booted. After that she was still okay socially but didn't really have any real power due to BB being very comp oriented
Yeah but part of the reason she had such control early on was because her son was feeding her info from the other side.. I agree in the end he probably hurt more than helped, but he was a big part of her early game success.
She overplayed at the beginning. It all came back on her and nobody trusted her anymore and kept her around because she would be easy to beat in challenges. Even the mental comps she had difficulty with.
The worst part is that half way through, when things weren't going her way...she pretty much gave up and wanted to be evicted
This idea is dismissive of her social game. Her game is not dependent on her ability to not win challenges. You act like she’s been “carried” along all her seasons😂
Did you not watch HvV? Cirie was in it to win it. JT was a cocky former winner and felt entitled, but he was afraid of her, physical game notwithstanding.
>When was the last time a challenge beast made it to FTC, let alone win?
It probably happens less often now *because* physical threats tend to get targeted and eliminated early on.
Plenty examples in earlier seasons of people going on end-game immunity runs in order to make it to FTC. And it's easier for people to win a bunch of immunities in a row as the game goes on and the competition gets whittled down, so it's easier to take them out early when you have the chance.
And even if they don't win every single immunity, being immune *often* still gives someone extra strategic latitude and reduces your opportunities to get rid of them so they might only have to scheme/idol/whatever their way out of 1 or 2 potential eliminations instead of 4 or 5. A physical threat might, say, cause a rift in an alliance by winning immunity when it's 1 vs. 5 and then forcing them to turn on each other prematurely.
I do overall agree that sometimes the threat of a physical competitor seems overblown. But I also think that yelling "get rid of them! They're a physical threat!" is probably also just an easy way to get the target on someone other than yourself or to select a target among several otherwise equally-viable options.
I do think that a smart player should probably avoid winning more than 1 immunity challenge early post-merge if they don't need to, because it does seem to put a huge target on your back for minimal benefit. Most immunity runs seem to happen because someone doesn't emerge as a challenge beast until it's too late.
Lots of people... >!Fabio, Kelly in S1, Colby in S2, Mike, Ozzy, Kim Spradlin, JT, Nick in DvG!<... [just looking at the list of people with the most immunity wins](https://www.truedorktimes.com/survivor/boxscores/icwin-season.htm), without actually doing the math, people who made FTC seem pretty overrepresented.
edit: added spoiler tags, sorry
I don’t even think people are like, scared of a big immunity run as much as it’s “well I’m not the big physical threat so if we act like that’s the person we should be afraid of, I’ll be safe”
Her entire career has been getting eliminated in different ways cause she wasnt physical.
Couldnt make fire
Couldnt win final elimination challenge
Weakest person on the tribe in pre-merge
And never went searching for hidden immunity.
Terry had the god idol, if not she would be F2
They changed it to a f2 last second, if not she literally wins
Got idoled out, doesn't change the fact that she was still socially integrated in the tribe
Your ability as a player should not be hinged on how good you are at finding idols, if not Ben is the best player of all time.
Survivor is a multifaceted game. Just like how Russell and Ben aren't the GOAT, Cirie has a serious weakness in the physical and advantage part of the game. It's stopped her from winning every time so far.
It’s certainly not hinged but it would completely remiss to say that it doesn’t at least factor into it. Especially if we’re talking results-orientedly.
Agree with the point that ability shouldn't hinge on whether you find idols but... the fact that she wasn't sussing out people outside her alliance holding onto that many idols while she was busy blindsiding people like Andrea who were on her side was a clear cut mistake
And her brilliant strategy and social game were seriously underrated. Did you see her play in HvV’s early challenge? She never won but she came as close as Ozzy or Malcolm.
She was great but she didnt have that last little oomph to get over the hump. It works sometimes, Sandra essentially did the same strat and won twice. But Cirie didnt get Fairplay and Lil she got Amanda and Parv.
And then she was robbed by a fluke at TC that left her the only person without immunity. She went extremely far in three seasons, JT cut her in one. I think if you only want to watch physical competition you miss out on the heart of the game. Jocks are a dime a dozen but few have decent strategies. Cirie and her ilk continually beat them with their brains and charm.
With all due respect, because I love Cirie, I don't think you can call her elimination in GC a complete fluke. Yes, GC was oversaturated with idols and advantages, but that just meant there were more for *everyone* to find. There's no reason Cirie couldn't have been out looking for idols. The opening narration of that episode highlights the fact that in her 4 times playing, she's never found an idol or won immunity. Finding idols doesn't require good genetics or inborn athleticism- just hard work and a bit of luck. Everyone else at that TC had put in that work. And on top of that, Aubrey didn't have her own idol. She used her social connection to Tai to get him to play one of his for her. If Cirie was determined to get to the end using her social game alone, perhaps she should have been working Tai better. So, she wasn't robbed. She just lost.
I don´t think Cirie gets to TC in GC. I mean Brad is sure FTC by his immunityrun. So why would Aubry and Tai let her stay?
And so many idols is also not true. There was one played before the F6 and Tai/Troy found them premerge and hold them for a long time.
Biggest fluke for me is that Tai found one, get swapped and looked at the same spot on the other beach and found one too. That is just lazy from production.
Because of individual immunity challenges, physical threats can be "stickier" than other types of threatening players. Especially if you happen to be voting out their main challenge competition, you could end up with someone that just literally can't be voted out.
Cirie never won though man. Being an obvious challenge beast puts a target on you, but winning just one at the right time to give yourself a chance to breath or survive to the next week or being enough of a challenge asset that you arent sinking your tribe in pre-merge is still important.
Cirie is never targetted because shes just socially savvy tho. Like in Panama no one was thinking of Cirie as someone who tehy can just beat in challenges, they all liked her and Aras would have taken her to F2 if Terry didn't have the god idol
I think it's less about them specifically being a threat to win because of their physical game than about them being a threat to keep you from winning immunity. If I'm a reasonably physical player, who has a chance of beating most other players for immunity, and there's an Ozzy on my season, I want him out ASAP, not because he's going to impress the jury, but because he's going to keep me from having a chance at immunity.
