Author Topic: Greatest Hosts of All Time - Results Thread (Read 110974 times)

Ian Wallis · « **Reply #285 on:** October 27, 2006, 11:33:08 AM »

Quote

3 Tom Kennedy

Excellent! Personally, I thought he'd finish No. 2. That's where he was on my list, anyway.

I guess that means we know who the top 2 are...and presumably, in what order.

Nice job everyone!!

Mike Tennant · « **Reply #286 on:** October 27, 2006, 11:48:00 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135766\' date=\'Oct 27 2006, 10:12 AM\']
[color=\"#009900\"]3 Tom Kennedy[/color] (896, 61/68, including three first-place votes)
I have to say this was a pleasant surprise for me. In the early stages of the voting, it even looked like he had a chance at #2. Outside of our group, he's hardly a household name, and even in the forum we don't really talk about him all that much. Still, he's second only to Cullen in the number of our top-50 shows he's been associated with.
[/quote]
I don't have my list in front of me right now, but I know I had Tom at either #3 or #4. There's no question in my mind that he belongs at or near the top of the list.

He may not be a household name, but most people over the age of 30 would likely recognize his face, and almost all of them recognize "I can name that tune in two notes."

Why do we not talk about him much? One reason, I think, is that he doesn't turn up on GSN that often, so we don't have opportunities to bring up something we noticed in his work just this morning. Reason number two is that he's so good we just take his work for granted, in much the same way that we don't really talk about Bill Cullen's abilities that often. Reason number three is that he seems to have been as genuine and nice off camera as on; thus, there's not much to discuss about him outside of his on-camera self, unlike the many discussions we have had about crankier off-camera personalities such as Ludden, Dawson, and Barker.

clemon79 · « **Reply #287 on:** October 27, 2006, 11:58:46 AM »

[quote name=\'Ian Wallis\' post=\'135774\' date=\'Oct 27 2006, 08:33 AM\']
Excellent! Personally, I thought he'd finish No. 2. That's where he was on my list, anyway.
I guess that means we know who the top 2 are...and presumably, in what order.
[/quote]
I'm thinking that if Number 2 is who I think it's gonna be, then Number 2 couldn't be a more appropriate place for him.

DrBear · « **Reply #288 on:** October 27, 2006, 01:20:20 PM »

Yup, had him at No. 3 myself. And he's equally as talented as Nos. 1 and 2 (assuming Jimmy Pardo didn't sneak in ahead of the top two) but didn't have:

1. A long panel career as well as all the hosting job
2. A show that threatens to last forever.

Monarx · « **Reply #289 on:** October 27, 2006, 04:22:23 PM »

I had TK at number 2, so I thought obviously he was great, and I am not adverse to him being at #3 overall.

cweaver · « **Reply #290 on:** October 28, 2006, 12:14:35 AM »

[quote name=\'Monarx\' post=\'135807\' date=\'Oct 27 2006, 03:22 PM\']
I had TK at number 2, so I thought obviously he was great, and I am not adverse to him being at #3 overall.
[/quote]

So far this is the highest ranking reveal to be identical to its place on my own list. And I have a feeling #1 and #2 will do the same.

cweaver · « **Reply #291 on:** October 28, 2006, 12:44:11 AM »

Matt, in the ongoing voting thread you said this at one point:

Quote

Remarkably, through twenty ballots, only 57 total names have been mentioned. Very few strays.

The person in first is the person you think it is. The person in second might surprise you.

I'm curious as to who was #2 at that point and was he the same #2 on the final list?

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #292 on:** October 28, 2006, 01:11:58 AM »

[quote name=\'cweaver\' post=\'135887\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 12:44 AM\']Matt, in the ongoing voting thread you said this at one point:

Quote

The person in first is the person you think it is. The person in second might surprise you.

