c4countdown

Well, we seem to be in the same position that we were in 13 days ago.

We have Peter Zyss, hoping to become Octochamp #2 by the end of the day, but also hoping not to break the all-time low octochamp total. But, will he, like Dave Wilkinson 13 days ago, bow out on 7, or will he be able to pass that winning post in glory

Oooooh, the tension is unbearable, but we'll just have to wait till 3:25pm, for the excitement levels to reach its maximum levels.

EDIT: Remember 96 is the number that Peter will have to pass, assuming he wins, if he wants to avoid that record.

James (+others) - stop going on so much about this pissing "record". You're almost making it sound like he'd do better to lose his 8th game to avoid the "ignominy" of being the lowest-scoring octochamp. He'd still be a fucking octochamp, which is more than most accomplish (and someone's always gonna be the lowest).

It's pissing me off. If you hadn't noticed.

PS. -8 points with a game in hand. It's surely only a matter of time...

I agree. The numbers of wins mark the acheivement, not piffly statistics about overall scores. It's kind of pissing on people's bonfires really by banging on about it. It started with Jeffrey Burgin last year and now it's come back again. Grow up.

I'm not sure this is really a problem. I haven't noticed anyone but James ever mention it, but maybe I wasn't paying attention?

Lowest octochamp total is pretty cool if you ask me, a badge of honour, minimising exertion (not really obviously) and remaining on the border of efficiently productive. The Dimitar Berbatov of Countdown.

Jon Corby wrote:PS. -8 points with a game in hand. It's surely only a matter of time...

Maybe so, Jon. But, not this season. The Terriers for 6th

D Eadie wrote:I agree. The numbers of wins mark the acheivement, not piffly statistics about overall scores. It's kind of pissing on people's bonfires really by banging on about it. It started with Jeffrey Burgin last year and now it's come back again. Grow up.

+1

Matt Morrison wrote:I'm not sure this is really a problem.

It's not a problem as such, it's just bad form, needless and churlish, especially coming from someone who got nowhere near to being an octochamp. Let Peter enjoy his moment, that's what i say.

D Eadie wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I'm not sure this is really a problem.

It's not a problem as such, it's just bad form, needless and churlish, especially coming from someone who got nowhere near to being an octochamp. Let Peter enjoy his moment, that's what i say.

Yup, absolutely. I was just confused by Jon referring to "James (+others)" as I'd not seen anyone else mention it (other than perhaps in OMG WORST OCTOCHAMP EVER sarcastic jest).

Oh i see, he's probably drunk.

Is this the right moment say 'FUNBAGS' ?

(Not valid - but it's a shame to let it pass us by in the penultimate letters round!)

James Robinson wrote:Well, we seem to be in the same position that we were in 13 days ago.

We have Peter Zyss, hoping to become Octochamp #2 by the end of the day, but also hoping not to break the all-time low octochamp total.

EDIT: Remember 96 is the number that Peter will have to pass, assuming he wins, if he wants to avoid that record.

Yeah, it was like in your recap for my third game when you wrote 'these 2 blank conundrums maybe of some concern' - not really, I didn't care a great deal about whether I got the conundrums. I was there to enjoy it and hopefully win a few games. I did that, and so did Peter. Although we both wanted to do as well as we could, neither of us would be particularly bothered about these things (conundrums in my case, points total in Peter's).

That's the way it should be Oliver, well said.

Matt Morrison wrote:I'm not sure this is really a problem. I haven't noticed anyone but James ever mention it, but maybe I wasn't paying attention?

I'll own up to this one.

Lowest octochamp total is pretty cool if you ask me, a badge of honour, minimising exertion (not really obviously) and remaining on the border of efficiently productive. The Dimitar Berbatov of Countdown.

Exactly. I even suggested a bot in honour of Dave.

This means I'm still the last octochamp alphabetically, doesn't it? I'm far more relieved than I should be! Well done to Peter on getting 7 wins though, it must be pretty gutting to miss out at the end.

Oliver Garner wrote:Yeah, it was like in your recap for my third game when you wrote 'these 2 blank conundrums maybe of some concern' - not really, I didn't care a great deal about whether I got the conundrums. I was there to enjoy it and hopefully win a few games.

I totally agree that recaps in particular shouldn't labour any negative comments unduly (especially as they're often likely to be read by the participants), but it's quite hard never to write anything that could be construed as being so, or we might risk them becoming a little bland. Admittedly, we probably shouldn't be saying things like "this player's totally useless and how did they ever get on TV?" (however much we might be thinking it sometimes), but OTOH, I wouldn't like to think that writing a recap is like walking on eggshells, either.

I think if you write a recap, it should be done so with the respect of the player in mind. Sure, it's crazy to have to walk on eggshells, but likewise, to exercise some taste, class and self-restraint wouldn't go amiss either. Not everyone can be a Kirk or a Chris Davies. Not everyone is going to break records, but without participants there is no show, so hats off to everyone i say, regardless of accumulative points totals and all that flim-flam.

I'm pretty strongly of the view that you shouldn't criticise contestants (except for cheating), but I don't see any great harm in noting low scores - so long as you don't go on about it too much. Low winning scores come about when there aren't many tied rounds, and that can be because of good play. Mike has a long list of the lowest ever losing scores on his website, and nobody seems too upset about that. And one of the most entertaining games I've ever seen was Peter Hutchings achieving octochamp status with a 21-11 victory.

David Williams wrote:Mike has a long list of the lowest ever losing scores on his website, and nobody seems too upset about that.

Yes, I've always been a bit uncomfortable with it, but it does cover one of the questions that people ask from time to time, so I think it's valid. I agree, however, that we probably shouldn't dwell too much on these things, and I try not to mention it too frequently.

David Williams wrote:I'm pretty strongly of the view that you shouldn't criticise contestants (except for cheating), but I don't see any great harm in noting low scores - so long as you don't go on about it too much. [/url]

Completely agree. It's rather like hearing that Liverpool are crap and will prob finish 7th in the table, over and over again.

D Eadie wrote:

David Williams wrote:I'm pretty strongly of the view that you shouldn't criticise contestants (except for cheating), but I don't see any great harm in noting low scores - so long as you don't go on about it too much. [/url]

Completely agree. It's rather like hearing that Liverpool are crap and will prob finish 7th in the table, over and over again.

No, that's just fair comment. They are professionals. Contestants aren't.