[QUOTE=CrazyRealityGuy;185480]Honestly, my perception is a bit skewed, because MTV already defined it for me... But if I had to change the "terminology" of what a true Vet is, I would say a Vet is a castmember who has been on a show ON or BEFORE 2004-2005 (obviously each year it would go up one a year) and a Rookie would be considered someone who has appeared on shows after those years.
[B]Brad, Derrick, Coral, Katie, Veronica, Rachel, Robin, Timmy, Mark, Abe, Adam, CT, Etc... I would consider "True Vets"
Melinda, Shavoun, Sarah, Jenn, Evan, Danny, Kenny, Ryan, Ev Etc... I would consider "Rookies" (Doesn't matter how many challenges they did, and we all know, with the exception of Melinda and Shavoun, they all have atleast 4 challenges under their belt)[/B]
But Like I said, since they didn't go by year and by how many challenges one was on, I would say A vet should be considered someone who has been on at least 2 full challenges. Or 3 challenges if they lose within the first 3-4 weeks.
Obviously that is just my opinion, and I know at the time of The Gauntlet II, everyone was wondering how they would consider a vet and a rook.[/QUOTE]
That is like saying Babe Ruth is a vet, but Bary Bonds is a Rookie. They are both Vets. The show has just evolved
[QUOTE=RMD1;185481]That is like saying Babe Ruth is a vet, but Bary Bonds is a Rookie. They are both Vets. The show has just evolved[/QUOTE]
Agreed. CRG, you're defining old school vs new school, not rooks and vets. You can't say that no matter how many seasons someone does, they're still a rookie. That's not the definition of the word "rookie". You might not consider them the original era, and I'm sure no one does, but they're not rookies, by a long stretch.
[QUOTE=CharR;185501]Agreed. CRG, you're defining old school vs new school, not rooks and vets. You can't say that no matter how many seasons someone does, they're still a rookie. That's not the definition of the word "rookie". You might not consider them the original era, and I'm sure no one does, but they're not rookies, by a long stretch.[/QUOTE]
No, I was defining what I CONSIDER a Vet. Someone asked what/how would I consider a Vet and I was telling her. With every year the year should go up. If you want to get techinical the word Vet means "A person of long experience, usually in some occupation or skill" 2a person of long experience usually in some occupation or skill (as politics or the arts)2a person of long experience usually in some occupation or skill (as politics or the arts)
2a person of long experience usually in some occupation or skill (as politics or the arts)2a person of long experience usually in some occupation or skill (as politics or the arts)
RMD I am not talking about Baseball, I am talking about a reality show. Baseball is completely different. It's a whole different Ball Park, pun intended.
Notice I didn't say 1992-2003, because that is not realistic, I just said anyone who was on the show on or before 04'-05' which is a hefty sum of people. Some people will call it old school vs new school (which was the original name of vets vs. rookies, BTW) but that is how I define a vet. Based on age and wisdom, not how many challenges one does. I am sorry but Shavoun is not a vet in any shape or form, in my book.
I just wanted to point out that would be my meaning if they did it all over again.
But I do understand and see how some/most people would disagree with me.
I'm not saying this directed at you CRG, but in general, but how come people say "Oh, so and so did this kind of sport before so (s)he'll do great! Or, so and so look tough so they'll do great!" ??? We have never seen Emily compete, so we don't know how she'll do. Look at Dunbar, we thought he'd be half decent but he isn't. And Derek RR:VR, he said he did sports but he isn't good at all.
[QUOTE=faceless;185559]I'm not saying this directed at you CRG, but in general, but how come people say "Oh, so and so did this kind of sport before so (s)he'll do great! Or, so and so look tough so they'll do great!" ??? We have never seen Emily compete, so we don't know how she'll do. Look at Dunbar, we thought he'd be half decent but he isn't. And Derek RR:VR, he said he did sports but he isn't good at all.[/QUOTE]
I actually agree with you 100%. I was just saying she seemed rough in the house, so maybe it will carry over. I have no idea how she is as a competitor, for all I know, she might be doing awful. I really never base performance on looks, I based Emily's performance on her rough housing and wrestling with Ty, which was wrong, and I think I even said in my comment, she might not be that good as a competitor.
[QUOTE=CrazyRealityGuy;185563]I actually agree with you 100%. I was just saying she seemed rough in the house, so maybe it will carry over. I have no idea how she is as a competitor, for all I know, she might be doing awful. I really never base performance on looks, I based Emily's performance on her rough housing and wrestling with Ty, which was wrong, and I think I even said in my comment, she might not be that good as a competitor.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I wasn't directing what I said at you. But just everyone who says that kind of stuff.
