Believe me, there's time yet.David O'Donnell wrote:The only thing that detracted from what was an immensely enjoyable experience was the prospect of my shows being torn to shreds by you lot on this forum - thankfully though, you were more than charitable.
Best ever contestants
Re: Best ever contestants
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
I'm not even trying to suggest a reason, I'm just saying looking at only the 15-round series, the highest ranked Octochamps tend to beat the lower ranked ones, hence the reason that the #1 seed won the first six series, and eight out of twelve in total. It doesn't invalidate anything you've said, I'm just pointing out a trend.
Edit: in fact doing a quick count, since Series 46 when a lower ranked Octochamp has played a higher ranked one, the higher ranked one has won 30 games out of 39, which is about 77%.
Martin
Edit: in fact doing a quick count, since Series 46 when a lower ranked Octochamp has played a higher ranked one, the higher ranked one has won 30 games out of 39, which is about 77%.
Martin
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
In real life I would be punching you right now.Martin Gardner wrote:hence the reason that
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
The point is that there is a positive correlation between high scores and skill. We can argue about how strong the correlation is, but it is undoubtedly there.Damian E wrote:Yeah, but plenty of series have had more than one 800 octochamp, so therefore plenty of 800 octochamps have not won the series. You can argue it both ways.
Re: Best ever contestants
Revolutionary.Gevin-Gavin wrote:The point is that there is a positive correlation between high scores and skill.
You know, I think I've seen the same thing in football and rugby and cricket and basketball and golf and...
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
I'm not sure Damian agrees with the point. The point wasn't made out of the blue.Ben Pugh wrote:Revolutionary.Gevin-Gavin wrote:The point is that there is a positive correlation between high scores and skill.
You know, I think I've seen the same thing in football and rugby and cricket and basketball and golf and...
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Best ever contestants
I think the point that Damian, Charlie and Ben are trying to make is that stating there is a correlation between high scores and skill (I am an exception) is so obvious it's not even worth stating.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
Well Damian seems to respond by disagreeing with the obvious point. Obviously you're not an exception - you can't luck your way all the way to 880.David O'Donnell wrote:I think the point that Damian, Charlie and Ben are trying to make is that stating there is a correlation between high scores and skill (I am an exception) is so obvious it's not even worth stating.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
Actually I was just making a totally pedantic about the phrase "hence the reason why", which is triply redundant. But for the record I agree that the correlation is not very interesting.David O'Donnell wrote:I think the point that Damian, Charlie and Ben are trying to make is that stating there is a correlation between high scores and skill (I am an exception) is so obvious it's not even worth stating.
Re: Best ever contestants
Not sure what i agree with or don't agree with Gev, all i know is that this thread, this topic, this whole concept of searching for the name of THE best ever Countdown player, it won't keep this forum open and alive, it won't have people logging on in anticipation of what's been said next, it won't even enlighten or amuse. I'd rather read something different, original, amusing, vulgar, whatever - but i can't be the only one who thinks the whole thing is completely and utterly boring and adds nothing. It's worn out, tedious, exhausted, overdone, repetitive and bland.
I'm partly to blame for responding and keeping it alive, but i think there's nothing more i can add. Apart from citing this thread as a contributory factor into my untimely death.
I'm partly to blame for responding and keeping it alive, but i think there's nothing more i can add. Apart from citing this thread as a contributory factor into my untimely death.
Re: Best ever contestants
I wasn't trying to make the point, I was trying to show how bleeding obvious it is.David O'Donnell wrote:I think the point that Damian, Charlie and Ben are trying to make is that stating there is a correlation between high scores and skill (I am an exception) is so obvious it's not even worth stating.
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Best ever contestants
I'm pretty sure that in golf the more-skilled players have lower scoresBen Pugh wrote:Revolutionary.Gevin-Gavin wrote:The point is that there is a positive correlation between high scores and skill.
You know, I think I've seen the same thing in football and rugby and cricket and basketball and golf and...
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
I find it interesting that you would say this, given your website with all the ranking lists based on total scores and percentage of highest possible score etc.Charlie Reams wrote:But for the record I agree that the correlation is not very interesting.