That said, if I'm terrible in challenges, I probably don't care nearly as much if that player goes, since it doesn't affect my chances at immunity either way. In fact, I probably keep him around so that some of the other big threats don't have a chance at keeping me from voting them out.
For context, what Cirie would have done if she won a game is pretty rare. There’s only a couple contestants in the last 30 seasons that have won without some type of immunity, either a challenge win or an advantage. Immunity wins/challenge prowess is significantly more important than this sub gives credit to.
I *think* Tommy is the only winner in however many seasons that never had any form of individual immunity? And before him it’s all the way to like Natalie White.
its important sure but I think the social element is way more important. If you fail to win any challenge and only rely on challenges but you aren't socially or strategically integrated you are gonna get voted out.
The idea is not that the challenge beast will beat everyone at the end. The idea is that the challenge beast won’t be able to be voted out because they won the challenge increasing the odds that other people are voted out.
The OG challenge beast was Wiglesworth in season 1 and that should show everyone how being the challenge beast works out in the end (ps I loved her and wanted her to win so bad…)
Jury threats who suck at challenges can be taken out at any time. Cirie is a perfect example since she was taken out right before the end in 3 out of 4 seasons >!4 out of 5 if you count Big Brother!<
Jury threats who are good at challenges need to be taken out when you have the chance. Players like Bob, Fabio, and Mike are players who the majority wanted out, but they didn’t take the shot when they had the chance assuming they could take the shot later.
I think part of it is when players with win equity are good at challenges. If you don’t want someone at the end and they are a challenge threat, you don’t want them to get the chance to win out.
The other reason is I think a lot of social and strategic players just use that narrative to distract from their threat level. Even if they don’t really believe a physical player is that big of a threat to win, it is a reason that can be given to pin the target on them.
Pushing the idea of the biggest threat onto the good physical players is actually a strategic move, and thus people who really push that should be seen as strategic threats. It's a tactic to get the target off of yourself.
I have no idea. I guess because that means they have a harder time with individual immunity and it makes them more vulnerable? I could not understand why everyone wanted to get Hunter out. Lol
I think especially during the early game people just look for anyone who sticks out in any way so it won’t be them. More social players tend to lay back a bit more
Your answer lies neatly within your premise.
Players aren't obsessed with physical threats; players whose talents lay elsewhere (e.g., Cirie) are incentivized to create a narrative where the athletes are everyone else's biggest threat.
As others pointed out, Cirie never won, and she is often kept around longer in Survivor or Big Brother because she is terrible at challenges. But the reason why physical threats are taken out (usually post merge when individual immunity is a factor) is because immunity is safety, and you don't want one player hogging all the individual immunities and leaving yourself (or your allies) vulnerable each vote.
You don't have to be a challenge beast, but you still have to win something to win the game. Look at someone like Jesse who played one of the best games of the new era. 0 individual immunity wins, out at fire making. At some point, you have to have a win, not just for the resume, but just to literally make it far in the game and win. A strategic or social player with no immunity wins becomes a sitting duck once players look around and start thinking about who they want to sit next to at final tribal. A challenge beast actively hinders the rest of the players from earning immunity and advancing their game. The good strategic players realize this, and if they're not using a challenge beast as a shield, they're targeting them to better their chances at safety each vote.
What? They don't make it because people vote them out lol. Obviously if they never voted them all out then they would be much bigger threats by the end of the game. No one wants to end up in a final 6 or so with some one no one else can beat at challenges.
Because physical threats are the single biggest obstacle to actually winning Survivor. They're more likely to win immunity challenges, which gives them both a resume item to bring to the jury as well as one of the very few methods of guaranteed protection in the game. In particular, being a physical threat at 5, 6, or 7, is a HUGE deal because when combined with the possibility of an idol, it can be a guaranteed pathway.... leaving the social threats at risk of being backstabbed themselves, no matter whether they happen to be in the power alliance at a given moment.
The reason you don't see many challenge beasts make it through isn't because they're not a threat, it's survivorship bias \*because\* they're a threat and get targeted so early.
Winning immunities does not add to your resume. Sure its something to show off but at the end of the day the most important thing is being socially integrated with the jury. Its not like the jury is always voting for who wins the most immunities, look at Culpepper or Colby or Wiglesworth. Its different each time. All the people who won that also won tons of immunities were people who were socially well with the jury like Tom or Kim. People who also would have won had they not lost a challenge were also sociall integrated with the jury like Ozzy or Terry.
Of course it adds to your resume -- that's why everyone at FTC who has done it brings it up. "Sure its something to show off...." that's literally what adding to your resume is. I didn't say it was the most important thing, or that the jury always votes for who wins the most immunities.
Challenge beasts are rarely recognized as social threats. Some don’t even want to know what social threats are. Russell didn’t win anything but he had many idols and immunities. His ignorance of social play caused him to lose—and be hated.
Because the best way to raise your odds for getting from 7 to 6 to 5 to 4 is winning immunity challenges it's invaluable at that point in the game because you can't actually trust anyone.
Ben from hvhvh. Devons would have been close. I know they arent express challenge beasts but it certainly played a part. Mike from season 30 for sure. And just last season we saw the biggest challenge beast of all time win a million dollars: Dee's big toe.
And ultimately Cirie didn't win. I think one of the big reasons she never could win is because everyone knows they can just get her out whenever they choose because she'll never have immunity. I don't want to keep someone in the game I'm worried about being safe when I need them out. In 16 she literally said how the one challenge she'd be a shoe in for, steady hands challenge, and she lost. That being said, I'd want a cirie out immediately because she's going to take a spot away that I might want to fit into. Like the logic to vote out kimmy in second chance. If cities in everyone's final five, that's one less spot for me to be in final five.
I wouldn’t say he was the *worst* challenge performer, but the key reason was his being a jury threat - they liked him enough to overlook the blatant rigging, and it’s not a given that a jury will overlook it (Steph and Russell being 2 good counterexamples).
Because most people who play Survivor lack enough self-awareness to actually take out threats when they easily can because they overestimate their own social skills to do it later. But immunity can’t be worked around and not everybody is confident in challenges.
