Awhile ago I wrote about how I don't think Russell Hantz is the best Survivor player ever based on my standard that you have to win in order to be considered in that discussion. My opinion all along has always been that Richard Hatch is the standard that everyone else has to measure themselves against. Winning the original Survivor with no previous seasons to study and formulate a plan is undoubtedly the most difficult way to win the game. And there was no flukiness at all here like when Natalie won last season. Rich was in control from Day 1 and invented the very first alliance that has become the staple of the game. Sure he bombed out early in All Stars but he was clearly a victim of his past success as Tina Wesson and Rob Cesternino were. That is the same exact thing that would have happened to Russell if the rest of the cast of heroes vs villains viewed his previous season.
So in the poll I placed up the other day where I asked you to vote for the best Survivor contstant ever, the votes are split with 2 for Rich and 2 for Russell with a solitary vote for Rob Mariano. Clearly there is a faction out there that thinks Russell's game is without peer but i strongly disagree. The fact that he ticked off the jury in S19 doomed him and allowed an undeserving Natalie to win. This is the one aspect of the game Russell fails miserably in and until he figures out how to win them over, he will never get the title in my book.
What do you think???? Is my anti-Russell sentiment clouding my judgement? Or do you agree with me and argue that you have to win to be considered best ever???