-
- Series 58 Champion
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Best ever contestants
Isn't there a difference between stressing a rather obvious correlation and providing a set of stats that allow the surfer to draw their own correlations: personally, I think there is no contradiction.Gevin-Gavin wrote:I find it interesting that you would say this, given your website with all the ranking lists based on total scores and percentage of highest possible score etc.Charlie Reams wrote:But for the record I agree that the correlation is not very interesting.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
Not a contradiction as such, but if I wasn't interested in the meaning behind scores, I certainly wouldn't have a list of percentage of maximum scores on my website.David O'Donnell wrote:Isn't there a difference between stressing a rather obvious correlation and providing a set of stats that allow the surfer to draw their own correlations: personally, I think there is no contradiction.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
Okay, let me clarify. The existence of a correlation is so obvious that not it's interesting (see entropy). The details of that correlation are interesting to me. This list coincides almost exactly with my personal opinions of the people on it. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you on anything really.Gevin-Gavin wrote:Not a contradiction as such, but if I wasn't interested in the meaning behind scores, I certainly wouldn't have a list of percentage of maximum scores on my website.David O'Donnell wrote:Isn't there a difference between stressing a rather obvious correlation and providing a set of stats that allow the surfer to draw their own correlations: personally, I think there is no contradiction.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
I'm sure you've said yourself that you don't study word lists etc. that most of the other top players on here seem to do, and you don't do too badly.Damian E wrote:Hmm - that is bollocks Gevin.
In the 80's, when i was a kid, the ZX81 or Sinclair Spectrum were the tools of the day - and there was no internet - so while it may have been possible for someone to sit there and create a program to do all the hard work for them, its not comparible to typing 'countdown' into google and letting the world of words and numbers land at your feet.
In terms of research, practice and skill development, the people of today have it a million times easier than those of the 1980's.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
You need to clean those ears out!Damian E wrote:what?
A lot of people have said on this thread that current players have reached a higher standard than those in the past because of being able to use computer aids and study the word lists that computers churn out. But I think I've heard you say that you don't do this sort of studying yourself but you have reached a similar level.
Re: Best ever contestants
Indeed.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
Now you just need a few thousand more data points and you might actually have an argument.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
No, because my previous argument was that the lack of computer-assisted techniques etc need not be a definite stop to reaching such a high level. I only need one data point.Charlie Reams wrote:Now you just need a few thousand more data points and you might actually have an argument.
Re: Best ever contestants
Oh, this is an easy one. It's either John Davies or Steve Graston.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:57 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
I can't remember many names. But I do remember Craig and Connor, Paul and o course Mark Tounroff, Maybe the fat that you remember them is ian indication of how good they were?Fair point. Still very puzzled though. I'd take a guess that the average age of members of this forum is well under 30yrs old, so doesn't a long-winded debate about choosing the best from the last 25.5 years seem a little absurd?
Perhaps its just me.
However your comment about the average age on this forum being less than 30 seems to ignore the fact that the programme has been around or a LONG time, has a wide demographic from schoolchildren to pensioners, and that some 'oldies' are very happy with the internet and forums
Sally (old enough to be Connors grandmother!)
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
I don't think it ignores that. While we welcome everyone to this forum, the fact is that most Internet users (and hence most of our members) are under 30. The average age of general Countdown viewers is, as you say, probably much higher.Sally Haynes wrote:However your comment about the average age on this forum being less than 30 seems to ignore the fact that the programme has been around or a LONG time, has a wide demographic from schoolchildren to pensioners, and that some 'oldies' are very happy with the internet and forums
Re: Best ever contestants
I like to think that, when taking everything into account, finding the best ever is utterly absurd.
It doesn't matter, its not able to be proven, its conjecture and its totally tedious.
We all know the best ever is Harry Peters.
It doesn't matter, its not able to be proven, its conjecture and its totally tedious.
We all know the best ever is Harry Peters.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
I thought you'd stopped stirring this thread?Damian E wrote:We all know the best ever is Harry Peters.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Re: Best ever contestants
never.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
http://www.countdownwiki.com/Harry_PetersIan Volante wrote:I thought you'd stopped stirring this thread?Damian E wrote:We all know the best ever is Harry Peters.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 4:08 pm
- Location: Eastbourne
Re: Best ever contestants
Everyone knows Conor is the best.
