Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Moderators: alietr, trainman, econgator, dhkendall
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:09 pm
Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
I promise, I won't always start threads with pretentious psuedo-18th century polisci/philosophy titles. Just until I get bored with it.
I'm starting this thread because I agree with a comment I just read of zakharov's in yesterday's game thread - it's starting to seem like every other thread is filled with arguments about Julia Collins and where she fits, or how she doesn't fit, into the pantheon of Jeopardy! greats. He's also suggested a thread on how sexist (and racist, for other contestants) assumptions lead to the undervaluing of players like Julia or Arthur Chu or Colby Burnett, which I am staggeringly unqualified to start. But I watch the show avidly and like talking about its history, so I figured if any one was qualified to start a general catch-all thread on Julia's place in the game's history, why not me?
So with the throat-clearing out of the way, here's my two cents. I think that both Julia's detractors and, more puzzlingly, Julia's fans are seriously undervaluing her accomplishments as a champion. It's my contention that at this point Julia has to be included in any reasonable top 10 list, and probably any reasonable top 5 list. In my view, statements like, "well, let's see how she does in the TOC" miss the point. To me, quantity has a quality all its own, and once you reach a certain point, you can just point at the scoreboard. Julia has reached that point and more.
The TOC was an absolutely crucial component of ranking the great champions back when they were all limited to five games. It's still a very important tool in comparing champs who have impressive but comparable records today - Roger Craig, to take one example, had a very impressive six win run, but it was his victory in his TOC that put him into the upper echelon. Relying too much on tournament play, though, can lead you to serious errors. Ken Jennings has never won a tournament, but you'd have to be a fool not to consider his case for being the Greatest Ever. At a certain point, reached by Ken, Julia, David Madden and maybe Arthur Chu, the regular game dominance reaches a point where they could flame out in every tournament they ever played and they'd still have a compelling case.
As far as why Julia's undervalued, I have a theory. I think she, much like David, wasn't flashy enough to get people raving about them early, and accordingly suffered from a sense that they just compiled a lot of unimpressive wins. They also both had the misfortune of following close on the heels of big time champions who were both incredibly flashy, making them look less spectacular by comparison. There is, I think, a tendency to value high peaks over long plateaus when assessing career value in a lot of endeavours, which hurts consistent players like Julia at the expense of spectacular ones like Arthur or Larissa Kelly. Over time, though, consistency in and of itself becomes spectacular, and that is precisely what happened with Julia - and David, who's the forgotten man in discussions of the greats, it seems to me.
I don't mean to diminish Julia's accomplishments in terms of game dominance - as shown in this post, she locked out challengers more than just about anyone other than Ken, including several epic beatdowns. With that said, I also think it's fair to say that a lockout win with $20,000 in the bank has less of a wow factor than one with $30,000, and Julia did seem to specialize in the former. I also don't mean to say that the valuing of spectacular gamblers like Arthur and Roger over more conservative players like Julia isn't a gendered phenomenon, either in terms of how men and women are socialized to behave or in how audiences respond to the same behaviour from differently gendered people. With all of that said, I think at its root the ambivalence towards her extraordinary accomplishments boils down to her pattern of methodically dismantling her opponents with steady success on the buzzer, rather than blowing them up with huge Daily Doubles and crazy bouncing.
In the end, though, you have to look at the scoreboard, and when you do that the picture gets very clear indeed. Julia Collins is one of the very best players ever to play the game.
I'm starting this thread because I agree with a comment I just read of zakharov's in yesterday's game thread - it's starting to seem like every other thread is filled with arguments about Julia Collins and where she fits, or how she doesn't fit, into the pantheon of Jeopardy! greats. He's also suggested a thread on how sexist (and racist, for other contestants) assumptions lead to the undervaluing of players like Julia or Arthur Chu or Colby Burnett, which I am staggeringly unqualified to start. But I watch the show avidly and like talking about its history, so I figured if any one was qualified to start a general catch-all thread on Julia's place in the game's history, why not me?
So with the throat-clearing out of the way, here's my two cents. I think that both Julia's detractors and, more puzzlingly, Julia's fans are seriously undervaluing her accomplishments as a champion. It's my contention that at this point Julia has to be included in any reasonable top 10 list, and probably any reasonable top 5 list. In my view, statements like, "well, let's see how she does in the TOC" miss the point. To me, quantity has a quality all its own, and once you reach a certain point, you can just point at the scoreboard. Julia has reached that point and more.