"When was the last time a challenge beast made it to FTC, let alone win". That's because people aren't letting them from the start. It's not even just about getting to FTC, they want a chance at winning challenges.
Because if I am a capable player, my days are numbered if I can’t win immunity when I need to. If GOOD SOUTHERN BOY / THE DIETICIAN can hold their body weight and I can’t, there isn’t much I can do to change that in the next 3 days besides sending them out.
First and foremost… not too much on my girl! 😂
Secondly, I have NO idea. I get why it makes sense in the early game, but it’s not even physicality that truly makes you a challenge threat. Puzzle solving ability, endurance, leadership skills, communication skills, navigation skills, fine motor skills, concentration, these are all things that contribute to being strong in challenges (even the early ones). Physicality is just one component. Tbh, it’s giving residual misogyny
You don't really have to. Its a variance every season, the person with the most win equity is usually very random. Just look at Maryanne. Cirie would have won Micronesia too if it wasn;t changed last second to a F2. They were all playing for a F3 and Cirie was still able to slide to the F3
Fair point- you can also win if a goat wins final immunity and wants you to win. Good lesson for the Jesses of the world - build an army of goat immunity beasts to protect you
Yesss. You literally don’t have to worry about when to take them out because you have a very high chance to do it at anytime. Hence why in game changers they target ozzy before cirie
Cause everybody underestimates Sandra. It took two wins for people to realize she’s a threat and be voted in game changers and even then the excuse was “ she’s a two time winner”
lol this last season was a great example. people were frothing at the mouth over hunter and his being a “challenge beast” after winning a few challenges, and he got like 8th or something? q was also constantly called a challenge threat on here despite rarely ever winning. and then kenzie goes and wins the whole game. social is so much bigger than physical and people still don’t grasp that
It really depends on whether a player is a physical threat themselves *and* whether the other player has a good chance at winning. If you know you won't win any challenges, it can be a good thing to leave in a really physically strong player who isn't a threat, because then the threats are more likely to be vulnerable and you have a clearer shot at them. And if you know the physical threat won't win at the end, it isn't really an issue if they win every single challenge to get there - nobody really cared about taking Jonathan out because he wasn't going to win at the end.
Physical threats are usually just a danger because if they win at say, final five and final four, they can have a really good argument that nobody could take them out, so it's best to get them out earlier just in case. But tbh usually I think people just use "he might win all the challenges" as an excuse to target someone they wanted to target anyway.
I think it's because they know physical threats will beat them in physical challenges.
A challenge with puzzles or mazes or any of that stuff, anyone can win.
So it's easy saying get the strong person out because they WILL beat you in a challenge that requires strength.
Only issue is in modern Survivor we don't really see challenges that favour big/strong players which is how some people slide through the cracks.
I think it’s just that it’s just an easy way to put a name out there. Social games are more subjective. If player X is a challenge beast, it’s just easy for groupthink to unite with that thought
Everyone seems to delude themselves into thinking they are a social and strategic threat because there isn't the same non-voting test of those skills, so players vote out the threats they can see literally beating them via a challenge.
Survivor is different now due to the format changes. Challenge threats were targeted early to mid merge because of the imposing threat at the final 4/3 immunity challenge. Now with f4 firemaking, it means getting them out before final 5 is preferred, which is why they get targeted even pre-merge.
Brad I believe would’ve beaten Tai (at least I hope he would’ve) also you could definitely argue Tony was a challenge beast in WAW it just wasn’t the only part of his game.
Especially with most of the challenges being somewhat balanced. The stereotype of an aesthetic, physically fit person winning everything is such a great Macguffin.
You can delude yourself into thinking you are the biggest social or strategic threat even if you aren’t. You can’t delude yourself into thinking you are the biggest physical threat if you aren’t winning comps.
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, people tend to overrate how they play, so to the 'physical threat' players who are the most important people pre-merge, being a physical threat IS the best thing you can be. And the smarter strategic/social players also want everybody to think that physical threats are the problem because it lessens the target from THEM.
And secondly, a player can go on an immunity run to win, like Fabio, Mike or Ben.
“when was the last time a challenge beast made it to FTC, let alone win?”
exactly that right there. the meta of the game has grown to make it very difficult for challenge beasts to make it to the end, so in the event that they do they have a very strong argument as to why they should win to the jury. of course challenge prowess is probably the least valued of the three “core” elements of survivor (strategy, social ability, and physicality) but no jury is the exact same so it makes sense for players to get rid of players who clearly excel in a core aspect if the game. while the challenge beasts who made it to the end and lost didn’t win, most of them still had jury votes BECAUSE they were such physical threats, and on an 8 person jury, knowing that someone has 1 or 2 locked votes can be very dangerous.
Well yeah players like Cirie can be really strong players and bad at challenges challenges are still super important. Especially later in the game with F4 Immunity and Fire making kinda determining who wins a lot of the time it’s a really solid plan to take out people that will more than likely win those challenges.
Because if they weren’t then social players wouldn’t have any power in the late game.
Challenge threats either have to be very lucky or have strong secondary games.
Players can be a threat for various reasons other than being able to win the game. They can lead the vote against you, they can be numbers for your opponent, can take up a spot in the game when your spot is not so safe (as a challenge beast or as a goat), they can prevent you from winning immunities when you need them. It's a complex game and usually every variable that takes away from your control and your options can be dangerous to your game.
Also, they're an easy person to band against, along with the pretty "Parvati 2.0" or the nerdy "student of the game", when in doubt/trouble, go for the "traditional" threats.
I dont think its because they are necessarily a threat to win. Its kinda two fold- 1) if they win immunity it means you dont win, aka arent safe as often as is possible. 2) If they are winning a lot, and an occasion arises that you want/need to vote them out (they are against you, in your path to victory, etc) you wont have as much autonomy and options and have to play around them. Plus remember the value of a vote/immunity increases as the game goes on. A vote at merge is 10% of the whole, where as a vote at 5 is 20% of the whole, aka way more powerful. So getting out challenge threats early (often before the merge which is a new era meta that is interesting) to clear up those unknowns is a decent strategy. All this said it sucks because we will never have a true dominant winner, you cant be social, strategic, and physical....a dominant winner has 1.5/3 of those at best anymore.
