Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:46 pm
Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
This may not be worded the best, but here goes:
These days, a lot of the startlingly good contestants that appear on countdown are from apterous. However, every now and again we would get these kind of people in the era before apterous had begun (e.g, Craig Beevers, Paul Gallen etc.). These days, because people tend to find apterous, we don't get this standard from non-apterites nowadays.
So this got me thinking. Since apterous was created, who have been the greatest contestants to participate that aren't members of apterous?
(Excluding some of the contestants from the 30th BC)
These days, a lot of the startlingly good contestants that appear on countdown are from apterous. However, every now and again we would get these kind of people in the era before apterous had begun (e.g, Craig Beevers, Paul Gallen etc.). These days, because people tend to find apterous, we don't get this standard from non-apterites nowadays.
So this got me thinking. Since apterous was created, who have been the greatest contestants to participate that aren't members of apterous?
(Excluding some of the contestants from the 30th BC)
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Did Carl Williams use Apterous? If not, you'd probably have to put him top, given how close he came to winning the series. But he might have gone on under a different name. Cate Henderson's octorun was pretty good, although she lost in the quarters, and Nicki Sellars made the final. I don't think Nicki Sellars was on Apterous, and Cate Henderson apparently hated the concept.
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Not that I'm aware, although it was suspected that he might have done. I asked him whether he did and he said he'd heard of apterous but didn't play on it.Gavin Chipper wrote:Did Carl Williams use Apterous?
There is an apterous profile with his name, but I think that was Ed messing about.
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Peter Godwin and Brian Selway both showed glimpses of very strong form, but were plagued by inconsistency which ultimately prevented them from posing any serious threat to the apterites in their series. Carl seems pretty much the clear winner in terms of finals success. It was striking that after Brian in Series 61, there were no non-apterite octochamps at all until Dave Taylor in S65.
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
No reason to assume Carl was an Apterite. He knew it about it, sure, but since he admitted to Googling at least me, and no doubt all of us in the QF lineup, that's no great mystery. So yeah. Him.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
I think as much as people don't like his practices and the way he did things, I think Jeffrey Hansford, just based on pure ability, is up there. Some stumbling blocks and obviously some buzzing controversy, but as I understand it (and those of you in the know can interject where I can't), there was still quite a bit of skill just in his noggin. Michael Macdonald-Cooper and Tim Reypert I think are underrated too. Probably can't consider them perhaps all time greats because of their QF losses, but they both had some skill (I consider Michael stronger than Tim because Tim appeared relatively weak at the numbers).
- Innis Carson
- Devotee
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
On the list of octochamps by number of maxes in the Ask Graeme thread, the winner amongst non-apterite octochamps in the 'apterous era' (which I would define as Series 60 onwards) is actually Shane Roberts, though he's only very narrowly ahead of some others. Obviously there are plenty of people higher up in the list who were at least as 'natural' as him, but it's hard to quantify that.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 825
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:29 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
The great Julian Fell said he used to practise on the handheld computer game of Countdown.
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:46 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
After apterous was created.Jordan F wrote:I think as much as people don't like his practices and the way he did things, I think Jeffrey Hansford, just based on pure ability, is up there. Some stumbling blocks and obviously some buzzing controversy, but as I understand it (and those of you in the know can interject where I can't), there was still quite a bit of skill just in his noggin. Michael Macdonald-Cooper and Tim Reypert I think are underrated too. Probably can't consider them perhaps all time greats because of their QF losses, but they both had some skill (I consider Michael stronger than Tim because Tim appeared relatively weak at the numbers).
- Adam Gillard
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
- Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Mary Adie did very well.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)
Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."
- LaurenHamer
- Newbie
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 7:31 pm
- Location: Cardiff
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
As did the lovely Dave 'I wish you were my uncle' Taylor. Aww, lovely Dave. I think he did sign up briefly after his games but never stuck around.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Essentially all the non-apterites of S77.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Bradley Cates?
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Definitely.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Hah, albeit about 10 years ago- a rematch would be interestingIan Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jan 23, 2018 1:33 pmMeh, I beat him, can't be that good.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Amey Deshpande?
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Aye, might be a little different now...
Now he was stunningly good...
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Bradley did exceptionally well second time round. He went to the semis in the notorious series 69 and was within striking distance of Dylan on the final numbers round, despite never using Apterous
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Chris Thorn.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Suppose I am thinking of him in terms of this series, and whilst I agree with the statement aforesaid, I still think he is worthy of a spot on here....Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:55 amNot sure I fully agree with this, or at least he isn't of the standard of a lot of the people mentioned in this thread.