The TOC was an absolutely crucial component of ranking the great champions back when they were all limited to five games. It's still a very important tool in comparing champs who have impressive but comparable records today - Roger Craig, to take one example, had a very impressive six win run, but it was his victory in his TOC that put him into the upper echelon. Relying too much on tournament play, though, can lead you to serious errors. Ken Jennings has never won a tournament, but you'd have to be a fool not to consider his case for being the Greatest Ever. At a certain point, reached by Ken, Julia, David Madden and maybe Arthur Chu, the regular game dominance reaches a point where they could flame out in every tournament they ever played and they'd still have a compelling case.
As far as why Julia's undervalued, I have a theory. I think she, much like David, wasn't flashy enough to get people raving about them early, and accordingly suffered from a sense that they just compiled a lot of unimpressive wins. They also both had the misfortune of following close on the heels of big time champions who were both incredibly flashy, making them look less spectacular by comparison. There is, I think, a tendency to value high peaks over long plateaus when assessing career value in a lot of endeavours, which hurts consistent players like Julia at the expense of spectacular ones like Arthur or Larissa Kelly. Over time, though, consistency in and of itself becomes spectacular, and that is precisely what happened with Julia - and David, who's the forgotten man in discussions of the greats, it seems to me.
I don't mean to diminish Julia's accomplishments in terms of game dominance - as shown in this post, she locked out challengers more than just about anyone other than Ken, including several epic beatdowns. With that said, I also think it's fair to say that a lockout win with $20,000 in the bank has less of a wow factor than one with $30,000, and Julia did seem to specialize in the former. I also don't mean to say that the valuing of spectacular gamblers like Arthur and Roger over more conservative players like Julia isn't a gendered phenomenon, either in terms of how men and women are socialized to behave or in how audiences respond to the same behaviour from differently gendered people. With all of that said, I think at its root the ambivalence towards her extraordinary accomplishments boils down to her pattern of methodically dismantling her opponents with steady success on the buzzer, rather than blowing them up with huge Daily Doubles and crazy bouncing.
In the end, though, you have to look at the scoreboard, and when you do that the picture gets very clear indeed. Julia Collins is one of the very best players ever to play the game.
- jeopfansincebirth
- Keeper of the All-Time Rankings
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:17 am
- Location: Hermitage, PA
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Amen to that, Kingrat. Seventh all-time and the all-time female champion. Should she win the TOC in November, she will be ranked #3 all-time behind only Bradford Rutter and Ken Jennings. Finish second and she will be ranked #4 all-time. A third place finish will see her ranked #5 all-time. An exit in either the quarterfinals or semifinals will see her ranked #6 all-time.Kingrat47 wrote:I promise, I won't always start threads with pretentious psuedo-18th century polisci/philosophy titles. Just until I get bored with it.
I'm starting this thread because I agree with a comment I just read of zakharov's in yesterday's game thread - it's starting to seem like every other thread is filled with arguments about Julia Collins and where she fits, or how she doesn't fit, into the pantheon of Jeopardy! greats. He's also suggested a thread on how sexist (and racist, for other contestants) assumptions lead to the undervaluing of players like Julia or Arthur Chu or Colby Burnett, which I am staggeringly unqualified to start. But I watch the show avidly and like talking about its history, so I figured if any one was qualified to start a general catch-all thread on Julia's place in the game's history, why not me?
So with the throat-clearing out of the way, here's my two cents. I think that both Julia's detractors and, more puzzlingly, Julia's fans are seriously undervaluing her accomplishments as a champion. It's my contention that at this point Julia has to be included in any reasonable top 10 list, and probably any reasonable top 5 list. In my view, statements like, "well, let's see how she does in the TOC" miss the point. To me, quantity has a quality all its own, and once you reach a certain point, you can just point at the scoreboard. Julia has reached that point and more.
The TOC was an absolutely crucial component of ranking the great champions back when they were all limited to five games. It's still a very important tool in comparing champs who have impressive but comparable records today - Roger Craig, to take one example, had a very impressive six win run, but it was his victory in his TOC that put him into the upper echelon. Relying too much on tournament play, though, can lead you to serious errors. Ken Jennings has never won a tournament, but you'd have to be a fool not to consider his case for being the Greatest Ever. At a certain point, reached by Ken, Julia, David Madden and maybe Arthur Chu, the regular game dominance reaches a point where they could flame out in every tournament they ever played and they'd still have a compelling case.