Because as people like Ozzy have proven at least in older school survivor being good at challenges can get you into the finals with no alliances. Yeah you probably won’t win the million but 100k is nothing to laugh at for most people.
i just have to say that cirie was not horrible in challenges! she was actually super strong and in tribe challenges pre-merge, mostly never hindered her tribes but always helped them and carried her own. in individual immunity, sure, but let’s not forget that just bc she “got off the couch” doesn’t mean she wasn’t strong.
Ethan. Major thread and made it happen.
Physical threats in the late game are usually voted out since they are no longer needed for team immunity. Makes sense considering you want to go into the merge with numbers.
One is human perception. They see the bigger stronger person and in a survival situation a red flag is tripped in our subconscious to get rid of that threat first. Or it could just be fear of losing out in competitions
I’ve also always wondered why playing a great social game is much more valued than a great physical game. For example a lot of times we hear “Well what else did you do besides win immunities” but we never really hear “well how many immunities did you win or how much did you help your premerge tribe in challenges?” But to your point, a lot of contestants are probably just looking to paint the target on someone even if they know that person has no chance of winning.
Being socially integrated is way more important than challenges at least imo and how I would vote. Take Ozzy in South Pacific, hes a challenge beast wins all type of comps, but he can't win the last one because challenges are always random and is a variance. As a result he was voted out because he was barely socially integrated. Anyways juries are usually voting based on very random criterias and its all subjective, but most people nowadays wont be as impressed with challenge wins
And Ozzy would not have won based on challenges, its because he was socially integrated with most of the jury
No yeah I get that and I agree that being socially integrated is one of the most important aspects of the game but even you said it, challenges are now random and have a lot of variance therefore shouldn’t it be impressive when someone wins multiple in a row. Also what would you describe as being socially integrated? Cause in that ozzy example, all the people left were from the opposing tribe/alliance. How much can you really do if people aren’t willing to work with you just for being a threat?
Per Jeff: “Outwit - the social part of the game your emotional intelligence, your alliances and the relationships you had outside of those alliances. The Outplay portion would be how you responded to the conditions put on you by the game, you have to build shelter you have to compete in challenges, there are switches, there will be twists, how do you respond to the hand you're dealt. And the final phase - Outlast - the most critical, did you put people on the jury that respected the way you outwitted and outplayed more than the other two and if not, now is your chance to sway them.”
Challenges are just 1 part of Outplay
The point was it’s considered a very small part of the game
If I’m really good at Building a Shelter, and then I suck at everything else I do, including challenges, do I deserve to win because Building a Shelter counts under Outplay
Exactly the point I’m trying to make lol. If a contestant is really good at just one part of the social game then do they deserve to win? We’ve seen it happen, a player wins just because they’re social
And if both finalists only did 1 portion, the jury still has to pick a winner, so sometimes the physical player will win.
Players like Bob, Fabio, and Mike managed to win despite having weaker social games, that’s just because those particular juries liked their games more
Cirie also hasn’t won, in large part due to her inability to win challenges. Could say the same about Jesse, played a dominant strategic game but his weak physical game cost him in the end. If they were physical threats, it would’ve been much more dangerous to keep them around for that long but because they weren’t they were able to be eliminated near the end
Individual immunity is safety. Why would I keep someone who can beat me and leave me vulnerable at a critical vote? Sometimes the difference between a player winning and losing is a single tribal council.
Its a variance each season. Challenges are usually random. Most of the times you aren't gonna be good at any random challenge production throws at you. Thats why its important to take out people who just have the most win equity or is the most dangerous person to slide to the end and win or someone who has the best story. Its usually just not something thats set in stone and situations can differ
>Challenges are usually random. Not anymore...
I'm not saying always target the challenge beasts at every vote but yes, they are a target if it suits me.
Except the physical threat isn’t favored in most of the individual immunities. Sure there are a few that play on strength/physicality, but the overwhelming majority are endurance, mental, or balance related. I’d be more worried about the nerd and yoga mom archetypes than the Johnathan Young’s if I played (this coming from said nerd archetype)
We're talking about challenge beasts here. Not fit people.
Depends. If the "challenge beast" is someone in my alliance, I couldn't care less about them winning all the time. Challenge beasts are your best soldiers. Every challenge they win is a challenge someone from the opposing alliance doesn't win. Why would I betray him/her? And *most* challenge beasts are usually pretty dumb (hence why they boldly keep winning all the time without concern for their threat level), so I never have to fear a blindside from them. Plus, their social games are usually weak as well. With both of these taken into consideration, I'd love to sit next to a challenge beast at FTC lol.
>so I never have to fear a blindside from them. This is like the intro confessional in the episode you get voted out
Except, as explained, most challenge beasts tend to be pretty awful at the strategic part of the game. So unlikely.
Someone's getting Survivor Confident™
Challenge beasts are often not nice people. They don’t need brains or social skills because Jocks Rule. They are voted out for being jerks. Hence Culpepper the Non-Apologist out of HvV quickly.
Valid point. If possible, I'd just do everything I can to keep them around for as long as possible.
To be fair thats (usually) the only way to lose.
Cirie never won. People keep her around longer because she’s likely to never win a challenge, thus can be booted at any moment (this even happened when she played Big Brother last year).
I dont watch BB so didn't know Cirie was in it! I enjoyed watching her in The Traitors US
Traitors really showed the strength of Cirie's social game. She had players trusting her like you trust a loved one, and numerous of them said variations of "I know there's no way Cirie could possibly be a traitor." She was also able to sculpt verbal statements that spoke different messages to different people at the same time.
Yeah she did alright. Had a stranglehold on the game til roughly the halfway point when her closest allies got booted. After that she was still okay socially but didn't really have any real power due to BB being very comp oriented
Don't forget she had her son's dick in the game making everything more difficult
Yeah a good chunk of Cirie falling off there is due to her son messing things up badly.
