When you go INTO the competition with the intent to reserve your stronger players, that IS 'throwing' the competition. That Ace and the others competed competently once the challenge began doesn't negate the fact that they had chosen to handicap themselves. And, as I stated before, psychology is just as important as physical ability in the challenges. Fang was buoyed by having won the reward challenge. Ken might indeed have done as well no matter what, but how much of being able to solve the puzzle might have come from a decent attitude and support from his team, and the idea that were in fact capable of winning something? It's a moot point, since it's a done deal. Looking forward to tomorrow.
Dictionary results for: throw Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) throw Spelled Pronunciation[throh] verb, threw, thrown, throw·ing, noun –verb (used with object)
15.to lose (a game, race, or other contest)
intentionally, as for a bribe.
American Heritage Dictionary threw (thrōō), thrown (thrōn), throw·ing, throws
17. Informal to lose or give up (a contest for example)
purposely
A clear and basic component of "throwing" a game or competition is the intent to lose that competition. This is not up for debate it's part of the English language. Therefore we are left with only two options:
1. The members of the Kota tribe went into the reward challenge trying to lose it and thereby "throwing" it.
2. The members of the Kota tribe did not go into the reward challenge with the intention of losing and therein did NOT "throw" it.
Now I maybe wrong but I don't think anyone is arguing that 1 is the case. This chatter about "throwing" is a matter of semantics and doesn't get to the core disagreement that exists.
I think it's pretty well established that the facts are these: The Kota tribe made a conscious decision to save their best players for the immunity challenge. In making this decision they hoped to strengthen their chances of winning the immunity challenge and weaken their chances of winning the reward challenge.
The question that is really causing all this conflict is a rather simple one... was the risk worth the benefit?
I'm of the school of thought that it was the wisest decision to risk loosing the reward by stacking the immunity roster. This belief stems from my overriding belief that in the game of
Survivor immunity is far more important than reward. This seems like a natural intuitve response when one considers that you can only lose the game as a whole if you lose an immunity challenge and that reward challenges seldom, directly enhance ones ability to win immunity challenges, special privledges, or powers. Quite to the contrary LOSING reward is the way to get the highest level of individual power, the immunity idol. Furthermore 70% of a time one tribe has gone into a merger with a numbers advantage someone from that tribe has won and 5 out of thre 6 times the tribes went into a merger tied the tribe who gained the initial upper hand has won. So immunity is really incredibly pivotal. This can not be seen in the Ulong tribe, the only tribe EVER to hit the merger with only one member. Ulong was decimated in immunity challenges but actually won 1/2 of the reward challenges. So clearly immunity has a much greater outcome on the overall game. For this reason I think that the risk was well calculated and well worth it.
The only evidence I've seen against this relates to a theory of momentum. Said theory would state that the effects of losing a reward challenge extends further than losing the reward and in fact throws away a psychological advantage a team can retain by consistently winning.
I see no convincing evidence for A) applying this theory to these tribes or B) believing that a continued winning streak will produce such a psychological advantage that guarantees victory.
To first address
A) I feel like the idea that Fang was a hopeless tribe on a dismal loosing streak is incorrect. I find a lack of evidence for this notion. Fang lost three challenges in a row... but such is not really that uncommon. Of the 17 seasons of the show 14 have started out with only two tribes.* In HALF of those 14 seasons one tribe has lost the first 3 challenges (Africa, Marquesas, Thailand, Pearl Islands, Fiji, China and Gabon). As such it hardly seems fair to view the Fang tribe as pathetic losers destined to fail perpetually unless they were spooned their first taste of victory. This idea that Fang is excessively weak is likely the result of Probstian interference. In both his recaps and tribal he goes to great lengths to degrade and browbeat Fang thereby strengthen the concept of Fang's weakness in the audience's head.
B) I've seen no evidence for the theory of momentum in Survivor or other competitions and to be honest after the 2004 Red Sox vs Yankess play off series (
) I don't think I'll ever be convinced of it. But even if we were to limit ourselves to Survivor the implication of the momentum theory in this instance seems to imply the following: Had Kota won reward they would've won tribal. This would mean that after four consecutive loses a team should be destined to lose...
Seems like a simple enough theory to prove/disprove. Find teams that have lost four consecutive challenges and see if that demoralized them so intensely that they could not win again.... the hiccup is Survivor's propensity for tribal switch ups will ruin any psychology argument by fundamentally crafting new tribes so the question now stands are there any tribes which lost four consecutive challenges and remained intact and if so how did they fair at future challenges....
In Survivor Outback the Ogakor tribe lost 4 consecutive challenges but managed to win the next challenge. Momentum theory -1 point.
The Maraamu tribe of Marquesas lost all 5 challenges before hitting a shakeup. Momentum theory +1 point
There was no tribal switch ups in Pearl Islands. Morgan lost six consecutive tribes but rather than being a completely malleable lump of unenthused losers they managed to beat Drake in four of the five subsequent challenge. Momentum theory -1 point
In Vanuatu the post merge Yasur tribe withstood four consecutive defeats to come back with two subsequent victories. Momentum theory -1 point
Ulong of Palau suffered 4 consecutive losses but still managed to win the shameless Pringles plug, I mean reward challenge, in week 7. Momentum theory -1 point.
Panama is an epically bad season for the momentum theory (though a great one for viewing pleasure). Not only did the La Mina tribe rebound from four consecutive losses to score a crucial immunity win (-1 point) but the momentum gained from Terry's five consecutive immunity wins was not enough to prevent Aras (-1 point) or Danielle (-1 point) from (gloriously) kicking his ass in weeks 12 and 13 respectively. Momentum theory -3 points.
In Fiji the Ravu tribe lost a stunning eight consecutive challenges never recovering until the tribal mix up in week 6. Momentum theory +1 point.
In Micronesia Airai had four challenges of momentum under their belt when they lost a challenge to Malakal. Momentum theory -1 point.
Momentum theory= -6 points
So it would seem that there is no reason to believe that a winning record creates a substantial and indominable force of momentum in the game Survivor. As such there's relatively no risk in endangering that momentum by reserving your strength for immunity.
Note: I didn't proofread. Please excuse spellign gramatical mistakes on account of I haven't slep in 37 hours
*This figure includes Survivor Palau as starting with 2 tribes despite having all castmembers cohabitate for a period of two days prior to tribe selection. Since no competitions were held during those 2 days it seems as if this will not fundamentally affect the calculations of competition figures.
They kicked ass this week! 
I like Sugar. 