As far as why Julia's undervalued, I have a theory. I think she, much like David, wasn't flashy enough to get people raving about them early, and accordingly suffered from a sense that they just compiled a lot of unimpressive wins. They also both had the misfortune of following close on the heels of big time champions who were both incredibly flashy, making them look less spectacular by comparison. There is, I think, a tendency to value high peaks over long plateaus when assessing career value in a lot of endeavours, which hurts consistent players like Julia at the expense of spectacular ones like Arthur or Larissa Kelly. Over time, though, consistency in and of itself becomes spectacular, and that is precisely what happened with Julia - and David, who's the forgotten man in discussions of the greats, it seems to me.
I don't mean to diminish Julia's accomplishments in terms of game dominance - as shown in this post, she locked out challengers more than just about anyone other than Ken, including several epic beatdowns. With that said, I also think it's fair to say that a lockout win with $20,000 in the bank has less of a wow factor than one with $30,000, and Julia did seem to specialize in the former. I also don't mean to say that the valuing of spectacular gamblers like Arthur and Roger over more conservative players like Julia isn't a gendered phenomenon, either in terms of how men and women are socialized to behave or in how audiences respond to the same behaviour from differently gendered people. With all of that said, I think at its root the ambivalence towards her extraordinary accomplishments boils down to her pattern of methodically dismantling her opponents with steady success on the buzzer, rather than blowing them up with huge Daily Doubles and crazy bouncing.
In the end, though, you have to look at the scoreboard, and when you do that the picture gets very clear indeed. Julia Collins is one of the very best players ever to play the game.
Michael M.
"Keeper of the Rankings"
"Keeper of the Rankings"
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 4:48 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Can I post my own thought here without it seeming as trolling? Sometimes I wish I didn't look at everything through such an extreme lens.
Julia vs. any two people of the 45 in the BOTD, I say she comes in last. I seriously believe this.
Julia vs. any two people of the 45 in the BOTD, I say she comes in last. I seriously believe this.
I'm done. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.
- gnash
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 1678
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:24 am
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
What does that mean? Obviously, there is a top 2 list she has to be included in, and a top 6 (or is it 7?) list. Those are lists based on specific, objectively measured accomplishments.Kingrat47 wrote:It's my contention that at this point Julia has to be included in any reasonable top 10 list, and probably any reasonable top 5 list.
Almost everything else is subjective. There are more than 10 former contestants I would bet on in games against Julia, but YMMV and it doesn't mean a thing unless we actually get a chance to make those bets.
- MDaunt
- Weighed in the balance and found wanting
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
It may be extreme. It's certainly ridiculous.RKane wrote:Can I post my own thought here without it seeming as trolling? Sometimes I wish I didn't look at everything through such an extreme lens.
Julia vs. any two people of the 45 in the BOTD, I say she comes in last. I seriously believe this.
- Wheatley
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:53 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
I thought it was Craig's single-game record that put him in the upper echelon.
Coryats calculator, share and enjoy. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
- MDaunt
- Weighed in the balance and found wanting
- Posts: 748
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
I disagree. You can only compare champions to other champions by seeing how well they do against each other.. If she makes the finals of her TOC, then you can make a case for Julia being an upper-echelon player (ie. top 50). If she wins it, then she's definitely in elite company. If she's out in the quarters, then not.
-
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 4:48 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
I would say the fact he hit six figures in his first two games, but, yeah, that 77,000 was beastly.Wheatley wrote:I thought it was Craig's single-game record that put him in the upper echelon.
I'm done. Abandon all hope ye who enter here.
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:56 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Did Jennings have the same taping schedule of ten games in two days every other week? Or was it five games in one day every week?
- zakharov
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 7:27 pm
- Location: NYC
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
You're someone who seems to have a compulsion to post about how awful you think Julia is at every turn. I don't think you're a troll but you're kind of a weird dude.RKane wrote:Can I post my own thought here without it seeming as trolling? Sometimes I wish I didn't look at everything through such an extreme lens.
Julia vs. any two people of the 45 in the BOTD, I say she comes in last. I seriously believe this.
