Golf wrote:They have been selected through an arduous process to fly to Hollywood, appear in front of millions of people, and get paid a minimum of $1k. Why should anybody feel sorry for them in the least? Do you feel sorry for an NFL player on a team that loses a game yet gets paid $500k for that Sunday? In both cases if the competitor wants to win they should simply play better.
Wow. That IS simple, isn't it?
I also like how the losers in NFL football games are given a minimal stipend that maybe covers travel expenses and then they're banned from the game for life. I don't feel sorry for them at all.
lieph82 wrote:This guy worked harder than just about anyone else, and he's successful for it. Isn't that something that should make us feel good? Some of his competitors may be more likable, sure, but did most of them spend even a fraction of the time on the archive or studying strategy or working on index cards? I doubt it. To me, this is a feel-good story about the value of working hard at something...
I think there have been a lot of responses here to something no one is saying. At least I don't think anyone here is saying it. Arthur earned his wins. We all agree on that. I think the majority of us, me included, like the guy. Maybe the detractors are more numerous than I understand and they're just staying quiet. That's fine with me. I've kept mum about more than one contestant on the "If you can't say something nice..." principle.
I'm not in the camp that finds the games boring because they are routs. I understand the sentiment, but there's just too much that's thrilling about Arthur's game play. It'll be a while before that gets old.
Most of all, I want to make this clear, even if it doesn't make sense to everyone. It is possible to cheer for Arthur and feel bad for those he defeats. Let me say that again, because I've seen many posts that treat those two things as an XOR. It is possible to cheer for Arthur and feel bad for those he defeats. I am in both those camps.
So, yeah, absolutely. This is a feel-good story. Spot on. And it does make me feel good, in a dazed and awed sort of way. But there's also the bittersweet aspect to the story of a Welsh-Canadian woman who tried for more than half Arthur's life to get on the show and brought a cheering section with her when she succeeded... only to hit FJ with a THIRD of Arthur's total. She says she had a really good time. I hope that's true. Some people can roll with the punches a lot better than I can. I'm more like the person Arthur mentioned who found it painful to even watch the show after losing.
Part of why my response doesn't directly address what you and others have said is me dealing with the cognitive dissonance I feel when I agree with the likes of Golf over you. There are definitely contestants I feel bad for, but I don't feel bad for every losing contestant on the show. If Sofi's misspeak on the daily double had actually cost her the game, I would feel bad for her. I feel bad for someone who loses because of one poor daily double wager, or a misspelling on final. I feel bad for someone who goes up against a buzzsaw like Arthur, comes oh so close, but loses anyway, because had they been on a couple weeks later, or if one category had been different, maybe they could've gone on a long run. In general, I agree with you about certain posters' inability to feel anything. Personally, I think many of the contestants Arthur's been up against have been ok players, not great ones. I think they lost because Arthur prepared better and harder than them. So I don't feel bad. And again, one game does not a sample size make, but it's just the impression I get.
VAdame wrote:
Nish for nitch, GROW-man's for GRAW-man's...OK, they're consistent with the spelling even though I think it makes him sound kind of, well, ignorant!
Merriam-Webster list all three pronunciations for niche as acceptable (so you won't sound ignorant). Sounds like Arthur reads place names more than he hears them on TV. Sometimes spoken names can be all kinds of wrong anyway- see "Cannes."
I still think saying \fellate-lee\ is worth saying for comic value even if wrong.
lieph82 wrote:If Sofi's misspeak on the daily double had actually cost her the game, I would feel bad for her. I feel bad for someone who loses because of one poor daily double wager, or a misspelling on final. I feel bad for someone who goes up against a buzzsaw like Arthur, comes oh so close, but loses anyway, because had they been on a couple weeks later, or if one category had been different, maybe they could've gone on a long run.
For the record, I would have felt bad for Sofi on that DD as well. I would have felt bad for someone who knew an answer to win the game but just couldn't pull it out in time. I would have felt bad for someone who misspelled an answer they obviously knew badly enough to cost them a win.
I do not feel bad for those whose poor wagering cost them the game, they should have studied that aspect. I do not feel bad for Arthur's competitors simply because they ran into a better player, the better player is supposed to win.
Hey, I've been in a similar arena, I understand how things work more than most. But I have no sympathy towards those who aren't ready, haven't prepared, or simply gotten beat.
Wow, Arthur. That first week, despite all the hubbub, you seemed like an impressive player, but the likes of which we've seen fairly often before. This week? What did you do back in Cleveland between the Wednesday and Tuesday tapings? Lights out. Really impressive. I always thought it'd be painful to finally get knocked down a notch on the J! list (which is why, to be honest, I've rooted hard against all of you lovely people when you started to get close), but there's no pain at all in getting passed by someone playing this well. And now I can enjoy your games without complication. I've even gotten used to your style enough that I can keep up with my Coryats. Well done, and continued retroactive good luck.
Now that I'm aware of Arthur's tendency to mispronounce words, I was catching them all over tonight!
Nish for nitch, GROW-man's for GRAW-man's...OK, they're consistent with the spelling even though I think it makes him sound kind of, well, ignorant!