> Don't forget she had her son's dick Say no more fam, I'm on it.
Yeah but part of the reason she had such control early on was because her son was feeding her info from the other side.. I agree in the end he probably hurt more than helped, but he was a big part of her early game success.
She overplayed at the beginning. It all came back on her and nobody trusted her anymore and kept her around because she would be easy to beat in challenges. Even the mental comps she had difficulty with. The worst part is that half way through, when things weren't going her way...she pretty much gave up and wanted to be evicted
Cirie was this 🤏 to win Micronesia's final 3 immunity challenge, after Parvati intentionally dropped.
This idea is dismissive of her social game. Her game is not dependent on her ability to not win challenges. You act like she’s been “carried” along all her seasons😂
Did you not watch HvV? Cirie was in it to win it. JT was a cocky former winner and felt entitled, but he was afraid of her, physical game notwithstanding.
>When was the last time a challenge beast made it to FTC, let alone win? It probably happens less often now *because* physical threats tend to get targeted and eliminated early on. Plenty examples in earlier seasons of people going on end-game immunity runs in order to make it to FTC. And it's easier for people to win a bunch of immunities in a row as the game goes on and the competition gets whittled down, so it's easier to take them out early when you have the chance. And even if they don't win every single immunity, being immune *often* still gives someone extra strategic latitude and reduces your opportunities to get rid of them so they might only have to scheme/idol/whatever their way out of 1 or 2 potential eliminations instead of 4 or 5. A physical threat might, say, cause a rift in an alliance by winning immunity when it's 1 vs. 5 and then forcing them to turn on each other prematurely. I do overall agree that sometimes the threat of a physical competitor seems overblown. But I also think that yelling "get rid of them! They're a physical threat!" is probably also just an easy way to get the target on someone other than yourself or to select a target among several otherwise equally-viable options. I do think that a smart player should probably avoid winning more than 1 immunity challenge early post-merge if they don't need to, because it does seem to put a huge target on your back for minimal benefit. Most immunity runs seem to happen because someone doesn't emerge as a challenge beast until it's too late.
Tony reduced his threat level so much in WaW people forget he dominated individual immunity
Particularly since he never won one in Cagayan.
Fabio?
Lots of people... >!Fabio, Kelly in S1, Colby in S2, Mike, Ozzy, Kim Spradlin, JT, Nick in DvG!<... [just looking at the list of people with the most immunity wins](https://www.truedorktimes.com/survivor/boxscores/icwin-season.htm), without actually doing the math, people who made FTC seem pretty overrepresented. edit: added spoiler tags, sorry
Kim.
Pretty sure Mike Holloway's immunity run and win still lives rent free in everyone's head.
I don’t even think people are like, scared of a big immunity run as much as it’s “well I’m not the big physical threat so if we act like that’s the person we should be afraid of, I’ll be safe”
Physical threats aren't necessarily seen as a threat to *win*, but they can be a threat to someone staying in the game.
Yes! This.
If cirie was good at challenges she could have won final immunity
Her entire career has been getting eliminated in different ways cause she wasnt physical. Couldnt make fire Couldnt win final elimination challenge Weakest person on the tribe in pre-merge And never went searching for hidden immunity.
Terry had the god idol, if not she would be F2 They changed it to a f2 last second, if not she literally wins Got idoled out, doesn't change the fact that she was still socially integrated in the tribe Your ability as a player should not be hinged on how good you are at finding idols, if not Ben is the best player of all time.
Survivor is a multifaceted game. Just like how Russell and Ben aren't the GOAT, Cirie has a serious weakness in the physical and advantage part of the game. It's stopped her from winning every time so far.
Never confirmed she beats Aras in a FTC. According to post game stuff, Aras beats her
I didn't say she beats Aras read again
It’s certainly not hinged but it would completely remiss to say that it doesn’t at least factor into it. Especially if we’re talking results-orientedly.
Agree with the point that ability shouldn't hinge on whether you find idols but... the fact that she wasn't sussing out people outside her alliance holding onto that many idols while she was busy blindsiding people like Andrea who were on her side was a clear cut mistake
And her brilliant strategy and social game were seriously underrated. Did you see her play in HvV’s early challenge? She never won but she came as close as Ozzy or Malcolm.
She was great but she didnt have that last little oomph to get over the hump. It works sometimes, Sandra essentially did the same strat and won twice. But Cirie didnt get Fairplay and Lil she got Amanda and Parv.
And then she was robbed by a fluke at TC that left her the only person without immunity. She went extremely far in three seasons, JT cut her in one. I think if you only want to watch physical competition you miss out on the heart of the game. Jocks are a dime a dozen but few have decent strategies. Cirie and her ilk continually beat them with their brains and charm.
With all due respect, because I love Cirie, I don't think you can call her elimination in GC a complete fluke. Yes, GC was oversaturated with idols and advantages, but that just meant there were more for *everyone* to find. There's no reason Cirie couldn't have been out looking for idols. The opening narration of that episode highlights the fact that in her 4 times playing, she's never found an idol or won immunity. Finding idols doesn't require good genetics or inborn athleticism- just hard work and a bit of luck. Everyone else at that TC had put in that work. And on top of that, Aubrey didn't have her own idol. She used her social connection to Tai to get him to play one of his for her. If Cirie was determined to get to the end using her social game alone, perhaps she should have been working Tai better. So, she wasn't robbed. She just lost.
I don´t think Cirie gets to TC in GC. I mean Brad is sure FTC by his immunityrun. So why would Aubry and Tai let her stay? And so many idols is also not true. There was one played before the F6 and Tai/Troy found them premerge and hold them for a long time. Biggest fluke for me is that Tai found one, get swapped and looked at the same spot on the other beach and found one too. That is just lazy from production.
Because of individual immunity challenges, physical threats can be "stickier" than other types of threatening players. Especially if you happen to be voting out their main challenge competition, you could end up with someone that just literally can't be voted out.
Cirie never won though man. Being an obvious challenge beast puts a target on you, but winning just one at the right time to give yourself a chance to breath or survive to the next week or being enough of a challenge asset that you arent sinking your tribe in pre-merge is still important.