I just want to point out something that annoys me about the Vet/Rook format...
In terms of the "rule". My boo Svetlana is more of a rookie than Shauvon. However IMO Svet's performance on her first challenge is miles better than Shauvon's performance on her 2 challenges combined and multiplied by 3. Add this to the fact that Svet's RW season was earlier than Shauvon's, it seems to me that Svet is more of a Vet (haha, that rhymed) than Shauvon. I know this technically isn't the case, but it pains me to think otherwise...
[QUOTE=faceless;185559]I'm not saying this directed at you CRG, but in general, but how come people say "Oh, so and so did this kind of sport before so (s)he'll do great! Or, so and so look tough so they'll do great!" ??? We have never seen Emily compete, so we don't know how she'll do. Look at Dunbar, we thought he'd be half decent but he isn't. And Derek RR:VR, he said he did sports but he isn't good at all.[/QUOTE]
I think there is a large mental component that we can't quite grasp unless we're put into those positions. [i]Most[/i] of the guys on challenges who aren't doping are around the same size, so the advantage has to come mentally: who wants it more, who is willing to do whatever necessary to win. Wes as an example - he's not quite as good as some of the other guys athletically, but he really felt like he had something to prove and he gave 100% on some of the Challenges, hence his doing so well.
We can only generalize based on what we know of their personalities: We know certain people like Evelyn hate losing at any cost, so we know they are going to perform closer to their max potential than others even if there is a physical disparity in ability.
[QUOTE=RMD1;185574]Just as in sports, it does not matter how good you are. It is all about how long you have been doing it.[/QUOTE]
That's not true at all.
[QUOTE=Debut Album;83067]Which challenge intro was your Favorite?[/QUOTE]
Battle of the Seasons and Battle of the Sexes I were my favorite intro's (I think BOTSeasons was great, because it was the first time they had a challenge on that caliber, so it was new and refreshing)
The worst intro., in my opinion, was FM2
I also really liked the intro's from The Inferno II, The Gauntlet III, The Ruins and I know a lot of people will disagree (but for some reason I liked it) The Duel II. I think they deserved honorable mentions.
[QUOTE=Dash_Vegas!;185570]I just want to point out something that annoys me about the Vet/Rook format...
In terms of the "rule". My boo Svetlana is more of a rookie than Shauvon. However IMO Svet's performance on her first challenge is miles better than Shauvon's performance on her 2 challenges combined and multiplied by 3. Add this to the fact that Svet's RW season was earlier than Shauvon's, it seems to me that Svet is more of a Vet (haha, that rhymed) than Shauvon. I know this technically isn't the case, but it pains me to think otherwise...[/QUOTE]
I think a better example would be Ace and Landon on Gauntlet 2. Ace was on two prior Challenges (Inferno and BOTS2), went home first in one and second in the other. Yet, due to the rules he was put on the Veterans' team. Then you had Landon on the rookies team, who was a rookie under their rules, yet on the only Challenge he did before then (Inferno 2), he made it to the end, won, and was the best player on his team. Landon appeared on many more Challenge episodes than Ace prior to G2...that's why I kind of don't like the Veterans/Rookies format. If you're going to make a team of Veterans don't throw one on there that lasted a total of 3 episodes on his first 2 Challenges.
How well somebody does in competition does not determine whether they're a rookie or veteran. Adrian Peterson performed spectacular his first season and he was a rookie. The fact that he performed better than say someone like Shaun Alexander does not make him any more of a veteran than that person.
A rookie is somebody new to the game. A veteran is somebody who has been around and knows the odds and outs.
[QUOTE=andrewsz1991;185598]How well somebody does in competition does not determine whether they're a rookie or veteran. Adrian Peterson performed spectacular his first season and he was a rookie. The fact that he performed better than say someone like Shaun Alexander does not make him any more of a veteran than that person.
A rookie is somebody new to the game. A veteran is somebody who has been around and knows the odds and outs.[/QUOTE]
First of all, that's a ridiculous analogy to make. If you want to go all football on me (bad idea) the Ace/Landon parallel would be like a 3rd year player who had missed most of his first two seasons with injury being considered a more experienced player than a 2nd year player who led his team deep into the playoffs during his rookie year and also made the Pro Bowl. The comparison I made had to do with ACE AND LANDON'S past Challenge experience, not ******* running backs in the NFL. Landon was by no means "new to the game", having won Inferno 2, along with several lifeshields along the way. Ace had barely "been around" on these shows. He went home first on Inferno, then second on BOTS2. My point earlier was only to show how flawed the Veterans/Rookies criteria was.