But how the heck did they not ding him on "Hoo-DEEN" for Houdini? No possible way does that fit. He could have called him Houdini, Harry Houdini, Harry Weiss, Erik Weisz, Ehrich Weiss, or even Ehrich the Prince of the Air, since Houdini went by all those names at one time or another. But not Hou-DEEN!
If he was referring to Jean-Eugene Robert-Houdin -- Houdini's inspiration -- well, that guy did not invent the Milk Can Escape. Plus, his surname was Robert-Houdin (pronounced like "ro-BEAR-'oo-DAN"), not just Houdin.
I fully expected TJPTB to call Arthur on that when he came to the next Daily Double, and am still very surprised that they didn't.
I've come to believe that it's even money that every time Arthur opens his mouth he'll mispronounce the (usually correct) response.
It may be, then, that what Arthur knows, and what Arthur actually understands, may be two quite different things.
It's neesh. Yeesh.
And somebody should point out to the writers is that the possessive form of Alex is correctly written Alex's, not "Alex'."
Very tough to not feel at least somewhat bad for the players who get slaughtered by a player like Arthur.
However, I don't equate it to a 19-0 baseball game. Even when Arthur cracks the $20,000 barrier, there is a chance for the other players to catch up - hit a strong category that Arthur isn't strong in, run it, hit a Daily Double, etc. Note that I didn't say this was an easy proposition - just doable.
Of course, human nature comes into play - and it has to be deflating when you have a player like Arthur as the champion.
I don't think it is fair to say that they need to find "better competition". Just like with the Ken Jennings' run (and others), we have no idea how some of these players would play in a typical Jeopardy environment. Sure, they are obviously not at Arthur's level, but that doesn't mean they suck at Jeopardy.
I don't think it is time to put limits on the number of games a player can win - players like Arthur are special because they are rare. It isn't like Jeopardy parades a bunch of "super champions" out there every few months. Arthur is becoming an all-time great regular season performer - if you want to use a baseball analogy, use this one: Would baseball be fun to watch if every player was merely very good or had equal skill sets? Or is it more fun to occasionally watch a Mike Trout enter the league and dominate from the start? If every closer was on the level of Mariano Rivera, Mariano Rivera wouldn't be an all-time great.
Same goes here - if every player was Arthur Chu, I don't think Jeopardy would be fun to watch. Having a "legend" appear on the show every now and again is a GOOD thing, IMHO.
Eventually, someone will challenge him again - and he will have to nail a FJ in order to win a game. (I think back to Roger's final game where the woman he was competing against was a sports writer who ran into FJ clue about sports).
But until then, I say enjoy the ride - it may be years before we see another one like him.
heelsrule1988 wrote:I might as well stop hating and just respect... this guy is the real deal. His strategy may bug me to death, but isn't a dominating champ like him what I always long to see?
This.
As far as Arthur's 'gameplaying strategy'..those who have been on the show, or are in the pool, or are making an effort to be on, are entitled to their opinions, even if the order in which clues are selected is nitpicky.
To those who just watch and bitch that Arthur 'irritates' them with his clue-hopping...who cares about the gameplaying strategy of someone who will never be on the show..especially those who wouldn't be able to see the clues because their cranial-anal inversion is too chronic?
jwatcher16 wrote:Hi all -
I watched today's game and did not enjoy it at all. Most of you seem to be in Arthur's camp. Admittedly he's brilliant and plays the game brilliantly. I was rooting for him to be a 5-time champion, actually. But since then, I haven't really enjoyed watching the other players get slaughtered. That's what it's felt like the last few games, today's especially. There hasn't been much competition and - to me, anyway, it has taken away some of the enjoyment of watching.
I feel like I'd like to see someone else get a chance now.
If the show wants to do that, they can seek out competent competition. Lot of these folks aren't very good. Arthur is clearly a dominant player, but there's also plenty of Lach trash still on the board, and these yo-yos aren't picking up any of it.
I don't feel sorry for people who get slaughtered. It's an act of ego to appear on Jeopardy. Either you want to make money, or be seen on TV, or you think you're smart and you want that validation. Or maybe you want to have some side career you want to promote.
So these folks aren't getting what they expected, but it's also not unfair what has happened to them.
Likewise, Jwatcher. It's no fun. It's like watching a 19-0 baseball game. It isn't competitive and I don't think the fault is Arthur's or the other players. Mr. Chu is a good deserving player and his opponents are certainly worthy having gotten as far as they have but the game itself hasn't any suspense. A return to the five game limit would be welcome IMO.
An aside late comment I couldn't let pass- A.T."s thoughtless remark #? re Shirley Temple the other day, "Not even close" Boo!
Well said ... and agreed. I would rather watch a more competitive game than a blowout. "Runaways" are all well and good occasionally, but when they occur almost every game and early on, the suspense and interest definitely wanes for me as a viewer. I hope more competitive players are forthcoming (at least in the buzzer skill department).