-
- Series 78 Champion
- Posts: 1344
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
- Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Yeah.. no.Tom S wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:26 amSuppose I am thinking of him in terms of this series, and whilst I agree with the statement aforesaid, I still think he is worthy of a spot on here....Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:55 amNot sure I fully agree with this, or at least he isn't of the standard of a lot of the people mentioned in this thread.
If you included him you basically bring hundreds of other people in. It's not to say he's not good, just that... he's not THAT good. I count 15 non-Apterites who've had around or over his score just in the last 10 series.
The one I'm amazed looking back that no-one has mentioned in this thread was Stephen Briggs. He seems to have become a forgotten man. Or he was using Apterous and I've forgotten, one or the other.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...
- Johnny Canuck
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 10:44 pm
- Location: Montréal 😃, Québec 😕, Canada 😃
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Totally second this -- in fact, I believe that if you convert Briggs' octototal to a 9-round equivalent, he's on par with Harvey Freeman, and during his own preparation, he may not have used forms of technology much beyond those that Freeman had access to. His series finals performances in particular were superb among those of non-Apterites.Zarte Siempre wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:06 am The one I'm amazed looking back that no-one has mentioned in this thread was Stephen Briggs. He seems to have become a forgotten man. Or he was using Apterous and I've forgotten, one or the other.
I'm not dead yet. In a rut right now because of stress from work. I'll be back later in S89. I also plan to bring back the Mastergram - if I can find a way to run a timer or clock through pure MediaWiki without having to upload to Vimeo every time.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
I don't think he was on Apterous. But also, this thread hasn't been the only discussion of these things, and his name has come up previously in other threads.Zarte Siempre wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:06 am The one I'm amazed looking back that no-one has mentioned in this thread was Stephen Briggs. He seems to have become a forgotten man. Or he was using Apterous and I've forgotten, one or the other.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Yeah exactly my thoughts. Just because someone octoed and is temporarily number 1 seed, albeit in a weak series so far that's no reason for inclusion on this thread. So yeah, scrub that.Zarte Siempre wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:06 amYeah.. no.Tom S wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:26 amSuppose I am thinking of him in terms of this series, and whilst I agree with the statement aforesaid, I still think he is worthy of a spot on here....Elliott Mellor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:55 am
Not sure I fully agree with this, or at least he isn't of the standard of a lot of the people mentioned in this thread.
If you included him you basically bring hundreds of other people in. It's not to say he's not good, just that... he's not THAT good. I count 15 non-Apterites who've had around or over his score just in the last 10 series.
The one I'm amazed looking back that no-one has mentioned in this thread was Stephen Briggs. He seems to have become a forgotten man. Or he was using Apterous and I've forgotten, one or the other.
Surprised Stephen Briggs hasn't been mentioned too, his octo score was 883 !
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
John Cowen- yes, he was largely inconsistent at times, but had Brad lost his QF, I am sure John would have stormed through to the final and would have produced a very close game against Tom. Who knows what the outcome would have been like?...
-
- Series 78 Champion
- Posts: 1344
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
- Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
John's best was as good as anyone. John's worst was... pretty bad tbh. I dunno, I don't totally object to this, but I'm not totally in agreement either.
He is however, a thoroughly lovely bloke. If that was a factor for assessment, it would help him.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Zarte Siempre wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:53 pmJohn's best was as good as anyone. John's worst was... pretty bad tbh. I dunno, I don't totally object to this, but I'm not totally in agreement either.
He is however, a thoroughly lovely bloke. If that was a factor for assessment, it would help him.
Do agree with you that he was not as good on some occasions, but his play in the semi was cracking, and he is more worthy than some mentioned above...
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:42 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
He certainly showed glimpses of very strong form, but his trouble was he was plagued by inconsistency. Thinking about it though, had he chosen 1l he could have had maybe an 850 octototal, so I think perhaps he's worthy of a mention.Zarte Siempre wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:53 pmJohn's best was as good as anyone. John's worst was... pretty bad tbh. I dunno, I don't totally object to this, but I'm not totally in agreement either.
He is however, a thoroughly lovely bloke. If that was a factor for assessment, it would help him.
Was a lovely bloke it seemed, too.
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:36 pm
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
I don't think Stephen Briggs used apterous at all so he'd have to get my vote. Incredibly consistent.