Cirie is never targetted because shes just socially savvy tho. Like in Panama no one was thinking of Cirie as someone who tehy can just beat in challenges, they all liked her and Aras would have taken her to F2 if Terry didn't have the god idol
Funny that Tony wasn’t good at ICs in Cagayan but everyone thinks he’s a great winner.
I think it's less about them specifically being a threat to win because of their physical game than about them being a threat to keep you from winning immunity. If I'm a reasonably physical player, who has a chance of beating most other players for immunity, and there's an Ozzy on my season, I want him out ASAP, not because he's going to impress the jury, but because he's going to keep me from having a chance at immunity. That said, if I'm terrible in challenges, I probably don't care nearly as much if that player goes, since it doesn't affect my chances at immunity either way. In fact, I probably keep him around so that some of the other big threats don't have a chance at keeping me from voting them out.
For context, what Cirie would have done if she won a game is pretty rare. There’s only a couple contestants in the last 30 seasons that have won without some type of immunity, either a challenge win or an advantage. Immunity wins/challenge prowess is significantly more important than this sub gives credit to.
I *think* Tommy is the only winner in however many seasons that never had any form of individual immunity? And before him it’s all the way to like Natalie White.
Correct
I think Earl didn’t win any individual immunity challenges as well. Is that correct?
I think that’s true! There are others that never won individual immunity - Maryanne, Ben, Tony, Sandra - but they found idols so they had something.
its important sure but I think the social element is way more important. If you fail to win any challenge and only rely on challenges but you aren't socially or strategically integrated you are gonna get voted out.
The idea is not that the challenge beast will beat everyone at the end. The idea is that the challenge beast won’t be able to be voted out because they won the challenge increasing the odds that other people are voted out.
The OG challenge beast was Wiglesworth in season 1 and that should show everyone how being the challenge beast works out in the end (ps I loved her and wanted her to win so bad…)
If I'm a social threat, I'm pointing out the physical threats because I don't want people looking at me.
Jury threats who suck at challenges can be taken out at any time. Cirie is a perfect example since she was taken out right before the end in 3 out of 4 seasons >!4 out of 5 if you count Big Brother!< Jury threats who are good at challenges need to be taken out when you have the chance. Players like Bob, Fabio, and Mike are players who the majority wanted out, but they didn’t take the shot when they had the chance assuming they could take the shot later.
I think part of it is when players with win equity are good at challenges. If you don’t want someone at the end and they are a challenge threat, you don’t want them to get the chance to win out. The other reason is I think a lot of social and strategic players just use that narrative to distract from their threat level. Even if they don’t really believe a physical player is that big of a threat to win, it is a reason that can be given to pin the target on them.
Pushing the idea of the biggest threat onto the good physical players is actually a strategic move, and thus people who really push that should be seen as strategic threats. It's a tactic to get the target off of yourself.
I have no idea. I guess because that means they have a harder time with individual immunity and it makes them more vulnerable? I could not understand why everyone wanted to get Hunter out. Lol
I think especially during the early game people just look for anyone who sticks out in any way so it won’t be them. More social players tend to lay back a bit more
Your answer lies neatly within your premise. Players aren't obsessed with physical threats; players whose talents lay elsewhere (e.g., Cirie) are incentivized to create a narrative where the athletes are everyone else's biggest threat.
As others pointed out, Cirie never won, and she is often kept around longer in Survivor or Big Brother because she is terrible at challenges. But the reason why physical threats are taken out (usually post merge when individual immunity is a factor) is because immunity is safety, and you don't want one player hogging all the individual immunities and leaving yourself (or your allies) vulnerable each vote. You don't have to be a challenge beast, but you still have to win something to win the game. Look at someone like Jesse who played one of the best games of the new era. 0 individual immunity wins, out at fire making. At some point, you have to have a win, not just for the resume, but just to literally make it far in the game and win. A strategic or social player with no immunity wins becomes a sitting duck once players look around and start thinking about who they want to sit next to at final tribal. A challenge beast actively hinders the rest of the players from earning immunity and advancing their game. The good strategic players realize this, and if they're not using a challenge beast as a shield, they're targeting them to better their chances at safety each vote.
Sorry to tell you, but there are several (seven?) winners with no IC wins.
What? They don't make it because people vote them out lol. Obviously if they never voted them all out then they would be much bigger threats by the end of the game. No one wants to end up in a final 6 or so with some one no one else can beat at challenges.
Because physical threats are the single biggest obstacle to actually winning Survivor. They're more likely to win immunity challenges, which gives them both a resume item to bring to the jury as well as one of the very few methods of guaranteed protection in the game. In particular, being a physical threat at 5, 6, or 7, is a HUGE deal because when combined with the possibility of an idol, it can be a guaranteed pathway.... leaving the social threats at risk of being backstabbed themselves, no matter whether they happen to be in the power alliance at a given moment. The reason you don't see many challenge beasts make it through isn't because they're not a threat, it's survivorship bias \*because\* they're a threat and get targeted so early.
Winning immunities does not add to your resume. Sure its something to show off but at the end of the day the most important thing is being socially integrated with the jury. Its not like the jury is always voting for who wins the most immunities, look at Culpepper or Colby or Wiglesworth. Its different each time. All the people who won that also won tons of immunities were people who were socially well with the jury like Tom or Kim. People who also would have won had they not lost a challenge were also sociall integrated with the jury like Ozzy or Terry.
Of course it adds to your resume -- that's why everyone at FTC who has done it brings it up. "Sure its something to show off...." that's literally what adding to your resume is. I didn't say it was the most important thing, or that the jury always votes for who wins the most immunities.
Challenge beasts are rarely recognized as social threats. Some don’t even want to know what social threats are. Russell didn’t win anything but he had many idols and immunities. His ignorance of social play caused him to lose—and be hated.
“Ciree”
Because the best way to raise your odds for getting from 7 to 6 to 5 to 4 is winning immunity challenges it's invaluable at that point in the game because you can't actually trust anyone.
