boson wrote:Alex Jacob defeated Learned League champion Scott Blish during his original run... He wasn't winning against just weaker competition then. I'm sure he worked hard to get better in between his runs on the show, but it is a mistake to think he wasn't an amazing champion then.
MarkBarrett wrote:boson wrote:Alex Jacob defeated Learned League champion Scott Blish during his original run... He wasn't winning against just weaker competition then. I'm sure he worked hard to get better in between his runs on the show, but it is a mistake to think he wasn't an amazing champion then.
Matt Jackson had the wins and money going into the TOC, but Alex Jacob was right there on the same level even if his stay in regular play was much shorter. Alex played with his foot not always on the accelerator and his light pen not always on point due to his tremendous skill in his initial 7 games.
For regular play to TOC there can be surprise guests in the finals based on how the player did during the regular run. More common is a player to put together a great QF game above what was expected and then to come back to reality in the semis.
dhkendall wrote:Re: Alex Jacob: I've always seen him as one who could attribute his success by using tactics from his time as a pro poker player in J! Being a fan of pro poker (but after Alex's time) I could definitely see it, and could almost call what he was going to do in a given situation.
As someone who enjoys playing poker myself I was taking notes for whenever I get The Call, but I also know that I'm nowhere near Alex's level in poker, so their results of my using them in J! will probably not work nearly as well.
StevenH wrote:I think that the best example that I can think of off the top of my head is Alan Bailey. He didn't stand out as a particularly strong 5x champion when he won his regular games, but he really upped his game in the 2003 ToC, even though he lost in the semifinals. I seem to remember hearing that he went on a studying binge in between his regular run and his ToC, though I don't know for sure. Also, in the 2003 ToC, I think that Mark Brown and the eventual champion Mark Dawson also showed great improvement, but in their cases I think that they may have benefited more from categories/clues that played more academic than what comes up in regular play.
This one is debatable since he won 11 games, but I would also list Arthur Chu. I didn't think that he was any better than Andrew Moore, Jared Hall, or Mark Japinga during their regular runs, but Arthur looked nearly unbeatable in the ToC and was only stopped by a FJ clue in game 1 of the finals that Ben Ingram nailed and he couldn't pull.
Kristen Morgan is another good example, but I don't know how much of that had to do with being able to get the buzzer timing down.
I would also add Bob Verini, Rachael Schwartz, Michael Falk, Celeste DiNucci, Russ Schumacher, and Vijay Balse to the list, but again, I think that they all benefited from the more academic clues that tend to come up in the ToC.
And if we want to also add in super tournaments, I would add Pam Mueller, Lan Djang, and Brad Rutter's performances in the UToC. Despite what Brad had already accomplished on the show I still think that he had risen to a whole 'nother level once the UToC came around.
Lefty wrote:I seem to remember Dan Pawson figuring he'd got eleven correct answers in his ToC directly attributable to preparatory study. I'm not sure how many hours he'd put in, but it seems from here a pretty good return.
Cat Hammarskjold wrote:Steve Rogitz had one good win and four unimpressive wins in Trebek season 1, and managed to make it to the finals of the first Trebek ToC. I'm not sure why he's never been invited to reunion tournaments since the other two finalists (RIP, Jerry and Bruce) had died before then and I would think that they'd want season 1 representation.
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], morbeedo, Yahoo [Bot] and 14 guests