4-time pool swimmer - last audition June 2019
Follow me on Twitter @JakeMHS
Follow me on Twitter @JakeMHS
- EndlessEntropy
- Valued Contributor
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:51 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Nope, some white knight will call you out for being sexist like in the other thread. I didn't think she was that strong either, from the games I saw her competition was pretty embarrassing and had me thinking "how did they get on the show." She may have won 20 games and good for her, but like you I would expect her to get annihilated against real, top champions.RKane wrote:Can I post my own thought here without it seeming as trolling? Sometimes I wish I didn't look at everything through such an extreme lens.
Julia vs. any two people of the 45 in the BOTD, I say she comes in last. I seriously believe this.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
-Shakespeare
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
-Shakespeare
- lieph82
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1053
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:48 am
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Yeah, Chimka the Great would have crushed her. Nobody has called anyone sexist; some people think there might be an undercurrent of sexism underlying the general perception of unimpressiveness. There's a difference.EndlessEntropy wrote:Nope, some white knight will call you out for being sexist like in the other thread. I didn't think she was that strong either, from the games I saw her competition was pretty embarrassing and had me thinking "how did they get on the show." She may have won 20 games and good for her, but like you I would expect her to get annihilated against real, top champions.RKane wrote:Can I post my own thought here without it seeming as trolling? Sometimes I wish I didn't look at everything through such an extreme lens.
Julia vs. any two people of the 45 in the BOTD, I say she comes in last. I seriously believe this.
- Blue Lion
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1515
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:12 pm
- Location: Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
She won 20 straight. That performance speaks for itself.
- dhkendall
- Pursuing the Dream
- Posts: 8789
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:49 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
- Contact:
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
While I am definitely on the side of "Julia can and will hold her own in the upcoming ToC and will have an easy QF and should go past the semis, I will point out that the recent BotD has shown us that just because a player is great doesn't necessarily mean they'd do good. Many of the greatest players to ever play burned out in their QF of the BotD - and they weren't even playing Ken, Brad, Roger, or the like. There are variable factors at work, and if Julia doesn't do well in the ToC, that shouldn't be reason for others to say to folks like me "see, it's just a fluke! She isn't that great!" because then we'd have to say that to all the QF losers in the BotD.
"Jeopardy! is two parts luck and one part luck" - Me
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
Follow my progress game by game since 2012
"The way to win on Jeopardy is to be a rabidly curious, information-omnivorous person your entire life." - Ken Jennings
Follow my progress game by game since 2012
- DadofTwins
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 1206
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:11 am
- Location: Fortress of SHC-itude
- Contact:
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Answering, or even addressing, this question in the absence of good data seems like a fool's errand.
And MDaunt is right. The only reliable way to measure champions is by who they beat. This is why Roger ranks in the Top 5 all-time -- not because he once won 77K, but because in his TOC and BOTD runs he took down some real, legit heavy-hitters. Eight of his last 10 pre-finals opponents (Joon, Tom, Vijay, Stephanie, Leszek, Robin, Pam, and Colby) won at least 8 games, some of those wins coming in tournaments.
By comparison, in his 75-game run Ken probably saw five (plus or minus 2, I'd guess) TOC-caliber players. And there may be 1 to 3 JCL's out there who, under different circumstances, would have made a TOC run of their own.
But that's the kicker. We just don't know.
And MDaunt is right. The only reliable way to measure champions is by who they beat. This is why Roger ranks in the Top 5 all-time -- not because he once won 77K, but because in his TOC and BOTD runs he took down some real, legit heavy-hitters. Eight of his last 10 pre-finals opponents (Joon, Tom, Vijay, Stephanie, Leszek, Robin, Pam, and Colby) won at least 8 games, some of those wins coming in tournaments.
By comparison, in his 75-game run Ken probably saw five (plus or minus 2, I'd guess) TOC-caliber players. And there may be 1 to 3 JCL's out there who, under different circumstances, would have made a TOC run of their own.
But that's the kicker. We just don't know.
- Rex Kramer
- Jeopardy! TOCer
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 am
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
This is a weird, weird thread (except for MDaunt's definition of "upper-echelon player", which I am totally down with). Someone wins 20 straight games and we still have to convince ourselves that she's appreciable? That is objectively bizarre. It's like questioning whether Secretariat was a great horse or not -- "Well, it's just three races, what about her competition, blah blah blah." Look, winning the Triple Crown is a hard thing that very few horses ever achieve; if a horse can do it, then by definition it is a great horse. Winning 20 straight games is a hard thing that so far 2 people have every achieved; by definition, someone who achieves it is a great Jeopardy! champion. How else would you define a great champion? Someone who never wins one game, but by golly he would have gotten that $1600 clue that Julia never even rang in for?