If you can't appreciate Peyton Manning's mastery of the quarterback position in regular season football, then you ain't a football fan. When you see someone who has studied the game intensely and can incorporate that knowledge and skill to create a prolonged winning record, you have to give up petty fan dislikes at some point and respect a guy who plays the game at the highest level.
jwatcher16 wrote:Hi all -
I watched today's game and did not enjoy it at all. Most of you seem to be in Arthur's camp. Admittedly he's brilliant and plays the game brilliantly. I was rooting for him to be a 5-time champion, actually. But since then, I haven't really enjoyed watching the other players get slaughtered. That's what it's felt like the last few games, today's especially. There hasn't been much competition and - to me, anyway, it has taken away some of the enjoyment of watching.
I feel like I'd like to see someone else get a chance now.
Did you hate watching Jennings, Madden, Pawson, etc., too, or is there something specific about Arthur?
Actually, I never saw Jennings, Madden, or Pawson - I'd stopped watching and picked up watching again maybe a year ago.
Do I think I would feel the same way about them. It's hard to say, but maybe. I still think I'd find it hard to watch the same person win night after night afte night after night...
After a point, Jennings' run turned off a lot of casual viewers of the show, including me at that time. I'm happy to see Arthur win some more games though. I'm in the camp of admiring his command of the game, but wishing the games were more competitive. To use the Peyton Manning analogy, do you enjoy watching him steamroller a team 60 - 0, or bringing the Bronco's from behind to win in the last two minutes of the game?
El Jefe wrote:... honestly, if folks don't Sporcle/flashcard/FactBook the crap out of their free time before their appearances, why are they there?
It may be that, despite mounting evidence, the producers and contestant wranglers are still trying to promulgate the trope that "you can't really study for Jeopardy!" The reasoning, of course, is that the range of facts is so wide, either you bring a sufficient knowledge base to the studio or you don't. My own experience is that weeks of almost-nightly cramming augmented my collection of correct responses by exactly two. Two clues in four games. However, one of them was a Final J! and having that fact in my pocket made a $5,000 difference (before taxes). Notoriously, I failed to study wagering at the same time, which is one among many factors that ensured I was the bridesmaid at my ToC.
To be honest, I wasn't that blown away by Arthur his first week on the show.
In his first game, he did do well with a narrow lead going into FJ against a $30,000 winner from the day before. The close score enabled him to bet big on FJ and it paid off with a sole get, though he'd have won anyway due to stupid wagering by the others.
His next game left him with a $4,800 lead going into FJ, thanks to getting $5,000 on a DD on the 19th clue. He offers a tie and it is accepted.
His third game was a lock, with nearly three times second place's score.
His fourth game was a crush, so even though he missed FJ, it did not harm him as it was a TS and only second place could have caught him.
So he did have an impressive performance, but nothing we haven't seen before. I admit I didn't like the bounce, as it was hard to follow, not that I think it is unfair.
But this week has been amazing. Four solid locks in a row. Today's players were barely able to put up a fight. I've gotten used to the bounce, so it isn't as hard to follow now.
I will say that a bunch of locks in a row gets boring. I like close games. I like being able to analyze FJ wagering. When the other two players basically put down their signalling buttons the second half of DJ, it isn't fun to watch.
But again, Arthur is there to win money, not to entertain me. So congratulations to him and retro good luck Friday. Now if he wins his next game, we have to wait a week and endure more idiocy in social media from all the Chu-haters.
I'd think Roger Craig disproved the "You can't study" notion. I mean, all the news buzz about Craig when he was on was about the studying strategy and his special algorithm for ranking flashcards in study priority and whatnot, while his use of wagering strategy and Forrest Bouncing was a secondary part of that study.
Whereas for me it's been the exact opposite with people acting like I invented Forrest Bouncing or "bet-to-tie" and presuming that this special game plan obviates any need to actually have any knowledge (demonstrating that a lot of people talking about it aren't completely clear on how Jeopardy works). It may well be because, as I openly admitted, I am not a computer programmer and creating a program to manage my studying was beyond me -- I just tried to follow Craig's advice as a rough heuristic and hoped for the best.
Omnivore wrote:What did you do back in Cleveland between the Wednesday and Tuesday tapings?
For one thing, he lost his glasses, perhaps turning from Clark Kent to Superman. So any future opponent may need Kryptonite.
Now I can't believe I naively accepted his cover story about breaking his glasses at the airport. Maybe that's a half-truth. I'm picturing him washing his glasses in the airport bathroom. But there are no towels, so he decides to blow them dry. Next thing he knows, there's a glasses-shaped hole in the bathroom wall.
That'll happen until you learn to control your powers, Arthur buddy. Don't worry too much about it. Happens to every superhero.
All the plaudits have been used up. Awesome job, Arthur.
Perhaps if Ken spawned the KJL club, Arthur's opponents may become known as the ACL. Heck, that already means disaster anyway, so it sorta fits.
#3 all time. Wow. To realize that he would need another six wins at this pace to surpass Madden's total, and another 76 or so to equal KJ, is a real testament to the records set by those two. Which of course detracts zero from the superb job we've witnessed from Mr. Chu.