- Kai Laddiman
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2314
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:37 pm
- Location: My bedroom
Re: Best ever contestants
Ha. The sloblock link should lead to Damian.Charlie Reams wrote:http://www.countdownwiki.com/Harry_PetersIan Volante wrote:I thought you'd stopped stirring this thread?Damian E wrote:We all know the best ever is Harry Peters.
16/10/2007 - Episode 4460
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
Dinos Sfyris 76 - 78 Dorian Lidell
Proof that even idiots can get well and truly mainwheeled.
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.Damian E wrote:I like to think that, when taking everything into account, finding the best ever is utterly absurd.
It doesn't matter, its not able to be proven, its conjecture and its totally tedious.
We all know the best ever is Harry Peters.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 593
- Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
- Location: Farnborough, Hampshire
Re: Best ever contestants
Don't agree with you at all Martin. A lot of what Damian says is said with his tongue firmly in his cheek, and he likes a good wind up and a good piss-take. He is series producer of Countdown and we are lucky to have his contributions and the forum would be the poorer if he did not contribute as frequently as he does. He has shot me down quite a few times now but I just come back for more. The Jeff Stelling appointment is a masterstroke and this will soon be apparent to all doubters................Martin Gardner wrote:
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.Martin Gardner wrote: You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Best ever contestants
What if I don't like your face?Charlie Reams wrote:That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.Martin Gardner wrote: You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
Re: Best ever contestants
If you don't like Charlie's face then you're clearly not as gay as you claim to be.Michael Wallace wrote:What if I don't like your face?Charlie Reams wrote:That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Best ever contestants
Oh that's just an elaborate ruse to claim disability benefits.Jon Corby wrote:If you don't like Charlie's face then you're clearly not as gay as you claim to be.Michael Wallace wrote:What if I don't like your face?Charlie Reams wrote:That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.
Re: Best ever contestants
Do you get them in arrears?Michael Wallace wrote:Oh that's just an elaborate ruse to claim disability benefits.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Best ever contestants
<3Jon Corby wrote:Do you get them in arrears?Michael Wallace wrote:Oh that's just an elaborate ruse to claim disability benefits.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13307
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Best ever contestants
But I think you are brushing aside the fact that it certainly does apply in this case. This thread is not offensive - that was just an analogy. Damian just seems to find it annoying and so can't resist posting inane comments, which seem pointless.Charlie Reams wrote:That argument rarely holds any water. If I like a newspaper apart from one columnist, am I supposed to dump the entire paper? That's a hugely inefficient way to get a better paper. Much more efficient is to write in saying what you don't like; the same applies here.Martin Gardner wrote: You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
- Martin Gardner
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:57 pm
- Location: Leeds, UK
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
I always thought that as well, but that's not what people tell me.Chris Corby wrote:Don't agree with you at all Martin. A lot of what Damian says is said with his tongue firmly in his cheek.Martin Gardner wrote:
You don't like people talking about Countdown on this board, do you? If you don't like it, may I suggest not reading at all? If I find a newspaper offensive (and there are ones that I do) I tend not to buy them, or read them. Just a thought y'know.
If you cut a gandiseeg in half, do you get two gandiseegs or two halves of a gandiseeg?
- Harry Whitehouse
- Rookie
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:49 pm
- Location: Scarborough
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
Wow, when the ages of Sally and me are taken into consideration, the average age of the remaining members must be about 13. Actually, my Mum and Dad are both 84, and they lurk on here. If I get them to join.....Sally Haynes wrote:Fair point. Still very puzzled though. I'd take a guess that the average age of members of this forum is well under 30yrs old, so doesn't a long-winded debate about choosing the best from the last 25.5 years seem a little absurd?
Sally (old enough to be Connors grandmother!)
Harry (old enough to be Kai's great-grandfather).
My home is on the south side,
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
-
- Series 80 Champion
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:07 am
- Location: Sheffield
Re: Best ever contestants
Surely this can be claimed by anyone over 50 if you crank out a kid around 13!harry wrote:Harry (old enough to be Kai's great-grandfather).
- Harry Whitehouse
- Rookie
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:49 pm
- Location: Scarborough
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
Wow! Too sharp for me!Dinos Sfyris wrote:Surely this can be claimed by anyone over 50 if you crank out a kid around 13!harry wrote:Harry (old enough to be Kai's great-grandfather).