I don't think it's straight-up sexism that is causing some people to say totally ludicrous things like "Julia would lose against any two BotD players". For some people, sure, maybe it plays a part, either directly or because Julia doesn't fit into their conception of what a perfect female J! player should look and act like. But even for them, I think the real problem is that they see Julia let some clues pass by without ringing in, and they think, "Oh, I could have nailed that one! I am totally smarter than Julia! If I were one of those competitors she'd be going down!" If that's the only part of the game you see, then you are missing so much. She's playing her game, just as Arthur played his -- she has a style that works for her, a little traditional, with a good deal of caution added -- and it plays off her strengths beautifully. Her buzzer speed is unnerving, she has a broad range and, while she leaves a bunch of seemingly gettable clues untouched, she also pulls a bunch of unexpected answers. She doesn't endanger her lead with maybes if she doesn't have to. If she prepares for the next ToC the way that a supply-chain professional might be expected to prepare -- thoroughly and methodically -- she will plug her few minor knowledge and strategy holes. (And she has made contact with some pretty fearsome coaches if she's of a mind for advice.) And her unflappable stamina is a huge advantage -- I'd have gladly have traded a few $1600 gets for her constitution, it would have been worth at least 3 more games and a ToC championship to me. If she comes prepared to the next ToC -- and, true, that's still an "if", no guarantees -- but if she does, she will be the Roger Craig of the tournament.
As for her place among the pantheon, I am neither qualified nor foolhardy enough to try to rank her, but I will say that she'd be among the dozen or so champions I'd be afraid to face myself. (There are plenty of other folks who could totally trounce me, but at least I wouldn't go into a game against them wondering if I had a chance.) She won 20 games with less apparent effort than I expended watching them at home! What on earth will she be like if she goes into ToC berserker mode?
Rex
I don't think it's straight-up sexism that is causing some people to say totally ludicrous things like "Julia would lose against any two BotD players". For some people, sure, maybe it plays a part, either directly or because Julia doesn't fit into their conception of what a perfect female J! player should look and act like. But even for them, I think the real problem is that they see Julia let some clues pass by without ringing in, and they think, "Oh, I could have nailed that one! I am totally smarter than Julia! If I were one of those competitors she'd be going down!" If that's the only part of the game you see, then you are missing so much. She's playing her game, just as Arthur played his -- she has a style that works for her, a little traditional, with a good deal of caution added -- and it plays off her strengths beautifully. Her buzzer speed is unnerving, she has a broad range and, while she leaves a bunch of seemingly gettable clues untouched, she also pulls a bunch of unexpected answers. She doesn't endanger her lead with maybes if she doesn't have to. If she prepares for the next ToC the way that a supply-chain professional might be expected to prepare -- thoroughly and methodically -- she will plug her few minor knowledge and strategy holes. (And she has made contact with some pretty fearsome coaches if she's of a mind for advice.) And her unflappable stamina is a huge advantage -- I'd have gladly have traded a few $1600 gets for her constitution, it would have been worth at least 3 more games and a ToC championship to me. If she comes prepared to the next ToC -- and, true, that's still an "if", no guarantees -- but if she does, she will be the Roger Craig of the tournament.
As for her place among the pantheon, I am neither qualified nor foolhardy enough to try to rank her, but I will say that she'd be among the dozen or so champions I'd be afraid to face myself. (There are plenty of other folks who could totally trounce me, but at least I wouldn't go into a game against them wondering if I had a chance.) She won 20 games with less apparent effort than I expended watching them at home! What on earth will she be like if she goes into ToC berserker mode?
Rex
-
- Watches Jeopardy! Way Too Much
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:43 am
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Ranking players is always tough...because everyone will have their own criteria.
I think a strong showing in her TOC will be critical for her to get into e truly elite conversation...the field will be extremely tough, but she has to get through the QF followed by a strong semifinal performance, where anything can happen. If she plays her TOC like Madden played in his, how would that impact her rank?
I think how you do against other proven top winners will always be critical in evaluations. However, I also think winning 20 straight games earns you a bunch of points regardless of what you do in future competitions. I think the OP is right in that we shouldn't simply underestimate her streak based on tournament play that is to come.