Interestingly Stephen plays in the Birmingham chess league that i play in and is good...very darn good!
I think with John C there's a distinction between TALENT and overall game performance. He came out with some lovely spots and some great number solves. Things that most non apterites (and some apterites like me!) simply would not be able to do.
Obviously he was wildly inconsistent so I don't think you could label him the best overall non apterous player. But talent alone? Worth a mention.
Interestingly Stephen plays in the Birmingham chess league that i play in and is good...very darn good!
I think with John C there's a distinction between TALENT and overall game performance. He came out with some lovely spots and some great number solves. Things that most non apterites (and some apterites like me!) simply would not be able to do.
Obviously he was wildly inconsistent so I don't think you could label him the best overall non apterous player. But talent alone? Worth a mention.
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
The guy who Zarte played yesterday came up with some lovely, nice letters spots yesterday.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 1:10 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
John Cowen wasn't an apterite until after the finals. He wasn't exactly bad to get third place in the whole series.
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Honorable mention to Maggie Barlow and Bob Lunt, despite not becoming an octochamp.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 1:10 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Dougie Mackay and phil Davies defo
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 1:10 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
And maybe Paul Harper?
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
No. Don't mean to be harsh- nice guy, but doesn't fall into this category imo.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 1:10 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
We need more nice people like Carl in the Countdown community.Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:48 am No reason to assume Carl was an Apterite. He knew it about it, sure, but since he admitted to Googling at least me, and no doubt all of us in the QF lineup, that's no great mystery. So yeah. Him.
S:778-ochamp
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 1:10 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
The series 65 runner up?L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 4:23 pmWe need more nice people like Carl in the Countdown community.Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:48 am No reason to assume Carl was an Apterite. He knew it about it, sure, but since he admitted to Googling at least me, and no doubt all of us in the QF lineup, that's no great mystery. So yeah. Him.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Yep, "top bloke"
as the Brits or Aussies might say.
as the Brits or Aussies might say.
S:778-ochamp
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
They got to CoC so I don't see why not even the Dougie lost his 8th game.Owen Carroll wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 11:51 amOk fair enough. What about the two I mentioned above?
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
You're not still bitter about the fact I said your avatar looked like the money shot in robot/human bukkake, are you?
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
A mention of CW put the notion of "bitterness" into your mind.Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 5:16 pm You're not still bitter about the fact I said your avatar looked like the money shot in robot/human bukkake, are you?
I appreciate the simplicity of that.
S:778-ochamp
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
OK well I'm not entirely sure you're quoting six year old posts of mine, why the thought "I wonder if I can annoy this man I have barely ever spoken to" was in your head at that moment, but hey, do your thing. I am now going to light myself on fire as that would be a better use of my time.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Sounds promising. Enjoy.
----------------------
Recent nominees for this:-
Jodine Lawrence [S79]
Robin Johnson [S79]
Andrew Jackson [S79]
Maggie Barlow [S80]
----------------------
Recent nominees for this:-
Jodine Lawrence [S79]
Robin Johnson [S79]
Andrew Jackson [S79]
Maggie Barlow [S80]
S:778-ochamp
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Jodine showed some promise but does not deserve to be in the same league as others. I would rate Robin more over Andrew despite his debut. Maggie is worthy, even if she gives a bad QF performance....L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 9:39 pm Sounds promising. Enjoy.
----------------------
Recent nominees for this:-
Jodine Lawrence [S79]
Robin Johnson [S79]
Andrew Jackson [S79]
Maggie Barlow [S80]
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
On reflection, I think I would go as far as saying that she is one of the best, if not the best female Non-Apterite in the post-apterous era...Tom S wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 12:02 pmJodine showed some promise but does not deserve to be in the same league as others. I would rate Robin more over Andrew despite his debut. Maggie is worthy, even if she gives a bad QF performance....L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 9:39 pm Sounds promising. Enjoy.
----------------------
Recent nominees for this:-
Jodine Lawrence [S79]
Robin Johnson [S79]
Andrew Jackson [S79]
Maggie Barlow [S80]
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Technically, Brendan had a very solid run (which was done on no apto practise), though given that he igned up after his octorun, any performance from then on discounts him. He was very nervy on his QF game, yet still got some good numbers spots though.....
Re: Talented Non-Apterous Contestants
Paul Nixon should qualify for this on the same basis that Mike Daysley qualified for it....