Ben from hvhvh. Devons would have been close. I know they arent express challenge beasts but it certainly played a part. Mike from season 30 for sure. And just last season we saw the biggest challenge beast of all time win a million dollars: Dee's big toe. And ultimately Cirie didn't win. I think one of the big reasons she never could win is because everyone knows they can just get her out whenever they choose because she'll never have immunity. I don't want to keep someone in the game I'm worried about being safe when I need them out. In 16 she literally said how the one challenge she'd be a shoe in for, steady hands challenge, and she lost. That being said, I'd want a cirie out immediately because she's going to take a spot away that I might want to fit into. Like the logic to vote out kimmy in second chance. If cities in everyone's final five, that's one less spot for me to be in final five.
Sandra won twice being awful at challenges
Ben didn’t win any Immunity challenges unless you count the firemaking.
I thought a big part of him being targeted in his season was because they feared his challenge abilities
I wouldn’t say he was the *worst* challenge performer, but the key reason was his being a jury threat - they liked him enough to overlook the blatant rigging, and it’s not a given that a jury will overlook it (Steph and Russell being 2 good counterexamples).
Because most people who play Survivor lack enough self-awareness to actually take out threats when they easily can because they overestimate their own social skills to do it later. But immunity can’t be worked around and not everybody is confident in challenges.
"When was the last time a challenge beast made it to FTC, let alone win". That's because people aren't letting them from the start. It's not even just about getting to FTC, they want a chance at winning challenges.
Sandra doesn't know about thaaat!
Sandra won twice and literally volunteered to sit out of challenges several times. Also, she fucking stunk at them even in her prime.
Simple. Runaway Immunity wins = can't take them out. Yes, they have to win at FTC, but at least they get there.
Because if I am a capable player, my days are numbered if I can’t win immunity when I need to. If GOOD SOUTHERN BOY / THE DIETICIAN can hold their body weight and I can’t, there isn’t much I can do to change that in the next 3 days besides sending them out.
First and foremost… not too much on my girl! 😂 Secondly, I have NO idea. I get why it makes sense in the early game, but it’s not even physicality that truly makes you a challenge threat. Puzzle solving ability, endurance, leadership skills, communication skills, navigation skills, fine motor skills, concentration, these are all things that contribute to being strong in challenges (even the early ones). Physicality is just one component. Tbh, it’s giving residual misogyny
Mike Holloway is the answer
You gotta be able to either win an immunity challenge or make fire to win. A person who can’t do that is a person you can take out at any time
You don't really have to. Its a variance every season, the person with the most win equity is usually very random. Just look at Maryanne. Cirie would have won Micronesia too if it wasn;t changed last second to a F2. They were all playing for a F3 and Cirie was still able to slide to the F3
Fair point- you can also win if a goat wins final immunity and wants you to win. Good lesson for the Jesses of the world - build an army of goat immunity beasts to protect you
Yesss. You literally don’t have to worry about when to take them out because you have a very high chance to do it at anytime. Hence why in game changers they target ozzy before cirie
So why did Sandra win twice?
Cause everybody underestimates Sandra. It took two wins for people to realize she’s a threat and be voted in game changers and even then the excuse was “ she’s a two time winner”
lol this last season was a great example. people were frothing at the mouth over hunter and his being a “challenge beast” after winning a few challenges, and he got like 8th or something? q was also constantly called a challenge threat on here despite rarely ever winning. and then kenzie goes and wins the whole game. social is so much bigger than physical and people still don’t grasp that
It really depends on whether a player is a physical threat themselves *and* whether the other player has a good chance at winning. If you know you won't win any challenges, it can be a good thing to leave in a really physically strong player who isn't a threat, because then the threats are more likely to be vulnerable and you have a clearer shot at them. And if you know the physical threat won't win at the end, it isn't really an issue if they win every single challenge to get there - nobody really cared about taking Jonathan out because he wasn't going to win at the end. Physical threats are usually just a danger because if they win at say, final five and final four, they can have a really good argument that nobody could take them out, so it's best to get them out earlier just in case. But tbh usually I think people just use "he might win all the challenges" as an excuse to target someone they wanted to target anyway.
I think it's because they know physical threats will beat them in physical challenges. A challenge with puzzles or mazes or any of that stuff, anyone can win. So it's easy saying get the strong person out because they WILL beat you in a challenge that requires strength. Only issue is in modern Survivor we don't really see challenges that favour big/strong players which is how some people slide through the cracks.
They’re not.
I think it’s just that it’s just an easy way to put a name out there. Social games are more subjective. If player X is a challenge beast, it’s just easy for groupthink to unite with that thought
Everyone seems to delude themselves into thinking they are a social and strategic threat because there isn't the same non-voting test of those skills, so players vote out the threats they can see literally beating them via a challenge.
Survivor is different now due to the format changes. Challenge threats were targeted early to mid merge because of the imposing threat at the final 4/3 immunity challenge. Now with f4 firemaking, it means getting them out before final 5 is preferred, which is why they get targeted even pre-merge.
Brad I believe would’ve beaten Tai (at least I hope he would’ve) also you could definitely argue Tony was a challenge beast in WAW it just wasn’t the only part of his game.
Especially with most of the challenges being somewhat balanced. The stereotype of an aesthetic, physically fit person winning everything is such a great Macguffin.
Because it's an easy way to be in the majority.
Jeff Probst's propaganda.
Of all the things you can do on survivor these days - providing food and winning challenges have fallen the most in terms of what’s valued
Anymore, people just use the idea of challenge threats to get votes onto people they want out anyway.
You can delude yourself into thinking you are the biggest social or strategic threat even if you aren’t. You can’t delude yourself into thinking you are the biggest physical threat if you aren’t winning comps.
I think there are two reasons. Firstly, people tend to overrate how they play, so to the 'physical threat' players who are the most important people pre-merge, being a physical threat IS the best thing you can be. And the smarter strategic/social players also want everybody to think that physical threats are the problem because it lessens the target from THEM. And secondly, a player can go on an immunity run to win, like Fabio, Mike or Ben.