My home is on the south side,
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
High up on a ridge,
Just a half a mile from
The Scarborough Valley bridge.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Best ever contestants
Surely it's anyone over 39 by that logic?Dinos Sfyris wrote:Surely this can be claimed by anyone over 50 if you crank out a kid around 13!harry wrote:Harry (old enough to be Kai's great-grandfather).
Re: Best ever contestants
Kai is 12.Michael Wallace wrote:Surely it's anyone over 39 by that logic?Dinos Sfyris wrote:Surely this can be claimed by anyone over 50 if you crank out a kid around 13!harry wrote:Harry (old enough to be Kai's great-grandfather).
His father could be 25.
His grandfather could be 38.
His great-grandfather could be 51.
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
How's that PhD in statistics going by the way, Michael?Jon Corby wrote: Kai is 12.
His father could be 25.
His grandfather could be 38.
His great-grandfather could be 51.
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Best ever contestants
You're forgetting that as part of a maths degree you at no point learn how to count.
Or, like, pay attention to anything.
(I think my final defence is that only perverts like Corby pay attention to how old Kai is)
edit: oh oh, and I'm ill, and I've been up all night, and, and...
Or, like, pay attention to anything.
(I think my final defence is that only perverts like Corby pay attention to how old Kai is)
edit: oh oh, and I'm ill, and I've been up all night, and, and...
Re: Best ever contestants
Being called a pervert by somebody who eats their corn-on-the-cob the wrong way is probably a new forum low for meMichael Wallace wrote:(I think my final defence is that only perverts like Corby pay attention to how old Kai is)
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:02 am
- Location: UK
Re: Best ever contestants
OMG. I could be his great-great-grandfather.Jon Corby wrote:Kai is 12.
His father could be 25.
His grandfather could be 38.
His great-grandfather could be 51.
- Matt Morrison
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 7822
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 2:27 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
just realised Kai's going to be a father soon. Congratulations in advance!Jon Corby wrote:Kai is 12.
His father could be 25.
His grandfather could be 38.
His great-grandfather could be 51.
Re: Best ever contestants
Seconded.Jon O'Neill wrote:Yawn.
Jeffrey Hansford is the best ever.
Settled.
In terms of ability and entertainment provided, he is certainly my favourite.
Dont you realise you weigh 15 stone?
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 4:08 pm
- Location: Eastbourne
Re: Best ever contestants
Entertainment-wise:
1) Conor
2) David(O'Donnell)
3) Charlie
Ability - surely you'd have to go by the stats on the cdb?
1) Conor
2) David(O'Donnell)
3) Charlie
Ability - surely you'd have to go by the stats on the cdb?
- Jason Larsen
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3902
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:18 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Re: Best ever contestants
How clever, Jimmy!
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:06 pm
- Location: manchester
Re: Best ever contestants
There's been so many in recent years who could probably stake a claim. I have to say though that fellow Craig something who won the series a year or so ago was unbelievably good. On a side note why isn't he in this tournament???
- Charlie Reams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9494
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
- Location: Cambridge
- Contact:
Re: Best ever contestants
He couldn't be arsed, basically. http://www.countdownwiki.com/Craig_BeeversScotty wrote:There's been so many in recent years who could probably stake a claim. I have to say though that fellow Craig something who won the series a year or so ago was unbelievably good. On a side note why isn't he in this tournament???
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:06 pm
- Location: manchester
Re: Best ever contestants
Well i don't know his circumstances, but if it was really down to the fact that he "couldn't be arsed" as you say then shame on him!Charlie Reams wrote:He couldn't be arsed, basically. http://www.countdownwiki.com/Craig_BeeversScotty wrote:There's been so many in recent years who could probably stake a claim. I have to say though that fellow Craig something who won the series a year or so ago was unbelievably good. On a side note why isn't he in this tournament???
I think it's fair to say maybe he was a little bit worried about the competition perhaps!!!
- John Bosley
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
- Location: Huddersfield
Re: Best ever contestants
I think Junaid and Charlie were brilliant today and showed the spirit of Countdown at its best. But they missed a 9 - xxxxxxxxx - it's in our dictionary anyway. (Actually my wife got it! )
Last edited by John Bosley on Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.