[QUOTE=AJHill;185602]First of all, that's a ridiculous analogy to make. If you want to go all football on me (bad idea) the Ace/Landon parallel would be like a 3rd year player who had missed most of his first two seasons with injury being considered a more experienced player than a 2nd year player who led his team deep into the playoffs during his rookie year and also made the Pro Bowl. The comparison I made had to do with ACE AND LANDON'S past Challenge experience, not ******* running backs in the NFL. Landon was by no means "new to the game", having won Inferno 2, along with several lifeshields along the way. Ace had barely "been around" on these shows. He went home first on Inferno, then second on BOTS2. My point earlier was only to show how flawed the Veterans/Rookies criteria was.[/QUOTE]
I believe andrew's response was actually to RMD, who said that "Just as in sports, it does not matter how good you are. It is all about how long you have been doing it."
[QUOTE=molds13;185609]I believe andrew's response was actually to RMD, who said that "Just as in sports, it does not matter how good you are. It is all about how long you have been doing it."[/QUOTE]
Ah...good catch.
But to yours too AJHill, Alex Van Pelt, a career third string quarter back probably played a hundred plays in his career. Is he in his 4th or 5th year standing behind the scenes watching everything go on any less of a veteran than Mark Sanchez after this last season because he brought his team to the playoffs?
I'm just saying a veteran is somebody who knows the people well and knows the ropes and what goes on and stuff and yeah Ace isn't the best example of a veteran but by the definition of the word he is one.
I think BMP based the Rookies/Vets format off of a simple 2 challenges or more stipulation so that people wouldn't be doing exactly what is going on here, and that's debating just who was a rookie and who was a vet at the time. My thoughts on it are that.
1. They screwed up with Jamie from NO. Not only had did he have two prior challenge appearances, he had won both his prior challenges (Extreme Challenge and BOTSexes) I know he's low key and flies under the radar, more so than others, but he and someone like Ace/Derrick/Brad (the 'newest' players on the Vets team) should have had their roles changed.
2. The concept worked extremely well on Gauntlet 2, the rookies and vets were very even throughout the entire tournament. On the Gauntlet 3, not so much, and that's for the simple reason that anybody that was worth a damn at that point, had at least done 2 challenges or more. The result was the season long *** beating known as the Gauntlet 3. From now on they should definitely employ a cut off point in time as the defining factor, in my opinion Austin being the cut off point for being a veteran (Fresh Meat and up are rookies).
[QUOTE]I'm just saying a veteran is somebody who knows the people well and knows the ropes and what goes on and stuff and yeah Ace isn't the best example of a veteran but by the definition of the word he is one[/QUOTE]
Yeah for me it was weird seeing him on the Gauntlet 2 vets team after those brief appearances on his first 2 shows
[QUOTE=ghnstry;185684]Yeah for me it was weird seeing him on the Gauntlet 2 vets team after those brief appearances on his first 2 shows[/QUOTE]
Had he not been on the vets team, we wouldn't have had the amazing "The clutch? THE ******* CLUTCH?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!" line from Julie.
[QUOTE=Lamb Chop!!!;185686]Had he not been on the vets team, we wouldn't have had the amazing "The clutch? THE ******* CLUTCH?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!" line from Julie.[/QUOTE]
Further proving that Ace shouldn't have been on that Veterans team, since he pretty much sucks at Challenges. Nice guy, but not a great competitor. Miz, Abram, Theo, or pretty much anyone else would have been a better idea.
[QUOTE=Dash_Vegas!;185637]Also, didn't Shauvon get "eliminated" before the end of her RW Season?? Lol smh.[/QUOTE]
Shauvon is a veteran now... ;p
The only one who wants Shauvon on TV more is Shauvon.
Here are my personal ratings (from best to worst) of the challenges. I've watched since Fresh Meat. What are yours?
[B]1. The Duel [/B]Great
[B]2. The Inferno 3 [/B]Great
[B]3. The Duel 2[/B] Great though should of had Kenny or Derrick or Johny
[B]4. The Ruins [/B]Good but the teams weren't fair.
[B]5. Fresh Meat 2 [/B]Good but elimination round sucked. Puzzles?
[B]6. The Island [/B]Decent. Could have been better with missions and a better format.
[B]7. The Gauntlet 3 [/B]Horrible teams, they weren't fair. I didn't really like this Challenge.
[B]8. Fresh Meat [/B]Wasn't really into it. It was my 1st RW/RR Challenge I had seen.
Pages