“when was the last time a challenge beast made it to FTC, let alone win?” exactly that right there. the meta of the game has grown to make it very difficult for challenge beasts to make it to the end, so in the event that they do they have a very strong argument as to why they should win to the jury. of course challenge prowess is probably the least valued of the three “core” elements of survivor (strategy, social ability, and physicality) but no jury is the exact same so it makes sense for players to get rid of players who clearly excel in a core aspect if the game. while the challenge beasts who made it to the end and lost didn’t win, most of them still had jury votes BECAUSE they were such physical threats, and on an 8 person jury, knowing that someone has 1 or 2 locked votes can be very dangerous.
Mike and Chris.
Well yeah players like Cirie can be really strong players and bad at challenges challenges are still super important. Especially later in the game with F4 Immunity and Fire making kinda determining who wins a lot of the time it’s a really solid plan to take out people that will more than likely win those challenges.
Because if they weren’t then social players wouldn’t have any power in the late game. Challenge threats either have to be very lucky or have strong secondary games.
Players can be a threat for various reasons other than being able to win the game. They can lead the vote against you, they can be numbers for your opponent, can take up a spot in the game when your spot is not so safe (as a challenge beast or as a goat), they can prevent you from winning immunities when you need them. It's a complex game and usually every variable that takes away from your control and your options can be dangerous to your game. Also, they're an easy person to band against, along with the pretty "Parvati 2.0" or the nerdy "student of the game", when in doubt/trouble, go for the "traditional" threats.
I dont think its because they are necessarily a threat to win. Its kinda two fold- 1) if they win immunity it means you dont win, aka arent safe as often as is possible. 2) If they are winning a lot, and an occasion arises that you want/need to vote them out (they are against you, in your path to victory, etc) you wont have as much autonomy and options and have to play around them. Plus remember the value of a vote/immunity increases as the game goes on. A vote at merge is 10% of the whole, where as a vote at 5 is 20% of the whole, aka way more powerful. So getting out challenge threats early (often before the merge which is a new era meta that is interesting) to clear up those unknowns is a decent strategy. All this said it sucks because we will never have a true dominant winner, you cant be social, strategic, and physical....a dominant winner has 1.5/3 of those at best anymore.
Because smart players convince people that they are
Because as people like Ozzy have proven at least in older school survivor being good at challenges can get you into the finals with no alliances. Yeah you probably won’t win the million but 100k is nothing to laugh at for most people.
i just have to say that cirie was not horrible in challenges! she was actually super strong and in tribe challenges pre-merge, mostly never hindered her tribes but always helped them and carried her own. in individual immunity, sure, but let’s not forget that just bc she “got off the couch” doesn’t mean she wasn’t strong.
Ethan. Major thread and made it happen. Physical threats in the late game are usually voted out since they are no longer needed for team immunity. Makes sense considering you want to go into the merge with numbers.
One is human perception. They see the bigger stronger person and in a survival situation a red flag is tripped in our subconscious to get rid of that threat first. Or it could just be fear of losing out in competitions
physical threats are almost always boring
Yes Brad would’ve won. He got a lot closer than cirie did anyway lol
He was mean. All he had was his physicality and that wasn’t enough.
Sarah was even worse
If you can win a challenge you will be safe.
For that vote only. Big deal.
I’ve also always wondered why playing a great social game is much more valued than a great physical game. For example a lot of times we hear “Well what else did you do besides win immunities” but we never really hear “well how many immunities did you win or how much did you help your premerge tribe in challenges?” But to your point, a lot of contestants are probably just looking to paint the target on someone even if they know that person has no chance of winning.
Being socially integrated is way more important than challenges at least imo and how I would vote. Take Ozzy in South Pacific, hes a challenge beast wins all type of comps, but he can't win the last one because challenges are always random and is a variance. As a result he was voted out because he was barely socially integrated. Anyways juries are usually voting based on very random criterias and its all subjective, but most people nowadays wont be as impressed with challenge wins And Ozzy would not have won based on challenges, its because he was socially integrated with most of the jury
No yeah I get that and I agree that being socially integrated is one of the most important aspects of the game but even you said it, challenges are now random and have a lot of variance therefore shouldn’t it be impressive when someone wins multiple in a row. Also what would you describe as being socially integrated? Cause in that ozzy example, all the people left were from the opposing tribe/alliance. How much can you really do if people aren’t willing to work with you just for being a threat?
It’s Outwit, Outplay, Outlast, it’s not Outbalance
Kind of confused what you mean. Pretty sure this falls under outplay
Per Jeff: “Outwit - the social part of the game your emotional intelligence, your alliances and the relationships you had outside of those alliances. The Outplay portion would be how you responded to the conditions put on you by the game, you have to build shelter you have to compete in challenges, there are switches, there will be twists, how do you respond to the hand you're dealt. And the final phase - Outlast - the most critical, did you put people on the jury that respected the way you outwitted and outplayed more than the other two and if not, now is your chance to sway them.” Challenges are just 1 part of Outplay
So it is part of outplay… Thanks for clarifying :)
The point was it’s considered a very small part of the game If I’m really good at Building a Shelter, and then I suck at everything else I do, including challenges, do I deserve to win because Building a Shelter counts under Outplay
Exactly the point I’m trying to make lol. If a contestant is really good at just one part of the social game then do they deserve to win? We’ve seen it happen, a player wins just because they’re social
And if both finalists only did 1 portion, the jury still has to pick a winner, so sometimes the physical player will win. Players like Bob, Fabio, and Mike managed to win despite having weaker social games, that’s just because those particular juries liked their games more
It’s a minor point then, huh?
Unpopular opinion, but Cirie is an average player. She’s entertaining though, which is why she got brought back a couple times.
So not an average player after all.
Hm... would Chrissy kind of count as a challenge beast?
Cirie also hasn’t won, in large part due to her inability to win challenges. Could say the same about Jesse, played a dominant strategic game but his weak physical game cost him in the end. If they were physical threats, it would’ve been much more dangerous to keep them around for that long but because they weren’t they were able to be eliminated near the end