I'm curious as to who was #2 at that point and was he the same #2 on the final list?[/quote]
It was Kennedy at the time who was in the number two position. As I said earlier today, I'm thrilled he ended up as high as he did, but I am surprised by it, even though he was #2 on my own list.

chris319 · « **Reply #293 on:** October 28, 2006, 02:14:02 AM »

Quote

I am not adverse to him being at #3 overall.

averse[/b]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/averse

Monarx · « **Reply #294 on:** October 28, 2006, 03:59:16 AM »

[quote name=\'chris319\' post=\'135892\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 02:14 AM\']

Quote

I am not adverse to him being at #3 overall.

averse[/b]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/averse
[/quote]

Adverse seems to work just as well, unless I'm missing something.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #295 on:** October 28, 2006, 10:43:06 AM »

[color=\"#009900\"]2 Bob Barker[/color] (990, 63/68, including nine first-place votes)
The Family Game, others

tpirfan28 · « **Reply #296 on:** October 28, 2006, 10:50:32 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135907\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 10:43 AM\']
[color=\"#009900\"]2 Bob Barker[/color] (990, 63/68, including nine first-place votes)
The Family Game, others
[/quote]
Man, and he was really really good on that show, from what I hear. What is he up to now?

(We all now know who #1 is, if it wasn't already deadly obvious. Here's hoping he was on all 68 ballots.)

cweaver · « **Reply #297 on:** October 28, 2006, 11:05:25 AM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'135907\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 09:43 AM\']
[color=\"#009900\"]2 Bob Barker[/color] (990, 63/68, including nine first-place votes)
The Family Game, others
[/quote]

A-ha!

In a previous thread I mentioned "it would seem" Barker would be a lock to be in the top two (qualified it in case I was wrong) and boy did I hear about that. I guess we can now say he officially has a lock on number 2, this is the poll itself talking now. And he deserves it, for his longevity and the talent he's shown in that time. I don't know of any other host who could've made The Price is Right last that long, and I just don't think you can ignore his record breaking and record setting achievements and expect to be taken seriously. And I never, ever bought the "jack of all trades is inherently better than a trained craftsman" argument (i.e. he only hosted two or three shows), I think both types are equally good at what they do.

When I caught hell about it in the other thread, I later noticed it was the same few people saying it over and over again. Seems to be like what I call the Limbaugh Theory: if you make enough vehement noise you can appear to represent most people even though it couldn't be further from the truth. I know everyone's entitled to their very strong opinions about whether Barker should even be in the top 10 (as several insisted he shouldn't be) but I expect some mea culpas to start flying over whether it was ridiculous for me to predict he'd be in the top two.

JasonA1 · « **Reply #298 on:** October 28, 2006, 11:59:46 AM »

I made sure to go back to the original post where this all started before I responded. Your response here seems to be much bigger than somebody who qualified his statement with "it would seem." There wasn't much of an "uproar" over your suggestion; in the thread, two people responded directly to your post (one of which was me) and a few others responded to the responses therein, and the whole thing was maybe 7 posts.

I can't speak for the others in the thread, but I'll reiterate my position - that I (not speaking for everybody else as you'd like, so I "lose" in this instance) thought he wasn't top two material. That I personally would rank people above him.

-Jason

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #299 on:** October 28, 2006, 12:52:20 PM »

[quote name=\'JasonA1\' post=\'135915\' date=\'Oct 28 2006, 11:59 AM\']
I made sure to go back to the original post where this all started before I responded. Your response here seems to be much bigger than somebody who qualified his statement with "it would seem." [/quote]
Yeah, I hardly see that thread as "catching hell". A quick accounting suggests a handful of people agreed with you and a handful didn't. I don't think anybody was specifically challenging your prediction, since it doesn't take a psychic to know that no matter how some of us feel about him, Barker was going to be very, very high on the list.

Anyway, hardly an uproar, and not a personal attack among them. No one called you or your prediction "ridiculous" and most were simply giving their opinions about why they thought Barker didn't deserve to be ranked so high. Those opinions are every bit as valid today as they were last month, they just don't happen to match the poll results.

For the record, if you asked everybody who voted, "Do you think Bob Barker belongs in the top two?" a significant majority (42 out of 68) would say "No". Plenty of folks had him third or fourth or fifth though. Polls are funny things.