It is an interesting discussion though. How do we evaluate Julie against someone like Pam or Colby, who never had to play a regular season game of Jeopardy but have proven themselves as worthy competitors in tournaments? It really is apples to oranges, I guess....but Julie can answer those questions with strong play in future tournaments.
I think a strong showing in her TOC will be critical for her to get into e truly elite conversation...the field will be extremely tough, but she has to get through the QF followed by a strong semifinal performance, where anything can happen. If she plays her TOC like Madden played in his, how would that impact her rank?
I think how you do against other proven top winners will always be critical in evaluations. However, I also think winning 20 straight games earns you a bunch of points regardless of what you do in future competitions. I think the OP is right in that we shouldn't simply underestimate her streak based on tournament play that is to come.
It is an interesting discussion though. How do we evaluate Julie against someone like Pam or Colby, who never had to play a regular season game of Jeopardy but have proven themselves as worthy competitors in tournaments? It really is apples to oranges, I guess....but Julie can answer those questions with strong play in future tournaments.
- georgespelvin
- The Charlie Brown of Jeopardy Auditions
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:40 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
I think that Julia's 20 wins make her unquestionably one of the greatest players of all time. There are some non-term limited players that won far fewer games (as well as term-limited players) that could stand toe-to-toe with her (particularly those that are quick on the buzzer, thereby limiting that advantage for her), but those players, for one reason or another, lost in regular play without reaching half of Julia's win total. To me, I would think that the opposite analysis would hold--namely counting just regular play (because Julia has not been in a tournament yet) why would you consider players that won far fewer games than Julia be superior to her.
I agree with MDaunt that, ultimately, the true test of how elite a player is should rest on how the player does against superior competition. It's similar to the sports concept of "winning it on the field" where you can't argue about how weak the competitor's schedule was compared to another competitor. David Madden is often given short shrift in "Greatest Player" analysis because he lost in the semifinals of his ToC and has not competed in any other tournament. However, until Julia gets to play in her ToC, it's either premature to try and rank her or, based on equal opportunity (meaning only comparing regular play), ridiculous to discount her achievement.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks that Ken Jennings is the Greatest Player in Jeopardy history really has a blind spot. How often does Ken have to lose to Brad Rutter before Brad gets that unqualified nod? Ken is unquestionably the No. 2 player in Jeopardy history.
I agree with MDaunt that, ultimately, the true test of how elite a player is should rest on how the player does against superior competition. It's similar to the sports concept of "winning it on the field" where you can't argue about how weak the competitor's schedule was compared to another competitor. David Madden is often given short shrift in "Greatest Player" analysis because he lost in the semifinals of his ToC and has not competed in any other tournament. However, until Julia gets to play in her ToC, it's either premature to try and rank her or, based on equal opportunity (meaning only comparing regular play), ridiculous to discount her achievement.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks that Ken Jennings is the Greatest Player in Jeopardy history really has a blind spot. How often does Ken have to lose to Brad Rutter before Brad gets that unqualified nod? Ken is unquestionably the No. 2 player in Jeopardy history.
I used to be AWSOP but wanted to be more theatrical.
- Newhausen
- Loyal Jeopardista
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:02 pm
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
He's lost to Brad twice (and finished ahead of Brad in the Watson exhibition) - and one of those losses came down to Brad winning from behind in Final. There's nothing 'unquestionable' about putting Ken at either 1 or 2.georgespelvin wrote:Incidentally, anyone who thinks that Ken Jennings is the Greatest Player in Jeopardy history really has a blind spot. How often does Ken have to lose to Brad Rutter before Brad gets that unqualified nod? Ken is unquestionably the No. 2 player in Jeopardy history.
- jfrumkin
- Jeopardy! Champion
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:46 pm
- Location: Germantown, MD
Re: Towards an Appreciation of Julia Collins
Superior buzzer speed can make a good player look bad, either by not giving them a chance to get in or by frustrating and rattling them. It worked for me for a game or two. Plus, diminishing Julia's 20 wins by saying she was playing against weaker competition is like diminishing Ruth because he didn't have to play against Negro Leaguers. She went out on the stage and kicked butt for two straight weeks. A lot of people have played a lot of "weak" players, if you want to use that term for someone who has made it through the testing and auditions. A lot of people haven't won 20 in a row.
Twitter: @jfrumkin